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?

 

Advertisements

23 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. caprizchka
    May 28, 2014 @ 23:14:09

    Yes! Yes! Cui bono? Indeed. There’s yet another piece of the puzzle. Wouldn’t effectively socially castrating men take away their motivation for productivity? Where is the tax money going to come from without productivity? I’m afraid I know the answer and it’s slavery–military, prisons, and prisoners to dead-end jobs.

    “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.” That lifeboat gets a whole lot more comfortable when one has a child–whether conceived in “love” or just as an insurance policy. I say it is about time for women to start building better boats…for men. Instead of buying that short skirt or mascara…there’s a more sustainable cause. Children can wait until we can plan a real future for those children. Just my opinion.

    Reply

  2. alanbowker
    May 29, 2014 @ 00:01:01

    Anja,

    This paragraph is one of the most interesting to me: ” 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 “.
    Interesting as it hints at the NWO, the marxist-feminist theories, and it is one which I am personally undecided whether I’m totally convinced – although I agree it is perfectly plausible.
    What I AM convinced of is that Taxation is the evil that allows feminism to grow as it feeds the wealth-transfer courts, the child-allowances, the shelter-charities, the social workers, the Violence on Women charities, extended nursery provision etc etc etc…
    “ALL tax is Theft” is a favourite meme of mine, it is one I fully understand and as a Libertarian I do believe that not only the eradication of the majority of tax-take is the means to secure economic strength and performance but also to restrict tax from government would strangle feminism very quickly and effectively indeed.
    To stick with that productivity issue, to which caprizchka refers to also, I do believe it is my duty – yes a duty – to restrict every penny I am able to restrict from a government that used feminist violence by proxy upon me to transfer funds from male to female as you so correctly identify.
    The result? Even though I could choose to work, to contribute tax and earning to my nation, I will not.
    I will not as I have decided not to pay any more tax to a nation which would use that revenue against me.
    Additionally I try to pay tradesmen etc in cash, to allow them the opportunity of paying tax upon that revenue. Their decision, I simply offer them the flexibility.
    . As you mention, state finances are yet in a perilous position; with an insatiable need for more and more tax to fund the selfishness of feminists social engineering policies. The power of the female vote, together with the male “protective” nature will drive the inefficiency of western societies which, when partnered with the social costs and consequences of single-parent families, an elderly population, and male productivity that is about to spiral downwards as more men, just like myself “Go Galt”, will, ultimately deliver economic collapse unless this evil is unraveled very very soon.
    My guess that reckoning will be circa 2030 here in UK.

    Reply

  3. John mws
    May 29, 2014 @ 21:56:05

    It is all falling into place. I have got to agree with this analysis and the other comments above by Caprizchka and Alan.The purpose of government is now only to buy votes off women to enslave everyone to pay back the “investors”, who loan to the governments, as always, against future promised tax returns.

    Dictionary (media) Feminism gives them the excuse to hide from most men what is happening. The clever bit is they are even managing mostly to hold the level of benefits to women even while cutting them for men. They have to cut spending to pay back quicker the “investors” and know women voters complain more than men, who are quick to listen and protect the women.

    In the UK they have capped total benefits to future families, this only restricts the number of children women have before they need to ditch the men. The men, stripped of the children, will have to work, or see their benefits cut or put forward for forced labour. So men with children are de facto economic slaves, and a new law now takes a further 20% extra surcharge if they do not settle child payments with the mother, to pay for the state to administer the payments. The women only pay a 4% surcharge on the collected payments.

    The fact the ” investors” got the salesmen(bankers) to sell ponzi investments to the public on non-existant returns in the first place is not to be mentioned. That we are paying back the salesmen their float plus interest on the bad investments is just ridiculous. These finance institutions are no such thing. They have stole everyones wealth and loaned it back to us and are asking us to spent the next how ever decades to get back to only the status quo of before. The investors just get even richer. What a scheme!

    Now here comes the MRA movement. It threatens the taxes that are fed only to the feminists and the women voters. This could be a serious crack in the scheme. MGTOW is another danger growing for the scheme. Just look at how Japan’s future finances are beginning to reel from this effect of “herbivore” men. Since many men now realise they have no incentive to work to pay the state, as they do not benefit when single and are tax slaves if they produce a child, why should they care about the national debt. All men have to look forward to is their own survival, all hope of children of their own they can help raise and nurture on equal terms is virtually gone. Men not getting married, not having children lowers the popluation to pay back the debt, the women lose their child safey net and are then subject to the same taxes as men. The government and investors must try to stop this happening any way they can. This ever tightening grip on tax spend in one direction is clear evidence the governments thinks they know what they are doing and the “investors” approve of their methods.Has the MRA growth got them worried yet ? Or is it all a conspiracy theory?

    Reply

  4. Russell
    May 30, 2014 @ 00:06:51

    As Jared Diamond’s well received book, ‘Collapse’ concludes – a major reason why some societies collapse whilst others didn’t – was a failure to adapt to environmental (and other) problems. The reason that those collapsed societies didn’t adapt was that the powerful members of society (whilst recognizing the threats) couldn’t conceive of a solution that did not continue to advantage themselves. Their common solution to their problems was always not just to keep doing what they had always done – but just to do more of it – ‘that’ll fix it’.

    Given that the powerful people in today’s societies are not only the powerful men and women, but most women generally, it’s not that surprising that the given solution to humanity’s problems are not just what we have always done, that is, the provision and protection of women – but the need to do more of it.

    To paraphrase Homer Simpson – ‘Ah Beer…, both the cause; and solution, to all of life’s problems.

    The human rights of males actually could contribute a solution – abdicate the unilateral requirement of males to provide and protect women to avoid unnecessary consumption. Also, reproductive rights for males to address overpopulation.

    Instead, we are given the as the only solution to do not only what we have always done – gynocentrism; but the need to do more of it – feminism.

    Gynocentrism – both the cause and solution to all of life’s problems. sigh.

    Reply

  5. John mws
    May 30, 2014 @ 17:37:28

    The ever ramping up of increased provision for women only, whether wanted or not by the general woman, can lead to only one thing if not rebalanced

    Reply

  6. John mws
    May 30, 2014 @ 17:53:49

    But I am optimistic that we will get the wind of change that the MHRM is going to bring. 😉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ

    Reply

  7. anjaeriud
    May 30, 2014 @ 19:05:58

    Ah John 🙂

    How could you forget – HUMANITY

    Reply

  8. Sarah
    May 31, 2014 @ 09:03:19

    Hi there,
    “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.”
    Would you mind to elaborate about this? I mean, I guess I understand the stereotype you refer to, but do you have numbers statistically supporting it?
    Also, how do you technically define “useless crap” — I would believe the idea that men and women tend to buy different things, but how ‘clothes’ or ‘shoes’ or any product typically associated with women’s shopping counts as more ‘useless crap’ than game consoles or sports cars or non-essential products more typically bought by men?

    Reply

    • anjaeriud
      May 31, 2014 @ 14:28:46

      Well – this didn’t take long – Say hello to Sarah.

      Sarah has posted two comments – the first addresses the issue of “consumerism” obliquely – and is a fairly typical female response to any hint that women buy “useless crap

      Naturally enough Sarah has completely ignored the MAIN issue of this article – a father being deprived of rights that automatically adhere to Irish mothers when it comes to be considered “eligible” to receive “Rent Supplement” in order to provide housing for himself and his four children – because even though he is just as much a parent to these four children – in the eyes of this government he is not “really a parent” ie he is “single

      But never fear – Sarah is here to focus all our minds on the main issue – pursing her lips – tut tutting and getting all snarky and “how very dare you” suggest that women buy useless crap.

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannd, like all “feminists” and yep am taking a wild guess here – Sarah is demanding “numbers statistically supporting it?” Though she could just be a female who only hears or see’s what she perceives as an insult to – women! And we bloody well can’t have that – can we – fuck this guy who is locked in a battle in the Irish Government – to hell with him and countless other fathers who find themselves in this exact same position.

      Sigh.

      NB – hands up any separated/divorced/single father who can afford a “sports car”? How about the massive numbers of unemployed men in this country? Sports car? Anyone?

      Or did you conveniently fail to notice that the father in THIS article can’t afford somewhere to live – never mind buy a bloody “sports car”?

      Reply

      • Sarah
        May 31, 2014 @ 20:11:57

        Hi Anja, thanks for your quick reply.

        There could be many reasons I did not comment on the “MAIN issue”, but I think it is still valid to question the validity of some of the curious assertions you are making, especially if you are using them to support your MAIN argument.

        And have you been around Dublin lately? There are plenty of very nice cars around here 🙂
        But still, even if nobody bought expensive cars (and if you don’t like them you can think of any other example of non-essential services, luxury goods and general entertainment items that would be typically enjoyed by men), the question stands.

      • anjaeriud
        Jun 01, 2014 @ 15:53:05

        Gosh Sarah – I hope you didn’t trip over any nasty homeless men and scuff your nice shoes while you were admiring all the nice cars in Dublin!

        But here – knock yourself out – http://www.simi.ie/Statistics/National+Vehicle+Statistics.html

        Who are the Homeless?

        Single Homeless

        The majority of homeless people are single adults – the Homeless Agency’s 2008 survey found that in Dublin alone there were 1439 single homeless people – the majority of these were men, who tend to be homeless for longer periods than women.”

        http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/homelessness.htm

        Persons sleeping rough

        A total of 64 persons were found sleeping rough on Census Night (see Background notes for the methodology used). All but 6 of them were males. Dublin accounted for 59 of the 64 rough sleepers enumerated as such in the census.”

        Table B Homeless persons by region of enumeration

        Region Male Female Total

        Dublin (male – 1,590 ) (female – 785) total – 2,375
        South East (male – 216) (female – 187) total – 403
        South West (male – 232) (female – 69) total – 301
        Mid West (male – 186) (female – 87) total – 273
        West (male – 122) (female – 49) total – 171
        North West (male – 92) (female – 40) total – 132
        North East (male – 56) (female – 28) total – 84
        Midland (male – 21) (female – 16) total – 37
        Mid East (male – 24) (female – 8) total – 32

        http://cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/homelesspersonsinireland/Homeless,persons,in,Ireland,A,special,Census,report.pdf

  9. Sarah
    May 31, 2014 @ 09:10:03

    Also, this
    “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.”
    Is this a statement that you are applying to women in general, or just to Irish women?
    Would you explain in what aspects you think that women vote “for stupid reasons” more than men? And do you think women should not be allowed to vote, or do you have any other suggestions of how to fix the situation? Thanks!

    Reply

    • anjaeriud
      May 31, 2014 @ 14:39:15

      Sarah’s second comment – yet again – let’s not talk about the MAIN issue here – let’s not address the MAIN issues here – the underlying systemic economic and political failures that inform and have informed the pig’s ear that successive Irish governments have made of running this bloody country.

      Systemic institutional, political economic and cultural failures that have led us – as a nation – to the point where we are now.

      Nope – we are going talk a bloody conversation that was OVER nearly a hundred years ago – votes for women.

      Sarah demands – nay insists that I to all intents and purposes “explain myself”

      But of course – the killer question – “And do you think women should not be allowed to vote, or do you have any other suggestions of how to fix the situation? Thanks!”

      Yet again – sigh – typical femspeak – “am going to ignore every single you have said – every issue – every point and throw out a veiled insult to which I can get my knickers in a knot about“.

      And of course – so that no matter what your response – I can go on a big ole rant about how “women were denied the vote” blah blah blah.

      Suppose I said no, women should NOT be allowed to vote??? 🙂

      Here’s the thing Sarah my dear – even if I did – what business is it of yours what my own personal political stance is?

      Raising this “non-issue” allows you – in your tiny little mind – to avoid actually addressing any of the issues I raised – you are a typical fembot – you hear/see keywords and you react – blindly, instinctively like Pavlov’s dogs – with a rote and predictable response.

      Someone mentions voting and women in the a sentence – kneejerk reaction “votes for women

      Now which part of THIS CONVERSATION WAS OVER almost a hundred years ago are you NOT getting?

      Another wild guess – I’m betting Sarah is a typical female of the type who remembers every single time someone (male) offended her – even if it was 10 – 15 – 20 years ago – and if it seems it might be useful in a present day dispute to bring it up – out she will trot it – will have absolutely sod all to do with the present dispute or issue or argument – but but but but but – YOU offended me X number of years ago – and I have been nursing that grudge since then – sooooooooo – na na na na na naaahh.

      I win – you lose.

      Double sigh – thanks for stopping by Sarah – off ya go now – am sure there must some shopping you have to do – how the hell any woman could get by on 38 pairs of shoes (read somewhere about five years ago that this was the “average” ) I simply don’t know!

      NB – and no Sarah – not citing statistics – posting studies or polls or surveys for ANYTHING – not even the shoe thing – do your own bloody homework.

      Reply

      • Sarah
        May 31, 2014 @ 20:24:12

        Hi again Anja. What do I care what your personal political stance is? Well that’s what people usually do when writing and talking in politically themed blogs. If nobody cared about others’ political standpoints, there would be no point in having blogs or comments sections 🙂
        I’ll understand if you prefer not to be asked questions, but if that were the case, I’d suggest you state it somewhere because people will generally assume that questions about your posts -and requests of facts to support your claims- are welcome.

  10. wtfwtf13
    May 31, 2014 @ 12:09:57

    Sometimes I find another world inside my mind
    When I realise the crazy things we do
    It makes me feel ashamed to be alive
    It makes me wanna run away and hide …….

    Reply

  11. John mws
    May 31, 2014 @ 20:53:47

    Quotes
    Source Businessweek.com

    women — who control more than $20 trillion or about 70 percent of global consumer spending

    The women who drive 70 percent of total consumer spending decide how their families use financial services, insurance and health care, according to a Boston Consulting Group poll of 23,000 women in 22 countries.

    Chief Household Officer

    “Women are their household’s chief financial officer,” said Michael Silverstein, a Chicago-based senior partner and managing director at BCG and co-author of “Women Want More,” a 2009 book about the ways companies can capitalize on female consumers. The book estimates that by 2014, women could earn about $18 trillion a year and control as much as $28 trillion of spending.

    Fed Governor Elizabeth A. Duke cited surveys in a May 2010 speech that show women account for 80 percent of all consumer- expenditure decisions in the U.S., making 93 percent of food purchases and 65 percent of auto buys.

    End quotes

    So if crap is being bought, 70-80% is being bought by women. It is no mistake that most TV advertisements are designed to appeal to women. They certainly do not appeal to men.

    Now where are the stats to counter this? Do not bother you will not find any or someone would have done so already.

    Reply

    • anjaeriud
      Jun 01, 2014 @ 14:49:25

      Thank you John

      You have more patience for responding to the likes of “Sarah” than I have.

      🙂

      Reply

    • Sarah
      Jun 02, 2014 @ 00:35:54

      Hi John, and thanks for the effort.

      However I am sure you see the difference between “household spending” and “non-essential goods/services”, which is what I understand by the original “buy useless crap” quote. Unless you consider paying the bills, buying food (which you mention) and such ‘useless crap’, right?
      So the fact that it is generally women that administer the household finances does not say much about who is acquiring luxury items, or by what amount.
      Then the statistics you mention, while very interesting are not exactly relevant to the discussion.

      As for me finding any data, the burden of the proof is on Anja for having made the first statement, that I questioned. You are free to ask me for statistics or any supporting data whenever you feel that I have made an unjustified claim 🙂

      Reply

  12. John mws
    Jun 01, 2014 @ 16:26:03

    Just so the sources cannot be questioned here are links.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-24/women-controlling-consumer-spending-sparse-among-central-bankers.html
    http://she-conomy.com/facts-on-women
    http://www.businesspundit.com/where-women-spend-their-money/

    If you look through the stats it is clearly a woman orientated world and increasingly more so. One forecast is for women to earn more than the average man by the year 2030 despite their current choice for either less hours, or avoidance of higher paid dangerous, risky or stressful jobs in general. Obviously this will be partly due to the growing education gap for boys and young men due to hostile college and university policies.

    Stripping men of their wealth by unfair divorse practice and then withholding state benefits based on gender as this blog article shows, only underlines this growing trend to hand over money rights and decisions to women. So far it does not look like the feminists can show any sign of a patriachy here, but in does show signs of an unrestricted gynocentrism.

    Reply

  13. Greg Allan
    Jun 01, 2014 @ 23:38:58

    Studies in Europe – by the EEU no less – and others in the US and Australia indicate that women control around eighty percent of discretionary spending which is expenditure over and above that covering essentials.

    A wander around any large retail and commercial district provides a a pretty good idea of what this discretionary spending goes to. I’m in a large regional city in which more than half the retail outlets are womens’ clothing stores – which I find quite bemusing given that many women here seem to be going out in little more than their underwear these days. In addition such clothing that is actually worn often appears to be applied with a spray can. However the notable increase in this era of growing female financial clout is in services such as nail and waxing salons, tanning joints, make up sellers or appliers, hairdressers and the like. There are also four gymnasiums in the area, three of which are exclusive to women.

    As for the men fewer than ten percent of the local retail outlets could be said to be selling to a primarily male clientèle most of which are a mere handful of mens’ clothing stores.

    At the moment I’m wondering if the main street in which I work – Mitchell St – shouldn’t be renamed Vanity Parade.

    Reply

    • Sarah
      Jun 02, 2014 @ 14:17:54

      Hi Greg,
      Would you care to point to some of those studies? Unfortunately, your anecdotal evidence about retail and beauty shops catered to women is as valid as anyone’s observations of pubs and bookies full of blokes, or expensive cars and gaming devices used mostly by men.
      Cheers!

      Reply

  14. Russell
    Jun 02, 2014 @ 21:35:24

    Sarah convinced against her will is of the same mind still.

    Reply

  15. caprizchka
    Jun 04, 2014 @ 00:21:21

    I’ll give her credit for politeness. I’ve heard that Scrooge hates Tiny Tim and that’s why he carries on his sports car. Mrs. Banks was oppressed by Mr. Banks into hiring a nanny named Mary Poppins. Feminist ivory towers are oppressive. My favorite consumer statistics have to do with The Beauty Industry, which oppresses women, which is why it is inflation proof. I have to give credit to Judgy Bitch for turning me on to this song:

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: