Brainwashing Dummies

 

You’re all thinking I left out the word “for” and that this is a “How To” article – nope – not an error, not a missed word. This is a “How did they” article, and the topic under discussion is feminism – bet that’s a surprise?

The inspiration for this hit me last night, I have a ton of research to do, a load of notes and random bits and pieces to organise and a “to do” list that never seems to get shorter, but I found myself pondering on Reyeko’s comment on “How Dare You have an Opinion…..On Me!”

Ok – that was the moan – let’s just move on.

Actually nope – one more moan – I have mobile broadband, I live in Ireland and apparently my broadband thingy (not very techie) can’t seem to locate the other thingy that supplies the magic that makes the broadband WORK!

It reminded me of Dara O’Briain’s classic rant on Sat Nav’s (those things that are supposed to stop you getting lost) and how for some reason his was a bit “geographically challenged” seemingly whenever he got into his car, and switched the damn thing on, so he could find his way to wherever he was going, it would repeat over and over again.

“Cannot locate satellite, cannot locate satellite”

In his frustration he ends up shouting at the thing.

LOOK UP!

Apparently, according to my broadband service provider I “might be out of range” OUT OF RANGE???, If I lived any closer to the mast (remembered the word) I’d be living in a tent UNDER the damn thing!

Ok – now I feel better, (slightly) anyhoo, while I was waiting for the broadband thingy to find the other thingy, it occurred to me that feminists are the experts par excellence at brainwashing dummies, and two things led me to this conclusion.  The first was Victor Zen’s video on AVfM (A Voice for Men) entitled “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” and the second was that comment by Reyeko on yesterdays post “How Dare you Have an Opinion…….on Me!”

“I think it’s rooted in the need for control, everyone wants to control what goes on in their lives, men and women. Our culture currently tells women there is nothing they can control, that they’re leaves blowing on the whims of the patriarchy while it tells men that they are the masters of their world. So we see women’s human need to have control over their lives manifest in a harmful way wherein they need to control what goes on in the lives of people who as you say they ‘allow into their life’. This is all just conjecture on my part but I think it’s a good theory.”

Go watch the video, if you can stomach the whole thing, then come back and we’ll carry on – I’ll wait. there is a link to Reyeko’s blog at the side. ReyekoMRA.

Is that the most annoying, the dumbest young woman you’ve ever seen or what? I cannot even find it in my heart to be kind, or give her the benefit of the doubt for being misled – she has the fervour, the unthinking and uncritical demeanour of the truly indoctrinated.

She waved this book around “Feminism is for Everyone” (and nope, even if I had a link to it I wouldn’t post it)  like an evangelical con artist exhorting the faithful to give their souls (and hard earned cash) into his/her grubby hands in order to be saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaved – hallelujah!

Reyeko’s comment makes an interesting point – that women are to all intents and purposes striving to exercise some measure of control over their lives, and it must be said, over everybody else’s life.

The question is – when and why did women allow themselves to become so dumb, and regardless of how dumb as a bag of hammers most women appear to be, they ARE sentient human beings – though sentience is in the eye of the beholder.  Ergo, on some level, they CHOSE to be the way they are.

Women CHOSE to exercise their autonomy, and to be that dumb.

How they are, is a herd, a mass of alleged individuals who move, think and act as one, like a shoal of fish that move as a mass, as one, through the oceans.

The difference being, that watching natural history programmes that show this, illustrates the beauty and complexity of life on this planet, whereas watching women or listening to women is……………akin to hearing nails being scraped down a blackboard – shudder, being made to eat Brussels sprouts, having a wisdom tooth removed (four) actually THAT was a piece of cake – anaesthetic rocks!

But there is no anaesthesia strong enough to numb one from suffering the pain of being either in the company of, or listening to the unutterable shoite that women say about “ being women”

I could only listen for a very short time to the witterings of the young woman on Victor’s video, if she was my daughter I’d be embarrassed, seriously, I would be hiding my head in shame, and wondering – “where did I go wrong?”

But, there is a point where one becomes an adult, and one takes responsibility for oneself – when there is no-one, other than you, who is accountable FOR you – for what you say, what you do, who you are.

Which actually answers the questions – why and when and how feminism has managed to pull off the brainwashing trick of the millennium – they had the perfect candidates to work with.

Women have made an art form out of being as thick as two short planks, while retaining a primitive core of nastiness, spitefulness and mendacity – feminism harnessed that, then sold it to both women and men wrapped up in pretty bows and ribbons, and embarked on a campaign to hollow out the humanity of women and leave this nasty shell behind.

None of which they could have done without the complicity of women themselves. NONE OF IT.

How they did it.

Ok – every now and again I get to catch a glimpse of TV – I find myself standing or sitting there in amazement at the sheer level of stupid one has to be, to believe some of the reasons given why women should buy or do or believe a particular thing.

There was a series of advertisements some time ago for matching underwear – women’s underwear, and the crisis of embarrassment that would ensue if one was caught not wearing said matching underwear. 

One scenario was of a female being wheeled into an emergency room and her horror and the medical’s staff’s mockery at her mis-matched knickers and bra!

Seriously? THAT’S what would be exercising your mind if you found yourself on gurney? Your knickers!

Of all the TV series, that I loathe above all others Sex in the city, takes the top spot, it is without doubt, almost a documentary on how to be the most annoying vacuous, shallow, vain and useless example of a human being one could possibly aspire to be, if one happened to be a female human being.

And apparently, this series “empowered” women? THIS total and utter crap represents laudable role models for women? This series is the benchmark for female behaviour, for female aspirations, and for BEING female?

Feminism might be the engine that drives and is driving this civilisation over the cliff, but media representations of “being female” is the PR campaign – and it has worked like a charm for nigh on 30, maybe 40 years.

Because there is one other series which I happened by chance to catch a few glimpses of – Bridezillas – aptly named, these females were…….there are no words……another example of “how women are” – and the thing that shocked me the most?

The usually shell shocked but compliant men who literally stood there and allowed these females to display all the charm and grace of rabid dogs – of  hyenas tearing a carcass apart –  then they married them!

My sympathy for these men it must be said, is stretched to its absolute limits, and only because of one thing – feminism has not only managed to convince women to abandon all semblance of humanity and civilised behaviour, but has also managed to convince men that this is NORMAL female behaviour.

For psychopaths, sociopaths and people with personality disorders its “normal” not I might add acceptable, but rather simply, expected.

So feminism has harnessed the raw material of all the worst possible personality traits inherent in women, written turgid and incomprehensible rubbish justifying it, and infected an entire culture with the notion that being a 24 caret, Grade A bitch is not only “Normal” but is something to aspire too?

And almost three generations of women, and now apparently a fourth, will quite happily and with a depth of smugness that defies reason and logic, endorse, applaud and justify this.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

How Dare You Have an Opinion……On Me!

 

Two things – first this delightful little quote I have often heard women use with regard to the “men in their lives” (and this little phrase is one we will be coming back to)

when I want your opinion, I will give it to you

The second thing is about me, a piece of advice I was given by a careers teacher way back in the mists of time when I was “young”

you’re very opinionated for a 16 year old – you should think about curbing that, and doing a secretarial course

Now, before any feminist decides to pounce on this as an example of “oppression” and “patriarchy” the teacher was female and she had never had an original thought in her entire life – of this I am convinced, and she didn’t like me, at all, for various reasons, mostly centred around me being “opinionated”

As you can probably see, if you’ve read any of my scribblings, not a piece of advice I took seriously or followed, ever.

Moving On.

Women, with the bedrock of feminist cant and drivel backing them up, have now inculcated a very insidious and egotistical state of mind – no-one, especially men, is allowed to have an opinion, other than a positive one, of anything they do, say or are.

In fact, with regard to having opinions, men are now not allowed to have an opinion on anything, just in case it clashes with whatever ephemeral or passing “opinion” on said subject that a woman has, any woman, on anything. Though, that “opinion” could change on a daily basis.

If as a man for example, you like go kart racing, and a female has allowed you “into her life” and in her opinion, go kart racing is stupid/boring/ridiculous/not my cup of tea – it will then be expected that you, a mere man, will now abandon your pleasure, your hobby, the thing that is your cup of tea – forever.

Woe betide you, if you sneak off on a Saturday afternoon with a couple of mates for an hour or two of sheer unadulterated pleasure – while she is at the hairdressers (could be anything up to four hours), at her mother’s (at least three hours) at her best friend’s (anything between an hour and eternity, depends on how much you have pissed her off that week) shopping (on a Saturday, and there are sales on? – at least six hours)

Annnnnnnnd she finds out!

Mate – you are now in the absolute shit – the doghouse – the outer realms of the universe where all men are consigned who do something that a female has specifically told you – SHE doesn’t like.

I might add, this egregious calumny is compounded if she has assigned you tasks to be done “while I’m off doing something really really important”.

I know, I know, you’re going to try logic and reason – everything on the list was done in record time, so “what’s the big deal?”

Sigh – tut tut – it’s “all about trust” doncha know – “you prooooooooooomised”.  It’s all about “letting her down” about her “feeeeeeeelings

By the way, even if you “cheated” and hired an expert to do whatever your assigned task was – it will be a “shit job” – it was “done wrong” – now she has to “hire someone” to “get it done right!”. Probably the same bloke YOU hired to do it in the first place.

I can almost guarantee that as he walks in to “do a proper job” you will exchange looks – because he probably has his own live-in wretch, tormenting the life and soul out of HIM, every bloody minute of the morning noon and night.

So, what has this to do with me and being “opinionated”? Well, granted in my youth my opinions were half and half actual knowledge of something that I had formed an opinion about, and my “feelings” about something – they of course tended to be very black and white – right or wrong – good or bad, no gray areas.

But my parents would have none of that – my mother – “give me a reason” sigh. My father – “how do you know that, have you checked to see if it’s true/right?” double sigh.

The little scenario I outlined above is a bit of a conglomeration of various different incidents I’ve observed over the years – the go karting thing though – was actually the secret passion of a bloke I knew.

What underpins all this is that SHE “let YOU into her life” – did ye not know – men don’t have lives, passions, interests or a separate existence? Men are only “of use”, men either “compliment a woman’s life” or “make it harder

As for the original premise, and the title of this essay – “How dare you have an opinion, on me!” this is the female ace in the hole – it IS the get out of jail free card par excellence – because if you take back YOUR right to have an opinion on any damn thing you like, the “magic spell” is broken the one where being “allowed into my life” is not so much a gift, the beneficence of a higher being allowing you to bask in her glory – it reveals itself as what it really is.

A selfish, egotistical, vain, shallow wretch, bullying another human being, using emotional blackmail, and coercing another human being into doing things that undermine and make little of their value as an autonomous human being.

To all those men who might be thinking, especially with regard to Getting you to “do things” her way – “ah sure, she just likes things done right, she just wants the house to look good

Bullshit. Shall I repeat that? BULLSHIT.

Most of the petty, useless things that women assign you to do, and will never thank you for, appreciate or acknowledge are designed to “keep you busy” to “keep you on your toes” they are devices, artefacts created to control, to demean, to enslave you further and further into a state of existence where your only function is to meet and serve  – “her needs

Any person who would throw the equivalent of a tantrum because another person has an interest or hobby that they don’t like/share/find interesting is a wretch.  Any person who demands that you “do things” for them, on their terms, and will explode/sulk/whine/ if you either can’t, or don’t want to do them is a bullying wretch.

 

I believe I just described quite a lot women. In my opinion.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

PS Go Karting is great craic (fun) 🙂

Time for you to Get Back in Harness Guys – Suzanne Venker Says So!

 

Suzanne Venker’s articleIt’s time to end the gender war” on the Daily Caller while well meaning misses the point, and the barn, and doesn’t even hit anywhere near the barn, by a country mile or several hundred.

The first error she makes is the title. By characterizing  the current social, cultural and legal climate that exists, as the result of a “Gender War” she fails to take into account this:

War is to all intents and purposes a battle for supremacy between two factions or possibly more, with each protagonist engaging the enemy or enemies – that is not what has happened here.

This has been an invasion, an occupation, a takeover – a coup. Most definitely not a bloodless coup. Men did not, and could not fight back – but they are fighting back now – and THIS is the war that women don’t want. Women are afraid that if men don’t stop fighting back, then the war that never was, will end up with them being the losers.

Venker almost immediately nails her colours to the mast, as to what it is that women fear losing the most – the prospect of a marriage.  Because it is starting to become self evident that men and “marriage” are no longer simpatico. That men are saying – in droves – thanks but no thanks.

Venker hails her model of marriage as natural, as something that men and women are almost designed for, and implies that this is some wonderful “tradition”  and that this alleged “battle of the sexes” has thrown a spanner into the works of!

“Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to be a lifetime merger of masculine and feminine beings. Imperfect or not, it’s Mother Nature’s plan. But today it’s faced with a new threat, and it’s not same-sex marriage. The real problem is America’s gender war: the decades-long battle that has almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes.”

Actually NO, it is not, it wasn’t, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Further, this ideal template of what this version of marriage is rests on myth, fables and a fairly shaky grasp of history, and from my perspective, OTHER cultures – cultures that did not, and do not view marriage through the rather grubby rose coloured spectacles of Hollywood Rom Coms and/or looooooooooooooooove stories, nor through the prism of execrable chick lit, or the fevered fantasies of overexcited and hormonal teenagers. never mind mentioning that when this “model” was created, you were lucky and considered old if you made it to your 40th birthday.

Venker is pulling this “tradition” card, alluding to some mythical period in history when marriage was just this perfect union, this long-standing “tradition” that is now being sullied by modern influences.

Well now Ms, Venker, I will see your couple of hundred years of manufactured history and tradition and raise you a couple of thousand years of actual history and really really REALLY ancient tradition. Because the word that describes this attitude is ethnocentricity – the cure is pulling your head out of your backside.

“Lawyers writing in Irish divide first and principal marriages into three categories:

(1) lánamnas comthinchuir, ‘marriage of common contribution’,marriage in which, apparently, both parties contribute equally to the common pool of marital property;

(2) lánamnas for ferthinchur, ‘marriage on man-contribution’,an arrangement by which the bulk of the marriage goods are contributed by the man; and

(3) lánamnas for bantinchur, ‘marriage on woman contribution’,marriage to which the woman brings the preponderance of the property.

All three main types of marriage are considered by the lawyers as special contractual relationships between the spouses in regard to property, which are similar in some important respects to that of a lord and his vassal, a father and his daughter, a student and his teacher, an abbot and his lay-tenant—other pairs that hold property in common and, on occasion at least, run a common household.

What each of the pair may have given the other, consumed, or spent in good faith cannot give rise to a legal action; what has been taken without permission must be replaced if a complaint is made about it; and legal penalties are involved only when the complaint (and the appropriate legal procedure which must follow it) is ignored or when property is removed by theft or by violence.” (my note – by either party)

And yes, any of the three main types of marriage one could enter into in Ireland – right up to the 17th Century, did NOT absolve either party to that marriage from being subject to the law (Brehon Law) if they committed an act which was contrary to the law. ALL persons were held, once they had reached the age of accountability – generally about 12 years old – fully accountable for their actions, no matter what their status OR sex.

If whatever type of marriage one entered into was of persons of the same social status then:

“It was a dignified state for the wife in question: if it was a marriage ‘with land and stock and household equipment and if the wife was of the same class and status as her husband, she was known as abé cuitchernsa, literally ‘a woman of joint dominion, a woman of equal lordship’—a term which seems to be rendered domina in the canon law tracts.

Neither of the spouses could make a valid contract at law without the consent of the other. The lawyers list exceptions to this rule but, apart from the specification that these must be dealings which advance their common economy, they are mere run-of the-mill matters in the ordinary business of farming—agreements for co-operative ploughing with kinsmen, hiring land (presumably for grazing), getting together the food and drink to meet the duty of entertaining one’s lord or to celebrate church feasts, acquiring necessary tools or equipment and the like—and one would expect either spouse to make such arrangements without necessarily consulting the other.”

Naturally enough, as a marriage was a contract, breaching the terms of that contract had penalties, and could be exercised by either party.

“Besides, the grounds for unilateral divorce (with or without penalties being incurred by the guilty party) are specified in very considerable detail.

A woman could divorce her husband for many reasons: sterility, impotence, being a churchman (whether in holy orders or not), blabbing about the marriage bed, calumniation, wife-beating, repudiation (including taking a secondary wife), homosexuality, failure of maintenance.

A man could divorce his wife for abortion, infanticide, flagrant infidelity, infertility, and bad management. Insanity, chronic illness, a wound that was incurable in the opinion of a judge, leech or lord, retirement into a monastery or going abroad on pilgrimage were adequate grounds for terminating a marriage.[40]

I might add, that some of these things would have been also unlawful, and not only would the guilty party be divorced but he/she would be punished.  Needless to say the taking of a life would have incurred a greater punishment than the beating of a wife.

And before you all start boo hooing over “wife beating” unless the wife was of the Warrior class, and yes we had female warriors, then she was not TRAINED in combat skills, ergo not able or deemed capable of defending herself.  It is anecdotal to say this, but wife beating would have a rare thing in ancient Celtic culture, Irish women are not known for being passive, nor would Irish men have considered beating up a smaller person an honourable thing to do.

This extract that I took these quotes from, talks of a time circa 700 AD when Irish culture was being influenced by the spread of Christianity and by other external influences, but these “traditions” these Laws go back to the bronze age.

It was in the 17th century that finally our Laws, our traditions and our culture were irrevocably changed.

So, this “tradition” that Venker is pining to return to is a mix of gynocentric bullshit, hypergamy gone wild and a culture that allowed itself to be hoodwinked, conned and bamboozled by the machinations, ploys and feminine wiles of females who wouldn’t know how to be autonomous human beings if their lives depended on it.  Which by the way, they DO now.

Your “traditional” marriage is not the union of equals, the coming together to form a household in common, but a grown person being allowed to remain a dependant, a child, a burden, a person who contributes very little but expects to be crowned Rián for that.

What betimes makes me narrow my eyes at the arrogance of feminists and certain types of women, is the sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude they adopt when they talk about “other cultures” and how western culture is the savior of and the model for “other cultures” how your “traditions” are superior, more highly evolved and developed than those inferior and unenlightened “other cultures”

From my perspective – again – YOUR culture is savage, barbarian, unenlightened, inferior, and a plague on humanity. Your culture has been corrupted by feminism and feminists and the toxic gynocentric poison that has informed the agenda of YOUR culture and “traditions” it is superficial, shallow, tawdry and vile.

I sound angry, don’t I? that would be because I am, because YOUR rotten culture, your rotten “traditions” are now part of my culture – part of my everyday life – have infected and corrupted my culture.

The saddest part of all? My people have embraced and now revel in this toxic cultural template.

I focused on marriage, because that is the focus of Venker’s article, to be honest the rest of her article is a gosh golly darn it, why don’t you men get back into your “real men” strait jackets, so that we women can get back to destroying the planet, corrupting the legal system, emotionally abusing your children, go on murderous rampages, and find the time to sit around on our fat arse’s whining about how hard it is to be a woman.

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

The “M” Word

 

Women are crap at marriage, the “M” word” even when they yearn, they cry into their pillows at night for marriage, even when they think they believe they know what marriage is – they are still mostly crap at it.

The reason is actually quite simple, the marriage they dream of, they expect to have, they pine for, and in some instances pour scorn on (hello feminists) is a creation, a fantasy, an illusion that they created themselves, to get out of responsibility for being adults, grownups.

Lastly, but not, by any stretch of the imagination least, the western worlds model of marriage was created and cultivated for women, as a device for women to play act their way through their lives, to play at “being married”

Problem is, the illusion they created had a very short shelf life, historically speaking, the conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created “to serve” no longer exist – let me repeat that.

The conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created to serve, no longer exist – except in the minds and imaginations, and to be blunt unrealistic fantasies of women.

If ever there was a “thing” that should be consigned to the – “seemed like a good idea at the time” – category, marriage is it.

Even then, way back when the kiss of death for marriage began to take over – (that would be romance by the way) – it was a pretty shit idea. For a while it served its purpose, and depending on the maturity and intelligence of the parties involved, a lot of marriages were successful, workable, managed to stay standing, or at least did, till the kids were old enough to leave home and forge their own lives.

And our two lovebirds could stop pretending that they could stand the sight of one another.

I mentioned that the kiss of death for “marriage” is romance? It is, and right now every woman who has ever dreamed of “walking down the aisle” in some ridiculous clown outfit called “the perfect wedding dress” has fallen to the floor in a swoon. Oh please! Grow up – get up – and shut up – don’t even think about commenting or emailing me with some tearful (and probably pages long) diatribe about love, and showing your love, and how I don’t understand what romance is.

Bite me.

I know exactly what romance is and I also know, that it to love, to friendship, to loyalty, to honour, what feminism is to truth, to human rights, to sanity. And feminism is the vilest, most corrupt and corrosive set of twisted beliefs that ever found their way onto a page or into the mouths and minds of any person. I repeat.

Bite me.

The ironic thing of all, to me at least, is that women allowed feminism and feminists to destroy, to corrupt, to make unbearable (for men) the very thing that generations of women, whether they admit it or not want, yearn for, spend their lives trying to enter into – the unholy state of matrimony.

As our cultures and societies developed and progressed, many women began to feel a bit discontented, a bit unhappy, not “fulfilled”(sigh) in their marriages – enter the nutcase lesbian harridans and self promoting hippy sluts of feminism, to give these discontented and bored “housewives” a “get out of jail free” card, an excuse, a nicely exaggerated, completely and utterly false set of reasons and explanations for their “boredom”

Something is wrong with “marriage”? It can’t be me, therefore it must be you! With the “you” being men – as we all know, it doesn’t take much for women to completely lose all sense of proportion, or reality for that matter – therefore marriage must change – the legal and social framework within which marriages must be conducted in western societies must change so that women can “be happy” again.

Because, women still wanted their fantasy, their romance, their illusion – alas – of all the tinkering, all the changes, all the remodelling of marriage that feminism, feminists and women insisted needed to be done so that marriage was something that suited women – the ONLY change that could have made marriage at the bare minimum workable was not done, was never even considered, and to this day would induce rage, hysterics and poisonous articles from women and feminists with the intellectual capacity of a tree frog.

There is, and was ONLY one “thing” that needs and needed to be changed – WOMEN!

This is where I’m going to say, what for a lot of women will sound if not odd at the very least, then once again consign me, to that sphere of outer darkness that women reserve for those who “betray the sisterhood” boo bloody hoo. I LIKE it out here guuuuuurls  🙂

I like men.

I like the way they think, I like the way they talk and express themselves, and I like, with a few exceptions their sense of humour. Men are great fun, they are kind and generous (and no, I don’t mean that in a monetary way) they are loyal and trustworthy. You can depend on a man to keep his word, you can be sure that if a man says he will or won’t do something that it will or won’t be done. And yes, of course I am aware that some men can be just as big arseholes as women – but there is a vindictiveness, a spitefulness and nastiness within women that you don’t find in many men.

Most women don’t LIKE men – just the way they are – men are projects – blank slates upon which women get to write instructions upon. Women don’t SEE men as autonomous separate entities to themselves – men are an extension, a reflection, an appendage to a woman – a man is only as good as the woman in his life can either force him to be, or make him be, and that fits in with whatever bloody Disney fantasy they’ve had running in their heads since they wore their first “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” tee-shirt.

For women, men are bit players, not even co-stars, but bit players in the drama, the fantasy, the illusion that is, the life and times of ME!

Of course the other ridiculous and asinine thing that women bleat and wail about and demand that men do is to “work on our marriage”?

Excuse me?  Do what?

Like the various bits of random engines and whatever they were, my brothers used to “work on”? Like an inanimate object that you were creating, be it a piece of sculpture, a painting or a piece of furniture? Like that?

There is only one “thing” that one could possibly “work on” that would make any difference to whether or not you are in a positive, enriching, worthwhile and workable union (I’m getting fed up writing the word marriage – and I think I might be breaking out in a rash!)

YOU!

You read that right, and by the way, I AM specifically addressing women – if you have a problem in your union – then that is YOUR problem.

But, but, but, but………….he does this, he doesn’t do that, he won’t do this, he won’t do that…..boo hoo!

Answer: So?

Are you suggesting, demanding and expecting that an autonomous human being accedes to your command, your order because YOU demand it?

Personal example: I cannot explain this, I have no idea why, but whistling drives me mad, seriously, it sets my teeth on edge, my late partner didn’t whistle – much – and only did it unconsciously – so, the first time – I explained, more or less as I just did above – then I ASKED – politely, civilly. His response, sorry darling, I’ll stop,  just let me know if I do it without thinking. End of conversation.

I hear women moan and whine about “what an arsehole” their husbands or partners are – and two things – arseholery is in the eye of the beholder – and like it or lump it people have the right to BE arseholes if they want to be.  If you don’t want to be around an arsehole – LEAVE, and leave the kids behind, you’re the one with the problem, not them.

I’ll admit, I am constantly shocked at how women speak to and treat their partners, I know I shouldn’t be, but I am, and when I say things like;

“If you spoke to, or treated me in that manner, I would probably find the biggest bucket of pig swill I could find, and dump it over your head”

I am equally shocked at how shocked THEY are, at being criticised!

If she was in my house, I would throw her out, and invite him to remain, and no, I’m not kidding – women seem to believe that the normal rules for civil behaviour, for how one treats other human beings are suspended, no longer apply, magically disappear in the context of a union or partnership.

THEY DO NOT!

The problem with modern marriage, and modern relationships, partnerships, unions, whatever floats your particular boat is WOMEN – and the problem with women is that women believe and expect that getting married means at the ceremony, or whatever, a marriage fairy flies in and sprinkles magic marriage dust on you.

That the recitation of some words, the physical act of standing there in THAT absurd dress alchemically changes you – and him – and even worse should.

What you bring to a union is YOU – warts and all – and wedding ceremonies are not some kind of supernatural Compound W* that makes all YOUR warts disappear, for women actually, it does seem to cause a major outbreak of warts – big massive hairy ones.

So – women are crap at marriage, because women designed and created marriage in their own image, and need I say it – in general, with a few rare exceptions, most women are a pain in the arse.

Ladies, the wheels fell off your trolley a long long time ago – you all better start learning to walk.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Compound W is a liquid you paint onto a wart to make it disappear, sometimes it works, sometimes not, try rubbing half a potato on your wart – seriously – try it. 🙂

 

 

 

“I Wonder………..”

 

For some odd reason I recalled a conversation I had with a lovely and very charming young woman some time a couple of years ago, she had apparently heard me give one of my impromptu “speeches” about “the evils of feminism” in the middle of the day to some bewildered students.

Anyhoo, outside the arts building she approached me and asked “what kind of woman should I be?”

She also elaborated a bit, she had a brother who had died tragically the year before and she mourned him deeply, he was “her best friend” and she couldn’t correlate the things she was hearing in her lectures with either her beloved brother, her father or any male person she knew, or had ever known – she was a first year, and without even asking I knew what she was studying.

But of course I did ask – Sociology, Anthropology and History – sigh, (not the History, obviously)  the next question I asked of course was,  “What do you want to do, what area do you see yourself working in?

“Teaching or social work?  She said.

Which of course means, after first year she would probably drop history, and take the modules leading to the Social Science/Work Degree.

But my answer was that she stop thinking about what kind of woman she should, or could be, and simply embrace  her humanity, and that focusing on “being a woman” would suffocate and eventually extinguish her ability to do this – her current study path was one sure fire way to do exactly that, diminish her ability to exercise her humanity. Well, I know what they teach in these lectures, you all know what they teach, and we all know it is total and utter crap – which is why I said to her  –

“Forget about “being a woman” forget about your darling brother as “being a man” – and concentrate on being a human being, and remembering what a wonderful human being your brother was”

Being “a woman” or “being a man” is incidental to being a human being, because if you focus on that, you will realise that this opens up a whole world of wider and higher principles to aspire to, it allows you to transcend petty issues of “gender” of alleged differences in treatment, of manufactured “inequalities” and superficial social and cultural conventions.

It will allow you to shake off and reject the script written by small minded, spiteful, vindictive and malicious female human beings who call themselves feminists and have hijacked the conversation, the discourse, the very language of and about human interaction, of humanity, and what it means to be a human being.

Even our language has been warped and twisted, words have become vested with nasty meanings meant to deride and vilify one half of humanity.

Words like, courage, valour, strength, integrity and honour – and while you probably won’t find them in the library, the tales of valour, of courage and strength that epitomises the endeavours of the men who explored, challenged, strived and struggled to create the civilisation of comfort, safety and convenience you probably take for granted around you –  are worth reading.

There is one other word that should be added to that list – inventiveness.

Try and imagine for one moment if men such as Johannes GutenbergThe Printing Press (though there is some dispute about whether he invented it, or as a result of tinkering, developed a workable and viable model) Thomas EdisonOver a thousand inventions, Alexander FlemingPenicillin, had all decided – “sod it, couldn’t be bothered” and no other man could have been bothered either.

Try and imagine for one moment that no man ever looked at the world around him and began thinking; –

 “I wonder……..”

Because that is what feminism not just seeks to persuade you, to pressure you, to tell you, but to demand, to coerce, to insist and to make unlawful for you and any other human person to do; –

To wonder, to question, to examine, to be curious, to explore possibilities and follow the trail that leads from “I wonder………” to wherever it ends up.

Feminism seeks to trap and ensnare you in a cage, in a shell of being, in a rigid uncompromising and limiting entity called “being a woman” and if you think THAT cage is restrictive, you have no idea of the cage that they assign men to.

The shackles and chains, the bonds and ropes that men must – they insist, they demand, wear inside THEIR cages. These cages that they constructed to contain, to control, to destroy, what they have named “toxic masculinity”

These cages that have been constructed of lies and myths, of false and manufactured data and statistics, of the hysterical and poisonous rantings, writings and incomprehensible garbage of dysfunctional, hate filled, spiteful and malicious females.

It kind of sounds like I hate women, doesn’t it?

Actually I don’t, neither as a class, nor with rare exceptions as individuals – derision, contempt and scorn, these are the words that best describe my “feelings” towards women as a class, and as women on an individual basis, to varying degrees, as and when I encounter them. They are directed at what women say, what they do, how they behave, what they have become – not at them as female human beings or as autonomous entities. The reason is simple, they are autonomous sentient human beings, ergo they CHOOSE to act, to believe, and to be the way they are. To be this limited, superficial and vacuous creature called “woman”

I hold them, and will continue to hold them, and myself of course, accountable – because that is what defines and marks human beings out from every other species on this planet. The unique ability to be self – aware, and to CHOOSE, every single, without exception – action.  Absent of course human beings who have an intellectual, psychological or physiological disability which robs them, or deprives them of this ability.

It also sounds like I am doing what feminists claim the mystical patriarchy has done to women throughout the ages – written women out of history.

Again, nope, but until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, women were constrained, were limited, with very few exceptions, by not just their own physical limitations, but by what they were designed to do –  I suppose by Mother Nature/evolution,  and what they COULD do.

Therefore, when it came to sometimes being able, by the very nature of the limited range of occupations available for both men and women, to do significant things, things that impacted upon the course of human history it was simply that men worked in areas that positioned them in a place where they could wonder, could reflect on what they had to do and say; –

“I wonder………”

Some of those early inventions, the prototypes that generated and precipitated a succession of improved versions, of a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, that led to the myriad range of devices and objects we don’t even notice any more. Never mind wondering where did the original idea come from, and from whom?

To the development of the improved and constantly improving physical structure of our societies and cultures, that came about as the result of tinkering and striving to create a better tool, a better way of “doing something” of performing some essential task, that generally benefitted and improved the lives of those for whom the vast majority of men worked FOR.

Their wives and children.

A rather simple example, I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s, if I wanted to talk to someone about something, I had two choices, I could physically go and knock on their front door and say “Hi, can I talk you about something?” or I could write a letter, walk to the post office, buy a stamp and post said letter, then wait – and depending on how far away they lived, that wait could be anything up to a week, for an answer.

Of course, we had access to telephones, but we, my family that is didn’t have a telephone till about 1980 (ish) In an emergency, we could ask a slightly more affluent neighbour, but it would have to BE an emergency.

I’ve had real time conversations with people in the UK, in the USA, in Canada and in various other far flung places in the world in the last few months – I rarely give it a thought now – I text friends with random questions or just say “Hi, how you doing” and get a reply back almost instantly. So, who do we have to thank for this?

Step up Martin Cooper. If you click on the link, the size of the first “mobile” phone will make you laugh, if you were born after say 1983.

In the 1600’s and 1700’s and definitely before this would have been considered magic, in the 1970’s and 1980’s it WAS considered science fiction – look at the communication devices in the original Star Trek series – can you see how that might have been the inspiration for mobile/cell phones?

Because somewhere, some man found himself thinking “I wonder………”

 Our physical lives have improved in ways that would have stunned and rendered speechless our ancestors and previous generations, including my own generation and my parents, but with an enormous sadness that I sometimes find quite difficult to articulate, as human beings, as sentient autonomous beings with access to the writings, the thoughts and the inspirational thinking of too many great men to list, and to be fair, a few great women – we have floundered, we have de-evolved, we have become base creatures, driven by the most crude and unenlightened impulses.

For 50 years and more our cultures and societies have been subjected to a mode of thinking, a set of beliefs, an ideological influence that is as coarse, as primitive, as corrupt and as vile as the worst of all vile ideologies.

It is savage and barbaric, it is as corrosive and toxic as harnessing the worst aspects of humanity could make it.

It IS what feminism is.

All the worst things that human beings could, and can be, peddled as the “truth” as the template for human progress, for what human beings are supposed to be.

So, to the lovely and charming Shauna*, don’t worry, don’t think about “being a woman” strive to be the best human being you can be. Always.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Not this charming young woman’s name. I met her strangely enough last year – she had as she said “started again” she had decided what she wanted to do, really wanted to be – was a veterinarian. Wonders will never cease. 🙂

 

“The Pursuit of Happyness”

 

No, it isn’t a typo or a misspelling – it is the title of a book, and a film based on the book, The Pursuit of Happyness by Chris Gardner.  But yes, it also a concept, and one that is enshrined in the Constitution of The United States of America.

Pursuing, and having the Right to pursue happiness.

With an apology to my American readers, I have always found this a bit problematic, making the pursuit of something that defies definition a Right – because as we all know – what makes someone happy is a particularly unique and individual thing.

“One’s man’s feast is another’s man’s famine.”

An example, when it is not raining or cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, I like to sit on my back door step, and watch the sun go down, I live in the country, and I am surrounded by fields and trees, this particular spot gives me a view of nothing but trees with the setting sun shimmering through the leaves. It is a great place to sit and think.  For me this is sheer contentment, peace and stillness – it is happiness.

For others, it would be incomprehensible, just sitting there, doing nothing, looking at trees! Boooooooooooring!  

From my perspective, I’m not doing nothing, I am doing something, thinking, being still, watching the sun go down on another day.  In fact, if I have spent the day “doing something” or a whole lot of “something’s” – sitting on that step and “doing nothing” is what I look forward to doing. In essence my pursuit of happiness leads to a doorstep.

The story of Chris Gardner is the story of a man, his son, and how he overcame what where significant challenges, troubles and a lot of pain to get to a place where he could be happy. On one level it is the story of pursuing happiness, but it is also the story of a man whose pursuit of happiness caused him pain, was difficult, challenged him and plunged him into the depths of despair. It is also the story of a father and his son.

For Chris, happiness was having a job, having a home for himself and his son, feeling safe, being safe, keeping his son safe. It is a remarkable story, a story of a man who set his goal, then worked to reach that goal. Will Smith who portrays Chris in the film, and with his own son Jaden playing the part of Chris’s son,  called Christopher (an adorable and engaging little boy – the type of child what we here in Ireland would say about – “I could just run away with that child”) does an incredible job of acting.

The iconic scene is when after working as an intern in Dean, Witter, Reynolds in San Francisco, for no salary for six months he is called into the boardroom and told, in an especially charming way that out of 20 potential candidates for just the one job on offer, he has got it.

He is told to “wear a shirt tomorrow” as rather than this being his last day, tomorrow will be his first day.

If you do watch the film, pay attention to how Will Smith portrays receiving the news, on the surface he says all the right things, he thanks them, he acts with incredible dignity, but in his eyes, on his face, one see’s the emotion, the gratitude, the joy and happiness and relief of a man who has struggled, who has persevered, who has suffered pain. Did I get a lump in my throat?  Of course I did.

Oddly, even though I knew that Chris Gardner reached his goal, watching his struggles, I found myself wishing, hoping and praying – please let him get the job – please let him get the job – daft, I know.

By the way, I do realise that the film presents this story in a particular way, that poetic licence is taken with some aspects of the actual events that transpired.  Having said that, the story is grounded IN actual events, in one man’s reality – as a story or as a film presentation of a story it is a remarkable and inspiring one.

Which brings us to this – theHappiness Survey.

To summarise, women in general are miserable, unhappy, discontented – which is odd when you consider that women in general (and yes I know I’m generalising) have very few “things” that they have to struggle to achieve, to get, to obtain – they are given preferential treatment in school, in applying to college and in gaining  employment.

In one scene of the film, Chris tries to get a place to sleep for himself and his son in a shelter, but is told that they only “take women” ironically he is told they will “take his son in” but not him. So, even when women, in general, find themselves in dire straits – and being homeless with a child is probably the direst of all dire straits – they (women) find refuge, are offered help and assistance – a place to sleep.

Still, women all over the western world are unhappy, and are apparently pissed off about it, because “being happy” has been embedded in the consciousness of women as a Right – they are entitled to be happy – not being happy is an infringement of their “Rights

Chris makes a point about this – this Right to be happy – but rather than taking it a Right to BE happy – he gets the nuance – it is the Right to PURSUE happiness – to be free to achieve happiness by your own efforts. What he defines as “happyness” what will allow him to reach a place of being happy – is centred around being able to provide for himself and his son – a roof over their heads, being safe, being together.

What he never does, is whine, is demand, is expect any of this to be handed to him on a plate – he expects to have to work for it, he knows that it will be down to his efforts, his determination to not give up, his struggle, and he does have to struggle.

The film does not sugar coat this remarkable journey, nor does it shrink from showing that Chris is human, he despairs, he rails against the situation he finds himself in, he loses his temper, with his son, but then almost immediately apologises to the child, and says something to the boy that resonates.

“don’t ever let anyone tell you what you can’t do, not even me!”

Contained in this message, this lesson to his son is another message, another lesson – that what you want to do requires that YOU do it – you work for it – YOU decide how to achieve it. Considering that every step of the way of Chris Snr’s journey, Christopher Jr is alongside, this boy, this child had seen, and was seeing, firsthand how his father struggled, how his father overcame and worked his way to where he wanted to go – it was not just words, it was a message, a lesson that they were living, that this little boy was learning alongside his father.

Almost all writings by women on how women can and should be happy take it from this position – what do women want? What do women need to be happy? What needs to change for women to be happy?

I have never seen a single piece of writing, nor have I ever heard a woman articulate this.  But am willing to be corrected on this – but bear in mind – I read – I read A LOT.

What do I need to DO, what steps to I need to take, how can I WORK towards, by my own efforts a state of happiness?

Happiness is deemed to be something that is bestowed upon one – as a Right – it is an entitlement – it is something that emanates from outside oneself – it is an external “thing” that is given to one. But most of all, it is something that you own, you should own, and it is something that should benefit ONLY you.

Back to the Doorstep.

When I sit on that doorstep, I am content, at peace – not all the time – it is a feeling of stillness, of being alone with my thoughts and of watching the sun go down. Of putting myself into context with the wider world – I am one lone human being in a world of human beings living on a planet – watching the sun go down reminds me that I am not the world, never mind the universe. What I do when I’m not sitting on that doorstep dictates whether or not the next time I sit there and watch the sun go down I will or won’t be in a state of happiness, or contentment or a bit stressed, tired, irritated, sad, angry – whatever.

Only what I do or don’t do will determine whether my “Pursuit of Happyness” ends in reaching that goal or not – so, for all those women bewailing not “being happy” what are you DOING to achieve that state of happiness you want, but more importantly what are YOU doing that has you stuck in that state of unhappiness?

To conclude, Chris Gardner achieved what can only be called the very heights of success, material success, it would be understandable if he “rested on his laurels” and enjoyed the easy and privileged life he had managed by his own efforts to obtain – so what happened next?

“As a single parent for 25 years, Gardner has demonstrated his concern for the well-being of children through his work with and on behalf of organizations such as the National Fatherhood Initiative, the National Education Association Foundation and the International Rescue Committee. Gardner is still very committed to Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco; where he and his son received assistance in the early 1980’s”

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

Note: I was a bit concerned about The Fatherhood Initiative programme that Chris Gardner was cited as a board member of, so I tried to access its webpage, to no avail. Wikipedia was the path I had to take, from here, I was led to here and finally to here.

Was it disappointing? Yes, it was, the emphasis appears to be on re-engaging “absent fathers” with their children, but does not address the core issues that lead to fathers being absent, or rather being forced to be absent from their children’s lives. Does it change my admiration for the remarkable achievement of Chris Gardner? Not at all, but it has confirmed that even though organisations like this one Fatherhood.org  might believe they are doing something positive and worthwhile for and on behalf of fathers, they have only half the story, they are operating on the basis of false information. It is incumbent upon all of us who consider ourselves to be Men’s Human Rights Activists to correct those errors, in knowledge, in attitude, in belief.

To that end, I will go through every resource listed on this site, and when done I will write to them and lay out those errors. I invite anyone who believes that this is an important and necessary task to do likewise.

Will it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But we must try, we must at least offer them and other such organisations an alternative perspective.

Anja.

 

 

All My Heroes are Men, most of the people I despise are Women.

 

I know an odd title for an essay, but to give you an idea of what precipitated it, pop over to emma the emo’s blog for a read of this – Women Have no Honour.

“To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.

 This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.”

I’ve been doing a lot of research lately, and as I mentioned in the essay about those fruitcakes over at Holy Hormones, and nope, not linking to it again, it was reading random articles about the exploits of men, through the ages that restored my sanity, didn’t prevent me from getting a headache, but made having a headache bearable.

With regard to the title as well, when I think of men, words like nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency spring to mind, as for women – and being the most likely to make it onto the list of people I despise the most – the feeling is mutual – at this point in my life – it only amuses me – to be honest it never actually bothered me – that women in general tend to dislike me – intensely.  In that extra special “way” that women have of manifesting their “disapproval” fortunately for most of my life, any of the things that women value and attempt to punish you for, by withdrawing or sabotaging, are things that I have never actually valued.

Chief amongst them being admittance to the “girl club” or being “one of the girls” I cannot think of anything that would induce a greater feeling of horror in me that either of those things.

To be fair, I do have, and have had lifelong friends, female friends, who without exception have been women “not like that” I could tell you stories!

So, it has been almost a revelation to me over the last year or so to encounter women like Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat), Janet Bloomfield (Judgybitch), Diana Davison (realityisabitch) and astonishingly, a growing number of other females who are not total and utter wretches. Who think, who can string a sentence together, who can objectively and with great intelligence and humour explore an idea, express a concept that does not begin and end with their bloody vaginas and/or uterus’s

The reason – because those qualities that I mentioned that spring to mind when I think of men, spring to my mind when I think of these women – which can only lead to one conclusion.

These are not male qualities per se, they are human qualities of the highest order, ANY human being can CHOOSE to ascribe, to develop, to enact and to display them.

Nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency are human qualities that women en masse have CHOSEN to reject, to fail to develop, to strive for – in favour of selfishness, self-absorption, pettiness, spitefulness, vindictiveness, vanity and egotism.

By the way, this is not a NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like that) thing – this is a WHY are most women “like that” – thing, and WHY do they not STOP being “like that”

Much is made of the so-called higher order of female qualities, such as caring and nurturing and compassion, of the sacrifices women apparently make for their children, for their “men” of all the tasks that they perform for and on behalf of others.

In fact, I don’t believe it would be an exaggeration to say that women en masse will, and do beat that drum persistently, continuously and ad nauseum about how caring, nurturing, and compassionate they are. What is derisory is that these things – the caring, the nurturing of children in particular – are what one would expect as a natural pattern of behaviour – normal, having children by default assumes that one DOES these things, not as some extra special effort on your part but because – THATS WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DO!  If you are a decent human being, that is.

There is one woman I want add to the three female human beings who I’ve mentioned as worthy of admiration and respect and to be counted among honourable human beings – my mother.

Two of my mother’s oft repeated phrases, whenever she felt someone was getting “a bit above themselves” were these:

“self praise is no praise”

and

“empty vessels make the most noise”

From her perspective, praise for doing or achieving something was a gift, a gift from others, an acknowledgment that you had done or achieved something worthwhile – demanding it, or expecting it, or reciting your supposed achievements to garner it, invalidated and negated the value of your supposed achievement, or in this instance – quality.

Because, the other thing she was adamant about was this – if the only reason you do something is to GET praise – then doing it is a gesture, an empty shallow gesture meant to benefit ONLY you.

Back to My Heroes.

One of the things that marks out these particular men below, both real and fictional, as worthy heroes and role models, not just for boys but for girls too, is that invariably they were flawed human beings, they were not as women like to portray themselves “visions of perfection” they strove and failed, they were beset by doubts and fears, and they did not consider themselves to BE heroes, they were doing what they believed was the right thing to do – and without exception, for and behalf of others with no expectation of “praise” of “personal gain” or even of sometimes surviving their endeavours.

Janet Bloomfield (aka Judgybitch) wrote an excellent piece on one of my modern day heroes – a fictional character – John McClane – of the Die Hard series of films – I have to say the original is my favourite, and will admit to a secret “admiration” for Bruce Willis – but that’s just between me and thee – ok?

John is everyman, he does what does because he cannot in all conscience do otherwise and live with himself – and no-one else will step up – Janet’s article nails it to a tee, much better than I could.

William Wilberforce the nobility, the courage and the relentless persistence of this man in the face of personal struggles, of mockery, of the disdain of his peers is admirably captured in the film Amazing Grace slavery was, until feminism came along, one of the most egregious stains on the history of humanity – slavery is to dehumanise a human being, to reduce a human being to an object, a piece of property. In William Wilberforce’s time – this was “normal” and here we are in the 21st century, and yet again we have a culture where it is “normal” to view human beings as objects of utility, as property, as less than human.

Aragorn (Strider) – One of my all time favourite books, “The Lord of The Rings” – first read it when I was 16, and read it every year for a long long time – then the  films came out and regrettably I haven’t read it since then.  Aragorn displays that other quality that men have and exercise on behalf of, and for others – leadership – leadership in the face of ,and in spite of their own fears and doubts about themselves, about their leadership abilities – he leads because someone must lead – someone must take responsibility – someone must put the mission first, and their own fears and doubts aside – Aragorn is that man, and is every man who has ever walked towards danger, towards the source of their greatest fear, and towards that which would “chill the heart of me” for others, for a cause, for a mission, for others.

Firefighters, rescue workers, soldiers, almost all men, almost all faced with constant danger, constant threat and always walking towards it, facing it, protecting others from it. Protecting women from it.

“If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. ” Aragorn.

― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Ghenghis Khan – now you all think I’ve completely lost the plot. Read this book – Bones of the Hills by Conn Iggulden published in 2009 by Harper – website www.conniggulden.com for more information.

Ghenghis Khan forged a civilisation, a Nation, a nomadic nation out of innumerable warring tribes – never a builder of roads, of monuments, Ghenghis Khan was a unique and exceptional individual, his exploits by our standards were bloodthirsty, but he was a man in, and of his time.

“In the seventeenth century the Muslim chronicler Abu’l Ghazi wrote:

Under the reign of Ghenghis Khan, all the country between Iran and the land of the Turks enjoyed such a peace that a man might have journeyed from sunrise to sunset with a golden platter on his head without suffering the least violence from anyone.”

From: Bones of The Hills by Conn Iggulden; Historical Note – page 542 (own copy – emphasis added)

Feminism and feminists have corrupted and have poisoned our cultures and our nations, have harnessed the ephemeral grip on honour that women have always had, and to be fair were expected to have, unlike the true hard won honour that men have always strived, struggled and fought for  – has diminished to nothingness that load upon women, till to all intents and purposes women now believe they have no need for honour, or integrity or decency.

Sadly, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, we worship things, we live in and on the most superficial plane of existence, the banal, the trite, and the asinine have become our touchstones, our standard. The keepers of these things are feminists, they insist, they demand, they blackmail and they coerce so that our cultures remain – dishonourable – superficial – tawdry.

 “A nation lives forever through its concepts, honour, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation’s historical honour, of the nation’s eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honour at all costs.”

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

So, when I say that I despise women, with very few rare exceptions, it is not only because they have no honour, but they CHOSE deliberately to have no honour – because – it IS a choice.

The last word goes to my mother:

“You may chose any course of action you wish, good bad or indifferent, what you don’t get to chose are the consequences”

We are living with the consequences of a culture infected with the poison of dishonourable, corrupt and toxic feminism.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

“Getting The Boat” – Abortion, Rape and Ireland

 

I have avoided writing about abortion, deliberately, because it creates an ethical dilemma for me – that’s not an excuse – it is a reason.

Of all the “issues” that feminism has twisted, distorted and hijacked for its own corrupt ends, and they are all corrupt – abortion is the one that leaves the foulest taste in my mouth personally.

The Dilemma.

I believe abortion is wrong, I believe it is ending the life of a potential human being, it is killing a baby. At the same time I believe that every individual has the right to bodily autonomy, to make decisions, whether medical or not, as to what they will or won’t have done to, or upon their own persons

I chose to believe this, informed by my own personal moral and ethical code. You may choose to believe whatever you want to believe.

Moving On.

It was actually with some trepidation that went to read the article that Mike Buchanan linked to on the Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) site. 

He  had previously addressed this issue in this article, 2015: Abortions since the Abortion Act (1967) – 8.2 million projected – will exceed the population of London, or the current combined populations of Scotland & Wales. Posted on July 13, 2013.

To be honest I was expecting……..actually I’m not sure what I was expecting.

Many of the comments on this article noted how misleading the title of the article was, insinuating that the abortions, and in one woman’s case, two abortions, they’d had, had somehow affected their ability to have children, when in fact it was their personal choices that brought them to a point in their lives where they remained childless.

The most pertinent comment I believe was this one:

Marshian, Romney Marsh, 10 hours ago

Yes, the “Womens right to choose” lobby have had the whip hand for far too long. They have made termination seem the easy and right first choice when sometimes it is any thing but. Many women go on to regret aborting a healthy child when they realise that not only have they been a party to the death of something precious but it turns out they can’t have another. I’m not against abortion but I am against how easy it is and the way it is promoted as the best solution.

With the exception of nedical imparement of the mother or child adoption should be the first consideration in ALL cases. And please don’t tell me it is easier for a mother to have a child killed than to give it up. At least with adoption they will know their child exists even if they can’t have another. Yes I’,m an adopted child so I have a vested interest, but than goodness abortion was not the easy option 60 years ago it is today.

Because it speaks to three things, the framing of the debate around abortion as a right to have a particular “medical procedure”, second, divorcing abortion as an act without moral and ethical implications and third as a unilateral decision that rests in the hands of women alone.

Let’s take the first, superficially an abortion is a medical procedure performed on a female, whether it be by ingesting chemicals or as an actual medical intervention, the result of either method is to end the potential life of a human being.

Feminists talk about the “right” to have an abortion” the “right to choose” as being where this ends – rarely do they mention that exercising this “right” has wider consequences, and broader implications that simply undergoing a medical procedure, the right that they imply is the issue, the core issue, is the right to bodily integrity.

If one was having a cyst removed, or some benign mass that had invaded your body then obviously there are no moral or ethical ramifications.  But a foetus is NOT, I repeat, NOT simply a “mass of cells” what we are talking about is a potential human life, a being with potential sentience, the very essence of what a human being is. What we are talking about is a baby.

With regard to the last point, that abortion is solely a “woman’s” issue – NO it is not, that tiny growing life is a creation that would not exist, or have the potential to exist, without an EQUAL contribution of genetic material from one man and one woman.

The fact that this tiny human being is gestated in the body of the female half of this human equation has been over-hyped, over-emphasised and given far too much credence. You gave UP your right to unilateral bodily integrity when you conceived that tiny human being.

It might BE your body nurturing this tiny human being, but that tiny human being IS a separate and distinct potential person, a separate entity, you are a vessel, like it or lump it, YOU as a female are performing a service, a biological service FOR another human being, and you consented to performing this service, when you had sexual intercourse, with or without taking preventative measures to impede the conception of this tiny human being. Even if you did take contraceptives measures and they failed, as an autonomous human being YOU consented to take responsibility in the event that this might happen.

In fact, I will go further, in the event that a female does not wish to parent a child, and the putative father does, then I absolutely support and endorse enacting legislation which prevents this female from aborting this child.  Further, that a provision be put in place which immediately grants full custody of this child TO the father, the moment this child takes its first breath.

Yes, I can hear the howls of protest, the screams of outrage at “forcing” a woman to undergo the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

Bullshit, total and utter bullshit, cant and drivel.

To all intents and purposes, pregnancy, normally progressing pregnancies do NOT impact upon your day to day life to any great extent till about week 20 to 24 – about half way through – with the greatest physical impact not really manifesting itself till about week 30 – 32.

As a rule, pregnancies last between 38 – 40 weeks, with 40 weeks being the average – of my three pregnancies that “went to term” they were 42 weeks, 39 weeks and 36 weeks.

So, in reality what we are talking about is a period of between 20 and 24 weeks when you MIGHT experience some discomfort – about 3 – 4 lunar/calendar months.

So, please, putting up with heartburn, constant peeing, a bit of backache, some tiredness and perhaps a weird craving or two for 3 – 4 months is not worth the life of another human being?

As for the “trauma” of childbirth – two choices – vaginal birth with epidural – caesarean with either epidural or general anaesthetic – get the fuck over yourselves, is all I have to say to women who make a song and dance about the “trauma” of childbirth.

As for all the other bits and bobs of “childbirth” stitches heal, milk dries up, your cervix “recovers” in about six weeks – the sheer selfishness, self-absorption, pathetic miserable egotism of women who wail and screech and have hysterics over putting up with some minor inconveniences in order to save the life of a tiny human being is beyond disgusting, beyond comprehension. To me.

Abortion As a Medical Procedure.

As I’m sure many of know, I’m Irish, I live in Ireland and it would be remiss of me not to address the abortion issue as it pertains to Ireland, and came to a head with the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar.

Without one shred of doubt I can say, that girl should have, without hesitation, had her pregnancy terminated, in fact neither she nor her husband should have had to ASK for her already miscarrying pregnancy to be terminated.  It should have been done the instant it became clear that this she was miscarrying. No questions asked.

When it comes to a life-threatening situation, when the pregnancy is no longer viable, when the life of the mother is at stake then it is absolutely the correct and right thing to do to terminate.

If it also becomes clear that the baby would NOT survive, would not even take one breath because of severe abnormalities or a condition which is or would be “incompatible with life” then a termination is the correct thing to do, if that is what both the parents and the medical personnel deem to be the best course of action.

But, the “issue” that feminists  used to blackmail, to coerce and to get “abortion on demand” as not just a legal right, but to embed it into the consciousness of an entire culture is this one: – “what about women who get pregnant as a result of rape or incest” implying that hundreds if not thousands of raped or sexually assaulted women would be forced to carry their abusers babies to term. Raising the spectre of “backstreet abortions” being carried out on terrified and helpless women and girls.

The tragic case of Savita Halappanavar was, in my opinion rather cynically used by both sides of the abortion “debate” in Ireland – with both sides utilising their own exaggerated and/or flawed arguments. I’m personally not sure which side is worse, the “abortion on demand” advocates or the “under no circumstances” advocates.

I am inclined to come down on the side of saying it is the “abortion on demand” advocates, for the simple reason that, absent any genuine medical reason for terminating a pregnancy, they simply want not just the right to kill unborn babies, not just the right to have no-one question or condemn them, but they want to do this because they just don’t want to be pregnant.

The Situation in Ireland.

This was the actual situation in Ireland in 2011, according to the RCNI National Rape Crisis Statistics and Annual Report 2011.

“Pregnancy

Less than one out of ten female survivors of rape became pregnant as a result of the rape (7%). Although pregnancy is not a typical outcome for survivors who are raped (93% of females who were raped did not become pregnant as a result of the rape), this information is significant because of its impact on survivors and therefore important to present. Of those who became pregnant these were the following outcomes:”

From Graph 36: Pregnancy outcome for survivors (%) n=90 (Page 55)

Parenting 53%

Termination 19%

Adoption/fostering 14%

Miscarriage/still born 12%

Combination 2%

 

From their one page leaflet entitled What does RCNI National Data Collection tell us about rape survivors and termination of pregnancy, the RCNI put these percentages into context.

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

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

 Seventeen survivors of rape had their pregnancy terminated

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

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

Eleven survivors of rape miscarried or had stillbirths

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

We had a Census here in Ireland in 2011, and according to that census there were 1,022,437 females between the ages of 15 years and 44 years in Ireland, adding in the age cohort of 45 years to 64 years brings that total up to 1,545,073.

That number of 2,036 that the National Rape Crisis Network of Ireland cites represents slightly more than 0.2% (2,044.874) of 1,022,437 and slightly more that 0.13% (2039.496) of BOTH totals of Irish women and/or women living in Ireland on the night of the Census.

To reiterate – there are two possible percentages – 0.2% or 0.13% of women in Ireland sexually assaulted in 2011.

To give you an idea of how ludicrous the claims of feminists of a rape culture in Ireland is. Either the 1 in 4 (25%) or 1 in 5 (20%) figures so carelessly thrown about, yes I mean you Una Mullally and the latest wretch to peddle this crap Laura McInerney

1 in 5                           1 in 4

20%                             25%                          Total Female Population       

204,487          or         255,609                       out of   1,022,437                   

309,015          or         386,268                       out of   1,545,073

Can you see the huge difference between the ACTUAL figure released by the NATIONAL Authority and collector of statistics and data on rape and sexual assault in Ireland and the myths, the lies peddled by feminists?

So, what does this all have to do with the issue of abortion?

Everything, because in order to peddle abortion as the God given (no pun intended) “Right” of every woman, feminists have whipped up hysteria, peddled lies and falsified data and statistics around hot button topics like rape to justify, to enforce, and to blackmail governments into enacting “abortion on demand” legislation.

Finally, of all the poisonous and dishonest and downright false myths peddled by women and feminists this is the one that makes me sick to my stomach.

It’s the hardest decision any woman has to make, women don’t make this decision lightly!”

Absolute and utter garbage, taking responsibility for the consequences of the act you participated in and putting aside your own selfish needs, wishes, plans and whatever bullshit excuses women come up is a hard decision, is a difficult choice to make – killing your unborn baby isn’t – it has nothing to do with what’s “best for the baby” but everything to do with “how soon can I get rid of this huge responsibility and continue to LIVE MY LIFE” – while snuffing out the life of an innocent.

I have of course sympathy for that small but tragic number of women who become pregnant as the result of a rape, and to be honest I was heartened to see these figures.

Seventeen survivors of rape had their pregnancy terminated

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

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

Eleven survivors of rape miscarried or had stillbirths

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

 More than half of these women gave birth and decided to parent these babies, of the rest, at least 12 more either gave their babies up for adoption or fostering – only 17 or barely 20% terminated, and I am willing to concede that this in and of itself is a double tragedy.

What these figures don’t explain are the numbers of women who simply abort their unborn babies because they don’t want to be pregnant.

“Between January 1980 and December 2012, at least 156,076 women travelled from the Republic of Ireland for safe abortion services abroad.”

That’s nearly 5,000 women a year for 32 years, and before anyone jumps in with “ah but it was a different time” indeed it was, I was there, I remember it, clearly – it was just before the introduction of what was called Unmarried Mothers Allowance, which eventually morphed into Lone Parents Allowance. It was a time when “Getting The boat” was something you always had the option to do. That is, if you couldn’t give up, at the most 3 – 4 months of your life, in order that the human being you helped to create HAD a life – which makes you a selfish miserable excuse for a human being.

You just wanted to destroy the evidence of your stupidity, your lack of care and in some cases the result of a failure of contraception – which is clearly a possibility – a remote possibility – but a possibility.

As I was growing up here in Ireland I, along with every other female learnt the meaning of that phrase – “Getting the boat” it was said casually, almost dismissively – it was the solution if the absolute worst happened – not the worst in terms of trauma, or upset, but the worst in terms of inconvenience and “hassle”

Getting the boat” was the Irish solution to unwanted pregnancies – this would also be before being, inconveniently pregnant, morphed into “crisis pregnancies”

It is almost the default expected position to give women who have abortions the benefit of the doubt, and one is deemed to be almost inhumane if one questions either the circumstances or in particular the motives of women who have abortions – you may have noticed that I referred always to either tiny human beings or babies – because I refuse to endorse or give any leeway to those who try to weasel out of stating what an abortion is – it is terminating the potential life of a tiny human being, a baby.

Absent the situations I outlined above, medical emergency or threat to the life of the mother, or a baby that would not survive, or truly traumatised sexual assault victims, abortion is a selfish choice; it is putting superficial needs above a human life.

Do I support your “right” to make that selfish choice? Absolutely, but I reserve the right to look upon as you, not as a victim, as a poor tragic female but a selfish and shallow miserable creature who puts superficial “needs” above the sanctity of human life. Tiny, potential vulnerable human life.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014 

The World of Eve and her Daughters – No Place for Adam and his sons. Part III

 

Resources

 The discussion I cited in Part II, comes from here WMST-L, which has three linked “resources”

Center for Women and Information Technology, which leads to here;

http://www.cwit.umbc.edu/

“The Center for Women In Technology (CWIT), was established at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) in July 1998, dedicated to providing global leadership in achieving women’s full participation in all aspects of information technology (IT). In 2006, the the scope of CWIT’s influence at UMBC expanded to include Engineering majors as well. In July 2011, the name change from The Center for Women and Information Technology captured the twin threads at the center of CWIT – women and technology – while being broader about the types of technology included. Women’s participation in the creation of technology in IT and engineering fields will strengthen the workforce, raise the standard of living for many women, and help to assure that technology addresses women’s needs and expands the possibilities for their lives.”

Women’s Studies Online Resources, which leads to here;

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/

“Women’s Studies Online Resources will help you find information-rich, high-quality web sites focusing on women’s studies or women’s issues; women- or gender-related e-mail lists; women’s studies files from the WMST-L File Collection; links to women’s studies programs around the world; financial aid for women; and more. For information about Women’s Studies at UMBC (Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore County), see the UMBC Gender and Women’s Studies home page.”

WMST-L File Collection, which leads to here;

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/wmsttoc.html

“Welcome to the WMST-L file collection. Established in 1991, WMST-L is a large, international email forum or “list” for discussion of Women’s Studies teaching, research, and program administration. Over the years, the list has amassed a large collection of files relating to these topics. Many of the files contain discussions that have taken place on WMST-L. Also included are essays, interviews, bibliographies, and other items created and made available by WMST-L participants. Please note that most WMST-L discussions have not been made into files. “

I’ve only browsed these resources, but it is like academic feminism central.  They have a section called “Men” accessed from here,  http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/wmsttoc.html

While some of these “discussions” took place quite some time ago, I believe they may be useful in grounding current feminist “thinking” because if you think about it, these would’ve been the Women’s Studies students who grew up to be the pain in the arse academics and policy peddlers we are battling now.

 

Feminists on Men

 

Backlash: Girls vs. Boys

 (WMST-L discussion in April 2003 about a backlash against women’s and girls’ achievement in education, both in the United States and abroad. See also the earlier WMST-L discussion The War Against Boys.)

Boys and Rape

(Recommended resources dealing with the social factors that may influence boys/men to commit rape. WMST-L, May 2004.)

The Concept of Machismo

 (WMST-L discussion; November/December 1994)

Critiques of John Gray’s Mars/Venus Theory

 (A request for critiques of the theories underlying John Gray’s book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus gave rise to a 2007 WMST-L discussion; a shorter discussion of Gray took place two years later. This file contains messages from both.)

The Feminist Challenge to Men

 (Suggested readings that deal with ‘the feminist challenge to men’ for a course on ‘Men and Feminism.’ WMST-L discussion, August 2007.)

The Gender Knot – Allan Johnson

 (Information and strong recommendations for this book by WMST-L subscriber Allan Johnson. It’s the book most frequently recommended as an introduction to feminist issues for men and/or for those who “just don’t get it.” Messages on page 1 span 1997-2002, with one from 2005 about Johnson’s second text that builds on _The Gender Knot_; page 2 adds messages from a 2006 discussion.)

Household Division of Labor

 (Discussion of gender beliefs and the household division of labor; consideration also of research methodology. WMST-L, September 2002.)

Is Modern Medicine Sexist?

 (Two-part file resulting from a discussion on WMST-L in October 2000 about whether modern medical research and funding are biased in favor of women and offer inadequate recognition of men’s health problems.)

Male Alienation in Women’s Studies Classes

 (April 1993; 2 parts)

Male Oppression

 (WMST-L discussion, July 1998)

Men and Masculinity: Suggested Readings

 (Suggested readings for a course on men and masculinity. WMST-L, December 2000)

Men in Women’s Studies Classes

 (January 1997; 2 parts)

Men in Women’s Studies Classes II

 (February 1999; 2 parts)

Men in Women’s Studies Classes III

 (November 1999; 2 parts)

Men in Women’s Studies Classes IV

 (The focus on this October 2003 WMST-L discussion is on existing research on this topic.)

Men in Women’s Studies: The Mary Daly Case

 (A discussion of Boston College professor Mary Daly’s controversial decision to bar men from her women’s studies classes and instead to teach them separately. February through November 1999, with follow-up in February 2001; 3 parts)

Men’s Studies?

 (The following discussion of “men’s studies”–what it is, what its relationship is to women’s studies, etc.–took place on WMST-L in January/February 2000)

Patriarchy: Use of the Term

 (Discussions from May 1994 and March 2003. See also the later file Teaching About Patriarchy)

Readings for a Course about Violence

 (Responses to a query about course readings, especially those focused on warfare and/or male-on-male violence. WMST-L, January 2002.)

Readings for Men

 (Responses to a 1994 query for recommended readings about gender and/or feminism for well-intended men, along with Judith Lorber’s 1995 bibliography of readings about men and feminism. Two parts.)

Take Back the Night

 (A three-part file of messages from 1995, 1997, 2001, and 2008)

Teaching About Patriarchy

 (A brief discussion of how to teach about patriarchy that took place on WMST-L in August 2006. See also the earlier file Patriarchy: Use of the Term.)

Videos on Masculinity

 (A request for videos illustrating the social construction of gender gave rise to a number of suggestions, many of them discussion videos on masculinity. WMST-L discussion, July 2002, supplemented by later messages.)

The War Against Boys

 (2-part WMST-L discussion of Christina Hoff Sommers’ Atlantic Monthly article, “The War Against Boys.” WMST-L, May/June 2000. See also a later WMST-L discussion of the backlash issue, Backlash: Girls vs. Boys.)

Who is Warren Farrell?

 (Discussion of Warren Farrell, his book The Myth of Male Power, and his relation to feminism. Toward the end of the discussion, some attention is paid to men who write about men’s issues from a more feminist perspective. The discussion took place on WMST-L in October 1994.)

A lot to take in, and a lot to get through, but am intrigued by the “helpful” sections directed at men – such as:

 

Men and Masculinity: Suggested Readings (Suggested readings for a course on men and masculinity. WMST-L, December 2000)

 I can’t wait to unwrap this treasure trove, and I’m sure every MHRA will be itching to learn how to be a man – from feminists!

 

Good Luck.

 

 © Anja Eriud 2014

 

The World of Eve’s Daughters – No Place for Adam and his Sons: Part II

 

To begin, James (Jim) Steiger started this email discussion thus;

Is Modern Medicine Sexist?

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:04:58 -0700

From: “James H. Steiger” <steiger @ UNIXG.UBC.CA>

Subject: The Sexism of Modern Medicine Some facts on modern medicine, forwarded to me by a colleague on another list. These types of facts should be dealt with in any rational discussion on the alleged “sexism” and “anti-female” bias of modern medicine:”

With properly referenced and credible sources he, shows the clear disparity in health funding between women’s health issues and men’s such as;

“Government spending:

The National Institute of Health spends 10 percent of its budget on women’s health issues and 5 percent on men’s health issues. (1)

“The National Cancer Institute directed $1.8 billion toward breast cancer research and $376 million to prostate cancer research projects.” (3)

“The government spends $250 for each man diagnosed with prostate cancer and about $2,000 for each death, according to the American Foundation for Urologic Disease.  It spends $3,000 on every woman diagnosed with breast cancer and $12,000 for each death.” (3)

“The Department of Defense spent “about $20 million for prostate cancer research and $455 million on breast cancer research from 1993 through 1996.” (3)”

 Naturally enough, Jim got responses, and again naturally enough, those responses were from women, and women with feminist “leanings”

 The first is from: Jenea Tallentire, PhD student, History, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Jenea decides to take the “yeah fine, whatever, what about the women” default stance whenever the issue of men’s health is addressed – in comparison to women’s – especially if it is specifically about funding and prevalence.

“These stats are really interesting and show better funding for some areas of women’s health than I thought. They do not, of course, speak at all to the interpersonal aspects of medicine, which includes the treatment of women by their doctors, hospital staff, and specialists. Women’s experience in this area has been shown to be very often exclusionary, discriminatory, and dismissive in comparison to men’s.”

 Next up was, Linda A. Bernhard, PhD, RN, Associate Professor, Nursing & Women’s Studies, from The Ohio State University. Linda gets straight down to it. Any mention of male health issues is a “backlash against women’s health

“James, The statistics you present are important statistics, but taken out of context, statistics can be used to make any case.  I see these statistics, unfortunately, taken out of context, as a form of backlash against women’s health.  There is much more to sexism in medicine than these statistics. However, I agree with you, that a balanced presentation should be a part of any rational discussion.”

 Linda even plays the innocent, by conceding (slightly) that men’s health issues deserve as much attention as women’s health, but does that feminist thing of pretending that it has nothing to do with feminist manoeuvres that block funding for men’s health issues.

“There should be enough money for health care research on both women and men; we shouldn’t have to compete for it.”

The next response is from Margaret E. Kosal, Department of Chemistry, School of Chemical Sciences, University of Illinois, and Margaret decides to really go for it, she writes a really long response, taking James “statistics” one by one and flimflamming her way through them till she gets to this,

“i can’t find any source supporting your colleague’s assertion of _dramatic_monetary disparity in funding. There is some evidence to support to his assertion that breast cancer received more research dollars: according to the American Cancer Society’s “Trends in Research Funding in Selected Priority Areas FY 1998-1999” breast cancer research received (from the ACS) $16,407,000 while prostate cancer research received $6,364,000; yes, research with nominal association/application to breast cancer did receive more funding, during the fiscal year 1998-99, from the ACS.  i need more information to draw a rational conclusion as to the origin of this apparent disparity in funding.”

 As you can see, Margaret has a bit of a problem capitalising, she also has a problem recognising when she contradicts herself – by stating she “can’t find any source”, then producing a source. Herself. Which clearly shows a “dramatic disparity in funding” now math is not my strong suit, but isn’t $16,407,000 more than twice as much as $6,364,00? Just how big a disparity I wonder does there have to be before Margaret actually sees this “apparent disparity in funding”?

 Pauline B. Bart <pbart @ UCLA.EDU> is next, she goes for the anecdotal approach, and introduces the core issues of women’s health, which naturally enough have not been ever given the attention or treated with the serious they deserve.

“Sexism in gynecology textbooks was demonstrated in a paper i wrote with Diana Scully, “A Funny Thing Happenned on the Way to the Orifice: Women in Gynecology Textbooks ”  Amer. Jnl Sociology, 78,4, Jan, l973 and reprinted in other publications.

Lennane and Lennane wrote in a medical journal (I don’t have the cite) the pain in childbirth, menstrual cramps, neausea during pregnancy and colicky babies were all caused by the mother’s not accepting her maternal role (the article is a critique)”

 Margaret Duncombe, Sociology, Colorado College, mduncombe  @  coloradocollege.edu decides that issues of disparity in funding between men’s health and women’s health are not worth addressing at all, in favour of focusing on something mentioned by Pauline Bart.

 “Addresssing the rates of mortality by sex, there is a disparity since conception.  More males are conceived than females, 120 to 100 as I recall, but at birth the ratio is 106 to 100.  There appears to be some biological diference in the fetus.  it has nothing to do with sexism.  Male mortality rates are greater than females later and throughout life .  Part of it seems biological, continuing the trend when a fetus, combined with, according the the people I have read on this issue, greater male risk taking behavior-smoking, hard drinking, guns.  Class of course is relevant. Both working class men and women work in more polluted environments.”

 Needless to say, neither one of them are interested in the causes of greater male mortality, either as a fetus, or as adults, the implication as you can see fromMargaret being that – if men die sooner that women, it is basically their own fault.  This is what Margaret wants to know.

“Addresssing the rates of mortality by sex, there is a disparity since > conception.  More males are conceived than females, 120 to 100 as I > recall, but at birth the ratio is 106 to 100.

 I share Pauline’s understanding that more males are conceived, but I’ve been asked to document how I know this, and while I have found several reports that repeat the “fact,” I have not been able to to find a citation that provides the evidence, including a discussion of the methodology that allows us to know about conceptions.  If anyone has a citation for the documentation, I’d be grateful.  Please post to me privately, and I’ll compile a post to the list if there is interest.  Thanks.”

 Obviously I’m speculating here, but I can almost hear both Pauline and Margaret saying with regard to the higher mortality rate of males, both as fetus’s and as adults – “big deal, who cares

Then James (H. Steiger) answers.

“However, I know of no one who would deny that women get the bulk of the gender-specific funding.”

 I think I can help you out there James – FEMINISTS – would, did, and continue to do so. Then probably in the most important paragraph in his answer, hits the nail right on the head.

“4. Men have a lower life expectancy than women. Pauline Bart points out that male fetuses and infants seem “naturally” more vulnerable than female, that part of the lower life expectancy for men relates to their vastly higher death rates in industrial accidents, wars, and stress related diseases.

Bart doesn’t seem at all concerned about this, and isn’t demanding vast amounts of funding to “cure” this “problem” which, indeed, might well be solvable by modern medicine.

Her response reflects another reality, and a curious double standard — the lack of sensitivity of a “male-dominated” culture *and its feminist critics* to male injury. Women are fully complicit in this.”

 Women with the connivance of feminists simply could care less about male health issues, in fact could care less about MEN and boys, all the while whining and demanding more and more attention be paid, more and more funding be directed at “real” health issues – cramps and colicky babies.

 To illustrate his point he suggests that funding be “shared” between men’s and women’s health issues and according to him the response he got from an official is telling.

“In Canada, for example, there are organizations with substantial funding that correspond with women to remind them to have periodic mammography exams. These mammography exams are funded by the socialized medicine system. They are free. On the other hand, there is no such program for PSA exams for men, and the exams are not funded. Moreover, there is no plan to fund them in the near future.

 As one (male) government official told me, “There is no money.” When I suggested splitting the funding currently used for mammography, and having men and women each pay half the cost of their exams, he remarked “frankly Jim, that would be political suicide.

 The next response comes from M. Charlene Ball, Administrative Coordinator Women’s Studies Institute Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia,  http://www.gsu.edu/womenpower

 Two things to note, first her email address, and second, what she sees as the problem.

“I see this as part of the overall patriarchial system.  It’s partly the results of assuming that women and men should be opposites.  The obverse of the strong, silent man is, of course, the vulnerable, disease-prone woman. These are stereotypes, of course. But they affect all our thinking.”

 “Ending patriarchial systems would benefit men *as humans.* It would take away their power over others, but it would restore them to their full humanity.  It would enable them to be human, and to be seen as simply human, with bodies that can suffer, that have needs (in addition to the sexual) instead of being seen by themselves and other as they so often are now seen, as machines.”

C’mon, you all knew someone was going to say the “P” word! 

I have only one thing to say about this, if the problem was “part of the overall patriarchial system” wouldn’t the majority of health funding be going to bloody men? What with MEN only ever doing things FOR men? Conspiring to deprive women of the resources they need?

 Which is patently NOT happening. Naturally being a feminist Charlene has to pop in a disclaimer, absolving feminism of all complicity in………..well in anything………bad.

“What we need is more education about women’s and men’s specific medical needs.  You are right that many of men’s vulnerabilities have been ignored or given short shrift.  However, I can’t say that that is the result of feminism.  I stil believe that feminist thinking holds a corrective to the problem, and is not the problem itself.”

 Jenea Tallentire, the PhD student, History, University of British Columbia, Canada, comes back with a classic feminist response.

 Shades of withcraft, of hocus pocus and of Malleus Malefecarum

“The characterization of the era before the male medical professional as a time of howling ignorance is incorrect. I would argue that the knowledge-base in much of gynaecology – techniques, contraceptives – was not built by men at all.

 Most basic gyn. practice (with the exception of the use of iron tongs to extract infants from the womb) in the West originated with female midwives through the medieval/early modern European era and were copied and claimed by the rising male medical professional through the 18thand 19th centuries.”

 Of course, like all feminists she ignores historical fact (which is odd considering her area of expertise – history?) as to the cause of high mortality in childbirth, Peurperal Fever as it was called, and conveniently ignores that it was studied, researched and finally was discovered how to prevent and treat it by MEN.

“Towards the end of the period under consideration here, two physicians, one in the United States of America and one in Hungary, produced work that was later to be regarded as seminal in the understanding of what is now seen as the infectious nature of puerperal fever. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes published ‘The contagiousness of puerperal fever’ in the New England Quarterly Journal of Medicine and Surgery,160 and in 1860 Ignaz Semmelweis published work, which he had first embarked on about fifteen years earlier, as The etiology, concept and prophylaxis of childbed fever.161

In 1850, at the very end of the period under study here, James Young Simpson contributed further to the understanding of the infectious nature of this disease, by recognizing its similarities to “surgical fever”.162 These writers have not been given prominence in the present paper, partly because their writings do not appear to have been given great attention by their own contemporaries.

Although they may have been received with interest, particularly during the later part of the period, when there was a growing recognition that puerperal fever could be transmitted by birth attendants, their theories formed only one, rather marginal element within contemporary writings. Far greater emphasis appears to have been given to theories of the origin of the fever itself, which was seen as a constitutional disorder, most commonly arising from within the organism and only rarely invading from outside.”

 But she is correct in one respect, child birthing was for a long time seen as a “woman’s” occupation, and child birth attendants were mostly women, and it was the unsanitary practices of these “midwives” and child birth attendants that in effect caused Peurperal Fever.  A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing, in the hands of feminists.

The person who she and all other feminists who laud this ancient craft of midwifery need to thank Ignaz Semmelweis for finally discovering the cause and instigating the simplest preventative measure – washing your hands.

Janea in typical female and feminist fashion has a little rant about these women and;  

“Their vilification as incompetents or even deviants was carried out here in much the same manner as Europe, when male professionals moved into the area and hospitals were pushed as the only source of knowledge and safe practices.”

 Actually, left in the hands of these women, other women would still be dying in childbirth, still following the insane practices of nutcases like the Holy Hormones and dancing like nitwits under the light of the moon, worshiping the Goddess within – sigh.

 During this email exchange, rather than discuss any of the issues James raises, all the female responses are exercises in dissembling, in ignoring the disparity of health funding between men’s and women’s health issues, in favour of singing that favourite song of feminists and women everyone – “what about the women”

While this exchange took place 14 years ago, and the feminists were relatively civil, much has changed, funding levels for men’s health has been cut, and feminists have become more vicious in blocking and preventing funding for men’s health issues.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Previous Older Entries