Irish Politics: Dumb, Deranged Feminist Award Goes To……………………………

 

Alison O’Connor of the Irish Examiner for this pathetic little screed, entitled “Same old Territory for the election of women

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/alison-oconnor/alison-oconnor-same-old-territory-for-the-election-of-women-980979.html

Sigh.

No doubt it would be futile to explain to this asinine womyn and her ilk a simple fact – the operative word in her title is the word ELECTION.

Now, I know femtards struggle with language, with the actual meaning of words – after all a word is whatever any random aggrieved deranged psychologically dysfunctional femtard decides it means, depending on their mood, the tides, messages from the great vagina in the sky, how effective their medication is etc. – but in the context of politics, the word ELECTION has one, and only one meaning.

TO CHOOSE – to ‘elect” to decide, based on several options, WHO the elector wishes to give their vote to!

See Alison – not complicated.

Unlike Ms. O’Connor’s screed – which is very complicated – full of percentages, numbers, ratios, woven around a tiresome whiny petulant Nancy Pelosi type tantrum – you know the one – I twied and twied to get my own way and I didn’t, so am going to have a global hissy fit to show how “classy” how gwacious I am…………….NOT.

Would someone please put that bloody womyn (Nancy Pelosi) in a quiet room somewhere, take away all her toys until she learns how to play with grown-ups.

Anyhoo – back to Alison – I have a question – did you look at any of the polls done before the election to see what were the issues that dominated the concerns of the Irish ELECTORATE?

I mean, even a quick glance perhaps – allow me to remind you, from your own paper!

What issues will dominate the 2020 General Election campaign?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/what-issues-will-dominate-the-2020-general-election-campaign-975429.html

“As the start of the 2020 General Election campaign gets under way, two major issues are expected to dominate political battle.

Fine Gael will have to defend their stance and performance on the state of the health service and the worst-ever housing crisis to hit Ireland.

Did you not see that Alison – HOUSING AND HEALTH.

Please feel free to do your own research Alison – oh wait….feminists don’t do research – feminists do tantrums, whines, hissy fits, and of course, if you don’t pick me its because you’re a…………………..fill in the blanks yourselves – how about this for a reason why the Irish Electorate didn’t VOTE based on what a candidate had in their knickers – because they didn’t CHOOSE TO, based on policies, performance, past political record, and a myriad other reasons why a reasonably intelligent ADULT evaluates a candidate, and then exercises their Constitutional Right to vote for whoever they bloody want to vote for.

Sometimes, people don’t vote for a candidate because they simply don’t like them – i.e. they are not likable.

Whatever the reason – if your “preferred” candidates (female) didn’t “get picked” for team vagina – here’s my advice – shut up, suck it up – and perhaps go rip up some paper till you calm down.

I’ll make it easy for you Alison – I’m a woman (biologically female) have been since the day I was conceived – many many years ago I lived in Roisin Shortall’s constituency – have met Ms. Shortall, liked her, intelligent, articulate and very likable – didn’t vote for her – because I didn’t support her particular political stance.

By the way – congratulations Ms. Shortall, well done, while I personally have never voted for you, I have always admired your sincerity, your commitment to your constituents and your obvious intelligence and sound political instincts. Well done.

Congratulations also to Ms. Mary Lou McDonald, again, never would vote for you, but have to say you are also an intelligent articulate and committed person – don’t agree with a single word you say – but congratulations.

Have met quite a few politicians in my time, both male and female, and do know what Alison, I’ve never voted for a female politician, NEVER, I’ve also never voted for an equal number of male politicians, in other words you dumb airhead, what they had, or in this day and age, what they claim to have in their knickers is irrelevant to me – I vote based on their POLICIES, or at least their stated policies, I vote based on their record and as above on a myriad other factors.

I vote because I have the right to exercise  CHOICE – neither you or any other brain dead femtard twat gets to whine, lecture or disdain ANY Irish Citizen who does not vote in compliance with some “gender” agenda dictated to them from a great height by a brain dead femtard who also doesn’t understand another word

DEMOCRACY.

Heres’ an interesting quote from this fool’s article:

“Then you have the Social Democrats with their joint female co-leaders Catherine Murphy and Róisín Shortall. That party had a 57% female election candidate slate.

They steadily and thoroughly went about the business of the campaign and managed to get themselves re-elected, as well as the aforementioned Holly Cairns in Cork South West, Garry Gannon in Dublin Central, and likely Cian O’Callaghan in Dublin Bay North and Jennifer Whitmore in Wicklow.

So, in that instance, you would have the highly unusual scenario of an Irish political party — albeit a small one — dominated by women.”

It would appear that Alison is cool with a political party “dominated by women” but not so cool with one dominated by men!

Hmmmmm, cognitive dissonance anyone?

Finally – throughout this pathetic excuse for an article – did Alison focus on any the above-mentioned female politician’s policies, ideological stance (whatever it may be) perhaps their past record, or even their parties Agendas for governing this State?

Did she?

Of course, she bloody didn’t – the one and only thing that defines these particular politicians is that they all (allegedly) have a vagina. That’s it.

You know, if I was Roisin Shortall or Mary Lou McDonald – I’d be insulted that some brain dead twat disregarded my intelligence, my hard work, my commitment to a particular political stance, the time I’ve taken to develop and hone said political stance and reduced me down to a bag of flesh attached to a vagina.

Or is it just that feminists believe that the site of reason, logic, intelligence and sentience is located between their legs? That the first thing reasonable people want to know about a prospective candidate is “oh my God, does it have a vagina?”

Shut up Alison – you stupid stupid ridiculous womyn.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well Done Great Britain. Happy Brexit Day.

 

To the people of Great Britain, congratulations and well done for standing up to the undemocratic EU, for showing the world, including my own nation Ireland, that it is possible to stand up to, face down, and win against political bullies, unelected “elites” and neo-liberal idiots, for being strong and steadfast in the face of overwhelming scorn, intimidation, disdain and attempted silencing of your deeply held and sincere beliefs and convictions.

 

Well done, you have my admiration and respect, as an Irish citizen for standing up for your country, for re-claiming your right to decide your own destiny, for re-asserting your right to be a sovereign Nation, and to be governed by people you elect to make laws, not have laws/regulations/directives imposed upon you by unelected bureaucrats.

As Nations, we have had our difficulties, our problems and our clashes, but, no Nation, no peoples are perfect and the record shows that Great Britain has given more to the world than it ever took away.

 

I would like to recommend this interview as possibly one of the clearest, most intelligent discussion of the whole Brexit saga.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjOjiUGwwQ

 

 

Sláinte agus ádh mór

(Good health and good luck)

So – Rickey Gervais?

 

 

I’ve only ever caught bits and pieces of Rickey Gervais, and I didn’t watch The Office, as far as I recall the only film of his I’ve seen was The Invention of Lying, which I enjoyed and found intriguing, but now after literally binge watching his monologue at the Golden Globes (which I’ve also never watched) am going to watch it again – have a funny feeling I might’ve missed a more subtle message.

Anyhoo – I can honestly say it has been a long long time since any comedian/film/actor has made me laugh out loud so hard it actually hurt – (except Bill Burr)

A lot of people are referring to what Rickey Gervais did as a “Roast” wasn’t really sure what that was – (looked it up) ah right – got it – an American version of taking the piss, of what we in Ireland call “slagging”

But this was much much more than a roast or a slagging or taking the piss this was lancing a boil, a festering pus-filled boil on the face of culture and society, and letting all that foul pestilent build up of toxic crap out.

This was a blood-letting, of epic proportions – Rickey Gervais stood on that stage and with his rapier sharp tongue and mind slashed open the cosmetically enhanced, fake skin and camouflaged “star” membrane and exposed the toxic pus underneath.

For me, the first time I watched it, literally pissed myself laughing (Tom Hanks face!)

It’s not until you watch it a couple of times that you really get the absolute genius of what Rickey Gervais did in a little over 8 minutes  – don’t know who said this (will look it up in a while*) that politics is downstream of culture – and these vacuous, self-important narcissistic “movers and shakers” these “stars”! have assumed control of the cultural societal and political narrative, have presumed to dictate, direct and shape cultural mores and – using the word very very loosely standards (both personal and moral) for the rest of us!

This was most definitely a “The Emperor has no Clothes” moment – because like the millions (yes millions) of people who have commented on the various YouTube thingys – I am sick to death of this crap.

Am sick to death of lefty SJW’s smelly up their own arse wannabe hippies, feminazis, my gender is fluid, brain dead nutjobs screeching their “truth” into everyone’s faces, demanding apologies for being “offended” about………..whatever the fuck they are “offended” by.

Sick of it.

My absolute favourite quote has to be this one:

“just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right”

Rickey Gervais

For me personally – I’ve more or less stopped posting to this blog, still keep an eye on various blogs and sites – shout out to A Lady of Reason at  https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/about/  and The Other McCain, at  https://theothermccain.com/ and The Conservative Woman, at  https://conservativewoman.co.uk/

Too lazy to do the link thing.

By the way check out this guy: Bjorn Andreas Bull Hansen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHs6PObi7qY

– I just got tired of it – the deluge of crap, the incessant SJW crap, the feminazi crap, was never ending here’s an example of what some twat posted here.

“Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 1:24 AM

“Tina commented on Does Jackie Jones Have Tourettes? Part 1

“Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and …

You sound very bitter.Harsh. I pray for every female who may happen to cross paths with you,my enraged friend.”

Obviously, I didn’t approve it – though the email address is a male name (no, not going to publish your email address – idiot)

Looked at it and thought “oh fuck off” (I usually delete this shit hmmmm)

One of the barbs that Rickey threw in their faces struck home with me personally – he said, and I’m paraphrasing a little “…. collect your little award, thank your agent, thank your God and f**k off……”

Yep – it’s a little award for getting paid millions of dollars for pretending to be, for example, a homeless person – in fact the money you got for pretending to be a homeless person could’ve funded at least three homeless shelters for a year!

The most sickening, foul and disgusting thing (and I could only watch it in bits and pieces, and in short 30 second bursts) was that blonde brain dead bimbo who apparently aborted her baby so she could stand up there collect her “little” award which according to her spewing’s is an emblem of the entire worlds approval of her disgusting narcissistic useless life – oh excuse me – her BEST life.

*Andrew Breibart is credited with the quote “Politics is downstream of culture.

I now find myself re-energised, having watched Rickey Gervais’s monologue many times and more importantly (for me) read the thousands of comments that could be encapsulated in two words ABOUT TIME – and also watched “Reaction Videos” where those who were watching had more or less the same reaction as me. I see light at the end of this toxic tunnel we have all been herded into, that these shrieking insane SWJ nutjobs have bullied the world into – again totally encapsulated by that look on Tom Hanks face!

Classic “how very dare you!” it actually saddened me – Tom Hanks reaction (or to be fair, what I perceived his reaction to be) because some of my favourite films are Tom Hanks films, The Green Mile and Saving Private Ryan – not into the Rom Com stuff – I find it boring. Loved Perdition as well.

So, its time – its time to tell these arseholes – all of them – hollyweirdos, SJW’s, feminazis, lefties, wannabe hippies, idiots who claim to be gender No. 23, time to tell all of them – PISS OFF!

 

Slainte.

 

Oh – and “Tina” if you’re offended by this……………………………………GOOD!

Feminist Philosophy For Dummies, by the Queen of Feminist Dummies…….Amanda Marcotte

 

Ya know when you have an hour, a free hour, to just meander about the “net” clicking on random stuff?

Well, I have (had) one of those hours….and I really should’ve just watched some YouTube vids on cute puppies and kittens…really…..should have, but didn’t.

Sigh, ended up following a link from this http://theothermccain.com/

Fascism or Feminism? Amanda Marcotte Says We Have Only Two Choices, So …

“It’s been a while since we’ve taken notice of Amanda Marcotte, but the living embodiment of evil has not been idle, nor has she been less ridiculous than usual, it’s just that Trump Derangement Syndrome has produced so much craziness on the Left that Amanda is less obtrusive nowadays. This week, however, Ms. Marcotte wrote a column at Salon-dot-com which she then publicized with an extended Twitter rant:

There are many reasons, no doubt, for the rising worldwide rejection of liberal democracy. But I suspect the biggest reason — and interestingly, the one that tends to be downplayed — is misogyny. It’s an international tantrum in reaction to feminism. . . .

It’s clear to me that a lot of men will choose fascism over feminism.

In sum, men around the world would rather burn down democracy than do the dishes.

I’ll add that I think one reason a lot of liberals, including feminists, downplay the centrality of misogyny to rising fascism is because of liberal sexism. We don’t want to admit that women are important enough to inspire a worldwide rise of fascism.

A lot of people, especially men, on the left want to relegate “women’s issues” to a boutique concern. They can’t allow the thought that women’s issues are actually central concerns that dictate the rise and fall of civilizations.

You can read the rest of that, but the place to begin debunking it is with Ms. Marcotte’s first premise, i.e., that we are witnessing a “worldwide rejection of liberal democracy” and “a worldwide rise of fascism.”

You will have difficulty finding any pundit who asserted such a thing prior to Nov. 8, 2016. America came this close (picture me holding my thumb and forefinger half an inch apart) to the Triumph of Hillary, who would have become President had she not lost a handful of Rust Belt states by quite narrow margins, and yet Hillary’s defeat has been treated by many in the media as a catastrophic omen of incipient fascism.”

 

To this piece of drivel. https://www.salon.com/2019/09/10/whats-destroying-democracy-around-the-world-at-least-in-part-misogyny-and-sexism/

What’s destroying democracy around the world? At least in part, misogyny and sexism

Miz Marcotte appears to be grounding her argument on a flawed “understanding/interpretation” of the fundamental principles of “democracy” per the philosophy of John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704).

Reminds me of snotty, up their own arse students who come into Jurisprudence tutorials knowing everything there is to know about everything……and then some………. then proceed to make emphatic pronouncements about the nature of life, the universe and……………. the cosmic oneness.

All the while making complete twats of themselves.  Ah the vanity and egotism of callow youth 😉

For those of you might be curious or interested in delving a little deeper into the musings of these “dead white males” this is a good start – give it a read – it might trigger your curiosity.

John Locke

First published Sun Sep 2, 2001; substantive revision Tue May 1, 2018

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

Locke is standard reading for law students in Jurisprudence, along with Hobbes, Rawls, Austin, Harte, Bentham, Mills, Rosseau, Burke, Hume, De Tocqueville etc.

Anyhoo, back to Miz Marcotte – and her execrable screed, to summarise – the world is going to hell in a handbasket, civil society is breaking down, the barbarians are at the gates, anarchy, revolution, lawlessness and general mayhem are the order of the day and……………………..its all because men don’t want to do the dishes.

Yep – strip out all the pseudo philosophical, brain dead, I read a nutshell in college, and then read nothing but feminist academic gobbledygook since then, and what her “Treatise” is actually based upon is this.

Amanda Marcotte has the intellectual depth of a puddle, and a puddle that a mangey dog pissed in – but – she has ovaries – ergo – when she spouts this drivel (see above – the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket….) and…she’s a feminist!

You better sit up, take notice, put a “oh how intriguing and fascinating this all is” look on your face and pretend a la “the emperor’s new clothes” that this isn’t the most unrelenting, turgid, vacuous, juvenile, whiney verbal excrement since Germaine Greer wrote complete bollox about menstrual blood.

What this kind of crap is actually useful for is the kind of comments and commentators it attracts – a kind of “dropped on their heads as babies – several times” litmus test of the levels of outright stupidity, the types of morons display, and a snapshot of the content of the stupidity baggage that these people carry.

Bit like you can usually tell what kind of person someone is if they are for example addicted to…………..let me see……………..monster truck rallies……….all you can eat contests…………I’m a celebrity…get me out of here…..you get the picture.

So, to quote the saddest, stupidest, most pointless, most irrelevant “politics writer” Amanda Marcotte pontificating on why the world is going to hell in a handbasket she states:

“Beauchamp outlines a number of largely convincing reasons why increasing numbers of people are embracing illiberalism: Economic losses, global violence, cultural changes, decaying institutions such as the church or the nuclear family. But even though Beauchamp recommends reading outside the dead white male canon to understand liberalism, he underplays what I believe is a major, if not the major, objection that conservative thinkers have to liberal democracy: They hate the liberation of women.”

Apparently, this Beauchamp guy is the oracle – what he doesn’t know about about…. everything just isn’t worth knowing – we’ll get back to him. Maybe.

I emboldened the “dead white male canon” to illustrate the kind of twisted logic employed by gobshoites like Marcotte to juxtapose it against her opening statement:

“Beauchamp doesn’t mean a rejection of the narrowly defined liberalism of the Democratic Party, but the “school of thought that takes freedom, consent, and autonomy as foundational moral values” that is traditionally understood to have been defined by Enlightenment philosophers, particularly John Locke, and underpins the institution of democracy itself.

And they really do not want to (sic)the dishes.”

Soooooooooooooooooo, can ya see the conflict – one minute she’s decrying along with Beauchamp the “dead white male canon” the next……………. sigh.

By the way, she left out the “do” in what I presume is meant to read “do the dishes”

No doubt, this “and they really don’t want to do the dishes” thing is meant to be cute/ironic/clever/inspirational?

Naw – it’s just stupid – sad – but it illustrates the hollowness, shallowness, vacuity, pointlessness and navel gazing egotism and “I am the center of the known universe” mentality of feminists/leftists/socialists/ideologues.

To illustrate – recently I’ve been watching hours of The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent auditions on YouTube – nope – haven’t yet gone completely insane – research into “popular culture”

But not for the winners – the ones who actually do have talent – for the ones who DON’T – but are, for whatever reason absolutely convinced that they are STARS – that they – above what appears to be thousands of people who attend these auditions are the crème de la crème.

The programme puts together a series of the worst, most talentless “auditions” but in particular, the ones with the least talent (i.e. zero talent) and their reactions to being actually rejected and told in no uncertain terms “you can’t sing, you have zero talent…………….get out”

Some of them have actually become quite aggressive and violent – attacking the judges, screaming abuse and generally throwing massive tantrums.

THAT’S feminists/leftists/socialists/ideologues and of course Marcotte – and her avid “followers” are exemplars of the usually delusional parents, friends and “fans” of these talentless screech merchants.

Marcotte is the equivalent of a one hit really annoying wonder…………………. like that bloody song “Agadoo”

She’s the feminist has-been hag who was “relevant” for about ten minutes, but keeps showing up to open used car dealerships to “sing” her really irritating and annoying “song” that played all day, every day, one really really long summer many many years ago.

She’s the has-been second person on the left, in that girl group you can never remember the name of, but had that song……. ya know the one…. went……de dum dum de dum dum…. what was that bloody thing called.

She’s the one who was only in the “group” because she was the friend of the first cousin of the only girl who could actually hold a toon……. what was her bloody name……married a used car salesman……? that one.

Here’s the thing Mandy – can I call you Mandy?

I’m a conservative – with a small “c” a female conservative, and your averment that:

“As Beauchamp notes, the baseline concept of liberalism is that “people should be free to choose their paths in life,” whereas conservative critics say that people should be “embedded inside social relations and identities” to give their lives meaning.”

Actually, made me laugh out loud and snort coffee out my nose!  Grrrrr

I say – as a conservative female who is not now nor will ever be a feminist (I have more self-respect) people should strive to live their lives with a core of values, principles and respect for other peoples autonomy, people should acknowledge and strive to build communities based on a recognition that that the core unit of healthy, free and functioning societies are FAMILIES.

No bloody conservative subscribes to the flawed and dysfunctional paradigm that societies and communities are constructed of, founded on, or “embedded” in “social relations” ?? and most definitely not “identities”

Because you stupid stupid irrelevant idiot – conservative values are “embedded” in the notion that people are first and foremost HUMAN BEINGS – not bloody “identities”

And, it is irrelevant what kind of human being a person is – absolutely irrelevant – all that matters is this:

 

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

NOW – I’m going to spend an hour on YouTube watching videos of cute puppies and kittens 😉

 

Slainte

Stop Talking About Fathers Rights – Start Talking About Children’s Rights.

 

I’ve been keeping an eye on a “Fathers Rights” facebook page (Fathers Rights Ireland) for about six months now, and reading some of the posts of the person who appears to be “in charge” of this page I have come to the conclusion that this person is not only ill-informed, but is definitely NOT someone to whom a father in the distressing situation of being alienated from his child(ren) should be listening to, taking “advice” from or supporting. At all. This person if I may use the vernacular is a lunatic – an ill-informed, hysterical, ranting lunatic.

Having said that – he (I presume the person of charge of this facebook page is a he) does post links to relevant newspaper articles etc. – his problem is simple though – he reacts emotionally and subjectively to practically every item and lacks the ability or the will to analyse OBJECTIVELY and calmly the CONTENTS of these “links” with a view to furthering, in any meaningful way, the recognition and APPLICATION of the CURRENT law in any case, or use any “judgement” as supportive of an application in ANOTHER case – i.e. YOUR case.

Therein lies the problem with these kinds of groups – they are so blinded by their rage and self-referential “hurt” that they have a tendency to just fling accusations of “conspiracy” and “fraud” and malfeasance against…..well everybody and anybody – most especially judges, solicitors, state agencies – in particular – TUSLA. (What I am saying here is that these are unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and that they are counter-productive and irrelevant and will not HELP you in any meaningful way when YOU are the one standing in Court in front of a judge pleading YOUR case, unless you have actual EVIDENCE to support these allegations specific to YOUR case)

I might add, if you do go into Court ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” in a random and unhinged manner (and yes, I have seen this) you will come across as unhinged. Let me be blunt – if the object in “going to Court” is to do with access/custody of your children – first familiarise yourself with the law regarding children, second INVOKE your Children’s Rights – third – make a rational, intelligent, INFORMED argument – supported by case law – and make it all about YOUR CHILDREN. What actually pisses me off about a lot of these so-called Fathers Rights Groups is this – there is always a “leader” a loud-mouthed arrogant egotistical arsehole who is so enraged at what he perceives as how hard done by he is that EVERYTHING is about his ego-driven agenda – and yes I know – I’ve heard all the bullshit that “it’s all about the kids” – it isn’t – that he then manages to gather a group around him and they follow like sheep – sometimes, genuinely distressed fathers – genuine fathers who are floundering as to what to do about the awful situation they find themselves in, and end up listening to and reading the utter tripe these idiots spout out.

Guys – just because YOU don’t know what to do, just because you’ve found this loud mouthed arsehole pontificating about “Fathers Rights” just because, in a million years you never thought you’d find yourself in this position – it doesn’t mean that first loud-mouthed arsehole you come across, on the internet or at a “Fathers Rights” meeting has all the answers or ANY of the answers.

The clue is this – if you have to go to Court to try and get access/custody of your children – then what you need to inform and arm yourself with IS THE BLOODY LAW. From the source – not from some idiot on the internet, or some loudmouth running “Fathers Rights” meetings.

If you actually believe that some loud-mouthed arsehole on the internet ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” to a bunch of sheep-like “followers” on a facebook page is going to have ANY impact at all when YOU are the one standing in front of a Judge in a Court then you are sadly mis-informed.

To put it bluntly – you don’t get to choose the battleground (The Court) you don’t get to dictate how the Court operates – its been operating for several hundred years – what YOU get to do is choose which weapons you bring onto the battleground – those weapons are THE LAW – both legislation and case law – both of which you are free to use in your presentation – and present the Court with an interpretation of either or both (preferably both) that supports YOUR APPLICATION.  You have an array of legislation, of Human Rights Instruments and CASE LAW to choose from – it is up to you to ARGUE your case and persuade the Court that your argument is SOUND.

Now – before I go any further with this – let me make my position clear.

I am absolutely totally and adamantly NOT a feminist – I loathe feminism, in all its putrid, toxic manifestations with a passion – I absolutely endorse without equivocation the presumption IN LAW that parents are jointly endowed with EQUAL responsibilities to their child (ren)

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse the presumption IN LAW that children are entitled to maintain without interference, conditionality or “ranking” a parent/child relationship (with all that this entails) with BOTH parents.

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse that it is CHILDREN who are endowed with RIGHTS and parents who are endowed with RESPONSIBILITIES – to the children.*

*I will post the skeleton argument that “Joint Legal Custody” of Children is already presumed in Law – in a day or two – with supporting case law.

The legal nuance here is this – the parental “Rights” that are being violated are the “Rights” of parents to be allowed to fulfill THEIR obligations and duties AS A PARENT to their child.

Ergo – to speak of “Fathers Rights” or for that matter “Mothers Rights” is to ignore a fundamental basic fact – you CANNOT “be” a parent unless you have a child – your “Rights” as a “parent” are absolutely and solely dependent on the existence OF A LIVING CHILD.

Ergo your “Rights” are secondary and subservient to the innate and inherent “Rights” of the child as a vulnerable person entitled to the full and absolute protection of THEIR human rights – one of which is to have the protection, guidance and benefit of A PARENT taking full responsibility for the health, welfare, safety and well-being of that child.

Your “Rights” as “a parent” or “Legal Guardian” are that YOU be allowed to fulfil and exercise YOUR obligations and duties in ensuring the health, welfare, safety and well-being of THAT CHILD.

If – you are prevented from fulfilling your obligations and duties to your child – it is NOT “Your Rights” as an individual human being that are being violated – IT IS YOUR CHILDS HUMAN RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED.

So please – shut up about “your rights” shut up about “Fathers Rights” SHUT UP about how hard done by you are, SHUT UP ranting and raving about “conspiracies” and “fraud” and whatever other ridiculous nonsensical and IRRELEVANT matter that appears to ignite and trigger innumerable badly written, ill-informed and hysterical “posts” on various different facebook page and blogs.

It might sound obvious, though I sincerely doubt it – but the area of LAW all you so-called “Fathers Rights” groups and coalitions are enmeshed in is FAMILY LAW, and while for these purposes The Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 primarily addresses the LEGAL issue of dissolving a lawfully constituted MARRIAGE in Ireland – one can be married without having children. The Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989 addresses issues when two legally married people wish to dissolve and divest themselves of any legal obligations to the other spouse.

The canon of “Family Law” that addresses issues with regard to CHILDREN only, are primarily contained in other legislation, (Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964) in effect the only substantive legal issue directly impacting upon ADULTS in the context of “Family Law” is simple – dissolving a marriage/ending a marriage BETWEEN ADULTS. And yes, children and issues around children are contained in these two pieces of legislation – the point I am making here is this – draw a distinct line between issues that ONLY effect ADULTS and issues that affect CHILDREN.

No longer being married to the other parent of a child should only impact ON THE ADULTS – not the children – no longer living with the other parent of a child should only impact on the ADULTS – not the children – in other words – your “living arrangements” should absolutely NOT impact on the parental relationship between a child and BOTH his/her parents – at all. Ever. Any person who uses a change in their living arrangements with the other parent as an excuse to interfere with the child’s relationship with that other parent is violating THE CHILDS RIGHTS.

And no – I’m not getting into a discussion about spousal support, division of assets, etc. – again – WITHOUT children IN the mix – those are legal issues BETWEEN ADULTS, and yes involve a separate but connected area of the toxic culture engendered by an endorsement of the “feminist” perspective on how “strong and independent” and “you go girl” wimmin are. Sigh.

Though I have often thought that “wimmin” of a certain type (which is most of them) should really be treated as having the same lack of mental/legal capacity as children – and dealt with accordingly – a discussion for another time.

Moving on.

What triggered this response? First, though I rarely respond or comment on other people’s blogs, or posts on facebook (never) in particular blogs or posts by Fathers Rights activists I have, to be blunt, a low opinion of most of the content – in particular content that bangs on and on about “the law” or erroneous “judgements” yet do not link or reference the law or judgement they are – banging on about with one notable exception – ExInjuria https://exinjuria.wordpress.com/about/ Nick Langford writes and analyses with clarity and precision any issue of law he addresses. I highly recommend a visit to his site.

So, the first “post” that irritated me was posted on the 25th December 2018 and contained a link to this article Abducted by a parent: Heartbreaking cases of the Hague Convention Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 02:00

Colm Keena

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abducted-by-a-parent-heartbreaking-cases-of-the-hague-convention-1.3740959?fbclid=IwAR3FgzFr6u-IL07kQSG-aSnp2W1x3_05uCaPaZfnR6uFKj0MI6BfrQbAozw

Before I get into dissecting this article – this is what irritates me – if you are purporting to “advise” people about a specific topic, or equally are purporting to be “helping” other people – in particular with regard to a legal issue, and ever more particularly with regard to a family law issue – and you actually want to help the people you are purporting to help – here’s a bit of useful ADVICE.

Reference the goddam Law – post a link to the bloody JUDGEMENT(S) – so that people can read for themselves – so that people can download the judgement or the piece of legislation and DO THEIR OWN BLOODY ANALYSES.

But to pontificate and spew out ill-informed rubbish about what you think it means or even worse simply regurgitate what another ill-informed idiot on the internet has concluded this or that ruling/judgement/determination means is beyond arrogant, beyond vanity, beyond egotistical bullshit – it is venal and self-aggrandizing in the extreme.

So, lets take this article and see is there anything in it that could possibly be useful for a person in that situation to know?  Is there anything there that could direct or guide a person in that situation in the preparation of their case?

Several things.

First the name of the Judge tasked with dealing with “Hague Convention” cases is Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh – at this juncture I would point out that at various times different judges are assigned different areas of law. In this instance – to repeat – Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh was assigned “Hague Convention” cases – abduction cases – that is children abducted FROM this jurisdiction to another jurisdiction by one parent.

The next thing I would point out is this – the vast majority of Family Law hearings are in camera – i.e. the public is excluded from the court with a few exceptions – which we will get into another time.

But – the JUDGEMENTS- in particular those that may have a public interest element – are PUBLISHED with all identifying information anonymized. On the court’s website – www.courts.ie

So, this constant bleating about “secret courts” is nonsense – it is the IDENTITY of the parties that is “hidden” NOT either the nature and facts of a particular case or the issues of LAW being determined.

Are all judgements published? Nope – not all – but most.

Try this – google www.courts.ie

On the right-hand side underneath “online” the third option down is “Judgements and Determinations” click on it.

Across the top on the first menu line you will find three options:

1. Judgements by Year, 2. Judgements by Court and 3. Judgements by Judge.

Underneath you will find three more menu options – the first is “Determinations” these are rulings of the Supreme Court – the next two are “Judgements Help” and “Disclaimer and Copyright”

Click on “Judgements by Judge” and scroll down and search for Ni Raifeartaigh J.

What you should notice is that EVERY judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is listed – all you have to do is click on the little blue triangle beside each judge’s name and a FULL list of their published judgements comes up.

Try it – click on any judge’s name – and then scroll through the list of judgements – on the right-hand side of this list you will see WHICH Court any particular judgement was given in – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court – what you should also notice is that ALL judgements to do with ANY aspect of Family Law or to do with children is listed with INITIALS ONLY.

E.g.:  if you right click on the DATE 11/21/2018 R.B. -v- D.K OF THIS LISTING and click “open in a new tab”. (the reason for doing this is to keep the list OPEN.

What comes up is this: the judgement is the case of R.B – v – D.K neutral citation [2018] IEHC 728:

The “Title” with ALL identifiers anonymized is:

“THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL

ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND

IN THE MATTER OF N. B., A CHILD

BETWEEN:

R.B.

Applicant

-AND-

D.K.

Respondent

Judgment of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 21st day of November 2018

Nature of case

  1. This is a case in which the applicant (the father of a child) seeks the return of the child to England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”) and EU Council Regulation 2201/2003. The child, N, who is three years old, is currently living in Ireland with his mother, the respondent in these proceedings. The date upon which they came to live in Ireland is the core matter in dispute in the case. Counsel on both sides of the case agreed that there was a single net issue in the case, namely as to where the child had its habitual residence at the relevant time, and that the Court was required to resolve a conflict of fact in this regard.”

What follows is the judgement – in full – in detail. Study it.

I will confine myself to just posting the Conclusion here paras 34 – 36

“34.     In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the child N has been the subject of a wrongful retention in Ireland because the applicant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the child’s habitual residence had not changed as of the end of April/beginning of May 2018 when his mother refused to return him to England. For completeness, I also find that, insofar as the respondent relies upon the defence of consent, she has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the father gave his consent either to a permanent removal or retention of the child in Ireland. I will therefore make an order for the return of the child to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  1. In order to allow for an appeal, I will place a stay upon the execution of this order pending the expiry of the time limit for an appeal, with time of course running from the date of the perfection of the relevant order for the child’s return.

 

  1. I would like to refer this judgment to the Irish immigration authorities for further investigation, having regard to some of the evidence in the case. However, as this is an in camera matter, such a move needs to be approached with caution and I will not take any step in that direction without alerting the parties in the first instance and giving them an opportunity to address me on any relevant law. This should not prevent the perfection of the order and the progress of any appeal with regard to the Hague Convention issues.”

(emphasis added)

As you can see Her Honour Judge Ni Raifeartaigh ordered the child abducted from the UK by his mother, who re-located in Ireland RETURNED to the UK.

I strongly suggest to study this judgement and some of Ni Raifeartaighs other judgements in detail to get a clear grasp of the legal principles that are applied in these kinds of cases.

Moving on. If you look up to the top of the page – the one with the judgement on it – you will see another menu bar: above the dark blue line that says Judgements and Determinations: Homepage – just above that you will see a button that says “Printable Version

So, whatever judgement you have decided to look at – you then think to yourself – “I’d like to have a printed copy of that”

Ok so – click on “Printable Version” and voila – a small print box opens and all you have to do is decide, for example, how many copies of this judgement do I want? Do I want it in black or white or in colour – then click print.

One thing to watch out for – if you click on “Printable Version” and the print preview just shows blank pages – this means the judgement hasn’t downloaded properly – close the print box and click the “Printable Version” button again until you see the message “loading preview” what happens – as far as I know – I have a tendency to leave all the little “print boxes” open and the thing seems to get stuck – as soon as I close those open boxes it seems to “unstick it”

I would suggest that you take your time and explore the courts service website – EVERYTHING you need to know about how the courts function in this jurisdiction is literally there at your fingertips – Rules of the Court – Court Forms – Practice Directions* – EVERYTHING.

*HC051 – This is Practice Direction 051 – the HC stands for High Court – click on the blue link on this page and a word version of this Practice Direction – FOR FAMILY LAW IN THE HIGH COURT – will download for you.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/bec9deb0b6dae2a980258121003f3720?OpenDocument

If you click on “Home” on the left-hand side of the Courts website, you will see a list – the list is headed in bold “For Court Users” click on the links and they bring you to different areas. Court Rules, Court Forms, etc. THAT’S where you can find everything you need to know about how the Courts works, what the rules are, and what “Forms” you need to use for different kinds of Applications/Motions – not from some twat on the internet or on facebook.

You really don’t need some idiot on the internet pontificating and blustering and talking shoite about “how the courts work” or giving you his “version” of how to go about doing something in court – it’s all there – and yes I appreciate that for a lay litigant it can be very difficult to get your head around some of the “Rules” or figure out how to use the various “Templates” for different kinds of applications – but – if you just take your time – any reasonably intelligent person can – with a little hard work figure it out, least anyone opines that I am just another idiot pontificating – you might note that I am directing you to independent OFFICIAL sources where you can find out for yourself what the law is, what the Rules of the Court are and where they can be found, and where to find judgements.

For EVERYTHING to do with “going to Court” there is a Law or a provision of Law, there is a “Rule” and there is a Form, on top of all that, there are ways of doing something, and that is contained in the Practice Directions – they all function together.

Let me give you some unsolicited “advice” advice I was given in law school – every judgement has some discussion about how this or that rule or law works or is applied – EVERY judgement – it is in effect a practical demonstration of how the law operates or in some instances doesn’t operate – read them – read them thoroughly and LEARN how the inert words of the written law come to life in a practical way by studying how those “words” are brought to life and applied in real life situations.

READ the judgements – and read them again – until – hopefully a light bulb goes off in your head and you have a “eureka” moment.

Whatever you do – do not base your case on the ill-informed rantings of some idiot on the internet or most definitely not on the idiots “interpretation” of a “judgment” or commentary on an article about a “judgement” find and read the judgement YOURSELF – make up your own mind – apply the facts of the case (in the judgement you are reading) to your situation and see if there is something in there that is applicable IN YOUR CASE. And no, the facts in the case do not have to be exactly the same as in your case – you are looking for areas of general commonality – not an exact replica – similar NOT the same.

THAT’S how you ‘Do law”

Because here a fundamental basic fact.

If you are embroiled in a Family Law case in this jurisdiction – Ireland – you will end up in an IRISH Court – and you can bitch and moan and rant and rave all you like but – it is the Law as it stands NOW – it will be the Rules of the Court as they stand NOW that will be applied – NOT what some idiot on the internet “thinks” the law should be, or believes it to be or claims is ought to be – it is the law as contained in Acts of the Oireachtas, Statutory Instruments, ALL available to you at www.irishstatutebook.ie at the click of a mouse.

Your “argument” or your “pleadings” should be grounded on how the current law is being applied – and if it is being applied or “enforced” arbitrarily, prejudicially or unfairly then MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

Finally – if you want to “talk about rights” then I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the text of these documents – and again, not on some idiot on the internet rantings about “rights”

European Convention on Human Rights*

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

*Transposed into Irish Domestic Law with; The European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 – found at www.irishstatutebook.ie

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

UN Convention on The Rights of The Child

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

To start with.

Then do some study on these:

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015, Family Law Act, 1995, Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989.

I’m not giving you a link to these – you can easily find them and ALL amendments to any provision of these Acts at www.irishstatutebook.ie it will be good practice – if you are serious about addressing YOUR legal ISSUES in a clear, INFORMED and intelligent way.

If you do decide to “look up the law” then read the whole Act – yes – all of it – no piece of legislation exists in a vacuum – you might read in section 6 (a) (i) something that applies directly to your case – BUT – if you see the phrase “subject to the provisions of section 14, then there is a proviso – i.e. this section ONLY applies if the provisions of the other section are fulfilled AS WELL.

Having said all that – I am perfectly aware that in provincial circuits – in particular the Midland Circuit – which is the one I am most familiar with – the law is NOT applied either with fairness or without prejudice – to fathers in particular.

I am also perfectly aware that most if not all Family Law proceedings begin in either the District Court or the Circuit Court – and the Orders made in some instances are…………………. staggeringly bad law.

Again, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court with regard to two distinct legal process’s – An Appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court (bearing in mind if the Order in dispute was originally granted in the District Court you will have to Appeal to the Circuit first) and the Rules governing Judicial Review.

Please note: There are THREE sets of Rules of the Court – Rules of The Superior Court and Rules of The Circuit Court and Rules of The District Court

See here: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/webpages/bb9a582b582f736880256d2b003f6633?OpenDocument&l=en&p=042

Before “moving” on any matter – in other words before making an application/motion etc. or launching an “Appeal” from the Circuit Court to the High Court – READ THIS.

ORDER 61

Rules of the Superior Courts Order: 61; Appeals from the Circuit Court

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/d5629e64d4c7cae680256d2b0046b3ae?OpenDocument

Pay particular attention to the emboldened parts:

  1. In this Order:

“the Act” means the Courts of Justice Act, 1936:

“County Registrar” includes any deputy County Registrar and any person appointed to act as such Registrar or deputy and also where the context permits, any person appointed to act as Registrar to the High Court on Circuit.

  1. Every appeal under Part IV of the Act shall be by notice of appeal which shall be served on every party directly affected by the appeal within ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced in open court. The notice shall state whether the whole or part only of such judgement or order is appealed from and in the latter case shall specify such part. The notice shall, in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin, be for the first opportunity after the expiration of ten days from the date of service, and, in the case of appeals to the High Court on Circuit, be for the next sitting of the High Court on Circuit after the expiration of the said ten days. Such notice of appeal shall be either in the Form No. 1 or the Form No. 2 (as the case may be) in Appendix I.

 

  1. The appellant shall, within the said period of ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced,

(a)        in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin lodge two copies of the notice of appeal,”

NOW – Print out (printable version – look up) and study Order 61 – including the links above the body of this Order – they contain amendments made to the Order.

Click on EVERY link in the body of the text of this Order and study ALL of it. The above is ONLY an EXTRACT from Order 61 – of – The Rules of The Superior Courts.

The second procedure I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with is Judicial Review.

Order 84 – Judicial review and orders affecting personal liberty

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument

Last but not least – if you are claiming that the “other side” has failed to adhere to a provision of any Rule of The Court – this is how you might state it:

Example of how to phrase and cite a provision of an “Order of The Court – in this instance Order 61, Rule 2.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Order 61, Rule 2, The (Applicant/Respondent] delete whichever one is not applicable – i.e. if you’re “The Applicant” delete the brackets, the forward slash and the word “Applicant” ) Respondent failed to serve a Notice of Appeal within ten days of the pronouncement of the Order granted on the………day of……….20…..granting Joint Legal Custody of the two minor children [……] and […..] to me, their Father and Legal Guardian. Her attempt to now Appeal said Order is out of time, being 18 months since the Order of the……. day of……….20….. was granted.”

(This an example of how you could cite a Rule of the Court – do it your own way – as long as you correctly cite whichever “Rule” of whichever “Order” you are invoking/relying on)

Before you all go mad and rush out to lodge Appeals or Applications for Judicial Review of a lower courts decision that affects you – READ THE RULES FIRST then READ THE BLOODY CASE LAW.

You are NOT automatically “entitled” to succeed on an Appeal or an Application for Leave to file a Judicial Review just because you are aggrieved by a decision of a lower Court – YOU MUST HAVE STATEABLE GROUNDS.

You must have an “arguable case” and that “argument” MUST be grounded in law – supported by previous CASE LAW – so again – read the bloody case law – read the law – familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court.

The second time this group/person really pissed me off and irritated me, triggering this response was a post on the 26th January 2019 linking to this article.

Mum loses custody of three children after coaching them to badmouth her ex husband; Nic Brunetti; Thursday 24 Jan 2019 1:54 pm

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/24/mum-loses-custody-of-three-children-after-coaching-them-to-badmouth-her-ex-husband-8385971/?fbclid=IwAR2xxTV-1L70EtThWW61CZQsVAVbnb2x5qJMQKML2gBLqasGzQqUvW5KkZc

The “comments” to this posting of this “article” are inane in the extreme – what surprised was no-one asked for a link to the judgement itself! Nor I might add this the “leader” of this group Fathers Rights Ireland supply a link to the judgement!

Perhaps this idiot thought he or his sheep-like followers could just stroll into Court with a copy of the Metro article clutched in their hot sweaty hands and they could just wave it around in front of the judge and he/she would be overcome with the brilliance of their “presentations” hmmmmm.

At that point I knew this guy was a pure gobshoite, a self-serving egotistical arsehole with zero real interest in “helping fathers” a ridiculous fool ranting and raving from behind his keyboard to massage his own inflated ego.

Here is the link to the judgement https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.html&query=(ZE17C00740)

Here is the printable PDF version  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.pdf

It is Case No: ZE17C00740 in the Family Court at Croydon on Wednesday the 22nd August 2018.

It is an extraordinary judgement for its clarity, for the depth of analysis of the substantive issues by His Honour Judge Charles Atkins and for his grasp of the fundamental damage done to children by “Parental Alienation”

What this judgement also is – is something YOU can use in an Irish Court to lend weight and AUTHORITY to YOUR case.

Download this judgement – study it – and study it again. Now you have something of substance to get your teeth into – and stop listening to or reading bullshit from gobshoites.

With regard to ‘Hague Convention” cases – download this judgement – study it – and study it again.

G.T and K.A.O and The Attorney General [2007] IEHC 326

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/e77d90ebb1cd0ca88025739900341ef8?OpenDocument

When I get a bit more time, I will post a list of cases that address different issues in “Family Law” cases both Irish, UK and other common law jurisdictions.

DISCLAIMER: Just in case some petulant arsehole gets the hump and decides that I am “unlawfully” giving “legal advice” here’s my disclaimer.

  1. Bite me
  2. I am NOT purporting to give anyone legal advice – I am pointing you to legitimate and accredited SOURCES of information that if you chose to access, will assist you greatly in applying the law to whatever “Case” or legal difficulty you might have.
  3. You are perfectly free to chose to click on any link I have posted here – what you do with it after that is entirely up to you – if you then go ahead and use any of the information I have linked to here and it goes pear-shaped for you – your problem, not mine.

Now – if the person or persons I have “had a go at” decides to get all “internetty” and post shit about me or engages in the usual…what do feminists call it……. whatever it is that feminists are always whining about……amounts to saying mean things about them on the internet.

My response? Bite me.

But – if you do step over the bounds of normal rational or acceptable behavior and it impacts me personally and out here in the real world – I will come after you – I will drag your sorry arse into Court – and I WILL personally rip you a new one – in Court.

Just so you know – as far as I am concerned – you do NOT represent the vast majority of fathers who are being put through the ringer in Family Courts in this jurisdiction, you are NOT a spokesman for any of them – you are NOT evolved enough, competent enough, informed enough, intelligent enough or decent enough to speak for anyone – especially NOT fathers.

You are an ignorant ill-informed arsehole who just wants a platform who spew out his self-serving bullshit, bullshit and mis-information that will actively sabotage, de-rail and damage the case of a DECENT father struggling with the toxic effects of being alienated from his children. So.  SHUT UP you idiot.

Slainte

Feminists Don’t “Do” Research – Do They? Narcissism and Anorexia Nervosa, Joan Bakewell and Frank Sinatra Doing it “His Way”.

 

It’s 11.51 am on a Saturday morning, I’ve had my three cups of coffee, listened to the birdies singing their little hearts out, and spent the last two hours “doing research” in an admittedly haphazard and fairly relaxed way – i.e. – in between “doing research” I’ve popped in and out of various blogs, news sites and generally had a bit of a ramble around the internet. As ya do, while you wake up – on a Saturday morning.

Anyhoo – I came across this post from here

https://j4mb.org.uk/2019/01/19/young-men-who-endorse-the-masculine-ideal-of-success-enjoy-greater-psychological-wellbeing/

Young Men Who Endorse The Masculine Ideal of Success Enjoy Greater Psychological Wellbeing

Which led me to here

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/01/18/young-men-who-endorse-the-masculine-ideal-of-success-enjoy-greater-psychological-wellbeing/

And then here

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/07/29/10-of-the-most-widely-believed-myths-in-psychology/

10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology – By Christian Jarrett.

“Myth” No. 8 caught my eye.

8. The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men

A British survey published in 2014 found that over 65 per cent believed it was probably or definitely true that domestic violence is overwhelmingly committed by men. It’s easy to understand why – men are responsible for more violent crime overall, and being bigger and stronger, on average, men are seen as a more obvious threat. Yet official statistics (cited by Scarduzio et al, this year) show that partner violence against men by women is also a major problem. For example, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in the US found that one in four men had experienced physical violence, rape, and/or stalking from a partner (compared with one in three women) and that 83 per cent of the violence inflicted on men by partners was done so by women. This is not to diminish the seriousness or scale of the problem of partner abuse by men toward women, but to recognise that there is also a significant, lesser known, issue of women being violent toward men. [Editor’s note: more background to this myth is available in the comments section, including our choice of wording for the item subhead, and further academic references].

As soon as I read it I knew that it would garner a response from………………….an irritated feminist, and lo and behold it did, in the person of someone calling themselves “emmahatred” charming!

And here it is – the knee jerk, typical, irrational, unfounded, baseless and oh soooooooooooooo easily debunked “considered opinion” of – yes – you’ve guessed it – a feminist.

emmahatred says: December 20, 2016 at 11:01 am

Item 8 is quite disturbing — but only because of its presence on this list. The text itself fails to illustrate that the idea is a myth; those statistics actually reinforce the (true) belief that DV is overwhelmingly committed by men.

99% of DV on women is perpetrated by men (this is the corollary stat in the article cited, conveniently failed to make an appearance here…).

And the 83% statistics — that leaves us with 17% of DV on men being perpetrated by men, yet only around 6.1% of men have sex with men (1) (other studies put incidence between 4-8%.) (We can infer the % of men in *relationships* with men is lower still.)

Men are also overwhelming more violent — more enduring, more lethal — in the violent acts they commit. According to ONS statistics, in England and Wales in 2015, a woman was murdered by a current or former partner on average once every three days (around 100 per year). How many men were murdered by a former partner? Around 30. And ~9 of those murders were committed by men.

These statistics are very easy to find, by the way — whereas I expect the author of that list item had to dig pretty deep to find some figures he could verbally torture to promote his bogus idea.I can’t think of any good reason why this list intends to perpetuate a really harmful (not just dumb, but actively dangerous) myth under the guise of science.

  1. Johnson AM, Wadsworth J, Wellings K, Bradshaw S, Field J (December 1992). “Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk”. Nature. 360 (6403): 410–2.

I have to say I was deeply impressed by the response – cool calm and ever so slightly disdainful. Warranted, I might add.

BPS Research Digest says: December 21, 2016 at 11:01 am

The wording of the myth “The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men” is taken verbatim from the book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology by Scott Lilienfeld et al. The same wording was also used in a subsequent survey of belief in popular psychology myths published by Adrian Furnham and David Hughes, published in the journal Teaching of Psychology. The reason this is a myth is that crime statistics show that actually a considerable number of women are violent toward men in intimate relationships. Though these stats suggest men are more often violent toward women than vice versa, it is not the case that the “overwhelming majority” of such acts are committed by men. We cited some contemporary figures to illustrate this point, although readers may have different interpretations of what would constitute an “overwhelming majority” in weighing up these figures. However, the evidence against the claim that “the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men” runs much deeper.

Family conflict studies, that look at rates of domestic violence that are not necessarily recorded as crimes, find about equal rates of violence by men against women and by women against men: in fact sometimes the results suggest more domestic violence by women against men than vice versa. Writing in the late 1990s, the sociologist Murray Straus described the backlash against his and his colleagues’ “disturbing discovery” in the 1970s “that women physically assaulted partners in marital, cohabiting and dating relationships as often as men assaulted their partners”. He adds: “The finding caused me and my former colleague, Suzanne Steinmetz, to be excommunicated as feminists”. Feminists and female victim advocates, understandably perhaps, fear that drawing attention to male victims undermines the seriousness of the problem of male abuse of women, and of female oppression more broadly.

This heated controversy has persisted through the decades. In 2000 a seminal meta-analysis by Archer looked at all published data available on domestic violence at that time (including data from family conflict studies, crime surveys and police records) and concluded that “Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” Since then as more findings have emerged, the field has broadly divided into two camps – those who highlight the greater seriousness of male domestic violence toward women (for example, based on injuries being more serious and the motives being more controlling), and the other camp who highlight the largely unknown, among the public at least, and surprisingly widespread phenomenon of female domestic violence toward men.

A recent paper in The Journal of Family Violence by feminist researchers, led by Nicole Johnson, tried to overcome this impasse by acknowledging that context is all important, and that in some domestic contexts men are more violent, whereas in others women are the more violent (and noting that many past studies have been influenced by the political leanings of their authors). But ultimately they urge the field to move beyond this argument of relative rates of abuse by the genders, to find out more about why domestic violence occurs and how to stop it in all its forms.”

So far, so typical – what intrigued me wasn’t the wearisome regurgitating of ill-informed and baseless femspeak regarding the TRUTH about DV, nor for that matter BPS Research’s response, it was emmahatred herself.

Generally, feminists bore me, have heard it all, read it all, and there are now innumerable highly qualified, competent and adept persons more that capable of batting away the usual feminist crap – usually without breaking a sweat.

But – this little toxic vixen caught my eye – it was the name “emmahatred”! crikey – anyone who incorporates the concept of “hatred” into their online persona – has some real serious issues – I thought to myself. And is most likely young (compared to me that is)

Here’s where a click of a mouse led me: ILL/LITERACY https://emmaseaber.wordpress.com/about/

Had a rummage around her blog, clicked into her various links, got curious as to what “Medical Humanities” was:

My name is (usually) Emma Seaber and I’m a PhD student. I’m based in the English Department at King’s College London and my research project explores the special status of reading and writing practices in anorexia nervosa.

I started my PhD in October 2015. Before that I did a part-time MSc in Medical Humanities, also at King’s, while spending a few years working in the education sector. Although I have a broad range of interests, my academic background is principally in English: I also have an MA in English & American Studies, with a concentration on gender studies, and an undergraduate degree in English Lit. So I tend to gravitate towards literary projects rather than historical ones — and I’m very glad to be at King’s, where medical humanities is lovingly held in the bosom of the English department.

So, went and had a look, here:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught-courses/medical-humanities-msc.aspx

Sounds ridiculous.

“Emma” appears to be a bit obsessed with “anorexia nervosa” in fact when Joan Bakewell wrote a piece opining that “anorexia nervosa” was a form of “narcissism” little Emma lost the plot, to the extent she penned a screed.

I did try and read “Emma’s” long long diatribe on whether or not she is obsessed with anorexia nervosa because she either had it, or has it – but – to be honest – couldn’t get through it – eyes started to glaze over after the very first paragraph – found myself not giving a shit if she did or didn’t.

Anyhoo – back to what triggered her to write this:

About Joan Bakewell https://medium.com/@EmmaHatred/about-joan-bakewell-4ea98339ee4f

A snippet from Emma’s big ole, and yep, ill-informed, rant against Ms. Bakewell.

……….Anorectics whose eating disorders are not accommodated by the prevailing narrative are less likely to seek help and are less likely to have their problems recognised as such if they do. Delays in diagnosis and treatment have well known negative consequences for illness duration and recovery trajectory. And knowing that the prevailing narrative — of narcissism, vanity, Barbie dolls and models — is false, only makes the facts sadder.”

The entire piece confirms, as if confirmation was needed, that 99.99% of feminists are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Brief interlude while I go feed the birdies, enjoy 😉

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows

And did it my way

Yes, it was my way

Lyrics here if you want to sing along.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/my-way-lyrics-frank-sinatra.html

Ole Blue Eyes doing it “his way” here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AVOpNR2PIs

Ok – back. Love that song – my father loved that song. Not so keen when my mother got all eeeem soppy about “Francis Albert” as she called him. 😉

Anyhoo – narcissism and anorexia?

Joan Bakewell was actually on the right track – albeit she could’ve done just a tad more RESEARCH and put up a more robust defense against little Emma’s hysterical rant – but – she didn’t – while her point about being entitled to an opinion is and was valid, notwithstanding Emma’s classic self-important egotistical statement here:

I don’t really understand why Bakewell is persisting in trying to paint her critics as unreasonable by asking of them goading questions that suggest their primary challenge is to her right to speak at all, not to the content and effect of her speech.

I also don’t understand why she hasn’t now, having read what people like me have been saying to her and about her article more generally, issued a subsequent statement something along the lines of “You’re right. I shouldn’t have spoken up on an issue about which I know less than nothing. It was wrong and, moreover, irresponsible of me to speculate in the national press about this topic, especially since my views, whatever my intention in expressing them was, embarrassingly and dangerously reinforce false perceptions of eating disorders and the people who have them”.

(Emphasis added)

“…………people like me have been saying to her………”  seriously? Little Emma is demanding a full groveling public retraction from Joan Bakewell, because “people like me” (Emma) expect and are entitled to it……………………………………. WHY?

Is there a connection between anorexia and narcissism? Yes, there is.

Has any research been done? Absolutely loads

Do or did either Joan Bakewell or Emma have ANY knowledge at all about either anorexia or narcissism? From what I’ve read from both? Nope. Though Ms. Bakewell was onto something (do research!)

Notwithstanding Emma’s obsession with anorexia.

I did a quick literature review of the very topic of “anorexia and narcissism” here’s a sample of what I found – over the course of about an hour – its Saturday – have stuff to do. Laundry doesn’t do itself ya know 😉

I went onto an academic database after doing a quick google search – got directed to the first article Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer Emma Foster Anna Skelton; International Journal of Eating Disorders Volume 40, Issue 2; First published: 01 November 2006.

Okie dokie – log into “Wiley Online Library” put in title of article, this is the search result.

“66 results for “Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders” anywhere SAVE SEARCH”

I have copied and pasted the titles to the following articles along with the abstracts of these articles.

  1. Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer Emma Foster Anna Skelton; International Journal of Eating Disorders Volume 40, Issue 2; First published: 01 November 2006″

“Abstract

Objective:

This study examined the associations between eating pathology and narcissism in an eating‐disordered group. Narcissism was conceptualized in terms of both its core element (entitlement, grandiosity) and the narcissistic defenses that are used to maintain self‐esteem.

Method:

Seventy non‐clinical and 84 eating‐disordered patients completed a measure of the different elements of narcissism, and a standardized measure of eating pathology.

Results:

The eatingdisordered group scored higher than the nonclinical women on the measures of core narcissism and of the narcissistically abused style (“poor me” defense). The pattern of dimensional associations between narcissism and eating pathology was highly similar across the clinical and nonclinical groups, with the narcissistic defenses playing the strongest role. The poisonous pedagogy style (“bad you” defense) was positively associated with restrictive attitudes toward eating, while the narcissistically abused style was positively associated with restraint, eating concern, body shape concern, and body weight concern.

Conclusion:

The narcissistic defenses are particularly relevant in understanding the eating disorders. Implications for future research are outlined, and suggestions are made about the need to assess and respond to these associations in treatment. © 2006 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Eat Disord 2006”

For further research purposes (for anyone who might be interested) here is the “References” section of this paper. You might be able to get some of them online without the need to access a database.

References

  1. Mogul LS. Asceticism in adolescence and anorexia nervosa. Psychoanal Study Child 1980;35:155–175. 2. Sands SH. Self psychology therapy. In: Miller K, Mizes JS, editors. Comparative Treatments of Eating Disorders. London: Free Association Books, 2000, pp. 182–206.

  2. Lehoux PM, Steiger H, Jabalpurwala S. State/trait distinctions in bulimic syndromes. Int J Eat Disord 2000;27:36–42.

  3. McLaren L, Gauvin L, Steiger H. A two-factor model of disordered eating. Eat Behav 2001;2:51–65.

  4. Steiger H, Jabalpurwala S, Champagne J, Stotland S. A controlled study of trait narcissism in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 1997;22:173–178.

  5. Steinberg BE, Shaw RJ. Bulimia as a disturbance of narcissism: Self-esteem and the capacity to self-soothe. Addict Behav 1997;22:699–710.

  6. Davis C, Claridge G, Cerullo D. Reflections on narcissism: Conflicts about body-image perceptions in women. Pers Indiv Differ 1997;22:309–316.

  7. Karwautz A, Volkl-Kernstock S, Nobis G, Kalchmayr G, HafferlGattermayer A, Wober-Bingol C, et al. Characteristics of selfregulation in adolescent patients with anorexia nervosa. Brit J Med Psychol 2001;74:101–114.

  8. Miller A. The Drama of the Gifted Child. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

  9. Miller A. Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1984.

  10. Miller A. For Your Own Good. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1985.

  11. Slade P. Towards a functional analysis of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Brit J Clin Psychol 1982;21:167–179.

  12. Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Shafran R. Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A ‘transdiagnostic’ theory and treatment. Behav Res Ther 2003;41:509–528.

  13. O’Brien M. Examining the dimensionality of pathological narcissism: Factor analysis and construct validity of the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychol Rep 1987;61:499–510.

  14. O’Brien M. Further evidence of the validity of the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychol Rep 1988;62:879–882.

  15. Beck AT, Freeman A, Davis DD. Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2004.

  16. Young JE, Klosko JS, Weishaar ME. Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford, 2003.

  17. Brunton JN, Lacey JH, Waller G. Narcissism and eating characteristics in young non-clinical women. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005;193:140–143.

  18. Brunton JN, Lacey JH, Waller G. Eating pathology in young non-clinical adults: A pilot study of the impact of parental responsibility. Eur Eat Disord Rev 2005;13:406–410.

  19. Waller G. Why do we diagnose different types of eating disorder? Arguments for a change in research and clinical practice. Eat Disord Rev 1993;1:74–89.

  20. Fairburn CG, Beglin SJ. Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report. Int J Eat Disord 1994;16:363– 370.”

To continue:

  1. “Emotional awareness among eatingdisordered patients: the role of narcissistic traits; Rachel Lawson; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer; European Eating Disorders Review Volume 16, Issue 1; First published: 23 October 2007″

“Abstract

The narcissistic defences and a lack of emotional awareness (alexithymia) are both salient features of eating disorder pathology, as well as being linked to each other. As each of these characteristics impacts independently on treatment, it is important to understand how they interact within an eating‐disordered population.

The present study assessed the associations between the three core elements of alexithymia and the core and defensive elements of narcissism in this clinical group. Seventy eating‐disordered patients completed standardised measures of alexithymia and narcissism, and multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to examine the relationship between these variables.

Core narcissism (e.g. grandiosity, entitlement) was associated with difficulties in describing feelings to others, whereas the narcissistic defences were associated with difficulties in identifying feelings and distinguishing them from somatic experiences. These patterns of association suggest that different aspects of alexithymia are associated with different aspects of narcissism. Clinical suggestions are made for how these characteristics might require modifications of standard treatment approaches for the eating disorders. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.”

I referenced the next two because while not per se about the connection between anorexia (eating disorders) and narcissism, it suggests a further interesting line of enquiry and RESEARCH.

  1. “The Spectre at the Feast: An Exploration of the Relationship Between the Dead Mother Complex and Eating Disorders; Wendy M. Pitcairn; British Journal of Psychotherapy Volume 29, Issue 1; First published: 22 January 2013″

“Abstract

This paper sets out to explore the relationship between postnatal depression in a mother and the subsequent development of an eating disorder in her daughter who was seen for individual work. It is suggested that postnatal depression impacted negatively on the developing relationship between the mother and her infant producing an insecure attachment leading to the development of an eating disorder. This is explored with particular reference to Green’s concept of the dead mother complex. Parallels are drawn between the dead mother complex and the psychopathology of eating disorders and a number of common themes are identified.”

  1. “PROJECTION, INTROJECTION AND IDENTITY IN ANOREXIA NERVOSA; Anthony P. Winston; British Journal of Psychotherapy Volume 21, Issue 3; First published: 17 November 2006″

“Abstract

In some cases of anorexia nervosa, the mother uses projective identification to produce a state of fusion between herself and her child. This makes it impossible for the child to develop a sense of herself as separate. The rejection of food represents a symbolic rejection of these maternal projections. This defence also prevents the healthy introjection of parental objects which is required to establish a sense of identity. The anorexic is left with a profound sense of inner emptiness and an inability to develop adult relationships. The therapeutic relationship can provide a non‐invasive environment in which the patient can begin to develop a sense of self. Case material is used to demonstrate how progress was closely linked to the patient’s growing awareness of the therapist as a separate individual.”

Now. I put a search into JStor using these keywords: anorexia eating disorders causes and got 752 results (you should try it Emma)

Here is a brief snapshot of some of those results.

From page 1 –

“Fearing Fat: A Literature Review of Family Systems Understandings and Treatments of Anorexia and Bulimia; Kyle D. Killian; Family Relations, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 311-318

Topics: Anorexia nervosa, Bulimia nervosa, Appetite depressants, Family therapy, Parents, Adolescents, Mothers”

From page 4 –

“The Influence of Naive Causal Theories on Lay Concepts of Mental Illness; Nancy S. Kim, Woo-Kyoung Ahn; The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 115, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 33-65

Topics: Symptoms, Disorders, Anorexia nervosa, Causal theory, Major depressive disorder, Reasoning, Body weight, Compulsive personality disorder”

Lots of “feminist perspective” articles and papers of course.

Conclusion and Advice – and yes emma I’m talking to you.

You actually appear to be a reasonably intelligent young woman (if a bit deluded) but you are allowing yourself to become indoctrinated by an ideology that is inherently toxic and FRAUDALENT.

While it might appear as if the “feminist perspective” is giving you an insight into human behavior, whatever that behavior might be – in fact what your “allegiance” to this “feminist perspective” will ultimately do is handicap your development as a rounded, self-aware and empathic HUMAN BEING.

You might be able to convince yourself that if you maintain this tunnel visioned, blinkered and rigid focus on ONLY “research” conducted from a “feminist perspective” that you will become an “expert” on all forms and manifestations of human behavior – but – the weight of science, hard data, properly conducted research, and history is against you.

Further – look around – at human beings – ALL human beings – what a diverse and interesting group they are – some bad – some good – and that badness or goodness has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with whether any particular human is male or female. NOTHING.

What is the ultimate pinnacle of badness, of evil, of insanity is this – an ideology that promulgates hatred against a distinct class of human beings – from the day they are born because that tiny little new human being happens to be a male human being.

THAT is your feminism.  An ideology of hate.

Slainte.

Edit: while having a bit of a browse, looking for studies that would be accessible online I came across this one – Eating disorders in adolescence: attachment issues from a developmental perspective ;Manuela Gander 1 *, Kathrin Sevecke 2 and Anna Buchheim 1

1Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria,

2 Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530258/pdf/fpsyg-06-01136.pdf

“Summary

“………………..The most striking result that emerges from the latest state of narrative based research is the high prevalence of the unresolved attachment status in adolescent patients and their mothers. Only a small number of studies included fathers and they show that patients feel more alienated from them and they describe them as less caring and more controlling. Furthermore, recent studies demonstrate that adolescents with an unresolved attachment representation have a greater rate of comorbid disorders like PD and depression and higher ED symptom severity. Future studies that investigate traumatizing events, symptom severity and comorbidity in a larger sample of adolescents with ED using a narrative attachment measure might provide a better understanding and treatment of this complex and painful condition.”

Had a bit of a lightbulb moment – ED (eating disorder) Parental Alienation – controlling, alienating, narcissistic mothers?  Hmmmmmm. More research methinks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism = Cultural, Political and Social Poison.

 

I’ve been reading (avidly I might add) the thousands of comments on various different articles, news reports etc. in response to the Gillette ad. (google it if you haven’t heard)

I watched this Piers Morgan segment, (link below) not for Mr. Morgan going off on one but for the reaction of the females, especially the fat blonde one*.  Classic feminist reaction, with a twist, she was obviously building up a head of steam as a prelude to spewing out the usual feminist “how dare you disagree with my toxic world view” crap but, something strange happened – she realized, neither Piers Morgan or Peter Lloyd were going to back down, get all apologetic, or start dissembling and ducking and diving to avoid triggering FEMALE DISSAPROVAL – they quite clearly didn’t give a rats ass if these harpies with-held their “approval” or took the usual female stance of getting all offended and snippy because some man took issue with their crap!

Well…………………. hallelujah!

*aside to fat blonde re “fat-shaming” Oi – yep, you should be ashamed – get your fat arse out of the fridge and lose some weight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTyczkAkM2Y&frags=pl%2Cwn

Seriously watch the clip and watch the fat blonde when Piers Morgan starts talking – but – horror of horrors – starts talking over her.

Why am I making a big deal about this?

Simples – the continuing endorsement of toxic feminist crap by MALES is what is keeping toxic feminist crap alive.

Bear with me – am not giving out to men en mass (well not really) what I’m asking you all to do is WATCH AND LEARN.

Feminism cannot survive without MALE endorsement and feminism is toxic crap that demonizes, pathologizes and devalues MALENESS and masculinity.

As a former female Irish politician once quipped – “its just like turkeys voting for Christmas” or words to that effect.

Men who endorse feminism or its more toxic cousin gynocentrism are just like turkeys voting for Christmas.

The comments I’ve been reading from both men and women in reaction to the Gillette ad are over-whelmingly negative – and deservedly so.

Guys – please I’m begging you – take a step back – a BIG step back, and THINK.

Think about all the stupid asinine and frankly deranged shoite that women come out with – now imagine if a man said any of that crap to you? Or a two-year old?

How about this one “I’m going to scream and scream and scream, stamp my feet, flounce about like a demented tantrum throwing two-year old till you…………………………………..” fill in the blanks yourselves.

Seriously? Would you take that crap from a two-year old?

I’m female and I’m telling you – as men – you owe me nothing, my opinions or views are no more valid than yours, my needs/wants/desires or even random whims (mostly for magnums) are no more valid that yours.

As a female, I am no more special a human being than you are – I am no more entitled to exercise the full range of Human Rights than you are.

ALL my heroes are men – can I suggest that ALL your heroes should be as well, so many many of your fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers sacrificed so that you, and me, could live in a safe world, could have all the modern conveniences of modern 21st living – so many men gave their lives so that YOU and me could be free.

All the qualities that previous generations of men had – courage, endurance, stoicism, selflessness and integrity – THOSE are qualities that should be applauded.

All of the “qualities” that feminism espouses – spitefulness, vindictiveness, dishonesty, narcissism, stupidity, callousness and lack of empathy – THOSE are the “qualities” that feminism brought into the world and poisoned our culture with – and need to excised. NOW.

Feminism wants you to believe that all those previous generations of brave selfless men did this because………….patriarchy! (their twisted version of “patriarchy)

Bullshit.

They did it for you and FOR them – and these toxic, vile hideous harpies are literally spitting on the graves of all these selfless brave MEN.

So, stand up for yourselves, and for your forebears, and tell these horrible nasty and feminists and gynocetrists to go………………………………….f..k themselves, no matter who they are – your wife/girlfriend/partner – sister/niece/aunt/mother.

Any female who demands you kneel and worship at her feet and treats you like shit – is an arsehole.

Okie dokie – got that off my chest now – time for a magnum 😉

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Older Entries