Won’t Someone Have Pity on the Poor Poor little Rich Girls…..

 

Well, Una Mullally is at it again in the Irish times,  only this time she appears to have swallowed whole some rather large chunks of Bertie Wooster novels – her latest risible attempt at social commentary is replete with such words as “preposterous” and “for shame” and “outrageous” but this one is my favourite, her attempt at an impression of Penelope Keith a la The Good Life 

“……one simply does not have the time to fashion one’s own brie and cranberry tartlets in filo pastry because one has a bloody life.”

So, what is this latest offering from Mullally about? The title should give you a clue.

“Men need to step up to their role in Feminism 4.0”

Ah! It seems after decades of declaring feminism a penis free zone, all of a sudden the laydee’s NEED men, because the laydees apparently can’t do this “equality” stuff all by their little ole selves.  Hmmmmm, I have only one thing to say about this new demand.

Boo bloody hoo!

 

Mullally goes on about Nigella Lawson, some shoite about making gingerbread houses and a rancid tabloid, The Sun is being mean and horrible about the allegedly coke snorting cook who can’t actually cook.

“Of all the preposterous coverage of Nigella Lawson we have had to put up with, the Sun really took the poppyseed biscuit before Christmas with its revelations that the cook, an astoundingly busy career woman, had paid other people to do some stuff for her. Things that rich, busy people need to get done, such as catering and decorating a Christmas tree. For shame!”

 Crikey! Imagine that, Mullally getting her knickers in a knot about a tabloid being mean to a rich privileged twat, but in her quest for making this an “issue” worthy of ………well getting your knickers in a knot about, probably doesn’t want to be bothered thinking about all the families who barely survived on a few tins of beans and some Tesco burgers over Christmas – naw – sod ‘em – a rich privileged woman is being made fun of in the Sun – let’s start a campaign – let’s bore the pants off everybody by equating “equality” with the trials and tribulations of the rich, the privileged, the never had to struggle to survive a day in their lives.

Like Mullally’s other “victim” of “inequality” and “discrimination” one Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of facebook, but we’ll get to this “victim” shortly.

Mullally has a few more swipes to take at those mean tabloid hacks, picking on poor poor Nigella:

“By inventing a celebrity parent’s shortcomings, the Sun has condemned everyone who ever thought “Screw it” and finally got a cleaner in to do the bits they don’t have time to do, or anyone who drops their kid off in a creche on their way to work, or anyone who opted for Marks and Spencer three-for-two party food because one simply does not have the time to fashion one’s own brie and cranberry tartlets in filo pastry because one has a bloody life.”

See, Mullally knows the important issues to get on her high horse about, like getting snippy at people who have a problem with poor stressed rich folks who “finally got a cleaner in to do the bits they don’t have time to do,” or heavens to betsy the nerve, the absolute nerve of being snotty about “anyone who opted for Marks and Spencer three-for-two party food because one simply does not have the time to fashion one’s own brie and cranberry tartlets in filo pastry because one has a bloody life.”

This must all be so comforting and edifying for all those families, all those people, mostly men who have been laid off, made redundant and are now struggling to feed THEIR families, that Una Mullally is on the case, tackling the burning issues of “equality for rich people”

Ah yes, I can see why Mullally is a bit snippy about men not being exactly impressed with, or even interested in hearing about the “outrageous” calumnies perpetrated against rich people. Do these fools not realise? Can they not see?

Getting your knickers in a knot about rich privileged women is a cause that ALL men need to “man up” and get behind – stop that snivelling about your kids going to school with threadbare clothes – how dare you make a fuss about struggling to keep the heat going or the mortgage paid!  Really, don’t you know what the really really important issues are?

Feminism is just soooooooooooooooooo cool isn’t it? Ah but there’s more – you see even though both Lawson and Sandburg can literally command the media to report every inane thing they say or do, just by saying or doing it, apparently this is not enough and they are suffering, oh yes suffering, “due to the marginalisation of “serious” women’s voices”

“Of course there are endless perspectives on how to get on with one’s life as a woman, and Sandberg’s was just one of them. The reason this amplification of a singular  to perspective occurs is due to the marginalisation of “serious” women’s voices. So when one comes along, everyone simultaneously jumps on it and elevates it.”

Mullally really pushes the boat out on bleating about:

“Blokes don’t have to do that, because they talk about and to each other all the time, in their films and TV shows and parliaments and financial institutions and advertising agencies. Presumably once everything rights itself, in a few decades’ time, we’ll look at tomes such as Sandberg’s with the same amused curiosity with which we survey Victorian manuals on etiquette.”

Because you see, men talking to or about anything is a big fat no no, it’s a conspiracy you see, to silence women’s voices, if only there was a way to get this conspiracy to shut Mullally up, and rich twats like Nigella Lawson and Sheryl Sandberg and even Kim Khardasian who gets a mention from Mullally, because obviously none of these actually talk – they mime.  No one pays any attention to them, photographs them, quotes them, gives them publishing deals and television shows. Nope. Shoved into the background they are. Because:

But women, even Sandberg and Lawson, still get the crumbs from the table in terms of verbal and visual representation that isn’t about giggling and tits. So when a decent slice comes along, such as Lean In, we loaf it.

I have tears welling up at how oppressed, and marginalised and how discriminated against poor poor Sheryl and Nigella and Kim are.  It’s just so unfair isn’t it?

But never fear – Una Mullally is here, with her platform on the paper of record in Ireland, the Irish Times, to wave an admonishing finger, from her obviously silenced and marginalised and oppressed position of course, at you beastly men.

“If 2013 was about women leaning in, perhaps 2014 should be about men leaning out. Gender equality cannot happen solely by women leaning in. What are we leaning against? And why won’t these invisible boulders give way? Who is pushing from the other side? Everything would be much easier if men got on board.”

All you homeless men shivering in doorways, stop that coughing and groaning and “get on board”  all you unemployed men, struggling to feed your families and pay your mortgages, stop being so selfish and oppressive to rich women and “get on board”

Mullally preened a bit, she was on the telly, and a male panellist said something totally “outrageous”

“I was on the current affairs programme, Midweek, on TV3 recently discussing the gender pay gap. A male panellist was asked if he was a feminist. He replied, with a bit of a grin, “No comment.” How outrageous. Feminism is about equality. Would a person on television be so happy to reply “No comment” if they were asked whether racism was okay, or whether people should be persecuted for their religious beliefs? Why won’t men embrace feminism when it benefits all of us?”

It is unfathomable isn’t it, when feminism has lied, falsified data and statistics regarding domestic abuse of men, encouraged and applauded false rape allegation, parental alienation, the excision of fathers from their children’s lives, and demanded more and more and more public money so that fat arsed, useless feminist twats can demand higher and higher salaries for doing absolutely sod all of any worth.

So, Una in answer to your question.

“Why won’t men embrace feminism when it benefits all of us?”

Because feminism is a vile hate spewing ideology that seeks to benefit ONLY shrill useless spiteful vindictive and ignorant twats like YOU.

From one Non feminist WOMAN to a……………[fill in appropriate word here]

 

 

 

Mrs Justice Parker: Don’t always believe claims of domestic violence, as parents can ‘rewrite’ history when making accusations against each other

Is the tide finally starting to turn? Mrs Justice Parker in the High Court in the UK admonished social workers in this case for automatically believing allegations of domestic violence made against a father by a vindictive mother in a custody case, they believed her – the Judge didn’t!

Forsooth! Save Me Oh Gallant Knight…..

 

Forsooth, save me oh gallant knight from the perils and pitfalls of beastly marauders and ruffians, for I am but a weak and fragile maiden of delicate sensibilities and shall swoon in despair if my most trifling fancy is not granted forthwith.

Yawn!

I’ve been wondering why all our modern day “ladies” and gallant “knights” don’t just revert back to the rather flowery language of the golden age of chivalry and be done with it.  After all, according to the best “minds” of modern 21st century “experts” on male female relationships, all women are ladies of delicate sensibilities, and all men gallant knights who live to serve fair ladies, or at least should be.

Oh wait – I forgot – women are empowered, independent and self actualised autonomous beings, except when they’re not – and all men are bastards – except men who play along with the contradictory and confused “myth of womanhood” that holds these two completely opposite paradigms as true. Though, if you ever get a chance to eavesdrop on the “girl talk” of these “ladies” you will discover that yep – you’re a bastard too – just a useful one, because you, in your gallantry, don’t expect women to be ADULTS.

I actually get more flak from men when I state “I’m not a feminist” and “nope, never been oppressed” and “thanks but I can do that myself” at first it was odd, then it started to get annoying, now – well now apparently I’m “no lady” – well thank fuck for that!

Do I think that those gallant men who have attempted to “treat me like a lady” with all that this entails [sigh] are bastards and just trying to “oppress” me? Nope – they are merely following a script, acting out roles that have been hammered into their heads, literally following their programming. Then when their programming is challenged, when the recipient of this gallantry refuses to follow the script – in their confusion and disgruntlement and because the other party to this ridiculous script is ad libbing they get – a tad touchy.

Which in many ways is understandable, after all, they’re been learning this script all their lives, rehearsals are ongoing, rewrites are par for the course, their part stays the same, the lines never change, their role never changes, even as the female leads in this real life play edit their own script, don bizarre “costumes” depending on whether or not they are playing “ladies” or sluts.

Nope, the female characters bio stays the same – “weak and fragile maiden with delicate sensibilities” even as she whacks you over the head with the nearest kitchen utensil, screams abuse and foul language at you, kicks you out of your house and prevents you from seeing your beloved children – she is still a delicate fragile flower of perfect womanhood who needs to “be taken care of”

Perhaps you are a young man and want to go to college and study engineering, or physics, or some other highly complex subject for which you have an aptitude for? You apply, you get turned down, this is odd, you’ve gotten top grades in your subject since – forever – it’s all you ever wanted to do.

Want to know why you, the best candidate got turned down? Because some barely competent female decided it would “be cool” to be an engineer, did she work as hard as you? Don’t be daft. The college wooed her, with grants, with mega tons of path smoothing, with lowered standards, and laid out a red carpet so she wouldn’t have to scuff her Manolo Blahniks as she sashayed into college and took your place. And according to the script, this is where you shrug your shoulders, smile ruefully and applaud this delicate and fragile creature for after all – what a lady wants – a lady gets.

Here’s the punchline – those men who see themselves as gallant Sir Galahad’s, as “gentlemen” protecting the laydees from even the slightest inconvenience or upset are in fact the MOST discriminatory, the most anti “equality” the most patronising and condescending – your behaviour is saying, loud and clear – you are an incompetent nitwit, with barely the sense you were born with, you are a child, an immature useless twat who couldn’t find her ass with a map.

The ones who bleat about “how women are discriminated against” and therefore need special protection? Who would these terrible discriminatory men be?

That would be YOU – discriminating against women – because you DON’T see autonomous human beings, you DON’T see that by treating someone like a child you encourage and enable childishness, immaturity and self absorption. You give selfish self absorbed women permission to BE selfish and self-absorbed, you do them a huge disservice by enabling ridiculous pouty and immature behaviour and “protecting” them from adult accountability. Now THAT’S discrimination. To treat an adult like a child, and refuse to hold them accountable for their behaviour.

You want to know what I see, when one of these gallant knights hove’s into view?

A FOOL, a pompous condescending robot, parroting a script, playing a part, because he’s too afraid to let go of his safe secure rigid role as “man who protects women and is therefore one of the good guys” actually you’re not one of the good guys, you’re a patsy, a tool, a sap.

You define yourself by your usefulness to women, by allowing yourself to be used, by being, unbeknownst to you, the butt of the joke – and what is the joke that women tell behind your back?

“he’s such a fool that all I have to do is flutter my eyelashes, flatter his ego by purring what a big strong man he is – and he is putty in my hands – I can make him do whatever I like”

Yep, these are the delicate fragile sensitive little creatures that you congratulate yourself on being in thrall too – these are the manipulative scheming and avaricious harpies that play you like a violin.

You really want to actually do women a favour? To show that you “respect” women?

Then first and foremost, start treating them like adults, stop excusing and justifying petty and spiteful behaviour, start expecting grown women to take responsibility for THEIR actions. You know what you get if you let a child act out, or don’t correct bad behaviour – a spoilt brat that throws tantrums.

Have some respect for yourself – stop allowing yourself to be hoodwinked, stop congratulating yourself on being a “good guy” who only exists to serve women – any woman – no one really likes an ass kisser, a sycophant, a patsy. If you ARE one of those “good guys” who believes that women are equal to men then start acting like you believe it.  Hold women to the same standards as you hold men.

And no, I’m not talking about superficial difference in strength, or capacity to do certain jobs, but more fundamental standards of honesty, integrity, loyalty, truth and compassion. Those standards.

But perhaps more importantly, realise this – human beings come in all sorts of sizes and shapes, all levels of competence and ability, varying degrees of arseholery and decency – being male or female is the least important aspect of this package we call a human being. To elevate one sex over another, and pedestalise one entire sex is to deny the inherent humanity in the other. Consequent to this of course is that, if you’re the one that gets to worship at this pedestal, by its very nature – you will NEVER be good enough, not for the twat you just hoisted up on that pedestal.

Does it even need to be said? If you put someone up on a pedestal looking DOWN on you, why would it come as a surprise to know that she IS actually looking DOWN on you – you gave her permission to do so.

 

Sweet Talking Women

 

One of the main differences between men and women is how they communicate, both verbally and non-verbally, in the Gender Communication – PpD – (Personal and professional Development) these “styles” are described thus:

 The styles that men and women use to communicate have been described as “debate vs. relate“, “report vs. rapport, or “competitive vs. co-operative“. Men often seek straightforward solutions to problems and useful advice whereas women tend to try and establish intimacy by discussing problems and showing concern and empathy in order to reinforce relationships.”

 The above quoted passage is superficially correct, especially with regard to “women tend to try and establish intimacy by discussing problems and showing concern and empathy in order to reinforce relationships” what this article fails to address though is that, this “style” of communication has a purpose that is a bit more calculating that simply to “reinforce relationships” for positive reasons – women do this to gather around them a buffer, a human shield of gallant protectors.

The object is to flatter, to stroke the ego’s of men and present themselves as empathetic and sympathetic, so that in the event they commit a faux pas, or the mask of sweetness and light slips, they will be protected from the consequences – because – look at how sweet and sympathetic she is.

 A caveat regarding this article, it is replete with assumptions, with stereotypes about men, and why men communicate or rather appear to communicate the way they do, but it does a not half bad job of analysing how women communicate, even though the conclusions reached by the author(s) of this article are eyerollingly absurd. Its usefulness is in more what it gets wrong than what it gets right.

For example this passage.

 “No matter what the topic, girl talk entails the rapid disclosure of details, with the expectation of immediate and enthusiastic reciprocation. The male verbal strategy is to divulge as few personal details as possible, while assiduously avoiding all expressions of emotion that could be interpreted as weakness.”

 The important point to note here is the expectation of “immediate and enthusiastic reciprocation” not in the sense of divulging personal details, though that is important, but to understand the deeper and darker purpose behind this.

First – I’m female, and “girl talk” bores the knickers off me, second because “girl talk” isn’t as innocent or altruistic as it is presented here – garnering personal details is a female strategy for garnering ammunition – to be used judiciously in the event that the hapless fool who fell for the sweet-talking doe eyed and sympathetic new “best friend” falls out of favour with this new “best friend” who will then use said ammunition to subtly and maliciously undermine a rival, or cast aspersions on someone who seems to be becoming “more popular” or in some cases – just for the hell of it.

There is an interesting passage in this article, which touches on some communication errors that females make, and gives some advice as to how to correct them to be a more effective communicator, but of course barely skims the surface of what is really going on.

The following points are adapted from The Androgynous Manager, by Alice G. Sargent, Amacom, 1981:

• Learn to state exactly what you want and face the risk of being cut down or wrong, especially at meetings. This is not a “safe” position, but it is an honest one. Be concerned more about stating your own position than about how the other person is reacting to you.

This is interesting because it does almost get to the heart of how women react to criticism, and how men react to women being criticised. Women expect that everything they say, in their “gosh golly” way will be immediately greeted with parades and balloons – and get snippy and defensive when it is not – this is when they resort to that age old tactic of making snide underhand little comments designed to undermine their opponent.

MRA’s know this one all too well. This is also the point where the gallant knights rush in to protect the poor maligned sweet talking girly girl and almost comically take on all comers in defence of this poor misunderstood damsel – because you see – saying things in an ambiguous and vague way is a classic tactic of women to absolve themselves of the consequences of being caught out.

State your own needs and do not back down even if the immediate response is non acceptance.

Ah yes, perpetuating the universal belief – among women that is – that their “needs” are of paramount importance, ergo refusing to accept – well being refused – this is euphemistically called “being assertive” but is actually just being a nagging whining twat.

• Stop self-limiting behaviours, such as allowing interruptions or laughing after making a serious statement.

This “self-limiting” behaviour the article talks about here and again misses the point by a million miles is that other age old tactic of women – play the helpless damsel in distress and someone else, usually a man will come to your rescue and do the task you really actually DON’T want to do – it’s the “I’m just a girl” thing. The laughing is an artefact to reinforce the “just a silly little girl” pose.

• Practice taking risks and overcoming fear.

This one made me smile – because you see if women actually did this – they would also have to take responsibility for those risks they took – and this is NOT in the female playbook at all – there always has to be someone ELSE to blame – preferably a man.

• Learn to focus on a task and regard it as at least as important as the relationship among the people doing the task. This is particularly important for women.

Again, expecting women to actually DO the job they are being paid to do, and cut out the chit chat and gossip and endless mindless pointless “girl talk” or “man flattering” requires much more than an incredibly naive “how to” article from well-meaning but clueless communication experts.

Stop turning anger and blame inward. Stop making negative statements about yourself. Make positive statements. Another point particularly relevant to women.

Sigh – another tried and tested tactic of women – which relates to next point as well.

• Stop feeling comfortable with being a victim and suffering.

Both these pieces of advice ignore the purpose for which women do these things – that purpose is to get someone to “rescue them” to coddle them, to drop everything and focus attention on the poor poor girl who feels soooooo bad about herself. That and to get someone else to do their dirty work for them.

• Deal differently with women: If female yourself develop an “old girl” network, working more closely with other women. If male be prepared to listen and forthcoming with information.

The only “advice” I would give any woman entering a nest of vipers, such as this quaintly called “old girl” network is this – watch your back.

The other communication “style” of women is the non verbal one, which this series of slides seeks to address – How does Gender Affect Non-Verbal Communication?

Naturally enough it starts off with some tried and tested stereotypes and myths to get the ball rolling and set the stage for analysing non verbal communication.

Robert St. Estephe over at The Unknown History of Misandry  has a positive wealth of historical information on ALL these “female behaviours” and “styles” of non verbal communication utilised by women – to get away with murder that is.  Literally.

You might want to check out this and this to start with.

Moving on, with the typical “myths” encapsulated in this statement.

“Attributes that women in Western Culture are taught -politeness, deference, humility-and the way they are projected through our gestures, gait and self-presentation communicate subservience and meekness.”

“…Tilting your head—submission/flirting”

If you’ve gone to take a look at Robert’s excellent site, you will now realise that this tactic is akin to the alluring and intoxicating but deadly false face of the Venus Flytrap – rather than “submission and flirting” this is baiting and springing the trap.

Folding your hands on your lap–untrustworthiness or submission

For women – this is more likely a non verbal way of showing disapproval and sulking when not getting one’s own way – if accompanied by a superficial demeanour of “submission” it is classic passive agressive behaviour.

Crossing your legs—resistance or anxiety or smallness

Oh pluuuuuuuuueze – depending on how short the skirt is – its bait.

Excessive smiling–lack of seriousness

Sigh – tactics – flattery – ego stroking – creating the illusion of a sweet natured and passive little girl who just wants to “please you”

Crossing your arms in front of you–insecurity or defensiveness

Hmmm, maybe – but for women – more likely to be the prelude to a full blown tantrum, a mark of disapproval – a way of letting you – a man know, in no uncertain terms, that you are now on the shit list – and then some.

Playing with or tugging at your hair, jewelry or clothes–distress or flirting.

Bait.

So, for all those that actually think that “sweet talking women” are always – well just “sweet talking women – I hope that you will at least think twice before falling for this shit.

I am Woman…….Hear Me Lie Through My Teeth.

 

While this is a sparse report – Dental nurse who claimed boss struck her loses appeal bid –Ray Managh– 19 December 2013, Irish Independent,  (I tried without success to find the original ET case) on what seems like a minor incident it serves as a useful example of several persistent and deeply embedded cultural and social norms that need to be as vigorously challenged as much as the broader issues of legal and political importance.

In a nutshell, Ann O’Reilly a 53 year old dental nurse worked for Dr. Tom Hughes in Malahide Co. Dublin for apparently 14 years without incident decided on a whim, or perhaps in a calculated attempt to extort money launched a case for “constructive dismissal” against Dr. Hughes.

Given the bare bones nature of this report it appears that Ms. O’Reilly saw an opportunity to get some free money and took it – in the expectation that her word, and her dramatic telling of how she was “assaulted” by Dr. Hughes would be immediately believed.

Alas, that is not what happened; Ms. O’Reilly’s case for constructive dismissal was, well – dismissed by the Equality Tribunal. This did not sit well with Ms. O’Reilly, so she appealed this decision to the circuit court, as is her right, and – her appeal was also dismissed.  Not a happy day at all for Ms. O’Reilly.

“A 58-year-old dental nurse, who alleged she had to quit her job because her employer struck her with his closed fist, has lost a court challenge to an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision to dismiss her claim.”

Ann O’Reilly was told in the Circuit Civil Court by Judge Matthew Deery that she had again failed to prove constructive dismissal against her former boss, Malahide dentist Dr Tom Hughes, or that there had been any element of assault by him.”

So, what DID happen?

According to O’Reilly her employer “struck her with a close fist” in effect assaulted her, ah but wait, is this one those “he said, she said” things that women are so fond of basing “frivolous and vexatious” claims on? I am being more kind than most of these women deserve – the words vindictive, malicious, perjured and spiteful are usually more approriate to describe the “claims” of most women.

Where were we?  Ah yes – “he said, she said” I think I would notice if someone struck another person with a closed fist, would you? Yep – thought so, and that is where it gets interesting, there was a witness to this alleged incident of violence, a patient sitting the dentist chair:

They had spoken to the patient who had been in the dental chair at the time of the incident and the patient had not noticed anything.”

You may be wondering who “they” are? Well “they would be the Gardai, because you see O’Reilly said:

She was very upset and shocked but finished her day’s work. She immediately contacted her solicitor and the gardai.”

Hmmm, so her claim is that her employer “assaulted” her in front of a witness, and not only could she mange to “finish her day’s work” but the witness “had not noticed anything”

Secondly, after working for 14 years for Dr. Hughes, without incident one has to presume, her first thought was – Gardai AND Solicitor!

In fact, this is what happened after this alleged assault:

The judge said that, following the incident on January 23 last year, she had not returned to work. Had she responded to approaches by fellow colleagues the matter could have been addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. However, she insisted on going down the legal road.”

He accepted that Dr Hughes had at all times wanted her to return to work and that Ms O’Reilly, who had worked at the surgery for 14 years, had insisted on him admitting what he had done and apologising to her.”

Fellow colleagues “approached” her, again one has to presume that these are also colleagues of Dr. Hughes, I hardly imagine that they would have tried if they believed for one minute that she had been “assaulted” in the manner she claimed she had been by Dr. Hughes?  Do you?

Nope – she “insisted on going down the legal road” a road that ultimately turned out to be paved with disappointment and disbelief of her dramatic little story. In fact, it is not unkind to say that she has been publically shown to be a liar, a greedy avaricious and conniving con artist who depended on a couple of myths.

The first that simply because she is female, and decides to get hysterical and make a mountain out of a molehill – she should be automatically believed.

The second, that because she has created out of whole cloth this hysterical and blatant pack of lies, which because she is female should and be automatically believed – she deserves compensation for her manufactured upset and shock.

So, what really happened?

Dr Hughes, of The Gallery Practice, Malahide, Co Dublin, told the court that, for safety reasons, he had moved Ms O’Reilly’s hand away from the operating button of a machine in the surgery while he was taking a patient’s dental impression.”

“He told the court that he had done so to avoid the possibility of injury to anyone in the surgery, including Ms O’Reilly.”

Let’s just go back a few steps, after finishing her day’s work in spite of allegedly being “assaulted” by Dr. Hughes, and in spite of being “very upset and shocked” and in spite of being employed by Dr. Hughes for 14 years. What does she do?

She sees an opportunity to make not just a quick buck, by manufacturing a pack of lies, and her first action is call the Gardai to make a false statement about being “assaulted” by Dr. Hughes – that must have been fun for Dr. Hughes and his family, but then immediately her solicitor.

Yes indeed, because we all know how MEN accused of assaulting WOMEN are treated?  Did this deter O’Reilly? Not at all, in fact it appears that in spite of attempts by colleagues to resolve this, she was hell bent on getting her pay-off and to hell with truth, to hell with the consequences for an innocent man.

Dr. Hughes is a lucky man, both the Equality Tribunal and the Circuit Court recognised a bare faced liar and con artist when they saw one – not all are so lucky.

Because O’Reilly is unfortunately NOT an exception, she is rather, a fairly typical example of the kinds of vicious, vindictive spiteful and lying venal creatures many many women are.

A Just Cause.

 

Throughout history there have people who have spoken up, and spoken out about injustice, about mans capacity for inhumanity against their fellow men, and they often have put themselves in peril, run the risk of themselves being vilified, scorned and sometimes worse. But, in spite of this they have persevered, and eventually triumphed, or at least that which they sought to change has come to pass.

Another thing to bear in mind is that inevitably these have been, as we all are, imperfect and flawed human beings, but what marks the three I am going to talk about is that the Just Cause they all championed, in their individual ways was out of a desire to right a wrong, to benefit others, to put their talents, their energy, and sometimes their lives on the line FOR others.

These men, and yes they are three remarkable men, sought nothing for themselves, nothing but to aid, to defend, to protect and to stand up and speak FOR those who had no voice, had no means, had no power to speak for themselves.

William Wilberforce, Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr, and late Nelson Mandela (R.I.P) were such men, flawed human beings, but heroic none the less.

All sought to end something evil, something wrong, something unjust and inhumane, and ALL knew that doing so, was to be “unpopular” was to place themselves in harm’s way, to subject themselves to approbation and scorn and danger.

It is not courage to do something that one has no fear of doing, or to say something that will barely raise an eyebrow, it is courage to do something that carries risk, that places oneself in harm’s way FOR another human being, and I don’t mean someone one loves and cares about, but strangers, for those who do not even ask for aid. Because, for many, they are so inured, so numbed by their own unjust circumstances that they accept it, they fail to recognise their entrapment, they have lost the ability to articulate a vague sense of unease or wrongness that weighs like an invisible burden across their shoulders.

Now, ask yourselves, how does “speaking up” on behalf of so called “victims” that requires and demands acts of inhumanity , acts of injustice, acts of derision and scorn at the suffering of others constitute a just cause?

Of what do I speak? Well feminism of course.

There are those who laud the efforts of the pioneers, the proto feminists – suffragettes – as heroines, as noble selfless creatures engaged in a just cause.

I disagree, and I am also loath to count these proto feminists amongst the three genuinely noble humanists I mentioned above, for one reason.  They did NOT seek to alleviate the suffering of their fellow human beings, whether male or female, they did NOT seek to right a wrong, to campaign against an injustice, against acts of inhumanity.

They campaigned for the right to access POWER – political power – they agitated for self aggrandisement; they committed acts of illegality and to be blunt terrorism to advance the already privileged position of a small group of privileged WOMEN.

These are the toxic roots, the venal and self-serving motives of feminism, NOT noble, NOT engaged in acts of selflessness and altruism. A campaign for power, nothing more, nothing less.

Which brings us to the Men’s Human Rights Movement [MHRM].  Are we seeking power? No. Is this a campaign, a cause, peopled by elite privileged men seeking to increase their “privilege”? No, it is not.

It is peopled by men AND women of conscience, who see all around them the Human Rights of Men and Boys being trampled into the dirt, who see men and boys being abused, being derided, being accused, jailed and punished unjustly at the whim and on the perjury of vindictive, spiteful women.  It has one purpose, one message.

Men’s Rights are Human Rights – and THAT is a Just Cause.

 

Jacky Jones – On her High Horse………again!

 

Jacky Jones is on her high horse in the Irish Times – again – about “Equality” and in particular about the “gender imbalance” on a newly created “working group on citizen engagement.”

 I’ll let her set the tone for her latest whine about “equality”

Equality for women is associated with better health for everyone. Despite this, equal participation of women in decision-making forums remains abysmally low.”

 There are two things to note about this opening statement, neither of which, in a whine about “equality” mentions men. In a nutshell, as long as women are happy and healthy, then by association, EVERYBODY is happy and healthy.  Because, you see the thing we all have to get into our thick heads is this – WOMEN are the standard by which all things in the universe are measured, ALL things.

 With regard to her second whine, that “women in decision-making forums remains abysmally low” Jacky is misrepresenting things just a bit, ok a lot, because the purpose of this working group is to:

“make recommendations on more extensive and diverse input by citizens into the decision-making process”.

 Sounds pretty straightforward doesn’t it, but Jacky prefers to ignore this and use it as an opportunity to have a rant on “equality” and in particular “women in decision-making forums remains abysmally low” and is so “incensed” as she says, that she took it upon herself to complain, and one presumes that because it was Jacky complaining the chairperson of this working group should have immediately hopped to and complied. Except they didn’t, nope, she got an answer that did NOT please Jacky one little bit.

 She moaned about their being “six men and two women” and when the work of this group is complete “is expected to report back to Mr Hogan in December.” Mr, Hogan being the ELECTED Minister at The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and the one with the actual “decision making power” given him by the ELECTORATE to make decisions on their behalf.

 Oh no, Jacky has decided that regardless of whether or not an individual is competent, on any “decision making forum” there has to be a 50/50 “balance” skill, talent, competence, experience or expertise is irrelevant. Don’t believe me, this is the answer that Jacky got in response to her whiney complaint:

“The members were chosen for their experience and expertise in community engagement with the State’s machinery and are not on the group to represent any particular section of society.”

 See that? Chosen for their “experience and expertise”

 Did this make Jacky happy?  Don’t be daft, of course it didn’t, so she complained AGAIN, and demanded further “answers” and when she didn’t get the response SHE demanded then she went on a big ole irrelevant rant about “volunteers” about “carers”

“two-thirds of all volunteers in Ireland are women who spend their lives dealing with the machinery of the State.”

And this:

“Almost two-thirds of carers are women who spend their lives dealing with the machinery of the State.”

 By “dealing with machinery of the State” I’m guessing filling in forms and being able to communicate with officials from the various State departments on an individual basis is more than enough “experience and expertise” to participate in a government sponsored working groups? Well THAT, and being female of course.

 But the piece de résistance of Jacky’s big ole moan was this:

“Every decision made by local authorities affects women more than men. Think pushchairs, shopping, school runs.”

There you have it, the big issues that impact on women that DESERVE the 100% attention of the entire machinery of the State are “pushchairs, shopping, school runs” male homelessness, suicide and lack of resources or facilities for male victims of Domestic Abuse are piffling concerns when it comes to shopping, and pushing babies about!

 But what really got Jacky’s goat was being dismissed, what really ticked Jacky off big time is that she was NOT listened too, she had demanded and expected an explanation, in her arrogance she obviously assumed that SHE had some valuable input and ergo MUST have HER recommendations complied with.

“With such a dismissive attitude, how can Ireland ever hope to achieve gender equality? Ireland ranks 24th out of 27 EU member states in relation to numbers of female elected representatives”

 What on earth could be this “dismissive attitude” that so “incensed” Jacky? Well it was the second response:

“When I again protested about the gender imbalance, the press office replied: “Thanks for your comments, I have high hopes that they [the members] will feed into the consultative process.”

 Cue another big irrelevant rant on more irrelevant “issues” as a smokescreen to hide Jacky’s disbelief at being dismissed, at being brushed off, at not getting the answers SHE demanded.

 Because you see, Jacky doesn’t give a shit about the purpose of this working group, she also could care less about the actual bona fides of the members of this working group as SHE dismisses THEM peremptorily and contemptuously on the basis of THEIR “gender”

“The group is chaired by Fr Seán Healy from Social Justice Ireland and has representatives from Pobal, The Wheel, South Tipperary County Council, an environment group (unclear which one), and the Community Platform. 

These may be very able people but how were they selected?”

 Because you see for Jacky “equality” means one thing and one thing only – what about the wooooooooooooomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen?

 I just love her final little smug statement, bearing in mind the utter tripe she just went on a moan about.

“Equal societies have healthier men, women and children, less obesity, less drug use, better mental health and healthier older people. What are we waiting for?”

 Is that so Jacky?  Well you of course being the expert on “equality” should have no problem with people being chosen for working groups on the basis of “experience and expertise” rather than just on whatever genitalia they happen to be in possession of? No? 

Previous Older Entries