Feminists Don’t “Do” Research – Do They? Narcissism and Anorexia Nervosa, Joan Bakewell and Frank Sinatra Doing it “His Way”.

 

It’s 11.51 am on a Saturday morning, I’ve had my three cups of coffee, listened to the birdies singing their little hearts out, and spent the last two hours “doing research” in an admittedly haphazard and fairly relaxed way – i.e. – in between “doing research” I’ve popped in and out of various blogs, news sites and generally had a bit of a ramble around the internet. As ya do, while you wake up – on a Saturday morning.

Anyhoo – I came across this post from here

https://j4mb.org.uk/2019/01/19/young-men-who-endorse-the-masculine-ideal-of-success-enjoy-greater-psychological-wellbeing/

Young Men Who Endorse The Masculine Ideal of Success Enjoy Greater Psychological Wellbeing

Which led me to here

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/01/18/young-men-who-endorse-the-masculine-ideal-of-success-enjoy-greater-psychological-wellbeing/

And then here

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/07/29/10-of-the-most-widely-believed-myths-in-psychology/

10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology – By Christian Jarrett.

“Myth” No. 8 caught my eye.

8. The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men

A British survey published in 2014 found that over 65 per cent believed it was probably or definitely true that domestic violence is overwhelmingly committed by men. It’s easy to understand why – men are responsible for more violent crime overall, and being bigger and stronger, on average, men are seen as a more obvious threat. Yet official statistics (cited by Scarduzio et al, this year) show that partner violence against men by women is also a major problem. For example, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in the US found that one in four men had experienced physical violence, rape, and/or stalking from a partner (compared with one in three women) and that 83 per cent of the violence inflicted on men by partners was done so by women. This is not to diminish the seriousness or scale of the problem of partner abuse by men toward women, but to recognise that there is also a significant, lesser known, issue of women being violent toward men. [Editor’s note: more background to this myth is available in the comments section, including our choice of wording for the item subhead, and further academic references].

As soon as I read it I knew that it would garner a response from………………….an irritated feminist, and lo and behold it did, in the person of someone calling themselves “emmahatred” charming!

And here it is – the knee jerk, typical, irrational, unfounded, baseless and oh soooooooooooooo easily debunked “considered opinion” of – yes – you’ve guessed it – a feminist.

emmahatred says: December 20, 2016 at 11:01 am

Item 8 is quite disturbing — but only because of its presence on this list. The text itself fails to illustrate that the idea is a myth; those statistics actually reinforce the (true) belief that DV is overwhelmingly committed by men.

99% of DV on women is perpetrated by men (this is the corollary stat in the article cited, conveniently failed to make an appearance here…).

And the 83% statistics — that leaves us with 17% of DV on men being perpetrated by men, yet only around 6.1% of men have sex with men (1) (other studies put incidence between 4-8%.) (We can infer the % of men in *relationships* with men is lower still.)

Men are also overwhelming more violent — more enduring, more lethal — in the violent acts they commit. According to ONS statistics, in England and Wales in 2015, a woman was murdered by a current or former partner on average once every three days (around 100 per year). How many men were murdered by a former partner? Around 30. And ~9 of those murders were committed by men.

These statistics are very easy to find, by the way — whereas I expect the author of that list item had to dig pretty deep to find some figures he could verbally torture to promote his bogus idea.I can’t think of any good reason why this list intends to perpetuate a really harmful (not just dumb, but actively dangerous) myth under the guise of science.

  1. Johnson AM, Wadsworth J, Wellings K, Bradshaw S, Field J (December 1992). “Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk”. Nature. 360 (6403): 410–2.

I have to say I was deeply impressed by the response – cool calm and ever so slightly disdainful. Warranted, I might add.

BPS Research Digest says: December 21, 2016 at 11:01 am

The wording of the myth “The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men” is taken verbatim from the book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology by Scott Lilienfeld et al. The same wording was also used in a subsequent survey of belief in popular psychology myths published by Adrian Furnham and David Hughes, published in the journal Teaching of Psychology. The reason this is a myth is that crime statistics show that actually a considerable number of women are violent toward men in intimate relationships. Though these stats suggest men are more often violent toward women than vice versa, it is not the case that the “overwhelming majority” of such acts are committed by men. We cited some contemporary figures to illustrate this point, although readers may have different interpretations of what would constitute an “overwhelming majority” in weighing up these figures. However, the evidence against the claim that “the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men” runs much deeper.

Family conflict studies, that look at rates of domestic violence that are not necessarily recorded as crimes, find about equal rates of violence by men against women and by women against men: in fact sometimes the results suggest more domestic violence by women against men than vice versa. Writing in the late 1990s, the sociologist Murray Straus described the backlash against his and his colleagues’ “disturbing discovery” in the 1970s “that women physically assaulted partners in marital, cohabiting and dating relationships as often as men assaulted their partners”. He adds: “The finding caused me and my former colleague, Suzanne Steinmetz, to be excommunicated as feminists”. Feminists and female victim advocates, understandably perhaps, fear that drawing attention to male victims undermines the seriousness of the problem of male abuse of women, and of female oppression more broadly.

This heated controversy has persisted through the decades. In 2000 a seminal meta-analysis by Archer looked at all published data available on domestic violence at that time (including data from family conflict studies, crime surveys and police records) and concluded that “Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” Since then as more findings have emerged, the field has broadly divided into two camps – those who highlight the greater seriousness of male domestic violence toward women (for example, based on injuries being more serious and the motives being more controlling), and the other camp who highlight the largely unknown, among the public at least, and surprisingly widespread phenomenon of female domestic violence toward men.

A recent paper in The Journal of Family Violence by feminist researchers, led by Nicole Johnson, tried to overcome this impasse by acknowledging that context is all important, and that in some domestic contexts men are more violent, whereas in others women are the more violent (and noting that many past studies have been influenced by the political leanings of their authors). But ultimately they urge the field to move beyond this argument of relative rates of abuse by the genders, to find out more about why domestic violence occurs and how to stop it in all its forms.”

So far, so typical – what intrigued me wasn’t the wearisome regurgitating of ill-informed and baseless femspeak regarding the TRUTH about DV, nor for that matter BPS Research’s response, it was emmahatred herself.

Generally, feminists bore me, have heard it all, read it all, and there are now innumerable highly qualified, competent and adept persons more that capable of batting away the usual feminist crap – usually without breaking a sweat.

But – this little toxic vixen caught my eye – it was the name “emmahatred”! crikey – anyone who incorporates the concept of “hatred” into their online persona – has some real serious issues – I thought to myself. And is most likely young (compared to me that is)

Here’s where a click of a mouse led me: ILL/LITERACY https://emmaseaber.wordpress.com/about/

Had a rummage around her blog, clicked into her various links, got curious as to what “Medical Humanities” was:

My name is (usually) Emma Seaber and I’m a PhD student. I’m based in the English Department at King’s College London and my research project explores the special status of reading and writing practices in anorexia nervosa.

I started my PhD in October 2015. Before that I did a part-time MSc in Medical Humanities, also at King’s, while spending a few years working in the education sector. Although I have a broad range of interests, my academic background is principally in English: I also have an MA in English & American Studies, with a concentration on gender studies, and an undergraduate degree in English Lit. So I tend to gravitate towards literary projects rather than historical ones — and I’m very glad to be at King’s, where medical humanities is lovingly held in the bosom of the English department.

So, went and had a look, here:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught-courses/medical-humanities-msc.aspx

Sounds ridiculous.

“Emma” appears to be a bit obsessed with “anorexia nervosa” in fact when Joan Bakewell wrote a piece opining that “anorexia nervosa” was a form of “narcissism” little Emma lost the plot, to the extent she penned a screed.

I did try and read “Emma’s” long long diatribe on whether or not she is obsessed with anorexia nervosa because she either had it, or has it – but – to be honest – couldn’t get through it – eyes started to glaze over after the very first paragraph – found myself not giving a shit if she did or didn’t.

Anyhoo – back to what triggered her to write this:

About Joan Bakewell https://medium.com/@EmmaHatred/about-joan-bakewell-4ea98339ee4f

A snippet from Emma’s big ole, and yep, ill-informed, rant against Ms. Bakewell.

……….Anorectics whose eating disorders are not accommodated by the prevailing narrative are less likely to seek help and are less likely to have their problems recognised as such if they do. Delays in diagnosis and treatment have well known negative consequences for illness duration and recovery trajectory. And knowing that the prevailing narrative — of narcissism, vanity, Barbie dolls and models — is false, only makes the facts sadder.”

The entire piece confirms, as if confirmation was needed, that 99.99% of feminists are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Brief interlude while I go feed the birdies, enjoy 😉

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows

And did it my way

Yes, it was my way

Lyrics here if you want to sing along.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/my-way-lyrics-frank-sinatra.html

Ole Blue Eyes doing it “his way” here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AVOpNR2PIs

Ok – back. Love that song – my father loved that song. Not so keen when my mother got all eeeem soppy about “Francis Albert” as she called him. 😉

Anyhoo – narcissism and anorexia?

Joan Bakewell was actually on the right track – albeit she could’ve done just a tad more RESEARCH and put up a more robust defense against little Emma’s hysterical rant – but – she didn’t – while her point about being entitled to an opinion is and was valid, notwithstanding Emma’s classic self-important egotistical statement here:

I don’t really understand why Bakewell is persisting in trying to paint her critics as unreasonable by asking of them goading questions that suggest their primary challenge is to her right to speak at all, not to the content and effect of her speech.

I also don’t understand why she hasn’t now, having read what people like me have been saying to her and about her article more generally, issued a subsequent statement something along the lines of “You’re right. I shouldn’t have spoken up on an issue about which I know less than nothing. It was wrong and, moreover, irresponsible of me to speculate in the national press about this topic, especially since my views, whatever my intention in expressing them was, embarrassingly and dangerously reinforce false perceptions of eating disorders and the people who have them”.

(Emphasis added)

“…………people like me have been saying to her………”  seriously? Little Emma is demanding a full groveling public retraction from Joan Bakewell, because “people like me” (Emma) expect and are entitled to it……………………………………. WHY?

Is there a connection between anorexia and narcissism? Yes, there is.

Has any research been done? Absolutely loads

Do or did either Joan Bakewell or Emma have ANY knowledge at all about either anorexia or narcissism? From what I’ve read from both? Nope. Though Ms. Bakewell was onto something (do research!)

Notwithstanding Emma’s obsession with anorexia.

I did a quick literature review of the very topic of “anorexia and narcissism” here’s a sample of what I found – over the course of about an hour – its Saturday – have stuff to do. Laundry doesn’t do itself ya know 😉

I went onto an academic database after doing a quick google search – got directed to the first article Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer Emma Foster Anna Skelton; International Journal of Eating Disorders Volume 40, Issue 2; First published: 01 November 2006.

Okie dokie – log into “Wiley Online Library” put in title of article, this is the search result.

“66 results for “Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders” anywhere SAVE SEARCH”

I have copied and pasted the titles to the following articles along with the abstracts of these articles.

  1. Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer Emma Foster Anna Skelton; International Journal of Eating Disorders Volume 40, Issue 2; First published: 01 November 2006″

“Abstract

Objective:

This study examined the associations between eating pathology and narcissism in an eating‐disordered group. Narcissism was conceptualized in terms of both its core element (entitlement, grandiosity) and the narcissistic defenses that are used to maintain self‐esteem.

Method:

Seventy non‐clinical and 84 eating‐disordered patients completed a measure of the different elements of narcissism, and a standardized measure of eating pathology.

Results:

The eatingdisordered group scored higher than the nonclinical women on the measures of core narcissism and of the narcissistically abused style (“poor me” defense). The pattern of dimensional associations between narcissism and eating pathology was highly similar across the clinical and nonclinical groups, with the narcissistic defenses playing the strongest role. The poisonous pedagogy style (“bad you” defense) was positively associated with restrictive attitudes toward eating, while the narcissistically abused style was positively associated with restraint, eating concern, body shape concern, and body weight concern.

Conclusion:

The narcissistic defenses are particularly relevant in understanding the eating disorders. Implications for future research are outlined, and suggestions are made about the need to assess and respond to these associations in treatment. © 2006 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Eat Disord 2006”

For further research purposes (for anyone who might be interested) here is the “References” section of this paper. You might be able to get some of them online without the need to access a database.

References

  1. Mogul LS. Asceticism in adolescence and anorexia nervosa. Psychoanal Study Child 1980;35:155–175. 2. Sands SH. Self psychology therapy. In: Miller K, Mizes JS, editors. Comparative Treatments of Eating Disorders. London: Free Association Books, 2000, pp. 182–206.

  2. Lehoux PM, Steiger H, Jabalpurwala S. State/trait distinctions in bulimic syndromes. Int J Eat Disord 2000;27:36–42.

  3. McLaren L, Gauvin L, Steiger H. A two-factor model of disordered eating. Eat Behav 2001;2:51–65.

  4. Steiger H, Jabalpurwala S, Champagne J, Stotland S. A controlled study of trait narcissism in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 1997;22:173–178.

  5. Steinberg BE, Shaw RJ. Bulimia as a disturbance of narcissism: Self-esteem and the capacity to self-soothe. Addict Behav 1997;22:699–710.

  6. Davis C, Claridge G, Cerullo D. Reflections on narcissism: Conflicts about body-image perceptions in women. Pers Indiv Differ 1997;22:309–316.

  7. Karwautz A, Volkl-Kernstock S, Nobis G, Kalchmayr G, HafferlGattermayer A, Wober-Bingol C, et al. Characteristics of selfregulation in adolescent patients with anorexia nervosa. Brit J Med Psychol 2001;74:101–114.

  8. Miller A. The Drama of the Gifted Child. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

  9. Miller A. Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1984.

  10. Miller A. For Your Own Good. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1985.

  11. Slade P. Towards a functional analysis of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Brit J Clin Psychol 1982;21:167–179.

  12. Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Shafran R. Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A ‘transdiagnostic’ theory and treatment. Behav Res Ther 2003;41:509–528.

  13. O’Brien M. Examining the dimensionality of pathological narcissism: Factor analysis and construct validity of the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychol Rep 1987;61:499–510.

  14. O’Brien M. Further evidence of the validity of the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychol Rep 1988;62:879–882.

  15. Beck AT, Freeman A, Davis DD. Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2004.

  16. Young JE, Klosko JS, Weishaar ME. Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford, 2003.

  17. Brunton JN, Lacey JH, Waller G. Narcissism and eating characteristics in young non-clinical women. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005;193:140–143.

  18. Brunton JN, Lacey JH, Waller G. Eating pathology in young non-clinical adults: A pilot study of the impact of parental responsibility. Eur Eat Disord Rev 2005;13:406–410.

  19. Waller G. Why do we diagnose different types of eating disorder? Arguments for a change in research and clinical practice. Eat Disord Rev 1993;1:74–89.

  20. Fairburn CG, Beglin SJ. Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report. Int J Eat Disord 1994;16:363– 370.”

To continue:

  1. “Emotional awareness among eatingdisordered patients: the role of narcissistic traits; Rachel Lawson; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer; European Eating Disorders Review Volume 16, Issue 1; First published: 23 October 2007″

“Abstract

The narcissistic defences and a lack of emotional awareness (alexithymia) are both salient features of eating disorder pathology, as well as being linked to each other. As each of these characteristics impacts independently on treatment, it is important to understand how they interact within an eating‐disordered population.

The present study assessed the associations between the three core elements of alexithymia and the core and defensive elements of narcissism in this clinical group. Seventy eating‐disordered patients completed standardised measures of alexithymia and narcissism, and multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to examine the relationship between these variables.

Core narcissism (e.g. grandiosity, entitlement) was associated with difficulties in describing feelings to others, whereas the narcissistic defences were associated with difficulties in identifying feelings and distinguishing them from somatic experiences. These patterns of association suggest that different aspects of alexithymia are associated with different aspects of narcissism. Clinical suggestions are made for how these characteristics might require modifications of standard treatment approaches for the eating disorders. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.”

I referenced the next two because while not per se about the connection between anorexia (eating disorders) and narcissism, it suggests a further interesting line of enquiry and RESEARCH.

  1. “The Spectre at the Feast: An Exploration of the Relationship Between the Dead Mother Complex and Eating Disorders; Wendy M. Pitcairn; British Journal of Psychotherapy Volume 29, Issue 1; First published: 22 January 2013″

“Abstract

This paper sets out to explore the relationship between postnatal depression in a mother and the subsequent development of an eating disorder in her daughter who was seen for individual work. It is suggested that postnatal depression impacted negatively on the developing relationship between the mother and her infant producing an insecure attachment leading to the development of an eating disorder. This is explored with particular reference to Green’s concept of the dead mother complex. Parallels are drawn between the dead mother complex and the psychopathology of eating disorders and a number of common themes are identified.”

  1. “PROJECTION, INTROJECTION AND IDENTITY IN ANOREXIA NERVOSA; Anthony P. Winston; British Journal of Psychotherapy Volume 21, Issue 3; First published: 17 November 2006″

“Abstract

In some cases of anorexia nervosa, the mother uses projective identification to produce a state of fusion between herself and her child. This makes it impossible for the child to develop a sense of herself as separate. The rejection of food represents a symbolic rejection of these maternal projections. This defence also prevents the healthy introjection of parental objects which is required to establish a sense of identity. The anorexic is left with a profound sense of inner emptiness and an inability to develop adult relationships. The therapeutic relationship can provide a non‐invasive environment in which the patient can begin to develop a sense of self. Case material is used to demonstrate how progress was closely linked to the patient’s growing awareness of the therapist as a separate individual.”

Now. I put a search into JStor using these keywords: anorexia eating disorders causes and got 752 results (you should try it Emma)

Here is a brief snapshot of some of those results.

From page 1 –

“Fearing Fat: A Literature Review of Family Systems Understandings and Treatments of Anorexia and Bulimia; Kyle D. Killian; Family Relations, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 311-318

Topics: Anorexia nervosa, Bulimia nervosa, Appetite depressants, Family therapy, Parents, Adolescents, Mothers”

From page 4 –

“The Influence of Naive Causal Theories on Lay Concepts of Mental Illness; Nancy S. Kim, Woo-Kyoung Ahn; The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 115, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 33-65

Topics: Symptoms, Disorders, Anorexia nervosa, Causal theory, Major depressive disorder, Reasoning, Body weight, Compulsive personality disorder”

Lots of “feminist perspective” articles and papers of course.

Conclusion and Advice – and yes emma I’m talking to you.

You actually appear to be a reasonably intelligent young woman (if a bit deluded) but you are allowing yourself to become indoctrinated by an ideology that is inherently toxic and FRAUDALENT.

While it might appear as if the “feminist perspective” is giving you an insight into human behavior, whatever that behavior might be – in fact what your “allegiance” to this “feminist perspective” will ultimately do is handicap your development as a rounded, self-aware and empathic HUMAN BEING.

You might be able to convince yourself that if you maintain this tunnel visioned, blinkered and rigid focus on ONLY “research” conducted from a “feminist perspective” that you will become an “expert” on all forms and manifestations of human behavior – but – the weight of science, hard data, properly conducted research, and history is against you.

Further – look around – at human beings – ALL human beings – what a diverse and interesting group they are – some bad – some good – and that badness or goodness has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with whether any particular human is male or female. NOTHING.

What is the ultimate pinnacle of badness, of evil, of insanity is this – an ideology that promulgates hatred against a distinct class of human beings – from the day they are born because that tiny little new human being happens to be a male human being.

THAT is your feminism.  An ideology of hate.

Slainte.

Edit: while having a bit of a browse, looking for studies that would be accessible online I came across this one – Eating disorders in adolescence: attachment issues from a developmental perspective ;Manuela Gander 1 *, Kathrin Sevecke 2 and Anna Buchheim 1

1Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria,

2 Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530258/pdf/fpsyg-06-01136.pdf

“Summary

“………………..The most striking result that emerges from the latest state of narrative based research is the high prevalence of the unresolved attachment status in adolescent patients and their mothers. Only a small number of studies included fathers and they show that patients feel more alienated from them and they describe them as less caring and more controlling. Furthermore, recent studies demonstrate that adolescents with an unresolved attachment representation have a greater rate of comorbid disorders like PD and depression and higher ED symptom severity. Future studies that investigate traumatizing events, symptom severity and comorbidity in a larger sample of adolescents with ED using a narrative attachment measure might provide a better understanding and treatment of this complex and painful condition.”

Had a bit of a lightbulb moment – ED (eating disorder) Parental Alienation – controlling, alienating, narcissistic mothers?  Hmmmmmm. More research methinks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism = Cultural, Political and Social Poison.

 

I’ve been reading (avidly I might add) the thousands of comments on various different articles, news reports etc. in response to the Gillette ad. (google it if you haven’t heard)

I watched this Piers Morgan segment, (link below) not for Mr. Morgan going off on one but for the reaction of the females, especially the fat blonde one*.  Classic feminist reaction, with a twist, she was obviously building up a head of steam as a prelude to spewing out the usual feminist “how dare you disagree with my toxic world view” crap but, something strange happened – she realized, neither Piers Morgan or Peter Lloyd were going to back down, get all apologetic, or start dissembling and ducking and diving to avoid triggering FEMALE DISSAPROVAL – they quite clearly didn’t give a rats ass if these harpies with-held their “approval” or took the usual female stance of getting all offended and snippy because some man took issue with their crap!

Well…………………. hallelujah!

*aside to fat blonde re “fat-shaming” Oi – yep, you should be ashamed – get your fat arse out of the fridge and lose some weight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTyczkAkM2Y&frags=pl%2Cwn

Seriously watch the clip and watch the fat blonde when Piers Morgan starts talking – but – horror of horrors – starts talking over her.

Why am I making a big deal about this?

Simples – the continuing endorsement of toxic feminist crap by MALES is what is keeping toxic feminist crap alive.

Bear with me – am not giving out to men en mass (well not really) what I’m asking you all to do is WATCH AND LEARN.

Feminism cannot survive without MALE endorsement and feminism is toxic crap that demonizes, pathologizes and devalues MALENESS and masculinity.

As a former female Irish politician once quipped – “its just like turkeys voting for Christmas” or words to that effect.

Men who endorse feminism or its more toxic cousin gynocentrism are just like turkeys voting for Christmas.

The comments I’ve been reading from both men and women in reaction to the Gillette ad are over-whelmingly negative – and deservedly so.

Guys – please I’m begging you – take a step back – a BIG step back, and THINK.

Think about all the stupid asinine and frankly deranged shoite that women come out with – now imagine if a man said any of that crap to you? Or a two-year old?

How about this one “I’m going to scream and scream and scream, stamp my feet, flounce about like a demented tantrum throwing two-year old till you…………………………………..” fill in the blanks yourselves.

Seriously? Would you take that crap from a two-year old?

I’m female and I’m telling you – as men – you owe me nothing, my opinions or views are no more valid than yours, my needs/wants/desires or even random whims (mostly for magnums) are no more valid that yours.

As a female, I am no more special a human being than you are – I am no more entitled to exercise the full range of Human Rights than you are.

ALL my heroes are men – can I suggest that ALL your heroes should be as well, so many many of your fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers sacrificed so that you, and me, could live in a safe world, could have all the modern conveniences of modern 21st living – so many men gave their lives so that YOU and me could be free.

All the qualities that previous generations of men had – courage, endurance, stoicism, selflessness and integrity – THOSE are qualities that should be applauded.

All of the “qualities” that feminism espouses – spitefulness, vindictiveness, dishonesty, narcissism, stupidity, callousness and lack of empathy – THOSE are the “qualities” that feminism brought into the world and poisoned our culture with – and need to excised. NOW.

Feminism wants you to believe that all those previous generations of brave selfless men did this because………….patriarchy! (their twisted version of “patriarchy)

Bullshit.

They did it for you and FOR them – and these toxic, vile hideous harpies are literally spitting on the graves of all these selfless brave MEN.

So, stand up for yourselves, and for your forebears, and tell these horrible nasty and feminists and gynocetrists to go………………………………….f..k themselves, no matter who they are – your wife/girlfriend/partner – sister/niece/aunt/mother.

Any female who demands you kneel and worship at her feet and treats you like shit – is an arsehole.

Okie dokie – got that off my chest now – time for a magnum 😉

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domestic Violence Act 2018: Republic of Ireland.

 

On foot of a press release from the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ireland The Domestic Violence Act 2018 came into force (became law) on the 2nd January 2018, repealing the previous legislation on domestic violence

“Repeals

  1. The following are repealed:

(a) section 51 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 ;

(b) the Domestic Violence Act 1996 ;

(c) the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2002 .”

 

Link to Domestic Violence act 2018 is here:

From: Irish Statute Book: Domestic Violence act 2018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/6/enacted/en/print

 

Naturally enough the Minister made an “announcement” and as is the wont of politicians he made sure to curry favour with those whom he believed to be “experts” on “domestic violence” and took a stance which he believed would position himself as an advocate and supporter of those “experts”

From Department of Justice Press Release: Minister Flanagan brings landmark Domestic Violence Act into operation

http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR19000001

“I would like to acknowledge the work being done by organisations who support victims of domestic violence, and their contribution in strengthening the provisions of the Act.”

One of whom is Catriona Gleeson of Safe Ireland – one of many many “domestic violence services” for WOMEN and only women, where this prize idiot (aren’t they all?) pontificated in this article about one aspect of the new legislation – Coercive Control.

From: New offence of coercive control in domestic violence law

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0102/1019886-domestic-violence/

“Caitriona Gleeson, Programme and Communications Manager with Safe Ireland, said coercive control is effectively domestic violence.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland she said it is “where somebody in a relationship deliberately sets out to deliberately put in fear and control the other person’s life.”

“There certainly are aspects of the behaviour that will always be very difficult to prove, however there is lots of behaviour that is investigated properly and documented properly will result in convictions, and that’s what we’re hopeful for.”

Ms Gleeson said Ireland is the third country in the world to introduce this new offence. England introduced it a number of years ago and Scotland more recently.

She said there has been significant uptake in training among gardaí ahead of the introduction of the new law but feels more training is still needed.

Edit: As I was writing this I opened this article with a view to addressing Ms. Gleesons “crowing” over similiar legislation being introduced in the UK – I have just realised I forgot to add it.

Controlling girlfriend ‘first woman convicted’ of new domestic abuse offence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

And from the article:

“A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.”

Ryan Nugent in the Irish Independent quoted extensively from another “expert” on “domestic violence”

Director of women’s aid in Ireland Margaret Martin in this article

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychological-abuse-in-a-relationship-is-a-criminal-offence-under-new-law-37674223.html

“Another change is that a violent or sexual offence committed by a person against their spouse or person they are in an intimate relationship with will be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing. This was welcomed by director of Women’s Aid, Margaret Martin.

“We have long argued that when a perpetrator is a current or former intimate partner of the woman that this should be an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one when it comes to sentencing to acknowledge the unique position that the perpetrator is in, including the fact that they have intimate knowledge of and access to their victim and so brutally betrays that trust.”

And here:

“Ms Martin said that additional resources need to be included if the new act is to be a success.

This includes more resources for gardaí and courts as well as specialist support services.

“From January 1, 2019, women must feel change quickly. It must be positive, it must be practical and it must make them and their children safer from abuse,” Ms Martin said.

“What is promised on paper must be fully resourced to be effective in protecting those affected by domestic violence.

“We are concerned that an already overstretched system will see an increase in demand when the new provisions commence,” she warned.

Ms Martin also said that Women’s Aid supports the extension of eligibility for safety and barring orders for those in relationships but who are not cohabiting.

“This change will make a significant difference to the safety of younger women.

“We also welcome the move to prevent abusers to communicate electronically with their victims, a step in the right direction to address the digital abuse and online harassment of women by partners and exes.”

Out-of-hours sittings of the District Court will be held to provide orders in emergency situations.

“We hope that the Garda will use this provision to offer vulnerable women the chance to apply for immediate protection when it is needed and that this measure is adequately resourced, so that it will work in practice,” said Ms Martin.”

By the way – these “quotes” represent almost the full content of Mr. Nugent’s article – he simply handed over the “reporting” to this “expert” on domestic violence and threw in a few sentences linking together this “experts” quotes – great example of……..journalism Mr. Nugent.

In May this article was published by Men’s Voices Ireland

The paragraph that jumped out at me from: Men’s Voices Ireland

The Domestic Violence Act May 2018

https://www.mensvoicesireland.com/news/the-domestic-violence-act-may-2018/

was this one

“Hearings took place before the committee on Feb 19 and Feb 26 2014 at which 24 groups or individuals were called. Nobody presented any evidence on the rates of perpetration as between men and women, attempted to give a balanced nonpartisan view of DV, instance the principal features of DV including many surprising recent findings or to show the extent to which men are also victims. An enormous amount of evidence which challenges the official narrative was thereby omitted.”

I’m actually a bit surprised you were shocked and surprised at the way these committee hearings went guys?

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, bear with me, I have a copy of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 sitting right here on my desk beside me as I type this. I’ve been through it twice now – and while I am not purporting in any way shape or form to be giving a detailed analysis of this piece of legislation – at this time – one thing has quite clearly caught my eye – actually a couple of things – but lets just focus, for the moment on this one thing.

In every section empowering “someone” to make an application under this piece of legislation the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

Let me repeat that – the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

THE PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION for protection, for an order, for ANYTHING under the provisions of this legislation is consistently referred to as – THE APPLICANT.

There is no “presumption” contained in this Legislation that “The Applicant” is or can be automatically FEMALE.

The person, who in the context of court proceedings in relation to any provision against who an Order is being sought pursuant to the provisions of this piece of legislation is consistently referred to as THE RESPONDENT.

Again there is NO “presumption” that the “Respondent” is or can only be MALE.

There is no reference IN ANY SECTION to SHE – as in “SHE MAY”, are you following my logic?

So, notwithstanding any bullshit from women’s aid, from safe Ireland or any of the innumerable “charadees” sucking up the vast majority of “resources” to address the issue of “domestic violence” this legislation is EQUALLY applicable in its provisions to both MEN and women.

As I said previously – I am literally reading and studying this legislation as we speak – so when I have not only gone through this with a fine-tooth comb, and when I have reviewed what I presume will be a new procedure for making applications under this legislation I will publish a further article.

The reason for this is simple – all “Motions/Applications” have a format, a particular way of doing it – this format involves submitting certain forms and following certain “Orders of the Court”

Because ALL the previous legislation has been repealed – this will require NEW “Rules of the Court” and probably the current “Forms” will require amendment/change/re-formatting.

My apologies for getting a bit technical – but if you think that some slimey counsel, usually paid for by women’s aid or any of the other cesspits of feminist propaganda won’t try and trip you (any man) up, invariably going into court as a lay litigant because you (any man) used the “wrong form” didn’t do something “technical” think again.

There is one final point I would like to make here – and I refer to the section on “coercive control: Section 39 and strongly suggest you review the research and analysis with regard to parental alienation – and perhaps see if you can spot the commonalities in particular Section 39 (2) (a) and (b)

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person’s behaviour has a serious effect on a relevant person if the behaviour causes the relevant person—

(a) to fear that violence will be used against him or her, or

(b) serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities.

(emphasis added)

Finally.

If I achieve nothing else today by posting this, with the caveat, I have not had time to do a thorough analysis and/or a proper legal search (to link other provisions of law to this legislation i.e., the Constitution, The ECHR etc.) except this:

If you are a MAN and you are reading this, or have been reading any of the articles referenced above and have inculcated the message that The Domestic Violence Act 2018 is ONLY FOR WOMEN.

STOP THINKING THAT – NOW.

This legislation applies to YOU – as a man, as a human being, as an Irish Citizen

  • Every single provision of this Legislation can be used, invoked and applied BY YOU. AS A MAN.
  • You as A MAN are entitled to every single protection available under this Legislation AS A MAN.
  • You AS A MAN are entitled to under the provisions of this legislation to go into COURT on a Motion/Application exactly like any woman can.
  • And further – you as A MAN are entitled to be granted an Order (whatever form that Order takes) under ANY provision of this legislation AS A MAN, as a human being – and – as an Irish Citizen.

 

Slainte.