Irish Feminism Has Found its Super Mangina – Ian Hughes.


Ian Hughes is an Irish blogger and recently one of his blog articles

found its way onto the the title of this putrid piece of apologia by a male person for feminism says it all – it is entitled –

Why are men more likely to be violent than women? Link here.

and…it is complete, unadulterated rubbish.

Before I get into this piece of feminist drivel – how do I know that Ian Hughes is a super mangina?

Simples – I went onto his blog and checked his sources –for what he laughably calls “the facts”

Here they are.


1.Feminism and Men, Nikki van der Gaag, Zed Books, London, 2014, page 198

2.Men Explain Things To Me, Rebecca Solnit, Granta, 2014, page 30

3.Men Explain Things To Me, Rebecca Solnit, Granta, 2014, page 23

4.Quoted in Understanding Violent Crime, Stephen Jones, Open University Press, 2000, page 73

5.Feminism and Men, Nikki van der Gaag, Zed Books, London, 2014, page 62”


Well now! There’s a bleeding surprise. NOT.

He does provide three links in the body of The Journal article – which – yep – I clicked on.

The first leads to a NY Times article – Is Delhi So Different From Steubenville? Link here and the second goes to……….wait for it………wait for it.

Steinem: More women killed by partners since 9/11 than deaths from attacks, ensuing wars

Yesirreebob – that would be Gloria Steinem, Gloria. Bloody. Steimem!

There is a third link provided in the body of the article on The Journal, which apparently is the source for his contention that:

“Research into group violence, such as racial and homophobic assaults, has shown that violent groups are typically made up of four different types of offenders: thugs for whom violence is their normal means of resolving disputes; xenophobes who blame others for their own troubles; sympathisers who become involved through peer pressure; and politically motivated offenders, who are usually educated and indulge in violence in pursuit of their political beliefs.”

Do you know where it leads to? To a scholarly article? Nope. Perhaps an academic journal? Nope again. Alright – a paper about the dynamics of group violence? Wrong again.

It is a link to…….an ad for a book – NOT the actual book, NOT any source material, nope – it is simply the retail information for a book – which apparently ISN’T AVAILALBE as an ebook.

Sooooooooooooooo, if you wanted to verify Ian Hughes source material, you can’t – unless you go onto amazon and buy the book!

Hmmmmmmm, so far Ian Hughes has failed miserably to back up his ludicrous contentions with anything even remotely resembling adequate verifiable reference material.

Two articles and an ad for a book just don’t cut it Ian.

But, but, but – he cites some references in the blog article! Indeed he does – and oh boy – if you wanted to, you couldn’t find more dubious, compromised, tainted and probably corrupt sources than the two feminists he cites.

Let’s start with Rebecca Solnit – link here (its wikipedia, but I couldn’t be arsed researching a feminist)

“Solnit is credited with the concept behind the term mansplaining, a habitual gender-based condescending language style that emerged shortly after her April 2008 blog post “Men Explain Things to Me,” although she did not invent the portmanteau word itself.[17][18][19] The term has since been widely adopted.[19]

She is also the author of this little gem: Why “Mansplaining” Is Still a Problem

A snippet:

“The battle for women to be treated like human beings with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of involvement in cultural and political arenas continues, and it is sometimes a pretty grim battle. When I wrote the essay below, I surprised myself in seeing that what starts out as minor social misery can expand into violent silencing and even violent death.”

Solnit is – a professional whiner – sigh.

What about Ian Hughes’ other feminist source? Nikki Van Der Gaag. Well, she is also the author of this: Why involve men in work on gender equality? Link here.

This is her little gem:

“First, because the focus on men does not always come from a gender equality perspective, but from the idea that it is men who are now the victims. For example, Atlantic Monthly ran an article noting that men are becoming redundant with an ‘unprecedented role reversal now under way’. And in 2010 Newsweek ran a cover story on ‘reinventing masculinity’, analysing assertions that women are taking over the world – or at least the US.

This is dangerous nonsense. Of course there are individual men who face rape or violence from women, but they are in a tiny minority. Overwhelmingly, it is still predominantly women who face abuse, violence and discrimination from men. Things may look better in the rich world, but for example, in the US, a woman is battered by her intimate partner every 15 seconds in the UK, women working full time still earn on average 15.5% less an hour than men. Globally, women hold only 19% of positions in national parliaments.

Second, there is suspicion from feminists, and from some women and women’s groups about working with men. (Not to mention the scepticism from some women and men about the value of gender work at all in our ‘post-feminist’ era). They question men’s motives. And they feel that the debate is hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women. They are right.”

(emphasis added)

How many falsehoods, lies and misinformation did you spot?


Ok so – you may be wondering why I haven’t torn into Ian Hughes actual article.

Good question. As soon as I saw the title and the sub-heading of his article

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

I had two thoughts – first, this is going to be shit and I’m going to want to kick something (ouch by the way) and second – I wonder which feminazi is pulling his strings?

The reason for the second thought is simple – it is patently obvious that brand feminism is toxic and getting more so day by day – and what do women (feminists) do when they are failing to achieve their goals through their own efforts?

They rope a man in, wind him up like one of those monkeys with a drum and push the poor sod out into the firing line.

It isn’t so much violence by proxy, but propaganda by proxy – you see feminism depends on male acquiescence in sufficient numbers for its very survival. Seriously.

It also depends on male guilt for all those supposed aeons of “oppression” and a continuance of assuaging that guilt by lots and lots of compliant………………………FUNDING!

Feminists neeeeeeeeeeed other men to whip all those non compliant men back into line – they have realised that the shrieking nagging bitter old harpies of feminism are waaaaaaaaaaaaaayy past their sell by date and that the “youngsters” of this supposed new wave of feminists are quite simply vacuous morons – ergo – feminism needs compliant men to lay some man guilt on the boys!

Eeeeeemmmmm, good luck with that!

Van Der Gaag actually makes a valid point – there are approx only about 19% ish of politicians who are female – but she, like all feminists misses the point.

First – that’s because women are less interested in pursuing political careers and second – so bloody what!

Lastly – as feminism and its never ending demands, whining and caterwauling reaches that point where it is definitely getting on everybody’s last nerve – one lives in hope that sanity, reality and commonsense starts to prevail and “being female” is as about as relevant as being tall, or short, or having blue eyes or red hair.


Apparently (according to Ian Hughes) – The Republic of Ireland is awash with the bodies of battered, murdered and assaulted women – in fact Irish women have allegedly been at the receiving end of unrelenting violence and assault in this State for decades, eons – forever.

Except this is not true – in fact it is an outright lie – a fabrication – a fraud – complete and utter horseshit.

Let’s start with murder – Homicide – the ultimate act of violence. Link Here, the first thing to state is that Ireland has one of the lowest rates of Homicide in the world.

“During the study period there was a total of 205 incidents resulting in the death of 214 victims. The average population of the State during this period was 3,575,900 and this gives an average homicide rate for the five years of 1.2 per 105 per year.”


That’s 1.2 persons out of every 10,0000 – that’s 0.0012%

Depending on which feminist you can bear to listen to, or read, its either 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 – so what would the actual numbers of those “percentages” be? based on the female population of The Republic of Ireland.

20% (1 in 5) would be 715,180           

25% (1 in 4) would be 893,975          

But the ACTUAL average rate of 0.0012% would be………………43

Can you spot the astronomical difference between the actual average of 43 and the feminist “percentage” of 715,180? Hard to spot, isn’t it? Those two numbers are sooooooooooooooooo close!


But – let’s be fair – (an unknown concept for feminists) and let them have one of their “statistics” and calculate a rate of “two women a week murdered”

That would add up to 102 women a year out of an average female population of 1,808,083

102 (102.1567)            women murdered per year would represent 0.0057% of the average female population of The Republic of Ireland.

The actual average number of female victims of Homicide yearly in the Republic of Ireland is – 10. This works out at less than one per month.

The average numbers of male victims of Homicide in The Republic of Ireland yearly is – 32.

For the hard of thinking (feminists) three times as many males are victims of Homicide in the Republic of Ireland than females.

Yet – not only do feminists go into hysterical paroxysms over female Homicides while ignoring the three times as many male Homicides – the mainstream media follows suit and peddles this toxic feminist shoite that a female life is not only worth more than a male life – but even when a female does kill – she is given a pass – see below.

The most prolific and poisonous of all misinformation (outright lies) agents is womensaid – and this is what they claim on their website:


“Since 1996, there have been 204 women murdered in the Republic of Ireland. 127 women (62%) were killed in their own homes. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


During this same period 1,061 men were murdered in The Republic of Ireland.


“In the resolved cases 78 women (53%) were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


During the period 1994 – 2005 out of a total of 205 Homicides – 46 male perpetrators killed a female and 20 female perpetrators killed 15 males and five females. The remaining homicides were of a male killing another male – usually in an unpremeditated incident precipitated by a quarrel and while intoxicated.


“Another 52 (35%) women were killed by someone they knew (e.g. brother, son, neighbour, acquaintance). Thus, a total of 130 women (89%) were killed by someone known to them. In all of the resolved cases, 99% of perpetrators were male and 1% was female. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


Naturally womensaid, and no doubt Ian Hughes won’t be mentioning this:


“In the present study female perpetrators killed a spouse in 7 (35%) cases, or a family member in 9 (45%) cases. In only a single case did a female perpetrator kill a stranger.

The corresponding figures for male perpetrators are the killing of a spouse in 18 (10.2%) cases, and family members in 25 (14.1%) cases. In 47 (26.6%) cases the victim of a male perpetrator was a stranger. “


(From Homicide in Ireland 1994 – 2005 – see link below)

Womensaid are doing the usual feminist two step – sleight of hand – or for the more pragmatic – outright lying by omission – creating a smokescreen of hysteria around the figures of female victims of homicide while ignoring not only the greater numbers of male victims of homicide but the fact of female killings of males, and other females.

Look at it this way – out of the total of 205 homicides between 1994 – 2005 – 51 females died as the result of unlawful killing – 46 were killed by a male and 5 were killed by a female – 10% of them were killed by females NOT 1% as stated by womensaid.

Having said all that – all unlawful deaths are a tragedy – ALL of them.

The only year where the Census and the Crime figures correlate is 2002, the female population in 2002 was 492,760, in that year 9 victims of homicide were female this represents 0.00183% of the total female population of The Republic of Ireland, 43 victims of Homicide were male.


What this means is that 99.9% of Irish women didn’t die and probably won’t die from being “unlawfully killed”.


For the total numbers of Homicides from 2006 – 2013 see here;

Between 1994 and 2005 there were 120 female victims of Homicide in The Republic of Ireland – during that same period there were 381 male victims of Homicide.

The average number of female victims of homicide over that 12 year period was 10 per year. If we take that average figure and calculate for the years 2006 to 2013 (8 years) we get another 80 female victims of Homicide. Then we add 80 to that figure of 120 and get 200 – which is pretty close to the figure of 204 cited by womensaid from 1996 – 2014.

Except they do not mention the 1,061 male victims of Homicide during that same period.

So over the course of the period 1994 – 2013

204 victims of Homicide were female

1,061 victims of Homicide were male.

Nor do they, or Ian Hughes expend one single solitary moment of concern or even sympathy for ANY male victim of unlawful killing.

But there’s more. From – HOMICIDE IN IRELAND 1992 – 1996 – Dr. Enda Dooley – Link Here.

“In 151 (73.7%) of the 205 cases the main victim was male while in the remaining 54 (26.3%) cases the victim was female. In 200 cases the gender of the perpetrator was known and in 180 cases (90.0%) the main perpetrator was male with a female perpetrator in the remaining 20 (10.0%) cases. Overall there has been little alteration in the male to female perpetrator ratio.

In 134 cases both victim and perpetrator were male while in 46 cases a male perpetrator killed a female victim. In the 20 cases where the perpetrator was female the victim was male in 15 cases and female in 5 cases.

As has been shown previously female perpetrators are significantly more likely to kill a spouse or family member compared to males.

In the present study female perpetrators killed a spouse in 7 (35%) cases, or a family member in 9 (45%) cases. In only a single case did a female perpetrator kill a stranger.

The corresponding figures for male perpetrators are the killing of a spouse in 18 (10.2%) cases, and family members in 25 (14.1%) cases. In 47 (26.6%) cases the victim of a male perpetrator was a stranger.

This difference (spouse or family members vs others) is highly significant (X2 = 24.2; p<0.00001).”

(emphasis added)

Male spouses are three times more likely to be killed by their female spouses than female spouses are to be killed by their male spouses.

In fact, this study goes on to say this:

“The present study has confirmed the finding previously that the ‘typical’ homicide in Ireland occurs late at night and involves the killing of a man in his thirties by another, somewhat younger, man. Frequently one or both parties will have been intoxicated and the incident will not have been premeditated.

In the majority of cases the victim and perpetrator were known to each other and the incident occurred in the context of an argument or quarrel. The majority of perpetrators co-operated with the subsequent investigation

In the small number of cases involving female perpetrators the victims were more likely to be related to the perpetrator and to be young.

Homicide remains overwhelmingly perpetrated by males on other males. In the small proportion of cases involving a female perpetrator the victim is much more likely to be a partner or family member.”

(emphasis added)

From this study it is patently clear that when women kill they overwhelmingly kill their spouses/partners, of the relatively small numbers of unlawful killings in the Republic of Ireland those by men are of other men during the course of a fight/quarrel/argument and it is generally unpremeditated – ie – manslaughter.


Figures extracted from: Here


There is one area where the female “rate” reaches 50% – getting away with murder!


“Similar to the previous study finding was that female perpetrators were significantly more likely to have a nolle prosecui entered. Of the 20 cases involving a female perpetrator 10 (50%) had a nolle prosecui entered compared to 19 of the 180 where the gender of the perpetrator was known to be male (X2=19.52; p<0.0001).”

Of those 20 cases were the perpetrator was female – 15 of those victims were male – five were female.


*Nolle Prosecui = Do Not Prosecute.


Let me put that in clear unequivocal terms – 50% (half) of female murderers “get away with it” and 10.55% (one tenth) of male perpetrators do.

Have you any idea how totally unbelievable it is that one half of a set of murderers are given a pass (nolle prosecui )

These people took someone’s life!

Except they’re not just people are they? They’re WOMEN!

Who do they kill? They kill their spouses/partners, their relatives…………………….and their children, and they have a fifty/fifty chance of getting away with it.


“The overall picture of the relatively small number of homicides which might be attributable to mental disorder is one of domestic tragedy. To a disproportionate degree these events involve close relatives, more likely involving a female perpetrator and a young victim and usually occur in a domestic setting.

There is often a well documented psychiatric history (though by no means necessarily any history of previous violent behaviour). Unlike the situation in ‘normal’ homicide acute intoxication is rarely a factor in these events.

The striking factor concerning this particular category is the high proportion of cases which are discontinued. Only four of the fifteen cases resulted in a court verdict. There were no convictions for Infanticide recorded during the study period (three of these cases involved the killing of a child under the age of one by his/her mother and so, potentially, would have been liable to this verdict, if it was raised).

Only two of these fifteen cases resulted in a psychiatric verdict (Unfit to Plead or Guilty but Insane). In all only three (1.5%) of the 205 cases in this study received a legal psychiatric disposal and this is a marked decrease from the proportion (5.1%) in the period 1972-91.”

(emphasis added)


By the way, for all those idiots who posted comments to the article in The Journal ignorantly declaring “it’s an excess of testosterone” blah blah blah. YOU. ARE. WRONG, on two counts – first for giving any credence to this garbage by Ian Hughes in the first place and secondly for spouting ignorant rubbish yourselves.

From: Testosterone does not induce aggression, study shows: Date: December 9, 2009

Source: University of Zurich


New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior. A study with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one’s own status.”

And this:

Testosterone increases honesty, study suggests: Date: October 10, 2012

Source: University of Bonn


Testosterone is considered the most important male hormone, associated with aggression and posturing. Researchers have now been able to demonstrate that this sex hormone surprisingly also fosters social behavior. In play situations, subjects who had received testosterone clearly lied less frequently than individuals who had only received a placebo.”


Let’s go back to Hughes’ foundational premise that:

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

If this is true, then it is true for The Republic of Ireland – more women are killed by male violence than by cancer and traffic accidents “combined”– we’ll stick to those two – we don’t get much malaria here in the Republic of Ireland – and not much “war”.

But – if it is not true – then the platform upon which Ian Hughes has built his “argument” crumbles into dust.

These are the actual figures for female deaths from all forms of cancer, and road traffic accidents (RTA) and Homicide in the Republic of Ireland from 1997 – 2005

Year     Cancer RTA    Total 

1997    1636    122      1758    Female Homicides – 13

1998    3471    102      3573    Female Homicides – 9

1999    3430    111      3541    Female Homicides – 8

2000    3546    81        3627    Female Homicides – 10

2001    3559    82        3641    Female Homicides – 13

2002    3433    83        3516    Female Homicides – 9

2003    3593    78        3671    Female Homicides – 8

2004    3577    61        3638    Female Homicides – 6

2005    3664    80        3744    Female Homicides – 9


Central Statistics Office: Deaths Registered Provisional (Number) by Sex, Cause of Death and Quarter. Link here.

National Crime Council: Homicide Victims by Sex 1994 – 2005. Link Here.


 Res Ipsa Loquitr


It goes without saying that this kind of putrid garbage is par for the course from feminists – from a male person it is outrageous – in particular because Ian Hughes claims to be “scientific” I have news for you Ian – regurgitating feminist claptrap is NOT even close to being either scientific or factual – unless you consider pulling numbers and statistics out of your arse “scientific”

I rarely do this, but I demand that Ian Hughes correct the outrageous falsehoods and misinformation in his article and APOLOGISE to the vast majority of Irish men who do not, have not or ever will perpetrate violence of any kind against anyone and for peddling such egregious poisonous and fraudulent rubbish.

I will leave you with some advice Ian Hughes – I definitely wouldn’t turn your back on your new feminist pals – and just to be on the safe side – if I was you – I’d sleep with one eye open.

TDSB – Pot, Kettle……….Anyone?


I’ve been wondering if anyone from the school at the centre of this maelstrom whirling about the TDSB (Toronto District School Board) would crawl out of the woodwork?

Well! Lo and behold – someone who has referred to him/herself as “staff” finally did. Below is the text of this persons comment – and the originating email address – of course.




Submitted on 2015/02/14 at 10:04 pm


you are cyberbulling Mrs Norman and take into consideration that cyberbullying women in Canada is a criminal offense.”


I’m going to take a wild guess and say that the person who posted this comment is a feminist – the clue being that apparently “cyberbullying women in Canada is a criminal offense.”

Does this mean that cyberbullying men ISN’T?

The second thing is this – for a member of “staff” of a school, this person could use some remedial teaching – my five year old niece knows to start a sentence with a capital letter!

Not even going to mention the spelling, the sentence structure, the lack of punctuation. 🙂

What is interesting though is this – I have never communicated with the principal of Roselands Junior School, either directly or indirectly, nor have I directed any commentary towards Mrs. Norman, directly – any commentary was directed at the Principal of that school. (Who just happens to be Mrs Norman)

As a public servant with a serious responsibility for the children attending Roselands Junior School, the principal of THAT school – no matter who they are – has a duty of care towards those children – a duty of care that is (or should be) open to public scrutiny – this is not a private individual with an “expectation of privacy” within his/her “official duties”

To reiterate – Mrs Norman is a PUBLIC servant with a duty of care towards CHILDREN.

So. “Staff” – yet again, a member of the TDSB has achieved the absolute opposite of what they desired – rather than browbeating or “cyber bullying” someone – that would be me by the way – into scuttling away to hide in the corner from the big bad TDSB – you have confirmed – AGAIN – that something rotten IS going on in THAT school.