Peddling Propaganda Pt. III: Born Again Virgins – v – Sluts or Gynocentric Multiple Personality Disorder.



  1. Introduction to Gynocentric Personality Disorder
  2. The Law on Sexual Offences in Ireland
  3. Unwanted Sexual Experiences.
  4. The Issue of Consent and the role of Hazardous Alcohol Consumption.


  1. Introduction to Gynocentric Personality Disorder

Of all the areas of human interaction that feminists have planted their flag upon the high moral ground – sex – is………..the Mount Everest of all high moral peaks. They have laid claim to the narrative, the discourse, the interpretative framework, the language of sex, the mechanics of sex and declared themselves to be the oracles of all things sexual.

None of them would have sufficient cognitive ability to recognise the absolute paradox in operation here.

The vast majority of the pioneering “experts” on male/female human sexuality were……..dysfunctional, bitter and twisted………………lesbians.

So, the vast majority of women, most of whom don’t give a flying fuck about feminism – the ideology – have patterned their thinking, their inner dialogues, their perspectives on the rantings of a bunch of lunatic lesbians who hated men, hated the very thought of sex with men and – did I mention – hated men?

This is where it gets just a tad complicated – these original “experts” had to step carefully – because after all we are talking about women who represent at the very most 2% of the female population of ANY population – because the biological urge to reproduce is deeply embedded into the very DNA of most women – and before the marvels of modern technology the only sure fire way to make that deeply biological urge a reality was – to have sexual intercourse with a male human being.

That’s not the complicated part – seriously it’s not – the basic equation goes like this – man + woman + sex = baby.

The complicated part is the myths and fables that grew up around sex and were informed by the cultural and societal environment in which human beings developed.

Women themselves – before lunatic lesbian nutcases came along – created most of the myths – one of which was the Madonna/Whore dichotomy – ably assisted by men it must be said – because rampant unrestrained expression of that deeply embedded biological urge in women left unchecked would’ve been a disaster for these early human societies.

The only way to ensure that a female could convince a male that the progeny she had produced was his progeny and thereby guarantee his sole exclusive commitment to protect and provide for her and these progeny was to have no doubt about the paternity of said progeny. You with me so far?

Finally – in order to make it appear that entering into that protect and provide contract – to make doing so a prize rather than a burden was to mythologise the act which gave rise to the appearance of said progeny.

In other words – just giving it away – willy nilly (no pun intended) was not on – men had to fight for, strive for, and endeavour to gain this marvellous prize by acts of fealty, acts of supplication and literally and figuratively get down on their knees and beg for it.

Thus was born – chivalry – thus was born – gynocentrism, and thus from these beginnings grew a perception – sex with women was a prize to be won – sex was a gift that women bestowed upon men – sex was the gateway to nirvana – and women held and would always hold the keys to that…………………..heaven.

From early protofeminists to suffragettes to women’s libbers to feminists – sex has been the central theme, the golden thread running through all narratives, after the “magic contraceptive pill” became a reality, as far as those original women’s libbers were concerned – women’s control of sex was now unassailable.

Yet – the mythology surrounding sex – the fables, and to be blunt bullshit created to ensure that sex with women was a prize, a gift – didn’t die. In fact not only did it persist and continues to persist to this very day – it is assiduously cultivated, to such an extent that not only do modern gynocentrists (feminists – the spokespersons of gynocentrism) but women themselves (the acolytes of gynocentrism) without the slightest irony or difficulty hold two completely diametrically opposing perspectives in their heads.

They are both born again virgins and free sexual beings (sluts) at the very same time – if and when it suits their purposes.

They are both the gatekeepers of sex, and the innocent fragile victims of male sexual urges – they are asexual vessels who have sex done to them, and strong independant autonomous wimmin who see sex as not just their right, but as “recreation” and validation of their female power (you go guuuuuurrrrl))

The choice of which of these opposing perspectives they prefer to hold at any time is entirely dependent on two things.

Which option will absolve our putative woman from responsibility and accountability for the option she did chose, and which option will ensure she doesn’t ……………….look bad……and more importantly……………..feeeeeeeeeeelllll bad……..about herself.

To summarise – women are not responsible for anything sexual, except when they are, and even then it’s somebody else’s (any man will do) fault.

So, it is no surprise that Ruth Lawlor – the toxic little feminist weasel from UCC – University College Cork – here in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) has focused on sex and sexual activity as the rallying cry, the banner around which she and her cronies are attempting to launch a campaign of propaganda, whose end game is to impose US style campus rape hysteria here in the ROI. She and her cronies ran a little “survey” [1] a toxic little “survey” carefully designed to elicit exactly the answers she needed and wanted – in a small enough sample so she and her cronies could play feminist silly buggers with “percentages” and produce nice scary “statistics”

And the online newspaper obliged this little weasel by publishing her nasty little article. [2]

She claims that this “survey” found that “……nearly one in seven students had been the victim of rape or serious sexual assault, while around a third of students said they had experienced minor sexual assaults.”

No surprise at all that the mainstream media has already jumped onboard the bandwagon, and like tame manginas and fools gleefully started to peddle the latest “soundbite” statistic and trope that these feminists believe they can just about get away it.

No one and I mean no one of sound mind and basic sentience, believes the “1 in 4” or “1 in 5” crap anymore – let me rephrase that – no one with half a functioning brain believes that. But this new one – this “1 in 7” or “15%” might – just might slip past the critical faculties of enough people to allow this propaganda campaign to grow legs.

Paralleling this “survey” another “survey” was run – the results and conclusions of which have been disseminated in a Report called “SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault.” [3]

I have already written about two aspects of this Report – [4] and [5] – today it’s all about sex. Or as it is characterised in this Report “Unwanted Sexual Experiences”

But first – let’s just familiarise ourselves with:

  1. The Law on Sexual Offences in Ireland

“A range of sexual offences in Ireland are prohibited by law. The following information sets out the most important of those offences. The precise charge for these offences depends on all the circumstances of the case, the age of the victim and the evidence available. The current penalties for sex offences in Ireland include:

  • Imprisonment
  • Fines
  • Being placed on the Sex Offenders Register
  • Sex Offenders Orders
  • Post release supervision.


The crime of rape may be charged under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 or the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The circumstances of the case, age of the victim and evidence will decide which legislation will apply.

The maximum penalty in Ireland for a rape offence is life imprisonment. There are related offences under the law of attempted rape, and separately of aiding and abetting a rape. (That is, assisting another person to commit a rape).

Sexual Assault/Aggravated sexual assault

Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 sets out the law in Ireland on sexual assault. A sexual assault is an indecent assault on a male or a female. The maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment or 14 years if the victim is aged under 17 years.

Aggravated sexual assault is sexual assault involving serious violence or the threat of serious violence. In common with rape offences, the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault is life imprisonment.” [6]

This is how the law in this jurisdiction defines Sexual Offences.

“Sexual assault.

2.—(1) The offence of indecent assault upon any male person and the offence of indecent assault upon any female person shall be known as sexual assault.

(2) A person guilty of sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

(3) Sexual assault shall be a felony.” [7]

(emphasis added)

In the USI Report under the section entitled SECTION THREE: Experiences on-campus: harassment appears this comment;

“Man, 19: On several occasions a female member of the Student Council while intoxicated has taken to groping my genitals and I have been rather offended by each incidence however don’t see it as severe enough to report.”

Please note the section this comment was used in was to illustrate “Harassment” NOT in SECTION SEVEN: Unwanted Sexual Experiences.

Now read the LEGAL definition of Sexual Assault again.

The operative phrase is “indecent assault” – groping a male sexual organ is an “indecent assault” IS Sexual Assault and is a felony. Not a joke, not a laugh, not an example of “harassment” it is – Sexual Assault.

This lad says that this female took to doing this “while intoxicated” – do you see anywhere in that section where being pissed is a defence?

Being pissed while committing an Offence is not a defence – in fact being pissed while doing anything – including having sexual intercourse does not absolve you of your own personal responsibility for whatever it is/was you were doing.

The fact that this female was “intoxicated” suggests to me this happened in a public space – possibly a bar – ergo – WITNESSES.

TO ALL MALE STUDENTS: if you are in a bar or a public space and some female – intoxicated or not – grabs/gropes your penis – then she has just committed Sexual Assault.

Have the bitch arrested and charged.

Someone putting their hands on your waist ISN’T Sexual Assault, someone hugging you ISN’T Sexual Assault, even someone touching your breasts isn’t necessarily Sexual Assault – but – someone grabbing a male person’s penis IS Sexual Assault.

Let’s just dwell on the whole doing something while pissed (drunk) thing for a moment. There are degrees of being “under the influence” from being nicely relaxed – (depending on your tolerance for alcohol) 2 – 3 drinks, to being a bit tiddley – 4 – 6 drinks, to being falling down drunk and a pain in arse 6 + drinks, to the final stage – in a drunken stupor – if not outright unconscious, then as near to it as you can get.

It is really only definitely at the last stage and maybe the one before it where your faculties are impaired to such an extent that your ability to make rational decisions is kaput – almost.

Unconscious is the only stage where you are unable to give consent to anything – still conscious even if completely rat-arsed means anything you do is still your responsibility – yep your IQ drops about a million points and yep your inhibitions go out the window but – you’re still you, other parts of your brain still function – this is just a completely uninhibited, pissed, and probably pain in the arse version of you. An exaggerated version of YOU.

The final thing to note is this – unless someone held you down and poured that alcohol down your throat – then YOU are responsible for whatever degree of pissed you find yourself in – YOU – and you alone.

The next step up is:


“Aggravated sexual assault.

3.—(1) In this Act “aggravated sexual assault” means a sexual assault that involves serious violence or the threat of serious violence or is such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature to the person assaulted.

(2) A person guilty of aggravated sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Aggravated sexual assault shall be a felony.” [8]

(emphasis added)

Let’s use that example of the “intoxicated” slut who grabbed that boy’s penis – let’s add in that she twisted his penis or testicles, that she subjected that boy to humiliation, jeering, taunts and gathered around her a gang of jeering taunting gal pals?

This bitch has just committed Aggravated Sexual Assault. The maximum sentence for which on conviction is life imprisonment.

  1. Unwanted Sexual Experiences.

In SECTION SEVEN: Unwanted Sexual Experiences of the report this is the opening comment:

“Woman, 24 : Coming to terms with the realisation that it wasn’t my fault, that I was extremely drunk and he should have known better and that any of my friends wouldn’t have let that happen should they have been around, took a very long time to do and I still struggle 3 years on with not blaming myself, with accepting that he did know that I was too drunk to give consent having been getting sick and passing out, but that he was an a[**]hole. Even writing this today I still feel the need to justify and explain myself.”

I’m going to assume that what this woman is talking about is sexual intercourse – a reasonable assumption.

And yep – I am going to raise the ire of feminists, gynocentrists and lots and lots of wimmin when I say – not buying it.

First – “extremely drunk”? The only person responsible for her being “extremely drunk” is herself – second why “should he have known better”? Is she not responsible for herself and for getting herself “extremely drunk”

Known better than” who? Was he also “extremely drunk” when whatever happened – happened?

Why were her friends not around? Was she kidnapped, abducted, under what circumstances did she get “extremely drunk”? and sorry but “he did know that I was too drunk to give consent” not accepting that. (we’ll talk about the issue of consent further along)

If she was as she says “extremely drunk” herself – how the hell was she able to deduce the level of drunkenness of anybody else?

Without more details, more context then this account is dubious – in my opinion. I am willing to concede that with more detail and context – it is possible that she was raped – anything is possible given sufficient evidence. This comment here does not even come close to showing sufficient evidence.

The question asked in this survey was this: in order to gauge the level of “unwanted sexual experiences” was this;


As you can see 430 out of a total of 2,752 respondents answered this question.

The question was then broken down into five categories – I have ranked them by the positive female responses (highest to lowest) and expressed the numbers as a percentage of the total respondents.

1,811 – female
926 – male
15 – other

“Sexual contact (this could include kissing, touching, or molesting you including through clothes.                                                                                                                                     

Women – 196 – 10.82%
Men – 39 – 4.21%
Other – 5 – 33.33%

Sexual intercourse (this means someone putting a penis in your mouth, vagina or anus.                            

Women – 95 – 5.25%
Men – 7 – 0.76%
Other – 1 – 6.67%

Attempted sexual intercourse (when someone has tried to have oral, anal or vaginal sex with you but has not been successful)                                                                                                                  

Women – 56 – 3.09%
Men – 9 – 0.97%

Assault by penetration (this means someone putting an object, such as a bottle, in your anus or vagina)                                                                                                                            

Women – 8 – 0.44%
Men – 2 – 0.22%


Women – 6 – 0.33%
Men – 6 – 0.65%”

Time for some “feminist math” We’ll take just two categories.

Sexual intercourse (this means someone putting a penis in your mouth, vagina or anus.                         

Women – 95 – 5.25%
Men – 7 – 0.76%
Other – 1 – 6.67%”

That is actually the LEGAL definition of rape:

“Rape under section 4.

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.” [9]

Now – a total of 430 individuals answered this question and the supplementary questions – 361 women, 61 men, and 6 other.

Expressed as a percentage – that is 19.93% of the female respondents, 6.59% of the male respondents and 40% of the other respondents.

To really understand the excruciatingly small samples of students this represents, this is how the percentages look.

Female – 19.93% OF 1.726% total female students.

Male – 6.59% of 0.0869% of the total male students.

So. Back to “feminist” math. If you wanted to create a false impression of the prevalence of “unwanted sexual experience” all you’d have to do is take that total number of 361 women regardless of what question they answered and express it as a percentage of the total female respondents – it would give you a big scary percentage of 30.57%.

If you just wanted a scary “rape” percentage just take the number of positive answers, express it as a percentage of the total females who answered this part of the survey (361) and you get – 26.32%

See how easy it is to massage and manipulate “percentages”

  1. The Issue of Consent and the role of Hazardous Alcohol Consumption.

Time to talk some more about alcohol and sex – a deadly combination – in the sense that as above – being pissed lowers your inhabitations and causes (not makes) causes you to do stupid shit.

One of the areas that the weasel feminist Ruth Lawlor in her putrid little article mentions is “consent” and this is the area that feminists attack in an effort to undermine the legal protections afforded to persons (male) who have been accused of a Sexual Assault.


Recently an article [10] was published on AVFM with a video that “explains” in excruciating detail the correct way to go about “getting consent” watch it if you stomach it.

Consent is a funny thing – and no I’m not actually being flippant – feminists will maintain – erroneously – that “consent” means an ongoing verbal declaration of one’s ongoing agreement to…………something.

The law says differently – well it does at the moment. We’re going to borrow from the tenets of Tort Law to give more nuance to the issue of consent. Different areas of Law do not necessarily have rigid borders – principles of law are fluid and interchangeable in some instances.

Consent also means acquiescence by the way.

There are two kinds of consent/acquiescence in terms of proving that a valid “contract” or “agreement” to do or allow something to be done – is valid – express and implied.

Express consent is self-explanatory is it not – it is the kind of consent that feminists rely upon to make sex, whatever the circumstances under which that sex happens – a mechanical and contrived event. Rather than a human interaction that includes both verbal and non verbal communication.

Implied consent is reliant upon the actions of the alleged parties to the “contract/agreement” – if one person acts in a manner that a reasonable person would conclude implied consent – even though they may not have concluded or “signed on the dotted line” of a contract or “agreement”– as I stated above – it is the actions and behaviours of the parties involved that decides whether consent is in place.

Express Consent:

Consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.

Implied Consent:

Consent inferred from someone’s conduct rather than from his direct expressions.” [11]

The language of human sexual interaction is universal, that language – both verbal and non verbal spans borders and cultural differences – and is understood on a subconscious level – instinctually by receiving non verbal visual and behavioural cues as to the intent of the person giving out those non verbal signals. Observing the behaviours of persons involved in the human “mating game” also gives those observers enough information to conclude whether or not those persons are “into it” or not. In fact the Law pertaining to Sexual Offences in the ROI allows for this:

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it, and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.” [12]

Both the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 and Criminal Law (Rape)(AMENDMENT) Act, 1990 may be read together for the purposes of Sexual Offences in the ROI.

So – what about this Report and the circumstances under which those 361 women had their “unwanted sexual experiences?

Well two questions relating to alcohol and drug use during these “unwanted sexual experiences” were asked:


220 women said yes to “under the influence of alcohol4 said yes to “under the influence of drugs” and 24 said yes to “under the influence of both” (the person they alleged perpetrated an “unwanted sexual experience upon them)

The next question was:


230 women said yes they were “under the influence of alcohol”, 2 said yes they were “under the influence of drugs” and 8 said yes they were “under the influence of both drugs and alcohol”.

I’m going to be fair – and am only going to eliminate the numbers of those who answered positively that both themselves and the person they allege perpetrated an “unwanted sexual experience” upon them was “under the influence of alcohol” only.

So, out of the 361 women who claimed an “unwanted sexual experience” I am eliminating 220 of them – leaving a total of 141.

This represents 7.78% of the total 1,811 female respondents of this survey. Who we already know represents 1.726% of all female students in the ROI.

To put it bluntly – those women represent 7.78% of 1.726% of female students.

Am I disputing that the remaining 141 (7.78%) out of a total of 1,811 of female students had an “unwanted sexual experience”? nope – nor am I accepting at face value that they did. But that is the total number who were neither under the influence of drugs or alcohol when this alleged incident happened or claimed that the alleged perpetrator was also not under the influence of either drugs or alcohol when this alleged incident happened.

Both parties are claimed to be cold stone sober – look at the numbers in the Report – out of 361 women 220 (60.94%) of them were – and yep – I’m speculating – pissed as farts – as were the persons they allege perpetrated an “unwanted sexual experience” upon them.

I mentioned previously a recent report from UCC about “hazardous alcohol consumption” ON the UCC campus – and one of the findings of that Report was this:

“A key finding was that 66.4% of students responding reported hazardous alcohol consumption, 65.2% for men and 67.3% for women. At the higher end of the scale, approximately 17% of men and 5% of women were consuming more than six units of alcohol at least 4 times per week, and in some cases on a daily basis.” [11]

Look at how closely the two percentages tally – in the USI report 60.94% of those female respondents were “under the influence of alcohol” and in the “hazardous alcohol consumption” report 67.3% of female students “……reported hazardous alcohol consumption….”

May I make just a teeney tiny suggestion?

The biggest bloody problem amongst students isn’t “unwanted sexual experiences” it is getting rat-arsed pissed and DOING STUPID SHIT!







[1] This is the link to her “survey”

[2] We need to talk more about relationships, consent and sexual violence

[3] SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault. “

[4] Peddling Propaganda: Whipping Up Campus Rape Hysteria in The Republic of Ireland.

[5] Peddling Propaganda: Part II – Flogging The “Gender-based Violence” Dead Horse.

[6] The law on Sexual Offences in Ireland.

[7] Section 2: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990

[8] Section 3: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990

[9] Section 4: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990

[10] Feminists don’t understand consent.

[11] Consent to Torts Against Persons.

[12] Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

[13] UCC alcohol research signals last call

Peddling Propaganda: Part II – Flogging The “Gender-based Violence” Dead Horse.


Lying behind this Report [1] that purports to be a representative picture of the experiences of third level students in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) published by USI – Union of Students in Ireland – lurks another agenda, a corrupt and completely biased agenda that seeks to maintain a false perception of men and boys.

That agenda is feminism – toxic gynocentrism made actual and labelled.

Feminism has been under siege now for quite some time – all its holy cows of false claims, twisted lies, and outright fraudulent “research” have been exposed, debunked, discredited and shown to be nothing but the spewings of vicious, malign and corrupt ideologues. ALL OF IT.

But – that’s only half the story – because feminism is in a desperate fight, not only to cling onto its “legitimacy” as a valid theoretical framework through which to analyse human behaviour – it never had that or was that, feminist “theory” was always nothing but a con job – a pack of lies – the rantings of professional nutcases. ALWAYS.

Nope – feminists are in a fight to hold onto control of the narrative, the discourse and…………….the money most of all.

One of the areas where feminists laid claim to and declared themselves to be the experts, the last word on, what was what, was and still is – violence – male violence – claiming and still claiming falsely that ALL violence is perpetrated by nasty patriarchal men against helpless innocent fragile women.

A lucrative and money spinning industry has developed, has become bloated – at the behest and insistence – of these lying and malign creatures – we are talking about a lot of money – and THIS is what they are desperate to hold onto – to hell with the truth – to hell with the consequences of giving a pass to violent and vicious women – to hell with the damage, the havoc, the reign of terror that some women engage in against their spouse/partners/children or anyone who gets in their way.

Who gives a fuck? As long as feminists can keep beating the false drum of “gender-based violence” they can keep all that lovely funding and money pouring in.

There is no such thing as “gender-based violence” – there is just………violence/abuse – or in the context of relationships intimate partner violence (IPV) or intimate partner abuse (IPA) with the “partner” being just as likely to be a FEMALE partner, if not more likely to be a female.

The reason why I delineated two types of behaviours within relationships is because not all abusive relationships are violent (physically) relationships.

There is no such thing as “gender based violence”.

Now – to be fair (up to a point) to the authors of this report – they do not take an “all men are just violent thugs” stance – nope – it is much more subtle than that – and how do I know that the dead cold hand of feminism is lurking in the background of every aspect of this report?

Simple – Laura Harmon Vice – President for Equality and Citizenship, Union of Students in Ireland says this in her introduction to this report.

“USI looks forward to continuing to work with Cosc and the Public Awareness Sub-Committee (PASC) of The National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women to develop guidelines for students around the issue.”

Do you know who is most at risk from violence and abuse in intimate relationships?

Young men from 15 – 24.

For those interested is learning about the true picture of IPV and IPA – there is a list of “Further Reading” at the bottom of this article.

Right so – let’s take a long cold hard look at SECTION SIX: Physical Mistreatment pg 27

First, bear in mind the total number of respondents to this online survey (and yeah my lip is in curling in derision at the words online survey)

The total number of respondents was 2,752, representing a massive 1.3% (2,751.229) of all students

Total numbers of students in the ROI – 211,663 (2013 – 2014 enrolment) – see (HEA – Higher Education Authority) [2]

Total females – 104,963
Total Males – 106,670


1,811 – Female = 1.726% of the total female students in the ROI

926 – Male = 0.868% of the total male students in the ROI.

15 – Other

The very first thing to notice is that this section opens with a quoted comment from a female student – setting the tone for the rest of this section – which by the way has six student quotes inserted at strategic points – ALL from female students.

“Physical Mistreatment

Woman, 21 : I was hit in the forehead with a glass that was thrown at me. It has left me with a scar in the middle of my forehead after 3 months with a wound there. It has shattered my confidence and appearance and I’m struggling to adjust to it.”

Actually I do have some sympathy for this lass – God love her – some eejit (male or female) throws a glass and injures another person – my instinct is to say – what an arsehole, what an irresponsible bloody arsehole – could’ve taken the poor girls eye out.

But what the hell does this have to with “physical mistreatment” exactly? I’m only guessing here but, the fact it was a glass suggests she was in a bar – maybe the SU bar – and the chances are fifty/fifty that the glass that injured this girl was throw by either a female or male student. She doesn’t say, and it isn’t mentioned – nor is the context in which this incident happened.

Doesn’t really matter – whether the person who threw that glass was male or female – they are an arsehole.

The other thing this suggests – to me – relates back to another issue I referenced in part I – “hazardous alcohol consumption” among college students, based on a study done in UCC [3]

This issue “hazardous alcohol consumption” also rears its ugly head in SECTION SEVEN: Unwanted Sexual Experiences

That section of the report includes two tables that contextualise the circumstances in which “unwanted sexual experiences” occurred; before we get to it, let me just make this point.

Of the 430 students (out of a total of 2,752 respondents) 230 women, 39 men and 4 other did answer positively to the question asked in Table 8.


They were also asked this question.


We’ll come back to this issue in Part III.

With regard to “Physical Mistreatment” the elimination question asked is as described in this passage (highlighted):

“6.1 Extent of Physical Mistreatment

Students who were completing the questionnaire were asked whether or not they had experienced physical violence or mistreatment during their time at their current institution of study. Students were first asked whether anyone had physically hit or mistreated them, with eighty-nine per cent responding in the negative.

This proportion was the same for both Women and Men. While the number of students who described their gender as Other was too small to draw wider conclusions it is worth noting that in this instance only 10 of the 15 students who defined their gender in this way responded that they had not been subjected to hitting or physical mistreatment while in college.”

(emphasis added)

Ok – let’s just pause here for a moment and before we play “feminist silly buggers with the percentages”

2,752 students completed this survey – that’s 1.3% of ALL students – 1.726% of the total female students and 0.868% of the total male students – you with me so far? Grand.

So. Out of that total 1.3% of all students (an absolute miniscule percentage) 89% of that 1.3% answered in the negative when “asked whether or not they had experienced physical violence or mistreatment during their time at their current institution of study.”

Take your time – let it sink in – no rush.

Alrighty – first and foremost this section in particular, of this survey, is a disaster for feminists – I’m looking at all the pretty graphs as I type this – and I suggest to do the same – go on – you might spot it – one thing that did jump right out at me (we’ll get to it)

The reasons why it is a disaster for feminists are multiple.

First – even with such a tiny cohort, the percentage who answered in the negative is……………damning, is a direct and absolute refutation of the feminist trope that violence (male violence) is literally bubbling under the surface ready to break out at the slightest provocation. 89% said NO.

Second – remember this survey was a “Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault” and 98.7% of students couldn’t be arsed RESPONDING to it.

Third – this survey was an initiative of USI (Union of Students in Ireland) the representative body FOR students – run by students for students – ergo – superficially a non “establishment” initiative – no pesky “grown-ups” or uptight “academics” trying to “tell students what to do” (simplistic I know, but…..c’mon…..students!)

Fourth – this survey was “promoted through social media” – students live on social media – they conduct a huge amount of their social lives via social media – and all they had to do was click on a link in order to access this survey – only 1.3% bothered their arse! 98.7% didn’t!

“The questionnaire was run on the LimeSurvey web-platform from 10 January 2013 to 15 February 2013. Access to the survey was available to the public and it was promoted through social media and students’ unions affiliated to Union of Students in Ireland.”

(emphasis added)

Feminists have attempted to portray and are now attempting to portray college and university campuses in the ROI as hotbeds of sexual and physical violence – this survey was supposed to be an opportunity for students to, I presume anonymously, share their experiences in a safe and secure way.

You’d think that if there was a “culture” of rape/sexual assault/violence being hidden on college and university campuses, an opportunity to expose it would have been jumped on by hordes of students?

In what parallel universe could 1.3% of the total student population of the ROI who actually took this opportunity could you call – hordes?

After the elimination question this is what the 415 (11%) of the 2,752 respondents moved on to;


Followed by  a series of separate questions: plus the breakdown of responses from women, men and other.


Women  – 34
Men – 13
Other – 1

A weapon (such as a knife or gun) was used against you.

Women – 6
Men – 9

Choked, dragged, strangled or burnt.

Women – 19
Men – 2
Other – 1

Kicked, bitten, hit with a fist or something else that could hurt you.

Women – 36
Men – 41
Other – 1

Something thrown at you that could hurt you.

Women – 66
Men – 34
Other – 2

Pushed, slapped, shoved or had your hair pulled.

Women – 112
Men – 38”

Let’s do some “feminist” math!

There were a total of 273 positive female answers garnered from six different types of “physical mistreatment” categories – that number 273 represents 15.74% of the 1,811 women who responded to this survey.

The total number of answers adds up to 415 – 273 “women” 137 “men” and 5 “other”

Now isn’t it coincidental that the latest “go to” percentage that feminists like Ruth Lawlor [4] are trying to peddle, to force into the zeitgeist is “15%” or “1 in 7”

Can you see the headlines?

“Over 15% of female college students have been victims of violence in college!!!!”

1 in 7 female college students victims of physical abuse!!!!!!”

And you thought feminists couldn’t do math!!!!

Hmmmmmm, shall we go random or take them one by one? Just kidding, let’s just take two categories.

Kicked, bitten, hit with a fist or something else that could hurt you.

Women – 36
Men – 41
Other – 1

These would be examples of actual physical violence – being kicked, bitten or hit with a fist or object – would you agree?

36 out of 273 women experienced one of these acts of physical violence – that would be 13.187% – almost 15% (the new magic percentage)

Oh wait a minute – 1,811 women in total responded to this survey – soooooooo, those 36 women would be 1.987% of the total female respondents. Hmmmmm.

Wonder what percentage of ALL female students that is? Answer – 0.034%

As you see for yourself – the numbers of males who had experienced these types of physical violence was almost equal to the numbers of females – so the percentages are going to be relatively similar.

The conclusion can only be that – this type of physical violence is actually quite rare – for both males and females.

Now what about that thing I asked earlier had you noticed? It was this category.

Pushed, slapped, shoved or had your hair pulled.

Women – 112
Men – 38”

By far the highest number of positive answers was garnered from women in this category – pushed, slapped or had your hair pulled!

Ever seen a cat fight? Women going at it hammer and tongs?

What do women do almost automatically when they get into fights with one another? Yep – they try to rip their “opponents” hair out by the roots. They grab a hank and like those dogs that won’t let go – hang on for dear life.

They next highest number of positive answers was again from females in the;

Something thrown at you that could hurt you.

Women – 66
Men – 34
Other – 2

Like the lass at the start – who had a glass thrown at her. Women throw shit at people when they get mad, or they pick up the handiest object to hit someone with, when they lose it – this is verified in the research (actual properly conducted research that is – see the list of Further Reading below)

The results (unrepresentative as they are) put a big dent into the feminist myths about violence being the sole exclusive preserve of nasty horrible men – while this survey is beyond pathetic – it does show us something – both women and men experience acts of physical violence – this is confirmed in the research.

The samples in this survey are too small to be considered representative – which is why the exclusively female comments inserted into the body of this section can only be seen as attempts to propagandise the biased message that only women are victims of physical violence – for example – these three comments:

“Woman, 23: I have always been a bit of a panicker and this was always something I feared. Thank God it wasn’t as bad as it could [have] been, but equally I was very shocked when it happened. I reported it to the Gardaí and I don’t think they really cared too much. I’m still waiting to hear back from them!”

Eh? Hello? What bloody happened? All I see here is…………………………………..nothing, no details, no context…………………nothing.

“Woman, 25: A friend was attacked in a nightclub (we were sober) and the security staff threw us all out to fend for ourselves on the street. We were attacked again and my friend was knocked to the ground and hurt their back and an ambulance had to be called. I saw these girls around college and I was scared of what would happen to me. I probably should have reported it to the Gardaí and the college. I wouldn’t know who to tell in college”

You saw it? Again in a drinking environment – a nightclub – but that’s not what is significant is it? Nope – the persons who this woman is saying attacked her friend and herself, both in the nightclub and outside were…………………………………..GIRLS.

“Woman, 19: I didn’t want to seem weird or stupid for reporting or telling people about it because there are people who suffer with worse violence.

Again! Sigh – what bloody happened? No details, no context, except this girl seems to believe that whatever did happen “….there are people who suffer with worse violence

The only one of these comments that offers any actual detail or context is the second one – and this “attack” according to the woman relating this little snippet was carried out by GIRLS!

Under the title “Impact” these two comments below, are just dropped – just plopped down there – again, no context, no detail, no…………………………….nothing.

“Woman, 25: I can’t stop thinking about it. It flashes into my brain at times if [I] see something on TV… [I] don[‘]t think [I] will ever be over it.”

At this point – I was actually getting a pain in my arse with this “survey” – this comment is like walking in on a conversation that started 30 minutes before you arrived – they could be talking about ANYTHING – she “…….can’t stop thinking about it

It????? What “it”?

This next one just took the biscuit – seriously – these people are just taking the piss now – is what I was thinking.

“Woman, 21: I had nightmares. I don’t feel safe where I live.”

What???? Why??? A spaceship landed? You were abducted by aliens? You were looking out your window and a vampire was just floating out there? A tornado? Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, your house was lifted up by a tornado? Is that it?

Feminists are engaged in what can only be described as a strategic retreat – the “1 in 4” and 1 in 5” myth is a lost cause – they’ve lost their beach-head – so they’ve decided to retreat to “safer ground” and regroup – it is that simple – the enemy is starting to encircle them, the war of attrition is almost over – no need to be taking potshots any more – two opposing forces now stand facing one another across  wide open plain – a plain occupied by those who have not even realised that there is a battle being fought – an ideological battle – a war of words and meaning and interpretations.

One should never under-estimate how a subtle and almost imperceptible shift in interpretation – or a series of incremental shifts in interpretation can invest words with meanings that serve a particular agenda.

Language doesn’t just communicate facts or information it conveys meanings that resonate and colour your perception and interpretation of what you are being told.

Anyhoo – a conversation for another time. Let’s move on.

On page 6 of this report you will find what are called “Key Findings” and this is as far as most journalists, commenter’s and feminist propagandists will go.

Each section’s “findings” are summarised here – because to be honest – it really is a pain in the arse to go through a report like this line by line and page by page let’s take a closer look at the introductions to see what will inform and inspire the numerous articles that this report will generate and what the long term plan is:

“The findings will now inform a national campaign aimed at raising awareness of the supports available to students who experience violence. USI will also organise training for Students’ Unions and college support staff around these issues to equip them on how to best support students.”

A national campaign? Really? Training? And what else?

“Cosc has been working to support the inclusion of suitable material on gender-based violence in the curricula of third-level courses such as medicine and social science. Further action aims to promote healthy relationships and develop among young people, including third level students, an intolerance of sexual and gender-based violence.”

(emphasis added)

Cosc = The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic Sexual and Gender-based Violence. Cosc means “prevention” in gaelige (Irish) [5]

Now whose guiding hand will be behind this “national campaign” this programme for the “inclusion of suitable material on gender-based violence in the curricula of third-level courses such as medicine and social science”?

“USI looks forward to continuing to work with Cosc and the Public Awareness Sub-Committee (PASC) of The National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women to develop guidelines for students around the issue.”

(emphasis added)

“Suitable material”? hmmmm “Guidelines”? from where I wonder – how about we take a look at what The National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women has already come up with regard to “Guidelines” shall we?

From: Guidance on Approaches to Promoting and Developing an Understanding of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence 2014 [6]

“This guidance has been informed by the work and recommendations of the Public Awareness Subcommittee (PASC) as agreed by the National Steering Committee for Violence Against Women (NSCVAW). It has been developed taking full account of considerable input received from PASC which includes co-opted members who are representative of groups which are the target audiences identified in Cosc’s Information Plan under the National Strategy.”

“On 5th of March, 2014, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) launched the results of the largest ever violence against women survey in the EU. The main objective of the study was the production of reliable and comparable primary data on women’s experiences of violence, for the first time covering the entire EU.”

(emphasis added)

This in the national body responsible for addressing issues of “violence” and the only Irish citizens they are interested in representing are FEMALE – in spite of all the evidence that has been produced that shows irrefutably that IPV and IPA is perpetrated almost equally against men and women – I am not even shocked or surprised that this organisation is only interested in “women’s experiences of violence” or even that they are basing their “Guidelines” on “the largest ever violence against women survey in the EU

The EU is a feminist hellhole – a cesspit of feminazis and their tame sycophantic manginas – the following is a breakdown of this rotten biased “survey” – I know, I know – another one – sigh.

“Using a standardised interview questionnaire, 42,000 women (approx. 1,500 per country) were asked about their experiences of physical, sexual and psychological violence, including incidents of intimate partner violence (‘domestic violence’) as well as the consequences of such violence, and their experience of services contacted. Survey respondents were also asked about their opinions, attitudes and awareness of such violence in their country of residence. Irish findings related to opinions, attitudes and awareness when  compared to the EU average included the below:

More women in Ireland perceived the frequency of violence against women to be “very common” when compared to the EU average (33% compared with 27%). Fifty per cent reported their perceived frequency of such violence to be “fairly common”; 9% reported it to be “not very common”; or “not at all common”.

Fewer women reported being aware of laws and political initiatives to prevent domestic violence against women (42% compared with 49%). However, 34% of Irish respondents reported that they were not aware of any such laws or political initiatives.

Fewer women reported being aware of laws and political initiatives to protect women in cases of domestic violence (54% compared with 59%). However, 23% of Irish respondents reported that they were not aware of any such laws or political initiatives.

About the same proportion of Irish women reported having recently seen or heard campaigns against violence against women (49% compared with 50%).

Fewer women reported being aware of institutions or services for victims of violence against women (16% compared with 25%).

A greater number of Irish women reported their acceptability of doctors routinely asking women about violence (94% compared with 87%).”

This “survey” doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased, to be neutral, to be “gender-blind” never mind they didn’t ask men about their experiences of what they call “domestic violence” it is patently obvious that – IT NEVER EVEN BLOODY OCCURRED TO THEM!

THESE are the people that want to weasel their way onto college and university campusus – to disseminate “suitable material on gender-based violence in the curricula of third-level courses such as medicine and social science”?

No way! No way should this bullshit be allowed, no way should these bigots be allowed anywhere near any college or university.

You remember I said earlier that the results of this section were a disaster for feminists? Thats because in the “Key Findings” section at the very beginning of this report in black and white is a clear unequivocal statement that simply cannot be……………………misinterpreted.

“Physical Mistreatment

85 per cent of students indicated that they had not been subject to any hitting or physical mistreatment.”

Though in the actual section itself it states quite clearly that 89% responded in the negative – and that this was the same for men and women – so I find it odd that in the “Key Findings” the authors of this report have shaved off 4 percentage points.

“Students who were completing the questionnaire were asked whether or not they had experienced physical violence or mistreatment during their time at their current institution of study. Students were first asked whether anyone had physically hit or mistreated them, with eighty-nine per cent responding in the negative. This proportion was the same for both Women and Men.”

How are they going to explain this I wonder? After all – this is the report that is supposed to be the basis for launching this “national campaign” this programme of disseminating “suitable material” into the curriculum in colleges and universities all across this State – yet – according to their own report – 89% of students – both men and women – stated that – nope – nada – niet – never experienced any “physical mistreatment

What to do, what to do?

I know – daft question – we are talking about feminists after all – duh! There’s the only possible way out of it – they would have claim that – this survey does NOT represent the true picture of “violence” on college and university campuses!

Because it really really doesn’t give them the answers they wanted – and definitely doesn’t support in any way shape or form the feminist bullshit about IPV and IPA that they’ve been spewing out for the last six decades – checkmate!



[1] SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault.

[2] HEA (Higher Education Authority)  2013 – 2014 Enrolments (full-time, part-time and remote) by Level, Field of Study (ISCED) and Gender

[3] UCC alcohol research signals last call

[4] We need to talk more about relationships, consent and sexual violence

[5] Cosc = The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic Sexual and Gender-based Violence.

[6] Guidance on Approaches to Promoting and Developing an Understanding of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence 2014

Further Reading

[1] Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Findings At-a-Glance, Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, John Hamel, LCSW, Editor-in-Chief  November, 2012

[2] MENWEB: Battered Men – The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; 5.365 million men battered each year, silent too long …

[3] Men and Domestic Violence: What Research Tells Us, by Kieran McKeown & Philippa Kidd
Kieran McKeown Limited, Social & Economic Research Consultants, 16 Hollybank Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9, Ireland. Report to the Department of Health & Children March 2002

Peddling Propaganda: Whipping Up Campus Rape Hysteria in The Republic of Ireland.


I decided to have a quick look at an online newspaper here (ROI) on Tuesday night, and now I am mad as all hell – and spitting feathers about a little feminist weasel called Ruth Lawlor and a putrid little article she penned called:

We need to talk more about relationships, consent and sexual violence

She is part of what she claims is a “student campaign” a campaign called Know Offence. Student campaign my arse – this reeks of the malign stench of gender studies harpies manipulating events from the shadows – and yeah – I do know how that works.

Well that and the fact that Ruthie isn’t that smart – oh she’s got the jargon down pat, and she definitely has the doe-eyed “I’m just weally weally worried about……….bad stuff” thing going, but she’s a patsy, a front, a shill.

Her base of operations is UCC – University College Cork – now there’s a surprise, a toxic feminist campaign designed to whip up US style campus rape hysteria emanating from – a university.

She also has a pithy little personal victim anecdote all shined up and in its party dress to offer as proof positive for the rancid feminist message is peddling.

Sorry petal – colour me cynical and of the “where’s your actual proof” school of thought – but – your pretty little word wrapped up in girlish sincerity cuts no ice with me.

I know, I know – shock, horror, gasp and OMG – “you think she might be…………LYING?

Well duh! – Of course I think she might be lying/exaggerating/bullshitting/taking liberties with the truth – please note – I don’t claim she is or isn’t – but until and when she comes up with some actual verifiable proof positive of incidents BEYOND her own convenient personal experience(s) then yep – as far as I’m concerned there is a fifty/fifty chance she’s telling porkies.

If that upsets you, or makes you think what a big ole meanie I am – to doubt the word of this doe-eyed little viper then………….tough shit.

Sooooo – on that note I am discounting ALL her little personal anecdotes designed as window dressing to camouflage the real paucity, the fragile unsubstantiated platform of flimsy “facts” she proffers as proof of her primary contention, her ludicrous claims, her justification for what are the opening moves of feminist inspired manoeuvres to attack and dismantle that most scared of our legal protections.


Beyond a reasonable doubt. For men and boys. Women will still get a pussy pass.

The topic of course is what she characterises in her article as “sexual violence” though this phrase or the word rape does NOT appear anywhere in the tawdry and sleazy excuse for what she characterises as a pioneering “survey”

Let me make a little prediction here – this pathetic piece of “research” will be the source, the ground zero, the justification used for dismantling all legal protections for men accused – let me repeat that ACCUSED of what will be claimed to be rape/sexual assault.

The phrase will be “studies have shown” or “research has indicated” or “ a survey conducted by [insert list of plausible sounding academic sources here]

Then from now until enough sufficient woozle padding has been generated – because there will be a flurry of fembots “citing” this “survey” – ALL those other “citations” will be “cited”.

It will all look and sound soooooooooooooooo plausible and it will all emanate from this one singular toxic, fraudulent piece of con artistry, bullshit and LIES.

This pioneering “survey” she is talking about was conducted online on facebook – it consisted of 8 really badly phrased questions, two of which are beyond dubious and designed to elicit answers that support a particularly biased and feminist agenda, and are designed to be easily manipulated to serve that toxic agenda.

This is the link to her “survey”

She claims that this “survey” found that “……nearly one in seven students had been the victim of rape or serious sexual assault, while around a third of students said they had experienced minor sexual assaults.”

There were 10,852 female students enrolled in UCC in the academic year 2013 – 2014

1 in 7, or as Ruthie and her cronies have done, fudged that figure a little and rounded it UP to read 15% of women have been raped/sexually assaulted in UCC – that would translate into a total figure of 1,627 rapes/sexual assaults on THAT campus!

See link to HEA (Higher Education Authority) below.

The total number of ALL sexual assaults reported in 2013 was 2,014 – that’s ALL sexual offences recorded in the entire State.

And if Ruth Lawlor and her cronies are to be believed then 80.79% (1627.111) of them happened on or around the UCC campus!

Please note that figure of 2,014 is for ALL sexual offences recorded; the number for “Rape of a male or female” is 451 in total for 2013. For this entire State.

Here are the figures for recorded sexual offences “Rape of a male or a female for the years 2009 – 2013

2009 – 376
2010 – 478
2011 – 463
2012 – 519
2013 – 451

Source: Recorded Crime Offences (Number) by Type of Offence and Year


For your information:

“How are Crime Statistics Collected in Ireland?

Counting Procedures in Ireland and Abroad

In Ireland, an offence is recorded in the crime statistics when there is a reasonable probability that a criminal offence took place and there is no credible evidence to the contrary. This is important as how crimes are recorded can influence crime statistics.

For example, Sweden records all reported suspected crimes in its crime statistics even though some may later be found not to be criminal offences. In addition, how crimes are processed and counted can also have an impact on crime statistics, suggesting that caution may be required when attempting to compare Irish crime statistics to those available in other countries.

For instance, in collecting their statistics, An Garda Síochána (the Irish Police Force) employ the ‘primary (or principal) offence rule’. In other words, when two or more criminal offences are disclosed in a single episode it is the ‘primary’ or most serious offence that is counted only.

As an example, if an individual commits an assault while drunk and disorderly, only the assault (most serious offence) is counted in the crime statistics, although the individual has also committed a public order offence (less serious offence) as a result of being drunk and disorderly in public. As no international standards on how crime statistics should be produced and presented are available, it is difficult to make comparisons between countries as the methods used to record and count crime statistics vary from country to country.

Nonetheless, for those interested in broader European trends, Eurostat – The Statistical Office of the European Communities – is responsible for collecting, analysing and comparing information on crime and victimisation across EU Member States.””

(emphasis added)

Source: National Crime Council


But Ruth Lawlor’s “survey” is only half the story, because the USI (Union of Students in Ireland) has also run a “survey”


SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault.

It is this survey that is displayed prominently on another Know Offence facebook page as Say Something, Final Online Report.

We’ll put Ruthie’s homemade little poisonous “survey” to one side for the moment and take a look at the big picture. What will become the official go to resource by feminists for peddling campus rape hysteria campaign in the media, for putting pressure/duress on government to “change the law” in particular, the principle of innocent till proven guilty.

Because – the end game for this campaign will be a US style campus kangaroo court system being forced onto college and university campuses in this state – naturally under the control of the feminazis.

The “conclusions” of Ruth Lawlors toxic little “survey” have already started to be disseminated in the mainstream media see here, as the first salvo to whip up “campus rape hysteria in The Republic of Ireland.

The very first thing I want to address is the inference contained in the introduction, because it goes to the very heart of this propaganda campaign, it goes to the very purpose that this survey will be used for to justify undermining and dismantling.



The Union of Students in Ireland decided to conduct this study as there was a lack of research on students’ experiences of violence. We hope that the results will help to shed some light on this area and inform future campaigns in relation to students’ experiences of violence, including physical violence, sexual violence, harassment, stalking and obsessive behaviour. This study is the first online study of its kind and scale to be conducted in Ireland.

The victim is never to blame.
 USI hopes that this study will contribute to counteracting the culture of victim blaming that exists in this country. We also hope that it will help to open up more dialogue around these issues among the student body.”

Right off the bat – you can see the intent, “inform future campaigns” this implies/assumes that this survey is flawless, is without errors, is a valid piece of research – it isn’t.

“….its kind and scale” now this is laughable – again it implies that this survey represents a legitimate source of research that can be applied to the experiences of ALL students in The Republic of Ireland, and that this type of shit hasn’t been done before – using dodgy research to promote the vile hate ideology of feminism.


The total number of students in the academic year 2013 – 2014 enrolled in Universities, Colleges, and Institutes of Technology in this State was as follows

Total females – 104,963
Total Males – 106,670

Total 211,633

The TOTAL number of respondents who completed this survey is 2,752

1,811 – Women
926 – Men
15 – “other”

That number of 2,752 represents 1.3% of ALL students.

1.726% (1,811.661) of the total of 104,963 female students and 0.868% (925.8956) of the total of 106,670 male students

For this survey to qualify for the hyperbolic claim of USI a cohort of at minimum 10% would need to be used – AT MINIMUM – that would be at least 21,160 students.

A minimum of 10,500 female students NOT A MISERLY 1,811
A minimum of 10,700 male students NOT A LUDICROUS 926

2,752 (1.3%) does not even come close to being a representative cohort – not even in the same galaxy.

This – “The victim is never to blame.” Is the most spurious and invidious statement.

First – an accusation of rape or sexual assault DOES NOT make you a victim – it makes you an accuser – and your accusation is only as good as the evidence YOU have/produce to PROVE it.

Second – NO – your word is NOT good enough – NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Third – the person or persons you accuse is/are INNOCENT until YOU prove that person(s) guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This last statement “……to counteracting the culture of victim blaming that exists in this country.” Is a ploy, a subterfuge, a semantic sleight of hand and it goes directly to the three points I have just made above.

Those three points are what those who screech “victim blaming” mean – a requirement to apply the absolute foundational principle of justice and the very basis of a civilised society to EVERY criminal accusation – EVERY one – no exceptions.


You are NOT a victim of anything until YOU prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of which you have accused a person(s) of is PROVED – in a court of law.

The person(s) you have accused is NOT “an offender” is NOT “a rapist” is NOT “a perpetrator – that person(s) is INNOCENT of any criminal act.

No matter what you think or feel or believe.

So, our first port of call is to examine the methodology of this official survey – because after all – this is going to form the basis upon which to justify peddling a climate of campus rape hysteria and the subsequent efforts to dismantle all legal protections and the basis of all civilised democratic societies. For men.

“The questionnaire was run on the LimeSurvey web-platform from 10 January 2013 to 15 February 2013. Access to the survey was available to the public and it was promoted through social media and students’ unions affiliated to Union of Students in Ireland. The survey settings allowed us to set cookies to prevent repeated participation which was done, and also allowed for the use of CAPTCHA technology to filter out automated responses.

In total 4,181 responses were received of which 2,752 were completed. The report below limits itself to figures that are based only on completed responses. The quantitative analysis was carried out using both the functionality within the LimeSurvey platform and the open-source data analysis system PSPP.”

Now – I want you to bear in mind that this survey claims to represent the true picture of campus rape and sexual assault in The Republic of Ireland.

Let’s take this step by step

Look at the number of respondents – a TOTAL of 4,181, out of which only 2,752 were completed.

“”The report below limits itself to figures that are based only on completed responses.

(emphasis added)

Let’s break down the numbers of students in third level education in The Republic of Ireland in 2013?


Females – 59,453 – Males – 51,8886


Females – 8,480 = Males – 3,513

Institutes of Technology*

Females – 37,030 – Males – 51,271

*we’ll talk about STEM another time

Total females – 104,963
Total Males – 106,670

Source: HEA (Higher Education Authority) 2013 – 2014 Enrolments (full-time, part-time and remote) by Level, Field of Study (ISCED) and Gender

Keep those figures above in mind while you read this, the educational profile of the respondents.

 “Students were asked questions about their educational backgrounds which allowed us to build a profile of those who responded to the survey. The survey was completed by 2,590 Irish students and 162 International Students. The largest proportion of respondents attended universities (55.31 per cent), but the sample included a sizeable cohort of students from Institutes of Technology (43.39 per cent), with smaller groups from teacher-training colleges and other institutions.”

The actual numbers break down like this:

Universities – 55.31% = 1,522 = 1.367% (1522.004) of the total number of students – less than 1.5%!

Inst. Of Tech – 43.39% = 1,949 = 2.211% (1952.33) of the total number of students – less than 2.5%!

Teacher Training College – 23

Other – 13

I’m not impressed – national policy being decided on the basis of possibly the tiniest sample of a particular cohort you can have and still register as a percentage of the total cohort! Less than 1.5% and less than 2.5% – seriously?

The remaining numbers (23) and (13) are just too small to get a realistic percentage for.

The total number of respondents 2,752 represents a massive 1.3% (2,751.229) of all students.

This is disgraceful, outrageous and completely unacceptable – never mind allowing any feminist coven to use this Report to push their toxic agenda forward.

Look at it this way – if I had a Euro or a Dollar and said I would share some of it with you – I’d be giving you a cent – one single solitary cent! Generous ain’t I? NOT!

Time to take a look at who actually responded to this survey – and I’m going to confine myself to sex (nope – not using that made up word gender)

Analysis of the differing experience of students of different genders is central to the analysis that follows and so it is necessary to set out these figures from the outset. 1,811 of the respondents described themselves as Women, 926 as Men and a further 15 chose the Other option to that question. In a separate question 24 students described themselves as having a transsexual history, being Trans or, although they did not identify with the word “Trans” themselves, their experience/background might be described by others as Trans. As sexual orientation is used as a category of analysis in a later section it is also necessary to note at this point that 405 of the respondents described themselves as Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual.”

This is important – because the results and the distorted interpretation of those results are going to be and are already being used to peddle a campus rape hysteria campaign in The Republic of Ireland.

1,811 – Women – 65.81% (1811.091)
926 – Men – 33.65% (926.048)
15 – Other – 0.54% (14.861)

But – we’re going to dig just that little bit deeper – just what percentage of the total numbers of male and female students do these figures represent – in other words is this tiny number of respondents truly representative of ALL students?

1,811 females represents 1.726% (1,811.661) of the total of 104,963 female students

926 males represents 0.868% (925.8956) of the total of 106,670 male students

Just gets better and better doesn’t it? The number of female respondents is less than 2% of the total female student population and the number of male respondents is less than 1% of the total male student population!

You may also have noticed there isn’t a huge disparity between the numbers of boys – v – the numbers of girls in third level, a difference that actually favours the lads by a massive 1,707 – so as to not to get all nit picky we can reasonably say that 50% of students are male and 50% of students are female.

Yet – look again at the percentages above, almost two thirds of the respondents in this survey are female with just a tad over a third male – that’s some representative survey you’ve got there NUS!

Now take into account this – the percentages that will be peddled by you know who, will sound just terrible – 30% here – 65% there – you get the picture – what won’t be mentioned is that 30% for example is 30% OF 1.726%!

NOSIREEBOB! A huge percentage of a tiny percentage is just not………….convenient… it?

I realise I’ve spent quite a bit time picking apart the methodology but, like the foundation of a house, if that house is built on a dodgy foundation it will fall, it should fall, – you might be able to con someone into buying that house, but ultimately the house is rotten.

The foundation of this “survey” is rotten – rotten to the absolute core. Let’s move on so.

The next section we are going to examine in detail is described thus:


This section of the questionnaire asked respondents to describe any experiences of harassment that they experienced on campus. The survey listed a number of such behaviours which may have happened to students and asked them to identify if they had experienced them while enrolled in their current course of study. If so, they were also asked to identify the setting.

There was a slight difference in how the questions were asked to different genders. Those who identified as Women and Others [see section 1.3 above] were asked eight questions including whether they had experienced someone groping, pinching or touching their breasts when they did not agree to them doing so and also if they had experienced someone lifting up their skirt in public without them agreeing.

Those who identified as Men [see section 1.3 above] were asked seven questions. There was no equivalent to the question about groping, pinching or touching breasts and they were asked about someone pulling down their trousers in public as an alternative to a skirt. All gender categories were also asked to identify whether or not they had experienced some forms of on-line harassment while attending college.”

(emphasis added)

Superficially the rationale for not asking men about being groped sounds plausible – doesn’t it? Except – hang on a damn minute – why not ask the male respondents about someone “groping, pinching or touching…” their penises?

After all – the inference is, and is going to be made that “unwanted physical touching” IS sexual assault – or is too much of a stretch for the hard of thinking?

But we know the reasoning behind this subtle (not) little ploy – it would blow the “men believe they are entitled to women’s bodies” crap out of the water wouldn’t it?

It would shine a bright unwavering light on the other side of this particular coin – that WOMEN feel entitled to grope, pinch or touch men’s sexual organ – their penis’s whenever they damn well like and – ITS NO BIG DEAL!

So apart from this piece of subterfuge how did the results stack up? How did the “percentages” compare? Bearing in mind that every single report/article/opinion piece is going to focus on all the terrible, awful, bad touchy, handsey shit that men do to women and sweet fanny adams about all the grabby, gropey shit that women feel absolutely entitled to do TO men – with zero consequences because……well because…….who gives a shit about how men feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel? Amirite? You’re damn right I’m right.
The first question was:

Someone making comments with a sexual overtone that made you feel uncomfortable


In a learning environment

Female – 9.36%
Male – 6.37%

In the Students’ Union Area/SU Bar or student centre

Female – 13.14%
Male – 6.7%

Other areas on campus

Female – 20.7%
Male – 12.42%

Okie dokie – apart from the first category – “in a learning environment” the percentage of women claiming to have been “uncomfortable” with “comments” is approx twice the percentage of men.

The operative word here is “uncomfortable” – the inference will be that this translates into assault – because feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling bad is – just not bloody on – for women – is it?

Again – I am going to reiterate here that the number of respondents to this survey was TINY – so out of a total of 1,826 women who answered this question – the actual numbers for each of those three places where comments were made that made these women feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel uncomfortable was.

Learning environment – 170.91
Students Union/Bar – 236.94
Somewhere on campus – 377.98

Mother of God!!!! Call the Gardai (police) call in the troops in full riot gear, armed to the teeth!

236 wimmin felt “uncomfortable” IN A STUDENT BAR” over some probably stupid drunken comments from barely out of short trousers young men!

What is the world coming to? I ask you! Students! In a bar! Acting like eejits!

I am cognisant of the fact that the numbers used to garner these responses are TINY – therefore even these percentages must be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Anyhoo, here’s the thing – I went back to college some years ago – and the one place you are guaranteed to find an 18 – 24 yr old student – male or female – if they can’t be found anywhere else is – IN THE BLOODY SU Bar. Especially first years.

Over three years the same pattern repeated itself – ALL the first years – almost without exception – went stark staring mad – t’was like, they’d never been let out of the house till they came to college.

Without fail – in EVERY single one of those years within two to three weeks of the start of the first semester, the Gardai would trudge up to the university, with a list of complaints from the town about the antics and carry on of the first year students. EVERY one of those years, an announcement was made to those students – both male and female that unless the drunken antics and carry on of those students didn’t stop immediately they would all be bloody expelled, sent back home in disgrace to their mammies and daddies …………every bloody year!

Here’s some anecdotal* observations – Thursday night was the big “going out” night (I’ll explain why in a minute) and every Thursday night you’d see them – gangs of lads and lassies streaming out of their campus accommodation – the lads all hyper and boisterous and the lassies dressed to the nines – if wearing what could be called hankies and tottering about on six inch heels with more make-up on than I’ve ever owned in my entire life = dressed to the nines.

The other thing was – the vast majority of them were already pissed as farts before they left – on cheap lidl/Aldi booze – even though the place they were going always did a buy one get one free drink thing on Thursday nights.

Pissed as farts!

Now – why Thursday night? Simples. Because on Friday there they’d all be – trudging like waves of hungover wraiths through the campus dragging their laundry behind them to the train station and the bus’s lined up on the road outside campus – to take all the good little boys and girls back to their proud mammies and daddies – TO GET THEIR LAUNDRY DONE!

Now there’s another factor that has not been incorporated properly into this survey – alcohol abuse, binge drinking, getting rat arsed as if there is an alcohol famine looming – will address this issue more fully in Part II.

But – in the meantime, coincidently, UCC – University College Cork Ruth Lawlor’s alma mater has conducted a study into “hazardous alcohol consumption” IN UCC.

“The UCC-based study, which used a rigorous sampling strategy, found a high prevalence of hazardous alcohol consumption among the 2,275 undergraduates who responded compared to the general population. Noteworthy is the narrowing of the gender gap with patterns of hazardous alcohol consumption now similar in men and women. It had an overall response rate of 51%, with an in-class response rate of 84%, figures comparable to those achieved in other major international studies on student alcohol consumption.

A key finding was that 66.4% of students responding reported hazardous alcohol consumption, 65.2% for men and 67.3% for women. At the higher end of the scale, approximately 17% of men and 5% of women were consuming more than six units of alcohol at least 4 times per week, and in some cases on a daily basis.

Hazardous alcohol consumption drastically increased the possibility of adverse consequences, including missing days from university, and so affecting academic performance. The pattern and frequency of adverse consequences of alcohol consumption was broadly similar in men and women, though men were more likely to report getting into a fight or to have a ‘one-night stand’ than women.

Commenting on the motivation behind the study, lead author Martin Davoren explains it was in part fuelled by a need for reliable data on patterns of alcohol consumption in the student population, given recent national and international research indicated a narrowing gender gap in this population. He said:

“A decade ago the College Lifestyle and Attitudinal National Survey noted males were drinking more than their female counterparts. What we are now seeing is women drinking as much as men. This finding is yet another signpost that our relationship with alcohol as a nation is unwholesome and detrimental to health. It impacts us all and these findings should not be seen as merely a ‘young person’, ‘student’ or ‘UCC’ issue. Currently the Irish state is at a decision point with regard to policies on the promotion and marketing of alcohol. This study highlights the need for effective public policy measures such as a minimum unit price for alcohol and a full ban on sports sponsorship.”

“The cross-sectional class-room based study, exploring hazardous alcohol consumption and related adverse consequences with a particular interest in gender differences, was led by UCC researcher and PhD candidate Martin Davoren, originally from North Clare, with input from UCC colleagues Dr Frances Shiely and Professor Ivan Perry of UCC’s Department of Epidemiology and Public Health and Dr Michael Byrne, Head of UCC’s Student Health Department.”

(emphasis added)

You should pop over and have a chat Ruth – you might learn something – useful – for a change – though – it might be a bit too science(y) for you

UCC alcohol research signals last call


Further anecdotal observations – over those three years I had an opportunity to observe up close and personal the behaviour of these young lads and lassies – my conclusions – the boys were like colts set free to run wild and unsupervised – and they did – they were boisterous, loud, exuberant, daft as those colts, and generally good-hearted, if only bearable in small doses (give me a break – I’m in my fifties – they made me tired just looking at them) the lassies now – hmmmm – cannot say I was too impressed – obsessed with themselves, their appearance, their hair, their nails, their clothes and………….WITH THE BOYS.

Catty. Bitchy, nasty and ruthless is how I would describe quite a large number of the young female students I encountered – over three years – and invariably – total pains in the arse – with some notable exceptions – invariably the ones who were not swayed/taken in/brainwashed by the rampant, pervasive and toxic FEMINIST pall that invaded every single bloody area of study in that university – except perhaps the sciences – though can’t be sure – science is not my area and you could be talking greek to me when it comes to photons/calculus/physics etc etc.

During those three years there was a rumour – note – a rumour – that a female student had been raped – in the town – not on campus – one unsubstantiated rumour in three years.

 If you think for one minute that the feminist coven in that university wouldn’t have gone into meltdown if there had been even one confirmed rape/sexual assault at any time during those three years – then you know nothing about feminists!

 War would have been declared against every single male person on that campus!


*yep – anecdotal – you only have my word for veracity of the observations I claim to have made and yep again you are perfectly entitled to dispute every single one.

Let’s move on to another question asked of both men and women


Someone asking you questions about your sexuality when it was clearly irrelevant or none of their business

In a learning environment

Female – 5.26%
Male – 5.72%

In the Students’ Union Area/SU Bar or student centre

Female – 7.06%
Male – 7.99%

Other areas on campus

Female – 8.11%
Male – 11.66%

Well now! I’m guessing you all have noticed the same thing I did. In both a “learning environment” which would be lecture halls, tutorial and seminar rooms and in the SU area and SU bar both women and men in almost equal percentages had Someone asking you questions about your sexuality when it was clearly irrelevant or none of their business with men being slightly more likely to be asked/questioned about their sexuality in “other areas on campus” – what is not clear is WHO was doing the asking or questioning.

The last place(s) listed – appears to mean just around the campus – hanging out I presume?

Now here’s the thing – have you ever been on a college campus? Students hang around in groups outside various departments, or in the different social areas, and a lot of horseplay goes on, a lot of what we call here slagging – taking the piss out of one another – all done usually in front of a large audience of fellow students.

Of all the things that young people are nervous about, can be a bit anxious about, especially boys who are not of the rugby playing, sports fanatics types, are questions about their sexuality – not just from other boys – but – from girls – from bitchy, catty, nasty girls who take umbrage at NOT being “moved on” by a guy they have the hots for or not eliciting a suitably “aroused by your irresistible sex appeal” response. The classic put down?

What are you? Gay?

Said in that lovely sneery mean girls tone that many girls have perfected by the time they are six years old! I often found myself wondering – do you any of you actually realise how ugly you look and sound when you do that?

Beauty is indeed only skin deep – but ugly – goes right to the bone.

Again – anecdotal – I have seen this with my own eyes – I have listened to some over-made up little tart, bitch about some guy who is immune to her “charms” declare that he (whoever this poor lad may be) didn’t put the moves on this bimbo because he’s “obviously gay” accompanied by a disgruntled flick of her badly dyed blonde hair and a chorus of sycophantic gal pals agreeing that “yeah – he must be gay because yooooooou’re gorgeous” excuse me while I go vomit.

Moving on.

There were also several carefully selected quotes from students – the majority of them female – inserted to reinforce the distorted picture being peddled. That reinforced the continuous narrative running through this entire survey that, the emphasis’ is and will always be primarily from the female perspective.

For example this:

“Woman (38): I have had people who are curious about my personal life making very crude and derogatory comments about my body and parts of my anatomy making jokes about how I’m “uptight” and “need to get laid” and “get a sense of humour” when I’m stressed by the constant on-campus bullying that I experience. I also have male classmates insisting that they are “just being friendly” when they hug me in a way that makes me uncomfortable.

When I ask nicely that they don’t hug me then they are making snide remarks about me – in my hearing while I am still in the room. They make more crass comments when they think I am out of earshot. It’s persistent harassment [sic]. Others in the class see it happening and say nothing to help me because they are scared that they will be targeted next if they voice any objection.”

I’m going to be what will get me called a real bitch by starting with – boo hoo – poor wittle you. What I see here is a whiny passive aggressive immature child.

Let’s take it step by step – she doesn’t like being hugged by males apparently – fair enough – I’m not a particularly huggy person myself – and if someone moves in for a hug I hold my hand up and say “don’t hug me, thanks” and guess what – we move on and its forgotten. That would be because I’m an adult and recognise and acknowledge that some people are more tactile in that manner than I am – it’s not a big problem – it’s not even a small problem – it’s just – different strokes for different folks.

The bit that really made me narrow my eyes in this sad little comment was “Others in the class see it happening and say nothing to help me because they are scared that they will be targeted next if they voice any objection.”


Apparently this woman is a mind-reader – she just knows what people are thinking and feeling, when they “do nothing to help me” she uses the word “targeted” excuse me? “Targeted” for hugging!

What exactly does she mean by “help me”? That some big strapping lad will jump up and beat the living shit out the presumptuous hugger? Drag the poor sod kicking and screaming off her, twist his nasty huggy arms behind his back and kick him down some handy stairs?

Emmmmmm, nope, sorry – I repeat – boo hoo – and add – grow the fuck up, you’re 38 years old – a grown up – if you don’t want to be hugged by random male students then just BLOODY SAY SO – and yeah yeah I see where she says.

“When I ask nicely that they don’t hug me then they are making snide remarks about me – in my hearing while I am still in the room.”

Let me translate from whiney femspeak into plain English – “asking nicely” means – snippy, snotty, looking down your nose at the ruffian who dared to hug your superior person with their nasty grubby non attractive male hands.

Taking a wild guess – if it was Johnny Depp/Brad Pitt/ George Clooney/Bruce Willis (depending on your personal preference) who was doing the hugging – we’d be talking a whole other ball of “tingles” wouldn’t we?

As for the “snide remarks” sheesh – more than one way to interpret that – the remarks were either justified or not justified – if they were made at all in the manner she is subjectively describing them.

I’m going for……………………………………..justified.

There was one comment by a male respondent that didn’t even raise a blip in the blanket femocentric prism through which every single piece of information and data is presented in this survey.

This is probably the most important comment in the whole survey – because for all the whining about cat-calls, about feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling uncomfortable at comments, about unwanted hugs etc etc – THIS is the only actual real assault recorded in this miserable excuse for a survey on a male person – up to this point – page 16 – in fact this is a statement of several assaults, several sexual assaults perpetrated by a single person (female) against another person (male) even more worrying – by a person in a position of authority to a certain extent – a member of the Student Council

“Man, 19: On several occasions a female member of the Student Council while intoxicated has taken to groping my genitals and I have been rather offended by each incidence however don’t see it as severe enough to report.”

I know you’ve noticed two other important things – this female arsehole did this “while intoxicated” and therefore that will be used as justification “ah sure she was pissed – what harm” – yeah right – that goes down a bomb when feminists screech about “you can’t give consent when pissed” if you’re female – and the second thing is his attitude “….however don’t see it as severe enough to report.”

Some drunken slut grabs this poor lads genitals and he shrugs it off – yep he’s “offended” and he has every right to be – but is he having a serious mental breakdown? Nope. Is he dragging a mattress around campus on his back? Nope. Is he screaming blue bloody murder on every blog/site and media source about – the horrors of female sexual violence? Nope.

Personally laddie – I would have advised you to have the slut arrested and charged with assault and made an example of – it would’ve have been a start but – your attitude is commendable. Naive but commendable.

Is there any possibility that any female with half a brain would take the same “shit happens” attitude? Yeah right – oh look – flying pigs – aren’t they cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute?

In light of the next section called Further Issues the above comment by the young 19 year old boy is a perfect example of the doublespeak, the distorted femocentric bias of this survey. The only comments used to illustrate this section are from two females.


“Further issues

A final issue which emerges in the student comments related to this section of the questionnaire is the sense in which those on the receiving end of these behaviours feel as though their concerns are dismissed by those around them and the behaviours are explained away as being friendly or humorous.

Woman, 20: A lot of it is just ‘typical lad’ alcohol-related behaviour, which IS unacceptable, but is often passed off as ‘banter’.

Woman, 20: For most people it’s sadly considered normal but personally I cannot stand when I go on a night out and so many men have these attitudes towards women like we’re pieces of meat. I went out last night and I am in a relationship so it’s not like I was looking to get with anyone or find a fella – I just wanted to dance with my friend. Yet so many times throughout the night my ass was slapped or grabbed or people perved putting their hands on my waist. Most people would say “lighten up” or “it’s just a laugh” but it really makes me feel uncomfortable.”

(emphasis added)

’typical lad’ alcohol-related behaviour….” hmmmmm, and what would you call the behaviour of the female Student Council member groping the 19 year old lads genitals? “typical lass” alcohol-related behaviour”?

Seriously? “… many men have these attitudes towards women like we’re pieces of meat.”

Same question – what would you call the behaviour of the female Student Council member groping the 19 year old lads genitals?

Answer – A woman treating a man like a piece of meat.

To be continued…………. Part II tomorrow.



A Perfect Example of Toxic Gynocentrism – Courtesy of the TDSB.


If ever there was a perfect example of unrestrained toxic gynocentrism – this is it. This being a series of comments posted to this blog in the space of 12 minutes – yep – 12 minutes to go from a standing start to towering rage and hysterical and epic tantrum throwing.

I give you one Amanda Schooner – Amanda has no boundaries apparently – the way two year olds have no boundaries – though in Amanda’s case we are talking about a particularly obnoxious two year old – already prone to tantrums, screaming fits and unrestrained rage.

My sincerest hope is that if the last comment is typical of a thwarted Amanda – that this nutcase is NOT a teacher – if she is then – for the love of God would somebody with any sense of decency or concern about children remove this completely out of control hysteric from whatever school she might be teaching in – Please – I beg you – get this nutcase out of the classroom.


Here is the series of comments this lunatic has just spent the last 12 minutes posting.


Comment No. 1 at 11.52am

Posted on – TDSB – The Beat Goes On – A Rhino Charges In!

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 11:52 am

Remove defamatory libel or else the Toronto Police will get involved.



Comment No. 2 at 11.58am – 6 minutes later.

Posted on – What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?

Amanda Schooner

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 11:58 am

Anja Eruid,

You have deliberately posted libel and approved libel comments about several male & female teachers of the Toronto District School Board.

You should remove this article and the entire thread:

TDSB – The Beat Goes On – A Rhino Charges In!

The Toronto Police Services will be informed of your hate speech against our teachers, and trust me, the Toronto Police Services will petition to have you and other commentators extradited to Ontario to face trial for criminal libel.

You have done enough damage by smearing the names of Ryan Bird, Roselands Junior Public School, Barbara and other TDSB personnel.

Criminal defamation is a serious offense in Canada, and the TDSB will ensure that your blog gets shut down for harassment, libel, cyberbullying and hate speech.

You deserve imprisonment Anja Eruid. You shouldn’t have been smearing the names of the TDSB, Ryan Bird, Barbara, Roselands Principal and Donna Quan.

Mark my word. The TDSB and Toronto Police will make your life miserable in court you digital terrorist and cyberbully!


Comment No. 3 – posted at 12.00 pm – 2 minutes later

Posted to – What Are the Toxic Roots of Feminism?

Amanda Schooner

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 12:00 pm



Comment No. 4 – posted at 12.04pm – 4 minutes later

Posted on – Creating “Misogyny” out of Thin Air – in Canada – and Putting Children at Risk.

Amanda Schooner

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 12:04 pm






*********************end of comments**************************


There is a point beyond which I can only sit here and stare in absolute horror at the kinds of people who appear to infest the TDSB – Toronto District School Board

Cont// – aaaaaaand we’re back!

Well now Amanda – are we all calmed down yet? Do we need some more time on the naughty step while we “think about what we did”? hmmmmmm?

No. Good.

Listen up rent-a-bitch and listen up good – you and your cronies – yep I’m speaking to Barbara and [twat no. 1] and that other wretch [twat no. 2]

As for that moronic thug Rhino thingyamabob – do me a favour – go smack your head off a brick wall would ya? Thanks. Where the feck
did you find this eejit? 1-800–dial-a–henchman?

Let’s start with your laughable claim.

Comment No. 4 – posted at 12.04pm – 4 minutes later

Posted on – Creating “Misogyny” out of Thin Air – in Canada – and Putting Children at Risk.
Amanda Schooner

Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 12:04 pm


(emphasis added)

Are you completely insane, as well as being a complete moron? “………A PRESTIGIOUS AND WORLD CLASS SCHOOL BOARD…..”

And which bloody world would that be? An uninhabited planet at the arse end of the Milky Way?

Do you read your own newspapers? Watch your own news programmes? At all, at all? Let me help you out with that.

Education Minister announces panel to examine troubled TDSB, By Staff The Canadian Press

“TORONTO – Ontario’s education minister has appointed an advisory panel to look at ways to reform Toronto’s troubled school board, including possibly dividing it into several boards.

A government-ordered review found earlier this year that a culture of fear at the Toronto District School Board is getting worse because elected trustees interfere in everything from hiring principals to procurements.”

(emphasis added)

Actually, this is not the worst thing about this poisonous saga – not by half – this article generated 101 comments – not one of which was positive towards the TDSB – let me repeat that another way.

Not one single person of the 101 who commented on this article had a good word for the TDSB. In fact no one had a good word for what seems to be viewed as a bit of a farce in the setting up this panel, several people point out that this would be either the fourth or fifth time that the TDSB has been, to all intents and purposes – investigated.

The top three comments on this article garnered a total of 116 upvotes including 7 which came from replies to the top voted comment.

Now – think about this for a moment all you foaming at the mouth TDSB harridans – will you and your fellow harpies be hunting down each and every one of those 101 people who commented on this article and spewing out your bile and vitriol at them?

Will you?

What about this lass – will you and your wretched cronies be screaming abuse at her?

“Jennifer Platt 8 days ago

Its clear the TDSB is dysfunctional. However having just watched the press conference with Liz Sandals and then Barbara Hall, I couldn’t help myself at laughing at these two clearly incompetent bureaucrats stumble and bumble their way through a press conference.
Sandals and Hall sound close to mentally challenged and can hardly (each of them) put a sentence together. Its ironic that people trying to find the rot at the Toronto school board are themselves clearly incapable of representing the students of Toronto.

This problem will never be solved as long as this gong show continues.”

(emphasis added)

Yep – you can see quite clearly that Jennifer is completely underwhelmed by how “prestigious” and “world class” the TDSB is!

What about this person?

“Citizen 1 8 days ago

TDSB is the sandbox of the Toronto left-wing political hacks to learn the trade of political corruption.”

(emphasis added)

Ouch! Now that’s gotta hurt – “…… learn the trade of political corruption.” At the TDSB apparently – big ouch – huge!

These two comments reflect the general consensus of opinion among YOUR fellow citizens re the TDSB – it also appears to be the general consensus of opinion among the numerous other articles I’ve read about the TDSB – in fact it’s hard to find anyone who has a good word to say about the TDSB – anywhere!

Soooooo, you’ll be screaming abuse and spewing out invective at all those journalists, at all those people who posted equally mean comments about this “prestigious world class school board” on those articles – will you?

The school board that no-one has a single good word to say about, certainly not any of your fellow Canadian citizens – as for the rest of the world – methinks – just like the world watched while screaming feminist lunatics tried to physically prevent people from hearing a talk about male suicide and made up their own minds about Canada – (and no, not in a good way) so too will you and your vicious cronies fly the flag for Canada – yet again – in the “are they all fucking insane lunatics in Canada or what?” way.

Well done – once again you’ve done your country proud – you’ve managed to convince me that Canada is a toxic hellish shithole inhabited by complete arseholes and lunatics.

Here I am, thousands of miles away in The Republic of Ireland – a citizen of another sovereign state – on the outside looking in, so to speak, and my opinion of you, your cronies, your “prestigious” school board couldn’t be lower – to me you’re a joke – a pathetic joke – all of you – especially when you consider that what triggered all this was a journalist phoning a school to make inquiries into allegations of unreported child abuse – and being hung up on.

You see I haven’t forgotten what triggered this – what the precipitating event was – a journalist attempting to get answers about allegations of unreported child abuse.

Now fuck off before I get really annoyed!

What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?


Andrew DiKaiomata asked an interesting question as the title of an article over on A Voice For MenIs Feminism a Movement? Link Here.

Before I even read this article or the usually equally enlightening comments my gut reaction was – NO – feminism is the visible political and public policy face of a distorted and malign state of mind – it is the sly whisperings of an agent provocateur seeking to influence and corrupt the very roots of societies and cultures.

It does this through the workings and machinations of its advocates by misrepresenting facts and reality, and by exerting duress – political, societal, cultural and psychological upon that society and culture. In the key areas of influence within that society – education, media and public policy.

It also does this by infiltrating existing “movements” and moulding them, steering them in the direction that serves feminism’s needs. Feminism’s ultimate end game – which is:

Female supremacy – achieved by proxy – that is – men who are willing to dismantle all legal and political safeguards against tyranny and actual real oppression (against men and boys)… order to disenfranchise all men by stealth, while maintaining an appearance of “democracy” or “justice” or “fairness” or the piece de resistance – the unattainable and spurious goal of “equality”

Feminists themselves will claim that there are many feminisms, that feminism is not some monolithic entity with a central command – superficially they are correct – superficially it would appear that there are multiple strains of “feminism” but – this is merely a device to deflect the potency of any opposition – if there is no “common enemy” then that opposition can be diffused – or so the thinking appears to be.

What binds ALL feminisms and ALL feminists together is one single thing – their femaleness – and yes I know, I know – there are male feminists – and these poor saps seem to believe that they are “equal” to female feminists – is there any point in pointing out the bleeding obvious? Nope – didn’t think so.

No matter what political or ideological stance any particular feminist takes – it is her femaleness that binds her and her fellow coven members together – that underpins the rhetoric (bullshit) that emanates from ALL feminists. Including the “nice feminists”

Being female is the common denominator, ergo, it is femaleness that informs and feeds feminism(s) – but, not just any old femaleness – a particular toxic form of femaleness – a virulent bitter and corrupted femaleness – feminism (whatever its manifestation) has always emphasised the FEMALENESS of its acolytes – above and beyond anything else.

The vast majority of women are not feminists, an even larger cohort of men are not feminists – but – they don’t need to be – they only need to have had their view of reality distorted enough, corrupted enough to fail to question the validity of what they have been told, what they hear, what they see and what they believe.

They also must have been corrupted enough, just enough – to believe the lies about themselves that they have been told. By feminism. In whatever manifestation it has assumed through the ages.

They must see themselves reflected in the distorted mirror of feminist “theory” and incorporate that distorted image into their subconscious deeply enough and over a long enough period of time to replicate the visible manifestation of this distorted “image” – they must also, through their own actions within their own lives, pass on that distorted and corrupt “way of being” to their children.

Feminism has been described as a psychological disorder, a form of mental illness – I concur – with a caveat – the original pioneers of feminism – through all its so called waves have without doubt been, to use a less than scientific phrase – completely off their trollies.  There is something else that a lot of them share(d) – perfectly described Here – what these nutcases also did, was draw to this movement/cause persons who also were a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic in various degrees – though some of them were and are quite capable, as Val McDermid’s character Dr. Tony Hill, in her brilliant books calls, “passing for human

The most illuminating comments on the article came from:

Lana Voreskova> xpxpxp •2 days ago

I am not suggesting that feminists understand Marxist theory, which had very much to do with social as well as economic ambitions.

Feminists generally understand very little of anything at all. They have that in common with Marx. Feminists simply sherry-picked rhetoric that sounded good to them and interpret to mean whatever they want it to mean.

They do share a lot of ideals with Marx though whether they actually understand that or not. Many of the earlier ones did understand that and openly identified as Marxists for that reason. You simply cannot get away from the fact that much of feminist theory, was based on watered down Marxist theory.

Lets face it; you could hardly expect feminists to come up with original ideas all by themselves.”

(emphasis added)

And from:


Feminists will latch onto movements in order to use them, co-opting what they can, and using the window dressing to attract followers. Feminism is just as happy using capitalism, through women in business organizations. They use atheism, through atheist +, and are more than happy using Christianity, or Judaism when they can. They’ll use animal rights, or hunter’s rights. If feminism resembles any movement, it resembles the Borg (assuming the Borg was a movement).”

(emphasis added)

The mistake I believe, that most of those make when arguing about the political aspect or focus or roots of feminism is this – feminism isn’t political in the sense that say Liberalism or Socialism is – political systems are merely the vehicles through which feminists operate – they are political passengers – or if you prefer political opportunists – the personal is indeed the political when it comes to feminism – and it is ALL personal.

Think about it – broadly speaking mass social movements such as the civil rights movement in the US are composed of a specific cohort of people bound together by a common cause – generally a deprivation of specific rights on the basis of a clear and visible commonality they all share – in this instance we are talking about black people – ALL black people – men women and children.

I realise it is rather simplistic to say this, but within the black community in the US there were no classes per se – one did not have upper or middle class black people oppressing their working class black brothers and sisters.

They were ALL oppressed.

Now – look at the feminist “movement” – look at its pioneers – without fail – all middle and upper class white women.

Oppression is a deprivation of basic Human Rights accompanied by a regime of terror and abuse and a dehumanising programme that reduces that Human Being to an object, a chattel, a non human utility.

One could hardly describe any of these pioneers of feminism in those terms – whiny petulant entitled avaricious white women with chips on their shoulders – yep – selfish self-absorbed over-indulged twats – absolutely. But – oppressed? Give me a break.

As always Peter Wright of Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins hits the nail right on the head. Link to the site is on the blogroll.

Peter Wright Mod> Dagda Mór •5 days ago

“Nope” is not a historical argument.

 Unless you can bring detail showing that gynocentrism did not come in waves, and was not an ideology before Marxism/communism, then your historical argument is, well, not historical. Think of all the gynocentric writers from before Marxism/communism – Pizan, Pozzo, Marinella, Wollstonecraft (and hundreds of other protofeminists, male and female).

Without a knowledge of history it’s easy to make the mistake that feminism came out of Marxism…. but it aint true.”

(emphasis added)

Feminism isn’t about politics, per se – politics are simply a means to an end – feminism is about female power and control – the mechanism through which that power and control is exercised is actually rather irrelevant – the purpose is that it is exercised and only by feminists.

In order to really see the evolution of a female centric worldview one must step back and take in the long sweeping panorama of history – what we have today, modern feminism – is but the latest in a series of incremental historical steps – pre the Industrial Revolution rampant gynocentrism – except amongst the middle and upper classes was constrained by the practicalities of simply surviving – post Industrial Revolution that began to change – gradually.

Alongside the Industrial Revolution was another kind of revolution a social and political one – “the masses” began to exert some influence on “policy” not that societies and cultures had reached the stage that “the masses” would be included or consulted on matters of public policy but their needs began to be factored into the equation. Again – not for altruistic reasons – but for economic ones, for political ones.

Feminism’s claims that women are and were excluded from the political system deliberately by men is a camouflage – it is merely a ruse to hide the real agenda – female supremacy so deeply embedded into all the institutional, social and cultural frameworks of societies that “politics” or the political system if you will is a front – a useful distraction for the masses – does anyone actually believe that political decisions are made in parliaments?

That elected representatives are acting autonomously? That when votes are taken on various political programmes or public policy initiatives that these emanate from “government”?

How many examples would you like of actual non partisan, non ideological, non feminist policies torpedoed BY feminist agitators, organisations and advocates, because they have wandered away from the path of total focus on FEMALE “issues”?

Now – THAT’S real power.

The contradiction if you will, is that for feminists – even those who aspire to actual visible political power – is a preference for exercising that power and control by proxy – at a remove – from the sidelines – in the shadows – in order to maintain the illusion of powerlessness necessary in order to perpetuate the never ending “struggle” for a power that already rests in the hands of those allegedly seeking it.

Convoluted – isn’t it?

The answer to that though is glaringly simple – with power and the exercise of that power comes responsibility and accountability – and – THAT is the last thing that feminists or the vast majority of gynocentic females want.

The seething bitter core of ALL feminism and ALL feminists – be they Marxist, Liberal, Socialist – whatever – is that being female automatically ascribes VICTIM status TO YOU as an individual and as part of a class of victims.

Hence why Patricia Arquette felt justified in having something of a whine about some perceived disadvantage – why well-heeled, affluent middle class harpies can whinge about being “oppressed” while ignoring the thousands of homeless men and boys, while dismissing contemptuously the suffering of ANY male person, in any circumstance, as being totally incomparable – on the suffering scale- to being – stared at in the street!

Feminism is only “political” by default – those original pioneers of feminism merely harnessed their innate gynocentrism, modified it, tweaked it and wrapped it up political rhetoric in order to exert control over the political process and to spread the influence of gynocentrism outwards and upwards.

Again – think about it – does it really matter when it comes to influencing policy, whether the feminist(s) exerting that influence – or more correctly duress – is a marxist, a socialist, a liberal or a conservative? Does it?

Of course it doesn’t – what matters is that this is A FEMINIST – a female – or a gang of females – and the political wrapping paper is irrelevant.

What matters is that the social conditioning which had and has its roots is gynocentrism, now completely out of control – kicks in – women = victim = feminism = the voice of all victims.

I do actually find myself taken aback sometimes – not by feminists – nothing a feminist says or does would surprise me – but by men who still almost automatically fall for the women= fragile victim of………everything bad – thing.

For what it’s worth – I personally reject any “political” labels for myself – I belong to no political party or subscribe to any particular ideology – as someone did comment on this particular article that on some issues he could be described as “left-leaning” and on others as “right-leaning” – so could I – it depends entirely on the particular issue. The only statement I make that could be described as political is this:

I am NOT a feminist.

The only “ideological” stance I take is an over-riding belief in the sanctity of Human Rights for ALL Human Beings – and no – I really do not give a shit what kind of Human Being you happen to be – up to and including if you are a complete twat or arsehole.

What is worth noting – from a historical perspective that is, is this – the coalescing of the concept of Human Rights as a universal touchstone if you will, took a long long time coming to fruition – from the first declaration that human beings had rights (albeit limited) to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948 almost parallels the rise of “modern” feminism – and an outright if hidden declaration of war on the Human Rights of men and boys. A war that has over the last six decades intensified and expanded.

“In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Ironic isn’t it, that as soon as a global awareness of Human Rights as a concrete concept, began to enter the zeitgeist – feminism began to marshal its forces and harness the power of gynocentrism to fracture that unified concept into prioritising FEMALE Human Rights.

“In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations.

(emphasis added)

Source: A Brief History of Human Rights. Link Here.

There was and still is no greater threat to the fulfilment of feminism’s end goal of global female supremacy than a world which embraces the concept of Universal Human Rights without regard to class, sex, political or personal orientation or status.

Which is perhaps why feminism itself is in a bit of a dilemma right now – particularly in the western hemisphere.

Hard to find much actual real “oppression” in the affluent west is there? Except of men and boys, that is – a hundred years ago one could point a well manicured middle class finger at various carefully selected examples – being sure to airbrush out any inconvenient facts of course – and claim that “as a woman” you share in this universal “oppression” of your “sisters” hmmmmm.

Oh where to find any real “oppression” now?

To a certain limited extent I agree with Andrew DiKaiomata’s comparison of modern feminism and Marxism and to the various commenter’s who pointed to the authoritarian nature of feminism, but – and it’s a big but – a political ideology, whatever it may be, is and always has been only a useful vehicle to carry the seeds of gynocentrism forward – generationally and historically – feminism is a parasite – a political parasite – whatever the “political” mask it wears, the core of all manifestations of “feminism” from “suffragettes” to “women’s libbers” to “feminists” has been and always will be gynocentrism – female supremacy.

In many respects feminists are correct – the personal is the political – feminism has taken the absolute worst aspects of female nature and politicised it.

Of all the “achievements” of feminism – and yes – the scare quotes are pertinent – several generations of women have modelled themselves and their behaviour (which yes you do have a choice about) on some of the most twisted, disturbed, irrational and dysfunctional creatures this planet has ever produced – you have internalised a belief system, a “way of being” that manifests itself, and celebrates that manifestation – in the most selfish, self-absorbed, malicious and vindictive behaviours.

Feminisms “gift” to women was to strip them of their humanity and to revel in it – celebrate it – preen themselves over it.

All the while congratulating themselves on how “special” they were!

There Is No Spoon………….


Fans of the Matrix films starring Keanu Reeves (Neo), Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus) and Carrie Anne Moss (Trinity) will understand the title of this essay, as will many M(H)RA’s

The Matrix (1999)

On Neo’s first visit to The Oracle he observes some children performing amazing “tricks” one of these children, a young boy is bending a spoon with what appears to be his mind.

Neo is intrigued and wants to know – how?

The young boys answer is “to not to try to bend the spoon but to realise that – there is no spoon”. I’m paraphrasing slightly.

This essay is about perception and reality, about viewing something, anything, through the prism of your subjective experience of it, and the factual reality of it – whatever “it” happens to be.

It is about applying energy, resources and time, not only trying to forcing the spoon to bend, but wishing that spoon into objective reality, rather than realising that…………”there is no spoon”

In other words, this young boy is exerting force – an invisible powerful force to alter something, to bend something into a shape that is not its natural shape. The trick is, he is doing this to something that doesn’t actually exist – there is no spoon – just the illusion of a spoon.

Feminism is like that force, and the spoon represents the object, the thing that this force is wishing into existence, that thing or object being the sum of all evil, the fount of all badness – the big bad patriarchy.

Just like in the film, the only object that actually exists is the boy – the thing he has created is the illusion of a spoon – the trick is not that he can bend this imaginary spoon – the trick, if you will, it is that he can make you believe in that spoons existence.

So. Feminism is – the ability to make you see something that is not there – and to manipulate and bend that thing into any shape.

I can tell you that factually, objectively that in 2004, 6 female persons were unlawfully killed in the Republic of Ireland – those 6 female persons represent a miniscule percentage of the entire female population of The Republic of Ireland in 2004.

What feminists will tell you is the complete opposite of objective factual reality – they will expend much energy, time and effort trying to convince you that not only is objective reality wrong, but that their subjective irrational and erroneous perception of that unreality is correct.

In effect, attempt to convince you that there is a spoon where none exists, and that we need to bend that spoon – or else – calamity.

Feminism isn’t about reality, it is about perception, subjective interpretation, and altering a non existent spoon.

Naturally there are other ways to describe this – making mountains out of molehills, creating problems out of thin air, over-reacting excessively to every single “bad thing” that happens to women. All accurate descriptors of what feminism does.

The thing is – as a result of wishing that spoon into existence (creating a thing called the patriarchy) they have actually managed to create another spoon – a different spoon – that represents a chasm between men and women – a gulf, a poisonous barrier, a wall of distrust, suspicion and anger – lots and lots anger.

This anger feeds and renews and perpetuates the existence of this gulf.

The spoon that feminism claimed to exist never did, but because of the insistence on the existence of that spoon emerged what we now have – a massive almost unbreachable wall between the two halves of humanity. Two halves of humanity so out of tune with one another, so distrustful of one another and so immersed in the distorted reality created by feminism that vast numbers of men and women see one another and themselves in ways that are so unreal as to be unbelievable. Yet – many many believe in these distorted perceptions and refuse to see the reality.

The problem isn’t that anything bad happens to either men or women, because to be blunt bad shit happens, all the time, to everybody – the problem IS accepting the subjective, distorted and misperception of anything bad that happens TO women, BY feminism.

Feminists are telling you that there is this massive horrible thing, this awful spoon of malignancy and evil and badness, that only the force of feminism can bend into whatever shape makes the badness go away – the reality is – feminism IS the badness.

6 females persons were unlawfully killed in The Republic of Ireland in 2004, there have never been more than 22 (approx) female persons unlawfully killed in this State – NEVER – in any year.

These are bad things – no doubt about it – but – these are bad things in isolation from the actual lived reality of the 99.9% or thereabouts of the rest of the female population of The Republic of Ireland – or ever will be the reality.

Any hysteria surrounding these deaths is a manifestation of the flawed, distorted and corrupt perception of feminists and feminism and the toxic cloud of anger, hatred, bitterness and malice that lies at the very core of that perception of subjective experience that feeds that thing called feminism. That feeds it and fuels its existence.

Everything – and I mean everything that feminists say, think, believe and claim – is a spoon – and the reality is.

There is no spoon – there never was a spoon.

Feminism maintains that all bad things are male and all good thing things are female – I personally am becoming concerned that the MHRM is coalescing around yet another erroneous perception, that all bad things are female and all good things are male.

Both perceptions are equally wrong – and that is the only place where I will concede the concept of “equality”

Bad things – are neither male nor female – there is no inherent badness in being either male or female – but – both females and males do bad things – to one another.

There are human beings who are bad – evil – vicious – malicious – corrupt – violent – nasty – cruel. Some of those human beings are female, some of them are male.

The numbers of males and the numbers of females that bad things happen to – is irrelevant. It proves nothing about men, and it proves nothing about women – either in general or in particular.

Yes – you can make certain rough generalisations about men and about women – a fairly broad spectrum of leanings, tendencies, general interests etc – but just because lots of women want to do one thing and lots of men like doing something else – again, it proves nothing about either men or women – nor should it. Nor does it imply or even state that one sex is somehow being disadvantaged by the other.

Feminism takes these broad general commonalities that either women share or men share to a greater or lesser degree and make assumptions – negatively about men and oddly enough negatively about women – and BOTH sexes somewhere along the way decided to accept these distorted assumptions – to give credence to these rather warped and completely subjective perceptions.

It is worth noting at this point – that the vast majority of feminists who peddled these distorted perceptions, these warped subjective “realities” were using their own dysfunctional experiences as the basis for what became feminism – an entire “reality” created out of the personally dysfunctional lives and experiences of a relatively small number of – nutcases.

Not only did these “pioneers” have the mothers of all twisted spoons – they managed to convince not just other women but a huge number of men as well that their personal distorted “reality” was in fact – reality.

Millions of women’s patterned and re-patterned their own experiences, their own realities on the twisted perceptions of these lunatics. Re-interpreted their own realities to fit the illusion.

Now vast numbers of women convince themselves that they are being constantly disadvantaged – even when they have chosen to do whatever it is that allegedly puts them in that disadvantaged position!

I often wonder what the hell kind of fairground mirrors do these stupid women look into to see these distorted images of themselves?

So. In effect – the loons of feminism not only created the spoon, they poured all their malice, all their bitterness, all their rage and hatred for men into that creation.

Feminism is that malice, that bitterness, that rage and hatred, polished and moulded, layered and then re-layered with “credibility” with “academic cachet” with “plausibility”

Where we are now is like the aftermath of a massive bust up between two close friends – instigated by a conniving and sly third party. Feminism is the third party – the Iago dripping poison into the ear of Othello about Desdemona.

Where we are at now is the point where the third party has been revealed – but – things were said – nasty things – things were done – really nasty things – and both sides are understandably bitter.

To all intents and purposes vast numbers of men and women “took sides” and now – well now – we need to ask ourselves – do we keep the feud going, for another generation, and another, and another – knowing the truth – or are we going to stop and realise?

There. Is. No. Spoon.

There never was a spoon – there never was a massive global patriarchal conspiracy – never.


Did bad things happen? Yep – did people do bad things? Yep. Some of those people were female and some were male.

Were there some really ridiculous attitudes and beliefs about men and women? Yep. Mostly out of ignorance, stupidity and misinformation.

Did women suffer from discrimination in some areas? Yep – they did – but then – so did men – different kinds and in different ways.

Feminism would have you believe that ALL women experience their realities through a uniquely female prism – and that this distorted prism can only be interpreted, explained, defined and changed through the power of feminist ideology – oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

I’m female – I can count on the fingers of one hand minus my thumb and little finger the number of times I’ve ever actually thought about being female. I was in the middle of giving birth at the time – and it was accompanied by some choice language.

Feminism will also tell you that only feminists can and have the authority to interpret male reality – also through the prism of feminism.

Again – pluuuuuuuuuuzeeee!

What is feminism? It is the distorted and twisted dysfunctional and irrational perceptions of some seriously disturbed hags made manifest and actual, labelled and named, and brought into being from a toxic cloud of bitterness, hatred and a thirst for revenge on the perceived wrongs done to these individual nutcases and projected outwards onto the entire male population of this planet, both past present and future.

It is an irrational response to an imaginary “threat” an illusion, a chimera, brought into being by malice and bile and vitriol.


So, if there is and never was this global patriarchal threat to the wellbeing of ALL women, everywhere – what is left?

Malice, bile and vitriol, hated and bitterness.

Here’s the thing – there is nothing bad that exclusively happens ONLY to women – or ONLY to men – both men and women get ill, have accidents, are unfortunate enough to be assaulted, robbed and/or killed.

Both men and women suffer any and all of the possible bad things that can happen to a human being.

To put it bluntly – when shit rains down – men don’t have magic umbrellas that protect them automatically – it rains on everybody – doncha know. Feminism will tell you that rain wets women more than men.

But, for me, what truly encapsulates the sheer depth and breadth of the malice and spite that fuels feminism and feminists is patting yourself on the back for creating something called

The International Day of the Girl Child.

To a certain extent, while I loathe with a passion the whole concept of International Women’s Day, we are actually talking about adult women here – if they want to have a day and talk shoite about “the achievements of women” – whatever – zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

But to deliberately and consciously exclude CHILDREN – to viciously and smugly discard and marginalise CHILDREN as not worth – having a day or being included in a day – on the sole basis that these CHILDREN are boys – to me this is the quintessential essence of what feminism is all about.

Children who have no power, no influence, no voice – children who depend on adults for their safety and well-being – and feminists happily, smugly and with utter contempt exclude the most powerless of all – because they are boy children.

If nothing will ever convince you, persuade you, or cause you to stop and question what feminism is, what its purpose is, what fuels it, what drives it, what its toxic distorted roots are – THIS should.

The reality is – there is no spoon – there was never a spoon – there was never a global patriarchal conspiracy against women – but there sure as fuck is a global matriarchal conspiracy against men and boys – how else can you explain or justify ignoring CHILDREN – because they happen to be boy children?

It’s A Boy! – Damn…………….Better Luck Next Time.


Horrible title isn’t it? Yet, is it any more horrible or inhumane or just downright sick that this one?


International Day of the Girl Child


Link Here

Imagine being so deluded, so tunnel-visioned, so lacking in any compassion or empathy for the suffering of one half of the world’s children that you actually believe only focusing on half of the world’s many many children who suffer terrible calamities, poverty, torture and disadvantage – IS A GOOD THING!

Naturally, there is no International Day of The Boy Child. One of the – in my opinion – sick twisted individuals behind this abhorrence is none other than Nikki Van Der Gaag, one of the sources for Ian Hughes excrable article in The

Nikki van der Gaag has been writing about development issues for more than 20 years. After leaving Oxford, she went to work in India for Time Out magazine. Since then she has held editorial and communications positions in the charity and not-for-profit sector, including Oxfam, Oxford-based New Internationalist magazine and the Panos Institute, which work with journalists all over the world.

For the past 10 years she has been an independent consultant and writer, focusing in particular on gender, especially girls and young women, and more recently on men and masculinities around the world.

Nikki is on the International Advisory Board of Young Lives, a 15-year study of child poverty in four different countries based here at Oxford, an Advisory Trustee of New Internationalist and until recently a trustee at Asylum Welcome, a local refugee organization.

Books and reports include five of the seven State of the World’s Girls reports, published by Plan International, the most recent being In Double Jeopardy: Adolescent girls and disasters; Changing Lives in a Changing World, Young Lives (2012), Speaking Out: Case studies on how poor people influence decision-making Oxfam/Practical Action 2009; The No-Nonsense Guide to Women’s Rights New Internationalist 2008 and How the World Came to Oxford: refugees past and present. Oxford Literary Festival, March 2007. Nikki is currently working on a book for Zed Press on men and feminism.”

(emphasis added)

Link Here

Plan International is where this International Day of The Girl Child originated, and Nikki Van Der Gaag is one of the people behind it – as you can see, she is in a unique position to influence where, when and how resources, aid and development funding goes. For children.

There are no State of the Worlds Boys reports either, by the way. Not on the bloody UN website, or the WHO website or any other international global NGO. None. Not one. Nada. Zilch.

Oh wait – in 2011 boys got a mention, from Plan International: the Report is called – Because I am a Girl: So, what about boys?

This is what Plan International has to say about boys.

‘Because I am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls 2011 – So, what about boys?’ is the fifth in a series of annual reports published by Plan examining the rights of girls throughout their childhood, adolescence and as young women.

The report shows that far from being an issue just for women and girls, gender is also about boys and men, and that this needs to be better understood if we are going to have a positive impact on societies and economies.

Drawing on research and case studies, the report argues that working for equality must involve men and boys both as holders of power and as a group that is also suffering the consequences of negative gender stereotypes.

It also makes recommendations for action, showing policy makers and planners what can make a real difference to girls’ lives all over the world.

(emphasis added)

Aaaaawww, that’s nice, boys get mentioned – boys living in abject poverty, in terrible disadvantage and distress are described as “holders of power”

What doesn’t get mentioned is that that boys have rights – “…….throughout their childhood, adolescence and as young”.

From the summary of the Report

Because I am a Girl: THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S GIRLS 2 011: YOUTH SUMMARY: So, what about boys?

This is how boys are viewed, will be viewed and no doubt will always be viewed as long as people like Nikki van Der Gaag have anything to do with children.

“So, why are we talking about boys?

The ‘Because I am a Girl’ report is still primarily a report about girls, and will continue to be about girls, but this year we are looking at why it is so important for men and boys to be a part of the solution in achieving gender equality. In many places support for equal opportunities for boys and girls does not exist. Men and boys are still the main decision makers in relationships, families, communities, businesses and governments. If projects and programmes throughout the world only work with women and girls we will struggle to make a difference.”

(emphasis added)

First, the fact that these people believe asking that question “So, why are we talking about boys?” is legitimate says everything you need to know about their ethos – the more legitimate question is this:

Why aren’t you talking about boys?

As unique human beings in their own right – with their own unique perspectives, thoughts, feelings, needs and wishes? Why are you not treating boys as equally valuable and worthwhile human beings, as INDIVIDUALS – not as some ever present problem FOR girls?


I typed International Day of The Boy Child into the UN search box – and I got 1,352 results – this is a list of the top twenty. On the UN Womens site – on the basis that – women – mothers – children – boys are children?

The Top Twenty Results

  1. International Day of the Girl Child 2012 – Date :February 7, 2013
  2. International Day of the Girl Child — “Innovating for Girls’ Education” – Date :January 13, 2013
  3. Joint Statement: International Day of the Girl Child 2012 – Date :October 10, 2012
  4. International Women’s Day 2013 – Date :May 9, 2013
  5. International Women’s Day 2013 – Date :May 9, 2013
  6. International Women’s Day 2014 – Date :May 9, 2013
  7. International Women’s Day 2015 – Date :May 9, 2013
  8. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  9. International Women’s Day 2012
  10. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  11. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  12. International Day of Older Persons – Date :October 1, 2012
  13. International Widows’ Day 2013 – Date :June 21, 2013
  14. International Day of Peace – Date :September 20, 2012
  15. International Day of the World’s Indigenous (women)Peoples – Date :August 8, 2013
  16. International Widows’ Day – 23 June 2011 – Date :June 23, 2011
  17. International Widows’ Day Conference at the House of Lords – Date :June 24, 2013
  18. International Women’s Day Celebration in Egypt – Date :March 8, 2012
  19. Media Advisory: International Widows’ Day Conference Date : June 22, 2011
  20. International Women’s Day Observances and Events Date : March 13, 2012

If you type the same search term into the main UN search box, the results are even more dispiriting see here.


The keyword that gets highlighted the majority of the time is the word “the” followed by “child” and “international” the word “BOY” simply does not register. At all. In the United Nations.

Because you see – ALL these organisations have been infested by feminist ideology and feminists – like Nikki Van Der Gaag.

As a feminist – you can be sure that NONE (or a miniscule amount) of funding/aid goes to little boys or young men – not in any significant amounts that is.

That’s what feminists do, have done, and will keep doing unless they are stopped, unless the vile ideology of feminism is rooted out from every single level of government and civil society.

Now, apparently Van Der Gaag is an expert on “men and masculinities” never mind she isn’t actually male, has zero experience of being male – she is an expert.

And eejits like Ian Hughes are so pathetically emasculated that he and his ilk (male feminists) parrot the unutterable crap that is spewed out from the likes of Van Der Gaag – writing articles entitled Why are men more violent than women?

Citing this wretch as a plausible “reference”

It sounds like I have a huge problem with resources, aid and funding being channelled to girls, doesn’t it?

I don’t – millions of girls in the world suffer all forms of abuse, disadvantage and distress – millions of them – SO DO MILLIONS OF BOYS! But you won’t hear a word about those little boys from Nikki Van Der Gaag.

You see – I’m NOT a feminist, so I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that millions of wee little lassies suffer unimaginable horrors, terrible disadvantage, poverty and trauma, as do millions of wee little laddies.

Because I’m NOT a feminist – I don’t see a “boy child” or a “girl child” and calculate a value or worth for that little creature based on their genitalia – I SEE A CHILD.

A child in need, a child who is suffering, a child who needs help.

From Nikki Van Der Gaag’s piece entitled Why involve men in work on gender equality? Link here.

“………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.”

There in a nutshell you have it – feminism’s greatest fear “hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women.”

Their second greatest fear is losing control of the discourse, of losing control of the narrative. But above and beyond all this, is that absolute dread, fear and terror that anyone in a position of power will start listening to the VOICES OF MEN!

The wrong sort of men – men who don’t give a shit about feminism, men who have listened to the “message of feminism” and declared it to be what it is.

Complete unutterable shoite. Poisonous, vile, malicious. Fraudulent CRAP!

To Ian Hughes and any other poor sap like him who thinks or believes that feminists like Nikki Van Der Gaag “has a point” here’s what she really thinks of you – as a man.

You are a penis wielding barbarian, your very sexuality is toxic, you are a perpetual threat and a danger to the safety and wellbeing of every single female who comes anywhere near to you. You are not to be trusted around children, especially female children and your very core being dictates that you dominate/enslave all women, everywhere.

Given half the chance you will beat the living shit of any woman who dares to oppose/defy/question you or your “male authority” which incidentally is bestowed upon you at the moment of your birth – even if you are born in a hovel in the worst hellhole on this planet – your tiny little baby penis has magic powers!

Speaking of your penis – it isn’t just a part of your body, part of the whole person that you are – it is a weapon, a device whose sole purpose is to harm, to punish, and to inflict violence – on women – all women. Whenever the opportunity arises – and – as a man – you are always on the lookout for that opportunity.

THAT’S what feminists absolutely believe you are – as a man – from the moment of your birth.

You made two mistakes when you penned your dire article Ian Hughes – first you swallowed without question the hypothesis that being male was inherently a bad thing – in effect you took upon yourself the belief that as a man – you were a flawed human being. YOU. As a man.

Secondly – you regurgitated the poisonous “theories” of not just one feminist but two without DOING YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

It took me less than two hours * to put together enough actual verifiable evidence to debunk, discredit and demolish your primary contention.

* To be fair, I had already downloaded Dr. Enda Dooley’s’ studies and the data from The Crime Council and The CSO – Central Statistics Office so, I’ll concede that it would have taken you more than two hours to gather the same evidence – except you didn’t bother

“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?”

And I went for a bloody walk halfway through!

I can already tell you that each and every one of the “five of the seven State of the World’s Girls reports” put together by Nikki Van Der Gaag will be full of inaccuracies, misinterpretations of data/statistics, deliberate fallacies and probably outright fraudulent assertions, and I haven’t read any of them yet – but I will – every single one. I can make this claim because Nikki Van der Gaag is a feminist – and feminist is just another way of saying – lying snivelling weasel.






Question: How can you tell when a feminist is lying?


Answer: Her lips are moving!


F.A.I.R Game…………..and other Feminist Fronts.


Let me preface this by saying – feminists are soooooooooooooooooo predictable, any hint that someone has dared to criticise/correct/debunk/discredit the spewings of usually “academic feminists” and they metaphorically circle the wagons.

I can almost imagine the squinty-eyed scowl, the pursed thin lips and flushed cheeks that indicate rising blood pressure! A moment – while I relish that image.

Annnnnnnd we’re back.

Yesterday I posted a critique of an article by Ian Hughes in The an online Irish newspaper Irish Feminism Has Found its Super Mangina – Ian Hughes….. and I was very mean about his two feminist sources – nooooooooo, I hear you say – it’s true, I was – in fact I poured scorn upon these sources. It goes without saying, that any feminist source is by default – tainted.

Anyhoo – Ian Hughes is male, and though he doesn’t come right out and say it – he is, to all intents and purposes a male feminist – perhaps one of the saddest creatures on the planet – a male feminist – that is.

None of them ever seem to get – that they are mere pawns, useful idiots, cannon fodder in the quest for feminist supremacy of………..well………….everything.

Ergo, I made two statements – one that his article was going to be shit – it was, and the second wondering which feminazi was pulling his strings – because – see above – pawn, useful idiot, cannon fodder.

Today, logged onto the blog and noticed a curious thing – one of the “referrers” to the blog was this

The ‘Stolen Feminism’ Hoax, Anti-Feminist Attack Based on Error-Filled Anecdotes, By Laura Flanders, posted on Sept 1 1994 – that would be 20 years ago!

It’s a blisteringly negative “review” of Christina Hoff Sommers book Who Stole Feminism. How very odd – I never mentioned Hoff Sommers at all in yesterday’s article, or her book, but I did, as I said pour scorn on two feminists – Rebecca Solnit and Nikki Van Der Gaag, and their spewings.

Sooooooo, why out of the clear blue sky does this organisation have a sudden interest in a little blog from The Republic of Ireland?

The organisation in question is called F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) and Laura Flanders is one of its founding members – and a feminist – which makes this organisation an oxymoron.

“She was founding director of the women’s desk at the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and for a decade produced and hosted CounterSpin, FAIR’s syndicated radio program. In January 1993, she appeared on the ABCGood Morning America” program as a spokesperson for FAIR to discuss how domestic violence increases during the annual Super Bowl.”


Fairness and accuracy in reporting anything, not being a feature of feminism or feminists, hence the oxymoron.

Let me give you a taste of what Laura Flanders is about – she writes for The Nation and this is an extract from one of her “contributions” entitled Demanding Women; After the 2012 elections, women in Washington have a long to-do list—and it doesn’t stop at reproductive rights. Laura Flanders | January 30, 2013

Link Here.

She starts off by going on a bit about how basically it was women who voted Barack Obama into power and therefore “he owes ‘em…….big time.

Though in the print version of her article this little editorial note appears at the end:

“Editor’s Note: This piece originally stated, “Fifty-five percent of women (including 96 percent of African-American women and 67 percent of single women) voted for President Barack Obama this past November.” These statistics refer to women voters, not women in the general population. We have corrected the text to reflect that.”

Sooooooooo, her original article wasn’t quite…….accurate!

Moving on, she has a good ole rant about “reproductive rights” which is femspeak for abortion on demand. Paid for by the State.

“Studies by Ibis Reproductive Health, a research group, show that even those women on Medicaid who are legally entitled to an abortion can rarely get their insurance to cover it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one out of every four women enrolled in Medicaid who would otherwise choose abortion has to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she can’t get Medicaid to pay and can’t cover the out-of-pocket cost herself. At least 200,000 women every year, according to the National Network of Abortion Funds, seek financial help paying for “choice.

Around the states, while national polls show that most Americans support birth control and oppose the criminalization of abortion, the last two years have seen a historic spike in restrictions on abortion services. As The Nation’s editors recently noted, “87 percent of US counties lack an abortion provider, and several states have only a clinic or two staffed by a doctor who flies in from another state.” After the Republicans’ Tea Party–fueled victories in the 2010 midterms, state legislatures introduced more bills with reproduction-related provisions in 2011 than ever before: a total of 1,100 provisions, of which 135 were passed by the end of that year.”

(emphasis added)

Ibis Reproduction Health is not just “a research group” it focuses exclusively on women’s health – ergo not unbiased. Its list of funders throws up some interesting names – see here. She also mentions the Guttmacher Institute.

Typically for a feminist Laura Flanders is highly selective about not just the information she disseminates but the manner in which she disseminates it. She refers to the Guttmacher Institute as the source – in a roundabout way – for her contentions about abortion. In particular assuming the default “outraged” tone when she spouts the factoid that “87 percent of US counties lack an abortion provider,……” one will note that she has quotation marks around this statement – which means she got it from somewhere.

I may have mentioned this a time or several but, if a feminist told me the sky was blue I would actually go outside and physically check for myself – ergo – I tracked down the source of Mizz Flanders quote, on the basis that she is a feminist and therefore dropping a one sentence quote into the middle of an “I am outraged” piece is always suspicious – when a feminist does it – there’s always more, and it is usually something that puts quite a different spin on things than feminists generally like.

So here is what Flanders is alluding to. It comes from this Report. Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2011, By Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman

From the summary:

CONTEXT: Following a long-term decline, abortion incidence stabilized between 2005 and 2008. Given the proliferation of state-level abortion restrictions, it is critical to assess abortion incidence and access to services since that time.

METHODS: In 2012–2013, all facilities known or expected to have provided abortion services in 2010 and 2011 were surveyed. Data on the number of abortions were combined with population data to estimate national and state-level abortion rates. Incidence of abortions was assessed by provider type and caseload. Information on state abortion regulations implemented between 2008 and 2011 was collected, and possible relationships with abortion rates and provider numbers were considered.

RESULTS: In 2011, an estimated 1.1 million abortions were performed in the United States; the abortion rate was 16.9 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, representing a drop of 13% since 2008. The number of abortion providers declined 4%; the number of clinics dropped 1%. In 2011, 89% of counties had no clinics, and 38% of women of reproductive age lived in those counties. Early medication abortions accounted for a greater proportion of nonhospital abortions in 2011 (23%) than in 2008 (17%). Of the 106 new abortion restrictions implemented during the study period, few or none appeared to be related to state-level patterns in abortion rates or number of providers.

CONCLUSIONS: The national abortion rate has resumed its decline, and no evidence was found that the overall drop in abortion incidence was related to the decrease in providers or to restrictions implemented between 2008 and 2011.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2014, 46(1):xx–xx, doi: 10.1363/46e0414”

(emphasis added)

It would appear that the “women’s desk” director of F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a bit of a fast and loose attitude to “accuracy” in fact, it seems she has a rather inaccurate way of representing “facts” – but – are we surprised?

Hell no – she’s a bloody feminist after all!

She also goes on a bit about poverty – and yes – only poverty that affects women.

“According to the National Women’s Law Center in its study of the 2010 Census, the poverty rate among women climbed from 13.9 percent in 2009 to 14.5 percent in 2010—the highest in seventeen years. The extreme poverty rate among women climbed to 6.3 percent, the highest rate ever recorded (with extreme poverty meaning an income below half the federal poverty line of approximately $22,000 for a family of four). The few studies ever done in this area show that lesbian couples and their families are much more likely to be poor than their heterosexual counterparts. Overall, in 2010, 17 million women lived in poverty, including more than 7.5 million in extreme poverty. The number of women younger than 65 without healthcare coverage increased to 19 million, or 19.7 percent, the highest in more than a decade.”


Feminists do love their percentages, don’t they – you can do all sorts of things with percentages – for example, if I told you that 85% was the “official” percentage of say black faced sheep in a flock of sheep – you might think “wow – that’s a lot of black faced sheep!”

Actually – it’s not – because there is a flock of sheep grazing on a field not far from where I live – there’s about 100 sheep there and about 85 of them are black-faced sheep – hard to count the little sods, they kept jumping all over the place – but still – 85% sounds and looks like a massive number – much bigger than if I just said “85”

That’s the thing about percentages – it all depends on the number of “objects” – be it sheep or people – that you derive that percentage from.

So it is with poverty percentages – and how one interprets and presents them – when it comes to feminists, you can be absolutely guaranteed that they will “massage” and “fudge” and in most cases downright ignore/delete/eliminate any reference to male numbers of anything. Just like Laura Flanders has done.

Let’s take a closer look at the fellow feminist(s) coven she cited, the National Women’s Law Center

Well first of all the “rate” of female poverty (across all cohorts) went from 15.6 to 16.2 from 2009 – 2010 (a rise of 0.6) NOT 13.9 to 14.5 (also a rise of 0.6) it’s a small point, but we are talking about the director of the women’s desk at F.A.I.R (Fairness and ACCURRACY In Reporting)

What about the actual numbers? (numbers in thousands)

Out of a total male population of 150413 – 21012 (14%) were living in poverty in 2010.

Out of a total female population of 155275 – 25167 (16.2%) were living in poverty in 2010.

Out of a total male population of 149237 – 19475 (13%) were living in poverty in 2009.

Out of a total female population of 154582 – 24094 (15.6%) were living in poverty in 2009.

So 40487 males and 49261 females in the years 2009 – 2010 were living in poverty.

In total 89748 HUMAN BEINGS.

Only the kind of sick twisted inhumane arsehole, that most feminists are, would quibble over the sex of a HUMAN BEING living in poverty.

Data extracted from:

For example neither she nor any other feminist will ever mention that the highest actual numbers of those in poverty – historically – from 1966 – 2011 in The United States has always been males under 18 yrs old. Always.

Let’s take the years 2006 – 2011 – poverty numbers and rates for persons under 18 years old. Numbers are in thousands.

In 2010 – 21012 (22.2%) of males under 18 living in poverty
1n 2010 – 7947 (21.8%) of females under 18 living in poverty
13065 more males.


In 2009 – 19475 (20.4%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2009 – 7682 (21%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
11793 more males.


In 2008 – 17698 (18.8%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2008 – 6941 (19.2%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
10757 more males.


In 2007 – 16302 (17.9%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2007 6550 (18.1%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
9752 more males.


In 2006 – 16000 (17.2%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2006 – 6335 (17.6%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
9665 more males.


Data extracted from :

Now, isn’t that odd – even though the actual numbers of males under 18 years old in poverty is greater than the actual numbers of females under 18 years in poverty – the percentages appear to suggest that it is females under 18 years old who comprise the largest cohort.

How can that be?

Elementary – the larger the number you extrapolate your percentage from, the larger that percentage will be – and that’s how feminists like to shimmy and roll – duck and dive – misrepresent data and, if that fails – simply ignore ALL figures for males – for anything – and of course shriek like banshees on speed about the female “percentages” as a smokescreen to prevent anyone even bothering to look at those male figures.

This historical table covers the years from 1966 – 2011, and the pattern holds throughout this period.

Here’s the thing – I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that yes, numerically speaking absent the under 18 cohort – more females are in poverty than males.

But – people like Laura Flanders and her ilk make me want to puke – we are talking about hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS – both male and female – living in poverty – what does it matter that out of a larger female population, a greater number of those HUMAN BEINGS happen to be female?

What bloody difference does it make?

Oh wait – I forgot – men and boys are not human beings – or not special enough human beings – even when they are living in extremis.

Hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS are living in poverty in The United States – some of those human beings are male and some are female – but they are ALL human beings.

So while Laura Flanders and her ilk are spewing out percentages (one set of percentages mind) and shrieking about “rates” and how x percentage of women are this, that and the other – they are deliberately, consciously and with malice aforethought, not just dehumanising the invisible male sufferers – they are in actual fact dehumanising the female sufferers as well – because they don’t actually give a shit about women, never mind about men – these women are simply propaganda tools – useful rhetorical devices to vomit out more feminist garbage – the kind of garbage that keeps the gravy train of academic and institutional feminism chugging along – and slick operators like Laura Flanders and her fellow harpies in jobs.

Perched aloft their ivory towers gazing disdainfully down on “the poor” and crawling their way to the tops of their useless “careers” on the backs of the very poor they use to do so.

Anyhoo – thanks for stopping by, I do so hope it was………illuminating…………..and good luck with that whole F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) thing Laura.