Quota Queens – Gimme Gimme Gimme!

 

On Sunday just gone I was flicking through various websites and decided to click into the Irish Times and lo and behold read this:

Funds for women-only professorships aim to end gender inequality: Government to back roles in third level institutions at cost of €6 million: Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 13:00: Carl O’Brien

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/funds-for-women-only-professorships-aim-to-end-gender-inequality-1.3693939

My first reaction, bearing in mind I was only on my first cup of coffee was………what a load of shoite! Saw the name Mary Mitchell O’Connor, sighed, saved it, closed it, and pondered for a minute  – wasn’t that the idiot who drove down the steps of the Dail (Parliament) on her very first day as a TD (Public Representative)?

And so it was – here for the benefit of those not familiar with this particular embarrassment in Irish politics is our illustrious “Minister” with responsibility for “Higher Education” Mary Mitchell O’Connor arriving on her first day as a “female” politician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWJPAC1EN8

Impressive – isn’t it?

Anyhoo, three specific statements jumped out at me – in particular because of the underlying ideological underpinnings, and because of that, the propagandist nature and misinformation being disseminated here.

The Government is to fund dozens of women-only professorships over the next three years to help “eradicate gender inequality” in higher education institutions.

It follows the recommendations of a taskforce which says dramatic steps are needed to ensure more women occupy key leadership positions.”

Clear evidence

However, Government sources say these posts will be in addition to existing academic staff and confined to areas where there is “clear evidence” of significant under-representation of women, such as science or engineering.”

Emphasis added

There are 7 (seven) universities in Ireland – ergo it naturally follows that there are 7 (seven) positions as “Head” of said universities – or as the IT article says “key leadership position(s)’

All Enrolments 2016/2017 – 125,281 in said Universities

https://www.iua.ie/the-irish-universities/university-fast-facts/

There are 14 (fourteen) Institutes of Technology in Ireland with 89,705 enrolled

http://www.thea.ie/

Overall, there are 45 publicly funded providers of Higher Education in Ireland.

Including for example The Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, The Shannon College of Hotel Management, The Garda College (Police) The Military College, The Royal Irish Academy of Music.

But feminists are not really interested in these rather specialized colleges – are they? Can’t be much kudos being in a ‘key leadership position’ in The Shannon College of Hotel Management?

The IT article and a subsequent article on Monday makes very clear where the focus of attention is being directed

For a full list of PUBLICLY funded providers of Higher Education in Ireland see link below.

https://www.education.ie/en/Learners/Information/Providers-of-Higher-Education/List.html

So, yet again we have a another feminist whine, from the Quota Queen – Mary Mitchell O’Connor – though I think of her as Driving Miss Dozy Twat –  about mean men taking all the good jobs (usually in STEMM) away from poor disadvantaged and discriminated wimmins. Because…..well because………it’s not fwaire…..sigh.

The author of the first article on Sunday penned a follow up on Monday to ask:

Are plans to close gender gap in university posts fair? Creation of women-only posts in academia set to spark objections from many factions

Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 00:00

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/are-plans-to-close-gender-gap-in-university-posts-fair-1.3694042

Only this time he (Carl O’Brien) got more specific about where the ‘unfairness” lay – toward wimmin!

‘They are also far more likely to earn less, with men accounting for the vast majority of best-paid posts in higher education.

Some 70 per cent of those earning in excess of €106,000 are men at university level, while it rises to 83 per cent in institutes of technology.

Women’s chances of occupying a professorship also vary widely across individual colleges.

NUI Galway has the lowest proportion of female professors (12 per cent), while UL (31 per cent) has the second lowest, followed by DCU and Maynooth University (30 per cent).

There has also never been a female president since the establishment of the first Irish university more than 425 years ago.’

emphasis added

There are of course many private colleges – but for the purposes of this article the focus is on those that rely on the public purse for funding – including the proposed funding announced by Mitchell O’Connor ‘The Government is to fund dozens of women-only professorships over the next three years to help “eradicate gender inequality” in higher education institutions.”

Anyone want to take a bet that one of those makey-up ‘professorships” will be in………The Institute of Public Administration? My favourite though, is of course, The Shannon College of Hotel Management – 😊

Just to be absolutely clear – out of a total of 45 PUBLICLY funded Higher Education providers in Ireland, the focus of this latest bit of whingeing from feminists is, as always directed at positions – ‘key-leadership positions’ in very specific areas – areas that are considered lucrative, high profile, and apparently dominated by males because……..fill in the blanks yourselves…though most feminist whines can be encapsulated by one simple and pathetic phrase…………men are mean!

To summarise – if I may – this proposal is intended to create – apparently out of thin air – DOZENS of professorships, in highly lucrative areas, for ONLY women.

Okey dokey – in order to qualify for a position as a professor in Ireland and in usually most places in the western hemisphere a certain educational path needs to be embarked on at least 12 (twelve) years previously – obviously in the particular area that this numbskull (MMO’C) appears to be targeting – STEMM.

So, here goes. Quick summary of the level of study, length of study etc it takes to reach the point where you would be QUALIFIED to be appointed a ‘Professor” in Ireland.

Primary Degree                       3-4 years

Masters                                     1- 2 years

Post Doc                                     6 years

Research etc                              2- 3 years

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, I’m just giving a rough idea – have no intention of trawling through college sites and calculating times for each type of area of study.

On average, to reach the level required to be QUALIFIED to be appointed as a “Professor” of something in STEMM, we’re talking a minimum of 12 (twelve) years and a maximum of 15 (fifteen) years obviously depending on the complexity of your particular area of study/research. Which for the hard of thinking would mean that our putative female “Professors” would have had to begin their studies circa 2004/05, more or less.

See the links below for a quick look at Academic Paths in Ireland.

Ireland, Academic Career Structure

https://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/AcademicCareersbyCountry/Ireland

GradIreland:Lecturer, third level

https://gradireland.com/careers-advice/job-descriptions/lecturer-third-level

Which very nicely brings us to this – courtesy of the H.E.A (Higher Education Authority)

Below is a graphic of the numbers of students enrolled in Ireland in third level study in 2004/2005 by area of study (general description) and by GENDER.

From: http://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/Key-Facts-and-Figures-0405-1.pdf

https://www.education.ie/en/Learners/Information/Providers-of-Higher-Education/List.html HIGHER EDUCATION: Key Facts and Figures: HEA funded Institutions 04/05

Take a good look – this is a graphic showing what areas of study Irish young people CHOOSE to embark on in 2004/2005.

new entrnts by field of study 04 05 HEA

Lets just concentrate for the moment on two areas – Science and Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction.

Science first – two areas immediately jump out with rather large discrepancies – Mathematics and Statistics where there were 122 male students enrolled compared to 65 female students – in effect nearly twice as many young men than young women CHOOSE this area of study.

But the biggest discrepancy is in Computer Science and Use (a relatively new area of study in Ireland at this time) 456 young men as opposed to 91 young women CHOOSE to study in this area – four times as many young men, CHOOSE to study an area that has now become extremely lucrative – bear in mind this I personally am not very technologically minded – but I do know that “knowing computers” is BIG.

Anyway – to continue – the next big area of discrepancy is in Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction – in all areas young men outnumbered young women by 834 males to 252 females, more than 3 times as many. In essence you only have to look at the figures to see distinct differences in the CHOICES young men and young women made (and I might add, continue to make) in their PREFERRED areas of study.

This is what feminists simply don’t get – or refuse to accept – PEOPLE make choices – young women made and make choices based on what they are INTERESTED IN – what really does stick in the craw of feminists is one thing.

Women make choices that FEMINISTS DON’T APPROVE OF.

I’d like to interject a little word to young women – DON’T let feminist arseholes browbeat you into doing or choosing things you personally DON’T like, don’t want to do and wouldn’t CHOOSE to do if feminist arseholes weren’t making you feel inadequate. – if you actually do like science, engineering, math’s etc – fantastic – me personally nope – but bear this mind – do it because you want to do it – and, if you are good at it, equally fantastic.

But – do NOT expect, or feel entitled to anything to do with your chosen profession simply because you are female – EARN your honours – get what you get ON MERIT, and if you’re the ‘only girl’ in a class full of boys in say engineering? So bloody what! Just get on with it – do the work – the same work – don’t be whining and sniveling and to be blunt being a girl – grow up – you’re either good at the subject or you’re not – it has nothing to do with whether you’re a girl or a boy.

Ok – let’s move on – and back to MMO’C and her pulling “Professorships”  out of her arse because a bunch of hatchet faced feminists have the hump over men making more money in areas where they (men) excel and women DON’T.

Let’s go back to 2004 – and have a look at Post Graduate statistics – produced by the HEA – and one would presume beyond reproach – they have a load of “Gender and Equality’ Reports currently on their website.

Anyhoo – if you recall, in order to QUALIFY for a position as a Professor in Ireland you need a PhD – so how went for this option in 2004 and more importantly in what areas and for the purposes of this article what was the “gender” breakdown?

Here it is:

post grad 2004

Just to keep it consistent we’ll stick with comparing the two areas we used for Graduate Studies – Science and Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction – shall we?

Again – see where the discrepancies occur – nearly three times as many male students went on to a Post Doc in Computer Science and Use as female students, nearly four times as many male student as female in Mathematics and statistics and in the Combined Engineering category we’re talking 34 male students to 7 female students.

I’m not going to bore you by going through each year’s figures that quantify the actual CHOICES that young people make when choosing an area of study – any normal sensible person (ie NOT a feminist) knows well that boys and girls show quite clear preferences from an early age in their areas of interest – many many studies have shown quite clearly where those differences lie.

I would recommend though that you take a look at William Collins seminal article Athena SWAN  http://empathygap.uk/?p=387  to get a clear and thoroughly researched expose of where this shoite emanates from.

What is clear is that Mary Mitchell O’Connor is an idiot – feel free to do your own research on this fool – she is after all a politician – an Irish politician – not known for an excess of functioning brain cells.

The area I really want to address with regard to this nonsense is the legal area – in a further article – but before I sign off on this one here are some resources to whet your appetite.

Bear in mind the core legal issue in this debacle will be the issue of Discrimination – and “Equality” and the place where this will be ultimately thrashed out in ECJ (European Court of Justice)

To that end – have a look here, as a bit of an insight into how the EU deals with “Equality” issues.

EU Gender Equality Law:  Seminar series in the framework of the European Commission’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 2014-2020

https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=bf60056a4360c508a0950b2701be87f1f1c2a17500619721220498&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=121643

Gender resources

https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=3421f2274fef8ad43052718aefb8b3ac17a3b8f000152273532005&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=121923

EU Gender Equality Law: Trier, 29-30 January 2018 – 118DV24 – EN/IT

I personally recommend you start with these two – some of the other “feminist” speakers will make you grit your teeth 😊

Positive Action and Gender Quotas in EU Law
Dr Panos Kapotas (September 2015)

Positive Action, (Gender) Quotas & EU Law
Prof. Dr Marc De Vos (May 2016)

e-Presentations

Each e-presentation features a top expert and includes high-level supporting material.

Gleiches Entgelt bei gleichwertiger Arbeit: EU-Rechtsrahmen und Rechtsprechung des EuGH
Cornelia Amon-Konrath (March 2018)

Definition of key concepts
Paul Epstein QC (March 2018)

Equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services: focus on the collaborative economy
Dr Eugenia Caracciolo di Torella (January 2018)

Gender pay gap and job evaluation
Sophie Latraverse (January 2018)

EU Working Time Regime, Work-Family Reconciliation, and Gender Equality 
Dr Ania Zbyszewska (November 2017)

UK Anti-Discrimination laws after Brexit
Prof. Sandra Fredman (November 2017)

The legal framework on gender equality
Marjolein van den Brink (November 2016)

Reconciliation of Work and Family Life
Marguerite Bolger (May 2016)

Positive Action, (Gender) Quotas & EU Law
Prof. Dr Marc De Vos (May 2016)

The EU Legal Framework on Equality
Dr Panos Kapotas (April 2016)

Remedies and sanctions in (sex) discrimination cases
Else Leona McClimans (April 2016)

EU-Recht zur Geschlechtergleichbehandlung: Definition der Schlüsselbegriffe
Prof. Dr. Christa Tobler (April 2016)

Reconciliation of Work and Family Life
Prof Dr Maria do Rosário Palma Ramalho (September 2015)

Positive Action and Gender Quotas in EU Law
Dr Panos Kapotas (September 2015)

The burden of proof
Philip Rostant (November 2014)

Le droit européen de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes
Prof Michel Miné (November 2014)

Latest EU Jurisprudence on Maternity and Pregnancy Discrimination
Prof Petra Foubert (November 2013)

Latest CJEU Case Law on Age Discrimination
Robin Allen (March 2013)

A year after the ECJ Test-Achats judgment
Prof Christa Tobler (March 2012)

Enjoy and Slainte

 

 

 

 

 

Feminist Crybabies – Men are Mean!

 

It is a truism I know to say that feminists are crazy, irrational, fact adverse, and without a doubt the most bald-faced liars on the planet.

It is also a truism to say that if a “study”  – and in the context of feminist studies I use that term extremely loosely (sitting around on cushions, swigging Lidl wine in a cat urine soaked bedsit talking shoite qualifies as a “study” in the black-hole that is the feminist psyche) flat out contradicts the feminist “perspective” then…….well ignore it and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the study finds – just like here:

In an article published on the 3 August 2018 entitled; Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy by Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

And subtitled – “We can’t achieve freedom of expression without first addressing the toxic environment many women face on the internet”.

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news-Article.aspx?id=5623027c-d0bb-40de-a4d5-3eddebe936f6

This statement was made about halfway down the article and a link was provided to a supporting “study” – there is a link to “2014 study” referenced in this toxic little paragraph.

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts

Online threats can and do lead female journalists to leave the profession. They can also lead female journalists to remove themselves from social media to avoid trauma, or stay quiet about their experience with sexual harassment online for fear of repercussions for their career. This is having a devastating impact on freedom of expression.”

What made me laugh out loud – seriously – feminists say the funniest things – was the title of the “study” referenced to support these dimwits contention that…………..boo hoo, men are mean to women on the internet.

This is the title of the study:

Demos: Male celebrities receive more abuse on Twitter than women

Link here https://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-male-celebrities-receive-more-abuse-on-twitter-than-women-2/

Not only that, this little gem also appears in the “study” cited by these feminist twats to support their boo hoo.

“The study included celebrities, politicians, journalists and musicians – specifically chosen to ensure an equal number – roughly one million – were aimed at each gender.

It found:

– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.

– Journalism is the only category where women received more abuse than men, with female journalists and TV news presenters receiving roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts.

– Men were much more likely to troll public figures via social media. Three-quarters of the abuse received by prominent men, and over 60% of abuse received by women, was tweeted by men.

– Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais and Katie Hopkins were three of the most likely celebrities to receive abuse.”

Hmmmmm, are you seeing what I’m seeing?

Ok – lets just see exactly what the feminist crybabies Jenny and Sinead (pronounced Shin – ayd) said about twitter:

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts”

And then remind ourselves of what the study ACTUALLY reported – shall we?

“– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.”

No doubt you can see that Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan of Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media published a statement that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the statement in the “Study” they cited to support the absolute bare-faced lie they told.

No doubt many of you are familiar with the feminist propensity for taking data out of context, with conflating, twisting and misrepresenting “facts” in order to support whatever tedious, ridiculous, insane “theory” they wish to shove into your face.

But this! This is so blatant, so ridiculous, so in your face that it did actually make me LOL.

Now, why am I not addressing the content of Jenny and Sinead’s little screed?

Simples – it’s the usual feminist shoite.

For example:

“Attacks like these are both gendered and life-altering events. This is why we talk about online violence and the safety of women online, rather than the issue of their polite treatment. In fact, the chilling effect that online violence and cyber-misogyny has on female voices is a direct challenge to democracy.”

Ah, right the attacks!

The attacks that happen AGAINST males at three times the rate of these so-called attacks on females – those “attacks?”

Personally, I have received some very very bizarre comments – from some very very disturbed people – ALL feminists – as they usually gleefully inform me – before they threaten me personally, sigh.

I have a folder with the choicest ones saved – for posterity…..and my personal amusement 😉

The only part of the above statement that has even a grain of truth in it is the “gendered………” part – yep the nastiest comments ALL emanate from FEMALES – feminist FEMALES.

What about the LIFE-ALTERING EVENTS thingamajig?

Phooey!

“Life-altering events” my arse – unless of course you happen to be female and NOT A FEMINIST.

This delightful quote:

“These stories are, tragically, not the exception – online violence continues to raise the stakes for women speaking, blogging, writing and reporting in the public sphere every day. We run a project at the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media called #SOFJO, short for ‘Safety of Female Journalists Online’. We focus on the issues of equal representation and media pluralism by looking at the gendered component of online violence and the way it silences female voices and female stories in the media.”

Is without exception an illustration par excellence of feminist double speak – without any irony whatsoever these two dimwits peddle the “silences female voices and female stories…” crap.

The reason why I decided to address this pathetic little article is because I was doing a quick update on what various global bodies were up to with regard to “gender” issues. The OECD, the UN, the EU, the WHO – etc. – as in – popping onto their various sites and perusing the latest “gender” shoite.

ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN.

I won’t bore you with the latest crap emanating from these organisations – but one did catch my eye.

New women leaders institute to be chaired by former Oz PM, By Liz Heron on 20/04/2018

Link here https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/new-women-leaders-institute-to-be-chaired-by-former-oz-pm/

The former Australian prime minister has been appointed to the chair of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, soooooooooo I decided to have a little look see – and – it has a blog

Global Institute for Women’s Leadership – Blog

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/blog.aspx?page=1

First article on the blog is this: Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy – and here we are.

If I was to speculate – I would posit that the level and intensity of anti-feminist and non -feminist content on the internet – blogs, twitter etc. has increased significantly since the election of Donald Trump – and no, I have no opinion re President Trump – it is palpable – as is the level of public support for non-feminist ideas, opinions and commentary – and this more than anything is what is very scary for feminists – especially feminist media.

Shutting down debate, shutting down commentators who say and publish things that are in direct conflict with feminist ‘ideology’ or ‘perspectives’ has now reached ludicrous heights – but the words, horse and barn spring to mind.

People are sick to death of feminist crap, sick to death of the perpetual whining of feminists, sick to death of the never-ending parade of “victims” I know I am.

This is what scares feminists – not being able to control the flow of information, not being in charge of the discourse – hence the manufacturing of ever more ridiculous, and ever more hysterical claims like the title of this article “Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy

Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeze – grow up and stop being such a pair of pathetic crybabies!

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Kimmel: Welcome to The Real World.

 

I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for Michael Kimmel, really, I do – he is doomed. Do I think he is a complete arsehole and full of shit? Yep. Absolutely. But – he is a human being, and from my perspective he is deserving of all the rights of due process that any other human being is entitled to – he won’t get it, but he is still entitled to it. His problem is that he has along with his feminist overlords worked to strip ALL men – all other men – of that entitlement.

Kimmels’ biggest mistake is in believing that as a self-declared male feminist he would be immune from the kinds of witch-hunting that his movement is not only famous for, but has become a parody of itself.

“Revolutions eat their children.” This observation, by a journalist during the French Revolution, was only partly true. In reality, revolutions eat their parents. In particular, history’s left-wing revolutions eat the left-wing intellectuals who made them happen. By “left-wing” here I mean revolutions that explicitly aim to use government power to reshuffle society. To remake society so it matches whatever version of “justice” strikes its promoters as attractive.”

Revolutions Eat Their Parents

https://mises.org/library/revolutions-eat-their-parents

Kimmels’ ticking time bomb of self-destruction and inevitable targeting by feminists is so self-evident, that the fact he has never considered it is a searing example of his innate stupidity.  He has a penis.

Unfortunately, his belief that he had the right kind of penis, a benign, worshipping at the feet of womynhood, let me pierce a hole in it so you can lead me around by a chain, my penis is at your service and command, was and is an exercise in monumental stupidity.

He could have chopped it off, encased it in one of those things that you encase stuff in, presented it to Hilary Clinton, along with his testes dipped in gold and made into earrings, and he was still living on borrowed time.

Kimmel in his stupidity and arrogance and hubris believed he could cook up some, how to build a better man acceptable to feminists, manual/programme/guidebook, whatever, and they would love and worship him forever.

Nah.

Apart from the fact that every single word he has ever written is complete and utter garbage, his problem was and is this.

He wrote about MEN, he took up space, time and oxygen pontificating about MEN.

HE BECAME THE GO TO GUY FOR OPINIONS ABOUT MEN

– and he did it AS A MAN.

He gave them what he believed they wanted, a turgid treatise on men and masculinity, he polished it, honed it, tied it up in a big bow and on his knees, presented them with it and waited for the accolades. He forgot. He is a MAN.

Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was in believing the oft trumpeted, tediously quoted “dictionary definition” of feminism so beloved by feminists who have run out of rational arguments (usually takes about 13 seconds) “feminism is about equality” duh.

He forgot – he is not entitled to define men, to define masculinity, to express an opinion. He forgot, while they would tolerate his views and opinions – for a while – that was never going to last – because those views and opinions were being expressed – BY A MAN. About men.

I read his monumentally stupid statement – his expectation that he would be afforded the due process he has singularly failed to endorse for other men. I rolled my eyes and while I don’t normally talk to myself, the words “you stupid stupid idiot” just popped out.

Whatever belief he has/had that they will treat him fairly, reasonably, or with even a modicum of restraint because of his “feminist” credentials, perhaps this will illustrate for him the absolute futility of believing that.

There are groups, covens, sects of so-called reasonable feminists, the type of feminist who abhors the rabid feral feminists that we all know and despise.

One of them is Laura Kipnis – this is what they did to her. And Michael – she had a vagina.

The feminist revolution is eating its own

https://nypost.com/2015/06/01/the-feminist-revolution-is-eating-its-own/

“The revolution always eats its own. That’s the lesson from a recent essay by Northwestern University’s Laura Kipnis.

Two students were so offended by her article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on why banning romantic relationships between faculty and students was silly that they filed a Title IX complaint against her.

Yes, that’s right, legislation that was originally supposed to combat sexual discrimination in public education and athletics is now being used to silence professors who write essays that contradict progressive wisdom.

The charges against Kipnis were dropped over the weekend, but not before she submitted to what she referred to as her “Title IX Inquisition.”

A law firm hired by Northwestern to investigate at first even refused to reveal the nature of the accusations against her. Lawyers told her they wanted to ask her questions but she wasn’t entitled to have her own lawyer present.”

So, who the hell is Laura Kipnis?

Well, she is a feminist, with a vagina, therefore one would assume she is immune from the worst rabble rousing, chop off her head a la Revolution Francais, style of feminist baying mob tactics!

In 2004 she wrote an article for Slate called “The Anxiety of (Sexual) Influence: Are onetime “unwanted advances” really a feminist issue?”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/03/the_anxiety_of_sexual_influence.html?via=gdpr-consent

In this article she appears to be proposing that the over-reaction by feminists to “unwanted sexual advances” needs to be dialed back – fair enough – she takes a few pot shots at professional victims such as Naomi Wolf who apparently was so traumatized by an “unwanted advance” that:

“Wolf also says this one-time advance by Bloom caused her grades to drop, caused her faith in herself and her work to plummet; it devastated her sense of being valuable to Yale as anything but a sex object, and it corrupted her entire educational experience.”

Hmmmm, while ostensibly Kipnis appears to be advocating for a reasonable and rational response to someone putting the moves on you (you, being a delicate special flower of vulnerable femininity) this comment is much more illustrative of her impeccable feminist credentials.

“Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about cases of ongoing unwanted sexual advances—or threats, or quid pro quo demands—otherwise known as “sexual harassment,” which should be subject to the most severe punishment, including loss of livelihood, property seizure, and potential incarceration. Here we’re speaking strictly of the one-time unwanted advance, as in the Wolf-Bloom contretemps.”

(emphasis added)

THIS is what awaits you Michael, you have been accused of “sexual harassment” and as such you are now………………doomed.

Did you do it? Irrelevant.

Frankly, I have no opinion on that, NONE – because I have not seen any evidence, not been privy to any detail whatsoever with regard to the substance of this accusation ergo, you are innocent of the charge.

Do I still think you’re a smarmy, up your own arse idiot? Yep?

The only “safe space” for Kimmel now is the one “space” he has consistently derided, dismissed and castigated – the Men’s Human Rights Movement.

Take a look Michael.

Michael Kimmel. Just another Harvey Weinstein #MeToo

https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/michael-kimmel-just-another-harvey-weinstein-metoo/

Every last one of them, including your “nemesis” Paul Elam, will defend to the end your right to due process, your right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty – as for the piss-taking, and general glee at the situation you find yourself in – you deserve it – you are an arsehole – but – you are a human being – a male human being – and you have rights – now – lets see you try and exercise those rights.

Methinks, that would be a step too far for Michael Kimmel – he will be bleating, whimpering and sobbing out his continued allegiance to the “feminist movement” as they lead him to the guillotine.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 


 

You can be a feminist OR a Decent Human Being – BUT – You Can’t be Both!

 

 

Its been a while since I’ve had a good ole rant about feminism – mostly over the last few years I’ve just ignored the wretches, better things to do, couldn’t be arsed, not like there are not more than enough capable and committed people out there doing everything in their power to draw attention to the toxic malignancy of feminism in all its forms.

But, shit happens, as they say, and the toxic ingredients of the particular kind of shit that I encounter is absolutely informed by toxic feminist “perspectives” and by the complacency, stupidity, moral laziness and ignorance of those who work in this particular area and those who give tacit approval to the shit.

Anyhoo – here goes. Being a feminist, any kind of feminist, including being unaware that you are a feminist, excludes you from the right to claim to be a decent human being

And no – before all the “well there are different kinds of feminism” crap starts getting spewed out – it is irrelevant whether you are one of the foaming at the mouth, has stopped taking the medication, kill all men, who let this bitch out of her cage feminasty, to the “I’m not a feminist……..but……..I just want ewqual wrights for womens ‘cos men are sooooooooooooooo mean and hworrible….” Femibarbie doll.

Even if you can’t spell F.E.M.I.N.I.S.T , live in a cave, up the top of an inaccessible mountain but deep in your heart and soul know, and I mean KNOW, in your twisted little soul, that your vagina is the gateway to heaven, your possession of ovaries endows you with a ‘special” type of humanity and ergo your needs, whims, passing fancies and desires are to be indulged…………..immediately, then you are a feminist because you ascribe either consciously or subconsciously, by your attitudes and behaviours, to the notion that being female is somehow a privileged type of human being.

If you primp and preen, engage in obvious, in your face MATING behavior (i.e. behavior specifically designed to draw attention to YOUR availability for sex) then scream blue bloody murder because the target of this behavior declines to PAY for access to your magic vagina, with money, access to ALL his worldly possessions, or declines to prostrate himself in worship at your feet, which you will then use to stomp all over him – you’re a bloody feminist, if you shed your clothes at the drop of a hat to highlight nonsensical imaginary “injustices” perpetrated against women – all women, everywhere – no matter what political, economic, social or cultural power these “disadvantaged, victims of global patriarchy’ have, then not only are you a feminist, duh, you’re a gobshoite, an attention seeking, brain dead numbskull with serious mental health issues.

But above all else – if you fit in at any place along this range of dysfunctional behaviours, if you have engaged in ANY form with any of these behaviours then – not only are you a feminist you are a rotten human being.

Because no decent human being sneers at, dismisses, ignores, pours scorn on, tries to bury, or in any way treats the suffering, distress or pain or trauma of another HUMAN BEING as a joke, as irrelevant, as a nuisance.

No decent human being lays claim to being a “special” type of human being, a human being who is entitled to be treated in exceptional ways, based on one and only one criteria – they happen to be a female human being – or  in the alternative – is a human being who has passed the shit test, a shit test whose terms are set by that “privileged” and “special” group of human beings – i.e. feminists.

But, but, but……..(I hear all the nice women say) I am  a decent human being, I’m kind to people, I’m not one of those crazy women ranting about stupid irrelevant shit, I love my father, my brothers, my nephews, my other half – I don’t “do” “believe” or endorse any of that awful stuff.

Really? And no doubt you are all of the above, nice, kind, wouldn’t hurt a fly, give to charity, help old people across the road, teach your children to be kind and courteous etc etc – of that I have absolutely no doubt – I have met and spoken to hundreds of women just like you. Mothers, grannies, aunties, sisters, nieces and friends of………………………..some man up to his eyes in toxic shit.

What characterizes you all, is your total bewilderment and disbelief that there are people, women in the world who are NOT LIKE YOU.

What also appears to be an almost universal trait as well, is a belief that “oh I’m sure the government, the authorities, the Courts, the people in charge……etc. wouldn’t let such horrible things happen!”

These would be the “I prefer to see the good in people” contingent – it is, in my opinion, a form of moral cowardice, a deliberate and conscious CHOICE to screen out any knowledge or real consciousness of the sheer nastiness, corruption, mendacity, cruelty and sheer bloody EVIL that lies at the very core of the feminist belief system, and those who ascribe to it, who take advantage of the privileges it endows them with, who use it as a political, legal and cultural screen and weapon behind which they are safe to act like complete and utter arseholes.

Feminism, in all its manifestations, forms, cabals, covens, types, waves or whatever the hell they want to call or identify themselves as have engineered, created, fed and perpetuated a moral crisis in the world, yes, THE WORLD, because if all social, political , legal and institutional policy is underpinned by an acceptance of any “feminist perspective” and it bloody well is – then it is inherently corrupt, twisted, malign and EVIL and amoral.

So yes, feminism has created a moral crisis that affects the globe, a moral crisis that has allowed, given tacit approval to, endorsed and sanctioned a zeitgeist that DE-HUMANISES one half of the worlds population because they happen to be a particular type of human beings – MALE HUMAN BEINGS.

So, if you are standing by and NOT questioning, querying, looking askance, or even feeling uncomfortable by the underlying hum of toxic gynocentric white noise that permeates every single aspect of global cultural, political, legal and social discourse, on any level – then you are standing by and endorses and giving credence to the perpetuation of this moral crisis.

 

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

Dante Alighieri

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dante_alighieri_109737

 

Slainte

 

Caitlin Moran: A Woman with No Conscience – i.e – a feminist

 

 

I get a lot of stuff coming in on the “Reader” thingymabob on my site (not very tech minded) one popped up yesterday from J4MB about an article by the has-been feminist Caitlin Moran, apparently Moran had something to say about the upcoming abortion referendum here in Ireland. To be honest, I don’t read feminist crap anymore, same shoite different decade, but, I read the excerpt from this.  I do tend to read the comments, if there are any, and invariably, they are very negative towards the “feminist perspective”, obviously peoples bullshit detectors have become more finely tuned. Anyhoo, I went and subscribed to the Times so I could read this piece of drivel. Sigh

If you want to read it, or a synopsis of it, either read J4MB https://j4mb.org.uk/2018/05/12/an-open-email-to-caitlin-moran-columnist-the-times/ or subscribe to the Times

Conclusion: Caitlin Moran is a self-serving, egotistical ignorant, ill-informed attention seeking media whore.

She penned this piece of putrid garbage and the Times published it – therefor it would seem that the Times has no problem publishing ill-informed hysterical and self-serving ego boosting diatribes by has-been feminists.

Particularly when said has-been feminist, true to form doesn’t have even a passing or nodding acquaintance with either the truth or facts – it would appear that “feminist” and “facts/truth” remain mutually exclusive terms.

The gist of this piece of garbage is that Irish women (of which I am one) are living in abject fear and terror, every minute of every day. She appears to be claiming/asserting/breathlessly declaring that all “unwanted” pregnancies are the result of a crime – rape/incest. She also appears to be peddling some ridiculous tripe about ‘respecting motherhood’ !

There is also some sideways attempt to castigate the “country”

“It is a cruel and unusual stance for a country to take – to insist that its women must, legally, grit their teeth and cope with whatever a single crime or mistake hands them.”

“This is not a risky change Ireland considers this week. It does not face potential economic or social peril. It is a small consequence, really: to finally, properly, respect motherhood and women.”

To be honest this garbage is so badly written, that having to wade through it and analyse whatever the hell she is blathering on about gave me a headache. It is a mish mash of hysterical bullshit and ignorant and arrogant unfounded assertions. So, lets deal with facts, shall we.

I’m going to start with “the country” on the basis that it will be Irish Citizens exercising their democratic right to vote, who will ultimately decide whether or not to repeal the 8th amendment which states:

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

This became law in 1983.

On foot of a Supreme Court Judgement in 1992 the goalposts shifted in an extraordinary and unexpected way.

“The Supreme Court rules in Attorney General v X that a 14 year old girl, known as X, pregnant as a result of rape, faces a real and substantial risk to her life due to threat of suicide and this threat can only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy. Therefore, X is entitled to an abortion in Ireland under the provision of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution that requires the State to have “due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”.

The Court does not consider that abortion can be permitted only where the risk is of immediate or inevitable death of the pregnant woman, as this would insufficiently protect her right to life.

The law is now clear that termination of pregnancy should be considered a medical treatment whether the risk to the life of a pregnant woman arises on physical or mental health grounds. Risk to life does not have to be a virtual certainty. But risk to physical or mental health alone is not sufficient.”

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Abortion-in-Ireland-Timeline

In 2013

“July 2013: President Michael D. Higgins signs the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act into law. The Act is intended to implement the 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case and the 2010 ECtHR in the case of A, B and C v Ireland and provide for lawful access to abortion where a pregnant woman’s life is risk. 25 public hospitals are listed as appropriate institutions where a termination can be carried out”

See Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

Chapter 1 Section 7, 8 and 9 deal with situations when a lawful medical procedure may be carried out on a pregnant woman that results in the loss of life of an unborn child.

  1. Risk of loss of life from physical illness

“Risk of loss of life from physical illness

  1. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—”

  2. Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency

“Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency

  1. (1) Notwithstanding the generality of section 7, or any determination made or pending pursuant to section 13 of an application under section 10(2), it shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—”

  2. Risk of loss of life from suicide

“Risk of loss of life from suicide

  1. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—”

In each section, there is no mention of abortion, or of terminating a pregnancy, the phrase used is ‘…….in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended…..’

In the spirit of the Constitutional equal protection given to both the life of the woman and the life of the unborn child, and in compliance with the judgement in the X case, the legislation balances the life of both in certain specified situations and where the life of the mother is in jeopardy allows medical treatment to go ahead lawfully to save that life, even if in the course of that intervention the unborn child dies.  It other words, in those situations the life of the unborn is sacrificed to save the life of the woman.

THAT is the legal situation in Ireland at the present time.

But, apart from the nutcases on either “side” of this issue, what do ordinary Irish Citizens think?

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion

Generally – that abortion should be “allowed” in cases of rape, foetal anomaly, risk to health/life, including suicide. What should be noted is this, that ordinary Irish Citizens, not idealogues, not has-been attention seeking feminists, not political opportunists actually consider this ‘debate’ to be a matter of conscience, they are very conscious of the less than savoury history of this country, the vast majority of Irish Citizens in this country, on this issue want to do what they genuinely believe is the right thing.

So, using scare tactics, misinformation, or penning obnoxious screeds is self-defeating – what this will all come down to is this – is that foetus an unborn human child or not? If so, does that unborn human child deserve the protection of the law?

A tiny miniscule percentage of “unwanted pregnancies” are the result of rape/sexual assault. Of that tiny miniscule percentage an even tinier miniscule percentage of women finding themselves in that situation choose to terminate those pregnancies – the vast majority of these unfortunate women actually choose to give birth and parent these children.

The vast majority of abortions obtained by Irish women in mainly the UK over the period of 2010 – 2015 are obtained for reasons OTHER than that pregnancy being the result of rape/sexual assault.

 

These are the facts 

The RCNI (Rape Crisis Network of Ireland) collects and collates statistics on rape and sexual assault in Ireland, as part of that remit the RCNI also publishes statistics with regard to the number of pregnancies that result from rape/sexual assault.

Those advocating for a repeal of the 8th amendment to Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (Constitution of Ireland 1937) generally use two highly emotive devices to propel this agenda. Scare stories about thousands of Irish women being made to (forced) to carry pregnancies as a result of rape to term, and even scarier stories about Irish women’s lives being in danger if they are pregnant and are refused an abortion – the tragic case of Savita Halapanavar is trotted out, notwithstanding that the official inquiry into this woman’s death concluded she died from failure to diagnose and treat her promptly for Sepsis.

 

“A post-mortem examination was performed on the 30th of October, 2012. The cause of death established by the Coroner’s Inquest in this case in April, 2013 was:

“1(a) Fulminant septic shock from E. coli bacteremia.

1(b) Ascending genital tract sepsis.

1(c) Miscarriage at 17 weeks gestation associated with chorioamnionitis.

(2) There were no co-morbidities”.

The Report Continues

“Sepsis is a common cause of death in the general population. In the United States, sepsis contributes to more than 200, 000 deaths per year. Sepsis is also the most common cause of maternal mortality identified in the UK Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiry (CMACE)2006-2008 report (2011).

Sepsis is a systemic illness that complicates severe infection which is caused by the invasion and multiplication of microbes in normally sterile sites in the body. Sepsis causes a systemic inflammatory response with evidence or suspicion (pending the results of tests) of an underlying infection. When accompanied by evidence of organ/tissue hypoperfusion or dysfunction, sepsis becomes severe sepsis. When severe sepsis is accompanied by hypotension (low blood pressure) despite adequate fluid resuscitation, a patient is considered to have septic shock. Progression from sepsis to severe sepsis to septic shock can occur within hours and correlates with increasing mortality. Early diagnosis and management is essential to reduce the mortality rate.

Sepsis is difficult to diagnose in pregnancy due to the associated natural physiological changes and this calls for efficient assessment and monitoring of the patient by the clinical team to enable them to promptly recognise and respond to the signs of infection and clinical deterioration”.

“Key Causal Factor 1:

Inadequate assessment and monitoring that would have enabled the clinical team to recognise and respond to the signs that the patient’s condition was deteriorating due to infection associated with a failure to devise and follow a plan of care for this patient that was satisfactorily cognisant of the facts that:

→ the most likely cause of the patient’s inevitable miscarriage was infection and

→ the risk of infection and sepsis increased with time following admission and especially following the spontaneous rupture of the patient’s membranes.

Key Causal Factor 2:

Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

Key Causal Factor 3:

Non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock when it was diagnosed. “

Report is here. http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

 

These are the actual figures from the RCNI for pregnancies that are the result of rape – as well as the choices that these women made.

 

2010http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/Pregnancyandsvedition2.pdf

In 2010 1,545 survivors of sexual violence attended Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs). Of these, a small number became pregnant as a result of rape (75 girls and women).

Range of outcomes of pregnancy for survivors attending RCCs in 2010 who became pregnant as a result of rape (%) n = 75

Of the 75 females who became pregnant as a result of rape there were a range of outcomes:

Ten survivors of rape had their pregnancies terminated

Ten survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering

Forty three survivors of rape went to term, gave birth and parent their children

Nine survivors of rape miscarried or had stillbirths

Three survivors became pregnant more than once as a result of rape and had different outcomes in each pregnancy

 

2011http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RangeOfOutcomesOfSurvivorsOfRapeWhoArePregnantAsAResultOfRape2011.pdf

In 2011 2,036 female survivors of sexual violence attended Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs). Of these, 90 girls and women became pregnant as a result of rape.

Range of outcomes of pregnancy for survivors attending RCCs in 2011 who became pregnant as a result of rape (%) n = 90

Of the 90 females who became pregnant as a result of rape there were a range of outcomes:

Seventeen survivors of rape had their pregnancy terminated

Twelve survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering

Forty eight survivors of rape went on to give birth and parent their children

Eleven survivors of rape miscarried or had stillbirths

Two survivors became pregnant more than once as a result of rape and had different outcomes in each pregnancy

See also – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-AR+National-Statistics-2011.pdf

 

2013 – Graph 21: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n = 75

8% of females attending RCCs in 2013 became pregnant as a result of rape. RCNI and RCCs support survivors’ choices, whatever they may be.

The majority of these survivors went on to give birth and parent their children (46%)

25%of the se survivors had their pregnancy terminated

15% of survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering

13% of these survivors miscarried or had stillbirths

1% of survivors became pregnant more than once as a result of rape and disclosed different outcomes for each pregnancy

See also – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-National-Statistics-2013.pdf

 

2014 –  21: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n = 53

Of the female survivors attending RCCs in 2014 who were raped when they were aged eight or over,

8% became pregnant as a result of the rape. RCNI and RCCs create a safe place for survivors to support them in making choices, RCCs support survivors’ choices. Pregnancy outcomes cannot be taken as an indication of survivor choice as the circumstances of those choices, emotionally, legally and financially often constrain rape victims’ freedoms to choose.

The majority of these survivors went on to give birth and parent their children (40%).

26% of these survivors had their pregnancy terminated.

23% of these survivors miscarried or had stillbirths.

11% of survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering.

See also – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-National-Stats-2014.pdf

 

2015 – Graph 21: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n = 53

Of the female survivors attending RCCs in 2015 who were raped when they were aged eight or over, 5% became pregnant as a result of the rape. RCNI and RCCs create a safe place for survivors to support them in making choices, RCCs support survivors’ choices. Pregnancy outcomes cannot be taken as an indication of survivor choice as the circumstances of those choices, emotionally, legally and financially often constrain rape victims’ freedoms to choose.

The majority of these survivors went on to give birth and parent their children (37%).

24% of these survivors had their pregnancy terminated.

11% of rape survivors who became pregnant had their child placed for adoption or fostering.

28% of these survivors miscarried or had stillbirths.

See – http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-RCC-StatsAR-2015-2.pdf

 

See also: Women From the Republic of Ireland Accessing Abortion Services in England and Wales 1980 – 2016

Source: UK Department of Health https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Statistics

The total number of terminations obtained as a result of rape/sexual recorded by the RCNI FROM 2010 – 2015 (excluding 2012)  is c.61

Over the five years when I could find the figures, the average number of terminations obtained per year is 12.

I would posit that the majority of those terminations was obtained in the UK, bearing in mind the official statistics published the UK /government with regard to abortions in England and Wales.

Comparison of Official Statistics of Irish Women obtaining terminations in both the UK and the Netherlands with Official figures of women terminating pregnancies as a result of rape from the RCNI (Rape Crisis Network Ireland)

 

UK                              Netherlands     Total                     RCNI – (Rape)

                                                                                                Termination

2016 – 3,265                n/a                  3,265                           n/a

2015 – 3,451                n/a                  3,451                           13

2014 – 3,735                16                    3,751                           14

2013 – 3,679                12                    3,691                           19

2012 – 3,982                24                    3,996                           n/a

2011 – 4,149                33                    4,182                           11

2010 – 4,402                31                    4,433                           10

 

NB – Figures for 2016 and 2012 (RCNI) not available.

*3982 persons declared themselves residents of the Republic of Ireland in official UK Gov. figures from 2012

Putting these two figures together and comparing them statistically creates a problem – the number of abortions obtained as a result of rape/sexual assault is so small in relation to the number of abortions obtained by women declaring themselves Irish residents that the percentage is minuscule – leading to only one conclusion – of all the reasons why Irish women go to the UK for an abortion – pregnancy as the result of rape/assault is too small to produce a significant percentage.

In every year, of the small numbers of women whose pregnancy was as a result of rape/sexual assault, the majority of those women chose to give birth and parent those children. A brave and selfless decision by these women that I applaud. A decision that took courage and compassion.

To be absolutely fair to those small number of women who chose to terminate these pregnancies? I am genuinely sorry that you felt you had to do this, and I in no way condemn you for that choice. For these women I have no problem seeing or understanding the reasons for their decisions.

What I have a problem with are rabble rousing has been-feminists hi-jacking the genuine traumas of this very small number of women to propel their “abortion on demand” “abortion is a right” bullshit.

Abortion is and should be a medical solution to a medical (and yes I do include psychological trauma) crisis. End of.

A ‘crisis pregnancy’ is a pregnancy that presents a risk to the life and health of the pregnant woman – getting knocked up after a night on the razz is NOT a crisis pregnancy.

Finding out that the baby you’re carrying will not survive, or has such severe foetal abnormalities that the chance of survival is miniscule is a crisis pregnancy.

Finding out that the baby is the wrong gender is NOT a crisis pregnancy.

Anyone who has a problem with either sets of figures can take it up with either the RCNI or the UK government.

If you want a clear picture of Abortion Statistics in England and Wales, from 2012 – 2016 see below:

2012https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/statistics-on-abortions-carried-out-in-england-and-wales-in-2012

2013https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

2014https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433437/2014_Commentary__5_.pdf

2015https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570040/Updated_Abortion_Statistics_2015.pdf

2016https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/abortion-stats-2016-commentary-with-tables.pdf

 

Those are the facts – do with them what you will.

The 8th amendment declares in effect that the life of the unborn child and the woman are of equal value, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 provides that in certain circumstances where those equal rights to life must be balanced against one another, that it is the unborn life that may be sacrificed to save the life of the mother

“On Friday 25th May 2018, you will be asked to vote on a proposal to change the Constitution of Ireland. The proposed change to the Constitution concerns the regulation  of termination of pregnancy.

Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, means that it is lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated only where the pregnancy poses a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. This includes a risk of suicide.

The proposal on 25th May is to delete Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and to insert in its place that

“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.”

(emphasis added)

https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf

So, thats it – “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.” no safeguards, no caveats, no limits, no guidance – the proposed wording allows whoever is in power (on the advice of whoever exerts the greatest influence) to put into place laws that WILL NOT be amenable to Constitutional Challenge – EVER.

So, while Irish Citizens genuinely want to do the right thing and alieviate genuine suffering in certain specified circumstances, this proposed wording will leave unfettered power in the hands of legislators, lobbyists, special interests, and those who demand “special treatment” for only one half of humanity.

Ultimately it will be up to each individual to put their mark beside either Yes or No on the ballot paper, all I would ask is that you follow your conscience, and I will follow mine.

 

Is Mise Le meas

 

Edit: I added another paragraph to this article (a sleepless night notwithstanding) including the text of the proposed replacement wording to the Constitution, because I realised that without this information to consider I would be remiss.

I know from my own experience of discussions with various people over the last few months, that many people are genuinely at a loss as to how to vote, that there are more people who genuinely want to do the right thing than there are loud-mouthed, (some frothing at the mouth) nutcases screaming incoherently for one side or the other.

Repealing the 8th amendment and replacing it with the proposed wording (see above) in NOT the right thing to do – in MY opinion.

 

Schooldays – Best Days of Your Life: Unless Your Parents are Separated and School is just another Battleground.

 

There are 365 days in a year.

Duh! I hear you say – so what?

Well, for most children in Ireland they are required to spend a minimum of 183 days attending school if in primary school (approx. 5/6 years old to approx. 11/12 years old) and 167 days attending school if in secondary or post-primary. (11/12 years old to 17/18 years old)

“Although children are not obliged to attend school until the age of six, almost all children begin school in the September following their fourth birthday. Nearly 40% of four-year-old’s and almost all five-year-old’s are enrolled in infant classes in primary schools (sometimes called national schools). Primary education consists of an eight year cycle: junior infants, senior infants, and first to sixth classes. Pupils normally transfer to post-primary education at the age of twelve.” [1]

Summer Holidays

Schools are required to be open for a minimum of 167 days at post-primary level and 183 days at primary level. School summer holidays are not standardised and schools may use discretionary days to determine the precise start and end of the school year.”

Standardisation of the School Year in respect of Primary & Post-Primary Schools for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20.  [2]

(emphasis added)

“Schools will normally re-open during the week in which 1st September falls. However, the school year may start in the week prior to that in which 1st September falls if this is necessary in order to meet the overall requirement of a minimum of 167 days at post-primary level or 183 days at primary level.

You should check the exact dates with your school.

Easter, Christmas and Mid-term Breaks

The standard breaks at Christmas, Easter and Mid-term in the first and second terms for the 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 school years are available under Standardisation of the School Year in respect of Primary & Post-Primary Schools for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20,”

In other words, children from the age of about 5 years old to 12 years old spend about 50 % of the year in school – generally from about 8.45 am – 3.00 pm.

From about 12 years old to about 17 years old they spend a little less time in school – about 48%

What is the point here?

Well one of the issues facing fathers separated from their children is when they seek to obtain information about their children from their children’s schools – when they seek to exercise their rights as parents and as Legal Guardians of their children. In some cases, difficulties finding out which school their children have been enrolled in. As many fathers will know, its an old trick to yank your children out of their schools and enroll them, without your knowledge or CONSENT in another school to frustrate, disrupt, impede and prevent you, as a father, having a meaningful parental relationship with your child or children.

List of schools in Ireland [3]

A two-fold problem contributes to what can only be described as the intransigence and obstructiveness of the schools (teachers and principals) and a discriminatory attitude to these fathers, with this negative attitude being initially initiated by the mother and then endorsed by the school. This whole toxic attitude towards fathers being fed by a societal and cultural attitude that fathers don’t matter, fathers are NOT “real” parents, and fathers are to all extents and purposes “nuisances” Fathers don’t have rights, even when their own National Organisation INTO tells them otherwise. [4]

“Q. In a situation where parents are separated/divorced are both parents entitled to receive school reports and attend parent teacher meetings?

A. Each parent has a right to be informed of and to attend parent teacher meetings and to receive school reports unless there is a Court Order in place preventing them from doing so. Teachers should attempt to facilitate separate meetings if both parents cannot attend together, and should generally act in a fair and even-handed way in respect of both parents.”

The fact that the question is even asked indicates the mind-set – does it not?

The second overlapping problem is simple – too many schools do NOT believe that they are obliged to recognize the LAWFUL status of fathers as parents and Joint Legal Guardians of their children. Well one father decided enough was enough and took a case to the Equality Tribunal – and won. [5] and [6]

“The complainant had referred a complaint to the Equality Tribunal as outlined above in respect of the enrollment of his daughter in the school and this case was subsequently withdrawn following mediation. The complainant submits that he was victimised following the referral. I note that the Principal informed Ms. A of this complaint and showed her the documentation. It is my view that the Principals actions served no useful purpose other than to cause friction between the parents and to portray the complainant in a negative way. I am satisfied that this treatment together with the treatment in relation to the sports day and the subsequent request for the Court Orders constituted victimisation within the meaning of the above cited section. I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of victimisation.”

(emphasis added)

I strongly suggest you read the judgement, what emerges is evidence of a toxic school environment created, engineered, sustained and fed by the collusion of teachers (mostly female) with alienating mothers.

Another problem identified with regard to boys and schools is that the vast majority of teachers are female – see [7] and [8]

In Ireland, we have the same skewed demographic in our schools. From:

Press Release Women and Men in Ireland 2013: Irish women are more highly qualified and work fewer hours. [9]

Economic sectors: Over a third of women at work in Ireland in 2012 were working in the health and education sectors. Women accounted for four out of five employees in the health sector and three-quarters of those at work in education. The sectors with the highest proportions of men in 2012 were construction, agriculture and transport. In primary education 85% of teachers are female while 68% are female at second-level. However women are not well represented at senior levels: 44% of primary school managers, 41% of second-level school managers and 37% of medical and dental consultants are women. (Tables 2.7, 4.7, 4.8 and 5.14).”

As you can clearly see, in both primary and secondary school’s female teachers outnumber male teachers to the extent that the percentage of male teachers isn’t even worth calculating.

Naturally enough a sideways swipe at gender equality “issues” is included – almost by default. Sigh.

“…….However women are not well represented at senior levels: 44% of primary school managers, 41% of second-level school managers……”

Ye Gods – don’t know about you but am sick to death of this shoite – boo hoo wimmin don’t get the big jobs – sniffle, whine and sob – “I’m not the boss because………………….men are mean”

First, and using the bloody CSO’s own figures – 44% of women are school managers! Eh hello – while not exactly being a math’s genius, even I can see that 44% is only 6% LESS than 50%. In effect, almost PARITY. Almost HALF.

Second – 41%! Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuze – again – if it was a meagerly 12% or even say 23% there might – and I mean MIGHT be some cause for a few questions – but 41% – grow up!

What is almost ironic is that contained in the same press release is the REASON for this miniscule disparity

“Irish women are more likely to have a third-level qualification than men. More than half of women aged between 25 and 35 have a third-level qualification compared with just over four out of ten men, according to the report Women and Men in Ireland 2013, published by the CSO today. Men work longer hours than women in paid employment.

Irish women, along with women from France, have the joint highest fertility rate in the EU. Boys are more likely to leave school early. Men have a higher rate of employment but also a higher rate of unemployment. Men are more likely to be in the labour force and those looking after home/family are overwhelmingly female. Most workers in the Health and Education sectors are women while most workers in Agriculture, Construction and Transport are men. Most murder victims are male and the vast majority of the prison population is male. Ireland is the ninth highest among EU27 countries for gender equality.

Employment: The employment rate for men in Ireland stood at about 76% in recent years but in 2009 it dropped sharply to 66.8% and continued to decrease over the next three years to reach 62.4% by 2012. However in 2013 there was an increase in the male employment rate to 64.6% followed by another rise in 2014 to 65.7%. The female employment rate reached 60.6% in 2007 before dropping to 57.6% in 2009 and it continued to decrease over the next three years to stand at 55.2% by 2012. The last 2 years have seen a small rise in the female employment rate to 55.9% in 2014.

Men worked an average of 39.2 hours a week in paid employment in 2013 compared to 31.2 hours for women and married men worked longer hours than married women, with close to half of married men (44.1%) working for 40 hours a week or more compared to just 16.8% of married women. (Tables 2.1, 2.8 and 2.9).

Unemployment: The unemployment rate for men in Ireland was about 5% in recent years but in 2009 it increased dramatically to 15.3%, followed by further rises over the following three years to reach 18.1% by 2012. There was a drop in the male unemployment rate in 2013 to 15.9% and another decrease in 2014 to 13.8%. The female unemployment rate, which stood at about 4% in recent years, also increased strongly to 8.3% in 2009 and continued to rise over the next four years to reach 11.4% in 2013. However the female rate of unemployment decreased in 2014 to 9.9%. The younger age groups have been most affected by unemployment, with approximately three out of ten men and two out of ten women aged 20-24 unemployed in 2013. (Tables 2.11 and 2.12).”

(emphasis added)

My general default response to whiny females complaining about not being the top dog in whatever area of employment is this – STFU – if you want to be in charge, for example, the Taoiseach, The President, whatever – here’s how you do it:

MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO VOTE FOR YOU THAN THE OTHER CANDIDATES!

If they DON’T vote for you then the reason is simple – THEY DON’T WANT TO! GOT IT? GOOD – now STFU.

Anyhoo – moving on.

So, what to do if the school your child(ren) is enrolled in is run by a gate-keeping dragon?

First, while it is reprehensible that a parent, simply because that parent is male has to prove to these witches that he IS a parent, do it.

Step 1. Get your child(rens) birth certificates. If you are or were legally married to the mother of your child(ren) get your marriage certificate as well. Having these is incontrovertible PROOF that you are, Constitutionally and Statutorily your child(ren) Joint Legal Guardian. [10]

Step 2. If you were not married to the mother of your child(ren) the situation is more complex unless you have an Order of the Court grating you Guardianship. [11]

Step 3. Print off a copy of Schools and family law: In Touch January/ February 2004. [4]

Formally write to the school, enclosing copies of the above (do not send them the original of the certs) and request that you be directly supplied with all reports etc with regard to your children. Give them the standard 14 days to comply.

Step 4. I strongly suggest, that you only include a copy of A Father v. A School (represented by Hugh J. Campbell & Co.) File Reference: ES/2013/092. [5] if the school digs its heels in and starts being obstructive.  There should be absolutely no need for you as a parent to be expected to junp through hoops to “prove” anything – nor should you as a parent be put in a position where you have to grovel  or repeatedly ask for information to which you are lawfully entitled to with regard to your own children.

For those you are now up in arms about fathers “threatening schools with legal action” I suggest you read the judgement, and take on board this:

How do think most fathers get to be excised out their children’s lives? Because the mothers of these children TAKE LEGAL ACTION to ensure that this is what happens.

If the same amount of time, money and energy was expended on reaching a Shared Parenting Agreement as is spent on this toxic exercise then these statistics would not be the norm:

The solution is SHARED PARENTING. [12]

“Shared Parenting

Is there a country with a working and effective model of Shared Parenting? Yes – Shared Parenting works so amazingly well in Sweden:

Here are some details from a presentation by Malin Bergström from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Malin’s powerful presentation showed how Sweden has, in the space of just 20 years, transformed the landscape for shared parenting. She reported that:

approximately 40% of separated parents share care 50:50, higher amongst younger children

the majority have shared care arrangements where each parent has at least 30% of parenting time

shared parenting arrangements continue to grow strongly year-in-year-out

14% of family disputes are resolved  through mediation and above all…

just 2% were resolved through courts!

Her presentation also demonstrated the considerable health benefits to children of Joint Parental Care arrangements.

Her comment on the day was “If one of my friends did not share parenting equally after separation, I would find that weird.”

How quickly can we or rather the more ponderous UK government get there? We live in hope, but the writing may be on the wall.”

Does shared parenting positively affect children? Yes.

There is a wealth of expert literature which repeatedly demonstrates that shared parenting benefits children in a huge variety of ways:

  • ‘…children in joint custody are better adjusted, across multiple types of measures [including emotionally and behaviourally], than children in sole (primarily maternal) custody.’ (Bauserman, 2002)
  • Joint legal custody is not a requirement to achieve better adjustment, but children need to spend a ‘substantial’ amount of time with their non-resident parent. (Bauserman, 2002)
  • Children with non-resident fathers highly involved in their lives have lower levels of delinquent behaviour as adolescents. (Coley & Medieros, 2007)
  • “Children in separated families fare best when they have close contact with each of their parents and all the important adults in their lives, including grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and family friends. And co-parenting by both mother and father should be the norm, except when issues of safety are involved.” (Layard & Dunn, 2009)
  • “On average, children are less likely to fail at school or suffer depression the more they see their separated father.” (Layard & Dunn, 2009)
  • Children who spend nights at their father’s and mother’s houses have ‘few social problems’ and ‘fewer attention… and thought problems.’ (Pruett et al, 2004)

Bauserman, R. (2002). Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review.  Journal of Family Psychology. 16(1): 91-102.

Coley, R. & Medieros, B. (2007). Reciprocal Longitudinal Relations Between Nonresident Father Involvement and Adolescent Delinquency. Child Development. 78(1): 132-147.

Layard, R. & Dunn, J. (2009). A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age. London: Penguin Books.

Pruett, K., Ebling, R. & Insabella, G. (2004).  Critical Aspects of Parenting Plans for Young Children. Family Court Review, 42(1): 39–59.

Are fathers just as important as mothers in a child’s life? Yes.

“Fathers are no less important than mothers in a child’s life. The closeness of fathers to their children influences the children’s later psychological well-being, even after allowing for the mother’s influence. If fathers are more closely involved with their children, other things being equal, children develop better friendships, more empathy, high self-esteem, better life satisfaction, and higher educational achievement, and they are less likely to  become involved with crime or substance abuse.”

Layard, R. & Dunn, J. (2009). A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age. London: Penguin Books.

From the Families Need Fathers website at https://fnf.org.uk/

NB I edited the text slightly without changing the content.

See this by Richard Warshak [13]

“To assess where science stands on the issue of shared parenting and overnights for young children, I spent two years reviewing the relevant scientific literature and vetting my analyses with an international group of experts. This work, published in an American Psychological Association journal, was endorsed by 110 leading researchers and practitioners.

Here are the two main conclusions: First, shared parenting should be the norm not just for children whose parents live together, and not just for older children, but also for children of all ages whose parents live apart from each other. Children need a father, not an uncle-daddy. Second, if we want to give children the best chance for normal relationships with their fathers, limiting fathering time to daytime hours until children enter kindergarten is not the way to do that.

To be sure, shared parenting is not for all families after divorce. But there’s a general consensus that it is good for many of them.

If we value dad soothing his fretful baby at 3 a.m. or reading “Goodnight Moon” to his toddler while the parents are living together, why deprive the child of these expressions of fatherly love just because the parents no longer live together, or just because the sun has set?

Richard A. Warshak, PhD, is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and the author of “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report” and “Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing.”

(emphasis added)

One of the objections to enforcing Shared Parenting as the default presumption is logistical – the “moving children back and forth” argument.

Actually, ALL of the current, legitimate and properly conducted research absolutely endorses Shared Parenting in situations where the parents don’t live together – in effect – a Shared Parenting arrangement IS – In the best interests of the child, which is the mandatorily required consideration to be applied in custody cases:

See Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015 Part V “Best Interests of the Child [14]

63. The Act of 1964 is amended by the insertion of the following after Part IV:

“Part V: Best interests of the Child: Determination by court of best interests of child.

Section 31 (j)

“(j) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, and to maintain and foster relationships between the child and his or her relatives;”

(emphasis added)

I have emboldened the most important words – bearing in mind this – these words are not aspirational, not subject to whether or not the obstructive parent is “in the mood” to co-parent. These words form part of a LEGAL requirement to be WILLING – and by your behavior and actions to FACILITATE and ENCOURAGE.

So, manufacturing conflict, creating “access” (I hate that word) difficulties, being intransigent, unco-operative, attempting to sabotage, damage or disrupt the other parents “close and continuing relationship” with his child (ren) is something the Court is OBLIGED under the statute take into consideration.

All this broo ha ha about “moving children back and forth” is a smokescreen, a cynical exercise in parental obstruction.  Any reasonable parent, who recognizes that children need both parents as parents can cut the crap, stop creating unnecessary difficulties and make it work – FOR THE CHILDREN.  It’s the attitude of these gate-keeping toxic mothers that is the problem, nothing else.

Let’s go back to the school calendar at the beginning:

Print out a calendar – make out the weeks when the children are in school, mark out the holiday periods and any other special days and sit down like two grown-ups and work out how to share the time as equally as possible between you.

If she’s being a total bitch – do it yourself and present the Shared Parenting Schedule to the Court.

What tends to work the best is one week with one parent, one week with another – if the parents live in reasonable close proximity to one another.

This shoite about kids missing out on friends etc. – this is the 21st century – kids make friends in school – then make arrangements for “playdates” in one another houses. Usually one parent picks the little rug-rats up, brings them home, they go mental for a few hours then their respective parents come pick them up.  Then the host parent has a small nervous break-down.

Or kids go to various activities – usually after school – where they have another group of friends – after this activity the kid is picked up by the parent and home we go.

What the hell is the big deal? What bloody difference does it make if one or the other parent brings the kids to dancing, to football, to whatever it is the child is involved in.

Because here’s the thing – when two parents are together, what happens is this – they each take turns bringing the kids to their activities i.e. you bring them to the swimming pool on Wednesday and I’ll bring them to the football match on Saturday.

Or, little Michael and Michelle need to go to the dentist on Friday after school, I have to go do something so you pick them up and bring them.

NOT A BIG DEAL – is it?

It only becomes a big deal when one parent is determined to excise another parent from his child’s life – then all these normal everyday parent/child things becomes a HUGE deal.

The ONLY reason for creating a big hoo hah over this (bearing in mind the child gets to go to his/her activity and gets to go on playdates with his/her schoolfriends) is the ridiculous need of one parent to “be in charge” of EVERYTHING including removing any possibility of a father having a normal boring day to day parent child relationship – dentist, swimming, football, homework, pizza in front of the TV (only on Fridays 😉) brush your teeth, do your homework, pick up your toys, stop picking on your younger brother, what do mean you need an octopus costume for school TOMORROW – usually announced at bed-time. Normal. Parent. Stuff.

So, working out the “logistics” is bloody straightforward – if you click on the Standardisation of the School Year in respect of Primary & Post-Primary Schools for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 link up above, you’ll note that the school calendar is more or less set till 2020!

You know when the all holidays are for the NEXT THREE YEARS! You know when your kids are in school for the NEXT THREE YEARS.

Summer – 8 weeks – 4 weeks each – options are multiple. 4 straight weeks each. 2 weeks with one parent, 2 weeks with the other parent in any bloody combination that suits both the parents and the children’s summer activities. WORK IT OUT.

Easter – two weeks – simples – one week each.

Mid- term breaks – share them.

Christmas – kids get about 2 weeks holiday – the significant days are, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and St. Stephens Day. (Boxing Day in the UK)

Simples –

Year 1 Christmas Eve from 5pm to Christmas day at 3pm.  Parent 1

Christmas Day from 3pm to St Stephens Day at 3pm. Parent 2

Year 2 just bloody swap it around – work out the rest of the holiday REASONABLY.

Shared Parenting is not only workable it is essential – FOR CHILDREN.

MAKE IT WORK.

 

Personal message to women creating conflict and difficulties.

Get over yourselves – stop being a selfish self-centered bitch and put your children FIRST!

To the friends, besties, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers and anyone who knows one of these bitches – shame on you if you are standing by and letting this wretch destroy the lives of these children.

Do something, say something.

 

If any fathers out there would like to share (or publish) their stories, feel free to contact me – I moderate all comments, so just post a comment with a valid email address and we’ll take it from there. If you don’t want your comment published, just say so and I will respect your wishes.

I’m particularly interested in hearing about father’s negative experiences with solicitors practicing in Family Law – one of the things that I would like to highlight is the lack of familiarity certain Family Law Practitioners seem to have with the provisions of the Code of Conduct in Family Law Matters [15]

Or the requirements of Order 59 of the Circuit Court Rules. [16]

 

 

Slainte.

 

 

References

 

[1]  https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Primary/

[2] https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0009_2017.pdf

[3] List of Schools in Ireland

https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Data-on-Individual-Schools/Data-on-Individual-Schools.html

[4] Schools and family law: In Touch January/ February 2004

http://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/ParentTeacherRelations/ParentalSeparation/FamilyLawArticle.pdf

[5] DEC-S2014-018:Equal Status Acts 2000-2012

A Father v. A School (represented by Hugh J. Campbell & Co.) File Reference: ES/2013/092

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/October/DEC-S2014-018.html

[6] http://www.thejournal.ie/equality-tribunal-school-discrimination-separated-father-2396939-Oct2015/

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8DDbE4I8Ig

[8] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

[9]http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2014pressreleases/pressreleasewomenandmeninireland2013/

[10] https://www.birthsdeathsmarriages.ie/certificates/birth-certificate/

[11]http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/guardianship_status_of_fathers.html

[12] https://fnf.org.uk/publications/shared-parenting-research

[13] https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/26/divorce-shared-parenting-children-health/

[14] http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/section/63/enacted/en/html

[15] Code of Conduct: Family Law in Ireland.   https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/committees/family/family-law-handbook-2017.pdf

[16]Order 59 Rules of the Circuit Court http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/1cca506f57cc910480256d940064796c?OpenDocument

 

 

In The Best Interests of the Child: How The Courts Get it Wrong. Part 2.

 

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

Charles de Montesquieu January 18, 1689 – February 10, 1755 [1]

 

Ostensibly we have laws that purport to treat “…all persons equally before the law…” these laws are enshrined not just in the domestic legislation of common law jurisdictions [1] (Ireland, the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand to name but a few) but in international Human Rights Instruments [2] that are applicable in these individual States and Nations.

But, while it may appear that the protections of the law apply to all persons equally, the reality is different. Part of the underlying problem is, in my opinion, a reliance on assumptions, on myths, on what Dr. Linda Neilsen comprehensively rebutted in her study, (see Part 1). Further, that by default, International Rights Instruments explicitly state, to paraphrase, that children have the right to a meaningful PARENTAL relationship with both their parents, that both parents have “parental equality” by default, and Joint Physical and Legal Custody is the optimum way for parents to exercise those default equal parental rights  – yet,  sole physical custody continues to be granted to mothers, and even in cases where joint physical custody is granted, the parents are still categorized into “the primary carer” and the other or secondary parent with this secondary parents parental status characterised as “access” as “contact” as“visitation”

“My review of 54 studies on shared parenting finds that, independent of parental conflict and family income, children in shared physical custody families—with the exception of situations where children need protection from an abusive or negligent parent—have better outcomes across a variety of measures of well-being than do children in sole physical custody. Knowledge and understanding of these findings allow us to dismantle some of the myths surrounding shared parenting so we can better serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no longer living together.”

(emphasis added)

Presumptions, Assumptions and Cultural Language – v – Rights Language.

No doubt, as many fathers have found when participating in “legal proceedings” in particular Family Law proceedings there is a unique language and vernacular used – not only that, there is a distinct method by which decisions are reached – (Ratio Decidendi)[4] but, for many lay litigants (which is usually the case with fathers seeking “access” to their children) this “Ratio” is incomprehensible gobbledygook, legalese and goes completely over their heads.

Part of the reason for this is because (in my opinion) the judicial atmosphere is clouded by the use of presumptions, assumptions and cultural language skewed towards a distinctly female perspective and this dictates the parameters of the judicial decision making process – in other words – the language of Rights, both parental and children’s rights is obscured in favour of taking a cultural framework approach – and – without a doubt, that cultural framework, and its language is informed by a particular ideology that has no place in the decision making process that affects the long term wellbeing, safety, and welfare of children.

The rights of children get subsumed under an ideological toxic cloud of rhetoric and mythologies about “motherhood” that serves only the interests of the person manufacturing that toxic rhetorical cloud and usually her equally ill-informed and ideologically driven counsel. (say no more)

Children’s Rights

The most obvious question is of course – do children have rights?

It might seem and appear to be a ridiculous question, but, when it comes to Family Law proceedings in this jurisdiction in particular (Ireland) and in other common law jurisdictions the default paradigm through which judicial decisions are made is NOT that children have distinct rights as autonomous human beings, but that those rights are and can only be exercised with the consent of and co-operation of a litigious parent, whose very actions in making applications for sole custody and/or limited “access” to the other parent is a stance that quite clearly indicates that the child “in dispute” most certainly does not “have rights’ distinct and separate from that parent.

Giving sole custody to mothers who present as opposed to “access” who seek to limit the amount of real time “access” fathers get to spend with their children, who go to court demanding that the court endorse and sanction them with a “gate-keeping” role in the exercise of a full and meaningful parental relationship for fathers and their children should be immediately presumed as a violation of the fundamental principles of “equal parental rights” enshrined in CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 24 – The rights of the child

  1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

  2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

  3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.

 

Article 7 – UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child)

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or  her parents.

Article 9

1 States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

2 In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3 States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to   maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

(all emphasis added)

Mothers who persist in objecting to, obstructing, litigating against “access” should be immediately be viewed as suspect and in particular, being, not only in violation of the above mentioned provisions of law but if either “sole custody” is sought or a “gate-keeping” role in relation to “access” is sought, it should be presumed to be a deliberate intention to breach NOT JUST the parental rights of the other parent (the father) but the children’s rights under the provisions of the above mentioned Instruments.

Unfortunately, the Courts tend to only pay lip service to the concept of children’s rights, and while judges may make a passing reference to “the right of child to ………………., it gets lost under the blanket of toxic ideological fog generally created by the obstructionist, conflict generating, gate-keeping parent – in most cases – the mother.

The Illegitimacy of the Concepts of “Access to”, “Contact with” and “Visitation with” Your Children

Bearing in mind that it is the Right of the Child to “to know and be cared for by his or  her parents….” and the Right of the Child to have and “to  maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis,” I would argue that ANY application by any parent grounded on a curtailment of, reduction of, infringement of the full exercise of those rights BY THE CHILD, is ab initio unlawful, fundamentally flawed and in breach and violation of he provisions of Article 24.3 of CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, and is in breach and violation of Article 9.3 of the UNCRC.

I would also argue that any application to curtail, limit, disrupt and/or impose conditionality, or to award a “gate-keeping” parental authority to one parent over the other parent is also ab initio a fundamental breach and violation of, in this jurisdiction (Ireland) the provisions of:

Article 40

1 all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

Article 42a

1 the state recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

 4 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings–

i brought by the state, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudically affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

The question is, what is the underlying cultural and societal fundamental hindrance to achieving a just outcome FOR CHILDREN, when their parents no longer live together?

Answer.

Myths about women – assumptions and presumptions presented as a de facto credible basis’ for skewing “custody” to women and “access’ to men.

Bit of an aside here. I took a little look see around the internet to see what the feminists were up to, what was pushing their buttons in the here and now.

Was like Deja vue all over again – same shoite different year.

Housework???? Still whining about housework. Wage gap???? Really? Notwithstanding that this particular myth has been comprehensively discredited. I Have no intention of addressing these issues – they have been more than adequately addressed by other writers and bloggers. Though the housework thing is beyond ridiculous.

I read a few studies – and nope, couldn’t be bothered giving a link – in a nutshell, the impression created was that wimmin were, to all intents and purposes working their fingers to the bone slaving over steaming tubs of water using washboards to do the laundry. Sigh.

Guess what. Two hours ago, I threw a wash into the machine, took me all of 30 seconds, 20 minutes ago, at grave physical risk and danger, I pulled the laundry out of the washing machine and fecked it into the dryer – can hear the dryer from where I’m sitting, at my laptop, writing this.  Though, the 30 seconds it also took to feck the laundry into the dryer has me only exhausted! I may need funding for a support group to be set up so I can “share my feelings” about how random men all over world “oppressed” me for a full minute!

Seriously though.

This language of “oppression” and martyred motherhood” needs to be unpicked, rebutted, discredited – in Court – and on a basic fundamental level.

Yep – I know it sounds nit-picky but think about it – “Primary Carer” being a case in point.

Childhood lasts approximately 18 years (legally speaking that is) – the first 4 – 6 years being what I suppose could be called labour intensive – that is before this putative child goes to school., with the first two years being the most labour intensive. By which stage most children are walking, eating grown up food, possibly starting to become toilet trained. By two years old, the vast majority of children are in a routine – i.e. they go to bed by 7ish pm and they sleep till 7ish am.

In other words, by the time they’re two their routines are predictable, manageable and equally able to be carried out by BOTH or either parent(s).

But, because of the promulgation of the myth of martyred motherhood, Courts continue to give credence to this discriminatory concept of “Primary Carer” based on the notion that there are some magical, extraordinary things that women can do that men are not only incapable of doing but are genetically handicapped (by being men) from ever being able to do.

The biological reality is this – there is only one thing, and one thing only that women can do and men can’t – breast-feed. And any reasonable person will tell you, that breast-feeding is unnecessary beyond maybe 8 – 10 months (babies have teeth at this point)

Conclusion

In order for States that are signatories to the ECFRF (European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and on individual domestic “equality” legislation to be IN COMPLIANCE with the provisions of these documents there MUST be a presumption of Joint Legal and Physical Custody of children.

There MUST be a presumption that the child is entitled to a full, meaningful and EQUAL relationship with BOTH parents, with NO CONDITIONALITY other than practical and logistical matters to make co-parenting work with the minimum of stress FOR THE CHILD.

Any parent who creates conflict around implementing a co-parenting arrangement, causes difficulties, creates obstacles should be the one sanctioned – including a loss of parenting time, and in extreme cases – loss of Joint custody, until to be blunt SHE cops onto herself, puts the child’s needs before her own selfish need to be “in control” to “set the rules” to “dictate the parameters of the other parents role” and yes I did use the word “she” deliberately – because it is nearly always “she” who causes, creates and manufactures the conflict.

Family Law judges have allowed themselves to be bullied, to be manipulated, to be hood-winked – and to be blunt – when presented with what is referred to as a “high-conflict” custody case to be emotionally blackmailed by the perpetrator – the mother, invariably.

In effect – absent mitigating factors (real credible and evidence based) Sole Custody Orders are, in my opinion – Unconstitutional, (Ireland) and in breach of the provisions of the ECHR and ECFRF.

TPAC (Toxic Parental Alienation Conflict) perpetrated by one parent against the other parent, the visible manifestation of which ARE these applications for sole custody, ARE applications for restricted “access” for the other parent, constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce parenting time, and in extreme cases loss of Joint Custody for the parent making these applications.

I draw your attention to the provisions of Section 63 of The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, [6] at ;

(i) where applicable, proposals made for the child’s custody, care, development and upbringing and for access to and contact with the child, having regard to the desirability of the parents or guardians of the child agreeing to such proposals and co-operating with each other in relation to them;

(j) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, and to maintain and foster relationships between the child and his or her relatives;

(k) the capacity of each person in respect of whom an application is made under this Act—

(i) to care for and meet the needs of the child,

(ii) to communicate and co-operate on issues relating to the child, and

(iii) to exercise the relevant powers, responsibilities and entitlements to which the application relates.

(emphasis added)

 

Part 3: In The Best Interests of the Child: Review of the Case Law.

 

References

[1] Charles de Montesquieu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Montesquieu/

[2] http://guides.law.sc.edu/c.php?g=315476&p=2108388

[3] European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

European Convention on Human Rights https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

UNCRC http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

Ireland and the UNCRC https://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/ireland_and_the_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf

[4] Ratio Decidendi http://lib.oup.com.au/he/Law/chew2e/chew2e_BLG2_chapter1.pdf

[5] Irish Constitution 1937 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/en.cons.pdf

[6] The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/section/63/enacted/en/html

Previous Older Entries