In The Best Interests of the Child…..Getting it Wrong: A Pyrrhic Victory Creating Conflict to “Win” Custody of Children. Part 1

 

 

How women manipulate the legal system and rely on judicial ignorance, judicial reliance on faulty and unsupported assumptions and “mother myths” to sever, disrupt, poison and damage Father/Child Relationships by creating a toxic conflictual environment, (which for convenience I will refer to as Toxic Parental Alienation Conflict TPAC)I contend that it isn’t the manufactured “conflict” that damages children the most – it is losing their Fathers through Family Law Judges relying on and applying the above mentioned judicial ignorance, faulty research and unsupported assumptions and “mother myths”  in judicial decision making in contested “custody” cases that causes the worst outcomes for children.

In effect – Family Law Judges who make custody decisions “in the best interests of the child” by allowing TPAC to influence erroneous decisions to award “sole custody” to the mothers creating the TPAC and “limited” or “supervised access” to Fathers are entrenching, endorsing and supporting the continuing negative psychological damage being inflicted on children.

How? By giving TPAC mothers permission to continue to cause psychological damage to children BY PREVENTING THESE CHILDREN FROM HAVING A FULL MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FATHERS.

To reiterate – it isn’t the “conflict” that ultimately causes the most damage to the children – it is losing their fathers.

Which is not to say that that the TPAC isn’t damaging – it is – but there are two negative processes interacting here – children being used as pawns in TPAC, and the RESULT of children being subjected to TPAC – losing their Father – and yes, I acknowledge that mothers have also been the victims of TPAC – but the vast majority of parents being targeted are Fathers.

The Nature of Conflict

It is, for want of a better expression, human nature to disagree with or dispute the opinions, views or positions of other people – we are betimes in conflict with the stated opinions of other people, we express that disagreement and put forward an alternative opinion and/or view. We debate. We argue.

My mother used to say “it would be a boring world if everybody agreed with everybody else all the time” and I concur. No doubt you have all either been involved in, or observed two people in heated exchanges – usually because there is passionate disagreement – if one is unable to convince the other of the validity of your point of view, despite your best efforts, the normal adult thing to do is to “agree to disagree”

On a more mundane everyday level, human life is peppered with small micro disagreements, small incidents of conflict – I want to watch Babylon 5 (Duh!) someone else wants to watch Top Gear (Huh!) ooops – conflict. The solution is glaringly obvious……………for grown ups that is. Get another bloody television.

The point is human life is about conflict, disagreements, disputes, large, small and microscopic – we manage them, we resolve them, usually on the fly and we MOVE ON. This happens in all human relationships – ALL – including parental relationships – obviously some parental relationships are more argumentative, more tetchy, more conflictual than others – but – in the context of those parental relationships, the issue isn’t and shouldn’t be about the level of parental conflict BETWEEN the parents – the issue is – are the children dragged into these conflicts and how do the courts view this “conflict”

There is of course another more insidious underlying process in play – in TPAC the conflict is manufactured, engineered, deliberately instigated, for one purpose and one purpose only – to sever the parental relationship between the child/ren and the targeted parent – usually the father, and the children are manipulated into becoming involved in, part of, and enmeshed in this manufactured “conflict”

The fact that there is “conflict” in particular where one parent is actively engaging in behaviour’s that disrupt, prevent, impede and/or damage the other parents relationship with his child/ren, is actively seeking judicial endorsement of a curtailment of the other parents relationship with his child/ren is, in my opinion an immediate red flag – and should be. Any parent who demands that the Court sanctions and endorses a “gate-keeping” role, authority, position over the other parents relationship with his children is immediately suspect.

I’m going to pause here for a moment for a little aside and quote from Re-examining the Research on Parental Conflict, Coparenting, and Custody Arrangements: Linda Nielsen Wake Forest University: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2017, Vol. 23, No. 2, 211–231

Empirical Basis for the Conflict Hypothesis

The assumption that, unless parents have a low conflict, cooperative relationship, the children will fare more poorly if they have frequent contact with their father or if they live in a JPC family seems to have originated from five studies in the 1980s. Twenty five to 30 years ago when these studies were conducted, it was generally assumed that children benefitted most from maximum mothering time while their parents lived together, as well as after they separated. From this perspective, restricting the children’s time with their father would have a less negative impact than exposing them to the parental conflict. The assumption was that, unless the parents had a friendly, low conflict relationship, the more time fathers and children spent together, the more conflict would likely arise. These beliefs are reflected in custody laws which have historically restricted children’s time with their fathers to every other weekend and occasional vacation time (DiFonzo, 2014). The earliest of the five studies (Johnston, Kline, & Tschann, 1989) garnered nationwide attention when cited in Wallerstein’s bestselling book on divorce (Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000) to support the view that,

Joint custody arrangements that involve the child in going back and forth at frequent intervals are particularly harmful to children in a high conflict family. Children who are ordered to traverse a battleground between warring parents show serious symptoms that affect their physical and mental health. The research findings on how seriously troubled these children are and how quickly their adjustment deteriorates are very powerful. (Wallerstein et al., 2000, p. 215)

Wallerstein’s books received national media attention for well more than a decade (Kirn, 2012). Prioritizing conflict and recommending against JPC or frequent “visitation” unless conflict was low gained further momentum in books written for family court and mental health professionals (Garrity & Baris, 1997; Hodges, 1991; Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Stahl, 1999). Johnston et al. (1989) was a pioneering study that for many years was misinterpreted and cited as evidence that joint physical custody was only suitable for parents with little to no conflict. Given its longstanding influence and the fact that its author (Johnston, 1995) has expressed regret about how the study has been, and continues to be (e.g., Shaffer, 2007) misunderstood and misused, it merits careful attention.”

NB JPC means Joint Physical Custody.

A summary of Dr. Neilsen’s research is available here and the full text of her research paper is here. Dr. Neilsen reviewed 54 studies conducted over an extensive period of time, including the one quoted from above, which has been relied on extensively to support SPC (Sole Physical Custody) decisions and more importantly, the assumptions that Family Law Judges use and are consistently trotted out to support SPC arrangements – Dr. Neilsens research empirically discredits (in my opinion) ALL previous assumptions in relation to SPC decisions, and the erroneous and flawed thinking upon which those decisions have, and continue to be made with regard to the custody of children.

From:

10 Surprising Findings on Shared Parenting After Divorce or Separation: Linda Neilsen

  1. In the 54 studies—absent situations in which children needed protection from an abusive or negligent parent even before their parents separated—children in shared-parenting families had better outcomes than children in sole physical custody families. The measures of well-being included: academic achievement, emotional health (anxiety, depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction), behavioral problems (delinquency, school misbehavior, bullying, drugs, alcohol, smoking), physical health and stress-related illnesses, and relationships with parents, stepparents, and grandparents.
  2. Infants and toddlers in JPC families have no worse outcomes than those in SPC families. Sharing overnight parenting time does not weaken young children’s bonds with either parent.
  3. When the level of parental conflict was factored in, JPC children still had better outcomes across multiple measures of well-being. High conflict did not override the benefits linked to shared parenting, so JPC children’s better outcomes cannot be attributed to lower parental conflict.
  4. Even when family income was factored in, JPC children still had better outcomes. Moreover, JPC parents were not significantly richer than SPC parents.
  5. JPC parents generally did not have better co-parenting relationships or significantly less conflict than SPC parents. The benefits linked to JPC cannot be attributed to better co-parenting or to lower conflict.
  6. Most JPC parents do not mutually or voluntarily agree to the plan at the outset. In the majority of cases, one parent initially opposed the plan and compromised as a result of legal negotiations, mediation, or court orders. Yet in these studies, JPC children still had better outcomes than SPC children.
  7. When children are exposed to high, ongoing conflict between their parents, including physical conflict, they do not have any worse outcomes in JPC than in SPC families. Being involved in high, ongoing conflict is no more damaging to children in JPC than in SPC families.
  8. Maintaining strong relationships with both parents by living in JPC families appears to offset the damage of high parental conflict and poor co-parenting. Although JPC does not eliminate the negative impact of frequently being caught in the middle of high, ongoing conflict between divorced parents, it does appear to reduce children’s stress, anxiety, and depression.
  9. JPC parents are more likely to have detached, distant, and “parallel” parenting relationships than to have “co-parenting” relationships where they work closely together, communicate often, interact regularly, coordinate household rules and routines, or try to parent with the same parenting style.
  10. No study has shown that children whose parents are in high legal conflict or who take their custody dispute to court have worse outcomes than children whose parents have less legal conflict and no custody hearing.

These findings refute a number of popular myths about shared parenting. One among many examples is a 2013 study from the University of Virginia that was reported in dozens of media outlets around the world under frightening headlines such as: “Spending overnights away from mom weakens infants’ bonds.” In the official press release, the researchers stated that their study should guide judges’ decisions about custody for children under the age of four. In fact, however, the study is not in any way applicable to the general population. The participants were impoverished, poorly-educated, non-white parents who had never been married or lived together, had high rates of incarceration, drug abuse, and violence, and had children with multiple partners. Moreover, there were no clear relationships between overnighting and children’s attachments to their mothers.

My review of 54 studies on shared parenting finds that, independent of parental conflict and family income, children in shared physical custody families—with the exception of situations where children need protection from an abusive or negligent parent—have better outcomes across a variety of measures of well-being than do children in sole physical custody. Knowledge and understanding of these findings allow us to dismantle some of the myths surrounding shared parenting so we can better serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no longer living together.

Dr. Linda Nielsen is a professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University. She has written numerous articles on shared parenting research and is frequently called upon to share the research with legislative committees and family court professionals. For copies of her research articles contact nielsen@wfu.edu

So, TPAC creates, manufactures, engineers and feeds the conflict, damaging the children subjected to it, and the Courts sees this “conflict” and award SPC to the perpetrator, the instigator, the manipulator, further causing psychological distress and damage to these already burdened children, and the circuit is complete.

The alienator has achieved her object – destroyed the relationship between the children and his/her father, and basking in the glow of victory, sweeps out of Court with a smirk – the children are……..collateral damage. She won!

Family Law Judges believe they have achieved a “reasonable and just outcome”………………..in the best interests of the child.

Feminists, their twisted acolytes and enablers cheer yet another victory over “the patriarchy” and all’s well with the world, alternatively they pen this rubbish. Sigh. I know.

From: “… HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM” THE GOVERNANCE OF GENDER THROUGH CUSTODY LAW Author(s): VIVIENNE ELIZABETH, NICOLA GAVEY and  JULIA TOLMIE Source: Gender and Society, Vol. 26, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 239-260 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

“In Anglo-Western countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, state interventions to “assist” parents who cannot agree on postseparation care arrangements are informed by the welfare principle, better known by the seemingly simple phrase “the best interests of the child.” As others have pointed out, the welfare principle is notoriously indeterminate; what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation (Boyd 2003,2004,2006; Collier 2006; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Fineman 1988; Kaganas and Day Sclater 2004; Rhoades 2002, 2006; Smart 1997; Smart and Neale 1999a).

Partly as a result of attempts by a global fathers’ rights movement to reassert entitlements to children, the welfare principle is currently defined in terms of an ongoing relationship with both parents. This understanding of a child’s best interests is associated with a shift to joint legal custody, which accords the rights and in theory the responsibilities of parenthood to both parents irrespective of the nature of their relationship, and the rise of joint physical custody—a situation that includes a wide variety of care arrangements for children, all of which generally involve children spending time in the physical care of both parents.

In Australia and an increasing number of U.S. states, emphasis is placed on equal shared parenting, which entails children spending approximately 50:50 time in the physical care of each parent.

In this article, we treat the intervention of custody law, framed by both custody legislation and the actions of various family law professionals, including judges, lawyers, mediators, psychologists, counselors and social workers, in the lives of separated parents as an instance of the governance of gender (Brush 2003).”

Though one of my favourite quotes from this “research” is this:

“Indeed, Rekha Mirchandani (2006) on the basis of her research on a domestic violence court in Salt Lake City, Utah, claims that state institutions can be transformed into feminist regimes that challenge “male dominance in the home” by undermining men’s prerogatives in relation to their partners and children.”

The irony of the authors use of the words “entitlements” and “men’s prerogatives” has not escaped me, nor you I would imagine.

So, “best interests of the child” is to all intents and purposes the new mantra of Family Law Courts, notwithstanding the authors of HE’S JUST SWAPPED HIS FISTS FOR THE SYSTEM” THE GOVERNANCE OF GENDER THROUGH CUSTODY LAW………etc  contention that “……what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation…….”

“In Anglo-Western countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, state interventions to “assist” parents who cannot agree on postseparation care arrangements are informed by the welfare principle, better known by the seemingly simple phrase “the best interests of the child.” As others have pointed out, the welfare principle is notoriously indeterminate; what is in the child’s best interests is open to interpretation and contestation (Boyd 2003,2004,2006; Collier 2006; Coltrane and Hickman 1992; Fineman 1988; Kaganas and Day Sclater 2004; Rhoades 2002, 2006; Smart 1997; Smart and Neale 1999a).”

Actually – it isn’t – in contention – by legitimate unbiased and responsible persons working in the area of child welfare. But, feminists do so love their vague wishy washy, woozly, “what the hell is she talking about” “research” “I’m just going to pull a load of figures out my ass and present them as legitimate research to support whatever twisted and ideologically driven “theory” I have subscribed to”

Nor, I might add, is it a vague and ephemeral concept in law.

In The Best Interests of the Child…..How The Courts Get it Wrong. Part 2.

Part 2 on Monday.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Straighten Up and Fly Right Lads – You’re doing it Wrong – Tut Tut!

 

Apparently Kathy Gyngell was a bit taken aback at the less than positive reaction to her post “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind” so she posted another article in response to the………………….response(s).

Bear with me for a moment while I indulge in a wee rant.

For the love of all that’s good, would you drop the patronising, condescending “mother knows best” crap and GET this – feminism is merely the visible face of a toxic female mindset – GYNOCENTRISM –a toxic mindset that has morphed its way through several manifestations – each one becoming progressively more and more poisonous and spreading throughout and within ALL levels of society and culture – including ALL institutional, administrative and political structures.

There is no part of civil or political society that has not been corrupted, poisoned and tainted by this – INCLUDING marriage, family, education, the legal system, the media, and male/female relationships.

Slapping a smiley face on the CURRENT structures of civil and political society and going “there there, all fixed now” is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. Then expecting men to trot obediently back into the fold because a WOMAN now tells them that all is well, we can all go back to the way we were.

BULLSHIT!

We can never go back – we must never go back – we need a new conversation – not ludicrous attempts to relaunch the same shoite that caused the problems in the first place – unbridled GYNOCENTRISM.

Okie dokie – now I’ve got that off my chest – lets delve into Ms. Gyngell’s latest offering.

“Kathy Gyngell: Sexodus anger needs to be channelled before it explodes” By Kathy Gyngell Posted 27th April 2015

http://conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-sexodus-anger-needs-to-channelled-before-it-explodes/

Right out of the gate Gyngell assumes a “I’m shocked and hurt that you’re angry with me, when I was only trying to point you in the right direction” stance – coupled with a nicely subtle dash of condescension – note the use of the word “coo”

“‘Coo’ is pretty much my response on reading the 255 record number of comments on my blog urging men to stand up to feminists rather than turn their backs on women in general.

I now feel some sympathy for that P. G. Wodehouse character, the irritating Edwin, (Florence Craye’s younger brother in Joy in the Morning, for the non-Wodehouse fans among the readers). He is the boy scout hell bent on doing a daily act of kindness only to find it erupt in his face each time. ‘Coo’, he says, as the cottage burns down when he attempts to clean the chimney using gunpowder and paraffin. Mine was, unintentionally, a gunpowder and paraffin blog.

Talk about a fusillade of return fire. Coo indeed. If I had set out to annoy ‘sexodus’ men (which I didn’t, needless to say) I could not have succeeded better. There were two common themes to the comments, which can pretty much summed up as, ‘how dare you’ and too late. MGTOW (men are going their own way – and not coming back) so put that in your pipe and smoke it (that, at least, is my polite interpretation”

She also has deliberately chosen to minimise and devalue the legitimate Men Human Rights abuses prevailing and embedded into the very DNA of our cultures and societies by referring to and characterising ALL MRA/MHRA and MGTOW activism with one blanket word – “sexodus” men.

See – if you can dismiss and caricaturise Men’s Human Rights activism as a narrow and slightly sillysexodus” then you don’t actually have to look too deeply into the myriad Human Rights issues affecting men and boys – all the while maintaining that you only “have good intentions”

The road to hell is paved with good intentions – and there is no better way to diffuse the importance of an issue and deflect attention away from it than to project a “I’m hurt that you are angry with me” stance and then deliberately misrepresent what that/those issues are.

She also takes a little swipe at some of the commenter’s and pours a little scorn on the anger expressed – in some cases quite vehemently by them, as she lauds herself by comparison for her “polite interpretation” in other words dismissing the legitimate anger of men by tut tutting over their lack of politeness. Gosh darn it – can you all not be nice!!!! Tut tut.

She quotes from some of the comments and acknowledges that:

“Anger and disgust is palpable in the stream. There are so many quotes it is impossible to chose. The same writer pretty much sums them up:”

Ah, but does she accept that male anger is legitimate, is justified, is a direct response to decades on ongoing vilification, demonization and rights stripping of men?

Yes and no – yes because she does acknowledge that “Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism.” There it is – BUT – the standard empty FEMALE type acknowledgment of a male statement of his anger – a la – “*yeah yeah, you have a point……………BUT”

Let’s just examine this a bit closer – what feminism has done is made the “traditional” paradigm of man/woman in blissful married happiness with 2.4 happy well-adjusted children – TOXIC.

Has made exactly the set-up that Kathy Gyngell is “urging” men to return to and commit to akin to putting your head into a lions mouth and hoping he’s already been fed.

Gyngell apparently wants men to accept at face value that women will now play nice! For the good of society no less! Because you can always trust a woman, any woman not to stab you in the back at the first opportunity! Because she says she won’t!

Oh well – that’s grand – women are going to play nice now – its aaaaaaaaaaaaalll sorted – everything is hunky dory now – lads start lining up and “give women the chance to see if they find them(you) attractive.”

Yeah right – that’ll work.

“My ‘coo’ response, however, is not altogether one of surprise – even at the vitriol and abuse we moderated out. Men have much to be furious about. But anger directed at us is a bit rich given a key reason we set up The Conservative Woman was exactly to challenge feminism. Vive la difference! remember? If this is not apparent from our blogs (Laura Perrins, Belinda Brown, Kimberly Ross and Caroline Farrow all regularly expose its flaws and dangers as have I done too) please turn to our mission statement:”

First of all, the comments were directed at the opinions Kathy Gyngell expressed in her piece and the manner and form of THOSE opinions – ergo – what anybody else has or hasn’t written on this site is irrelevant – this is all about you Kathy.

Second – your phrase “it’s a bit rich” indicates that you seem to be getting on your high horse a bit, are a bit miffed that men, who have been deliberately and with malice aforethought cast into the role of the source of all evil in the world are now fighting back – with less than “polite” words, with anger, with a complete lack of gratitude at being told what “men should…..” now do to fix the problems within societies and cultures because women are now experiencing fallout from them – or rather from men unwilling to continue to be of service to women.

To paraphrase with an example of a female/male conversation – a sort of before and after thing.

Before the MHRM

Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.

Male: OMG – what can I do to make you happy – I’ll do anything you want.

After the MHRM

Female: You’re not meeting my needs – boo hoo.

Male: bummer – not my problem, see ya – have a nice life – don’t forget to feed the cat 🙂

Yep – I did notice the use of the word “need” in the title – if I may interpret – men washing their hands of women, or as Gyngell misinterprets and caricaturises it the “sexodus” goes right to the heart of one of some (a lot of) women’s most basic “needs” – babies.

Babies that they and they alone get to make decisions about, babies that they and they alone are in charge of – in fact – OWN – and babies that are their ticket to access a man’s assets, wealth and property.

She does touch on this subject, albeit from a strictly narrow perspective – ignoring the actual realities for men if they do try to form “families” if they do have children.

“It is hard to disagree with him – except his last sentence. His deduction from this cost/risk analysis is a counsel of despair if there was one. What then of the future for children, family and society – or does he think a Brave New World of test-tube genderless babies is fine?”

(emphasis added)

This would be laughable if it wasn’t so obtuse – in particular her plea to men “What then of the future for children, family and society” does she seriously expect men to engage in the extremely risky action of getting married and having children with modern western women? In THIS society? In THIS culture?

Are you mad?

In a society that has over the last five decades relegated men and boys to sub-human status – in a society where the mere pointing of an accusatory finger at ANY man means his life is over – in a society where fathers are literally ordered out of their children’s lives on the word of a toxic spiteful woman?

Feminism may have been the driver behind the corruption of society but it is WOMEN who sustain it – women who perpetuate and enforce toxic gynocentrism, women who demand “special” treatment – just because they happen to have been born female.

Is there any point in repeating that the vast majority of women are NOT feminists – I believe the percentage has now dipped below 20%.

No woman actually needs to be a feminist to be a complete and total bitch – did you not know that Kathy?

In fact the vast majority of women are “I’m not a feminist BUT……”

Then she really puts her foot in her mouth with this;

“This is exactly why right minded men and women must fight the battle against feminism together. Men and women enacted the Equality Act, not just women – men have gone along with this agenda.”

Men have gone along with this agenda”? Really?

Men have deliberately excluded themselves from consideration when it comes to “Equality” in the UK?

Like this you mean:

“We support and protect the rights of women by:

Helping women to reach their potential in the workplace and helping businesses get the full economic benefit of women’s skills, including through the work of the Women’s Business Council, Women on Boards     and the Think, Act, Report programme, making sure that women’s interests are represented in government, by regularly meeting women’s groups and campaigners, and listening to women across the country, providing grants to people who want to set up childcare businesses”

(emphasis added)

From: Department for Education, Government Equalities Office , Office for Disability Issues, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, Edward Timpson, Mark Harper, Jo Swinson , Women’s Business Council and Ethnic Minority Employment Stakeholder Group others

First published: 4 November 2010

Last updated:27 March 2015

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-fairer-and-more-equal-society

Needless to say there are no equivalent services or provisions for MEN.

She makes some final points, which again would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

“…….if feminism is not challenged democratically, this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord. That would not be a good thing for male – female harmony, which is necessary both for children’s wellbeing and a happy, healthy society.”

While there are feminists infesting every single area of civil and political society – feminism is a state of mind – informed by a gynocentric worldwiew that women are extra special human beings – feminism is merely the label currently attached to a way of being female (oh God I cannot believe I had to use that phrase)

Anyhoo – one does not simply remove a toxic way of being by moving the political furniture about – most highly influential feminists are hidden away in the shadows, lurking in colleges and universities spewing out “studies” and “research” or writing toxic anti male hit pieces and peddling lies and myths on the MSM (main stream media) avidly swallowed by hordes of brain dead wimmin only delighted to have their “specialness” and perpetual victimhood confirmed.

Alongside a continuous propaganda campaign to demonise and vilify men and boys and pathologise maleness and eulogise femaleness.

Gygnell also rather strangely seems unaware that male anger (justified) has already manifested itself, is already simmering, is now unstoppable when she says “…this Pandora’s box of male anger it has created could burst open of its own accord.”

But perhaps the thing that really pisses me off about this piece is this – Gyngell is trying to shift the blame, she is very cleverly pointing the finger at an idea, a “theory” a set of toxic beliefs – feminism – carefully sidestepping any hint that actual real female human beings are ACCOUNTABLE for the actual real life actions and behaviours that these persons CHOOSE.

Individually and collectively.

Or is she suggesting that the innumerable women who made and make false accusations against men, the innumerable women who excise fathers from their children’s lives, the innumerable women who strip every last asset from the man who unfortunately married them were all under some kind of feminist spell?

How about female teachers who rape their students? Deliberately treat little boys with contempt in schools, what about women who bite, kick, stab, burn, beat and abuse their male partners?

Let me guess – “feminism made me do it – wasn’t my fault – boo hoo”!

Am done with Kathy Gyngell.

Women Should Stand Up to Feminists, Not Turn Their Backs on ManKind

 

I’ve just read the Kathy Gyngell article “Men should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on womankind”

Link Here

I also read all the comments, most of which were less than supportive of Ms. Gyngell’s….eeeemmm, request, instruction, plea…whatever it is.

I had two initial problems before I even started to read this article – the first two words for example “Men Should……..”

Seriously?

That’s how you think entitling an article directed at men by a woman ought to be phrased!

Men Should…….”

You may take it as read that my eyes are drifting heavenwards – for decades, nay, for centuries women have been telling men that they “should………[insert whiney female demand here]” do/not do, in increasingly strident, irrational and hysterical tones.

My second problem is with this “…..not turn their backs on womankind” what the ever loving fuck is “womankind”?

Is it some kind of secret organisation that all female children are inducted into at the moment of their birth?

Well, I’m female, and I feel absolutely no allegiance or weird cosmic psychic connection to random women I don’t know, don’t want to know and if I did know them – would probably not piss on them if they were on fire.

Guess I’m out of the “womankind” club now!

Anyhoo – Ms Gyngell is another of a growing number of this mysterious “womankind” who are beginning to realise there is a problem – a huge problem looming – epic – massive – what they are becoming aware of is the fallout – the disturbance in the sure and certain foundation of their superiority in the world, their unassailable smug cosmic importance.

In actuality, what they are experiencing are the symptoms – and failing to recognise the source – they are vaguely aware it has something to do with men, and are incorrectly assuming that men are the problem – ergo we have articles like Gyngell’s pleading with men to fix this problem. For women.

Oh dear, oh dear Kathy – men are not the problem – WOMEN are the problem.

All men are doing is………….walking away……washing their hands of women…..refusing to be your whipping boys, your failsafe, your soft landing, your shield, your invisible and unappreciated lackeys.

What you are feeling is the cold wind of being left to fend for yourselves – just like you all claimed you could do. Wanted. Demanded.

Reality bites – doesn’t it?

You know what you should have called your article?

Women should stand up to feminists, not turn their backs on mankind

And you should have directed it at WOMEN!

The first bloody thing you should have said to “womankind” was LISTEN to men, the second – shut the fuck up for once in your life and LISTEN to what men are saying.

Am sure Kathy Gyngell probably thinks she’s being oh so compassionate, and concerned and sincere – but – it’s too little, too late – and anyway – you’re using a tired worn out, frayed at the edges template not fit for anything but the rubbish heap.

The old, men protect, provide and sacrifice for women, and women do………………….absolutely sod all in return – gynocentric model. Talking about Peter Lloyd she says this:

“He is right to argue that there has never been a worse time to be a man. Many of the statistics of anti-male bias in modern British society are ones we have rehearsed here on TCW too.   He is also right to describe the routine rubbishing of men as feminist fascism and stiletto sexism and men as the new second class citizens.

I call this deeply hypocritical behaviour, feminist chauvinism or misandry. Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.

Reading through his account of the contemporary vilification of men – the extent to which the dice are loaded against men in work and health, you cannot be surprised that men are going off women.”

She calls the demonization of men and maleness, the vilification and deliberate prejudice and bigotry against men “routine rubbishing of men”!

As if a systematic campaign to strip men of their Human Rights, a toxic malign propaganda campaign that has painted men as the source of all evil in the world is a just a minor spat, a few harsh words here and there.

This is the bit that made me smile – grimly – “Woe betide any man who similarly denigrated womanhood.”

She’s actually right – up to a point – except it would be lunatic feminists and gynocentrists shrieking like banshees – granted at this point in time the hysterics are just boring and tedious and oh so predictable – so – let me be the one who “denigrated womanhood

If you are a feminist or a “I’m not a feminist but…..” or a special little princess or goddess then listen up petal.

You are a pain in the arse, a selfish self-absorbed twat with the charisma of roadkill and the personality of a turnip – you’re not “bubbly” you’re mentally unstable, you’re not “curvy” you’re a fat-arsed trollop, you’re not “educated” you’re an indoctrinated clone with the intellectual capacity of a mushroom.

You’re not a victim of anything, you’re a whiney tantrum throwing narcissist, you’re not an independant empowered “sex in the city” wannabe – you’re a slut.

I think that about covers it 🙂

“…..….you cannot be surprised that men are going off women

No shit Sherlock!

Ok – I am perfectly aware that I have described the extremes of toxic female behaviour and that there are women who can and do behave like decent human beings – but – I also know that somewhere in the back of your minds you really do believe that you are “special” because you are female – you’re not – you do also believe that men are inherently created to be in service or of service to women – they’re not – human beings, ALL human beings are of equal value and worth – and no – NOT “equal” as in the same – but vested with the same rights as every other human being – and should be subject to the same sanctions if they violate the rights of another human being, ANY human being. No exceptions.

“But what all women need to face up to are the two types of ‘modern men’ that feminism has so cruelly manufactured for them: The Oh so correct honorary Nick Clegg-type feminists (Miliband and Cameron also fit this mould) who promote and toe the feminist party line – men who I suspect don’t really turn women on at all. Second are the refuseniks who have gradually turned into a worrying class of embittered, angry misogynists – leading the sexodus. These men will not even give women the chance to see if they find them attractive”

(emphasis added)

Jeez Kathy – you really need to get out more – seriously – the first thing to note of course is that men apparently exist only to be of use to women – “for them

The second thing of course is these “two types” of men and only two types that apparently Kathy Gyngell asserts exist!

I will concede the Nick Clegg/Milliband/Cameron type – though these are actually what could be more accurately called either “white knights” or manginas – poor emasculated saps who believe arse kissing and grovelling before hatchet faced feminists is a valid exercise!

As for the second “type” she describes – you know, I’ve never actually met an honest to God, dyed in the wool misogynist – never – have met and talked to lots of angry men, disillusioned men, hurt men, sad men, even some who were caustically funny. About women.

Methinks Mizz Gyngell is trying (really badly) to infer that any man who rejects “womankind” or the gynocentric worldview (most MHRA’s and all MGTOW) are………………..what did she call them? Oh yeah “……embittered, angry misogynists

Pretty pathetic attempt Kathy – all faux concern on the one hand, and dismissive contemptuous caricaturing on the other.

The last bit is the best bit “These men will not even give women the chance to see if they find them attractive.”

Can you see that? The bleedin nerve of these men – refusing to be assessed, to be evaluated, to be given the once over by all the sad lonely wimmenz pining away for a man!

I’m shocked!

Imagine that – men thumbing their noses at women – men declining to subject themselves to the scrutiny of women “to see if they find them attractive.”

I got to that bit, and I began to think – is she taking the piss? Is this a parody? Is this satire?

Can I suggest that women read the comments – from men – put your vag rage on hold – lose the entitled princess attitude and really pay attention to what these men are saying.

I’ll be honest – I generally can’t stand most women – especially in groups – and I am not a person with much by way of patience or…..tact……..or diplomacy……………..the thing is, most women can’t stand other women either – and you all bloody well know it – because if you were honest with yourselves you’d realise and acknowledge that you see yourself in the bitchy catty backstabbing antics of your “friends”

What you all should also realise is this – men ain’t stupid – they see it as well – what is happening now is they’re not interested in pandering to your bullshit anymore, tippytoing around your tantrums, your irrationality, your moods, not interested in giving in to your incessant demands and unreasonable behaviours.

It’s not cute, it’s not sexy, it’s not alluring – you have become toxic little timebombs waiting to go off – to be blunt.

You are so NOT worth it!

Let me give you a clue – you know when a man is eying you up with a speculative look in his eyes? He’s not “eye-raping” you, he’s not lost in admiration at your divinity and awesomeness ya dozy twat – he trying to assess how high up on the “crazy as a loon” scale you are – whether you’re mentally stable, or will you scream rape if he tries to talk to you.

Well that or he’s dumbstruck that you poured your 200lbs of lard into the equivalent of tube sock!

What Gyngell and her ilk consistently fail to understand is this – men and women are naturally drawn to one another, and not just physically, human beings over the course of millennia have evolved to value and desire a stable pair bond, in order to create the basic building block of functioning and healthy societies – FAMILIES.

There was an element of reciprocity in these relationships, men and women played to their strengths and natural inclinations, they supported one another. But above all they trusted one another, and valued each other.

Am I saying this was a perfect state of affairs? Of course not – there were imbalances, misunderstandings, discriminations – not on the scale that feminists would have you believe – and these issues were being and would’ve have been resolved – then feminism stuck its pointy nose into everybody’s business.

Then everything went to shoite.

Under the influence of feminism harnessing the innate seeds of gynocentrism within women a toxic and malign social cancer began to grow.

Gyngell and her fellow cronies – whatever their particular stance, do not get – women – the vast majority of them have corrupted their natures, have embraced a toxic and self-destructive paradigm – are, with very few exceptions, repulsive to a huge of men.

Shall I repeat that? REPULSIVE. Throw in offensive, unattractive (as human beings) distasteful, noxious, abhorrent and vile.

Most men are far too polite and diplomatic (and in some cases scared shitless) to say that to the numerous women they encounter who behave in the normal rancid, belligerent, obnoxious ways a huge number of women display.

But I’m not.

Ladies (and I use that term very loosely) YOU poisoned the well, YOU and only you are responsible for the growing numbers of men who to be blunt – wouldn’t touch most of you with a ten foot bargepole.

Just in case any of you think that all you have to do is slap on a fake simper and play the adoring girlfriend till you hook your man – think again. Too late.

Support the MHRM and SPEAK OUT  till every corrupt and biased piece of legislation is repealed, till every feminist is rooted out of public policy areas, out of schools, out of NGO’s – till no-one, and I mean NO-ONE will give any feminist the time of day.

Start with yourself – stand in front of a mirror and tell yourself, over and over again till you get it “I’m NOT all that” “I have no more or less worth than any other human being”

Finally men are starting to wake up and realise they have a choice – they don’t have to put up with your shoite – so they are CHOOSING not to.

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn cue a massive fit of the screamies…in…..1……2…….3….

 

Slainte 🙂

There Is a Disturbance In The Force…….

 

Yeah, yeah I know, more sci-fi (ish) metaphors – what can I say, am a sucker for sci-fi (ish) films. As a reflection of, and metaphor for societal mores and “norms” films act as a sort of filter through which those mores and “norms” become embedded in the zeitgeist – doncha think?

Someone mentioned the Joss Whedon film Serenity a few weeks ago on a comment stream – for the life of me I cannot remember where I read it – anyhoo – one of my personal favourites as well, especially the theme of an all powerful authoritarian system literally with the power to invade your mind.

Classic scene where River (as a child) is being lectured by a sanctimonious teacher about how the “outer planets” refused to accept the social conditioning of the all powerful alliance – for their own good – now where have we heard that justification before.

In other words those who reject this social conditioning are nothing but savages and barbarians – or words to that effect.

The title of this piece though, pertains to something related but parallel, the undermining of the prevailing ethos within and through the societal glue that holds that society together.

An unchallenged (till now) allegiance to a femalecentric worldview controlled and disseminated by the official spokespersons of modern gynocentrism – feminists.

No-one can now dispute that ALL “theories” emanating from feminists and various acolytes of academic feminism are complete and utter bullshit, fraudulent, phoney, lies and deception.

These are facts, and they are not in dispute by anyone with half a brain.

The question to be asked though is this – the underlying driving force behind modern feminism and all manifestations of a female centric worldview is and has been gynocentrism. Whither to now for feminism?

Aha! Whither to indeed? Why back to the drawing board – to the source – for inspiration, for a new and shiner template upon which to write the outline for the next manifestation of gynocentrism. A caring sharing warm cuddly gynocentrism, a nice gynocentrism – with a large dollop of………………….”it’s for your own good” as seasoning.

Because who could argue with a sincerely expressed motive that all you are offering is a template to follow that will be “for your own good” hmmmmm

I came across these two words juxtaposed next to one another some months ago – and decided to wait to see how this latest salvo would be received.

Freedom feminism.

I shall never need to hunt for another example of a perfect oxymoron than these two words placed together to form a whole.

Main driver behind this new and improved and shiny feminism is Christina Hoff Sommers. Have always been in two minds about Hoff Sommers, she has done some good work in the area of men’s and boy’s rights – and to be fair, has taken some quite accurate pot-shots at “gender feminism” but – there was a point about a year ago when it was time to “chose a side” or rather, to shit or get off the pot.

She chose to attempt to repackage feminism, airbrush away its toxic roots, sidestep its inherently flawed premise and inexplicably try to rewrite history – or what passes for history – feminist style.

It’s what my mother would describe as “wanting jam on both sides of your bread

Hoff Sommers is relying on something to give this new shiny improved feminism purchase into the zeitgeist – a willingness on the part of societies at large to continue to endorse a gynocentric world view of…………………everything, in effect the theory goes – if it’s good for women, then it’s good for men, ergo the emphasis should always be on what’s good for women, and making men become what’s good for women – again. Just not in that nasty, shreiky, gender feminist, all men are patriarchial bastards kind of way. Nosireebob – in a nice, “it’s for your own good” kind of way. Sigh.

Hence the title of this piece – there is indeed a disturbance in the force – a singular lack of willingness on the parts of a great many people, both male and female to subscribe to, endorse or give tacit or implicit approval to a continuing female centric world view.

Without that willingness, gynocentrism withers and dies, without gynocentrism any manifestation of feminism will fail – will become subject to the derision and disdain that all crackpot ideas or “theories” deserve. Freedom feminism is one of those – hence why I couldn’t actually be bothered giving it any more attention. Bit like spotting some roadkill at the side of the road as you drive past – depends on the state of it, if you go – eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuw as you glance at it.

I was asked recently “just how old is gynocentrism? And was it always a bad thing?”

Actually – gynocentrism is very old – and was not necessarily always a bad thing – it developed out of a need to protect and provide for one’s “mate” during our human history when life was an exercise in survival. Though one couldn’t actually call this form of human interaction true gynocentrism.

To illustrate just how old this particular way of seeing male/female relationships is, the quote below is from an ancient Egyptian text called The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep.

“……..Instruction of Ptah-hotep in its entirety, divided into sections by red writing, as aforesaid.[7] In this, also, we get a definite date, for we learn in the opening lines that its author (or compiler) lived in the reign of King Isôsi. Now Isôsi was the last ruler but one of the Fifth Dynasty, and ruled forty-four years, from about 3580 to 3536 B.C. Thus we may take about 3550 as the period of Ptah-hotep.

(emphasis added)

What this quote below also illustrates is something very important – how women were viewed in ancient Egypt – as persons to be treasured and cherished – not a hint of oppression to be found. Damn!

“21. If thou wouldest be wise, provide for thine house, and love thy wife that is in thine arms. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; oil is the remedy of her limbs. Gladden her heart during thy lifetime, for she is an estate profitable unto its lord. Be not harsh, for gentleness mastereth her more than strength. Give (?) to her that for which she sigheth and that toward which her {51} eye looketh; so shalt thou keep her in thine house…. “

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

As an Irish person I can trace back some of my “traditions” to the Iron age – so it does amuse me when I read either positive or negative commentary from feminists/gynocentrists regarding “traditional” practices – usually referred to as “traditional gender roles” with “traditional” marriage practices being either lauded or denigrated.

The period of “history” generally used to illustrate the “historical oppression of women” by the dumbest of the dumbest feminists are the 1950’s – because apparently the 1950’s was a really really really long time ago!

Did you know that the phrase “tying the knot” actually originates from one form of marriage practiced in Ireland called “hand-fasting” – this form of marriage (yes, we had several different forms of marriage) – was only designed to last for a year and a day – after that time expired, one could renew it or not – if not, both parties went their separate ways with no-one owing anybody anything. It was very civilised – it was a contract – between equals – as were most forms of marriage in ancient Hibernia (Ireland)

Pure Gynocentrism evolved in feudal societies and had its roots in a warped form of chivalry – the place to go for a thorough grounding in this is Peter Wrights site Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

Link here http://gynocentrism.com/

This form of a warped chivalry (gynocentrism) lies at the heart of all manifestations of feminism. A demand for special status to be afforded to women because they are women. There is a complex interplay between echoes of an ancient urge to protect and provide, that early gynocentrists harnessed and various “waves” of feminists hijacked – till it eventually evolved into the toxic ideology we have today.

The paradox is that feminism demands “equality” by invoking that ancient “oppressive” urge to protect and provide for women because they are “vulnerable fragile creatures who need special treatment” institutionalised toxic chivalry (gynocentrism) masquerading as “equality”

Now don’t get me wrong – feminism is deeply embedded into the political and intuitional structures of almost all frameworks of our societies and cultures and they (feminists) will fight tooth and nail to resist being excised from there. In fact that battle is already ongoing.

But this is the 21st century – the rules of engagement have changed utterly – whereas previously, during times of social and cultural shifts, the mores and norms of a society or culture were imposed from the top down. Now?

Ah yes – now – the power to influence society and culture at large now rests……………….within society and culture.

Put rather simplistically – who controls the flow of information?

Answer – Nobody. Everybody. Actually the only way to regain control of the flow of information now would be to shut down the internet – permanently. Would be to erase from the billions of individual personal computers spread all over the world every single piece of information that has been disseminated from the time when one individual sent another individual………..anything.

That’s an awful lot of free-flowing information to track down and destroy – wouldn’t you say?

There are also two other things that you would need to unravel and suppress – the much trumpeted dedication to “democracy” and “Human Rights” that ALL western governments take enormous pains to claim as their raison de etre.

Over the last 6 decades or so, there has been an almost comical pissing contest among western nations to outdo one another in the “most democratic” and “best Human Rights record” contest.

Again granted – the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there are visible and concrete examples abounding of the lack of democracy, the pathetic Human Rights records of very many western states.

But – the fact is – those Human Rights instruments EXIST – those claims are on record – and there are very few people with access to the internet who cannot with a click of a mouse sit and read in the comfort of their own homes, a concise and detailed account of their personal – HUMAN RIGHTS.

100 years ago – the average person wouldn’t have had a clue what rights they did or didn’t have – wouldn’t perhaps even believe that they had rights.

Today? Please – I hear it all the time – it gets monotonous – “I know my rights

Generally this is a rather self-absorbed declaration because it rarely takes into account this – “do you know everybody else has the exact same rights?”

Feminists and gynocentrists are typical of the first example – they “know their rights” as they should – they clawed out most of those extra rights by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs. Nearly. By playing the poor fragile wittle woman card.

But – the fact of the matter is this – even the most ignorant twat or arsehole has a very definite belief that they “have rights”

One does not have to be a genius to discern from even the most juvenile and poorly written feminist screed that the over-riding theme is a direct assault on the notion that men and boys have rights.

Feminism is a rights stripping narrative wrapped up in hysterical rhetoric about…..all kinds of trivial bullshit that has “upset” or “pissed off” or “offended” some whiney irrational and petulant female.

Acknowledging that men and boys have rights would dissipate and render null and void the idea that all attention and focus should be on – women’s rights. It would literally deprive women of that thing they crave above all other things – being the absolute centre of attention by…………………….everybody.

Like I said – everybody knows or believes that they “have rights” everybody is aware that the last 6 decades or so have been the era of “rights” so when insane feminists keep shrieking about “women’s rights” and claiming that women don’t have rights to this that or the other – even the most ignorant of persons is going to look at these claims and think “what the fuck is that fool talking about”

How much more could you possible want?

Here is where it gets just a tad complicated – the belief is/was that “everybody has rights” even among men – until they come to test that premise – then they discover something.

Those rights they believed they had – they get violated, trampled on, brushed aside – in favour of enhancing the extra rights of some female.

The knowledge that this has been happening over and over again in all these self-congratulatory “democracies” at the behest of feminists is now saturating the zeitgeist through the power of the internet to disseminate information directly to millions of people – without interference from anybody.

As Mr. Universe in the film Serenity says “you can’t stop the signal”

Hence why there is a disturbance in the force – the force being the power of feminism to dictate the narrative, to set the terms of what is or isn’t true – about anything. To control the flow of information.

There is a terrible sickness in a government that lauds and congratulates itself on its Human Rights record while actively endorsing, encouraging and supporting blatant abuses of Human Rights – against men and boys.

That blindly and with wilful ignorance gives credence to the bigoted, biased and fraudulent “research” being shoved at it by vicious malign and toxic feminists designed to strip rights from men and boys. Designed to prevent even the conversation taking place about Human Rights abuses being perpetrated against men and boys. Hence why the shrieking, caterwauling and hysterics are growing in volume and intensity from feminists – all in an effort to drown out the voices of men and boys.

The question for these governments is – has it ever occurred to you to take the societal temperature – to take your heads out of your over-fed arses and listen to what is being said outside your golden privileged elite circle? To ignore the nutcase feminists, the screams of outrage, the tantrums and hysterics and listen to men.

Take IPV/IPA – Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Abuse.

I’m NOT a feminist so I have no problem saying this – approx 20% – 23% of all relationships have aspects of IPV/IPA.

Within that relatively small cohort of relationships – approx 40% of “violence/abuse” is mutual – meaning both parties are as bad as one another.

The rest of the violence/abuse is more or less evenly distributed between male and female perpetrators – meaning that approx half those violent abusive arseholes are male and approx half are female. Which means that approx half the victims of uni-directional violence are male and approx half are female.

The causes of that violence are myriad and complex – and have sod all to do with patriarchy or any other stupid and ridiculous feminist non “theory” but everything to do with, socio-economic factors, drug/alcohol abuse, mental health issues, childhood experiences of family violence etc to name but a few of the more prevalent “causes”.

All of those factors impact upon both men and women.

There is no such thing as “gender based violence” and to continue to believe and endorse this rubbish is to fail to actually address the causes and TOTAL victims of IPV/IPA.

Have I deliberately and callously ignored female victims of IPV/IPA? No – I bloody haven’t – I have quite clearly acknowledged that approx half of victims are female.

Because – I’m NOT a feminist – ergo – I have no need to lie or dissemble or fraudulently try to airbrush ANY victim OF ANYTHING out of the picture in order to advocate for excessive amounts of funding to line the pockets of poisonous malign ideologues.

To those in power – you seem to believe that unless you endorse these lies peddled to you by feminists that “society” will follow suit and go into hysterics at being told NO.

Newsflash – society will applaud – society will be right behind you – society is WAITING – is begging you to tell these malign bitches to – bugger off!

There is a disturbance in the force – a change in the zeitgeist – NO-ONE – other than insane toxic feminists believes or wants that crap anymore – READ the damn comment section of any article – including the ones peddled by feminists.

You are basing your policy decisions on blackmail from a small toxic network of vicious ideologues – you are making political decisions based on lies, on fraud, on bigotry.

There is a delicate balance that holds most societies and cultures together – more importantly – an even more delicate balance that holds an economy together.

Citizens and the state must interact with one another is a myriad number of ways in order to maintain those balances.

Feminism has and is putting enormous uneven pressure on one side of that societal, cultural and economic scale – the tipping point is drawing closer and closer – that tipping point is the gathering critical mass of a shift in the zeitgeist – a shift in mores and norms that the majority of peoples within those societies and cultures endorse.

There is also nothing more important within healthy functioning societies than the quality and depth of the relationships and kinship groups that individuals are part of.

Feminism has consistently attacked and set out to destroy the delicate strands that hold those relationships together – the relationships that are the glue that keeps societies functioning.

The toxic effects of these attacks are becoming more and more visible – more and more apparent – and people are finally waking up and really seeing the devastation caused by feminism. Ultimately feminism is the ideology of elitists – a superior “class” dictating to the “peasants” and it is fuelled by malice.

“19. If thou desire that thine actions may be good, save thyself from all malice, and beware of the quality of covetousness, which is a grievous inner (?) malady. Let it not chance that thou fall thereinto. It setteth at variance fathers-in-law and the kinsmen of the daughter-in-law; it sundereth the wife and the husband. It gathereth unto itself all evils; it is the girdle of all wickedness.[11] But the man that is just flourisheth; truth goeth in his footsteps, and he maketh habitations therein, not in the dwelling of covetousness.”

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

No-one needs feminism to point out or interpret anything for you – all you need, is to be a fully aware Human Being with a conscience. All you need is to recognise that male or female you share this planet with other Human Beings.

All Human Beings suffer – why would anybody need a vicious malign ideologue who hates one half of humanity to tell you that?

Feminism is the belief that human beings not yet born are guilty of crimes not yet committed and are only waiting for these human beings to be born so the punishment can begin.

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 thejournal.ie 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.

Rape

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;

FIGURE 17: QUESTION ASKED – WHILST YOU HAVE BEEN A STUDENT AT YOUR CURRENT INSTITUTION, HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WHEN YOU DID NOT CONSENT? N=430

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%

Other                                                                                                                                     

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:

TABLE 7: QUESTION ASKED – AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT, WAS THE PERSON THAT DID THIS TO YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS? N=4305.

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:

TABLE 8: QUESTION ASKED – AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT, WERE YOU UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS? N=430

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!

 

ADDRESS THAT!!

 

 

 

References

[1] This is the link to her “survey”

https://www.facebook.com/UCCSU/posts/10155232571100471

[2] We need to talk more about relationships, consent and sexual violence
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/rap-sexual-assault-university-2008877-Mar2015/

[3] SAY SOMETHING: A Study of Students’ Experiences of Harassment, Stalking, Violence & Sexual Assault. “
http://usi.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/say-something-Final-Online-Report.pdf

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

https://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/peddling-propaganda-whipping-up-campus-rape-hysteria-in-the-republic-of-ireland/

[5] Peddling Propaganda: Part II – Flogging The “Gender-based Violence” Dead Horse.
https://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/peddling-propaganda-part-ii-flogging-the-gender-based-violence-dead-horse/

[6] The law on Sexual Offences in Ireland. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

[7] Section 2: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html

[8] Section 3: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html

[9] Section 4: Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/print.html

[10] Feminists don’t understand consent.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminists-dont-understand-consent/

[11] Consent to Torts Against Persons.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts/defPersonsProperty/consentPersons.asp

[12] Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/print.html

[13] UCC alcohol research signals last call
http://www.ucc.ie/en/about/uccnews/fullstory-523011-en.html

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 Journal.ie.

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 ..men”.

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?

Why?

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 http://www.unwomen.org/en – 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.

 

 

 

 

Finally.

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 Journal.ie 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: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

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 : https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

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.

Previous Older Entries