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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on.

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

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

Colm Keena

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

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

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

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

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

Several things.

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

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

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

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

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

Try this – google www.courts.ie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Title” with ALL identifiers anonymized is:

“THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL

ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND

IN THE MATTER OF N. B., A CHILD

BETWEEN:

R.B.

Applicant

-AND-

D.K.

Respondent

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

Nature of case

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT’S how you ‘Do law”

Because here a fundamental basic fact.

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

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

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

European Convention on Human Rights*

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

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

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union

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

UN Convention on The Rights of The Child

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

To start with.

Then do some study on these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDER 61

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

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

Pay particular attention to the emboldened parts:

  1. In this Order:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Order 84 – Judicial review and orders affecting personal liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My response? Bite me.

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

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

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

Slainte

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

 

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

Anyhoo – I came across this post from here

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

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

Which led me to here

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

And then here

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

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

“Myth” No. 8 caught my eye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, went and had a look, here:

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

Sounds ridiculous.

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

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

Anyhoo – back to what triggered her to write this:

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

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

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

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

Brief interlude while I go feed the birdies, enjoy 😉

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows

And did it my way

Yes, it was my way

Lyrics here if you want to sing along.

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

Ole Blue Eyes doing it “his way” here

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

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

Anyhoo – narcissism and anorexia?

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

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

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

(Emphasis added)

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

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

Has any research been done? Absolutely loads

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

Notwithstanding Emma’s obsession with anorexia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Abstract

Objective:

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

Method:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To continue:

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

“Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

“Abstract

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

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

“Abstract

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

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

Here is a brief snapshot of some of those results.

From page 1 –

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

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

From page 4 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT is your feminism.  An ideology of hate.

Slainte.

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

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

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

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

“Summary

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism = Cultural, Political and Social Poison.

 

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

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

Well…………………. hallelujah!

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

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

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

Why am I making a big deal about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domestic Violence Act 2018: Republic of Ireland.

 

On foot of a press release from the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ireland The Domestic Violence Act 2018 came into force (became law) on the 2nd January 2018, repealing the previous legislation on domestic violence

“Repeals

  1. The following are repealed:

(a) section 51 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 ;

(b) the Domestic Violence Act 1996 ;

(c) the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2002 .”

 

Link to Domestic Violence act 2018 is here:

From: Irish Statute Book: Domestic Violence act 2018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/6/enacted/en/print

 

Naturally enough the Minister made an “announcement” and as is the wont of politicians he made sure to curry favour with those whom he believed to be “experts” on “domestic violence” and took a stance which he believed would position himself as an advocate and supporter of those “experts”

From Department of Justice Press Release: Minister Flanagan brings landmark Domestic Violence Act into operation

http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR19000001

“I would like to acknowledge the work being done by organisations who support victims of domestic violence, and their contribution in strengthening the provisions of the Act.”

One of whom is Catriona Gleeson of Safe Ireland – one of many many “domestic violence services” for WOMEN and only women, where this prize idiot (aren’t they all?) pontificated in this article about one aspect of the new legislation – Coercive Control.

From: New offence of coercive control in domestic violence law

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0102/1019886-domestic-violence/

“Caitriona Gleeson, Programme and Communications Manager with Safe Ireland, said coercive control is effectively domestic violence.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland she said it is “where somebody in a relationship deliberately sets out to deliberately put in fear and control the other person’s life.”

“There certainly are aspects of the behaviour that will always be very difficult to prove, however there is lots of behaviour that is investigated properly and documented properly will result in convictions, and that’s what we’re hopeful for.”

Ms Gleeson said Ireland is the third country in the world to introduce this new offence. England introduced it a number of years ago and Scotland more recently.

She said there has been significant uptake in training among gardaí ahead of the introduction of the new law but feels more training is still needed.

Edit: As I was writing this I opened this article with a view to addressing Ms. Gleesons “crowing” over similiar legislation being introduced in the UK – I have just realised I forgot to add it.

Controlling girlfriend ‘first woman convicted’ of new domestic abuse offence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

And from the article:

“A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.”

Ryan Nugent in the Irish Independent quoted extensively from another “expert” on “domestic violence”

Director of women’s aid in Ireland Margaret Martin in this article

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychological-abuse-in-a-relationship-is-a-criminal-offence-under-new-law-37674223.html

“Another change is that a violent or sexual offence committed by a person against their spouse or person they are in an intimate relationship with will be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing. This was welcomed by director of Women’s Aid, Margaret Martin.

“We have long argued that when a perpetrator is a current or former intimate partner of the woman that this should be an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one when it comes to sentencing to acknowledge the unique position that the perpetrator is in, including the fact that they have intimate knowledge of and access to their victim and so brutally betrays that trust.”

And here:

“Ms Martin said that additional resources need to be included if the new act is to be a success.

This includes more resources for gardaí and courts as well as specialist support services.

“From January 1, 2019, women must feel change quickly. It must be positive, it must be practical and it must make them and their children safer from abuse,” Ms Martin said.

“What is promised on paper must be fully resourced to be effective in protecting those affected by domestic violence.

“We are concerned that an already overstretched system will see an increase in demand when the new provisions commence,” she warned.

Ms Martin also said that Women’s Aid supports the extension of eligibility for safety and barring orders for those in relationships but who are not cohabiting.

“This change will make a significant difference to the safety of younger women.

“We also welcome the move to prevent abusers to communicate electronically with their victims, a step in the right direction to address the digital abuse and online harassment of women by partners and exes.”

Out-of-hours sittings of the District Court will be held to provide orders in emergency situations.

“We hope that the Garda will use this provision to offer vulnerable women the chance to apply for immediate protection when it is needed and that this measure is adequately resourced, so that it will work in practice,” said Ms Martin.”

By the way – these “quotes” represent almost the full content of Mr. Nugent’s article – he simply handed over the “reporting” to this “expert” on domestic violence and threw in a few sentences linking together this “experts” quotes – great example of……..journalism Mr. Nugent.

In May this article was published by Men’s Voices Ireland

The paragraph that jumped out at me from: Men’s Voices Ireland

The Domestic Violence Act May 2018

https://www.mensvoicesireland.com/news/the-domestic-violence-act-may-2018/

was this one

“Hearings took place before the committee on Feb 19 and Feb 26 2014 at which 24 groups or individuals were called. Nobody presented any evidence on the rates of perpetration as between men and women, attempted to give a balanced nonpartisan view of DV, instance the principal features of DV including many surprising recent findings or to show the extent to which men are also victims. An enormous amount of evidence which challenges the official narrative was thereby omitted.”

I’m actually a bit surprised you were shocked and surprised at the way these committee hearings went guys?

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, bear with me, I have a copy of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 sitting right here on my desk beside me as I type this. I’ve been through it twice now – and while I am not purporting in any way shape or form to be giving a detailed analysis of this piece of legislation – at this time – one thing has quite clearly caught my eye – actually a couple of things – but lets just focus, for the moment on this one thing.

In every section empowering “someone” to make an application under this piece of legislation the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

Let me repeat that – the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

THE PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION for protection, for an order, for ANYTHING under the provisions of this legislation is consistently referred to as – THE APPLICANT.

There is no “presumption” contained in this Legislation that “The Applicant” is or can be automatically FEMALE.

The person, who in the context of court proceedings in relation to any provision against who an Order is being sought pursuant to the provisions of this piece of legislation is consistently referred to as THE RESPONDENT.

Again there is NO “presumption” that the “Respondent” is or can only be MALE.

There is no reference IN ANY SECTION to SHE – as in “SHE MAY”, are you following my logic?

So, notwithstanding any bullshit from women’s aid, from safe Ireland or any of the innumerable “charadees” sucking up the vast majority of “resources” to address the issue of “domestic violence” this legislation is EQUALLY applicable in its provisions to both MEN and women.

As I said previously – I am literally reading and studying this legislation as we speak – so when I have not only gone through this with a fine-tooth comb, and when I have reviewed what I presume will be a new procedure for making applications under this legislation I will publish a further article.

The reason for this is simple – all “Motions/Applications” have a format, a particular way of doing it – this format involves submitting certain forms and following certain “Orders of the Court”

Because ALL the previous legislation has been repealed – this will require NEW “Rules of the Court” and probably the current “Forms” will require amendment/change/re-formatting.

My apologies for getting a bit technical – but if you think that some slimey counsel, usually paid for by women’s aid or any of the other cesspits of feminist propaganda won’t try and trip you (any man) up, invariably going into court as a lay litigant because you (any man) used the “wrong form” didn’t do something “technical” think again.

There is one final point I would like to make here – and I refer to the section on “coercive control: Section 39 and strongly suggest you review the research and analysis with regard to parental alienation – and perhaps see if you can spot the commonalities in particular Section 39 (2) (a) and (b)

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person’s behaviour has a serious effect on a relevant person if the behaviour causes the relevant person—

(a) to fear that violence will be used against him or her, or

(b) serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities.

(emphasis added)

Finally.

If I achieve nothing else today by posting this, with the caveat, I have not had time to do a thorough analysis and/or a proper legal search (to link other provisions of law to this legislation i.e., the Constitution, The ECHR etc.) except this:

If you are a MAN and you are reading this, or have been reading any of the articles referenced above and have inculcated the message that The Domestic Violence Act 2018 is ONLY FOR WOMEN.

STOP THINKING THAT – NOW.

This legislation applies to YOU – as a man, as a human being, as an Irish Citizen

  • Every single provision of this Legislation can be used, invoked and applied BY YOU. AS A MAN.
  • You as A MAN are entitled to every single protection available under this Legislation AS A MAN.
  • You AS A MAN are entitled to under the provisions of this legislation to go into COURT on a Motion/Application exactly like any woman can.
  • And further – you as A MAN are entitled to be granted an Order (whatever form that Order takes) under ANY provision of this legislation AS A MAN, as a human being – and – as an Irish Citizen.

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

Feminism and The Flat Earth Society: Comrades in Stupidity.

 

Right up front I am going to say that if you consider yourself a feminist or ‘believe’ in ‘women’s rights’ then you are an idiot, a moron, an ill-informed mentally deficient numbskull who should never be let out of the house without a note pinned to your jacket.

To be absolutely clear what I think, here goes – feminism is a poisonous, vile, toxic ANTI-HUMAN BEING cult driven by ideologues steeped in hatred of one half of humanity, steeped and saturated in lies, deception and an insatiable hunger for power.

Yet, those who self-describe as feminist amongst the general public are few and far between, and as each decade has passed since the launch of the women’s liberation movement waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the late sixties and early seventies (which I personally remember) the numbers of persons describing themselves as feminists is paltry – when you consider this.

ALL public policy, all government programmes, and all political decisions that impact upon the lives of men, women and children has been, and is driven by a feminist agenda!

So, what has all this got to do with those who believe the earth is flat – well, I am an almost maniacal advocate of Free Speech – which includes the absolute right to believe any rubbish you like – and of course to articulate that obviously dysfunctional point of view and/or opinion. Knock yourselves out, believe whatever.

For example – believing the earth is flat.

“Here’s what happened: in February, the online polling company YouGov conducted a survey on American beliefs about our planet’s shape.

“Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” the 8,215 participants were asked, and given a small range of answers to choose from:

I have always believed the world is round;

I always thought the world is round, but more recently I am skeptical/have doubts;

I always thought the world is flat, but more recently I am skeptical/have doubts;

I have always believed the world is flat;

Other/Not sure

The results, weighted to be representative of the US population, revealed that 2 percent of adult Americans are firmly convinced Earth is as flat as a pancake.

Meanwhile, 84 percent “have always believed the world is round.”

So far, so good. For further insight, the results were also broken up by age group, and this is where young millennials got an unexpected bashing.

As per the results, only 66 percent of 18-24 year-olds are firmly convinced of our planet’s spherical shape.”

No, One-Third of Millennials Don’t Actually Think Earth Is Flat

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk

The vast majority of people believe the earth is NOT flat – in fact if you do a google search you will, as I did, find numerous websites, blogs etc. laying out the basis of the belief that the earth IS flat – some of those “reasons” are very plausibly argued – in the sense that the rhetoric is clear, fairly cogent and not written in crayon – if you catch my drift.  These people genuinely BELIEVE, based on the “arguments” presented the earth IS flat – described as “a giant flat pancake spinning around”

Okie dokie!

Notwithstanding that – the vast majority of people who do NOT believe that the earth is flat would NOT in a million years hand over the reigns of power, decision or policy making power and/or authority to the tiny MINORITY of people who DO believe the nonsense spouted AS EVIDENCE that the earth is flat.

In other words, the majority who know, KNOW that these flat earth people are talking absolute shoite would not stand by and allow those whose ridiculous BELIEFS they reject, to inform, direct, endorse, promulgate or formulate PUBLIC POLICY.

Yet – the vast majority of people, in survey after survey REJECT feminism – as a belief system – refuse to align themselves with feminist ideology, reject the core fundamental belief of feminism – that wearisome “dictionary definition’ constantly trotted out – like hauling your mad aunt down from the attic to say howdy do to the visiting busybody!

So, what’s the problem?

I would posit that both these ridiculous belief systems are based on a fundamental flaw of logic and reason – but while one is rejected the other is given free reign to infect and poison our civilizations development and progress.

All the “evidence” that the flat-earthers cite to prove their theory is outright rejected by the sheer weight of SCIENTIFIC evidence that proves the exact opposite – for feminism – notwithstanding the volumes of evidence that outright disproves every single tenet of feminism toxic ideology – whose ultimate prize is POWER. Over other human beings. It would logically follow that if feminism IS toxic and poisonous – which it is, and the vast majority of people surveyed reject it WHY are you all still standing by and allowing these nutcases to dictate public policy?

IN EFFECT – so what if the earth is flat – if – (and that’s a mega if) the earth is flat – what difference would if make to anyone – really?

Feminism is about power and money – about control, coercion, social engineering and political control. Power that is wielded to destroy and re-engineer HUMAN BONDS of family, kinship, community and society.

Not so say the feminazis – apparently feminism is about “equality” about freeing women from the chains of the patriarchy – that invisible global male conspiracy that every single male child on the planet is born into.

So, how did the original “women’s libbers” go about freeing women from these bonds?

By going into sweatshops and freeing the low paid workers? Nope

Perhaps by sweeping into disadvantaged poverty-stricken areas that exist and existed in ALL western societies? Hell no – no fun getting your manicured nails all grubby and dirty with the grubby and dirty poor.

They went into academia, into policy making, they fought tooth and nail to get into those areas where the funding flowed like wine and the power to pull the strings that drove the direction of society were ready to be pulled – in a feminist direction.

Perhaps they fundraised for schools and medical services for poor families?

Yeah right – for the last 60 odd years or so feminists have bitched, whined and throw tantrums because there were not enough women IN POWER.

During the presidential election in the US where Donald Trump won – I received a comment from some obviously deranged feminist calling herself “jennie” the usual ranting and frothing at the mouth (note to feminists – I DON’T publish your comments – I read them – I have them saved – but I don’t and WON’T publish them)

Anyhoo – “jennie” flung what apparently, she considered the ultimate insult and put down at me – she accused me of being…………………………………………a republican!

Bear with me – there is a point to this – for someone like “jennie” a completely irrational and deranged feminist being a “republican” is a “bad thing” in the context of not just the presidential election but in the context of the major driving force behind mainstream feminist/leftist (Democrat) propaganda that spews out from (no offence to NON feminist Americans) American universities and media – and from the blogosphere and internet – (I wonder does “jennie have a blog? Hmmmmm)

Here is ‘jennies’ problem – or rather one of her problems – I’M IRISH – ergo Republican means something different to ME than it does to “Republicans” in American politics, as does the concept of a Republic. Duh!

So, Donald Trump (a Republican) gets elected – in a DEMOCRATIC election – fair enough – the people have spoken – you got what the MAJORITY voted for.

Except – As I watched (in horror) the scenes of absolute despair, hysterics and irrationality from “Democrats” from “feminists” and Hilary Clinton supporters – what was patently clear was this – the election of a rabid feminist power hungry harpy (Hilary Clinton) was not only the ultimate goal of decades of propaganda and social engineering it was EXPECTED to be a foregone conclusion – in other words – ultimate POWER was finally in their grasp…………it was their RIGHT……it was in effect their birthright.

And it FAILED. The people REJECTED the ultimate symbol of “feminist” power – and they went absolutely INSANE.

I watched a recording of a woman, on her knees, literally screaming hysterically and tearing at her hair, at her clothes – it was horrifying.

THAT IS WHAT FEMINISM IS.

An insatiable deranged and irrational hunger for ultimate power over the lives of all HUMAN BEINGS.

Now, what are YOU going to do about it? By you I mean any sentient compassionate and SANE human being? The results are clear – the vast majority of people REJECT feminism – feminism is NOT and has never been about “equality” it has been and is NOW about POWER.

The problem for feminism isn’t “branding” it isn’t that poor dumb ordinary people “don’t understand feminism” and it sure as hell isn’t because “men’s rights activists lie about feminism”

The problem WITH feminism IS feminism – feminism is a toxic vile poisonous totalitarian ideology with absolutely NO redeeming features AT ALL.

If a feminist told me the sky was blue – I would go outside and check – then check again!

Below is a quick summary of the results of various surveys done in the last few years.

United States of America

Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html?guccounter=1

“The gulf between the percentage of people who identify as feminists and the percentage who believe in the equality of the sexes may be partly due to a branding problem for the word “feminism.” Thirty-seven percent said they consider “feminist” to be a negative term, compared to only 26 percent who consider it a positive term. Twenty-nine percent said it’s a neutral term.

Among Republicans, 58 percent said the term is mostly negative, compared to 40 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats. Men were also more likely than women to consider “feminist” a negative term (42 percent to 32 percent), but even among women, more said the term is negative than positive (32 percent to 29 percent).

Moreover, few Americans think that most others identify as feminists. Only 27 percent said they thought most women are feminists (37 percent said a majority are not, and 36 percent said they weren’t sure), and only 7 percent said they thought most men are feminists (67 percent said a majority are not, and 27 percent said they weren’t sure).”

85% Of Americans Believe In Women’s Equality, But Only 18% Identify As Feminist

http://thelala.com/believe-womens-equality-identify-as-feminist/

“Feminism targets a multitude of global problems endangering gender equality. It does not target men as evil (that’s misandry), but rather it encompasses men in its efforts.

Those people who refuse to call themselves feminists present arguments that appear confused and misinformed at their core; their claims that feminism is not needed anymore are just not true. The equality of genders is necessary but still not a reality.”

United Kingdom

Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

“More than two thirds of Britons support gender equality – but just seven per cent would call themselves feminists.

Out of 8,000 people surveyed, only 560 used the ‘f-word’ to describe their views on equality.

The Fawcett Society, a leading feminist charity, found Britain to be a nation of ‘hidden feminists’.

When split out by gender, women were more likely to identify as feminist, with nine per cent using the label compared to four per cent of men. But men were more supportive generally of equality between the sexes – 86 per cent wanted it for the women in their lives – compared to 74 per cent of women.

Younger women were more likely to call themselves feminist, with 19 per cent aged 18-24 using the word, but they were also most likely to oppose feminism.”

Canada

68% of Canadian women don’t call themselves a feminist

https://www.chatelaine.com/living/68-of-canadian-women-dont-call-themselves-a-feminist/

“Kat

@Knymz

Feeling a little ill looking at the @Chatelaine survey where 68% of women said “no” they are not a feminist. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

8:31 PM – Dec 3, 2015”

Australia

Women against feminism

http://antifeminismaustralia.com/women-against-feminism/

“There is an increasing number of women who are against feminism, and feminists don’t like it one bit. A female anti-feminist is even worse than a male anti-feminist, because they are “rejecting the sisterhood”. Feminists claim that these women don’t understand what feminism is about. They often tell these women “if it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to vote, work, or attend university” etc. Yes, but are these things still an issue today? Certainly not. Women have all the same rights as men do, plus even more.

It is modern third wave feminism that these women are rejecting, and rightly so. Despite feminists pointing to the dictionary definition, the actions of modern feminism prove it has nothing to do with equality. Rather, it has become a man hating movement that seeks female supremacy. Many women today are rejecting feminism for this very reason.

Thankfully, surveys have shown that only 1 in 5 women identify as a feminist, and it is believed this number is decreasing. It is these minorities which have the loudest voices, making it seem like that number is higher.”

I am rather pleased to be able to say – feminism has always struggled to gain a foothold in the Republic of Ireland – what has happened here is actually rather more insidious – the vast majority of feminists are to be found in universities and in politics – notwithstanding that less women get VOTED for here – not because of some patriarchal conspiracy – but simply because Irish voters DON’T LIKE the vast majority of female candidates – including me – I have NEVER voted for a female candidate.

What is prevalent in Ireland is toxic gynocentric – see this article, Diagnosing Gynocentrism by Peter Ryan on a Voice For Men link here – https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/

Unfortunately, because of the increase in young people, especially young women now going to college – young women who overwhelmingly do “sociology” and “gender studies” which is simply feminist indoctrination – we now have vast numbers of wimmin coming out of these universities’ ad colleges, frothing at the mouth about “the patriarchy” and “inequality” 

It took longer for toxic feminism to reach critical mass here in the Republic of Ireland than anywhere else in the western hemisphere – thank God – and because of that – the heavy lifting work of the task of de-bunking feminist shoite has been done – for which I am personally extremely grateful.

In particular I would like to pay tribute to two men who are and were instrumental in doing that “heavy lifting” Angry Harry – may he rest in peace, and Paul Elam.

Angry Harry – http://www.angryharry.com/

A Voice For Men – https://www.avoiceformen.com/

I personally had never gone head to head with an avowed feminist – never actually met someone who came right our and said “I’m a feminist” until I was 40 – seriously – I had spoken to women who declared they “believed in women’s rights”

The full extent of the toxicity of feminism was driven home to me only when I decided to go back to college – that’s when it hit me – how foul, vile and twisted feminist ideology was and is – because apparently making the statement – “I am NOT a feminist” is the equivalent of declaring “The earth is flat”

So, two things – if you are one of the majority who isn’t a feminist – ask yourself why? And then ask yourself this – I am in the majority so WHY is all public policy dictated by, driven by, promulgated and formulated by adherents of a MINORITY belief system?

Second – if you’re NOT a feminist, then what are you? What is your core fundamental ethical and moral code built upon?

Mine is fairly simple – I don’t “believe” in “women’s rights” or for that matter “men’s rights” I believe in HUMAN RIGHTS.

IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT KIND OF HUMAN BEING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

ALL human beings in distress, in pain, victims of injustice and prejudice and bigotry are entitled because of the biological fact of their BEING HUMAN BEINGS to help, support, justice, fairness, compassion and ATTENTION.

Feminism would have you believe that men and boys are lesser human beings than women and girls, feminism would have you believe that men and boys pain, distress, anguish and despair is …………..funny….irrelevant………………something to be sneered at, ignored and reviled.

Republic of Ireland

The F word: Why are some women reluctant to call themselves feminists?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-f-word-why-are-some-women-reluctant-to-call-themselves-feminists-462961.html

“Broadcaster Bibi Baskin would beg to differ. While the study found that 50% of Irish men and women believe women have rights but no real power, Bibi feels feminism is not the way for women to secure their fair share.

“It could be part of the solution,” she says, “but it’s not the only solution. If women have rights but no power, why don’t they go out and get the power?

“I spent 15 years living in India, where women are second-class citizens, and when I look at Irish women I just think, come on! Not all men are out to get you, you have the ability, so just get a move on.”

“Feminism is just a form of egalitarianism, but we shouldn’t be afraid to call ourselves feminists. If women specifically are disadvantaged, then I think we need to name that.”

“Acutely aware” she’s the first woman on Newstalk’s daytime schedule, she says “once we smash those glass ceilings, they’re broken for the women who’ll come behind us.”

“The Royal College of Surgeons just elected their first female president, Professor Mary Horgan,” she continues. “When asked was she a feminist, she said no, and I was so disappointed. You’re the first woman in 323 years to hold that position — does that not tell you we need feminism? 323 years before a woman got the job and you’re disavowing feminism? Sorry, professor, but give me a break!”

This quote from Carolyn Moore from the Article “The F word: Why are some women reluctant to call themselves feminists?” linked to above encapsulates the woeful ignorance of “media feminists” women who jump on the bandwagon of pop feminism to give themselves “kudos” – of all the things feminism is – “a form of egalitarianism” isn’t one of them – egalitarianism stands alone as a concept in its own right – it certainly doesn’t need to be contaminated by being yoked with a toxic ideology like feminism.

“Feminism is just a form of egalitarianism, but we shouldn’t be afraid to call ourselves feminists. If women specifically are disadvantaged, then I think we need to name that.”

The same way “Justice” doesn’t need a qualifier like “Social Justice” a concept like “Justice” also stands alone.

Feminism now

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/century/century-women-and-the-vote/feminism-now-1.553554

“However, feminism has never become popular. Many women in Ireland who assert their rights and show solidarity with, and compassion for, other women, insist they are not feminists. The Irish women’s movement has been riven by quarrels and splits, notably over the national question. There has been a dearth of new ideas on questions of class, an intolerance of dissent.”

“Structures have been problematic. Feminist organisations have struggled with tensions between respectability and the radical, subversive nature of their political analysis. The withdrawal of state funding has been used to silence protest.”

What has always amused me personally are the ridiculous justifications, “reasons” and/or rather condescending conclusions reached by feminists as to why people, both men and women refuse to identify as feminists.

Again, from the same article “The F word: Why are some women reluctant to call themselves feminists?” here is Moore’s “conclusion”

“But as a recent study of international attitudes towards gender roles reveals, the F word remains problematic for some.

Surveying 12,000 men and women in 32 countries, including Ireland, Havas Creative found conflicting attitudes when it comes to issues around equality. Globally, women make up 23% of national parliaments and hold just 24% of senior management positions, and both men and women are overwhelmingly in favour of advancing equality in these areas.

Yet less than a third of women and just 17% of men consider themselves feminists, so something doesn’t add up. What the findings make clear is that you don’t have to identify as a feminist to support women’s equality, but the question is — why wouldn’t you?”

Right here is the problem for feminists – being a feminist – the figures speak for themselves – this woman declares herself to be a feminist, she then goes on to publish the fact “that less than a third of women and just 17% of men consider themselves feminists,” in other words SHE is part of a minority, but still doesn’t get it.

To the extent that she bewails this terrible result by asking the most asinine question of all with regard to people, both men and women NOT identifying as feminists with “What the findings make clear is that you don’t have to identify as a feminist to support women’s equality, but the question is — why wouldn’t you?”

At the risk of pointing out the bloody obvious Carolyn – because more than 66% of women and 83% of men DON’T BELIEVE that feminism has anything to do with “equality” with “egalitarianism” with “empowering women”

Because more than 66% of women and 83% of men KNOW either consciously or subconsciously – but somewhere in the depths of their being they know what I know, and what the MAJORITY of people know.

This – Feminism is a toxic, vile, repugnant and poisonous cult and ideology, and needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history, needs to be excised, like a cancerous tumor from all areas of public policy.

Feminism is Cultural and Political Cancer.

 

Slainte

 

 

Never Ask A Question……….

 

One of the “Golden Rules” if you like of questioning/cross-examining a witness in a trial situation is this “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to” the reason is obvious and speaks directly to the purpose of examining said witness – to confirm KNOWN and provable FACTS or in the alternative to dispute and disprove an alleged fact.

The object of the exercise is not to “have a chat” and figure out what this witness may or may not know and/or say but to CONFIRM or dispute something FACTUAL and provable.

Standing up to question someone and ASSUMING you already know that this witness will either confirm/dispute whatever it is you wish them to confirm or dispute is beyond stupid and arrogant. In other words, assuming this witness/person is going to give you the answer you require to PROVE your case – or at least advance your case in the right direction.

There is one group/class of persons who represent the very essence of stupid and arrogant – feminists and their acolytes/hangers on/enablers/useful idiots – pick one (or all)

No-where is this stupidity and arrogance more prevalent than when feminists et al seek to PROVE the validity of their oft and tediously articulated diktats on……..everything to do with men, women, society, culture etc – in particular what and how people THINK – in other words the mantra of feminist speak could best be summarized by this “when we want your opinion, WE will give it to you” in essence, feminists claim to KNOW not only what people think and feel about everything, but what they SHOULD think and feel about everything – so in Australia they conducted a survey on “attitudes’ very particular ‘attitudes’ towards ‘violence against women’

Now, please bear in mind that feminism has been “educating’ (brainwashing)the world on what the right ‘attitudes’ towards this topic should be – ie. The feminist perspective – all men are bad, all women are victims – ergo it follows, from the feminist perspective, that this ‘survey’ will reflect the right ‘attitude(s)’ – in other words, the persons asked to respond to this survey will give them the RIGHT answers and endorse, validate and confirm what feminists have been indoctrinating you, me, us, the whole world with for decades, or at least striving to do so.

Alas and alack – it backfired on them – spectacularly, and notwithstanding that the persons “questioned” with a view to confirming the correct feminist paradigm failed to give the right answers – the reaction to these WRONG answers is even more illuminating with regard to the global feminist project to brainwash the entire global population into the correct feminist mindset.

So, what are we talking about?

This:

2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS)

http://apo.org.au/system/files/207066/apo-nid207066-1057761.pdf

The mainstream media reaction to the above, in the form of an article by Laura House for The Daily Mail.

2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) By LAURA HOUSE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6445405/The-harmful-disturbing-views-women-domestic-violence.html

garnered this response.

“A new study has uncovered a number of disturbing and harmful views many Australian men and women still have towards domestic violence and rape.

The National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey, led by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety was released on Friday.

The survey was taken by 17,500 Australians aged 16 and over and highlighted that many hold outdated views despite wide-spread education campaigns and greater community awareness.  

Some of the most worrying findings were related to blame, with many Australians continuing to shift the blame away from men in violent and dangerous situations.

The survey found 21% of men and women believed that ‘sometimes a woman can make a man so angry he hits her when he didn’t mean to’ and one in three thinks ‘rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex’.”

Emphasis added

Now, in the interests of full disclosure I admit I haven’t read this 182 page Report, other than focusing on this:

“Concerning results

  • There continues to be a decline in the number of Australians who understand that men are more likely than women to perpetrate domestic violence.

  • A concerning proportion of Australians believe that gender inequality is exaggerated or no longer a problem.

  • Among attitudes condoning violence against women, the highest level of agreement was with the idea that women use claims of violence to gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men.

  • 1 in 5 Australians would not be bothered if a male friend told a sexist joke about women.”

Emphasis added

Taken From a 20 Page Summary of the above mentioned 182 page Report, my main interest at the moment is two-fold, commenting on the reaction to the results from” feminists” and being heartened BY the results – a small but significant percentage of persons have REJECTED “feminist” indoctrination/propaganda/lies/and bullshit.

Summary here:

Are we there yet? Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women & gender equality

https://ncas.anrows.org.au/findings/4-attitudes-to-violence-against-women/

What appears to be causing problems for feminists and their acolytes is something they have no control over – WHAT people believe and WHO they believe, or in this instance DISBELIEVE – and that the rate of disbelief is growing, notwithstanding the almost ongoing relentless campaign of misinformation being peddled by feminists.

For example – taken from the summary of the main survey results are these statements, headed “What Australians Believe”

“WHAT AUSTRALIANS BELIEVE

While most Australians (64%) recognise that mainly men, or men more often, commit acts of domestic violence, the percentage who recognize this has dropped 7 percentage points since the 2013 NCAS. This decline has been occurring since 1995, when 86% recognised this fact. In 2009, recognition was down to 74% and it dropped a further 3 percentage points to 71% in 2013.”

“Less than half (49%) of Australians recognise that levels of fear from domestic violence are worse for women, and there has been no statistically significant change since 2013. This is a 6 percentage point decline from 2009, when 55% of respondents recognised that levels of fear are worse for women.”

Under the heading “Attitudes that support violence against women” is this little gem:

“Mistrust women’s reports of violence by suggesting women lie about or exaggerate reports of violence in order to  ‘get back at’ men or gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men. Such attitudes have been referred to as part of a ‘backlash’.”

Emphasis added

The results of this report have caused feminists to describe those results as “worrying” and “concerning” and from Laura House in The Daily Mail as “disturbing and harmful views”

Hmmmmm, except these are not “views” not according to this survey – these “attitudes” are based on WHAT and WHO people BELIEVE.

Let’s go back to the analogy of a court room situation, shall we?

One side presents their case, submits their evidence, presents and questions witnesses, some of them “expert” witnesses whose function is to validate and endorse a particular piece of “evidence” the other side does the same.

In the context of what we are discussing here -almost ALL the “evidence” to support the all domestic violence is committed by men upon women “side” of the domestic violence “case” has been presented by feminists, endorsed by feminist “experts” and received a substantial amount of attention and funding to support that “view”

In other words massive amounts of money has been spent preparing this “evidence” paying these “expert” witness and presenting this “case”

Here’s where feminists completely lose the plot – after you’ve presented your “evidence” YOU don’t get to decide WHO the jury believes – especially if the other side has been able to present compelling evidence DISPUTING your “view” of what the “evidence” shows – or if YOUR evidence IS SHOWN TO BE FLAWED.

In a nutshell this is more or less what has happened here – in this “survey” the recipients/hearers/readers of the “evidence” presented by feminists over the last several decades of the “view” that all domestic violence is committed by men against and upon women, formed a BELIEF and rendered a verdict. And the verdict?

THE JURY DON’T BELIEVE YOU. THEY DON’T BELIEVE YOUR “EVIDENCE”.

From a cultural perspective – the feminists are beginning to lose control of the narrative – look at the reaction – according to this Report, more and more people are NOT believing what feminists are peddling – and the reaction from feminists to NOT being believed?

These “non-believers” hold “disturbing and harmful views” and those persons who DO NOT believe the utter tripe peddled by feminists have culminated in the “Concerning results” described above.

I can hear the gnashing of feminist teeth from here 😊

Some of those “disturbing and harmful views” that Laura House highlights in her article are these:

“What are the attitudes to violence against women in Australia?

A fifth believe that ‘a lot of what is called domestic violence is really a normal reaction to day-to-day stress and frustration’

  • 32% believe that a female victim who does not leave an abusive partner is partly responsible for the abuse continuing

  • Half believe that women mistakenly interpret ‘innocent’ remarks or acts as being sexist

  • 40% think women exaggerate how unequally women are treated and 36% believe many women fail to appreciate all that men do for them”

Emphasis added

As I said I am actually heartened by not only the results of this survey – which Laura House refers to as “A shocking new study……” but by the fact that these feminists are shocked.

Based on the above results – half (50%) of respondents reject the hysterical overreaction to remarks/comments etc that apparently the vast majority of sensitive little snowflakes are too thin-skinned to either shrug off or respond to LIKE A GROWN UP – with a smart-arse comment of their own – or do their brains not function at the same speed as “misogynists” 😉

The last two figures give me even more hope – 40% seem to realise that everything feminists have ever peddled about “inequality” is complete and utter bullshit and LIES.

THE 36% articulating the sheer lack of normal decent gratitude for the sacrifices that MEN make FOR women is hopeful – perhaps by the time they do the next “survey” there will be a “do you believe that the vast majority of wimmin are whiney, hysterical, ungrateful, vindictive and manipulative wretches?” and that 36% will look like a blip compared to the overwhelming majority who will answer that question with a resounding – YES.

One can only hope.

Slainte

Quota Queens – Gimme Gimme Gimme!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impressive – isn’t it?

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

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

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

Clear evidence

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

Emphasis added

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

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

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

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

http://www.thea.ie/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emphasis added

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary Degree                       3-4 years

Masters                                     1- 2 years

Post Doc                                     6 years

Research etc                              2- 3 years

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

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

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

Ireland, Academic Career Structure

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

GradIreland:Lecturer, third level

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

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

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

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

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

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

new entrnts by field of study 04 05 HEA

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

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

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

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

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

Women make choices that FEMINISTS DON’T APPROVE OF.

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is:

post grad 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender resources

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

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

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

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

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

e-Presentations

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

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

Definition of key concepts
Paul Epstein QC (March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The burden of proof
Philip Rostant (November 2014)

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

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

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

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

Enjoy and Slainte

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Older Entries