“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

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

 

 Yesterday, while doing a bit of research I came across this blog, called Holy Hormones Journal so I’m guessing you all know, or at least have some inkling of what the ethos of this little gem of a woman’s journal is about?

But to save you the bother of going and looking, and encouraging this demented perspective here is their About – brace yourselves.

“This blog is dedicated to all the women who have ever experienced a hormone fluctuation– from puberty to menopause; to the generations of women who have died because we have forgotten the source of our being… and to our daughters who will survive because we will have finally remembered.”

So how on earth did I end up here, and what mad term did I type into google to get there? Actually it was “iconic women”. Women are obsessed with BEING women and all things female and over the course of history the constantly changing and evolving social and cultural zeitgeist has had one recurring theme – a theme that has anchored and embedded itself into the very fabric of cultural consciousness that unless one stops and actively thinks about it, is almost invisible.

Because it is everywhere. Women. Being a woman. The trials and tribulations of womanhood, the essence of being female, in fact as I researched and went from one site to another, one article to another article, it became blindingly obvious. Women are without doubt the most self-obsessed creatures on this planet.

But perhaps the most ironic thing of all, is that within this avalanche of women on women, women on about being women, women, women, women, there is another recurring theme.

The one encapsulated in the quote about, from these nutcases’s blog – a perpetual and never-ending whine about how women never get to speak out, to talk about, to articulate and express themselves AS women! It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so ludicrous, so completely and utterly delusional and pathetic.

I actually got a bit of a migraine last night, from trawling through the thousands upon thousands of these blogs, articles and sites, the only antidote was to soothe myself with reading various random articles about the exploits, adventures and doings of MEN, after having a bit of a lie down.

Because therein lies the difference, men DO things, MEN create, build, invent, think and ponder, not about themselves, not about being men, but about principles, the great questions, the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

With regard to what I was researching, another theme emerged, or rather, another obsession of women, what I have seen over and over again being referred to as the source of women’s power – their reproductive process’s – apparently women are putative Goddesses because they menstruate, they have vaginas and they gestate babies and give birth. Unlike every other mammal on this planet, that is.

 

“This Journal is for women of all ages; so that we can become empowered by who we are, and not victimized by lack of menstrual health education or medical misinformation so common in our media driven culture. It is amazing to realize just how long some of these women’s health issues have been surfacing, and resurfacing, and resurfacing, without apparent resolution; but usually with another layer of confusion, that sometimes leads to more unfounded fear.”

To give you a flavor of how these….alright…..fruitcakes approach the whole menstruation “issue” here is the introduction to their section called:

 

“Female Mystique – The 3 Phases of Eve

 Whether you are a hormonal teen, menstruating woman, or menopausal wise woman, you will pass through each, and every phase, once a month, throughout your life; an integral aspect of the natural cycles, that govern all of life, on this planet. Our cycles are the rhythm of the universal dance. The menstrual cycle you’ve been encouraged to ignore, dismiss, dread, conceal, or suppress, is the foundation of your being. It helps to define who you are, your connection to self, other women, your partners, children, and every other aspect of your life.”

 

Naturally enough, the snippet from their About irritated me, aggravated me, then I got over it. After I read the introduction to Female Mystique – The 3 Phases of Eve, can you see why I ended up lying on the sofa with the lights out and wondering if I had just entered a parallel universe? Or that women en masse were completely OFF their trollies!

Think I’m kidding? From Understanding the Moon, Your Mood and Your Health posted on July 26, 2013 by Leslie Carol Botha.

 

“When people start living with this rhythm they will find that there health returns.. their vitality energy, insights.  This is the missing link.  And because women were aware of their  menstrual connection to the lunar rhythm they became powerful leaders in their communities. Coupled with the fact that they all cycled together – which gave them greater powerIs this the power that men are so afraid of?  Do women hold the key to the Holy Grail? What do you think?”

 

Oh, men are afraid alright, afraid because women fail to exercise any bloody self-control during their periods and use it as an excuse to turn into homicidal maniacs and completely irrational psychos.

For a brief overview of what this site is all about from, Female Mystique: The Three Phases of Eve© posted on April 23, 2013 by Leslie Carol Botha.

 

“Somewhere in your mind…is still a seed of remembering the power that was associated with women’s roles and lunar cycles; our Female Mystique. Since the beginning of time, the moon has been symbolized as a universal cycle representing life and nature.  Plants, animals and humans all are affected by the changing moon phases following patterns that are based on the cyclic nature of life.

 As women, we possess an innate intuitive understanding of the phases of the menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle.  From the onset of puberty – and all the way to menopause, we are affected by the force and the pull of the moon.  Every month we are swayed by the rhythmic ebb and flow, waxing and waning cycles of fullness and emptiness.  Our monthly cycles reflect the archetypal moon phases of rebirth, life and death.”

 

I bet you’re thinking that Leslie was probably some health professional who got caught up in all this new-agey crap, and is actually qualified in some, any way, to talk about health issues? In her own words.

 

“The above is the body of my work and research over the past 30 years. Although I intuited it – many years ago, the same as been intuited by other women around the world.  The science of circadian rhythms – living in balance with our natural cycle is beginning to catch up. LB”

 

Apparently – NOT – she “intuited” it, her and “other women around the world!

 Ok, two nurofen and a cup of tea and a bit of a lie down and fully recovered, I went looking for the growing mountain of evidence that clearly and unequivocally shows that rather than being sidelined, and reduced to pleadings and piteous cries of “wont someone think of the poor poor silenced women” I came across this gem of an exchange.

It is lengthy, but well worth reading it through, it is has some useful data, references and statistics. There is a bit more to be said about the source of this discussion, which will be posted as a separate essay as The World of Eve’s Daughters – No Place for Adam and his Sons: Part III

The Essay on the email exchange is The World of Eve’s Daughters – No Place for Adam and his Sons: Part II

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Peddling rape culture in Ireland: Must’ve Been Out of Snake Oil

 

Laura McInerney in an article  called, “Accept it – ‘rape culture’ exists” in the online magazine thejoournal.ie   is trying to sell “rape culture” in Ireland, you read that right – she’s peddling this “concept” and as a bit of a sideline is peddling feminism as THE be all and end all of all perspectives/doctrines/ideologies. This is long, so make a cup of tea, grab a couple of Hob nobs and get comfy.

There are three problems with McInerneys technique, first she obviously knows sod all about feminism, other than what she might have picked up from a few Gender Studies classes and/or Cosmo.

Second, she opens her sales pitch with that most respected of empirical types of evidence – an ANECDOTE – but even better – a third party anecdote.

Lastly, she places the third party anecdotal “evidence” in a period of time, which from her perspective is a long, long, long time ago – 30ish years. The late 1970’s, in a biology class in Ireland.

“A FAMILY MEMBER told me a particularly dark anecdote recently. A teenager in the late 1970s, he recalls a sex education lesson in biology class, where female classmates were told by the male teacher that if they were ever raped, the best damage limitation would be to just lie back and try to enjoy it.”

Lets deal with this “anecdote” first – and I’ll start by making a couple of assertions, McInerney and/or her “family member” are either full of shit or liars.

Here’s why, I did my Leaving Cert in 1979 in Ireland, and I did Leaving Cert biology, and the reason why I know she could only be alluding to a Leaving Cert class, is because you could only do biology in Leaving Cert, before that you did “Science” for Inter Cert.

Now, unless McInerneys “family member” school followed a different curriculum from my school back in “late 1970’s” there were NO SEX EDUCATION classes in biology or in any other class at that time.

In fact, the first tentative “sex education” classes to be part of the school curriculum were in the early 1990’s and it was called SPHE, further it caused blue bloody murder.

“INTRODUCTION

Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) was first introduced to the Primary Curriculum in the Republic of Ireland in 1999. Prior to 1999, Health Education had formed part of the Physical Education curriculum. However, a more formal approach to social and personal education, incorporating relationship and sexuality education (RSE), intercultural education and child protection was new. Many programmes, developed to deal with specific issues during the 1990s, such as the Walk Tall programme to address substance misuse, Stay Safe to address child protection issues, and RSE to address sexuality and relationships education were incorporated into the SPHE curriculum.”

So, to suggest that this teacher would have discussed THIS issue, in that manner, in a biology class, in Ireland in the late 1970’s is stretching credulity to its absolute limits.

As someone born in 1961, who was educated in Ireland through the late 1960’s, and 1970’s I think I can reiterate, that either McInerney and/or her story telling “family member” who must be the same generation as me, are either full of shit and/or liars.

Even with the benefit of the doubt, that this “anecdote” is true, what does it prove? NOTHING. Except perhaps that somewhere, in a school in Ireland, in the late 1970’s there was a teacher who was an arsehole – big fat deal.

Moving on, McInerney continues in the vein she started this patently ridiculous article, with anecdotes, with vague unsupported references to equally unsupported contentions and assertions.

 It’s all very chummy and gosh darn it – how can you not accept that what I’m bullshitting you about is true? Because after all. I say it is.

She then moves on to selling her other toxic product, feminism. Naturally enough she assumes the “how can you not be a feminist, how can you be so mean about feminism” thing – then tells us what she has decided feminism is.

Rather predictably she ties feminism into being the champion of “sexual issues” because after all, feminism owns sex, and sexuality, and rather neatly juxtaposes misogyny alongside feminism – imputing that if one is not a feminist, one is automatically a misogynist.

“I am genuinely puzzled by the anti-feminist backlash I’ve seen in recent debates on prevalent sexual issues, two recent examples being the UniLad website’s rape jokes and Prime Time’s exposé of the sex industry in Ireland. Discussion of both subjects is to be encouraged, and in general, those opposed to the violent misogyny of UniLad and the normalisation of prostitution in Ireland seemed happy to engage with people offering different viewpoints, or people who wanted to know more about either. All well and good, and exactly how it should be. But there were still far too many comments from people who wanted neither to engage with, or be challenged by, anti-exploitation advocates. People who seemed genuinely appalled that anyone could be offended by rape jokes, or challenge the validity of prostitution as a career choice.”

But of course piffling little matters like actually throwing in a link to either of her “examples” so people could check for themselves – is just not the feminist way.

The next couple of paragraphs are just garbage, total and utter garbage about “lesbian killjoys”, women being told to “get back in the kitchen”. This article is probably the most pathetic attempt I’ve seen in a long long time to portray feminists and feminism as the victims of a terrible misunderstanding, of just plain old mean and nasty people misrepresenting saintly, caring and altruistic cuddly feminists.

Having done that, McInerney decides to answer herself, regarding her “puzzlement” at how mean people are being about feminists and feminism. Her “puzzlement” that anyone would think that feminism is way past its sell by date, way past the point where anyone with a half a brain, access to the internet or a semblance of sentience, has already made their own minds up – without any help from McInerney about what feminism is. Naturally enough, McInerney trots it out. The tired, laughable and definitely comical “definition” of feminism by………a feminist. Sigh.

“The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it’s simply a case of misdirection and misinformation that has created this – let’s face it – fear of feminism. Don’t people know what a feminist is? A feminist is simply someone who believes that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. She is not someone who hates men, or who thinks that all sex is rape. She’s not necessarily even a She. All of the strong, intelligent, charismatic men I know are feminists; they believe in gender equality. That’s all feminism is… how could anyone proudly, publicly disagree with that?”

OK –  now stoppit – I can almost hear you all laughing – this is the “definition de jour” of feminism by feminists – yes I know, I know – it’s pathetic, it’s a joke, and this genius obviously believes it – well it’s that or she is a moron.

Personally, I’m torn – let’s be generous and assume she believes it – in that case – we’re back to she learnt her feminism from Cosmo.

I’m very tempted to suggest a reading list for Mizz McInerney, but am thinking her head might explode if she reads what some of the pioneers of her beloved feminism have ACTUALLY written – obviously Solanas springs to mind, most of the garbage by Dworkin, Millet and MacKinnon, though if I was really tempted to melt her brain I’d suggest popping over to the Counter Feminist and starting from post #1, alternating with The Unknown History of MISANDRY – between them Fidelbogan and Robert St Estephe would “re-educate” her nicely.

But, where she really needs to visit to get the full panoramic historical low down on women is here Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins.

I just love her next little paragraph, it’s a rather lame attempt to lay a guilt trip on women – women who decline to identify as a feminist.

“Sometimes you’ll hear women stating, “I’m not a feminist, but I believe in equality”. Believing in equality is exactly what a feminist does. Why should a woman be ashamed of calling herself a feminist? Because people will automatically presume she’s a radical misanthrope who’ll spray breast milk everywhere and beat men around the head with her jackboots if one so much as smiles in her direction?”

I’m NOT a feminist Laura, and I DON’T believe in “equality” it is one bullshit toxic theory propping up another toxic bullshit theory.  Shall I repeat that in case you missed it the first time, or have fallen to the floor in a puzzled swoon?

I’m female, NOT a feminist, and DON’T believe in “equaliddy” and just to hammer a final nail in the coffin you are now building for me –  or “Equal Rights”

I believe in Human Rights – applied to Human Beings – with it being irrelevant what kind of Human Being you happen to be.

Women SHOULD be ashamed to be feminists, to call themselves feminists, and to subscribe to ANY tenet of feminism – because it is a vile toxic twisted doctrine of bigotry, hatred, lies and prejudice. Only a deluded fool, an unbelievably naive, fool who has very obviously not taken the time to really investigate feminism to any degree would parrot that most pathetic of all pathetic excuses as to why feminism is a good thing.

The last thing feminism is about is “equality” the last thing feminists give a shit about are “rights” anybodies rights, never mind “women’s rights” feminists feed off the deluded, the patently stupid and the downright ignorant.

On to McInernery’s next ridiculous paragraph barely worth even critiquing.

“Some people dislike the notion of feminism because they believe that women already have equal rights in our society, and certainly, in a legislative sense, we’re coming along nicely. We’re not there yet, but I can see how people who don’t have direct knowledge of such topics as pay equality or abortion would think that we are. But as a society, we’re a long way yet from treating each other with equal respect, regardless of gender. This is where “rape culture” sticks its ugly head back in.”

The sheer level of blind arrogance and stupidity that underpins this nonsensical paragraph is epic – people “dislike the notion of feminism because they believe that women already have equal rights” WRONG – women don’t have “equal rights” women have enhanced, superior, extra rights, that men specifically don’t have – as a direct result of the lies, false data, faked statistics and insane “theories” peddled by feminism and feminists.

As for her assertion that “people” are so misguided as to “dislike the notion of feminism” because they “don’t have direct knowledge of such topics as pay equality or abortion” – really Laura? Let me guess, only feminists and hacks like you are allowed to read books, access the internet and find a veritable treasure trove of actual empirical evidence, only feminists and hacks like you are capable of evaluating, examining and reaching their own conclusions about anything? Without some barely literate, with the intellectual ability of an amoeba, feminist, to handhold them through the hard bits, people are just…………..lost?  ppppft.

“Rape culture” is a fairly new term to the popular lexicon, and again, I think that those offended by its use don’t quite understand what it refers to. If I say that we currently have a “rape culture”, many people will assume I mean that rape is socially acceptable, or that all men are rapists, or that simply being female is inherently dangerous because we live in a world of violently hormonal men. Such hyperbolic definitions mean that anyone using the term “rape culture” can be immediately dismissed as being a radical malcontent in a world full of happily smiling normals, but it doesn’t take much more digging to find the truth in the theory.”

Rape culture is a PR stunt by feminists, to whip up hysteria, to get their grubby hands on more and more government funding, even as the evidence piles up that every single thing feminists ever said about rape – IS A LIE. It is a smash and grab attempt to raise the hysteria volume up so loud, in an attempt to drown out the truth.

“There’s no denying that Ireland has a rape culture“Rape culture” actually refers to the set of societal norms that equates violence with passion, pigeonholes male sexuality, and excuses or downplays sexual violence. There’s no denying that Ireland has a rape culture. Am I being deliberately provocative by stating that? God, no. But it certainly suits many people to assume so, so they storm away, frothing at the mouth and wildly asking how I could be so terribly offensive about healthy, straight sexuality.”

No, Ireland doesn’t have a “rape culture” what Ireland has is a coven of panicking feminists who see that the con, the poisonous toxic social engineering con of feminism has been exposed, has been shown to be a lie, and this is their last ditch attempt to keep the lie alive. what you are doing is peddling a rape myth culture.

The next couple of paragraphs are more “anecdotes” which of course McInerney, in her delusional feminist mindset thinks means something, other than being another bullshit anecdote, that is.

“Rape culture definitely exists. Why not accept that, and work together to get rid of the damn thing?What would the abandonment of rape culture mean, anyway? It’d hardly be a great loss. If women were no longer afraid to walk alone at night, in case their mere feminine presence invited violent assault. If men didn’t feel that they had to conform to a very narrow definition of male sexuality, and didn’t feel emasculated if their chosen target demurred. If victims of sexual abuse weren’t afraid to speak out, weren’t bound by shame to blame themselves. If men and women who believed in equality and mutual respect weren’t demonised for using the word “feminist”.

Becaue you say so? Is that it Laura? – the paragraph above is so ridiculous that it is hard to know where to begin. Men are emasculated apparently if a woman “demurred” really? How many men did you ask Laura? She throws in the feminism = equality thing again – which I’ve already addressed.  But for the hard of thinking – like Laura and at the risk of pointing out the obvious, “getting rid of rape culture” means – getting rid of feminism and feminists.

Feminism = hatred, bigotry, lies, false data, manipulate and manufactured statistic and BULLSHIT.

“That sounds like a nice kind of way to do things, really. I don’t know how any reasonable person could object to that.

Only a fool would equate feminism with “niceness” only someone with absolutely no concept of what “reason” or logic for that matter means, could write such an infantile, deluded sentence.

“Let’s keep the debate going, because the more I think about it, the more I believe that it’s definitely just a case of misdirection and misinformation that has created this fear of feminism. I mean, the only alternative is to assume that significant sections of the population are terrified of women, and that we’re living amongst some extremely militant misogynists. And that can’t be right… can it?”

Oh Laura, no-one needs your permission to “keep the debate going” except you seem to have missed the boat on where this debate IS going.

Fear of feminism? Please. Contempt, disdain, anger, derision, ridicule, scorn, these are the words you should be using, and the only “misdirection and misinformation” is coming from feminists, and from nitwits like you.

As for “significant sections of the population are terrified of women” wrong again Laura, the same words as I used above are the ones you should be using, contempt, disdain, anger, derision, ridicule and scorn – THAT’S what men are feeling, and what significant numbers are beginning to feel towards women. Like you.

Militant misogynists? Of all the stupid things written in this article, this is the stupidest – it is the last weapon in the armoury of the inept, the inarticulate, the intellectually challenged – the last sad pathetic attempt of someone who has nothing of any substance to offer to explain why more and more people are rejecting feminism, why more and more people are waking up to the toxic, corrupt nature of feminism – the “it’s not me, it’s you” lame argument – the “you disagree with me, therefore you hate me” the “if you challenge me on my bullshit and prove, and CAN prove me wrong, I’m going to call you the nastiest name I can think of, and throw in an insinuation of violence” so there!

The phrase flogging a dead horse, springs to mind, feminism is OVER, feminism is on life support, a decaying putrid corpse kept alive by the efforts of the terminally stupid and the viciously corrupt.

But, because I’m feeling generous, I’m going to throw you a bone Laura, I’m going to start your REAL EDUCATION – read this and this and this – and when you’re done, then you’ll know what “rape culture” really is, and what really lies at the heart of your cuddly fluffy feminism.

©Anja Eriud 2014

Tammy’s Talk: Part II.

 

An Exercise in Delusion and Arrogance.

Apparently this is a course, and the talk is obviously an introductory talk to this course, the Course Description, at the beginning of this transcript is illuminating.

Course Description

 We hear it all the time: “America is patriarchal!”, “American women are oppressed!”. Well, a lifelong feminist and former National Organization for Women member, Tammy Bruce, is tired of hearing it–and she has a solution laid out in our newest video: Feminism 2.0. One that tells women that they should be proud to act feminine. One that tells them that simply copying men and masculine traits is actually demeaning to women. One that honors all responsible choices, including becoming a wife and mother.”

When she says “we hear it all the time” what she fails to mention is that it was feminists like her, and like her former sista’s in NOW who propagated this myth, this lie of patriarchy. What she also fails to mention is that it is men and non feminist women (like me) who are “tired of hearing it” and that all she is doing is finally copping on that the audience for this pile of crap is now limited to screechy ranty hysterical feminists and vacuous empty-headed  HuffPo baby feminists who can barely write a cogent sentence.

Tammy is doing the kid with jam all over its face, declaring in all sincerity that “nope, wasn’t me who ate all that jam” thing.

Having dodged that bullet, Tammy moves swiftly on with her plan, with her shiny improved and apparently much needed “new feminism for the 21st century”

“I want to talk to you about a new feminism for the 21st century.

 There are three pillars to this new feminism:

 Dignity.

 The word “no.” And men.

 That’s right, men.”

Oh look, after 50 years or so of vilifying men, of declaring men to be the enemy, the oppressors of women, and the source of all evil in the world, feminism is now inviting men to participate in a movement that has STILL as its focus – the needs of women – the clue is in the name – FEMINism.

So, no change there, Tammy obviously forgets, that it was only with the acquiescence of MEN right from the get go, that feminism in any form or flavour ever survived, she seems to think that after 50 or so years, acknowledging that now, will serve to reel back in, all those men who are now no longer prepared to subscribe to a movement that has deliberately, calculatedly and with complete contempt FOR men, stripped them of every Human Right imaginable.

With absolutely no irony she admits to being an integral part of this toxic movement, but now because the stick with which feminism has always used to beat men down with, is now practically ineffective she wants to implement a new method of beating men down.

“But before I expound on these three ideas, you need to know something about me. I was very involved in the feminist movement, including being on the board of directors of the National Organization for Women. For this I feel much pride and some guilt. Pride because feminism has pushed forward some very important and needed changes; and guilt because it also has done a lot of damage. My work now is to reverse that damage.”

What you will notice is that while she mentions “damage” she does not go into any detail about said “damage” as she continues, it will become clear that it is damage to women she means, no mention at all of the damage to the lives of generations of men and boys – nope – women are now being damaged because of feminism, and we can’t have that, can we?

Hence the invitation to men, though that invitation is that of an upper class female directing a person of lesser status to the tradesman’s entrance – and that lesser person or persons? Why men of course.

She then goes on a bit about what women should be able to do, what freedoms they should have, including the freedom to be wives and mothers, and she tut tuts at the feminists who went nuts when a Princeton Grad suggested women should look for husbands while in college – of the right calibre of course.

“In fact any time someone has the temerity to suggest that a woman might want to look for a husband while in college, as a very successful Princeton grad recently did in a letter to the school’s newspaper, feminists go nuts.

 A new feminism will value and respect all responsible choices.”

Still hasn’t mentioned valuing and respecting the choices of men and boys – has she? Men get their first real mention in the next paragraph,

 “And while we’re talking about dignity, I can’t think of anything less dignified for women than the feminist belief that in the sexual arena, women are like, and therefore ought to act like, men. Is this what the truly liberated woman wants? To have casual sex and think nothing of it like men do? That’s what feminism aspires to? Sad to say the answer has too often been yes. So, let’s add this up: Feminism has downplayed the desire for women to have a family while at the same time hyping the rewards of career and casual sex.”

There you go, men as an entire class are characterised as sexual automatons, ever ready to jump into bed with any random female who shows willing. Wonder how she feels about all those slutwalking students, proudly displaying their wares on the public street, and celebrating their sluttishness? Funny, she doesn’t mention that.

She then moves onto her next pillar as she calls it.

 “The second pillar of a new feminism is the word “no.” It’s very much tied in with the first pillar.”

What she is advocating here is that women need to regain the upper hand in sexual relationships, that in effect, they have been literally giving away, free gratis and for nothing – the ONLY thing of value that a woman possesses, as a human being. In one paragraph, with the complete stupidity of the truly delusional she has reduced women to what she previously reduced men to – a set of genitals that happen to be attached to a person, but that this person has no other value or worth as a Human Being than AS that set of genitals.

 “Throughout history women made great use of the word “no.” Of course many times women said “yes” when they should have said no, and that’s the basis of more than a few classic stories and novels. But this was the exception, not the rule. There is great power in that word “no.” And women, for the most part, knew how to wield that power. But in the last few decades they’ve lost it. And the consequences have been catastrophic.”

You know, on one level she is right, it has been catastrophic for women, not in the way she imagines though, it has been catastrophic because it has shattered any illusions about women, it has revealed women to be just as likely to hop from one sexual partner to the next as any man, if he was so inclined.  What Tammy here is missing, is that while she can purse her lips and tut tut at bed-hopping men, that old adage “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” applies. 

In this instance it is men doing the metaphorical tut tutting and rendering judgement on these “empowered” women.  The ones that Tammy and her ilk actively encouraged and practically browbeat into becoming the sluts, the whores, the skanks that they HAVE become. She then goes on to once more do her “kid with jam all over its face” thing.

 “Women, who fought not to be treated as sex objects, have become more objectified than ever. You see it everywhere: in music videos, on billboards, in the hookup culture on campuses. When Madonna becomes the symbol of a generation you know you have a problem. And now we have the tawdry spectacle of teenage girls sexually pursuing teenage boys the way boys pursued girls. How did this happen?”

How did this happen Tammy? Well you should know – you and your fellow feminists applauded and cheered on, the likes of Madonna, the answer my dear Tammy lies in YOUR mirror.

The next paragraph is probably my favourite, the faux innocence, the shifting of the blame onto men, the washing of her hands of the consequences of the actions SHE and her fellow feminists set in motion.

“Because feminism began to advocate that women should behave like men. Whatever men did and however they did it, that’s what women should do. Feminists were angry at men – but they wanted to be like them at the same time. No wonder our society is so confused.”

Oh no Tammy, feminism didn’t advocate that women “behave like men” feminism and feminists – LIKE YOU – advocated that women unleash their true natures, that women “empower” themselves and become “who they really are” and did they ever – they became exactly the kinds of people that they REALLY are. As for your wonderment at societies confusion? 

Society isn’t confused at all, men are NOT confused, men are waking up, and women are realising that men ARE waking up – that men are starting to look at women with their eyes wide open. So, no Tammy, society isn’t confused, women and feminists like you are just panicking.

Tammy then moves onto how she see’s men, she throws men a few bones, acknowledges the “contribution” to the creation of modern civilisation of men

 “This is a good segue to my third pillar of a new feminism – men. It is easy for feminists to forget this, but it was men who gave up their monopoly on political power and gave women the right to vote, men who invented birth control, the refrigerator, the washing machine, and so many other devices that liberated women.”

But, lest any man starts to preen a bit, or bask in the glow of Tammy’s admiration, she throws a spanner into those works – because while men might have created all the devices of modern civilisation “that liberated women” they themselves would have been unable to do any of this without the civilising influence of women – without women apparently, men would be uncouth barbarians and we would still be living in caves or grass huts.

 “And men are different from women. Academics like to speculate that men and women are basically the same, that they’re only socialized differently, but as George Orwell famously noted: that’s an idea that only an intellectual would be foolish enough to believe. Moreover, the sexes need each other. For example, women civilize men. It’s what we are supposed to do. When we accomplish this and help make civilized men, society becomes good and noble.”

This next sentence is very telling, what Tammy is insinuating is that unless men get back into line and once more submit themselves to the civilising influence of women, society will “descend into chaos and the law of the jungle

“And when we fail to do this, we gradually descend into chaos and the law of the jungle. But in order to accomplish this critical task,

 We must preserve our dignity,

 Not be afraid to use the word no,

 And, see men as partners, not as competitors, let alone oppressors.”

 How odd, Tammy has obviously been asleep for the last 50 years, during which time, society has become an entity run by, and for the benefit of women, marriage has been declining steadily for decades, children are invariably being brought by SINGLE mothers, and fathers have been deliberately and callously excised from the lives of their children.  It would seem, that the rising levels of teen violence, of teen pregnancies and of all the myriad social problems that are currently besetting society can be laid firmly at the door of WOMEN.

In fact, it would appear that without the civilising influence of MEN, women are incapable of maintaining a cohesive, functioning and healthy society – at all.

Society is not on its way to chaos and the law of the jungle, society is already there Tammy – thanks to YOU, your sistas’s in NOW, and all your fellow feminists.

“That’s the way to a new feminism. And the way to a better world for both sexes.”

No Tammy, the last thing society needs is more feminism, whether tarted up and gone all fluffy and man friendly or not – it is and was feminism that has brought us to the very brink of chaos. It is a poison, a toxic corrosive social poison that eats away at the very foundations of a healthy and civilised society.

What we need to do is to purge feminism and feminists from every institution, every level and every corner of society, we need to sweep away every last vestige of toxic feminist doctrine from every law, every policy, and every edict, attitude and lie that feminism has perpetuated.

THAT is what will save our cultures and societies.  So, kindly piss off and peddle your toxic poison to those deluded women and unfortunately some men who still want to believe this crap

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Tammy’s Talk: Part 1

 

Contempt, Derision and Scorn.

 These are not “nice” words, nor for that matter are they “nice” feelings or emotions, does anyone wish to have these words used to describe the feelings or emotions that are precipitated by one’s behaviour, actions or demeanour?

Nope. I didn’t think so.

I read with great interest the comments that this article on A Voice for Men generated, and the three words of the title of this essay capture in a nutshell the feelings and emotions that the author of the article Tammy Bruce garnered for her demand, (text of her talk below) and yes, while cloaked in the now familiar sickly sweet pseudo conciliatory language of the nascent next wave of feminism that is struggling to find purchase in the prevailing zeitgeist – it was a demand.

Garnished with more than a soupcon of expectation that said demand would be complied with – by men.

The Myth of Womanhood © has always rested on several illusions, assiduously created by women and almost as equally assiduously championed by men, that women are special creatures by their very nature.  Therefore the words that frame and inform the behaviour of men towards women has been to,

Respect, protect, cherish, value and elevate – in most instances one could add adore to that list, because this was one of the primary expectations.

The fact is though, that while the illusion created of these fragile and special creatures was cultivated, propagated and disseminated by both men and women, it was indeed an illusion. There are too many chronicled instances throughout history when these fragile, delicate special creatures have behaved in ways which, had men not been blinded by the first illusion, would have shattered this faux construct. Women who have killed, who have defrauded and behaved in ways that would get a man hanged or thrashed, put out from “civilised” society and subject to universal approbation.

So, another illusion needed to be created, to add substance to the first one – that because of her delicate fragile and special nature, woman was never the agent of her own actions, she always was and according to feminists, still is, an oppressed creature, a creature who lives her life at the whim, at the behest of not just one man, but all men.

So was born the mythical patriarchy, that ambient pervasive coercive force under which all women live, have lived and no doubt will continue to live.

The final illusion is of course the performance, because yes, being a woman requires that one acts the part of the fragile, delicate, special mythical creature of woman. One must cultivate an attitude, an aura of delicate femaleness, a smokescreen of mannerisms, gestures and ploys that suggest an innate helplessness, a cloak of “femininity”.

An example, one of the most pathetic whines of feminism is that women are forced to dress a certain way to please men, to attract men, to make themselves appealing to men.  Yet throughout history it is women who have always dictated what is or isn’t appropriate “fashion” FOR women.

But, until the advent of the swinging sixties, women’s clothing was created deliberately to restrict women, to create an illusion of helplessness, to deliberately make women appear without too much effort, being physically incapable of……….well too much physical exertion. Of course the other aspect of this camouflage of clothing oneself in layers, was so that unwrapping a woman was akin to unwrapping a precious gift, and not to be done lightly, clothing that restricted access was part of creating the illusion that these fragile, delicate special creatures were only to be revealed in all her wondrous beauty, by he who had won the right to such beneficence.

Then came feminism, or women’s liberation as it was first called way back in those swinging sixties, the first mistake that feminists made was to declare the very things that kept and sustained the Myth of Womanhood © alive “oppressive” and to discard first the restrictive clothing that apparently was imposed upon women by men. Mary Quant, the designer who brought us the mini skirt obviously had some patriarchal swine looming over her as she chopped 24 inches off her skirt patterns.

Now that the oppressive packaging had been discarded, it was time to discard the next illusion, that what was wrapped up in this pretty packaging was no longer a gift to be bestowed upon a worthy champion. This was now repackaged as “a right” the right to give access to whomsoever this now liberated creature wished.  Social approbation, social taboo’s, disapproval and ostracism from polite society were yet another restrictive coercive device of the mythical patriarchy, therefore was to be rejected in favour of liberation. The device by which this new liberation, this new sexual freedom was predicated upon? The Pill.

Over the last 50 years or so, every last semblance of the artefacts that sustained, informed and supported the Myth of Womanhood © have been discarded, no longer do women choose to restrict their behaviours or clothing, no longer the need for a carefully cultivated illusion of fragile and delicate femininity, no longer even a lip service paid to an illusion of a well spoken, softly modulated voice.

All gone – in favour of loud, coarse and unrestricted freedom to say whatever you like, in whatever tone or pitch you like – no longer a subtle or provocation glimpse of a well turned ankle to inflame the passion of a suitable knight errant. One can now stride down the public street naked, carrying a banner declaring oneself proud to be a slut.

So, back to Ms. Bruce and her demand for a return to a state of male female interactions that rested on the carefully and assiduously created illusion of the Myth of Womanhood ©. She appears to want men to once more put on their rose coloured spectacles ,once more  to look upon this now, stripped bare to her essential nature, literally and figuratively, creature, and to buy into the illusions that women once depended on to lure, attract and utilise mates who would protect, provide, cherish and adore this delicate, fragile creature.

Alas Ms. Bruce, an illusion once shattered is gone forever, a paradigm shift once made, cannot be unmade, nor can a person pick up those rose coloured spectacles and view something that has been shown to BE an illusion as anything other than an illusion.

What Ms. Bruce has abysmally failed to comprehend is that not only was it women who created and cultivated the original illusion, in order to garner the requisite responses and protection and provisioning from men, it was women who deliberately tore down those illusions, who dismantled that framework of ploys, and artefacts that sustained the illusion.

Now, she wants men to return to a state of ascribing to an illusion that no longer exists, on the basis that the architects and proponents of that illusion still do, exist that is.  Even as they act and behave in ways that are in direct opposition to a now defunct and shattered illusion?

Really? There is no going back, there can be no going back, there will never be a time when men will en mass subscribe to the notion that women are delicate, fragile, special creatures to whom one owes (if one is a man) unearned respect, that one must cherish, protect and provide for, and perhaps the most laughable of all – adore – simply for existing.

Women like Tammy Bruce, and feminists in general are in a rage, a fever of outrage and anger, some like Bruce express it as a plea for a return to a time when men were still under the spell, some express it with great vitriol and rage, but all are incensed that men now, have no reluctance in expressing their contempt, derision and scorn FOR women.

THAT is what feminists and women in general are outraged about – men NOT playing their parts and continuing to subscribe to an illusion that not only did women create, but women destroyed, and have unmasked themselves as what they really are – human beings with flaws, with negative traits, with not so nice characteristics, just like men.

Except men, and some women, will self reflect, will honestly give themselves an internal audit and make decisions about what they might need to work on, but most of all, will take responsibility for their own actions and behaviours.

Feminists and a lot of women won’t – and it is not a case that they CANNOT – but they WILL NOT. Because of all the illusions that feminism shattered – (and women gleefully took up the mantle of the idea that women are “empowered” are “strong independent” autonomous beings) – being the helpless creature who lives under the coercive power of some man – is and always was the biggest illusion.

Ladies – you ARE on your own – there is nothing stopping you – everything you ever wished for – is yours, including self-determination and accountability.

THAT is what men who hold you in contempt and derision, who pour scorn on your doings, your witterings and spewings are doing.  Giving you what you demanded. Holding you accountable. Treating you as an independent autonomous adult human being.

Welcome to the real world girls.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries