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

Advertisements

In The Best Interests of the Child…..Getting it Wrong: A Pyrrhic Victory Creating Conflict to “Win” Custody of Children. Part 1

 

 

How women manipulate the legal system and rely on judicial ignorance, judicial reliance on faulty and unsupported assumptions and “mother myths” to sever, disrupt, poison and damage Father/Child Relationships by creating a toxic conflictual environment, (which for convenience I will refer to as Toxic Parental Alienation Conflict TPAC)I contend that it isn’t the manufactured “conflict” that damages children the most – it is losing their Fathers through Family Law Judges relying on and applying the above mentioned judicial ignorance, faulty research and unsupported assumptions and “mother myths”  in judicial decision making in contested “custody” cases that causes the worst outcomes for children.

In effect – Family Law Judges who make custody decisions “in the best interests of the child” by allowing TPAC to influence erroneous decisions to award “sole custody” to the mothers creating the TPAC and “limited” or “supervised access” to Fathers are entrenching, endorsing and supporting the continuing negative psychological damage being inflicted on children.

How? By giving TPAC mothers permission to continue to cause psychological damage to children BY PREVENTING THESE CHILDREN FROM HAVING A FULL MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FATHERS.

To reiterate – it isn’t the “conflict” that ultimately causes the most damage to the children – it is losing their fathers.

Which is not to say that that the TPAC isn’t damaging – it is – but there are two negative processes interacting here – children being used as pawns in TPAC, and the RESULT of children being subjected to TPAC – losing their Father – and yes, I acknowledge that mothers have also been the victims of TPAC – but the vast majority of parents being targeted are Fathers.

The Nature of Conflict

It is, for want of a better expression, human nature to disagree with or dispute the opinions, views or positions of other people – we are betimes in conflict with the stated opinions of other people, we express that disagreement and put forward an alternative opinion and/or view. We debate. We argue.

My mother used to say “it would be a boring world if everybody agreed with everybody else all the time” and I concur. No doubt you have all either been involved in, or observed two people in heated exchanges – usually because there is passionate disagreement – if one is unable to convince the other of the validity of your point of view, despite your best efforts, the normal adult thing to do is to “agree to disagree”

On a more mundane everyday level, human life is peppered with small micro disagreements, small incidents of conflict – I want to watch Babylon 5 (Duh!) someone else wants to watch Top Gear (Huh!) ooops – conflict. The solution is glaringly obvious……………for grown ups that is. Get another bloody television.

The point is human life is about conflict, disagreements, disputes, large, small and microscopic – we manage them, we resolve them, usually on the fly and we MOVE ON. This happens in all human relationships – ALL – including parental relationships – obviously some parental relationships are more argumentative, more tetchy, more conflictual than others – but – in the context of those parental relationships, the issue isn’t and shouldn’t be about the level of parental conflict BETWEEN the parents – the issue is – are the children dragged into these conflicts and how do the courts view this “conflict”

There is of course another more insidious underlying process in play – in TPAC the conflict is manufactured, engineered, deliberately instigated, for one purpose and one purpose only – to sever the parental relationship between the child/ren and the targeted parent – usually the father, and the children are manipulated into becoming involved in, part of, and enmeshed in this manufactured “conflict”

The fact that there is “conflict” in particular where one parent is actively engaging in behaviour’s that disrupt, prevent, impede and/or damage the other parents relationship with his child/ren, is actively seeking judicial endorsement of a curtailment of the other parents relationship with his child/ren is, in my opinion an immediate red flag – and should be. Any parent who demands that the Court sanctions and endorses a “gate-keeping” role, authority, position over the other parents relationship with his children is immediately suspect.

I’m going to pause here for a moment for a little aside and quote from Re-examining the Research on Parental Conflict, Coparenting, and Custody Arrangements: Linda Nielsen Wake Forest University: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2017, Vol. 23, No. 2, 211–231

Empirical Basis for the Conflict Hypothesis

The assumption that, unless parents have a low conflict, cooperative relationship, the children will fare more poorly if they have frequent contact with their father or if they live in a JPC family seems to have originated from five studies in the 1980s. Twenty five to 30 years ago when these studies were conducted, it was generally assumed that children benefitted most from maximum mothering time while their parents lived together, as well as after they separated. From this perspective, restricting the children’s time with their father would have a less negative impact than exposing them to the parental conflict. The assumption was that, unless the parents had a friendly, low conflict relationship, the more time fathers and children spent together, the more conflict would likely arise. These beliefs are reflected in custody laws which have historically restricted children’s time with their fathers to every other weekend and occasional vacation time (DiFonzo, 2014). The earliest of the five studies (Johnston, Kline, & Tschann, 1989) garnered nationwide attention when cited in Wallerstein’s bestselling book on divorce (Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000) to support the view that,

Joint custody arrangements that involve the child in going back and forth at frequent intervals are particularly harmful to children in a high conflict family. Children who are ordered to traverse a battleground between warring parents show serious symptoms that affect their physical and mental health. The research findings on how seriously troubled these children are and how quickly their adjustment deteriorates are very powerful. (Wallerstein et al., 2000, p. 215)

Wallerstein’s books received national media attention for well more than a decade (Kirn, 2012). Prioritizing conflict and recommending against JPC or frequent “visitation” unless conflict was low gained further momentum in books written for family court and mental health professionals (Garrity & Baris, 1997; Hodges, 1991; Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Stahl, 1999). Johnston et al. (1989) was a pioneering study that for many years was misinterpreted and cited as evidence that joint physical custody was only suitable for parents with little to no conflict. Given its longstanding influence and the fact that its author (Johnston, 1995) has expressed regret about how the study has been, and continues to be (e.g., Shaffer, 2007) misunderstood and misused, it merits careful attention.”

NB JPC means Joint Physical Custody.

A summary of Dr. Neilsen’s research is available here and the full text of her research paper is here. Dr. Neilsen reviewed 54 studies conducted over an extensive period of time, including the one quoted from above, which has been relied on extensively to support SPC (Sole Physical Custody) decisions and more importantly, the assumptions that Family Law Judges use and are consistently trotted out to support SPC arrangements – Dr. Neilsens research empirically discredits (in my opinion) ALL previous assumptions in relation to SPC decisions, and the erroneous and flawed thinking upon which those decisions have, and continue to be made with regard to the custody of children.

From:

10 Surprising Findings on Shared Parenting After Divorce or Separation: Linda Neilsen

  1. In the 54 studies—absent situations in which children needed protection from an abusive or negligent parent even before their parents separated—children in shared-parenting families had better outcomes than children in sole physical custody families. The measures of well-being included: academic achievement, emotional health (anxiety, depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction), behavioral problems (delinquency, school misbehavior, bullying, drugs, alcohol, smoking), physical health and stress-related illnesses, and relationships with parents, stepparents, and grandparents.
  2. Infants and toddlers in JPC families have no worse outcomes than those in SPC families. Sharing overnight parenting time does not weaken young children’s bonds with either parent.
  3. When the level of parental conflict was factored in, JPC children still had better outcomes across multiple measures of well-being. High conflict did not override the benefits linked to shared parenting, so JPC children’s better outcomes cannot be attributed to lower parental conflict.
  4. Even when family income was factored in, JPC children still had better outcomes. Moreover, JPC parents were not significantly richer than SPC parents.
  5. JPC parents generally did not have better co-parenting relationships or significantly less conflict than SPC parents. The benefits linked to JPC cannot be attributed to better co-parenting or to lower conflict.
  6. Most JPC parents do not mutually or voluntarily agree to the plan at the outset. In the majority of cases, one parent initially opposed the plan and compromised as a result of legal negotiations, mediation, or court orders. Yet in these studies, JPC children still had better outcomes than SPC children.
  7. When children are exposed to high, ongoing conflict between their parents, including physical conflict, they do not have any worse outcomes in JPC than in SPC families. Being involved in high, ongoing conflict is no more damaging to children in JPC than in SPC families.
  8. Maintaining strong relationships with both parents by living in JPC families appears to offset the damage of high parental conflict and poor co-parenting. Although JPC does not eliminate the negative impact of frequently being caught in the middle of high, ongoing conflict between divorced parents, it does appear to reduce children’s stress, anxiety, and depression.
  9. JPC parents are more likely to have detached, distant, and “parallel” parenting relationships than to have “co-parenting” relationships where they work closely together, communicate often, interact regularly, coordinate household rules and routines, or try to parent with the same parenting style.
  10. No study has shown that children whose parents are in high legal conflict or who take their custody dispute to court have worse outcomes than children whose parents have less legal conflict and no custody hearing.

These findings refute a number of popular myths about shared parenting. One among many examples is a 2013 study from the University of Virginia that was reported in dozens of media outlets around the world under frightening headlines such as: “Spending overnights away from mom weakens infants’ bonds.” In the official press release, the researchers stated that their study should guide judges’ decisions about custody for children under the age of four. In fact, however, the study is not in any way applicable to the general population. The participants were impoverished, poorly-educated, non-white parents who had never been married or lived together, had high rates of incarceration, drug abuse, and violence, and had children with multiple partners. Moreover, there were no clear relationships between overnighting and children’s attachments to their mothers.

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.

Dr. Linda Nielsen is a professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University. She has written numerous articles on shared parenting research and is frequently called upon to share the research with legislative committees and family court professionals. For copies of her research articles contact nielsen@wfu.edu

So, TPAC creates, manufactures, engineers and feeds the conflict, damaging the children subjected to it, and the Courts sees this “conflict” and award SPC to the perpetrator, the instigator, the manipulator, further causing psychological distress and damage to these already burdened children, and the circuit is complete.

The alienator has achieved her object – destroyed the relationship between the children and his/her father, and basking in the glow of victory, sweeps out of Court with a smirk – the children are……..collateral damage. She won!

Family Law Judges believe they have achieved a “reasonable and just outcome”………………..in the best interests of the child.

Feminists, their twisted acolytes and enablers cheer yet another victory over “the patriarchy” and all’s well with the world, alternatively they pen this rubbish. Sigh. I know.

From: “… HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM” THE GOVERNANCE OF GENDER THROUGH CUSTODY LAW Author(s): VIVIENNE ELIZABETH, NICOLA GAVEY and  JULIA TOLMIE Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 26, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 239-260 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

“In Anglo-Western countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, state interventions to “assist” parents who cannot agree on postseparation care arrangements are informed by the welfare principle, better known by the seemingly simple phrase “the best interests of the child.” As others have pointed out, the welfare principle is notoriously indeterminate; what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation (Boyd 2003,2004,2006; Collier 2006; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Fineman 1988; Kaganas and Day Sclater 2004; Rhoades 2002, 2006; Smart 1997; Smart and Neale 1999a).

Partly as a result of attempts by a global fathers’ rights movement to reassert entitlements to children, the welfare principle is currently defined in terms of an ongoing relationship with both parents. This understanding of a child’s best interests is associated with a shift to joint legal custody, which accords the rights and in theory the responsibilities of parenthood to both parents irrespective of the nature of their relationship, and the rise of joint physical custody—a situation that includes a wide variety of care arrangements for children, all of which generally involve children spending time in the physical care of both parents.

In Australia and an increasing number of U.S. states, emphasis is placed on equal shared parenting, which entails children spending approximately 50:50 time in the physical care of each parent.

In this article, we treat the intervention of custody law, framed by both custody legislation and the actions of various family law professionals, including judges, lawyers, mediators, psychologists, counselors and social workers, in the lives of separated parents as an instance of the governance of gender (Brush 2003).”

Though one of my favourite quotes from this “research” is this:

“Indeed, Rekha Mirchandani (2006) on the basis of her research on a domestic violence court in Salt Lake City, Utah, claims that state institutions can be transformed into feminist regimes that challenge “male dominance in the home” by undermining men’s prerogatives in relation to their partners and children.”

The irony of the authors use of the words “entitlements” and “men’s prerogatives” has not escaped me, nor you I would imagine.

So, “best interests of the child” is to all intents and purposes the new mantra of Family Law Courts, notwithstanding the authors of HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM” THE GOVERNANCE OF GENDER THROUGH CUSTODY LAW………etc  contention that “……what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation…….”

“In Anglo-Western countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, state interventions to “assist” parents who cannot agree on postseparation care arrangements are informed by the welfare principle, better known by the seemingly simple phrase “the best interests of the child.” As others have pointed out, the welfare principle is notoriously indeterminate; what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation (Boyd 2003,2004,2006; Collier 2006; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Fineman 1988; Kaganas and Day Sclater 2004; Rhoades 2002, 2006; Smart 1997; Smart and Neale 1999a).”

Actually – it isn’t – in contention – by legitimate unbiased and responsible persons working in the area of child welfare. But, feminists do so love their vague wishy washy, woozly, “what the hell is she talking about” “research” “I’m just going to pull a load of figures out my ass and present them as legitimate research to support whatever twisted and ideologically driven “theory” I have subscribed to”

Nor, I might add, is it a vague and ephemeral concept in law.

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

Part 2 on Monday.

 

 

 

Rory Hearn on Austerity

“Ireland’s austerity ‘success’ is no model for Greece

GREECE is being told to follow Ireland’s crisis solution of harsh austerity and acceptance of bank-and-bailout debt. This narrative conveniently ignores that the Irish ‘recovery’ has been built on major human rights violations and the undermining of long-term social and economic development.

Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments.

There is a dark side to Ireland’s ‘success’ that requires discussion about the most effective responses to financial and fiscal crises.

The eight austerity budgets between 2008 and 2014 involved €18.5bn in public-spending cuts and €12bn in tax-raising (revenue) measures. Key public services, in particular health and housing, have been weakened as a result.

Public service staff have been reduced by 10% (37,500). Health spending has been cut by 27% since 2008, resulting in an 81% increase in the number of patients waiting on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments. One-third of all children admitted to hospital suffering with mental-health difficulties have been put in adult wards and the waiting lists for youth mental-health services have increased to 2,818 people.

Funding for local authority housing was cut from €1.3bn, in 2007, to just €83m, in 2013. This meant a loss of 25,000 social-housing units. This is a major contribution to the homelessness crisis, with 1,000 children and 500 families now living in emergency accommodation in Dublin. Because of the decision to prioritise bank recapitalisation and developer debt write-down, homeowner mortgage arrears have escalated.

There are 37,000 homeowners in mortgage arrears of over 720 days, and legal repossession notices were issued to 50,000 homeowners.

The cuts to welfare have had devastating impacts.Affected areas include lone-parent supports, child benefit, youth payments, fuel, back-to-school clothing and footwear, rent supplement, and disability and carers’ allowance.

But charges were introduced where they did not exist before — putting a further burden on lower-income households. These charges are ‘regressive’, in that they were not tailored to income level. These include water, property, school transport, prescription, A&E and chemotherapy charges. Fees have effectively been reintroduced at third-level (increasing from €1,000 to €3,000). This will have major implications for participation rates from lower-income households.

Funding for local community development, youth organisations, drugs prevention, family support, and to combat rural and urban disadvantage was disproportionally hit. Programme funding was reduced by 50%.

We are likely to see the long-term social impacts of these cuts in the further exclusion from the labour force of youths in disadvantaged areas. Issues of drugs and crime will surely worsen.

An EU report on the impact of austerity showed that the quality of secondary- and primary-level education has also been reduced, with fewer teachers, rationalisation of teacher/student support services, and the abolition of school grants.

The report links early school-leaving to austerity measures, which are highly concentrated in low-income areas. This, along with the cuts in funding to third-level, will seriously damage our education system, the core of the country’s economic development.

Hundreds of thousands of families and children have been pushed into poverty. The child-poverty rate rose from 18%, in 2008, to 29.1%, in 2013.The deprivation rate increased from 26.9%, in 2012, to 30.5%, in 2013, while for lone-parent families it has risen to 63%. Food poverty affects 600,000 (up 13.2%). Austerity has also devastated rural areas and small towns, with unemployment levels remaining much higher in the south-east.

In one of the most disturbing pieces of research into the impact of austerity, UCC and the National Suicide Research Foundation found an increase in self-harm rates of 31% in men, and 22% in women, between 2008 and 2012, while the male suicide rate is 57% higher (that’s 500 additional deaths). They cited a number of factors, including reductions in public expenditure, cuts to welfare, substantial healthcare cuts, falling house prices and personal debt.

Capital expenditure on important public infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, roads, transport, broadband, water and wastewater was drastically reduced, by 60%, between 2008 and 2014.

Such spending on infrastructure is the bedrock of sustainable and competitive economies, and the lost decade of investment in these will leave Ireland’s economy much more vulnerable into the future.

Don’t forget, also, €17bn of our national pension reserve — which was available to fund infrastructure development and future pensions — was put into the bailout.

The commitment by Irish governments to pay all the bank- and crisis-related debt will damage our long-term social and economic development, and result in ongoing crises in health, housing, and mental health, and in rising poverty and inequality. This is because funding that should be going to these much-needed public services will, instead, be going on debt interest payments. Debt interest payments rose from €2bn (3.4% of tax revenue), in 2007, to a staggering €7.5bn, or 18% of all tax revenue, in 2014. These interest payments will enforce a form of permanent austerity in the coming decade.

Then, there is the often-forgotten issue of forced emigration. Almost 10% of Irish young people emigrated during the recession and emigration worsened as austerity intensified. It rose from 20,000, in 2009, to 50,000, in 2013. Without emigration, the unemployment rate would be 20%.

Finally, almost half of Ireland’s dramatic increase in GDP is from multinational activity, which does not take place in Ireland.

Thus, much of Ireland’s growth is based on facilitating some of the most profitable global corporations and financial services in reducing the tax they otherwise would have to pay to countries across the world. This is an unethical, unfair, and ultimately unsustainable form of economic activity.

It is clear, as highlighted by a recent assessment by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, that austerity hit the most vulnerable and marginalised the hardest in Ireland. But there was, and remains, a choice about how countries such as Ireland and Greece, and the Troika, respond to debt and financial crises. Debt relief is an important option, as is taxing the wealthy, financial services or higher incomes, rather than taking it from public services, the poor and middle-income earners. The Troika and Irish governments favoured the latter and we can see the human misery and economic damage caused, as a result.

The Irish austerity-and-recovery model is being misrepresented on the international stage and should not be followed by Greece or other crises countries.

The Irish case actually points to the human and economic necessity of debt relief and alternative approaches to fiscal crises.

Dr Rory Hearne is a lecturer in the department of geography and faculty of social sciences at Maynooth University

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved”

 

 

 

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/irelands-austerity-success-is-no-model-for-greece-340662.html

 

 

 

 

 

My Note – What he said 🙂

Knowledge – v – Information

 

 

We live in an information age apparently; everything about everything is available literally at the tips of our fingertips. Yet – we know very little about anything worthwhile.

Let me try to explain.

Information is merely the flat shallow recitation of what is or isn’t as the case may be, knowledge is a multilayered, multifaceted deep understanding of why and how something is or isn’t.

Information can be manipulated, manufactured, corrupted and twisted to suit a particular purpose – knowledge requires looking beyond information, dissecting information, peeling back layers of information to reveal the source and motivation of the giver or disseminator of that information.

Information merely requires the passive acceptance of this flat, hollow and carefully constructed edifice of “facts” “theories” and “analysis” knowledge demands a more proactive challenge to this “information” acquiring knowledge means being willing to look beyond the surface and question so called “truths” or “facts”. Acquiring knowledge means being willing to discard information, reject the validity of information, including information upon which one has built one’s external place in the vast sea of humanity and the internal psychological scaffolding we have constructed to allow us to navigate and filter all the information, both sensory and otherwise that bombards us continually.

Setting our internal filters to accept only those pieces of information that maintain this internal psychological scaffolding in place allows us to sail through our lives without ever having to challenge ourselves, make ourselves uncomfortable or question the very basis upon which we anchor ourselves in the here and now.

Knowledge requires an inner journey fraught with peril to our carefully constructed psychological scaffolding – information allows us to coast through life, both external and internal, without questioning the journey, the destination or the means of travel.

I have been pondering on several clichés that seem to have acquired deep purchase into the zeitgeist and are expounded with monotonous regularity. One of which is that “life is complicated” bizarrely pointing to the technological advances and hyper technology within which modern societies conduct the business of human interaction. As if, the more “hi-tech” a society is, it follows that this society is also extremely complex and “advanced”

Actually “modern” society is savage, superficial, tawdry and shallow – the driving impetus behind the vast majority of “modern” societies is greed, selfishness, vanity and egotism – hardly what one would call “advanced” not from a human evolution perspective that is.

Look around you – what do you see?

A world of mass consumerism, a vast sea of humanity almost permanently attached to some piece of “technology” that most have no clue about how it works (including me by the way) waves of “information” pouring out from this “technology” and embedded in all this “information” carefully crafted “messages” designed to mould and steer the consumers of all this “information” in a certain way – passively.

Let’s just take a moment to reflect on something rather bizarre – 100 years ago – not actually that significant an amount of time historically speaking, human beings, despite the more environmentally perilous nature of society were actually healthier. Mentally and physically.

Yes, I know – infant mortality was high, life span was shorter and life was tougher – I am not disputing that in western societies infant mortality has plummeted and life span has grown longer – nor am I disputing that living has become less an exercise in survival and more an exercise in staving off boredom – for some.

Now, compare the technological advances to the actual state of humanity.

100 years ago people were striving to improve not just their physical environment but their intellectual environment – there was a seething desire to know – to understand – to learn.

Today? Hmmmm.

When the doings of an intellectually challenged nitwit “celebrity” invariably female, dominate all sources and avenues of “information” and the hysterics of yet another coven of brain dead females about the shirt a scientist who has just achieved an amazing technological feat is wearing is deemed of more importance than said scientists achievement – then you know – you must know that humanity has been and is not evolving – but de-evolving.

Let’s go back to the original premise of this piece for a moment – the difference between knowledge and information.

All of the great thinkers of humanity have invariably been male – note to feminists – shut up whining and pay attention.

As I said – all the great thinkers of humanity have been male – from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas to Emile Durkheim and Emmanuel Kant – and they addressed that eternal question – to paraphrase – the meaning and purpose of life (yes – I know it’s more complicated than that) in effect the big questions.

But – before they did, they spent many years in study and reflection and contemplation – they spent time thinking, acquiring and testing information to achieve knowledge.

What is significant to note is that, not only the ones I mentioned above but many many more produced what are referred to as seminal works – the distillation of the knowledge they had strived to acquire. Invariably one or two works of such significance that the content is still being discussed today.

Time to mention feminism (did you all think I’d forgotten about the toxic influence of feminism?)

If there is one thing that distinguishes feminism from all if not most “theories” or “belief systems” it is the sheer volume, the unending deluge, the unabated outpourings of unadulterated crap that feminism has produced. A positive avalanche of ……………………verbal diarrhoea, and it never stops, does it?

And all of it on one singular topic – being female. A biological accident of birth over which no-one has any control. One is either born male or female and that is out of the hands of either of the two human beings who contributed the genetic material to create this new human being.

But – before we get off track – the question to be asked is – why the need for such a deluge of “information”? Why the need to keep regurgitating and spewing out the same “information” over and over and over again?

Simples. To hide the paucity of knowledge and insight into the human condition in this deluge of “information” to disguise the shallowness and superficiality of feminist “theories” and of course to deaden and neutralise any desire to question all of this crap by its sheer weight and constant and interminable repetition.

There is of course another agenda in operation – for almost six decades the western world has been inundated with this crap (feminism) in order to deflect attention away from another agenda – the neo-liberal agenda to consolidate and bring under the control of global entities all the worlds resources, including controlling the flow of all this “information”

Feminism is and was the perfect vehicle through which to exert this covert social, political and cultural control – because if there one thing feminism is good at, in fact is excellent at – it is spreading stupidity, passivity, damping down intellectual curiosity, numbing the desire for knowledge, narrowing the psychological filters of a human being to such an extent, that only the carefully constructed “messages” get through.

It sounds like feminism is a bigger player in all this than it really is – yes and no – feminism is merely the mask, the vehicle, the delivery system – but it did harness, corrupt and twist deep seated impulses embedded within human beings in order to find purchase in the cultural and political frameworks of western societies.

Sounds like it’s all over for humanity doesn’t it?

No, it isn’t. Human beings are naturally endowed with curiosity, with a desire to know – why? How? Human beings are also naturally endowed with an inbuilt bullshit meter – you can deaden it, you can trick it, you can even turn it off in some people – where they will in effect literally believe anything – and I mean anything – you tell them.

But – as someone once said:

“You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”

The second thing to note is this – I believe that human beings also have a deep-seated desire to move forward, to improve, to harness and understand the positive and find ways to defeat and diminish the negative – be it poverty, hopelessness, despair – but above and beyond all that, human beings have an almost visceral need and desire to be part of a community of human beings.

Both feminism and neo-liberalism working in concert have elevated the cult of the individual and the cult of selfishness and self-absorption to epic levels.

Neo-liberalism emphasises and lauds the separation and disconnectedness of human beings – the dog eat dog mentality – and feminism emphasises the inward looking, egotistical, shallow and vapid female-centric world view that creates an imbalance, a toxic fracture in human relationships, solidifying and entrenching the neo-liberal agenda – it has become a vicious circle.

Yet – both these agendas emanate from a small elite of persons exercising social, cultural and political control over a larger majority upon whom this control rests.

The thing is – the vast majority of people are actually “not like that” selfish, avaricious, egotistical, shallow and mercenary.

Now – don’t get me wrong – yes indeed huge numbers of people exhibit those kinds of behaviours, and particularly some women, those behaviours have been assiduously encouraged and cultivated, nor am I excusing or justifying those behaviours – but – it goes against the grain for some of them – they are acting out their social conditioning – following their programming – consciously and deliberately to be sure.

What is feeding this behaviour, what is creating the conditions, the societal and cultural conditions that allow this behaviour to prevail is a manifestation of the deliberate and conscious fracturing of the bridge between information and knowledge.

Acres and acres of information filling up every corner of the human psyche in a never-ending stream, layers and layers of data, of “facts” of “slogans” of “theories” of “messages” with no pause.

Ask yourselves – is there any time during the course of your day when you are not being bombarded with “information”? TV, Radio, Internet, iphone, magazines, newspapers, you name it.

I personally don’t watch television or listen to the radio, except in the car – I use the internet to access only a few things, mostly for research but I do have some sites and blogs that I visit regularly – I don’t use facebook or twitter and I certainly don’t feel deprived or starved for “information”

As far as I can see – most of the “information” out there is complete unadulterated crap, and I have zero interest in it.

With regard to feminism – this last year has seen a definite and accelerating souring of attitudes to feminism and feminists, and because of the innate stupidity of the vast majority of feminists they have countered this turning away by becoming even more toxic and insane (if that was even possible)

My personal feeling is that the conversation has moved on – humanity is moving on – or at least is struggling to do so – the tactics of feminism merely indicates a frantic desire to pull everybody backwards – to drag the conversation back down into the cesspit of feminist control.

With regard to the neo-liberal agenda, the other side of the toxic social control coin – this is actually being thrown into stark relief here in the Republic of Ireland – we are literally trapped in the grip of this agenda in an unrelenting and vicious cycle.

But – they have gone too far here – they have awakened a sleeping beast – every day more and more people are waking up and rejecting the programming – all the programming – including feminism – over the last couple of months I have met and spoken to one feminist – every other female I have spoken to has vehemently rejected feminism – in quite trenchant language I might add J

What is very significant is that alongside this awakening is a renewed enthusiasm for knowledge, for understanding, and for putting into context raw information, rather than simply accepting and internalising this “information” undigested, unquestioned and unchallenged.

Because of its intertwined relationship with the neo-liberal global agenda feminism is also coming under more intense scrutiny – a process that began to gather momentum with the advent of the internet and is now unstoppable.

If I had one wish it would be this – disengage from the trivial, unplug yourselves from the never ending conduit of asinine and pointless “information” streams – including endless TV and create space, time and silence for the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

You don’t have to know every tiny inconsequential detail of every tiny inconsequential event that happens in the world, but if you allow yourself to think, to challenge yourself then you can begin to see that most of frenetic activity around you is pointless and is merely a ploy to engage you in said activities to distract you from the broader picture then from there you will see the patterns of control emerging from the shadows – if you can see it – you can begin to disengage from it.

 

Slainte

 

We Had A Dream…….Once

 

We had a dream once – as a nation – we dreamed of freedom, we dreamed of shaking off the yoke of tyranny and oppression.

We dreamed that we could lift our heads up, reclaim our heritage and step forward into the future as a sovereign nation of equals.

On 24th April 1916 a declaration was made on the steps of the GPO in Dublin – it was addressed: To Irishmen and Irishwomen, and it spoke of our aspirations, of our heartfelt wish to be free.

“We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the last three hundred years they have asserted it to arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.” [1]

(emphasis added)

Today almost 100 years later that dream lies in ruins, we do not control our own destiny, we are not free, and our people are suffering, our young people are leaving, creating not just an impending demographic crisis, but a State where the pool of “taxpayers” is far too small to sustain even the most basic level of services. We are getting a taste of what that is like right now as we speak – but – it will get worse. Unless we change it.

“Youth organisations in Ireland are warning that the number of young people emigrating could be devastating for the country’s economy.

On Wednesday, they will meet politicians in Dublin to demand that more is done to tackle the problem.

Around 300,000 people have left the Republic of Ireland since 2009 – many of them young and looking for work – and tens of thousands more say they are also likely to leave unless the economy starts to improve.” [2]

Because that’s all we are now, taxpayers – not citizens, not human beings – TAXPAYERS – merely a means to an end – and the end is to keep the coffers of the rich and the privileged filling up.

EMIGRATION is tearing families apart and creating a new generation of lonely older people in Ireland, a charity has claimed.

Irish charity ALONE says it has seen an increase in the number of older people at an all-time low as a direct result of their children and grandchildren emigrating.

The charity’s claims follow news last week that a record number of Irish workers under 35 are set to move to Canada after more than 10,000 Canadian visas were made available this year.

ALONE CEO Sean Moynihan said: “We have even received calls from the emigrants themselves asking us to check on their older relative.

“The children and grandchildren of Ireland’s older people are emigrating in droves, leaving behind a large huge increase in the number of older people requiring our services because their support systems have disappeared.”

EU figures show Ireland now has the highest level of emigration in Europe.

The latest Central Statistics Office figures show almost 250 people leave the country daily – one person every six minutes.” [3]

We will become a grey nation, and how will we treat our elderly citizens, those who cannot just up and leave? Well, we already have a pretty good idea of how this State already treats our elderly citizens. Our elderly people are forced to lie on hospital trollies for hours, awaiting treatment.

“You see my mother has been lying on a trolley since Wednesday morning and as I write this on Thursday afternoon, she is still there.

She’s not alone, there are dozens of others who’ve been waiting even longer.

Lourdes is a hospital from hell but don’t blame the staff. How they cope with what is a never-ending crisis is beyond belief.

But they do and because they do, the scoundrels who have failed to end this misery will allow it to continue.

Maggie Flanagan will be 94 next September and is paralysed on her left side following a stroke last year.

She led an exemplary life and raised five children alone. The youngest was just three when my father died in 1964.

She never drank nor smoked and was forced to go out to work to keep us alive and to get us through school. She was the model citizen who certainly did the State some service.

Now this great Republic can’t provide her with a hospital bed.

Maggie was brought to the Lourdes from St Mary’s nursing home suffering from pneumonia and the antibiotics were having little effect.

She is now lying on a trolley less than one metre away from a woman who is constantly coughing up phlegm.

Yes, we Irish certainly know how to look after our old folk.” [4]

Our water is and has been for many years undrinkable [5] in some parts of the State, never mind that in fact we don’t even own our own water anymore.

“During 2013 There were 57 Boil water notices and 12 Water restriction notices active in 16 Counties affecting 35,831 people. By comparison, in 2012 suppliers issued 42 Boil water notices and water restrictions affecting approximately 50,000 consumers. By The end of 2013, 19 Boil Notices and 8 Water Restriction Notices In 12 Counties remained in place affecting over 17,000 people. Notices can apply to all or part of a supply and last from several days to several years depending on the scale of works necessary to solve the issue.

In some cases notices are precautionary in nature due to inadequate treatment or failure of the disinfection system, whereas in other cases notices are put in place because E. Coli or Cryptosporidium Is detected. Also, several of the water restrictions relate to the presence of lead pipes.

Appendix 5 Provides a list of the notices in place during 2013. As Of 11 December 2014, There were 23 supplies on Boil Water Notices Affecting a population of 23,297 And 15 Supplies on Water Restrictions Affecting a population of 4,071. The Majority of the population affected by these current boil water notices are in County Roscommon and they relate to Cryptosporidium risk.” [5]

We have a housing crisis in the midst of a glut of housing lying mouldering in unfinished estates littering this land, we have children going to school hungry, and young men in crisis, in despair take their own lives rather than face another day. We have bankers awarding themselves massive bonuses while a soup kitchen – a SOUP kitchen in Sligo is forced to close. [6]

We have lurched from one crisis to another, we have watched in horror as tales of abuse and maltreatment of our most vulnerable citizens have been told, we have seen with our own eyes as corruption and malfeasance in the highest levels of government has gone unpunished, in fact we have seen the architects of our destruction awarded, been given yet more opportunities to destroy this country.

On that April day in 1916, a startling declaration (for that time) was made – we pledged allegiance to an as yet unarticulated concept – a concept that would take another 40 or so years to find purchase in the wider world – the concept of Universal Human Rights.

“The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally……..”

It would be 50 years before another martyr on the altar of Human Rights also declared – I Have a Dream. Dr. Martin Luther King said to the American people, and it resonates today for us.

“I say to you today, my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.” [7]

100 years ago WE had that dream – that dream has become a nightmare.

Next year in 2016 we will have an opportunity to remind ourselves of the dream our forefathers and mothers had – a nation, free of tyranny, a nation that cherishes its citizens, ALL its citizens, a nation that can hold its head up and face into the future bowed but not beaten, hopeful not hopeless, willing to put aside petty differences and ancient rivalries and embrace once more that dream.

We have been betrayed, we have been lied to, we have been almost brought to the brink of destruction by those whom we trusted, those whom we should have been able to depend on to steer us through the oft times turbulent waters of our history. Now, we the people are being forced to pay the debts of those who caused that destruction, who brought this calamity upon us – we are paying with our young people, we are paying with our tears, we are paying for the privilege of being crushed, being impoverished, made homeless, driven to despair and hopelessness.

If we could but embrace that dream again – a dream of a nation where all its citizens are valued, where that declaration that acknowledged the fundamental tenets of Universal Human Rights – that all Human beings have intrinsic worth and value – that the only requirement to be vested with Human Rights is to be a Human Being.

We’re not just taxpayers, we’re not just faceless economic units, we are Human Beings, we are Irish citizens. We’re not a faceless multitude of “burdens on the State” – we ARE the State – WE are The Republic of Ireland

Our worth as Human Beings is not dependant on whether or not we are toiling away to pay off debts we did not incur, to fund the lifestyles and cynical ambitions of corporations and greedy developers, to line the already bulging pockets of avaricious businessmen.

Being poor is not a character flaw – being rich on the backs of the poor IS. The late great Nelson Mandela said:

“Over coming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice it is the protection of fundamental human rights. Everyone everywhere has the right to live in dignity. Free from fear and oppression. Free from hunger and thirst and free to express themselves and associate at will” Nelson Mandela [8]

We had a dream once – we had hope, we had a future, our children had a future and we were willing to fight for that future – our future has now been mortgaged – our children’s futures have been sold.

The resources to fund our services were signed away in order to satisfy an agreement made in the dead of a cold September night in 2008 to save the skins of crooks and gombeen men.

But – we have as a nation survived much worse – we have endured – we are still here – our people have gone out in the world and done extraordinary things – we refuse to give up.

We will not give up – we cannot give up – we have a destiny to fulfil, almost 100 years ago we had a dream, the time has come to make that dream a reality, to build a nation that;

“……guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally……..”

In our national anthem [9] the last line of the 1st chorus – in English says

“we’re children of a fighting race, that never yet has known disgrace, and as we march the foe to face, we’ll sing a soldiers song”

The foe we face is among us, the enemy is inside our gates – 100 years after we articulated our dream of being free we will have an opportunity to reclaim that dream, to start again, to fulfil our destiny.

My fellow Irish men and Irish women, and all those who call this land home, in the words of Dr. Rory Hearne from NUI Maynooth;

“A century after rising up and (partly) freeing itself from hundreds of years of colonization and associated enforced famine and oppression, Ireland has once again become a colonised state. Its sovereignty and the dignity of its people, its natural resources and public assets having being handed over to financial and corporate capital (big business) by the Irish political establishment and management classes.

From Irish water, publicly owned land, to the Corrib gas field in Mayo, our fisheries, our wind, motorways, housing, welfare job supports, community services, public transport, health services – they are all already, or are in the process of, being privatised and sold off to the control and ownership of private corporations and their wealthy owners. The most grievous forms of re-colonisation and abandonment of the principles of the Republic took place when the Irish people bailed out domestic banks, developers and the European financial system.

As a result, the people suffered massive austerity and the national debt has reached the point whereby a fifth of all tax revenues are now paying debt repayments rather than much needed public services. People are being evicted from their homes and made homeless or suffering from exorbitant rent and mortgage repayments in order to satisfy the profit seeking of the banks (including state owned AIB), and this is being worsened as NAMA and the government enable international property vulture investment funds to buy up swathes of Irish homes and land, irrespective of the short and long term social impacts. The Euro financial system and associated treaties such as the Fiscal Treaty have removed much of Ireland’s sovereignty.

For example, Ireland is restricted in its ability to borrow or increase investment in vital public services and infrastructure because of EU Treaty and Euro financial rules. Germany and the core European countries are dictating the imposition of austerity across all countries.

How is Ireland still a sovereign, independent, country in this context? How can the will of the Irish people be expressed and translated into practice through their democratically elected government? In a way, Ireland has become a neo-colony of neoliberal capitalism, US multinationals and the EU.” [10]

Dr. Martin Luther King articulated the only answer possible for both us and any nation that finds itself crushed under the heels of faceless bureaucrats, corporate bullies and sycophantic politicians.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.”

We must once more become “a risen people” and throw off this new yoke of oppression and tyranny and throw out those who enabled it.

From Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (Constitution of Ireland)

Article 6

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.”

(emphasis added)

It is time. It is way past time we took back what was taken from us – squandered, given away, sold – “ownership of Ireland, and [to] the unfettered control of Irish destinies

 

 

References

[1]Poblacht Na hEireann

http://www.irishfreedomcommittee.net/HISTORY/1916_Proc.htm

[2] Irish youth groups warn of emigration crisis 29 May 2013

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22698740

[3] Ireland’s new ‘lonely’ generation as emigration increases By Siobhan Breatnach on March 25, 2014

http://www.irishpost.co.uk/news/irelands-new-lonely-generation-one-person-leaves-ireland-every-six-minutes

[4] Pat Flanagan: Kenny’s response to our A&E shambles is truly sick

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/news-opinion/pat-flanagan-kennys-response-ae-5241354

[5] From the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Drinking Water Report 2013

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/drinking/Drinking%20Water%20Report%20Web.pdf

[6] Soup kitchen in Sligo forced to close over toilet red-tape; Tuesday, December 16, 2014

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/soup-kitchen-in-sligo-forced-to-close-over-toilet-red-tape-302677.html

[7] I have A Dream – Dr. Martin Luther King.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1951-/martin-luther-kings-i-have-a-dream-speech-august-28-1963.php

[8] Nelson Mandela – make poverty history.

http://www.makepovertyhistory.org/extras/mandela.shtml

[9] National Anthem – Abhrán na bhfiann/A Soldiers Song

http://www.irish-folk-songs.com/irish-national-anthem-lyrics-chords-and-sheet-music.html

[10] The Irish water war, austerity and the ‘Risen people’; An analysis of participant opinions, social and political impacts and transformative potential of the Irish anti water-charges movement; Dr Rory Hearne, Department of Geography, Maynooth University, April 2015

https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/assets/document/TheIrishWaterwar_0.pdf

Straighten Up and Fly Right Lads – You’re doing it Wrong – Tut Tut!

 

Apparently Kathy Gyngell was a bit taken aback at the less than positive reaction to her post “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind” so she posted another article in response to the………………….response(s).

Bear with me for a moment while I indulge in a wee rant.

For the love of all that’s good, would you drop the patronising, condescending “mother knows best” crap and GET this – feminism is merely the visible face of a toxic female mindset – GYNOCENTRISM –a toxic mindset that has morphed its way through several manifestations – each one becoming progressively more and more poisonous and spreading throughout and within ALL levels of society and culture – including ALL institutional, administrative and political structures.

There is no part of civil or political society that has not been corrupted, poisoned and tainted by this – INCLUDING marriage, family, education, the legal system, the media, and male/female relationships.

Slapping a smiley face on the CURRENT structures of civil and political society and going “there there, all fixed now” is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. Then expecting men to trot obediently back into the fold because a WOMAN now tells them that all is well, we can all go back to the way we were.

BULLSHIT!

We can never go back – we must never go back – we need a new conversation – not ludicrous attempts to relaunch the same shoite that caused the problems in the first place – unbridled GYNOCENTRISM.

Okie dokie – now I’ve got that off my chest – lets delve into Ms. Gyngell’s latest offering.

“Kathy Gyngell: Sexodus anger needs to be channelled before it explodes” By Kathy Gyngell Posted 27th April 2015

http://conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-sexodus-anger-needs-to-channelled-before-it-explodes/

Right out of the gate Gyngell assumes a “I’m shocked and hurt that you’re angry with me, when I was only trying to point you in the right direction” stance – coupled with a nicely subtle dash of condescension – note the use of the word “coo”

“‘Coo’ is pretty much my response on reading the 255 record number of comments on my blog urging men to stand up to feminists rather than turn their backs on women in general.

I now feel some sympathy for that P. G. Wodehouse character, the irritating Edwin, (Florence Craye’s younger brother in Joy in the Morning, for the non-Wodehouse fans among the readers). He is the boy scout hell bent on doing a daily act of kindness only to find it erupt in his face each time. ‘Coo’, he says, as the cottage burns down when he attempts to clean the chimney using gunpowder and paraffin. Mine was, unintentionally, a gunpowder and paraffin blog.

Talk about a fusillade of return fire. Coo indeed. If I had set out to annoy ‘sexodus’ men (which I didn’t, needless to say) I could not have succeeded better. There were two common themes to the comments, which can pretty much summed up as, ‘how dare you’ and too late. MGTOW (men are going their own way – and not coming back) so put that in your pipe and smoke it (that, at least, is my polite interpretation”

She also has deliberately chosen to minimise and devalue the legitimate Men Human Rights abuses prevailing and embedded into the very DNA of our cultures and societies by referring to and characterising ALL MRA/MHRA and MGTOW activism with one blanket word – “sexodus” men.

See – if you can dismiss and caricaturise Men’s Human Rights activism as a narrow and slightly sillysexodus” then you don’t actually have to look too deeply into the myriad Human Rights issues affecting men and boys – all the while maintaining that you only “have good intentions”

The road to hell is paved with good intentions – and there is no better way to diffuse the importance of an issue and deflect attention away from it than to project a “I’m hurt that you are angry with me” stance and then deliberately misrepresent what that/those issues are.

She also takes a little swipe at some of the commenter’s and pours a little scorn on the anger expressed – in some cases quite vehemently by them, as she lauds herself by comparison for her “polite interpretation” in other words dismissing the legitimate anger of men by tut tutting over their lack of politeness. Gosh darn it – can you all not be nice!!!! Tut tut.

She quotes from some of the comments and acknowledges that:

“Anger and disgust is palpable in the stream. There are so many quotes it is impossible to chose. The same writer pretty much sums them up:”

Ah, but does she accept that male anger is legitimate, is justified, is a direct response to decades on ongoing vilification, demonization and rights stripping of men?

Yes and no – yes because she does acknowledge that “Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism.” There it is – BUT – the standard empty FEMALE type acknowledgment of a male statement of his anger – a la – “*yeah yeah, you have a point……………BUT”

Let’s just examine this a bit closer – what feminism has done is made the “traditional” paradigm of man/woman in blissful married happiness with 2.4 happy well-adjusted children – TOXIC.

Has made exactly the set-up that Kathy Gyngell is “urging” men to return to and commit to akin to putting your head into a lions mouth and hoping he’s already been fed.

Gyngell apparently wants men to accept at face value that women will now play nice! For the good of society no less! Because you can always trust a woman, any woman not to stab you in the back at the first opportunity! Because she says she won’t!

Oh well – that’s grand – women are going to play nice now – its aaaaaaaaaaaaalll sorted – everything is hunky dory now – lads start lining up and “give women the chance to see if they find them(you) attractive.”

Yeah right – that’ll work.

“My ‘coo’ response, however, is not altogether one of surprise – even at the vitriol and abuse we moderated out. Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism. Vive la difference! remember? If this is not apparent from our blogs (Laura Perrins, Belinda Brown, Kimberly Ross and Caroline Farrow all regularly expose its flaws and dangers as have I done too) please turn to our mission statement:”

First of all, the comments were directed at the opinions Kathy Gyngell expressed in her piece and the manner and form of THOSE opinions – ergo – what anybody else has or hasn’t written on this site is irrelevant – this is all about you Kathy.

Second – your phrase “it’s a bit rich” indicates that you seem to be getting on your high horse a bit, are a bit miffed that men, who have been deliberately and with malice aforethought cast into the role of the source of all evil in the world are now fighting back – with less than “polite” words, with anger, with a complete lack of gratitude at being told what “men should…..” now do to fix the problems within societies and cultures because women are now experiencing fallout from them – or rather from men unwilling to continue to be of service to women.

To paraphrase with an example of a female/male conversation – a sort of before and after thing.

Before the MHRM

Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.

Male: OMG – what can I do to make you happy – I’ll do anything you want.

After the MHRM

Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.

Male: bummer – not my problem, see ya – have a nice life – don’t forget to feed the cat 🙂

Yep – I did notice the use of the word “need” in the title – if I may interpret – men washing their hands of women, or as Gyngell misinterprets and caricaturises it the “sexodus” goes right to the heart of one of some (a lot of) women’s most basic “needs” – babies.

Babies that they and they alone get to make decisions about, babies that they and they alone are in charge of – in fact – OWN – and babies that are their ticket to access a man’s assets, wealth and property.

She does touch on this subject, albeit from a strictly narrow perspective – ignoring the actual realities for men if they do try to form “families” if they do have children.

“It is hard to disagree with him – except his last sentence. His deduction from this cost/risk analysis is a counsel of despair if there was one. What then of the future for children, family and society – or does he think a Brave New World of test-tube genderless babies is fine?”

(emphasis added)

This would be laughable if it wasn’t so obtuse – in particular her plea to men “What then of the future for children, family and society” does she seriously expect men to engage in the extremely risky action of getting married and having children with modern western women? In THIS society? In THIS culture?

Are you mad?

In a society that has over the last five decades relegated men and boys to sub-human status – in a society where the mere pointing of an accusatory finger at ANY man means his life is over – in a society where fathers are literally ordered out of their children’s lives on the word of a toxic spiteful woman?

Feminism may have been the driver behind the corruption of society but it is WOMEN who sustain it – women who perpetuate and enforce toxic gynocentrism, women who demand “special” treatment – just because they happen to have been born female.

Is there any point in repeating that the vast majority of women are NOT feminists – I believe the percentage has now dipped below 20%.

No woman actually needs to be a feminist to be a complete and total bitch – did you not know that Kathy?

In fact the vast majority of women are “I’m not a feminist BUT……”

Then she really puts her foot in her mouth with this;

“This is exactly why right minded men and women must fight the battle against feminism together. Men and women enacted the Equality Act, not just women – men have gone along with this agenda.”

Men have gone along with this agenda”? Really?

Men have deliberately excluded themselves from consideration when it comes to “Equality” in the UK?

Like this you mean:

“We support and protect the rights of women by:

Helping women to reach their potential in the workplace and helping businesses get the full economic benefit of women’s skills, including through the work of the Women’s Business Council, Women on Boards     and the Think, Act, Report programme, making sure that women’s interests are represented in government, by regularly meeting women’s groups and campaigners, and listening to women across the country, providing grants to people who want to set up childcare businesses”

(emphasis added)

From: Department for Education, Government Equalities Office , Office for Disability Issues, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, Edward Timpson, Mark Harper, Jo Swinson , Women’s Business Council and Ethnic Minority Employment Stakeholder Group others

First published: 4 November 2010

Last updated:27 March 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society

Needless to say there are no equivalent services or provisions for MEN.

She makes some final points, which again would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

“…….if feminism is not challenged democratically, this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord. That would not be a good thing for male – female harmony, which is necessary both for children’s wellbeing and a happy, healthy society.”

While there are feminists infesting every single area of civil and political society – feminism is a state of mind – informed by a gynocentric worldwiew that women are extra special human beings – feminism is merely the label currently attached to a way of being female (oh God I cannot believe I had to use that phrase)

Anyhoo – one does not simply remove a toxic way of being by moving the political furniture about – most highly influential feminists are hidden away in the shadows, lurking in colleges and universities spewing out “studies” and “research” or writing toxic anti male hit pieces and peddling lies and myths on the MSM (main stream media) avidly swallowed by hordes of brain dead wimmin only delighted to have their “specialness” and perpetual victimhood confirmed.

Alongside a continuous propaganda campaign to demonise and vilify men and boys and pathologise maleness and eulogise femaleness.

Gygnell also rather strangely seems unaware that male anger (justified) has already manifested itself, is already simmering, is now unstoppable when she says “…this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord.”

But perhaps the thing that really pisses me off about this piece is this – Gyngell is trying to shift the blame, she is very cleverly pointing the finger at an idea, a “theory” a set of toxic beliefs – feminism – carefully sidestepping any hint that actual real female human beings are ACCOUNTABLE for the actual real life actions and behaviours that these persons CHOOSE.

Individually and collectively.

Or is she suggesting that the innumerable women who made and make false accusations against men, the innumerable women who excise fathers from their children’s lives, the innumerable women who strip every last asset from the man who unfortunately married them were all under some kind of feminist spell?

How about female teachers who rape their students? Deliberately treat little boys with contempt in schools, what about women who bite, kick, stab, burn, beat and abuse their male partners?

Let me guess – “feminism made me do it – wasn’t my fault – boo hoo”!

Am done with Kathy Gyngell.

Women Should Stand Up to Feminists, Not Turn Their Backs on ManKind

 

I’ve just read the Kathy Gyngell article “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind”

Link Here

I also read all the comments, most of which were less than supportive of Ms. Gyngell’s….eeeemmm, request, instruction, plea…whatever it is.

I had two initial problems before I even started to read this article – the first two words for example “Men Should……..”

Seriously?

That’s how you think entitling an article directed at men by a woman ought to be phrased!

Men Should…….”

You may take it as read that my eyes are drifting heavenwards – for decades, nay, for centuries women have been telling men that they “should………[insert whiney female demand here]” do/not do, in increasingly strident, irrational and hysterical tones.

My second problem is with this “…..not turn their backs on womankind” what the ever loving fuck is “womankind”?

Is it some kind of secret organisation that all female children are inducted into at the moment of their birth?

Well, I’m female, and I feel absolutely no allegiance or weird cosmic psychic connection to random women I don’t know, don’t want to know and if I did know them – would probably not piss on them if they were on fire.

Guess I’m out of the “womankind” club now!

Anyhoo – Ms Gyngell is another of a growing number of this mysterious “womankind” who are beginning to realise there is a problem – a huge problem looming – epic – massive – what they are becoming aware of is the fallout – the disturbance in the sure and certain foundation of their superiority in the world, their unassailable smug cosmic importance.

In actuality, what they are experiencing are the symptoms – and failing to recognise the source – they are vaguely aware it has something to do with men, and are incorrectly assuming that men are the problem – ergo we have articles like Gyngell’s pleading with men to fix this problem. For women.

Oh dear, oh dear Kathy – men are not the problem – WOMEN are the problem.

All men are doing is………….walking away……washing their hands of women…..refusing to be your whipping boys, your failsafe, your soft landing, your shield, your invisible and unappreciated lackeys.

What you are feeling is the cold wind of being left to fend for yourselves – just like you all claimed you could do. Wanted. Demanded.

Reality bites – doesn’t it?

You know what you should have called your article?

Women should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on mankind

And you should have directed it at WOMEN!

The first bloody thing you should have said to “womankind” was LISTEN to men, the second – shut the fuck up for once in your life and LISTEN to what men are saying.

Am sure Kathy Gyngell probably thinks she’s being oh so compassionate, and concerned and sincere – but – it’s too little, too late – and anyway – you’re using a tired worn out, frayed at the edges template not fit for anything but the rubbish heap.

The old, men protect, provide and sacrifice for women, and women do………………….absolutely sod all in return – gynocentric model. Talking about Peter Lloyd she says this:

“He is right to argue that there has never been a worse time to be a man. Many of the statistics of anti-male bias in modern British society are ones we have rehearsed here on TCW too.   He is also right to describe the routine rubbishing of men as feminist fascism and stiletto sexism and men as the new second class citizens.

I call this deeply hypocritical behaviour, feminist chauvinism or misandry. Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.

Reading through his account of the contemporary vilification of men – the extent to which the dice are loaded against men in work and health, you cannot be surprised that men are going off women.”

She calls the demonization of men and maleness, the vilification and deliberate prejudice and bigotry against men “routine rubbishing of men”!

As if a systematic campaign to strip men of their Human Rights, a toxic malign propaganda campaign that has painted men as the source of all evil in the world is a just a minor spat, a few harsh words here and there.

This is the bit that made me smile – grimly – “Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.”

She’s actually right – up to a point – except it would be lunatic feminists and gynocentrists shrieking like banshees – granted at this point in time the hysterics are just boring and tedious and oh so predictable – so – let me be the one who “denigrated womanhood

If you are a feminist or a “I’m not a feminist but…..” or a special little princess or goddess then listen up petal.

You are a pain in the arse, a selfish self-absorbed twat with the charisma of roadkill and the personality of a turnip – you’re not “bubbly” you’re mentally unstable, you’re not “curvy” you’re a fat-arsed trollop, you’re not “educated” you’re an indoctrinated clone with the intellectual capacity of a mushroom.

You’re not a victim of anything, you’re a whiney tantrum throwing narcissist, you’re not an independant empowered “sex in the city” wannabe – you’re a slut.

I think that about covers it 🙂

“…..….you cannot be surprised that men are going off women

No shit Sherlock!

Ok – I am perfectly aware that I have described the extremes of toxic female behaviour and that there are women who can and do behave like decent human beings – but – I also know that somewhere in the back of your minds you really do believe that you are “special” because you are female – you’re not – you do also believe that men are inherently created to be in service or of service to women – they’re not – human beings, ALL human beings are of equal value and worth – and no – NOT “equal” as in the same – but vested with the same rights as every other human being – and should be subject to the same sanctions if they violate the rights of another human being, ANY human being. No exceptions.

“But what all women need to face up to are the two types of ‘modern men’ that feminism has so cruelly manufactured for them: The Oh so correct honorary Nick Clegg-type feminists (Miliband and Cameron also fit this mould) who promote and toe the feminist party line – men who I suspect don’t really turn women on at all. Second are the refuseniks who have gradually turned into a worrying class of embittered, angry misogynists – leading the sexodus. These men will not even give women the chance to see if they find them attractive”

(emphasis added)

Jeez Kathy – you really need to get out more – seriously – the first thing to note of course is that men apparently exist only to be of use to women – “for them

The second thing of course is these “two types” of men and only two types that apparently Kathy Gyngell asserts exist!

I will concede the Nick Clegg/Milliband/Cameron type – though these are actually what could be more accurately called either “white knights” or manginas – poor emasculated saps who believe arse kissing and grovelling before hatchet faced feminists is a valid exercise!

As for the second “type” she describes – you know, I’ve never actually met an honest to God, dyed in the wool misogynist – never – have met and talked to lots of angry men, disillusioned men, hurt men, sad men, even some who were caustically funny. About women.

Methinks Mizz Gyngell is trying (really badly) to infer that any man who rejects “womankind” or the gynocentric worldview (most MHRA’s and all MGTOW) are………………..what did she call them? Oh yeah “……embittered, angry misogynists

Pretty pathetic attempt Kathy – all faux concern on the one hand, and dismissive contemptuous caricaturing on the other.

The last bit is the best bit “These men will not even give women the chance to see if they find them attractive.”

Can you see that? The bleedin nerve of these men – refusing to be assessed, to be evaluated, to be given the once over by all the sad lonely wimmenz pining away for a man!

I’m shocked!

Imagine that – men thumbing their noses at women – men declining to subject themselves to the scrutiny of women “to see if they find them attractive.”

I got to that bit, and I began to think – is she taking the piss? Is this a parody? Is this satire?

Can I suggest that women read the comments – from men – put your vag rage on hold – lose the entitled princess attitude and really pay attention to what these men are saying.

I’ll be honest – I generally can’t stand most women – especially in groups – and I am not a person with much by way of patience or…..tact……..or diplomacy……………..the thing is, most women can’t stand other women either – and you all bloody well know it – because if you were honest with yourselves you’d realise and acknowledge that you see yourself in the bitchy catty backstabbing antics of your “friends”

What you all should also realise is this – men ain’t stupid – they see it as well – what is happening now is they’re not interested in pandering to your bullshit anymore, tippytoing around your tantrums, your irrationality, your moods, not interested in giving in to your incessant demands and unreasonable behaviours.

It’s not cute, it’s not sexy, it’s not alluring – you have become toxic little timebombs waiting to go off – to be blunt.

You are so NOT worth it!

Let me give you a clue – you know when a man is eying you up with a speculative look in his eyes? He’s not “eye-raping” you, he’s not lost in admiration at your divinity and awesomeness ya dozy twat – he trying to assess how high up on the “crazy as a loon” scale you are – whether you’re mentally stable, or will you scream rape if he tries to talk to you.

Well that or he’s dumbstruck that you poured your 200lbs of lard into the equivalent of tube sock!

What Gyngell and her ilk consistently fail to understand is this – men and women are naturally drawn to one another, and not just physically, human beings over the course of millennia have evolved to value and desire a stable pair bond, in order to create the basic building block of functioning and healthy societies – FAMILIES.

There was an element of reciprocity in these relationships, men and women played to their strengths and natural inclinations, they supported one another. But above all they trusted one another, and valued each other.

Am I saying this was a perfect state of affairs? Of course not – there were imbalances, misunderstandings, discriminations – not on the scale that feminists would have you believe – and these issues were being and would’ve have been resolved – then feminism stuck its pointy nose into everybody’s business.

Then everything went to shoite.

Under the influence of feminism harnessing the innate seeds of gynocentrism within women a toxic and malign social cancer began to grow.

Gyngell and her fellow cronies – whatever their particular stance, do not get – women – the vast majority of them have corrupted their natures, have embraced a toxic and self-destructive paradigm – are, with very few exceptions, repulsive to a huge of men.

Shall I repeat that? REPULSIVE. Throw in offensive, unattractive (as human beings) distasteful, noxious, abhorrent and vile.

Most men are far too polite and diplomatic (and in some cases scared shitless) to say that to the numerous women they encounter who behave in the normal rancid, belligerent, obnoxious ways a huge number of women display.

But I’m not.

Ladies (and I use that term very loosely) YOU poisoned the well, YOU and only you are responsible for the growing numbers of men who to be blunt – wouldn’t touch most of you with a ten foot bargepole.

Just in case any of you think that all you have to do is slap on a fake simper and play the adoring girlfriend till you hook your man – think again. Too late.

Support the MHRM and SPEAK OUT  till every corrupt and biased piece of legislation is repealed, till every feminist is rooted out of public policy areas, out of schools, out of NGO’s – till no-one, and I mean NO-ONE will give any feminist the time of day.

Start with yourself – stand in front of a mirror and tell yourself, over and over again till you get it “I’m NOT all that” “I have no more or less worth than any other human being”

Finally men are starting to wake up and realise they have a choice – they don’t have to put up with your shoite – so they are CHOOSING not to.

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn cue a massive fit of the screamies…in…..1……2…….3….

 

Slainte 🙂

Previous Older Entries