Money Makes the World Go Round………Not Ideology….Feminism is Just Along for the Ride

 

An odd title for an essay isn’t it? But bear with me – no-one can be in any doubt that feminism is a toxic ideology founded on hatred, prejudice and vitriol – well apart from feminists that is – but even the most supposedly academic feminists are morons – well, you would have to be some class of moron to believe even a tenth of the unutterable crap that feminists spew out and have spewed out.

But – here’s a thought – what if – feminism is merely a cover for something deeper, something less obvious – something that operates in the shadows – but in parallel with feminism?

What if – feminism is just the public face of something else?

 

This article appeared in Irish Independant yesterday.

Separated dad wants State to pay for house big enough for visiting children

Tim Healy– Updated 27 May 2014 10:40 PM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/separated-dad-wants-state-to-pay-for-house-big-enough-for-visiting-children-30309135.html

I didn’t comment on it or immediately decide to sit down a write a critique because I wanted to wait to see if anyone commented – last time I checked and no – not one single comment.

The issues in this case – and it is the subject of an ongoing High Court case speak to Men’s Rights, men’s Human Rights – but there are deeper issues within which this case is embedded and which inform the underlying causes of why in this instance Men’s Human Rights are believed to be of such irrelevance that ignoring them is government policy to do so, that this government is impelled to implement policies that are blatantly and very obviously an infringement of this man’s Human Rights?

Those issues are cultural, political and economic – what this case is not about is feminism per se, this case is first and foremost about Human Rights – and the human being whose rights are being violated is male – and a parent, and to uphold his Human Rights would cost this government – money – and ultimately lots of money it simply is not willing or able to spend.

It is also about how the concept of family has become skewed – and this is where feminism comes in – this is the point where the influence of feminism intersects with politics and public policy, with societal and cultural attitudes – and most significantly with economic considerations.

Please read the article now and bear these things in mind – the issue is Human Rights – and the broader issue’s are about the cultural and political narrative and language used with regard to how Irish Society views not just men – but men as fathers – as parents. But it is also about economic policy. This is not necessarily simply because of feminism alone, though feminist influence has contributed to this – but also to how men and women see themselves – as parents, and how that paradigm has been always been assiduously cultivated.

Underpinning all this is the “Housing Crash” – and the devastating results of a housing bubble that when it burst here in Ireland almost brought this country to the brink of economic collapse – we are still living with the consequences of this – and will be living with those consequences for many many years to come.

Was this precipitated by feminism? If only. This was precipitated by greed, by political cute hoorism, by the machinations of venal and corrupt bankers, developers, and financiers.

So, let’s take a look at this article.

The first thing to note is the title of this article – in particular the implication that this man’s children “visit” him – that as a “separated dad” his role in his children’s lives is peripheral and that his connection to his children is not that of a parent with all the rights and responsibilities that this entails but of a single person who happens to have fathered some children.

The constant reference to access, to “visits” from his children is to my mind grating – and it gives me no pleasure to say this – but it isn’t just those in “authority” or sneery journalists who view fathers through this prism of fatherhood being viewed as a secondary type of parenting, as subsidiary to “motherhood” but some men do this as well.

Ok – having said that, granted the current legislative framework enshrines this perspective and operates it institutionally through mechanisms like concepts of “custody” of “access/contact/visitation” and of course “maintenance/child support”

My personal belief is that we need to move away from this narrative – which is inspired by and influenced by feminism – reject these concepts and embrace the over-arching concept of default equal parenting.

I am not suggesting that mothers and fathers are interchangeable – not at all – because they are not – but that within the context of parenting – mothers and fathers each bring unique and valuable things to the parenting of children.

This attitude is very clearly illustrated in the very title of this article, the attitude that fathers are secondary parents. The barely concealed contempt in the title of this article towards this man having the nerve to believe the state should pay his rent for a “bigger house” so his children could “visit” is palpable.

Though there would be no default perception that a mother seeking to avail of either Social Housing provision or Rent Supplement is somehow “not entitled” to do so.

In the body of the article reference is made to the amount of €900.00 – as if this amount would enable this man to live in the lap of luxury in a 6 bedroom mansion.

The reality is this.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rents-continue-to-rise-especially-in-dublin-258278.html

Average rents in Dublin have been rising, and we are not talking about mansions here – just bog standard 2 or 3 bed houses or apartments

“Rents in Dublin City soared by more than 11% last year and average rents across the country climbed by 7% in the same period, according to a new report. 

The average advertised rent nationally is now €865, while in Dublin it is €1,210up 11.2% year on year.  

The quarterly Daft.ie rental report covering the last three months of 2013 signalled a warning that such increases in rent levels could adversely affect the country’s competitiveness.

Such was the increase in rental rates in Dublin that it is the fastest rate of inflation in the rental sector since the middle of 2007.

Rents are still 15% below the peak of the Celtic Tiger period in mid-2007, while around the country rental rates now are still more than 20% below those of mid-2007.”

The next thing is this.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/pdf/Revised%20rent%20limits%20June%202013.pdf

There are specific limits set on Rent Supplement – if a person is unable to provide housing from their own means – in Ireland there are two choices – make an application to one’s Local Authority for Social Housing – which this man has done and already been “deemed eligible” for.

“While he and his children have been deemed eligible for social housing, he has been told he will be on a waiting list for five years.”

 

Or try to find privately rented accommodation and apply for Rent Supplement – where, based on ones circumstances a sliding scale operates as to the amount that one can receive as a Rent Supplement.

If the same criteria was applied to his application for Rent Supplement as was applied in order to qualify him as a parent of four children for Social Housing he would be deemed eligible for a maximum amount of Rent Supplement of between €950.00 and €1,000.00 – depending on which area of Dublin he found accommodation in. For himself and his four children.

The last and final thing to note is this – there are NO Social Housing units available for the numbers in actualneed of this safety net, in fact the numbers on the Social Housing waiting lists has almost trebled since 2007.

 

“The social housing waiting list figures produced recently by the Housing Agency, showing almost 90,000 households in need, represent a 30 per cent increase since the start of the global financial crisis in 2007.

Since 2011, using updated methodology, housing need reduced by 9 per cent. However, if it had not been for vacancies that arose in the private landlord sector diluting the downturn, the demand for social housing might have been much higher, particularly in the capital and other cities and towns.”

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-housing-waiting-lists-indicate-that-new-phase-of-construction-is-now-needed-1.1648604

That 30% increase represents many different types of persons in need of Social Housing, top of the list would be “families” and family is now a much broader concept than it once was, with the majority of “families” being two parents and children, the next largest group of “families” would be single parents, or those who are parenting separately – as is clear from this man’s qualification of eligible for Social Housing – he is considered a “family” granted he is now on a housing list along with 89,999 other “households”.

So, why isn’t he considered a “family” from the perspective of the Department of the ironically named Social Protection?

MONEY!

The number of separated/divorced persons in Ireland according to the last Census in 2011 was, 203,964 in total – both male and female. I believe we can posit with some degree of accuracy that in quite a significant number of those cases it was the female half who retained possession of the “Family Home” and it was the male half who must find or secure “alternative accommodation” – being unable to do so can be a factor in decisions relating to custody/access, apart from any other factors – this man’s story is illustrative of that – even though it is quite clear from this article that there are NO issues relating to “access” or having “contact” with his children.

The issues in this case are political, economic and structural – though this article does have an underlying bias in its “tone” in particular, by characterising his need for housing because he wants somewhere for his children to “visit” him.

Back to the Census figures.

The total number of divorced/separated men in Ireland in 2011 was 88,918

Of that total – 38,412 are in rented accommodation and 50,497 (including not stated) are not.

 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

 

The total number of divorced/separated women in Ireland in 2011 was 115,046

Of that total – 46,071 are in rented accommodation and 68, 975 are not.

 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

These figures are for private rented accommodation.

The percentage of men in rented accommodation is just under 43% and the percentage of women in rented accommodation is a little over 40%

In essence almost parity – so one could posit that equal numbers of men and women are in the same boat, except for women there is a lifeboat, for men it is a leaky and capsizing rowboat.

Therein lies the problem – it is the “women and children first” into the lifeboats – and the men can die in the freezing cold waters of the Atlantic paradigm.

In relation to this particular set of circumstances there is an obvious paradox – between how two state bodies view this – on the one hand the Local Housing Authority deems this man is qualified for Social Housing – as a distinct “family” but on the other the Department of Social Protection (even typing that makes me grimace) is adamant that this man is “single” though legally he is not.

Consider this – if both parents were in need of Social Housing and if the “Family Home” is either already rented from a Local Authority or was privately rented whileavailing of Rent Supplement there is now a duplication of housing need – the Local Authority obviously has no problem incorporating this paradigm into its calculations and will now consider that both parents are equally eligible for Social Housing – granted the parent who leaves must now wait his/her turn on the housing list – which in this man’s case has been estimated at approx five years – but is prepared to accept that what was once, one “Family” or “Household” is now two – with the children being equally accepted as being part of each of those “Households”.

To reiterate, there is NO Social Housing available to accommodate the sheer numbers and this is a matter of economics, politics and as I stated above – the factors that went into causing the economic crash in the first place.

This is about money – this is about penny pinching, this is about putting economics before people – and finally this is about finding easy targets to implement these economic policies upon.

Separated fathers are easy targets – because of the default presumptions so clearly outlined and insinuated at in this article – fathers are visitors in their children’s lives – fathers are irrelevant to their children.

The Department of Social Protection rejected this man’s claim on the basis he was only entitled to the rate for a single person – if you look at the article you will see that this man separated in 2011 – even with stretching mathematical probability to its absolute limits – that he separated from his wife on the 1st January 2011 – neither he or his wife are eligible to apply for a divorce till the 2nd January 2015 – there is a 4 year qualifying period here in Ireland before you can apply – so – he is not legally “single” he is still legally “married” though separated.

Granted this is legal semantics and while a pertinent legal point – is not the crux of this matter.

The crux is how fathers are viewed – and in particular how separated fathers are viewed – as secondary parents – as persons who are “visited” by their children – from the Department of Social Protection’s perspective – the bottom line is money – saving money – eliminating as many people as possible from qualifying for any number of state supports or payments – separated fathers are easy targets.

It is that cynical.

Because even with the overlay of the influence of feminism on the perceptions and presumptions relating to parenting – and the role of both parents as being essential to the well-being of children – in a case like one – where there are clearly no issues of two parents being locked in a battle over the ownership of their mutual children – the state is actively and cynically creating a situation for economic reasons that imposes an additional handicap on separated fathers.

The ability to provide not just suitable accommodation for themselves – but for their children as well, and handing a potent weapon to those women who would gleefully and gladly use just such a weapon given half the chance.

This policy will actually reinforce and entrench the already difficult and painful experiences of fathers and will ultimately harm the children caught in the middle.

What or who could be in more need of “Social Protection” than children?

I did an ad hoc calculation on the figures and made a guess out of the numbers of men in rented accommodation that about a quarter of them would be in need of either Social Housing or Rent Supplement. Please bear in mind this is just a guess for illustrative purposes.

So we are looking at a figure of 9,603 separated or divorced men.

I calculated on the basis of these men having two children and that they were in the Dublin area.

Each one would qualify for a Rent Supplement of between €900.00 – €975.00 per month – an average of €937.50.

For a year this works out at €11,250.00 each.

In total for these 9,603 fathers it would cost €108,033,750.00 per year to pay them this Rent Supplement – so it does represent a hefty saving – on the surface.

How about this – at €100,000.00 a pop you could build 1080 houses in this country for that money – reducing the numbers to 8523, and the payout by €12,150,000.00 for the next year to €95,883,750.00

By the next year to €83,733,750.00 and the next to €71,583,750.00 – you get the picture.

Ok – let me just put all this into perspective – this state is paying 111 former ministers a total of €9.6 million a year in pensions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/965m-annual-pensions-bill-for-former-ministers-213448.html

“As pay levels of top-earning bankers come under intense scrutiny, updated figures show taxpayers are also footing an annual €9.65m pensions bill for 111 former ministers.

 Figures supplied by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform reveal that 35 former senior politicians are paid combined ministerial and TD pensions worth over €100,000 gross each year.

 They include over a dozen members of Fianna Fáil-led governments during the past decade, governments which sanctioned large increases to politicians’ pay and pensions during their terms in office.

 A further 68 former office holders receive pensions worth in excess of €50,000. All former ministers will receive the combined pension for the rest of their lives.”

 

If those pension were reduced by 50% to €50,000.0 that would be €4.82 million and would fund Rent Supplement for approx 428 of those fathers.

But this will really concentrate your mind on how our political class views Irish people.

 

“The highest earners are two former taoisigh, Brian Cowen and Bertie Ahern, who are largely blamed for overseeing policies which led to the collapse of the economy. They are each entitled to a combined annual pension of €164,526 before tax. After deductions for the pension levy, the two former Fianna Fáil leaders will receive annual payments of €150,163. Both men are paying an effective public service pension levy rate of 9%.”

 

What about those bankers (spelt with a capital “W”)

 

Well last year some of those bankers were caught on tape laughing about how not only did they know about the impending crisis but also that they would never have to pay a single penny back – have a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2013/06/28/the-anglo-tapes-the-guarantee-and-irelands-economic-crisis/

 http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/29/bank-j29.html

We are talking about a sum of €7 Billion by the way.

Which brings me to my final point – remember I said that for the cost of paying out Rent Supplement for a year you could build 1080 houses at €100,000.00 a pop.

I know one way to fund the building of 5000 houses – straight away, at the same cost – for a total of €500,000,000.00 – or rather I know who should be forced to pay for this.

The ones who caused this crisis – every last one of them – like I said – bankers spelt with a capital “W” and politicians who shouldn’t have been allowed to run a stall never mind a country.

I began this essay by saying that money makes this world go round, not ideology – so to conclude – with regard to feminism – the motivating force behind feminism is to extract resources – to facilitate wealth transfers from men to women.

There is a purpose other than the obvious to this – women shop – women buy useless crap – in comparison to men – women literally do “shop till they drop” women are the main drivers behind consumerism.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say this – feminism is a handy distraction from the underlying institutional and structural problems that are besetting almost all western states. It is still a toxic vile hate movement? Yes it is. Absolutely.

But if you look at some of the crap that mainstream feminists whine about – such as sexism – sorry, but who really gives a shit – it makes good TV for some idiot to go on a rant bout – will focus people’s attention on what are in essence trivial matters – and create a smokescreen of carefully hyped and manufactured hysteria over……………..nothing.

It is mass hysteria for the masses, for the hard of thinking.

Is it really the burning issue of the day that needs answering, that women are being “disrespected” are having their feelings hurt by not being taken seriously? Really? This is an issue worth addressing – on TV?

This planet is being driven to the brink of self-destruction – almost all western states are literally teetering on the brink of economic collapse – are men being systematically stripped of their Human Rights at the behest of feminists? Yep – they sure are.

The question is why? Cui Bono? Who benefits? Who are the ultimate beneficiaries of this? Women?

The answers are a damn sight more complex than “women’s rights” or “men’s rights” even – right now the west is almost stripped bare of resources – how does one destabilise a culture or a society in order to have a free hand to go in and like a plague of locusts strip that culture or society of its resources?

One destabilises the very foundations upon which all societies and cultures are based – the family, and kinship groups – one pits men and women against one another – creates a toxic social environment that will, to all intents and purposes create carefully controlled social unrest – and yep – even fund “services” exclusively for women – and engineer a neutered male population, and a disenfranchised male population is a docile male population.

Because here is the other thing – women vote – and in greater numbers than men – and women vote for stupid reasons – you flatter the average female enough – appeal to her sense of inherent entitlement and pander to her need to see herself as “special” and that dumb bint would vote for Atilla the Hun.

And if you can also convince enough men that this is actually a good thing – then you are laughing – all the way to the bank.

Feminism’s purpose is and was to implement a programme of male neutering – to implement a programme where men were literally stripped of the right to organise, to co-operate, to form cohesive groups and to embroil them is a positive shitstorm of social exclusion, social and cultural demonization and render them ineffective as a potential threat to the implementation of economic warfare.

 

This story is about this one man’s battle to have his Human Rights vindicated but it is also a symptom – yes it is a story of men’s rights – of father’s rights – and it must be said of children’s rights – but it also gives us a peek at the dark murky waters that flow beneath – at the underlying structural causes.

The Department of Social Protection in Ireland has a programme of welfare cuts to implement – it has to reduce the Social Welfare bill – this is not one of those “will we or wont we” things – this is one of those “do it or else things.

The reasons for this austerity programme are well documented and speak to not just economic policy failures but political failures.

But – the bottom line is this – cuts must be made and made they will be – now – who can we pick on? Who does nobody give a shit about? Who are the easy targets?

How did men find themselves in the position of being those easy targets – and more importantly why?

 

Cui bono? Who benefits?

 

We Just Want World Peace and to Save the Planet…….and……..to help old ladies across the road!!

 

I’m going to write about eco-feminism, but am going to preface it with – I know sod all about eco-feminism – or at least I didn’t until now – and what little I know now, is giving me a headache.

As soon as I see the words “goddess” and “women” and “nurturing” and “patriarchy” together I switch off, and if the words “crystals” or “healing” or “spirituality” are thrown into the mix – then I find something to watch or read that restores my sanity – Bill Burr is good for that.

Bearing in mind the sheer volume of feminist shit I’ve read in the last several months I actually believed there was nothing that could surprise me regarding the depths of stupidity, irrationality or insanity that feminists inhabit.

I was wrong.

I give you first an article in the Irish times by one Joe Humphreys called:

Tired of capitalism? Try ecofeminism; Economies undervalue ‘women’s work’ – but are men to blame?

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tired-of-capitalism-try-ecofeminism-1.1772914

And an “explanation” of what eco-feminism is here. Apparently;

http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm

“There is no single definition of ecofeminism, and ecofeminists may well disagree with at least some of explanations I give in this section, but there are core principles. Ecofeminists agree that the domination of women and the domination of nature are fundamentally connected and that environmental efforts are therefore integral with work to overcome the oppression of women.

 The primary aims of ecofeminism are not the same as those typically associated with liberal feminism. Ecofeminists do not seek equality with men as such, but aim for a liberation of women as women. Central to this liberation is a recognition of the value of the activities traditionally associated with women; childbirth, nurturing and the whole domestic arena. Some feminists have criticized ecofeminism for reinforcing oppressive stereotypes and for its tendency toward essentialism.”

 

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that trees are probably all oppressive and patriarchal while shrubs are probably not 🙂

Though – while I sympathise with these greenfems and their inability to find a suitable single definition for this “branch” of feminism – a suggestion for a single definition – it begins with bull and ends with shit. You’re welcome 🙂
Ok – there is a story behind how I found myself reading this garbage – have been pondering on what feminists will do now that the writing is starting to appear on the wall for, in your face man hating toxic gender feminists.

Feminism is nothing if not chameleon like – or perhaps snakelike would be a better description – shed one skin and emerge with a brand new outer casing.

The other thing is this – we’ve just had some elections here in Ireland, both local and European, and the Greens who were literally wiped out in the last general election are having a bit of a new lease of life – and the final thing – lot of talk in Ireland about creating a “sustainable economy” and embracing the green environmentally friendly new wave of selling useless overpriced shit to people. But that’s environmentally friendly.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/elections/resurgent-greens-tweet-warning-to-labour-1.1808372

This is what caught my eye;

“Despite their demolition as a parliamentary force in the Republic, the Greens have connections in an international movement. Swedish and German Greens have rebuilt at various points after electoral setbacks. The electoral fate that befall the Irish Greens in 2011, although traumatic for its members, was not unusual. The electorate can be forgiving.”

Why do the hairs on the back of my neck always stand up when I see the word Swedish or Sweden connected to anything?

Young people are also more into “the environment” and “saving the planet” than more mature folks, and last but not least, all the pioneers of third wave feminism are getting old, crotchety, even more insane than they were when they started out, and the oppression message is just getting old.

Feminism needs new blood – with a better way to sell the message.

The new wave of online feminism is populated by complete morons and idiots or nasty arseholes like Amanda Marcotte and the jezzies – feminism needs a new hook – and what better one than saving the planet…….from patriarchal trees or some such shoite.

Does this mean that feminism will be taking a new direction? Hell no – the toxic message is the same – but the packaging, the skin is getting frayed around the edges – the wrinkles are starting to show.

What could be more plausible than blaming the patriarchy for the all the environmental woes of the planet?

It is no coincidence that these greemfems and various other loony tunes dancing round naked by the light of the moon, refer to the planet as Gaia – Mother Earth, or that menstruation is somehow viewed as a cosmic lunar link to the rhythms of all life – sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology)

So, what about this article in the Irish Times? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeelll, there’s this;

“As Mary Mellor, emeritus professor in sociology at Northumbria University, explains, ecofeminism has been around since the 1970s. There is a recent revival of interest, and Mellor – who was in Dublin this week delivering the annual guest lecture of the UCD School of Social Justice – has injected her own critique of the “gender-based economy” and its figurehead, “Economic Man”.

 What is needed, she says, is for women’s work to be properly accounted for, but also to be remunerated through a “public money” system that is managed by the state rather than by the banks. Mellor’s idea is summarised thus: “Economic Man claims a false transcendence of ‘his’ existence in nature.”

 

Then, there is this;

 

“What is ecofeminism?
 
Mary Mellor: “It’s the idea that there is a link between women and nature. But this can be construed in several different ways. Some people think of women as nurturing earth mothers with a kind of sympathetic awareness of nature that men don’t have. That’s not my position, but I can understand where people are coming from. A lot of the early ecofeminists were poets and theologians. They were already in that sort of romantic and spiritual field.

 “I see it in much more material terms, and the way in which there is no economic accounting either for the damage to the natural world or for what I call ‘women’s work’ – work around the body and in the community that sustains us in our lives.

 “The concept of ‘economic man’, this kind of rational agent, couldn’t exist – and, of course, doesn’t exist, because it’s a construct – without all the work that is done under the title ‘women’s work’, and the work of the environment in sustaining and dealing with the damage that our human activities do.”

 

Oh holy shit!

 

That was my reaction – in a nutshell – anything that has “feminism” in any part of its title is bad news – anything – and this piece of drivel was in the paper of record here in Ireland – and to be blunt – the vast majority of women are waking up to what a less than positive label feminist is – it just doesn’t get them what they want. Needless to say, Joe Humphreys is socialist/marxist/idiot – pick one, and this Mary Mellor is…….well if you read her contributions you’ll see what she is.

Even the “I’m not a feminist but…….” types are running out of road with the whole equal rights for women crap.

But – saving the planet? Now there’s a message you can get behind, manipulate, twist, mould and use to act as a cover for your toxic agenda. Who doesn’t realise that we have some major environmental issues looming if not already upon us – and who wouldn’t get onboard with saving the planet?

Granted – for the really hardcore gender feminists – the man hating rancid harpy’s, nothing will change – the agenda is always going to be female supremacy – but – they have to package and sell that shit to the masses – they have to peddle their snake oil in fancy bottles to disguise the taste.

Undoing the deeply embedded toxic agenda of feminism from the intuitional framework of states is going to be hard enough, reversing the cultural and social paradigms that inform and give license to dysfunctional if not downright criminal behaviour and actions on the part of women is another – but – keeping an eye on the shapeshifting and reworking of the vehicles through which feminism operates is also worth doing – in my opinion.

What next? Vegetarian feminism? Carrots are symbols of patriarchal oppression!

Now, for all those eco feminists smugly preening themselves about how in tune with nature and the environment they are – here are a few insights for you.

 

Water Pollution Caused by Birth Control Poses Dilemma – Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer   May 23, 2012 02:00pm ET

http://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

 

What was that you were saying about women being close to nature – in tune with nature? Hmmm.

Regrets? I Have a Few…….

 

Am sure everyone – well anyone as old as me – remembers that classic song by the inimitable Francis Albert “Frank” Sinatra, “My Way” and for those who are now rolling their eyes up to heaven, here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePs6bHsQx6A

The lyrics here

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/franksinatra/myway.html

So you can sing along 🙂

“My Way”

And now, the end is here

And so I face the final curtain

My friend, I’ll say it clear

I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain

I’ve lived a life that’s full

I traveled each and ev’ry highway

And more, much more than this, I did it my way

 

Regrets, I’ve had a few

But then again, too few to mention

I did what I had to do and saw it through without exemption

I planned each charted course, each careful step along the byway

And more, much more than this, I did it my way

 

Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew

When I bit off more than I could chew

But through it all, when there was doubt

I ate it up and spit it out

I faced it all and I stood tall and did it my way

 

I’ve loved, I’ve laughed and cried

I’ve had my fill, my share of losing

And now, as tears subside, I find it all so amusing

To think I did all that

And may I say, not in a shy way,

“Oh, no, oh, no, not me, I did it my way”

 

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself, then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!

[instrumental] 

Yes, it was my way

The link to the article that GOM (Grumpy Old Man) posted on the “Edge of The Cliff” essay in his reply (that I will get to shortly) triggered a memory – a memory of a funeral – no – this is not a sad morbid post – this is a memory of a woman who’s life deserved to be celebrated.

http://topinfopost.com/2014/05/12/top-5-regrets-people-make-on-their-deathbed

As the funeral ended and as the coffin bearing this extraordinary woman was carried out of the church – the priest announced that she had picked a song to be played as this was being done – that song was “My Way” by Frank Sinatra – it epitomised and encapsulated the type of human being she was – and in the midst of tears and grief an overwhelming feeling of gratitude and joy swept over me that I had had the extraordinary honour and privilege to have known her. She lived her life on her terms, at a time when doing so wasn’t exactly the “done thing” here in Ireland – was she a saint? Nope but she was someone who did it “My Way

With humour, with grace, with wit and with a sense of what could only be called style that was uniquely her own. She had “charisma” that indefinable something that many aspire to, but very few possess – she was a close friend of my mothers, and I was just beginning to become old enough to really appreciate her and transition from her friend’s daughter to being privileged to be counted as her friend in my own right when she passed away.

Odd isn’t it the connections that we make between things, or what triggers memories?

The article is about regrets also – about what people close to coming to the end almost always express as things they have regretted. Go read the article first and then come back to this – because this is a “thinking out loud” exercise on my part – a sort of personal take on how this article and that song have resonated with me – am more than cognisant that there are those who will view this cynically and do that “eye rolling thing” and you know what – I don’t care, go read something else.

In many ways I would consider myself to be a idealist, perhaps even a bit naive in that I believe that there are things we should be idealistic about, things we should aspire to other than material, superficial and temporal things – that human beings can and should strive for these, I suppose higher things – not everything has to be so clever, or so cynical, not everything has to be used as a vehicle for self aggrandisement, spite or “getting one up” on someone else, or even as I have begun to observe, displaying all the nastiest, most unscrupulous and egotistical characteristics that human beings possess.

Nor do I believe that people either should be dictated to, or disdained or vilified simply on the basis that they happen to NOT accept or subscribe to every single tenet of a majority (both spoken and unspoken – implied or otherwise) – of the actions or behaviours of every single person with whom they are supposed to, or expected to owe some kind of allegiance to.

From my personal perspective – I really really don’t give a shit what label you wear – whether in the eyes of any number of people, or for that matter in the eyes of that person themselves, that label is some kind of talisman, a magic shield that protects you – that you can wave it and claim immunity because of this label.

Nor do I believe that any one person is crucial to any movement – not unless that person is a William Wilberforce or a Nelson Mandela, a Martin Luther King or even a Bob Geldof those kinds of people are rare – ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and to be blunt so far, I personally haven’t encountered one of those. But I live in hope.

I do what I do because I want to – if I stopped, it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference – in fact would actually make my life so much easier – for a start I wouldn’t have to deal with the crap I’m dealing with now – I could slip back into obscurity and my life would go on, and the MHRM movement would go on without a blip.

There are things I believe in, and things that I do not – the things I believe in are relatively simple and are encompassed by the overarching principles of Universal Human Rights – for ALL human beings – and as far I am concerned women are human beings – in fact even feminists are human beings.

Do I believe that what most feminists choose to believe is unutterable crap? Absolutely. Or that a lot of women have a warped and twisted and definitely over-estimated perspective of their “value” as human beings as opposed to the value as human beings of men? Again, absolutely.

All this “goddess” shit and “because I’m worth it” crap – sheesh!

Personally – I don’t subscribe to the view that “anything goes” either in real life or on the internet or for that matter within the MHRM or any other “movement” for that matter, including feminism – though I do acknowledge any persons – calling themselves and subscribing to the “beliefs” of feminism – RIGHT to believe whatever rubbish they like, and to express it. Whatever – believe the earth is flat for all care – believe that we are descended from an alien race that “seeded” this planet millennia ago and all this is one vast “project” I don’t – and will damn well express that opinion whether you like it or not, because like I said, believe whatever rubbish you like, so not the issue, but don’t get on your high horse and tell me what to believe!

So, onto the article.

The author lists the top five  regrets that those nearing the end most express. The first is:

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

This was the most common regret of all. When people realise that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made.

It is very important to try and honour at least some of your dreams along the way. From the moment that you lose your health, it is too late. Health brings a freedom very few realise, until they no longer have it.

 

This one resonated with me – over the course of my life I have lacked that courage from time to time – weighed up my dreams against what I thought I should do, against what I really wanted to do, or ought to do – let things go – or made choices that really weren’t being “true to myself” but I think lots of people do that – you live the life you believe you have – follow the path of least resistance. Not to say that compromise isn’t a valid option – it is – but there’s compromise and then there’s letting other people’s expectations dictate your actions. The whole “don’t rock the boat” thing – or the “but everybody else believes/thinks/feels like this

The second one is this:

2. I wish I didn’t work so hard.

This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship. Women also spoke of this regret. But as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.

By simplifying your lifestyle and making conscious choices along the way, it is possible to not need the income that you think you do. And by creating more space in your life, you become happier and more open to new opportunities, ones more suited to your new lifestyle.

 

The author makes the point that this one is heard from every male patient she had (I’m presuming the author is female) and it speaks to the expectations placed upon men over the course of human history to be the providers, the protectors of their families – expectations that not just emanated from cultural and societal attitudes but from within the paradigm of male female relationships – a paradigm that is now being twisted and corrupted and hurled back at these men as a weapon to demonise them. Feminism. It could take the most positive and enriching thing and turn it into something toxic.

Number three is this one:

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never became who they were truly capable of becoming. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result.

We cannot control the reactions of others. However, although people may initially react when you change the way you are by speaking honestly, in the end it raises the relationship to a whole new and healthier level. Either that or it releases the unhealthy relationship from your life. Either way, you win.

 

This is the where the memory got triggered – and I went and listened to Frank  doing it “his way” I’ve read this part now about seven or eight times – had a bit of a sit on my doorstep – had a bit of a think and a ponder – and reflected on events in my life over the last 7/8 months, and a bit further back.

Having said that – as an individual I’ve never really had a problem “expressing my feelings” have I always expressed them in the most appropriate ways? Hell no……….tact and diplomacy were never my strong suit – and yes I know that I have hurt other people’s feelings as a result. But, I defy anyone to show me a person who hasn’t done that – someone is who so saintly that they have never just blurted something out, lost the plot, allowed external pressures or circumstances to dictate how they reacted to something?

Not excusing it – am simply saying – shit happens – and when shit happens – as human beings we don’t always behave in the absolute best way – I don’t – and though personally I’ve always had strong views, about things that I’ve had views about – they generally didn’t and even now don’t exactly align with the views of a lot of people.

It wasn’t long after I’d entered the world of the MHRM, that I realised there were simply some things I just didn’t agree with – that I personally did not and couldn’t subscribe to – so I found myself drifting over lines – modifying my personal beliefs, and not saying anything in order to “keep the peace with others” this has now resulted in me becoming disenchanted with certain elements within the MHRM, and to be honest to question the direction and motives of some elements – I look at some of the stuff I read and see – and I look at and read a lot – quite a bit of it is crap – or it is just simply taking the wrong tack – it is taking the almost exactly polarised position to feminism – all women are bad – all men are good. In my opinion. 🙂

This is simply not true – I see people posting poisonous comments and waving statistics around as if this was somehow proof positive that the MHRM was right and feminism was wrong.

When in actuality – Some women are bad, some women are good, some men are good some men are bad – and in between there are all sorts – both male and female.

For me there IS a third way – for example take DV – the consensus is this – mutual IPV hovers around the 42% mark – depending on which study you read – unidirectional IPV is almost equally divided between men and women.

This means in effect, that of the around 23% of ALL persons who engage in these kinds of behaviour – HALF – as in almost EQUAL numbers – are male and HALF are females, and in their own individual ways, are horrible nasty violent and abusive shitheads, EQUALLY.

Feminism ignores male victims and the MHRM ignores female victims – which in my mind makes both just as bad as one another.

BOTH “sides” use exactly the same tactics to demonise the other – by emphasising the GENDERED nature of each sides “case” when any reputable study or research will tell you – GENDER is the least important element of what contributes to violent abusive behaviour in HUMAN BEINGS.

Those are my opinions – and I realise that this appeals to neither feminists or the MHRM – but – that is exactly what I think – both sides are just as bad as one another – when the issue is about violent human beings – of any gender – and granted it is feminism that controls the narrative in this area – for now – but I personally don’t need to reference feminism in order to point out the facts – the facts speak for themselves – if as a result of that then feminism ends up with egg all over its face – so be it.

 

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

Often they would not truly realise the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.

It is common for anyone in a busy lifestyle to let friendships slip. But when you are faced with your approaching death, the physical details of life fall away. People do want to get their financial affairs in order if possible. But it is not money or status that holds the true importance for them. They want to get things in order more for the benefit of those they love. Usually though, they are too ill and weary to ever manage this task. It is all comes down to love and relationships in the end. That is all that remains in the final weeks, love and relationships.

 

This one caused me great sadness – I had a friend from school, a great friend – we got into all sorts of trouble together (nothing serious) – over the years we stayed in touch from time to time, then stuff would get in the way and we wouldn’t be in contact for ages – about three years ago – having known she lived not too far from me and having been saying to myself “I must drop down and say hello” – I did eventually – it had been playing on my mind for some time – so off I went – her husband opened the door and he had a very strange look when he saw me.

He told me that my friend had died about 6 months before, and that they had no way of getting in touch with me.

I’ve had to do a lot of grieving over the last three years – have lost four people who meant a lot to me – one in particular two years ago – I had lost touch with three of them – and that I deeply regret.

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

This is a surprisingly common one. Many did not realise until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content. When deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again.

When you are on your deathbed, what others think of you is a long way from your mind. How wonderful to be able to let go and smile again, long before you are dying.

Life is a choice. It is YOUR life. Choose consciously, choose wisely, choose honestly. Choose happiness

This one gave me some pause – “let myself be happier” then it struck me – no-one can make you happy – only doing things that you enjoy, you believe in, or that you want to do, makes you happy – living your life worrying about whether or not doing what makes you happy, makes other people happy is pointless – and I do agree with what she says here that “”Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content.” Now that does resonate – because it is living a life dictated by what others expect – and how they expect you to live your life.

There is of course a caveat to that – if what “makes you happy” is either hurtful or harmful to other people – or causes other people unhappiness then – nope.

Anyhoo back to Frank – so yes – for me “Regrets, I’ve had a few….but then again…too few to mention” what I have in fact done, is learnt something, I hope from every experience – both good and bad.

For anyone reading this who actually does know me in real life –THAT is the song I would like played at my funeral.

Then bury me on hillside in Connemara overlooking the sea. Thanks. 🙂

The Road Less Travelled………..

 

I’ve been doing a bit of spring-cleaning – sort of mental spring-cleaning – events over the last couple of months have literally shaken me to my very core. But then, we all have those periods in our lives where one finds oneself either being swept along by events or having events sweep over us and swamp us.

What has precipitated this mental spring-cleaning was this – one of my most valued and respected commenter’s, sent me a poem, a poem this person was not to know  has been one of personal favourites since school

I recall the first time I read it, or at the time was forced to read it, it resonated with me in a way, that to be honest poetry usually doesn’t, it is a rare poem that does that – but this one did, and as I said, has been a personal favourite for most of my life, and don’t worry am not going to go into an arty farty analysis of this poem.

 

The Road Not Taken – Robert Frost, 1874 – 1963

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

 

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

 

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

 

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

 

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/road-not-taken

Anyway back to the mental spring cleaning – I took a road some seven months ago when I started this blog, but up until then I was content to comment on other sites, most particularly on AVfM. My goal at that time was to continue to do that (comment) and continue to research a book that had been percolating in my head for about five years.

Between then and now, several things have happened that looking back I should have given more thought to, should have taken more time to reflect on – had I done so – perhaps I would not be writing what I am writing now. Having said that, I have learned things, some good, some not so good and some that I am still trying to process and figure out.

One of the steps on that path I took was when I made the decision to “go public” eventually, with a friend, a real life friend that is, and a fellow member of MRI (Men’s Rights Ireland) we did a “pros and cons” thing – having spent some time around the internet – a lot more than I had ever previously – I already knew that, to be blunt, it had its good, its bad and its downright nasty.

I have over the last 7/8 months encountered almost equal proportions of all of those types, and sometimes discovered that it is difficult to tell them apart. But, it is like that in real life too isn’t it?

One of the most unfortunate things that I have personally have learnt is that even within the so called MHRM – there are those who relish and seem to thrive on being as nasty, and as unscrupulous as the avowed enemies of the MHRM – feminists.

To say I am disenchanted with the MHRM would be an understatement – does that mean that I have “gone over to the other side?” absolutely not – if by that is meant, am I becoming a feminist?

Absolutely not – hell will freeze over before that happens – have never been a feminist and will never be a feminist. Ever.

But while I am sick to death of reading the drivel that spews out of the mouths and keyboards of feminists from the most moronic to the supposedly most academic (sigh) I am almost as equally sick to death reading the almost equally moronic, equally angry rants, vitriol speckled and hate filled spewings of some MRA/MHRA’s.

And yes I know I also post “rants” and also “go after” feminists and most recently a MRA/MHRA “group” – and by the way I stand by every word I wrote. Will get back to that another time.

There are individuals I admire enormously, who post and write under the amorphous banner of the MHRM – but do so as individuals, which I personally prefer, never been a “joiner” each to their own!

Have I suddenly woken up and embraced the NAWALT mantra either? Nope – unfortunately a vast majority of women ARE like that – with that being a major part of why our societies and cultures are in the mess they are now.

But I also know something – that it is the cultural and societal context that prevails in various different societies and the over-arching framework of legislative and political “norms” that allows those women who are “like that” to belike that” and that this does not apply with either equal influence or equal force, or in the same ways, in every single culture.

Ireland is a case in point – a very particular case in point – we have in this country so many layers of interwoven and interconnected “issues” balanced against the backdrop of our equally unique history that citing feminism as the only cause is both wilfully ignorant and deliberately disingenuous, and runs the risk of failing to address to major issues that beset and have beset this country in an attempt to point a finger at a handy “enemy” letting other equally culpable “enemies” slid quietly off the hook and disappear in a fog of populist rhetoric, rabble rousing polemics, and ill-informed badly researched, sloppily put together, self aggrandising soapboxing “articles”

I love this country, I cannot imagine living anywhere else, I wouldn’t live anywhere else, in spite of all its faults and failing, innumerable problems, serious social cultural and political issues that at times seem insurmountable I love my country. While I have encountered some right eejits and gobshoites of both sexes, in general Irish people (other than feminist academic ones that is) are good people.

Not perfect people, not saints, not angels – just people – both male and female – is it getting rarer and rarer to find good women? Yes it is – but they are to be found, just as there are some Irish men that you wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. With the caveat that any feminist is by default a total wretch.

When I started this – taking this path into the world of the MHRM – my original focus was on two things – exposing the vile toxic roots of feminism and how it had spread from its original source(s) in both the US and the UK – mostly – and had begun to infect all other parts of the western hemisphere, including to some extent Ireland, and advocating for changes within Ireland to public policy, legislation, and cultural and social attitudes that were and are undermining the Human Rights, in specific areas, of Irish men.

That’s it – that was my goal. But, I got distracted. I allowed myself to get swept along a different path. I allowed things that were not good, not positive to become part of my “agenda” for want of a better word.

Am I indebted to many individuals who have inspired me, giving me insight into perspectives that I hadn’t considered before? Absolutely, and off the top of my head Robert St Estephe, Angryharry, Fidelbogan, Janet Bloomfield, Alison Tieman, the guys at Gynocentrism, John Hembling, Diana Davison spring to mind.

But, my focus was, at the start my own backyard – Ireland – and that is where I intend to primarily focus on from now on, both on this blog and on MRI (Men’s Rights Ireland) from different perspectives of course. Do I wish all those dedicated individuals in various different countries all over this world my very best in their own struggles against the toxic influences of feminism in their particular backyards and on their particular battlegrounds? With all my heart.

In many ways your struggles are greater, your “enemy” is more deeply entrenched and determined, and you have many more years of this malign infection to root out and consign to the garbage can of history – hopefully never to be allowed to take root again.

My fear is that, while in many respects Ireland has escaped the full force of feminist influence, not all of it, we’ve always had too many other bloody problems to contend with, to be able to afford to pander to the most outrageous demands of feminist nutjobs – but we are on the brink – with the EU breathing down our necks and basically having us by the short and curly’s – it won’t take much – and it won’t take that long, unless we take steps now to halt this shit in its tracks.

I’ve posted some new links on the blogroll – some useful information on those sites – am not endorsing or saying “these are great sites” go here – just that there is some useful information to be gleaned from them.

With regard to MRI (Men’s Rights Ireland) – we – and yes there is a “we” have been reassessing and revaluating our focus as well – but – because I’ve personally been dealing with more shit in the last couple of months personally than I have in quite a while – it had been put on hold so that I could.

While I have posted on this blog – it has been by way of being a strange kind of “therapy” from my perspective this blog is my baby – but MRI (Men’s Rights Ireland) is and will be a joint effort of several people – one or two who have had their own difficulties to deal with in the last couple of months – it never rains but it pours does it?

I do want to thank all those who have over the last 7/8 months and in particular in the last month or so who have posted some really interesting, intriguing and thought provoking comments, and especially some very kind ones – thank you.

I have spent the last couple of days going through all the comments and during my travels I have found myself pausing and re-reading and thinking – now that comment should be an article – so – I will be emailing a couple of people who have posted these comments to invite you to submit them as an article for MRI (Men’s Rights Ireland) – well you do know that I get your email address when you post a comment?  🙂

Don’t panic – won’t be for a week or so – and sure – you can just say no.

As for those who have taken the time to post less that positive comments – and am not talking about criticisms of anything I have written – just long streams of mostly incomprehensible shoite – fuck off – grow up – get a life – get a hobby.

I turned on moderation on ALL comments, even for those that previously just got posted automatically about two or three weeks ago I think – because to be honest I wanted to be able to view every comment before I clicked “approve” MOST comments as soon as I see the name get “approved” and unless a comment relates to whatever the article the comment appears on – it gets DELETED.

I am a big advocate of Free Speech – it is a fundamental Human Right – but even that has limits – and long poisonous rants are mine.

To my friend who sent me the poem – many thanks for reminding me of something that I thought I had lost – long story – if you ever find yourself in Ireland the Guinness is on me and I’ll tell it to you, it involves falling off a horse, an actual horse not a metaphorical one, which then proceeded to shit on my head………

🙂

 

The Irish Times, Feminist Eejits, Pubic Hair and The Patriarchy!

 

When I logged onto my blog – this blog – this morning I noticed that I had four (4) referrers come from The Irish Times – I just checked and it is now up to eight (8).

Anyhoo, while I do read the Irish Times – online – from time to time, I cannot in all honesty say it is my favourite paper – and am being diplomatic. So, I clicked to see what on earth precipitated this attention from Irish Times readers.

It was a couple of comments on an article called “Growing up down there: me and my pubic hair – Why should young women feel ashamed of their perfectly natural ‘lady gardens’?”

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/growing-up-down-there-me-and-my-pubic-hair-1.1785558

Now, I didn’t actually read this article – though apparently from reading the comments it is about the social pressure on women to shave their pubic hair – also – and again – I didn’t actually read this article – nor will I be – it also appears that this might have something to do with – “the patriarchy

Can you see why I might prefer not to give myself a headache reading about this burning issue and just read the comments – growing more and more bemused as I scrolled down – wondering how in the name of God did I end up somehow being linked to an article about the patriarchal pressure exerted on women to shave their pubic hair!

NOT a subject I have EVER written about, commented on, or to blunt given any thought to in my entire life.

Finally I hit the mother lode. Phew! Because the discussion was getting rather strange – granted there are some intelligent and interesting comments on this article – but – having said that – women shaving their pubic hair!!! NOT on my personal top ten list of “burning issues of the day

I digress – back to the hunt for whatever the hell precipitated this blog being connected or linked to this “issue”

It was a comment exchange started by a poster called Linda Kelly – here it is below. The reason I’m addressing this in an article rather than responding to the actual comments themselves on this Irish Times article comment stream is because I have attempted to respond and this is the message I am getting up till now – which is 15.53 pm GMT

“There was a problem processing your request. Please try again in a moment”

That’s been the message for the last two to two and half hours!

The other reason is this, not because I give a flying rats arse what either the self-righteous Linda Kelly says or posts but to illustrate the mindset among Irish feminists and up to a point those who, while expressing their disagreement with feminism are rather under-informed about the true extent of how feminist “theory” has infected public policy thinking in this country – under the radar.

First the sanctimonious Linda Kelly.

Linda Kelly

The Irish Times is attracting a very unsavoury ‘group’ or one person from a Mens Rights group in Ireland who is aggressively attacking anyone who dares to hold a different opinion and regularly trolls articles to leave aggressive and poisonous comments particulary aimed at ‘dangerous’ feminists/people who believe in an equal society. Just saying.

5 hours ago

2 Likes”

Yep – I know, every MRA/MHRA has immediately spotted the contradictions and downright stupidity displayed in this comment – but for the benefit of Ms. Kelly I will point them out – one by one.

I can almost imagine the pursed lips, and sneer on her face as she types the words “Men’s rights Groups” bearing in mind the juxtaposition of that lovely word “unsavoury

Men? RIGHTS?!!!! Cue snotty comment knee jerk reaction.

Almost immediately followed by her contention that these people leave “aggressive and poisonous” comments” at those who “dares to hold a different opinion

Let me translate – anyone who criticises feminism or feminists is “unsavoury” any criticism of feminism or feminists is “aggressive and poisonous” and anyone who is in any way shape or form advocating for Men’s Rights is also by implication “unsavoury

Her little jibes at me personally – “regularly trolls articles to leave aggressive and poisonous comments” now that made me laugh.

First, I have never actually commented on any online article on the Irish TimesNEVER – not once – I comment on articles on my own blog – this blog. I have commented on a few other sites – AVFM ( A Voice for Men) for example, in fact have had a few articles published there.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

You should check it out Linda – you will positively overdose on “unsavoury” characters – in fact you might even swooooooooooooooooooooon – I would recommend though that you check out the articles of Diana Davison and a lady called Judgybitch – aka Janet Bloomfield – maybe you could advise them as well about “what feminism is really about”?

I know they would be just dying to hear what you have to say – hanging onto your every word I bet!  🙂

Second – do you have me under surveillance Ms. Kelly? Otherwise how on earth could you possibly know what articles I “troll” or for that matter read? Are you privy to my reading habits?

Now, onto Michael Edwards, who replies to Linda Kelly thus.

Michael Edwards

@Linda Kelly

I got jostled by that bull in a china shop myelf Linda. But how do we know that the poster/s is from a Mens Rights Group?”

First, I have no idea who Michael Edwards is – whether he has or hasn’t posted comments on this blog or not – so his contention that he “ got jostled by that bull in a china shop myelf Linda” is bizarre to say the least – perhaps you could elaborate as to the nature of this “jostling” Michael – because I have never heard of you.

The next bit is hilarious – “But how do we know that the poster/s is from a Mens Rights Group?” –well duh! You can either read it on this blog or on Men’s Rights Ireland or you could have just bloody asked.

Of course there’s always the article the Irish Daily Star published about Men’s Rights Ireland WITH a photo of me – or failing that – the radio interview I did on the Marc Coleman Show on Newstalk – and no – not posting links – go do your own bloody research.

Not very good at verifying information are the pair of you? Bit – well – dumb actually.

Linda Kelly

@Michael Edwards

Hi Michael he spouts all of the same ‘information’ as can be found here with the same ‘style’ of language so no matter how many ‘different’ identities he creates, it is a quite obviously a many clown headed circus of a beast.

https://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/launch-of-mens-rights-ireland/

This group ‘loathes feminism’ and is on a valiant mission to destroy such fictional threats as ‘The propagandising of a non-existent “rape culture” in Ireland, and across much of the developed world.’”

I love this comment for its absolute sheer inanity and stupidity – I cannot count the number of times I have said on this blog – I AM FEMALE – not to mention the article in the Irish Daily Star, the interview on the Marc Colman Show and another interview on Highland Radio – all relatively easily available sources to indicate my sex (gender is in my opinion a stupid word) FEMALE.

I suppose in order to test whether I have multiple identities – rather than just listening to the two radio interviews and maybe running some forensic tests – you could just have asked. Or done your bloody homework!

Am only guessing here – but whoever “he” is – this numbnut obviously believes “he” and I are the same person – sigh.

 

So, let me answer your unasked questions – I started this blog under a pseudonym Anja Eriud – a name suggested by Dean Esmay, managing editor of AVFM (A Voice for Men) when they published my first article on that site, up until then I was registered (if that’s the correct way of saying it) as Eriu – now am I going too fast for you pair of geniuses?

My first actual name is Anne, and Dean bless him suggested the Irish version of Anne which is Aine – but is pronounced Anya – he spelt it Anja – and I didn’t have the heart to tell him it was not quite right – sorry Dean – so the first part of my pseudonym became Anja (Anne)

The surname Eriu – d is my username on AVfM with the first letter of my actual surname added to the end “D” for Dempsey.

And all this information regarding my “secret identity” is not only ON this blog – but appears in the article on the Irish Daily Star.

Some sleuths you two eejits are.

Am not even going to address your stupid inane comment on “rape culture” everything I said in the article says it all.

Linda’s next comment is typical feminist hamster think (look it up – maybe S.E Honan will lend you his/her dictionary) ) – she makes a point of mentioning two articles out of the 103 articles I have posted on this blog so far – on the two subjects that feminists hold dear, in order to peddle their toxic agenda – lauding the mantra of “single motherhood” and “rape culture” two topics that allow feminists to get their knickers in a knot and work themselves up into a hysterical rage.

Linda Kellyl

There’s also a lovely section about single mothers or C.U.N.T.S as they are referred to, but wait, don’t anyone get offended. The author goes on to explain that ‘before anyone gets up a head of steam, the title is an ACRONYM it stands for Crazy. Uneducated. Nasty. Tramps. That’s much better, isn’t it?’

1 hour ago

2 Likes”

Michael pops into the “discussion” again with this gem.

“Michael Edwards

@Linda Kelly

Interesting link Linda. I am all for a forum to discuss mens rights but that site is definitely not it.

But that would suggest that our Hydra is a 52 year old woman? Further proof if it be needed that we simply cannot trust online presences.

1 hour ago

1 Like”

I think I’ve already commented on the genius level detective powers of both these numbskulls – though again – thanks for the laugh regarding this “Further proof if it be needed that we simply cannot trust online presences.”

Ok – in light of the topic under discussion in the article these moronic comments appeared on – a very bad thought popped into head – regarding “further proof” a photo of………………………..but then – could I stop laughing long enough to actually do it – would I want to? Don’t be daft.

The irony of the part where this super sleuth says “we simply cannot trust online presences.” Oh you mean like YOURS and the up her own arse Linda’s? THOSE kinds of “online presences” tell me something ye pair of gobshoites – are there any photos of YOU in a national paper?

“S.E Honan

@Linda Kelly

Well done for looking behind that.

1 hour ago

2 Likes”

 

Yeah S.E Honan – I agree – I’m recommending these two eejits are called in to help find Shergar! Then the Loch Ness Monster, then……………………………….

“John Tangney

@Linda Kelly

I take it you’re referring in part to me. I have nothing to do with ‘Thomas Delaney’ or with any men’s rights group, and I reject both of them as mirror images of the feminism they’re reacting against. Mine is clearly a minority opinion here, but I’ve expressed it under my own name, I don’t have any alter egos, and I’m speaking from extensive experience of actual feminist behaviour within institutions where I’ve worked, rather than employing a dictionary definition of what feminism means as you seem to be doing, Linda. My comments to you didn’t pull any punches but they stopped well short of the personal insults that another poster has been leaving on this thread, so please don’t conflate me with him.« less

44 minutes ago

0 Likes”

Methinks this poster’s issue is with the idiot Linda – and seems to have his own perspective on feminism – which he is entitled to, and which I personally respect – so have no further comment to make on this one. But genius number three has.

“S.E Honan

@John Tangney I appreciate that clearly you have had a negative experience with certain ‘feminists’ but just like you ask not to be placed in the same box as Thomas Delaney or whatever his real name is, you should not heap all feminists into the same box. Personally, as a self-proclaimed feminist I aim to live by the dictionary definition and not harbor any prejudice against one group of individuals. Many feminists, including myself, are simply aiming to return to the dictionary definition and therefore dispel the negative connotations associated with the word.« less

36 minutes ago

2 Likes”

S.E Honan is playing the N.A.F.A.L.T (look it up ye trio of idiots) card – sigh – and in light of the stupidity of this “Many feminists, including myself, are simply aiming to return to the dictionary definition and therefore dispel the negative connotations associated with the word.”

Hard to know where to begin with this inanity isn’t it?

Is it the statement that a person lives by the terms of how something is defined in a dictionary? Though that does takes stupidity to levels I have only seen once or twice before, or is it the sheer unadulterated breathtakingly obtuse statement that people have issues with a “word

Because no MRA/MHRA’s anywhere could possibly now post reams and reams and reams of EVIDENCE as to the toxic behaviour, actions, policies, laws, programmes and motives of FEMINISTS.

 

Agent Orange files anyone?

S.C.U.M Manifesto?

Andrea Dworkin?

Amanda Marcotte?

 

How many more could I list here? 10,000, 20,000, 100,0000 examples of what feminism REALLY IS?

 

I swear to God – if this stupidity starts a global movement of “pube walks” then I’m calling for a global movement of “Willie Walks

Am thinking these idiots deserve an award – 🙂

 

And here it is – The D.A.D.A – the Dumb And Dumber Award – presented to “Linda Kelly” and “Michael Edwards” with an honourabl mention going to S.E. Honan.

 

The DADA

The Irish Family and The Law of The Land: But What About The Children?

 

The law can be either a weapon or a tool – in and of itself law is inanimate – or can be, and should be. What gives substance and form and power to any law is how it is interpreted and applied.

There are also degrees of law – Primary Law in the form of Universal Instruments – such as the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, see here, are designed and meant to be read and applied and interpreted as broad universally understood statements that encompass and declare the status of, and fundamental protections that Human Beings are vested with by the mere fact of being Human Beings.

For example – a Human Being – absent almost any qualification or exception – has the right to think, believe and say whatever that Human Being likes – unless by doing so it infringes upon the right of any other Human Being to do likewise. (will address Freedom of Speech and The EU in a separate article)

Because there is another thing about “Rights” – Human Rights – your rights as a Human Being are balanced against, or should be balanced against, the Human Rights of every other Human Being on the planet.

Which brings us to.

Secondary Law – or legislation, statute law, regulations, judicial decisions, directives and to some extent codes of conduct applied within certain closed environments (such as colleges and universities) are rules for controlling and regulating human behaviour and conduct.

Human conduct or behaviour is informed by attitude, by personal choice, by belief, by the type of human being one is or isn’t.

Those who do not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights use secondary law to impose and curtail the freedoms of other human beings – they create and demand the creation of laws that by their sheer weight and extent and density and for want of a better word pernicketyness are meant to distance, to create a chasm between the over-riding principles of Universal Human Rights and the application of secondary law.

Every aspect of human behaviour is to be controlled, regulated, restricted and informed by the particular belief system or ideology of the most influential and coercive “group” and each law is to be interpreted and applied through the prism of their “ideology” – and should enough people – especially those in a position to apply a particular law – believe the corrupt and biased “interpretations” of this “group” then when it comes to making that choice as to how to interpret or apply a particular law – the corrupt ideological approach – wins.

There is in the western hemisphere none more corrupt and vile ideology than feminism – feminists will tell those in government, in power, in the legislature that – this is what this means – or in this situation the law should be applied this way – and they have been listened to – in some cultures and societies to a greater extent than others.

Depends on what informs and has informed the development and history of that particular culture.

Of all the areas where feminism has focused its most malign influence, most corrosive attention, it is in the area of Family Law – because human societies and human beings are made up of families, all human beings are born with the historical legacy of previous generations, and with an innate desire and impulse to form or be part of a kinship group – especially when it comes to having children – to reproducing – to expanding their family.

I’m not even going to address points made along the lines of “but not everyone wants or needs children” for the simple reason that what I am talking about is an innate deeply embedded impulse in ALL species – including human beings.

Without children – in sufficient numbers I might add – the human species is doomed – yep doomed, see here, here and here – probably not to extinction, we dodged that bullet circa 74,000 years ago – but to descending into chaos, into societies that are dysfunctional, burdened by an inability to sustain and care for its members, and societies that are polarised – resources will become scarcer and scarcer and two things will happen – the gap between those have, and those who have not, will grow wider and wider, and the glue that holds societies together – families – will disintigrate – it is already happening. These articles tend towards the economic consequences of falling birth rates – but the negative social consequences are just as relevant as are the influences that precipitated this impending demographic disaster.

Having said that – simply producing more children isn’t enough – those children need to be nurtured, educated and guided into becoming decent human beings, into taking their place as part of the larger human family, into being part of the wider society and culture in a positive way.

There is only way to achieve this – a tried and tested way that has sustained and allowed the human species to grow from an almost extinct level number of approx 10,000 adults of reproductive age to the primary species on the planet – raising the young in kinship groups – in FAMILIES.

Am sure I don’t have to tell anybody this, but human children come in two distinct types – boys and girls – it is generally the first question asked when a child is born – “is it a boy or a girl” and the human parents who created this child also come in two distinct types – male and female – it is the genetic combination of two sets of DNA that created this unique and separate little person, and those boys and girls model themselves on their parents – or whoever their “primary caregiver” is.

Again – not addressing the “but you don’t need a man to have a baby” – see above – yes you bloody do – unless those idiot women are claiming that they have had another miraculous conception – do you need the physical presence of a male person to create this unique and separate little human being? Not necessarily – but you DO need what ONLY a male human being can give – contribute the other genetic half of this little human being.

And here’s something all you idiot feminists, and dumb as a bag of hammers women better get your heads around – what makes that little human being what he or she is only half of you – their genetic legacy comes from someone ELSE – and has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

All children are the sum of not just the two persons who combined their DNA in a unique way to create this little person but of previous generations – so no I personally do not believe that children arrive into this world as “bank slates” they inherit all sorts of potential traits, of particular “family traits” and it is what happens after they are born that determines what sort of human being they eventually end up becoming.

Depending on the influences upon them, their inherent traits are either encouraged in a positive way or a negative way – they are nurtured to be fully functioning and independent human beings or they are used as “an experiment” in “social engineering” informed by a toxic ideology whose primary purpose is to destroy the very thing that makes human beings – human beings – decent human beings – FAMILIES.

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

Because without exception – feminists know fuck all about children, about raising children, about what is or isn’t best for children, what children need. Absolutely fuck all.

Feminists are the absolute worst possible people to entrust children to – the worst possible people to listen to about raising children – and the worst possible people to have children – am I saying they shouldn’t be allowed to have children? Nope. What I am saying is that having a child and raising that child according to the tenets of feminism is a deliberate and conscious choice to damage that child.

Because for feminists – fathers are redundant – fathers are merely “sperm donors” fathers are “oppressive” and women are the BEST people to raise children – ALONE, and most of this crap has been peddled by loony lefty lesbian radical feminists.

BULLSHIT!

Feminists have been peddling this toxic shit for nigh on 30 years – its influence has spread from the US and the UK to the rest of the western world with varying degrees of success – and millions of dumb as a bag of hammers women have swallowed this crap hook, line and sinker – did they do this because they believe that this is true – up to a point – yes they did – but – in order for this toxic mantra to take hold – feminists engineered societies to make it worth their while for these dumb as a bag of hammers idiot women to have children – ALONE – to excise fathers from children’s lives – they PAID them.

Or rather exerted their toxic influence upon governments and legislatures to PAY stupid, ignorant and to some extent moronic women, to embrace the, “single mothers are so cool” mantra.

Actually single motherhood is probably the worst possible way to bring up children – with a few exceptions – (having that child’s biological father as an essential part of that childs life)

See this study and this  research

Children thrive the BEST in families with both their mother and their father – women who deliberately exclude fathers from their children’s lives are toxic, nasty, vile and vicious creatures – who, never mind leaving a child in their care – I personally wouldn’t leave my cat in their care.

What happens is that in order to continue to propel this toxic agenda, and maintain a myth – nobody wants to look at the facts – even the research I cited to a certain extent downplays the negative parenting of single mothers and the effects it has on children – nowhere is this more obvious that turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children by women, see here – and a refusal to accept the blindingly obvious – if these single mothers are the sole “primary carers” of children – and that IS the paradigm that has been peddled – then it is those “primary caregivers” who are responsible for any abuse, neglect or harm to their children

I should note here, that not all parents who dont live together act like this – some of them actually do try and do their best for their mutual children – after all marriages and relationships end – but being a parent is forever.  Some rare people actually get that.

Of all the toxic behaviours displayed by women, one of the worst ( but not the worst)is  Parental Alienation, and it is mostly mothers who launch these campaigns, and judges when faced with one of these toxic wretches, who fail to recognise it, are colluding in child abuse – are exercising their influence and authority to inflict damage upon children, by applying the law in such a way that it allows these nasty vile creatures to damage and harm CHILDREN.

Because they have listened to the toxic bullshit disseminated by feminists, and allowed it to influence and inform their “decisions”

So – after all that – what IS the law in Ireland? And why is it applied the way is stimes is?

First I want to say this – lots of things are “illegal” or “against the law” driving under the influence of alcohol – but people still do it – not as much as before – because of focused campaigns to make this socially and culturally unacceptable. Murder – the unlawful killing of a human being – but people still do it. Stealing other people’s property – but – yet again people still do.

The point I am making is this – you can demand and lobby for “the law must be changed” to reflect whatever YOUR particular ideology demands – but – even if something is or isn’t permitted by law – people will or won’t abide by it – depending on what kind of people they are – what informs their actions and behaviour – and what they believe, and how much ones society or culture is prepared to tolerate such behaviour.

Family Law is no different – the law allows or doesn’t allow certain things – but it is ATTITUDES that inform how that law is applied, interpreted and enforced.

There were are are two types of fathers recognised in law in Ireland – married fathers – those who are legally married to the mother of their child/children and unmarried fathers – those who are NOT married to the mothers of their child/children, married fathers had the benefit of Constitutional protection of their “rights” as parents.

As I stated in the previous post The Irish Family and Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937)

ARTICLE 41 

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937.

In the context of this Article Family is based upon Marriage1 between one man and one woman, and in spite of efforts over the last decade or so to convince the wider Irish public otherwise – THAT is what the vast majority of Irish people believe, yes there has been a shift in attitude to concede that “families come in all shapes and sizes” but – I would challenge anyone to lobby for a Referendum to have THAT Article completely deleted, though yes there has been a Referendum to have this amendment inserted.

The result was challenged in The High Court and rejected – though there is no appeal as yet to The Supreme Court – to the best of my knowledge.

Note 1 –  Article to follow – The Irish Family: Unholy Wedlock – Poisoning the Well.

Children – Article 42A – to be inserted

1         The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2         1°       In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2°       Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3         Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4         1°       Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings –

i           brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii         concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2°       Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

And this one repealed.

Education – Article 42.5 – to be repealed

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

– but no-one is going attempt to persuade the wider Irish voting public to completely reject the concept of family being the core fundamental unit of Irish society.

Having said that – not everyone was impressed with this new amendment, see here for example (these people have a feminist bias by the way, in spite of being called Human Rights in Ireland (Ironic and a bit creepy)

This is the current legislation on the cards in Ireland – Children and Family Relationships Bill 2013here, here, here

I personally have a some reservations about it. Another separate article.

See here as well.

So, Legislation is being and has been introduced to reflect these changing “attitudes” and allow different “types” of pairings and ways of forming families to be legally recognised, and the legislation being introduced to address the issue we are talking about here – the legal anomaly drawn between “married fathers” and “unmarried fathers” and children’s rights all sounds marvellous doesn’t it?

Our government and legislature is addressing issues of parental rights, children’s rights and acknowledging different types of families.

Now before anyone gets their knickers in a knot and takes me to task for not addressing individual specific sets of circumstances – such as – “but gay and lesbian couples are this that and the other” – or – unmarried fathers are discriminated against in court”

On the first – gay and lesbian couples form a minority of family types and re the reality of fathers experiences in Family Court – I KNOW – what I am addressing here are the underlying broad concepts – the ATTITUDES that inform the interpretation and application of the Law – as it existed, and as it now exists. So, bearing in mind all the hoo hah made about “gay and lesbian” couples –let’s just see how representative they are of the general population. First in Ireland.

“SUMMARY

THE overwhelming majority of individuals defined themselves as heterosexual. Most reported only opposite-sex attraction, but the proportion reporting some level of same-sex attraction was more than double the proportion identifying as other than heterosexual.

Similarly low proportions of men and women have had same-sex sexual experience.

2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.

5.3% of men and 5.8% of women reported some same-sex attraction.

7.1% of men and 4.7% of women reported a homosexual experience some time in their life so far.

4.4% of men and 1.4% of women reported a genital same-sex experience in their life so far.

3% of men and 1.1% of women reported a genital same-sex experience in the last five years.”

Page 126.

Let’s put that into perspective – according to the last Census in 2011, there were 1,545,073 females in this country between the ages of 15 – 64. 1.2% represents 18,540 potentially bisexual or lesbian as apposed to 1,526,533 NOT

On that basis – why the hell should anyone listen to the crap peddled by rancid radical lesbian feminists – it’s not like they represent the MAJORITY of women – in any way shape of form – is it? All 1.2% of them.

Though to be fair I am prepared to concede that maybe only half of them are feminists – so that would be a massive 0.6% of them claiming to speak on behalf of ALL Irish women.

By the way this pattern repeats in almost all western states – a tiny minority of women identify as lesbian2 – and yet! In Canada, where apparently they churn these toxic wretches out by the coven load, then foist them on the rest of the world, the picture is more or less the same.

“CCHS Cycle 2.1 is the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation. This information is needed to understand differences in health-related issues between the homosexual (gay or lesbian), bisexual and heterosexual populations. These issues include determinants of health, such as physical activity, mental health issues, including stress, and problems accessing health care.

Among Canadians aged 18 to 59, 1.0% reported that they consider themselves to be homosexual and 0.7% considered themselves bisexual.

About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, about twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 

Total number of participants in survey – 316,800

Maybe they all ended up teaching in the University of Toronto? Would certainly explain a lot.

Really does beg the question being asked again – why on earth does anybody, anywhere, give any credence to the unutterable crap being peddled by rancid lesbian radical feminist

Note (2) Forthcoming Article – Why are We Listening to Looney Lefty Lesbians? (its slow going because I can only read so much of the crap they have spewed out – without having to go and bang my head off a wall, to make the pain go away)

 

Do I give a shit what you do or don’t do in the privacy of your own bedroom? Nope. Do whatever the hell you like – but – for the last 30 plus years – the bedroom antics of a tiny proportion of the general populace of nearly all western states have had allowed pain in the arse, rancid radical lesbian nutjobs (feminists)  dictate societal and cultural attitudes and more destructively, public policy and law.

With regard to how fathers are viewed and treated in Court, again it is ATTITUDES and culturally and societal acceptable behaviours that informs what happens there, behaviour that is tolerated culturally and socially manifests itself in Court rooms, it is the cultural and societal context in which a legal system is embedded, that informs the level of approbation that the judiciary is prepared to level at these toxic little wretches – at the risk of using a rather strange example.

I mentioned above that the attitude to drink driving has undergone an almost about face here in Ireland – yes – people still do it – but there is now a pointed and prevailing cultural and societal attitude of approbation towards THOSE who “get into a car drunk, or under the influence and drive”

Utilising that same power to change cultural and societal attitudes – one can – not just inform the general public of the damage that Parental Alienation does to CHILDREN – but make those women who do this feel the full force of social and cultural approbation – and have that reflected in how the Law is interpreted and APPLIED.

Tolerating the kinds of behaviours displayed by these women needs to stop – taking off the blinkers and inculcating an attitude that alienating one parent from their children is a vile, nasty, and disgusting thing to do, and harms CHILDREN.

Because the law is applied by people who also live in that society and culture – and are influenced by the same prevailing social and cultural norms. Irish Family Law, while not perfect has within it the potential to be applied equitably – to be used in a just and fair manner – it is the attitudes that prevail towards tolerating the toxic behaviour of some nasty little wretches that lies at the heart of a lot of the problems that assail Irish fathers.

Feminists will still peddle their shit – and shriek and rage about whatever the hell their latest stupid “issue” is – but – for every piece of unutterable crap that feminist “academics” or “experts” try and foist on people, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of VALID research and studies which comprehensively prove – what a load of crap it is.

But, if you change people’s attitudes to the kinds of behaviour that feminism endorses – they will – to all intents and purposes find themselves pissing into the wind, and the default paradigm can shift. The message is:

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

Every “theory” every “study” every piece of shit “research” is designed to do one thing and one thing only – if it is in relation to children or families – and that is to damage CHILDREN.

The Law is – as it stands now – is starting to become realigned, veering towards protecting CHILDREN,

What are children damaged by? Parental Alienation.

Who are the primary perpetrators of Parental Alienation? Mothers.

What do children need in order to grow up healthy and safe and functional? Two Parents.

Who peddles a toxic and vile ideology that has seeped into the consciousnesses of ignorant and ill-informed idiots in government, in the judiciary? Feminists.

Where do feminists hide out in Ireland? In universities and colleges, in government departments, as “policy advisors” and in charities.

What do feminists use to camouflage their activities IN Ireland? Women’s rights.

What is the counter argument to this shit? HUMAN RIGHTS.

And – Men’s Rights are Human Rights.

 

 

The Irish Family and Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937)

 

THE FAMILY

 

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

 

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann.

This has been the legislative and philosophical bedrock upon which this State was founded, but it is worth noting before we examine our modern development , and the evolution of the legal impact that cultural changes have had on fathers’ IN Ireland what was meant at the time our Constitution was written, and what were the historical and cultural influences that prevailed at that time – obviously the Catholic church was a significant one – but it existed in parallel with a much deeper and more ancient tradition.

First, it is necessary to say this – the official language of this State is Gaelige – English is our “second” language – and in Constitutional conflicts over the interpretation of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937) – it is the Irish “version” that takes precedence. Therefore in the context of addressing the legal issues surrounding law and in particular Family Law in Ireland and “fathers’ rights” and how the current legal anomalies arose – one needs to understand the cultural and social influences that inform and informed the development of this particular area of law.

Further down the “legal” road – one then needs to incorporate the influence of the EU and how on several occasions there have been some questions raised about the extent of EU Law with regard to the relationship between the Constitutional Law of individual member states and EU law.

The situation now is this – after a long gestation period EU law now takes precedence over ALL national law including Constitutional Law, – in ALL member states of the EU.

With regard to conflicts between the Irish and English versions of the text of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 and instances where the Irish version took precedence.

This has happened quite a number of times. See below.

“Article 25.5.4o of the Constitution provides that, in the event of conflict with the English version, the Irish version of the Constitution will prevail:

 In case of conflict between the texts of any copy of this Constitution enrolled under this section, the text in the national language shall prevail.

I gcás gan na téacsanna d’aon chóip áirithe den Bhunreacht seo a bheidh curtha isteach ina hiris faoin alt seo a bheith de réir a chéile, is ag an téacs Gaeilge a bheidh an forlámhas.”

Page 1

“In his commentary on Article 25.5, J.M. Kelly, The Irish Constitution (1994), refers to a total of twenty-two Articles the Irish text of which the courts have looked at in order to elucidate the meaning of the corresponding English expressions.

The Articles in question are Articles 11, 15.4.2o, 15.10, 15.12, 15.13, 16.2.3o, 28.4, 29.3, 29.5, 30.3,

34.3.1o, 36.iii, 38.5, 40.1, 40.3.1o, 42.4, 43, 44.2.3o, 45, 45.2.i, 46.1 and 50.135”

Page 8

One of the most significant cases was this one:

“In the case of Article 40.3.1o, in McGee v Attorney General ([1974] IR 284) Justice Griffin pointed out that the Irish version,

‘Ráthaíonn an Stát gan cur isteach lena dhlithibh ar cheartaibh pearsanta aon tsaoránaigh’,

was a guarantee not to interfere with citizens’ personal rights, thus adding depth to the

guarantee to ‘respect’ them in the English version.37 Article 40.3.1o reads:

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and

vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

Ráthaíonn an Stát gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar chearta pearsanta aon saoránaigh, agus ráthaíonn fós na cearta sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

A literal translation of the Irish text reads as follows:

The State guarantees not to interfere by its laws with the personal rights of any citizen, and it further guarantees to defend and assert those rights with its laws in so far as it is possible.”

Page 15

The reason? Because up until this case there was a ban on the use of contraceptives, Mrs. McGee took a case all the way to the Supreme Court on the basis that the State was interfering in what she and her husband did in the privacy of their own home and was therefore a violation of their Constitutional Rights. They won. In essence the family is sacrosanct. The rights of The Family are “imprescriptible”

“In the High Court, in Ryan v. Attorney General ([1965] IR 294), Justice Kenny defined ‘imprescriptible’ as

‘that which cannot be lost by the passage of time or abandoned by non-exercise’74.

This term is expressed as ‘dochloíte’ in Article 41.1.1o, where the Family is referred to as ‘a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights’, ‘foras morálta … ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta dochloíte’. ‘Dochloíte’ expresses ‘indefeasible’ in Article 1 and ‘conclusive’ in Articles 25.4.5o, 25.5.3o, and 63.

According to John Kelly, ‘dochloíte’ does not have Justice Kenny’s meaning above of ‘imprescriptible’, conveying ‘only something like “irrepressible”, “indomitable”’. Following Statutory Instrument No. 51 of 1956, the last of the ten orders dealing with Irish Legal Terms, the Irish legal term for ‘imprescriptible’ is ‘dochealaithe’, ‘imprescriptible rights’ being translated in that Statutory Instrument, and subsequently in Téarmaí Dlí, as ‘cearta dochealaithe’.

Following the fourth such order (and Téarmaí Dlí), ‘fianaise dochloíte’ and ‘toimhde dochloíte’ are translated respectively as ‘conclusive evidence’ and ‘conclusive presumption’.”

Page 20

Again, in the context in which The Constitution was written and the underlying cultural and social “norms” that existed at the time – the Family, and roles within that family were perceived in a certain way – a “traditional way”

Articles 41.2.1o and 41.2.2o read as follows:

“In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

Go sonrach, admhaíonn an Stát go dtugann an bhean don Stát, trína saol sa teaghlach, cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Uime sin, féachfaidh an Stát lena chur in áirithe nach mbeidh ar mháithreacha clainne, de dheasca uireasa, dul le saothar agus faillí a thabhairt dá chionn sin ina ndualgais sa teaghlach.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has recommended eradicating this ‘dated provision which is much criticised’ and substituting in its place the following provision, which acknowledges the caring function of families without re-defining the family:

The State recognises that family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home.

Based particularly on the terms in the Irish text of the current Articles 41.2.1o and 41.2.2o, it is proposed that the Irish text read:

Admhaíonn an Stát go dtugann saol an teaghlaigh don chomhdhaonnacht cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais. Féachfaidh an Stát le cúnamh a thabhairt do dhaoine a thugann aire do dhaoine eile sa teaghlach.

The repetition of the word ‘cúnamh’ above, however, may create a potential problem in that ‘cúnamh’ expresses ‘aid’ in Article 44.2.4o where ‘Legislation providing State aid for schools’ is expressed in the Irish text as ‘Reachtaíocht lena gcuirtear cúnamh Stáit ar fáil do scoileanna’.

Technically, then, the second sentence of the Irish version of the amended Article 41.2 above could be read as ‘The State shall endeavour to give aid to people caring for others within the home’. ‘Tacaíocht’ rather than ‘cúnamh’ would be used in a direct translation of the above, independent of the context of the original wording of Article 41.2.1o

 

– ‘A Long-term Support Framework for Female Carers of Older People and People with Disabilities’, the title of a 1996 report, is styled in Irish ‘Gréasán Tacaíochta Fadtéarmaí do Bhanchúramóirí Daoine Scothaosta agus Daoine faoi Mhíchumas’, for example.

We also find ‘tacaíocht’ in phrases expressing ‘support’ in Articles 12.10.4o and 13.2.2o. In Article 45.4.1o, on the other hand, ‘to contribute to the support of the infirm’ is expressed as ‘cabhair maireachtála a thabhairt don easlán’. ‘Cabhair mhaireachtála’ literally means ‘living/subsistence help/aid’ and this again would involve the sense of ‘cúnamh’ which could result in the Irish text of the proposed new section being the subject of litigation.

By way of conclusion here, the above is a good illustration of the need to take both texts of the Constitution into account when drafting amendments of the Constitution.

It is worthy of note that while at this time – circa 1996 – there were rumblings about how women were perceived – as “mothers” first and foremost – that there was no groundswell of opinion to have “the family” abandoned as the “core unit of Irish society” but rather to extend beyond the home the “role of mothers” the fact that the 1996 report without any irony, presumes that it is women/females who care for older people or people with disabilities is illustrative – having said that – women themselves – Irish women, endorsed this paradigm – the issue was that they were not being sufficiently recognised or acknowledged – not that they rejected this “role”

In many ways it is this attitude that on the one hand has driven feminists round the bend when trying to impose their doctrine in Ireland and on the other hand,  it is why when it comes to using an attack on the family in Ireland feminists have to tread very very carefully here.

An example – around 4 years ago I sat in on a lecture being given by a Canadian feminist about this very subject – how women were not being valued for the “care work” they did – how there should be a monetary value placed on this – in her stupidity and ignorance she prattled on and on about “the patriarchy” and “women’s oppression” to absolute silence.

One of the first “comments” when she shut up long enough to allow “comments” – “are you trying to say that after years of bringing us up, taking care of us, and doing their best for us – that we should be PAID for looking after our own parents?”

One of the “issues” that raises its head from time to time in Ireland, and under the influence of ignorant feminists is that our Constitution is “sexist” in fact one the prevailing whines from feminists in the wider world is that “laws are written by men for men”

Actually – not in Ireland – and not as a matter of historical fact, except in cases where the Constitution specifically refers to “mothers” illustrated above.

“The English text on the other hand is gender-proofed to read ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man or woman’.

On approximately forty occasions in the Constitution ‘duine’ expresses ‘person’; therefore, translated literally, ‘chun duine ar bith’ would be ‘towards any person’. In view of this, ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man’ might be gender-proofed to read ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man person’.

Other possible cases where the English text could be differently genderproofed, based on the Irish text, are outlined in Appendix 3, which Appendix looks at cases where there would appear to be an option in how the text is gender-proofed and at some wider textual consequences of gender-proofing.

We shall see in the study which follows that in a few cases gender-proofing the Irish text may

necessitate amending clauses more severely than simply altering ‘sé’ to ‘sé nó sí’ or ‘é’ to ‘é nó í’’.

As can be seen from the gender-proofed English version of Article 12.6.2o, it has occasionally been necessary to emend whole clauses, the gender-proofed version of that subsection reading as follows

If A member of either House of the Oireachtas be who is elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his or her seat in that House.

The Irish version, however, only needs the following straightforward additions:

Má thoghtar comhalta de cheachtar de Thithe an Oireachtais chun bheith ina Uachtarán nó ina hUachtarán, ní foláir a mheas go bhfuil scartha aige nó aici le comhaltas an Tí sin 

The opposite situation arises in the following three instances, which would need more emendation than most of the Articles. While the English version of Article 31.2.ii 

Every person able and willing to act as a member of the Council of State who shall have held the office of President or the office of Taoiseach, or the office of Chief Justice, or the office of President of the Executive Council of Saorstát Éireann’, needs no gender-proofing, the words in bold below indicate the insertions which would have to be made to the Irish text in particular to include women who held the various offices listed above 

Gach duine ar cumas dó nó di agus ar fonn leis nó léi gníomhú ina chomhalta nó ina comhalta den Chomhairle Stáit, agus a bhí tráth ina Uachtarán nó ina hUachtarán nó ina Thaoiseach nó ina Taoiseach nó ina Phríomh-Bhreitheamh nó ina Príomh-Bhreitheamh, nó ina Uachtarán nó ina hUachtarán ar Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstát Éireann.

The repetition in the above text could be avoided by emending the text as follows, this being a more literal translation of the English. 

Gach duine ar cumas dó nó di agus ar fonn leis nó léi gníomhú ina mar chomhalta den Chomhairle Stáit, agus a bhí tráth ina i seilbh oifige mar Uachtarán nó ina mar Thaoiseach nó ina mar Phríomh-Bhreitheamh, nó ina mar Uachtarán ar Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstát Éireann.

 

Put simply – our Primary Legislative Instrument is already, with few exceptions “genderproofed” because of the references to “person” in effect our Constitution is “gender blind” but this isn’t actually good enough for feminists – is it?

Because rather than professing an ideology that is built on a foundation of true “equality” or my own personal preference “equity” feminists want a SPECIAL exception to be made FOR women – a SPECIAL case – hence the rather obvious inequitable insistence on phraseology that reads – men AND WOMEN – and yes – not only just did I capitalise those words deliberately, but also because this is what permeates feminist thinking – men in small letters and “AND WOMEN”

A perfect example of this in The Gender and WOMEN’S Studies Centre based in Trinity College Dublin – now forgive me – but are there three “genders”? Gender (s) and WOMEN?

So, WOMEN get a distinct, biologically based “category” but men are consigned to a “gender” and here I was thinking that “gender is a social construct” or so I’ve been reliably informed by innumerable feminists over the last 20 years or so – ladies make up your bloody minds!

“The Centre for Women’s Studies was established in Trinity College in July, 1988. In 1999, in order to reflect the increasing diversity of its interests in areas such as sexualities and masculinities, the Centre expanded its title and remit to become the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies. In 2005, the Centre became a full member of the School of Histories and Humanities. According to a 2006 evaluation, ‘Trinity is now the academically strongest Gender and Women’s Studies Centre in Ireland’

Since its inception, the Centre has developed and sustained an M.Phil programme and a doctoral programme of the highest quality, has undertaken significant research activities and engaged in both innovative and traditional community outreach. Members of the Centre are recognised both nationally and throughout the EU for their expertise on gender issues.

Dr. Catherine Lawless

Director/Academic Co-ordinator

 

To put it bluntly, this is where most of the feminist inspired garbage emanates from, and gets disseminated to government departments, that then informs public policy and has been instrumental in beavering away, since 1988, and with a more intense effort in complicity with the EU since 1999, to try and reframe Irish cultural and social attitudes – none more so than in how Family is viewed IN Ireland.

1999 being when the money really started rolling in, about 15 years ago.

“Trinity is now the academically strongest Gender and Women’s Studies Centre in Ireland”

Professor Diana Leonard, Institute of Education, Unversity of London. 2006 External Evaluation.”

And who is or rather was Professor Diana Leonard?

“Few people had considered marriage a tool of patriarchal oppression until Diana Leonard told them it was. From her post at the University of London’s Institute of Education, the radical feminist remained at the forefront of the women’s liberation movement throughout the 1970s.”

(If you click on any link, click on this one, Diana Leonard is almost a cariacature of a radical feminist)

 

Though to be fair – it DID take Trinity College’s Gender and WOMEN’S Studies Centre till 2006 to meet with the “approval” of this doyenne of feminism – what with there being an almost unconscious resistance within the not just the wider Irish public, but at government level to the blandishments of definitely radical feminism but even of so called “equity feminism”

The reason – FAMILY – the Irish allegiance to the concept of FAMILY – and of marriage being the bedrock upon which to build and consolidate one’s wider FAMILY.

All the shit that feminism peddles in order to embed its toxic doctrine into not just the consciousness of people, but into the political consciousness of government and public policy makers needs MONEY, lots of MONEY in order to implement its “programmes’” and as you can see – while 2006 must have been a red letter year, for The Gender and WOMEN’S Study Centre in Trinity College – three years later – the shit hit the fan – big time – up until then – all the “programmes” devised by this place  and a couple of others – then peddled to government were to all intents and purposes funded by the EU – imposed on us by the EU – unfortunately we now owe in the region of 130 BILLION Euros – it may be more – TO the EU.

There are three strands by which feminism has attempted to, for want of a better phrase, infiltrate the zeitgeist IN Ireland – through political pressure – which until we joined the EEC was getting them absolutely nowhere –  even afterwards it got absolutely nowhere – until the mid 1990’s – through media – TV and newspapers mostly – again – “women’s libbers” were are, and to some extent still perceived as idiots, or as screechy, ranty whiney harridans – and through academia – by influencing public policy – they had better luck that way – slowly – but overall – none of those methods has truly managed to have feminism accepted as the one, the only default paradigm through which Irish people will view cultural and social issues.

It is in the only the last few years – that feminists have started to pop up peddling their wares on newspapers and via the internet – with the internet having a slow start “catching on here” – what you are seeing with the likes of Una Mullally and Laura McInerney with their peddling of “rape culture” and other unutterable crap, etc are Irish feminist idiots joining the fevered panic of other western feminists as they try to raise the hysteria level – these idiots are jumping in at the last ditch attempt of western feminists to stop themselves being cast aside, exposed for the rancid toxic wretches they are.

Twats like Mullally and McEnerney have deluded themselves into believing that “women’s rights” is still a valid issue IN Ireland – and that the crap they’ve read and heard there (in uni) and that is still being peddled there, by the out of touch, hard core feminist lecturers is “the truth” – academic feminists in Ireland are about 10 – 15 years behind the times of other western feminists – they just don’t know it yet.

But – that is changing and will change.

Are Irish people a mass of conflicts and contradictions – is our culture a mass of conflicts and contradictions? Absolutely – we have a historical and deeply embedded allegiance to the concept of Family – but at the same time our society and culture changed so rapidly and with such force that Family along with it became something that rather being the bedrock, the stabilising core unit of our society – all of a sudden changed – and we were swept along with those changes – are there issues – deep concerns about the nature of some families? Yes there are. Have we had to open our eyes to some disturbing truths? Yes we have.

But – having said all that – Family – and the concept of Family still lies at not just the core of our society and culture – but at the core of ourselves – as a people.

We need to embrace that – anchor ourselves in that – focus our attention on protecting that.

 

All extracts from:

Bunreacht na hEireann: A Study of the Irish Text; Micheal O Cearuil – with original contributions by Professor Mairtin O Murchu. Download here.

Ó Government of Ireland 1999

 

Previous Older Entries