The Patriarchy Made Me Do it.

 

One of the touchstones of feminism is that it absolves all women from all accountability for their actions and can be summed up in the title of this essay – The Patriarchy made me do it” – from the relatively benign (nagging) to the most lethal (murder).

In any civilised society the murder of innocents should be met with universal approbation and universal condemnation, and there is none more innocent than a newborn infant is there? Herod is oft used as an example of the evil of men; he slaughtered thousands of innocent babes, in an effort to make sure just one died.  When one reads of tyrants and despots who have also killed the innocent, the word slaughter is the one invariably used – because it describes the sheer horror and loathing attached to this most evil of deeds.

The Slaughter of Innocents. The killing of babies.

What one will notice though, is that this most pejorative of terms is only used when men kill babies, when women kill babies, other words are used, words that place a distance between the act and the one who carried out this act. In fact, when women kill, the reluctance to focus blame or condemnation upon the heads of these women culminates in one overarching and all encompassing……..excuse.

The Patriarchy Made me Do it.

Since time immemorial, the patriarchy has been forcing women into committing heinous acts of barbarity, and so therefore when a female commits such an act – yes you’ve guessed it – it is the fault of this all powerful patriarchy. So it is that modern feminism has utilised this powerful coercive force as a catch all overarching alternative culprit for the acts of women that fly in the face of civilised behaviour.

Who are, or what is this all powerful patriarchy? Why it is men, all men, acting in concert, bound together with one overriding purpose – to enslave, to disempower, to oppress, to coerce ALL women into bending to the will of the all powerful patriarchy – the collective power of men over women.

Which is rather odd, when one considers, that with regard to that most abhorrent of all abhorrent acts, the slaughter of babies – newborn infants – that it was this all powerful patriarchy which introduced in 1922 (amended in 1938) in Great Britain, similarly in Canada and Australia and in 1949 in Ireland, these Infanticide Acts, which sought to absolve any woman who killed her newborn infant from full culpability for this act of murder, by making it NOT murder, not slaughter, not really her fault. From The Enactment of an Irish Infanticide Act  by Karen Brennan.

“In 1922, an infanticide statute was enacted in England and Wales. The Infanticide Act 1922 was later amended in 1938 to accommodate the killing of infants up to the age of 12 months, allowing a woman who wilfully killed her infant to be charged with/convicted of infanticide, an offence akin to manslaughter in terms of seriousness and punishment, notwithstanding that she would otherwise be guilty of murder, provided that at the time of killing the balance of her mind was disturbed by the effect of childbirth or lactation.1

The Irish Parliament followed suit in 1949. The Infanticide Act 1949 drew extensively on the English example, allowing a woman who murdered her infant to be tried for/convicted of infanticide where she “by any wilful act or omission caused the death of her child” aged under 12 months while “the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child”.2

Where a woman was sent for trial for or convicted of infanticide she would be tried and punished as if she had been charged with or convicted of manslaughter.3 Importantly, this meant she would be tried at the Circuit Criminal Court, a court of lower criminal jurisdiction, and would be subject to a flexible sentencing regime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Numerous other jurisdictions have adopted similar measures. (4)”

(4) For example Canada, Hong Kong, Fiji, New South Wales and Victoria have all enacted similar measures.

 One of the first things one should note are the years – we are talking about a period in time when according to feminism was the zenith of patriarchal oppression of women, a period of time that precedes that oft quoted period when women were apparently chained in kitchens, enslaved by men, and to all intents and purposes voiceless – the 1950’s. This oppression of course was ongoing, was a historical fact, the 1950’s being that period in time when women started to fight against these oppressive patriarchal chains.

But with regard to the killing of babies by their mothers, surely these acts were so rare that  legislation was unnecessary, surely in the rare instances that a woman killed her newborn the mechanisms for dealing with such acts was already incorporated into the statute books, after all, even a woman who killed her newborn infant was entitled to a defence?

Between the years 1927 – 1949 in Ireland a total of 1,158 babies died, of those, 167 were over I year old, 135 were under 1 year old, and 856 were classified as Concealment of Birth cases (COB) a lesser charge, but nonetheless these babies died. At the hands of their mothers.

Over a period of 22 years, a little over 52 babies died every year – at the hands of their mothers. Approximately one per week, every week, for 22 years.

Figures from Table A page 52 The Enactment of an Irish Infanticide Act.

In her paper Punishing Infanticide in the Irish Free State, Dr Karen Brennan examines how a sample (124) of these women were punished through:

“The impact of patriarchal ideologies and pragmatic considerations on sentencing practice in cases of infanticide is explored, particularly in regard to the use of religious institutions. One of the questions considered is whether the approach to sentencing women convicted of infanticide offences was a unique product of the patriarchal, conservative, catholic, and nationalist philosophies of the Irish Free State, or whether sentencing practice in these cases reflects wider trends in the response to female criminality which have been identified elsewhere.”

Throughout her paper Brennan focuses on not just the prevailing attitudes within Irish society that apparently led to these women killing their babies, but naturally enough presents us with a smokescreen of obfuscation, sleight of academic hand, and deliberate misdirection to emphasis:

“…..that in order to avoid a prison term many women had to abide by a particularly onerous condition which, among other things, involved a deprivation of liberty. Indeed, when convent disposals are taken into consideration, it can be said that 75% of infanticide-related convictions resulted in a form of detention.”

Page 17

In fact, further along in her paper, having expanded on her theme of focusing on the supposed main issues “sexual immorality” relating to the act of women killing their newborn infants, she wraps up with this in relation to these women being sent to convents and religious institutions to:

“…be “doubly oppressive” because their objective is to re-socialise the offender to conform to “traditional female roles”.140”

What she is talking about is that Irish judges were reluctant to send women to prison, in fact both Irish judges and juries, prosecutors were also almost all reluctant to charge women with murder at all. Incorporated into the Infanticide Act was a mechanism for a lesser charges of Manslaughter, Concealment of Birth and child abandonment/child cruelty and the general practice of sending these “offenders” to convents or religious institutions for a maximum of three years, as punishment, for killing their babies: Brennan explores this in her paper. One presumes that part of the re-socialisation process might include some focus on NOT killing your newborn infant?

“This article explores sentencing of women convicted of infanticide offences at the Central Criminal Court between 1922 and 1949. A sample of 124 cases involving women who had been convicted of manslaughter, concealment of birth, or child abandonment/child cruelty, after appearing at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of murdering their newly or recently born infant, is examined.

The sentences imposed in this sample mainly include short prison terms, suspended prison sentences, and conditional discharges/probation. It will be argued that the limited use of imprisonment, particularly in cases involving manslaughter convictions, indicates that Irish judges took a lenient approach to sentencing in cases of maternal infanticide. The court records show that a notable aspect of sentencing practice in these Irish infanticide cases is the use of non-penal religious institutions, mostly convents, as an alternative to traditional custody.”

Introduction.

But what does Brennan really focus on in her paper? What is it that exercises her mind, rather than of course the deaths of newborn infants at the hands of their mothers? or is that one of those “traditional female roles”?

“The focus on traditional standards and the perceived link between public morals and the security of the Irish nation had a particular impact on women.14 Ecclesiastical and political discourse constructed an idealised Irish woman, one who, by being pure, passive, self-sacrificing, and domestic, would support the state’s efforts to develop the fledgingnation and help defend it against the forces of modern influence.15 Particular importance was placed on the virtue of Irish women.

It seems that a view emerged which identified sexual immorality in females as posing a threat, not only to the family, but also to the stability of the new nation.16 One group of women attracted particular attention in the state’s drive towards national purity: the unmarried mother.

These women represented the antithesis of the idealised version of womanhood presented by state and church officials and were thought to pose a particular danger to the nation’s morality.17 Thus, although motherhood was idealised by politicians and church-men alike, “the female body and the maternal body, particularly in its unmarried condition, became a central focus of concern to the state and the Catholic Church”.18”

Page 3

She places a huge amount of emphasis on “increasing disquiet about sexual morality” comes back over and over again to:

“Strong cultural disapproval of illegitimacy and sexual immorality meant unmarried mothers potentially faced familial condemnation and alienation from the community, as well as unemployment and economic hardship. Double standards in sexual morality allowed men to avoid responsibility.19”

Eventually concluding Section II – Gender Ideology of the Irish Free State, with this summary, bearing in mind that the ostensible subject of her paper is Infanticide in Ireland. Without once mentioning the immorality of killing your newborn baby.

“In summary, as a result of cultural and ideological views, unmarried motherhood was largely unacceptable in the Irish Free State. From the state’s point of view, it appears that the solution to the issue of unmarried motherhood was to tacitly support institutionalisation of problematic women, for such periods as would ensure their reform and, in some cases, protect society against moral contagion.”

Indeed, the notion that these “problematic women” who killed their babies should be “institutionalised” is the patriarchy in all its evil action against innocent women.

What is clear though from a reading of both papers is this – the killing of babies at the hands of their mothers is in effect irrelevant, because women only kill because of external factors, and those external factors can be summed up in one word – Patriarchy.  The second thing which is abundantly clear is that the notion that women should be punished for killing their babies is anathema – and even when they are punished – by being sent to convents or religious institutions for a maximum of three years, this is “doubly oppressive” apparently because it results in a “loss of liberty” she also continues to refer to these women as “unmarried mothers” in an obvious attempt to distract the reader from one salient and pertinent fact – they are not, and were not “mothers” or has she forgotten – they killed their babies.

Ironically, while Brennan bewails the “patriarchial gender ideologies” of that period in time – she fails to either notice, or deliberately ignores, that these “patriarchal gender ideologies” are the very reasons why women who killed their babies not just had available to them a legislative device (Infanticide Acts) for avoiding punishment for murder, but a judicial and institutional mechanism for literally allowing them to get away with murder. The theme here in these papers is that women who kill their babies should NOT be punished, at all, it is “inhumane” it is “doubly oppressive” and anyway:

The Patriarchy Made me Do it – 1,158 times – one baby a week, every week for 22 years. Has anything changed at all in the last 70 years? Anything?

Ask the feminists.

 

© Anja Eriud

 

They’re doing it Wrong……feminists that is.

 

I’ve just realised something, or rather something has crystallised, today’s young women are not really feminists, oh of course they call themselves feminists, some even have “certificates” to prove that they are feminists, but in reality, nope, NOT feminists.

In fact as I was pondering on this I took a trip over to the Counterfeminist and read this, posted on Friday, January 24, 2014  A Feminist Confirms that Non-Feminist and Anti-Feminist Amount to the Same which led me to this article, This Is What I Mean When I Say “White Feminism” by one ninjacate which led me to this blog called Battymamzelle.

You may have noticed that I have not posted link to the jezebel article (Fidelbogen has it on his post)

And is she ever – batty that is.

Her post is one long rant about what she characterises as “white feminism” and how “white feminism” does not serve the needs of “women of colour”

She is quite scathing about “white feminism” and basically announces that because she is a “woman of colour” she wins the victim and oppression Olympics – hands down. No contest.

In her post she has constructed a diagram, to graphically illustrate where everybody in the world stands – in relation to feminism, in particular “white feminism” which she dismisses thus:

“White feminism” does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn’t mean that every “white feminist” identifies as white. I see “white feminism” as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality.”

 Ouch! In one fell swoop, Ms, Ninjacate has dismissed decades of feminist agitation, forests of feminist “writings” “studies” and “literature” from Betty Friedan to Cathy Brennan, from Susan B Anthony to Hilary Clinton. Wow! Well done Ms. Ninjacate. The comments on the post in jezebel clearly indicate that, stunned into almost comical paralysis by this, not one of them has the balls to disagree, to criticise, to take issue with this. Deer in headlights time.

This bit she emboldened, because it is IMPORTANT – got that – IMPORTANT.

“White feminism is a set of beliefs that allows for the exclusion of issues that specifically affect women of colour. It is “one size-fits all” feminism, where middle class white women are the mould that others must fit. It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always.

 Now, before anyone thinks for single solitary second that I am about to launch into a defence of feminism, white, black green or otherwise – nope.  What I am going to say is this – the one thing that Ms, Ninjacate totally and utterly misses the point of is this.

FEMINISM IS IRRELEVANT.

Her obvious lack of cognitive ability shines through, because in her arrogance, she assumes that feminism IS the only prism, the only lens, the ONLY ideological perspective through which to view the world.

In fact, she compounds her philosophical error by assuming something else, that the world revolves around the perspectives of WOMEN. At all times, in all places, and without exception. Superficially this is true, but only because feminism has imposed itself onto and into the consciousness of the world, and weaselled its way into the fabric of our society and culture.

In reality, a lot of women don’t give a shit about “feminism” what they care about is sustaining a world that endorsees gynocentric policies and laws and a mindset that elevates being female into a superior form of human existence – for now, feminism facilitates that.

Ms. Ninjacate is also completely, totally and blindly obsessed with one thing and one thing only – HERSELF.

In fact, every single aspect of what comprises and contributes to the human being who calls herself battymamzelle, from her skin colour to the size of her ass, from how she feels about beyonce, to how men treat her is fodder for her complete and utter self absorption – all of which confirmsm that when it comes to being the ultimate victim of oppression – not only is batty the universal, cosmic representative pinnacle of oppression and  victimhood, but anyone who says otherwise needs to check their “white privilege” and of course is a racist.

Because you see she has cornered the market on oppression and victim hood, there is no way on God’s good earth that she could be, in any way shape or form, simply just a loudmouthed, arrogant, ridiculous and laughable caricature and a bit of an arsehole, nosirrebob – she has not one, but two magic shields which protect her. She is female and she is black/a woman of colour, whichever one suits you best, and you would choose for yourself – I care not.

I took a quick look at her manifesto – ok – I admit it – I laughed – it is beyond ridiculous – it is bizarre and laughable.

All this is neither here nor there, what is though, is this – feminism is fracturing – within the ranks of feminism there is chaos, there is confusion, there is a sense of chickens with their heads cut off running around desperately trying to find something to latch onto.  Some solid ground, some purpose, some meaning.

This example of but one feminist – though to be fair to batty – she apparently prefers the term “womanist” storming into jezzie, bitch slapping all those mealy mouthed “white feminists” into submission, the superficial, the inane, the banal, the privileged, and declaring herself to be the new face of feminism – excuse me – womanism – had me peeing myself laughing.

Because they all took it, they tippy toed around this harridan, they made obsequious little comments, they massaged her colossal ego, and they agreed! Yes indeed, they were all baaaaaaaaaaaaaadd, feminists.

ALL HAIL THE NEW ORACLE.

Funniest thing I’ve seen so far within the ranks of feminism – first they all dumbly accept the concept that the world is divided up into feminists, and everyone else, then they accept that AS “white feminists” they’ve been doing it all wrong.

She is partly right about one thing though –

“It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context.”

Except, while they call it feminism, and might even believe that they are feminists, in actuality they are just gynocentric, hypergamous, self-absorbed, utterly vacuous nitwits, as soon as it is no longer to their advantage as WOMEN to attach the label feminism to themselves, they will find something else – maybe something called “womanism” perhaps?

What she calls “western privilege” is indicative of someone who hasn’t a clue about history, even a notion of how societies developed, and her inference of being a bit of an expert on “cultural context” equally shows her lack of knowledge in – how many areas of study can I think of – let’s see – history – anthropology – sociology – literature – economics – politics – law.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised though, especially when one is convinced that the world begins and ends at your feet, that the world and its history emanates basically from your own arsehole. The notion that the skin you happen to be wrapped up in somehow either privileges you, or oppresses you, with one being universally privileged, and the other being universally oppressed, and never the twain shall either overlap or even be reversed, is not just simplistic, it is arrogant, it is patently ridiculous and it is a load of bollox.

The fact that batty here assigns these categories of privileged – v – oppressed to only one type of human being – women – though one can see that regardless of which colour skin a man is wrapped in he is ALWAYS privileged is par for the course – after all batty IS A “WOMANIST”

Just so you know batty, I don’t think you’re an idiot because you are female, nor do I think you’re an idiot because you are a black/woman of colour female, I think you’re an idiot because – YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

You see, idiots come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, all sorts of colours and in all types of human beings – nothing and I mean nothing shields you from being an idiot, not race, not  gender, not ideology, not the size of your arse, or your mouth for that matter – only an idiot wouldn’t know that.

The ONLY thing that differentiates one from either being, or not being an idiot and an arsehole, is what goes on in that space between your ears, and what comes out of that hole in the middle of your face – or obviously, the method through which you disseminate what emanates from that space between your ears – such as keyboard or pen paper.

As for feminists having a bit of an identity crisis? Bummer!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Men’s Rights Are Human Rights

 

Other than the first word “Men’s” in any civilised society or culture, it would be rare indeed to find anyone who would have an issue with the statement  – Rights Are Human Rights – and here in the West, we rather arrogantly assume ourselves to BE civilised societies and cultures, we pride ourselves on our technological advancement, on our dedication to Human Rights, in fact we rather pompously issue statements about the Human Rights abuses happening in other less “advanced” societies and cultures, and, do you know what?

We are full of shit – totally and utterly FULL. OF. SHIT.

Because as soon as you put the word “Men’s” in front of the statement, so it reads MEN’S Rights Are Human Rights – all bloody hell breaks out – screams and shrieks of protest, insults, a barrage of complaints and whines, endless and interminable toxic little screeds written or posted, that decries, denies, objects, or opposes the notion that MEN should have, are entitled to, or vested with HUMAN RIGHTS.

All because of one word – MEN.

No-one raises an eyebrow at the word Rights, or Human, and definitely not at those words being used in combination, so the only logical conclusion is that Human Rights is a good thing, so what is the issue, what causes the mother of all shitstorms of protest when MHRA’s precede those words with the word MEN’S?

The answer is simple – Men in general are considered to be, believed to be, and are promulgated by one sect of society as – less than human. That sect? Feminism.

I’ve always maintained that feminists, by and large are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, as well as other less……kind things.  But another thing that distinguishes feminists and those policy and law makers who listen to the shit feminists peddle is this – they are also dumb as a bag of hammers.

Human Rights according to them are the prerogative of special human beings, and any human being who fails to reach the parameters and standards set by feminists is therefore NOT entitled to the SAME level of Rights Protection as these other Special human beings.

They shriek about violence, they wail and work themselves up into a hysterical lather about rape culture, they weep and sob about oppression and disadvantage, and male privilege. This is all in an ongoing effort to maintain a system, a cultural, societal and legal framework that denies Human Rights to Men.

Are some men violent? Yep. Do some men rape women? Yep. Are some men complete and utter arseholes? Yep. In relation to Human rights though, what would be my answer to that?

So what? It is –  IRRELEVANT.

What human beings do, what kind of human being a person is, whether or not a particular human being is a complete nutcase IS IRRELEVANT – THAT Human Being is still a Human Being. Granted, maybe an arsehole, or total bitch, but none the less, a Human Being. Ergo. Vested with Human Rights.

The ONLY qualification for being vested with Human Rights is to BE a Human Being – no-one gets to set the parameters of which kinds of human beings are acceptable, no-one gets to lay out any other qualifications for being a human being, other than the ability to pass a DNA test that comes back – Homo Sapien.

End. Of. Story.

Which brings us to Laws – at its simplest – laws are the framework within which the parameters of allowable human behaviour are to be conducted, for ALL the human beings in a particular territory or jurisdiction. Contained within the framework of laws are provisions for sanctions, for punishments if a particular human being violates one of the acceptable and allowable human behaviours. Ok – laws cover much more than this – but for the purposes of this essay, let’s just stick to the basics?

If one thinks of Human Rights instruments as Primary Legislation – mostly contained within International Charters and in Constitutions, and Laws and Legislation as Secondary Legislation, then one should, if one is not a feminist, be able to discern that Human Rights take precedence, and Legislation is enacted that should embody provisions that PROTECT those Primary Human Rights.

This, unfortunately is where feminism and feminists have infected, have corrupted our cultures and societies, and have literally turned this admittedly simple concept on its head.

Laws first – Human Rights second – because feminism and feminists have convinced the powers that be, in most Western States, that up is down, right is left, good is bad.

The reason for this about face, this switch, is as simple as it is vile – if we take the emphasis OFF the Humanity of all but the most Special humans – in fact, if one emphasises the innate humanness of ONLY one type of human being and denigrate, dismiss and deride the innate humanity of those have been deemed less than human one can chip away at basic fundamental Human Rights from below, so to speak – can undermine the protections and provisions of Human Rights Primary Legislation to such an extent that they collapse at worst, and become hollow, become mere caricatures. Needless to say feminists have “tinkered” with and continue to demand more “tinkering with” Primary Human Rights Instruments.

THAT is what feminism and feminists have done – by their actions, by their toxic and vile ideology they have made a mockery of Human Rights, and rather than giving any credence, any validity to any right, of those in the West to lay claim to being “advanced” or civilised” or in a position to look down their noses at less “advanced” or civilised” cultures and societies – it is here in the West, where the true barbarians reside, where the real “backward” societies are.

WE, are the champion Human Rights violators and abusers on this planet.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

NB. Yes, I know, it is and has become a flawed Instrument, and yes I also know that the UN is infested with feminists, but for now, it is sadly almost all we’ve got. I posted the Preamble to illustrate how far FROM those noble aspirations we not just are, but are heading away from.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014.

Them and Us.

 

What is the most divisive word in the English language? It is feminism.

When I say divisive, I mean in the sense that humanity is linguistically, ideologically, socially and culturally separated into “them” and “us

With “them” always being the lesser, the more troublesome, the ones who cause”us” problems, strain our minds with concerns and worries about what “they” will or won’t do – for “us

They” need to listen to “us” because “they” are not worth listening to. “They” need to accommodate “us”  ALL our wishes, wants, needs and whims.”

Do I really need to explain who comprises “they” and who comprises “us”?

I will anyway “they” are always men and boys – and “us” are always females, women and girls and the spokespersons for all of “us” apparently are feminists.

The underlying tenets of feminism go like this:

How “we “feel about “them” ranges along a spectrum – from outright hatred and vilification of “them” to a benign but rather condescending faux concern – especially if “they” are not fulfilling the functions that “they” have been assigned to fulfil by “us” – stepping outside the parameters of  those functions, that have been laid out by “us” for “them” is not to be tolerated.

Steps will be taken to ensure that “they” comply – that “they” will confine themselves to the roles as defined by “us” as acceptable for “them

What should be noted, is that feminists, never ever feel the need to consult the rest of “us” about their ”leadership”, their “theories” or in fact, if the vast majority of “us” would’ve voted them into these exalted positions of speaking for and behalf of ALL women and girls EVERYWHERE on this planet.

Within the period of a very short number years (historically speaking)– feminists became the defacto arbiters of all things female and male, and feminism became the defacto lens through which to view all things female and male.

I have two things to say about this. The first is obviously rude and ends in “Off” the next being a bit longer and directed at those of “us” who blindly, unthinkingly and without any real analysis of what exactly feminists claim about “us” but simply accept it.

For example, did you realise that according to the “received wisdom” of feminists and interminably repeated doctrine, the vast majority of “us” – females that is – are complete and utter morons, incapable of acting in any manner other than as passive, fragile, dependant, and to be blunt whiney toddlers?

With regard to the “received wisdom” that feminists lay claim to – this would be akin to the receipt of visions, of supernatural revelations, of psychic “feeeeeeeeeelings” that subsequently informs the “writings” the “literature” and the “studies” that have spewed out from the toxic and polluted well of feminism over a period of some 60 years.

Anyways, back to being morons.

Think about this, according to feminists, unless you (a female) get special help, special little boosts, YOU are incapable of achieving………….well anything really, on your own, under your own steam, and completely and totally on MERIT.

You have to be coddled, special arrangements have to be made, standards have to be lowered, you get to skate by on a biological fact over which neither you nor I had any control – being born with a uterus and ovaries.

Because apparently being in possession of said uterus and ovaries, sucks ANY innate intelligence, ability or competence right out of your brains. Ergo – according to feminists – speaking on behalf of “us” ALL women are morons – now, doesn’t THAT make you feel good about yourself.

We haven’t mentioned “them” yet though in relation to all this – yet. Time to look a bit deeper at it now.

In yesterdays post, I said that women are obsessed with men  – go on admit it – even if only to yourself – you know it’s true. In fact, since you were a girl, for a lot of you, finding your “soulmate” or “the one” or “the man of my dreams” was kinda uppermost in your mind.

If it helps – I’m a “girl” or at least I was – a long long time ago – so, yeah, I know.

Here’s the thing – and it’s another big fat hairy lie that feminists and feminism have told you – ALL women are fabulous, angelic, ethereal creatures of sublime beauty, almost saint like demeanour, and without a single flaw or blemish.

I’m going to pause for a minute here – so that you, if you are female, can go and take a good long hard look at yourself in a mirror – go on – I’ll wait.

To continue.

Well? What do you think? Perfection personified? Be honest now – what you saw was a human being, a female human being, no better or worse than MOST female human beings – fair enough if you’re in tip top shape and have buns of steel, but that, in and of itself isn’t really enough to achieve perfection, is it?  That’s just the package you came wrapped up in.

Because here’s the other thing, when “they” look at you, what do you think “they” see? If it is your buns of steel and are attracted to you on that basis, and you’re happy enough with that, then good for you.

Except – it isn’t enough is it? Being just a “pretty face” or a “fabulous body” really isn’t enough – is it? You want one of them to “adore you” to think that you are the “most wonderful woman on the planet

Well, according to feminists, that IS exactly what you all are – except – have you ever considered the possibility that “they” might have an opinion also, on this – on YOU?

To be blunt, absent a small coterie of equally brainwashed guys, (nice guys) the ones that you know in your heart and soul get on your bloody nerves – there is a huge contingent of guys, all over the world – who think that YOU and your fellow “special creatures” are – FULL OF SHIT.

In fact, some of them think that you are nasty, whiny, bitchy, horrible, brainless, slutty, screechy, ridiculous, pathetic, useless, shallow, vain, narcissistic BITCHES. By the way, yeah they’ll shag you, but that won’t change their underlying opinion – of YOU.

Also – there are a growing number of females – just like me – who think exactly the same way about – YOU.

Do I personally blame you?

YES, actually I do – because here’s what I think, unlike feminists, I DON’T believe that you are ALL morons – nope – I believe that you took on board the “I am special message” of your own free will, exercising your own agency because it suits you – because you wanted to, because you CHOSE to.

Go back and look in that mirror again – go on – except this time – look deeper – look beyond the surface – look right into yourself.  What do you see, now?

The big lie that feminists and feminism told you was this, that feminists and feminism gets to dictate not just what women feel, think and believe, but that this applies to men also – eeeeemmm nope – men actually make their own minds up – men look at you and form their own opinion, reach conclusions based on their own observations – MEN will cast an eye over YOU – and find YOU wanting.

Everything feminists and feminism tells you about men is – WRONG – completely and utterly WRONG – a lie, in fact a complete load of bollox.

THEY don’t need feminists or feminism to spin them fairytales, to hand them a line of bullshit, to wait for someone else to tell them what to think, what to believe, what to feel – about women – THEY just have to take a long hard look at what you REALLY are – AND they do.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

I Hate Brussels Sprouts.

 

Does that mean  I am a vegesoginyst?  That I hate ALL vegetables?  Perhaps even worse I just hate green vegetables? Which would make me a greenist as well.

There are about 7 billion people on this planet, give or take a few million, statistically females roughly outnumber males by about 53% – 47%.  So we’re talking about say 420 million (ish) more females than males. On to Misogyny so.

Now, when feminists talk about misogyny, which they hurl as the ultimate put down – of a man – they are saying he HATES ALL WOMEN.

All women? Everywhere? That’s 4 billion females you’ve got to hate. That’s a lot of hating going on.

The other thing to remember is this – hate is a powerful emotion – when I say I hate Brussels sprouts, this means I will NOT eat one. Ever. But, I don’t hunt them down, nor am I engaged in a campaign to have all Brussels sprouts destroyed, to put a stop to the growing of, and selling of Brussels Sprouts to anyone else. Nor do I have a hissy fit if I happen to be in the company of someone enjoying one of these awful vegetables.

How about misogyny? To be a real misogynist, one who really really hates women, all women, wouldn’t that mean you’d spend your entire life avoiding ANY contact, at all, WITH WOMEN – all women, bearing in mind your hatred of all things female.

So, when it comes to feminists and/or women in general, hurling this insult at men, it is an odd thing to say, because allied with the “you just hate women” you’re a misogynist thing – is usually and inevitably, the “you just can’t get laid”  insult.

Excuse me? If someone hates women, why on earth would he ever want to have sex with one? In fact why would this MISOGYIST want to have anything to do with females – AT ALL.

Now before you all start with the whole “but men who hate women rape them, ‘cos hatred, power, dominance….. get a grip – if all the men that all you screechy ranty feminists claim are misogynists AND rapists – which the rantiest, screechiest ones among you do claim– and were raping women right left and centre – wouldn’t it make sense that the world would be divided up into female places, males places, wouldn’t there be an ongoing constantly monitoring system in place preventing all this random raping and hating going on? In effect a society that kept men and women APART.

For an interesting and thought provoking analysis of this, go take a look at emma the emo’s blog post Why do rapists rape? For power or sex? Let’s ask a rapist! Posted on December 20, 2012, on this topic here.

Then when you’ve read that, pop over to AVfM and take a read of this powerful article How some feminist shaming tactics discredit feminist theory, January 20, 2014, By Karen Straughan (aka GirlWritesWhat)

Anyway, moving on, and the “every man on the planet is both a misogynist and a creep who can’t get laid”, thing.

Look around you, in places of work, stores, coffee shops, cinemas, bowling alleys, schools, parks, zoo’s, everywhere you look, men and women, just going about their own business, interacting, talking to one another, laughing together, eating and working together. One would think that none of this would be happening, and in fact, men and women generally just get on with it. Yes, tense situations arise, aggravation happens and unpleasant atmospheres get created, in all sort of situations.

But, the simple fact is, the only people who create any tension, any aggravation, any unpleasant atmosphere, any drama, in most places – the kinds that make most normal people uncomfortable, of the “I wish she would just shut the fuck up” kind, are WOMEN.

It is not an exaggeration to say, that a female entering any space, be it an elevator, or sitting in front of a couple of guys at a conference, immediately raises the social tension level to….”we have just passed uncomfortable, and are now entering the on tenterhooks” phase. Which, if you think about it, is very strange.

Women are obsessed with men, I’m not kidding, women ARE obsessed with men. Take a look at the millions of books, films and TV programmes, at the millions of women’s magazines, blogs and articles – there is one topic that exercises the minds of the vast majority of women. MEN.

Now, I’ve heard all the crap about how women are forced to dress in certain ways, apply make up, diet themselves into starvation, spend thousands of Dollars and Euros and whatever other currency you like, on shoes, as some kind of punishment inflicted upon them BY men.

So, let me see, in lonely one bed apartments and flats, in the privacy of their own homes, women everywhere all over this planet wake up every morning to a man – holding in one hand, the outfit HE demands SHE wear that day, and in the other the shoes SHE MUST  wear, that day – or else.

You are forced into the bathroom, pushed down onto a stool and commanded to slap all sorts of chemicals onto your face, into your hair and then weighed to make sure you have not gone over your allocated weight?

With regard to all this – shops and malls must either be bereft of women, or one only see’s women accompanied by a man who is pointing dictatorially at the items he wishes you to purchase? Hair salons and nail salons are teeming with men, standing over women instructing the hairdresser or nail person which way HE wishes HIS woman’s hair and nails to look?

Even without going and finding and linking to shed loads of references, citations and what not, you all know, in your heart and souls – that this –  “men force women what to wear, what weight to be, how to do their hair and exactly which pair of ridiculous ankle breaking torture devices known as shoes they MUST put on their feet, EVERY DAY”

Is without any qualification, the biggest crock of shit – EVER.

I was in hospital last year, went in as a kind of emergency – I’m grand – so was more or less admitted in the clothes I stood up in – or rather was laying down in.

I needed “stuff” so I asked a male friend to go get me some “stuff” to whit – knickers and pyjamas – he went white, at the thought of having to go into “that part” of the shop – would get me anything else – shampoo, a towel, socks, a good book, but anything with even the slightest girly element to it? Nope. To be fair to him, what he said was “I wouldn’t have a clue what to get, and I would be a bit embarrassed going up to pay for knickers – “women’s knickers” some bloody patriarchal sod he is, you’d think he would KNOW, seeing as how, MEN are the ones who dictate to WOMEN all of the stuff I outlined above?

My female friend, who arrived later on that day, had it all sorted – I had texted – “I need some “stuff” she texted back “no problem. End of text conversation.

Anyways – in relation to misogyny and men hating women – for being women – or alternatively men dictating TO women, how they MUST be, how they must present themselves to the world – I have a theory.

It’s to do with shoes. In my misspent youth, I admit I did wear the kinds of shoes that in no way shape or form were ever designed for actual WALKING. Over a relatively short period of time, I came to the conclusion – sod this – my feet are killing me – I’m bloody crippled – and walking a short distance from there to there is torture – so – I wear shoes that by anybody’s (women’s) standards are boring and unfashionable, and you’ll never guess what?

Never once, in about 25 – 30 years has any member of the patriarchy police hauled me into a cold and scary room, shone a single glaring light in my eyes and interrogated me as to why I am NOT obeying the rules of men, and wearing the “right kind of shoes”?

I haven’t stepped inside a hair salon, in about the same period of time, possibly longer – with one exception – for some reason, about 10 years ago, I decided to get my hair dyed a sort of reddish brown – needless to say it was a disaster. Same as above – no midnight banging on the door, no being hauled in by the patriarchy police.

Ok – this is just between me and thee – the last time I “got my hair done” was in the 1970’s, it was a “perm” – everybody had a “perm” – it WAS the ‘70’s – as my sods of brothers said – and when I say, “said” – I mean in between falling around the place laughing – “you look like one of the Hair Bear Bunch” it WAS the ‘70’s!

So anyways, I’m shocked I have to say – where are ALL these bad men?

The ones who feminists and women bewail and write endlessly, and it must be said boringly about? how society – meaning men – FORCE women to dress in certain ways, look certain ways? Where are they?

My theory? Only WOMEN who think shoes disguised as torture devices, hair crap, and farting about with different “styles” and obsessing about weight, can be called misogynists – because you must really hate women if you can spend so much time, energy and money promoting, gushing about, wittering on about, and dictating to OTHER women that they MUST, positively MUST have the latest, whatever.

You’re all also environmental shits, because by my estimation, it takes the equivalent of a small forest every day to produce all the crap, that women write, about all the crap, that women MUST have.

PS. Sigh – if you are female and you either like or want to dress in the equivalent of a hankie in minus 10 degree weather, wear shoes that are ridiculous, dye your hair in colours that defy genetics, whatever, FINE, do that, but for fucks sake, shut up about it.

NB. Adapted from a really REALLY long rant, (was up to about 6,000 words) about shoes, Brussels Sprouts, women magazines, hairdressers, the ‘70’s, brothers, feminists, Rom Com’s, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sex in the City, Fifty Shades of bullshit, was looooooooooooog.

© Anja Eriud 2014

The Price of Everything, The Value of Nothing.

 

 

Maybe some of you have heard that expression, my mother used to say it as a warning, a warning to guard against seeing the world through the acquisition of things, of measuring or valuing yourself and others by all the shiny stuff you had.  Inevitably those who could afford the latest gadgets, fashions, and had reached all sort of worldly goals, would cloak themselves in the aura of these things as a mark of how much better than others they were.

She did have a less kind way of expressing this – especially in relation to women – “the fur coat and no knickers brigade” The inference, as I’m sure you’ve guessed being that, the fur coat was acquired because of the no knickers fashion statement. The modern late 20th and early 21st century way, and feminism’s way of playing out this scenario, is through the mechanism of “self-esteem”

To esteem something is to hold it, or him/her in high regard, to place a large value on it. If one esteems something, one vests that thing or person with great worth.

The other element of this pertains to the parameters through which one estimates, calculates and quantifies said value or worth. What criteria one uses.  The thing is, if we are talking about a person, then that person must have done or achieved something to EARN such a high worth estimation, to have such a high value placed on them through their achievement(s) or action(s), or perhaps talent(s). 

For example, Leonardo Da Vinci is esteemed among the great painters, because in the opinion of many, among the many great painters he is considered the greatest. Likewise such luminaries as Thomas Edison, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, even two of my own favourites, William Wilberforce and Bob Geldof.

All these people GAVE something to the world at large, something that bestowed a benefit on OTHERS.  What sets them apart from others in relation to the high esteem in which they are held, is that they EARNED that estimation.  The other thing to note is that without exception, they all had human flaws; they were not perfect people, saints in mortal form, just human beings who did something extraordinary FOR others.

Which brings us to this concept of “self-esteem”

Apparently having low “self-esteem” is a bad thing, it means that you don’t place a high enough value on yourself.  You have weighed yourself in the balance, estimated your own worth, and put too low a price on it. In addition, there is no requirement on your part to DO anything, to achieve anything, to bestow some benefit on others – nope – all one has to do is exist.  Your value, your worth comes just from – being.

Analogous to this of course is, that just from being, from existing – one is entitled, by right to hold yourself in “high esteem” no longer is one required to earn this “high esteem” from others, no longer is one required to wait, to hope, to especially, earn from one’s efforts, in whatever sphere, the result, that others will reward one, with a generous gift of “esteem” as a mark of how highly valued those efforts are viewed.

This too is longer a requirement – in fact – according to received wisdom from our favourite experts (feminists) on all things – temporal, spiritual, animal vegetable and mineral – others OWE you a default estimation of HIGH esteem, especially if you are female – if you enter this world with a uterus and ovaries. In fact, it would be no lie to say, that this ONLY applies to women. Men are exempt from having “self-esteem”.

Is it just me or this seem just a tad…………ridiculous? More than a little…………bizarre?

Not too long ago a feeeemale calling herself……”Hot Piece” (I’m not kidding – go look) took issue with  Matt Forney, who wrote a piece entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem: September 16, 2013, which garnered 2,459 Comments.

Matt Forney’s article was a tour de force, and the comments were hilarious – though it was really the Censorbot.

To give you an example of the twisted and frankly deluded thinking (though thinking is a bit of a stretch) that some females employ to justify their right to unlimited buckets of unearned “self-esteem” take a look at this. Her opening salvo.

“The world could not survive on masculinity alone. We need people to teach our children. We need people to support a family emotionally, and that’s just not something that men are traditionally good at. Without women to provide that, we’d be living in an angry, emotionally unstable world — NOT that women can’t have high-powered jobs, or that they have to find themselves in traditionally feminine roles, of course. The point is, traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine roles BOTH need to be fulfilled, regardless by whom, or the world couldn’t work.”

I’m guessing you saw what she did there? Shall I translate – women and their awesomeness, and emotionally healthy and sanctified selves, are absolutely crucial to…….the world, because men are ignorant, angry, emotionally unstable barbarians. Women = good, men BAAAAAAAAAAD.  Worship at the feet of the golden uterus you savages.

I should also point out, that she read the Forney article but she didn’t READ it, hence why, in reply to an article entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem, she emmmm didn’t actually “get it” Nope, that quote came  close to the start of her “critique” one does have to establish the proper order of things first, after all.

The problem according to feminists is that if women feel bad about themselves this is – well is a bad thingWomen are exempt from “feeling bad about themselves” excluded from having their value or worth as human beings questioned, criticised, held in anything less than high esteem.  Regardless of what they do, say, or cause to be done. Conversely men are exempt from feeling good about THEMselves.

In fact, if something that a woman does actually causes any other person harm, discomfort, pain, anguish or even to suffer injustice, it the fault of THAT person, especially if it is a man – to do otherwise is to cause a loss of self-esteem in a woman, to make her feel bad about herself – and as we know – making a woman feel bad about herself is a crime against humanity of epic proportions, and NOT to be borne.

Feminists also equate self-confidence as the obverse side of the self-esteem coin – if one has confidence in one’s own abilities, regardless of whether or not that confidence is misplaced or patently ridiculous, due to a lack of talent in said abilities – then others are obliged to reward this self-confidence, misplaced or not – with even more buckets of self –esteem top-ups, also shiny gold stars in the form of positions of authority and responsibility, in the form of gifts, large salaries, and in the form of some “extra” benefits to reward this self-confident woman, for sharing this heady mix of vaunting self-confidence and cosmic self-esteem, on others.

Because you see, yet again, the withholding of these things mentioned above might lead to not just a loss of self-esteem, which we know is a BAD THING – for a woman – but might, almost as egregiously shatter her self-confidence, a very very bad thing. For a woman.

Men do not get any gold stars, for anything – to do so would make some woman, somewhere feel bad about herself.

It is NOT TO BE BORNE.  The pinnacle of achievement for a woman, by right, is to feel GOOD about herself, at all times, in all circumstances, and without any regard whatsoever for the consequences upon others, that reaching this pinnacle of feeling GOOD about herself – might cause.

This next quote lays out why women not just have and deserve to have huge self- esteem, but also buckets of self-confidence, because of their innate awesomeness. Though in this instance, “Hot Piece” might just suffer from that “over confidence I talked about earlier.  The essence of the Forney article was that “you ain’t all that and NO, I don’t want to fuck you, just because you’re there. 

“Confidence doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t have the capacity to feel that her man enhances her life. It just means that she knows she deserves the positive influences he has over her, and that — more importantly — if he were suddenly not to be in her life any more, she could easily find a different man, if not as good, better, to replace him. If that mindset is a turn-off to you, to know that you’re replaceable, that speaks not to her confidence, but to your own insecurity.”

See what I mean, she doesn’t get it, she is confusing, narcissism, self-absorption, selfishness and overweening egotism and vanity with “self-esteem” and “confidence” one of the things that women believe they are entitled to by right, is the unswerving and automatic adoration of men, at all times. Men who do not automatically subscribe to this worldview are crippled by “insecurity” which is a handy way of keeping your “self-esteem” intact and striding out to go shopping for a new man, to replace the one who just left…..because of his “insecurity” till of course, the shelves seem to be bare and new candidates are thin on the ground.  This is then because ALL men are bastards, and you are still awesome.

 

In a parallel universe populated by persons with the intellectual abilities of sea slugs, and the moral compass of sociopaths THIS would make perfect sense.

Oh. Wait………….damn!

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

C.U.N.T’s

 

NB. Now before anyone gets up a head of steam, the title is an ACRONYM it stands for Crazy. Uneducated. Nasty. Tramps. That’s much better, isn’t it?

There is a class of persons – in most western States – single mothers by choice, those females whose career of choice, the one that generates an income for them, is having babies that the State then steps in to support.

In Ireland we call them “scangers” in the UK I believe the term is “Chav’s” in the US it is “Trailer Trash” – I believe. I’m not sure what the vernacular is in Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

What is worth noting is, the fact that there is a generally recognised vernacular word to describe this class of persons suggests that the phenomenon is prevalent enough, visible enough, and a recognised part of the culture to acquire a descriptive vernacular word.

Had you asked me, or anyone I know 30 – 40 years ago what a “scanger” or a “chav” or  “trailer trash” was, neither they or I would have had a clue as to what you were talking about.

But now? Being a single mother is a badge of honour, an achievement, in fact ALL single mothers are heroic and brave and invariably victims of some external circumstances over which they had or have no control.  At all.

My mother was widowed at a relatively young age,  but had a simple philosophy – you want something? Work for it. There’s something you wish you had? Earn it.

What has all this to do with C.U.N.T’s?  Everything.

Now, apparently the act of giving birth to a child means you DESERVE all sorts of goodies, by right, you don’t have to work for anything, you don’t have to earn anything, you simply have to get yourself pregnant by any random guy who happens to be handy, give birth and viola – you are “special” and therefore the world OWES you.

No need to go to school, no need to ever get a job, no need to learn any manners – yes I know – an old-fashioned concept – no need to even consider for one solitary second the responsibility, the duty, that having that child imposes upon you – nope – none of that.  That’s for saps, for idiots, for fools.

I want a house, I want money coming in every month from the state fairy godmother, I want, I want, I want……..if I have a problem – someone else better solve it for me, or else.  My kid(s) has/have a problem? NOT my fault, someone else better take care of it for me, or else.  My kid (s) want to see their Daddy (s)? THAT bastard! No way – anyways – I’m not sure who that is.

What do you mean – I’m supposed to teach my kid (s) about responsibility, about how they should behave, treat other people?  Fuck off – that’s not my job – it’s the school, the social worker, it’s anybody else’s job, BUT mine.

So what if they don’t go school, big deal, school is for saps, for idiots, anyway, I never went to school – and I turned out alright. Didn’t I?

When the Unmarried Mothers Allowance (now called Lone Parent Payment) was introduced in Ireland in the late 1970’s early 1980’a, an Irish politician by the name of Alice Glenn caused uproar when she said something to the effect that a lot of girls will just get themselves pregnant to get a free house.

I recall the storm of protest this caused, though for the life of me I cannot find a reference source for it. To be clear, I wouldn’t be in agreement with a lot of Alice Glenn’s views, but on this, yeah she nailed it.

What my mother said was “it’ll end in tears – children’s and fathers tears”  how right she was.  Our current Minister for Social Protection has embarked on a programme of cutting back on payments to “Lone Parents” on tightening up the regulations, and rolling back the trajectory of the State goodie train – and it has been met with outrage, and sorrowful hand-wringing, – there’s a lot of talk about “making sure the most vulnerable in our society are not penalised by the current economic crisis”

The 1 million unemployed men are NOT the most vulnerable, the thousands of homeless men are NOT the most vulnerable, neither are the thousands of fathers who have been excised from their children’s lives, from their homes – oh yes, even  if you were married, but then kicked Daddy out of the house to go God knows where – you automatically become a “Lone parent” ergo – vulnerable.

Kieran McKeown wrote a paper, Families and Single Fathers in Ireland* in 2000, which focused on how vulnerable unmarried fathers are and were in Ireland, though, it must said, on reading this paper one will find the constant repetition that single/lone mothers are just as vulnerable gets a bit grating after a while.

“In making the case for single fathers, I wish to declare my intention at the outset to avoid any divisiveness or any suggestion that single mothers are receiving too much support or that any improvement in the lot of single fathers should be at the expense of single mothers.

There is nothing to be gained from creating competition between the needs of parents; if there is any hint of this it is certainly not my intention.

I wish only to create a space where the needs of single fathers can be seen in a similarly compassionate light to the needs of single mothers so that appropriate responses can be developed to meet the family needs of both and of their children.”

* This paper was delivered at a conference organised by Cherish: An Association of Single Parent Families, on the theme of The Changing Family in the New Millennium and held in the Conrad Hotel, Dublin on 4 May 2000. My thanks to John Sweeney and Peadar Kirby for helpful comments.

While this is a laudable effort on the part of Kieran McKeown to highlight the injustices perpetrated against single fathers, in fact a huge numbers of fathers in Ireland, I have to say this – my compassion for single mothers is………..practically non existent.  Harsh, perhaps even uncharitable but I don’t see any single mothers campaigning for the Rights of the fathers of their children. Do you? Anybody?

What I see in reaction to any attempt to cut back on State support for all these vulnerable single mothers is all the social justice warriors, waving their “studies”, and climbing up on their soapboxes and lamenting, and declare sorrowfully, that the MOST vulnerable in our society, are –  the C.U.N.T’S.

Do I really need to say who wrote these studies? Who put together these “statistics”?

The feminist “revolution” began to take root in Ireland around the 1970’s, and as with all feminists, they claimed to speak on behalf of ALL women, in fact a lot of women in Ireland opposed this new feminist takeover of the public discourse – but we all know that this has never deterred feminists – from taking over that is.

“The Galway Advertiser article was accompanied by the sub-title ‘be prepared to cringe’.  Certainly, the restrictions listed are unthinkable in 2013, and women are suitably appalled.  But it is a misconception to think that women were equally outraged in the 1970s.  Rather, there was a strong conservatism in Irish society, and this extended beyond moral values. 

There are enough letters in newspapers of the time from women opposing equal pay to indicate that, as a collective gender, women were not appalled.  Furthermore, it is important to consider the restrictions in the context of the 1970s.  The National Coalition may have baulked at the idea of introducing equal pay, but this attitude was largely influenced by the strained economic climate

After all, that same government introduced unmarried mothers allowance (as it was called at the time) and reversed the policy of withdrawing deserted wives allowance if the husband secured a divorce abroad.”

 What should be noted is that when feminism reached our shores in the 1970’s it swept all before it, feminists never actually ASK other women what they want. Never actually consider for one solitary second that anyone would NOT agree with their “interpretation” of anything – ergo – what feminism wants, feminism gets – and now we are all paying the price for not standing up against these harpies – to be fair, feminists were always very clever at hijacking legitimate civil rights movements and distorting them to serve the aims of feminism.

The legacy of this is a West awash with C.U.N.T’s, and broken hearted children and fathers.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Previous Older Entries