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

 

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

Anyhoo – I came across this post from here

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

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

Which led me to here

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

And then here

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

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

“Myth” No. 8 caught my eye.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, went and had a look, here:

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

Sounds ridiculous.

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

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

Anyhoo – back to what triggered her to write this:

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

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

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

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

Brief interlude while I go feed the birdies, enjoy 😉

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows

And did it my way

Yes, it was my way

Lyrics here if you want to sing along.

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

Ole Blue Eyes doing it “his way” here

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

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

Anyhoo – narcissism and anorexia?

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

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

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

(Emphasis added)

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

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

Has any research been done? Absolutely loads

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

Notwithstanding Emma’s obsession with anorexia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Abstract

Objective:

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

Method:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To continue:

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

“Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

“Abstract

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

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

“Abstract

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

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

Here is a brief snapshot of some of those results.

From page 1 –

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

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

From page 4 –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT is your feminism.  An ideology of hate.

Slainte.

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

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

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

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

“Summary

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism = Cultural, Political and Social Poison.

 

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

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

Well…………………. hallelujah!

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

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

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

Why am I making a big deal about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism and The Flat Earth Society: Comrades in Stupidity.

 

Right up front I am going to say that if you consider yourself a feminist or ‘believe’ in ‘women’s rights’ then you are an idiot, a moron, an ill-informed mentally deficient numbskull who should never be let out of the house without a note pinned to your jacket.

To be absolutely clear what I think, here goes – feminism is a poisonous, vile, toxic ANTI-HUMAN BEING cult driven by ideologues steeped in hatred of one half of humanity, steeped and saturated in lies, deception and an insatiable hunger for power.

Yet, those who self-describe as feminist amongst the general public are few and far between, and as each decade has passed since the launch of the women’s liberation movement waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the late sixties and early seventies (which I personally remember) the numbers of persons describing themselves as feminists is paltry – when you consider this.

ALL public policy, all government programmes, and all political decisions that impact upon the lives of men, women and children has been, and is driven by a feminist agenda!

So, what has all this got to do with those who believe the earth is flat – well, I am an almost maniacal advocate of Free Speech – which includes the absolute right to believe any rubbish you like – and of course to articulate that obviously dysfunctional point of view and/or opinion. Knock yourselves out, believe whatever.

For example – believing the earth is flat.

“Here’s what happened: in February, the online polling company YouGov conducted a survey on American beliefs about our planet’s shape.

“Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” the 8,215 participants were asked, and given a small range of answers to choose from:

I have always believed the world is round;

I always thought the world is round, but more recently I am skeptical/have doubts;

I always thought the world is flat, but more recently I am skeptical/have doubts;

I have always believed the world is flat;

Other/Not sure

The results, weighted to be representative of the US population, revealed that 2 percent of adult Americans are firmly convinced Earth is as flat as a pancake.

Meanwhile, 84 percent “have always believed the world is round.”

So far, so good. For further insight, the results were also broken up by age group, and this is where young millennials got an unexpected bashing.

As per the results, only 66 percent of 18-24 year-olds are firmly convinced of our planet’s spherical shape.”

No, One-Third of Millennials Don’t Actually Think Earth Is Flat

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk

The vast majority of people believe the earth is NOT flat – in fact if you do a google search you will, as I did, find numerous websites, blogs etc. laying out the basis of the belief that the earth IS flat – some of those “reasons” are very plausibly argued – in the sense that the rhetoric is clear, fairly cogent and not written in crayon – if you catch my drift.  These people genuinely BELIEVE, based on the “arguments” presented the earth IS flat – described as “a giant flat pancake spinning around”

Okie dokie!

Notwithstanding that – the vast majority of people who do NOT believe that the earth is flat would NOT in a million years hand over the reigns of power, decision or policy making power and/or authority to the tiny MINORITY of people who DO believe the nonsense spouted AS EVIDENCE that the earth is flat.

In other words, the majority who know, KNOW that these flat earth people are talking absolute shoite would not stand by and allow those whose ridiculous BELIEFS they reject, to inform, direct, endorse, promulgate or formulate PUBLIC POLICY.

Yet – the vast majority of people, in survey after survey REJECT feminism – as a belief system – refuse to align themselves with feminist ideology, reject the core fundamental belief of feminism – that wearisome “dictionary definition’ constantly trotted out – like hauling your mad aunt down from the attic to say howdy do to the visiting busybody!

So, what’s the problem?

I would posit that both these ridiculous belief systems are based on a fundamental flaw of logic and reason – but while one is rejected the other is given free reign to infect and poison our civilizations development and progress.

All the “evidence” that the flat-earthers cite to prove their theory is outright rejected by the sheer weight of SCIENTIFIC evidence that proves the exact opposite – for feminism – notwithstanding the volumes of evidence that outright disproves every single tenet of feminism toxic ideology – whose ultimate prize is POWER. Over other human beings. It would logically follow that if feminism IS toxic and poisonous – which it is, and the vast majority of people surveyed reject it WHY are you all still standing by and allowing these nutcases to dictate public policy?

IN EFFECT – so what if the earth is flat – if – (and that’s a mega if) the earth is flat – what difference would if make to anyone – really?

Feminism is about power and money – about control, coercion, social engineering and political control. Power that is wielded to destroy and re-engineer HUMAN BONDS of family, kinship, community and society.

Not so say the feminazis – apparently feminism is about “equality” about freeing women from the chains of the patriarchy – that invisible global male conspiracy that every single male child on the planet is born into.

So, how did the original “women’s libbers” go about freeing women from these bonds?

By going into sweatshops and freeing the low paid workers? Nope

Perhaps by sweeping into disadvantaged poverty-stricken areas that exist and existed in ALL western societies? Hell no – no fun getting your manicured nails all grubby and dirty with the grubby and dirty poor.

They went into academia, into policy making, they fought tooth and nail to get into those areas where the funding flowed like wine and the power to pull the strings that drove the direction of society were ready to be pulled – in a feminist direction.

Perhaps they fundraised for schools and medical services for poor families?

Yeah right – for the last 60 odd years or so feminists have bitched, whined and throw tantrums because there were not enough women IN POWER.

During the presidential election in the US where Donald Trump won – I received a comment from some obviously deranged feminist calling herself “jennie” the usual ranting and frothing at the mouth (note to feminists – I DON’T publish your comments – I read them – I have them saved – but I don’t and WON’T publish them)

Anyhoo – “jennie” flung what apparently, she considered the ultimate insult and put down at me – she accused me of being…………………………………………a republican!

Bear with me – there is a point to this – for someone like “jennie” a completely irrational and deranged feminist being a “republican” is a “bad thing” in the context of not just the presidential election but in the context of the major driving force behind mainstream feminist/leftist (Democrat) propaganda that spews out from (no offence to NON feminist Americans) American universities and media – and from the blogosphere and internet – (I wonder does “jennie have a blog? Hmmmmm)

Here is ‘jennies’ problem – or rather one of her problems – I’M IRISH – ergo Republican means something different to ME than it does to “Republicans” in American politics, as does the concept of a Republic. Duh!

So, Donald Trump (a Republican) gets elected – in a DEMOCRATIC election – fair enough – the people have spoken – you got what the MAJORITY voted for.

Except – As I watched (in horror) the scenes of absolute despair, hysterics and irrationality from “Democrats” from “feminists” and Hilary Clinton supporters – what was patently clear was this – the election of a rabid feminist power hungry harpy (Hilary Clinton) was not only the ultimate goal of decades of propaganda and social engineering it was EXPECTED to be a foregone conclusion – in other words – ultimate POWER was finally in their grasp…………it was their RIGHT……it was in effect their birthright.

And it FAILED. The people REJECTED the ultimate symbol of “feminist” power – and they went absolutely INSANE.

I watched a recording of a woman, on her knees, literally screaming hysterically and tearing at her hair, at her clothes – it was horrifying.

THAT IS WHAT FEMINISM IS.

An insatiable deranged and irrational hunger for ultimate power over the lives of all HUMAN BEINGS.

Now, what are YOU going to do about it? By you I mean any sentient compassionate and SANE human being? The results are clear – the vast majority of people REJECT feminism – feminism is NOT and has never been about “equality” it has been and is NOW about POWER.

The problem for feminism isn’t “branding” it isn’t that poor dumb ordinary people “don’t understand feminism” and it sure as hell isn’t because “men’s rights activists lie about feminism”

The problem WITH feminism IS feminism – feminism is a toxic vile poisonous totalitarian ideology with absolutely NO redeeming features AT ALL.

If a feminist told me the sky was blue – I would go outside and check – then check again!

Below is a quick summary of the results of various surveys done in the last few years.

United States of America

Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html?guccounter=1

“The gulf between the percentage of people who identify as feminists and the percentage who believe in the equality of the sexes may be partly due to a branding problem for the word “feminism.” Thirty-seven percent said they consider “feminist” to be a negative term, compared to only 26 percent who consider it a positive term. Twenty-nine percent said it’s a neutral term.

Among Republicans, 58 percent said the term is mostly negative, compared to 40 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats. Men were also more likely than women to consider “feminist” a negative term (42 percent to 32 percent), but even among women, more said the term is negative than positive (32 percent to 29 percent).

Moreover, few Americans think that most others identify as feminists. Only 27 percent said they thought most women are feminists (37 percent said a majority are not, and 36 percent said they weren’t sure), and only 7 percent said they thought most men are feminists (67 percent said a majority are not, and 27 percent said they weren’t sure).”

85% Of Americans Believe In Women’s Equality, But Only 18% Identify As Feminist

http://thelala.com/believe-womens-equality-identify-as-feminist/

“Feminism targets a multitude of global problems endangering gender equality. It does not target men as evil (that’s misandry), but rather it encompasses men in its efforts.

Those people who refuse to call themselves feminists present arguments that appear confused and misinformed at their core; their claims that feminism is not needed anymore are just not true. The equality of genders is necessary but still not a reality.”

United Kingdom

Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

“More than two thirds of Britons support gender equality – but just seven per cent would call themselves feminists.

Out of 8,000 people surveyed, only 560 used the ‘f-word’ to describe their views on equality.

The Fawcett Society, a leading feminist charity, found Britain to be a nation of ‘hidden feminists’.

When split out by gender, women were more likely to identify as feminist, with nine per cent using the label compared to four per cent of men. But men were more supportive generally of equality between the sexes – 86 per cent wanted it for the women in their lives – compared to 74 per cent of women.

Younger women were more likely to call themselves feminist, with 19 per cent aged 18-24 using the word, but they were also most likely to oppose feminism.”

Canada

68% of Canadian women don’t call themselves a feminist

https://www.chatelaine.com/living/68-of-canadian-women-dont-call-themselves-a-feminist/

“Kat

@Knymz

Feeling a little ill looking at the @Chatelaine survey where 68% of women said “no” they are not a feminist. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

8:31 PM – Dec 3, 2015”

Australia

Women against feminism

http://antifeminismaustralia.com/women-against-feminism/

“There is an increasing number of women who are against feminism, and feminists don’t like it one bit. A female anti-feminist is even worse than a male anti-feminist, because they are “rejecting the sisterhood”. Feminists claim that these women don’t understand what feminism is about. They often tell these women “if it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to vote, work, or attend university” etc. Yes, but are these things still an issue today? Certainly not. Women have all the same rights as men do, plus even more.

It is modern third wave feminism that these women are rejecting, and rightly so. Despite feminists pointing to the dictionary definition, the actions of modern feminism prove it has nothing to do with equality. Rather, it has become a man hating movement that seeks female supremacy. Many women today are rejecting feminism for this very reason.

Thankfully, surveys have shown that only 1 in 5 women identify as a feminist, and it is believed this number is decreasing. It is these minorities which have the loudest voices, making it seem like that number is higher.”

I am rather pleased to be able to say – feminism has always struggled to gain a foothold in the Republic of Ireland – what has happened here is actually rather more insidious – the vast majority of feminists are to be found in universities and in politics – notwithstanding that less women get VOTED for here – not because of some patriarchal conspiracy – but simply because Irish voters DON’T LIKE the vast majority of female candidates – including me – I have NEVER voted for a female candidate.

What is prevalent in Ireland is toxic gynocentric – see this article, Diagnosing Gynocentrism by Peter Ryan on a Voice For Men link here – https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/

Unfortunately, because of the increase in young people, especially young women now going to college – young women who overwhelmingly do “sociology” and “gender studies” which is simply feminist indoctrination – we now have vast numbers of wimmin coming out of these universities’ ad colleges, frothing at the mouth about “the patriarchy” and “inequality” 

It took longer for toxic feminism to reach critical mass here in the Republic of Ireland than anywhere else in the western hemisphere – thank God – and because of that – the heavy lifting work of the task of de-bunking feminist shoite has been done – for which I am personally extremely grateful.

In particular I would like to pay tribute to two men who are and were instrumental in doing that “heavy lifting” Angry Harry – may he rest in peace, and Paul Elam.

Angry Harry – http://www.angryharry.com/

A Voice For Men – https://www.avoiceformen.com/

I personally had never gone head to head with an avowed feminist – never actually met someone who came right our and said “I’m a feminist” until I was 40 – seriously – I had spoken to women who declared they “believed in women’s rights”

The full extent of the toxicity of feminism was driven home to me only when I decided to go back to college – that’s when it hit me – how foul, vile and twisted feminist ideology was and is – because apparently making the statement – “I am NOT a feminist” is the equivalent of declaring “The earth is flat”

So, two things – if you are one of the majority who isn’t a feminist – ask yourself why? And then ask yourself this – I am in the majority so WHY is all public policy dictated by, driven by, promulgated and formulated by adherents of a MINORITY belief system?

Second – if you’re NOT a feminist, then what are you? What is your core fundamental ethical and moral code built upon?

Mine is fairly simple – I don’t “believe” in “women’s rights” or for that matter “men’s rights” I believe in HUMAN RIGHTS.

IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT KIND OF HUMAN BEING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

ALL human beings in distress, in pain, victims of injustice and prejudice and bigotry are entitled because of the biological fact of their BEING HUMAN BEINGS to help, support, justice, fairness, compassion and ATTENTION.

Feminism would have you believe that men and boys are lesser human beings than women and girls, feminism would have you believe that men and boys pain, distress, anguish and despair is …………..funny….irrelevant………………something to be sneered at, ignored and reviled.

Republic of Ireland

The F word: Why are some women reluctant to call themselves feminists?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-f-word-why-are-some-women-reluctant-to-call-themselves-feminists-462961.html

“Broadcaster Bibi Baskin would beg to differ. While the study found that 50% of Irish men and women believe women have rights but no real power, Bibi feels feminism is not the way for women to secure their fair share.

“It could be part of the solution,” she says, “but it’s not the only solution. If women have rights but no power, why don’t they go out and get the power?

“I spent 15 years living in India, where women are second-class citizens, and when I look at Irish women I just think, come on! Not all men are out to get you, you have the ability, so just get a move on.”

“Feminism is just a form of egalitarianism, but we shouldn’t be afraid to call ourselves feminists. If women specifically are disadvantaged, then I think we need to name that.”

“Acutely aware” she’s the first woman on Newstalk’s daytime schedule, she says “once we smash those glass ceilings, they’re broken for the women who’ll come behind us.”

“The Royal College of Surgeons just elected their first female president, Professor Mary Horgan,” she continues. “When asked was she a feminist, she said no, and I was so disappointed. You’re the first woman in 323 years to hold that position — does that not tell you we need feminism? 323 years before a woman got the job and you’re disavowing feminism? Sorry, professor, but give me a break!”

This quote from Carolyn Moore from the Article “The F word: Why are some women reluctant to call themselves feminists?” linked to above encapsulates the woeful ignorance of “media feminists” women who jump on the bandwagon of pop feminism to give themselves “kudos” – of all the things feminism is – “a form of egalitarianism” isn’t one of them – egalitarianism stands alone as a concept in its own right – it certainly doesn’t need to be contaminated by being yoked with a toxic ideology like feminism.

“Feminism is just a form of egalitarianism, but we shouldn’t be afraid to call ourselves feminists. If women specifically are disadvantaged, then I think we need to name that.”

The same way “Justice” doesn’t need a qualifier like “Social Justice” a concept like “Justice” also stands alone.

Feminism now

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/century/century-women-and-the-vote/feminism-now-1.553554

“However, feminism has never become popular. Many women in Ireland who assert their rights and show solidarity with, and compassion for, other women, insist they are not feminists. The Irish women’s movement has been riven by quarrels and splits, notably over the national question. There has been a dearth of new ideas on questions of class, an intolerance of dissent.”

“Structures have been problematic. Feminist organisations have struggled with tensions between respectability and the radical, subversive nature of their political analysis. The withdrawal of state funding has been used to silence protest.”

What has always amused me personally are the ridiculous justifications, “reasons” and/or rather condescending conclusions reached by feminists as to why people, both men and women refuse to identify as feminists.

Again, from the same article “The F word: Why are some women reluctant to call themselves feminists?” here is Moore’s “conclusion”

“But as a recent study of international attitudes towards gender roles reveals, the F word remains problematic for some.

Surveying 12,000 men and women in 32 countries, including Ireland, Havas Creative found conflicting attitudes when it comes to issues around equality. Globally, women make up 23% of national parliaments and hold just 24% of senior management positions, and both men and women are overwhelmingly in favour of advancing equality in these areas.

Yet less than a third of women and just 17% of men consider themselves feminists, so something doesn’t add up. What the findings make clear is that you don’t have to identify as a feminist to support women’s equality, but the question is — why wouldn’t you?”

Right here is the problem for feminists – being a feminist – the figures speak for themselves – this woman declares herself to be a feminist, she then goes on to publish the fact “that less than a third of women and just 17% of men consider themselves feminists,” in other words SHE is part of a minority, but still doesn’t get it.

To the extent that she bewails this terrible result by asking the most asinine question of all with regard to people, both men and women NOT identifying as feminists with “What the findings make clear is that you don’t have to identify as a feminist to support women’s equality, but the question is — why wouldn’t you?”

At the risk of pointing out the bloody obvious Carolyn – because more than 66% of women and 83% of men DON’T BELIEVE that feminism has anything to do with “equality” with “egalitarianism” with “empowering women”

Because more than 66% of women and 83% of men KNOW either consciously or subconsciously – but somewhere in the depths of their being they know what I know, and what the MAJORITY of people know.

This – Feminism is a toxic, vile, repugnant and poisonous cult and ideology, and needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history, needs to be excised, like a cancerous tumor from all areas of public policy.

Feminism is Cultural and Political Cancer.

 

Slainte

 

 

Never Ask A Question……….

 

One of the “Golden Rules” if you like of questioning/cross-examining a witness in a trial situation is this “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to” the reason is obvious and speaks directly to the purpose of examining said witness – to confirm KNOWN and provable FACTS or in the alternative to dispute and disprove an alleged fact.

The object of the exercise is not to “have a chat” and figure out what this witness may or may not know and/or say but to CONFIRM or dispute something FACTUAL and provable.

Standing up to question someone and ASSUMING you already know that this witness will either confirm/dispute whatever it is you wish them to confirm or dispute is beyond stupid and arrogant. In other words, assuming this witness/person is going to give you the answer you require to PROVE your case – or at least advance your case in the right direction.

There is one group/class of persons who represent the very essence of stupid and arrogant – feminists and their acolytes/hangers on/enablers/useful idiots – pick one (or all)

No-where is this stupidity and arrogance more prevalent than when feminists et al seek to PROVE the validity of their oft and tediously articulated diktats on……..everything to do with men, women, society, culture etc – in particular what and how people THINK – in other words the mantra of feminist speak could best be summarized by this “when we want your opinion, WE will give it to you” in essence, feminists claim to KNOW not only what people think and feel about everything, but what they SHOULD think and feel about everything – so in Australia they conducted a survey on “attitudes’ very particular ‘attitudes’ towards ‘violence against women’

Now, please bear in mind that feminism has been “educating’ (brainwashing)the world on what the right ‘attitudes’ towards this topic should be – ie. The feminist perspective – all men are bad, all women are victims – ergo it follows, from the feminist perspective, that this ‘survey’ will reflect the right ‘attitude(s)’ – in other words, the persons asked to respond to this survey will give them the RIGHT answers and endorse, validate and confirm what feminists have been indoctrinating you, me, us, the whole world with for decades, or at least striving to do so.

Alas and alack – it backfired on them – spectacularly, and notwithstanding that the persons “questioned” with a view to confirming the correct feminist paradigm failed to give the right answers – the reaction to these WRONG answers is even more illuminating with regard to the global feminist project to brainwash the entire global population into the correct feminist mindset.

So, what are we talking about?

This:

2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS)

http://apo.org.au/system/files/207066/apo-nid207066-1057761.pdf

The mainstream media reaction to the above, in the form of an article by Laura House for The Daily Mail.

2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) By LAURA HOUSE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6445405/The-harmful-disturbing-views-women-domestic-violence.html

garnered this response.

“A new study has uncovered a number of disturbing and harmful views many Australian men and women still have towards domestic violence and rape.

The National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey, led by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety was released on Friday.

The survey was taken by 17,500 Australians aged 16 and over and highlighted that many hold outdated views despite wide-spread education campaigns and greater community awareness.  

Some of the most worrying findings were related to blame, with many Australians continuing to shift the blame away from men in violent and dangerous situations.

The survey found 21% of men and women believed that ‘sometimes a woman can make a man so angry he hits her when he didn’t mean to’ and one in three thinks ‘rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex’.”

Emphasis added

Now, in the interests of full disclosure I admit I haven’t read this 182 page Report, other than focusing on this:

“Concerning results

  • There continues to be a decline in the number of Australians who understand that men are more likely than women to perpetrate domestic violence.

  • A concerning proportion of Australians believe that gender inequality is exaggerated or no longer a problem.

  • Among attitudes condoning violence against women, the highest level of agreement was with the idea that women use claims of violence to gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men.

  • 1 in 5 Australians would not be bothered if a male friend told a sexist joke about women.”

Emphasis added

Taken From a 20 Page Summary of the above mentioned 182 page Report, my main interest at the moment is two-fold, commenting on the reaction to the results from” feminists” and being heartened BY the results – a small but significant percentage of persons have REJECTED “feminist” indoctrination/propaganda/lies/and bullshit.

Summary here:

Are we there yet? Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women & gender equality

https://ncas.anrows.org.au/findings/4-attitudes-to-violence-against-women/

What appears to be causing problems for feminists and their acolytes is something they have no control over – WHAT people believe and WHO they believe, or in this instance DISBELIEVE – and that the rate of disbelief is growing, notwithstanding the almost ongoing relentless campaign of misinformation being peddled by feminists.

For example – taken from the summary of the main survey results are these statements, headed “What Australians Believe”

“WHAT AUSTRALIANS BELIEVE

While most Australians (64%) recognise that mainly men, or men more often, commit acts of domestic violence, the percentage who recognize this has dropped 7 percentage points since the 2013 NCAS. This decline has been occurring since 1995, when 86% recognised this fact. In 2009, recognition was down to 74% and it dropped a further 3 percentage points to 71% in 2013.”

“Less than half (49%) of Australians recognise that levels of fear from domestic violence are worse for women, and there has been no statistically significant change since 2013. This is a 6 percentage point decline from 2009, when 55% of respondents recognised that levels of fear are worse for women.”

Under the heading “Attitudes that support violence against women” is this little gem:

“Mistrust women’s reports of violence by suggesting women lie about or exaggerate reports of violence in order to  ‘get back at’ men or gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men. Such attitudes have been referred to as part of a ‘backlash’.”

Emphasis added

The results of this report have caused feminists to describe those results as “worrying” and “concerning” and from Laura House in The Daily Mail as “disturbing and harmful views”

Hmmmmm, except these are not “views” not according to this survey – these “attitudes” are based on WHAT and WHO people BELIEVE.

Let’s go back to the analogy of a court room situation, shall we?

One side presents their case, submits their evidence, presents and questions witnesses, some of them “expert” witnesses whose function is to validate and endorse a particular piece of “evidence” the other side does the same.

In the context of what we are discussing here -almost ALL the “evidence” to support the all domestic violence is committed by men upon women “side” of the domestic violence “case” has been presented by feminists, endorsed by feminist “experts” and received a substantial amount of attention and funding to support that “view”

In other words massive amounts of money has been spent preparing this “evidence” paying these “expert” witness and presenting this “case”

Here’s where feminists completely lose the plot – after you’ve presented your “evidence” YOU don’t get to decide WHO the jury believes – especially if the other side has been able to present compelling evidence DISPUTING your “view” of what the “evidence” shows – or if YOUR evidence IS SHOWN TO BE FLAWED.

In a nutshell this is more or less what has happened here – in this “survey” the recipients/hearers/readers of the “evidence” presented by feminists over the last several decades of the “view” that all domestic violence is committed by men against and upon women, formed a BELIEF and rendered a verdict. And the verdict?

THE JURY DON’T BELIEVE YOU. THEY DON’T BELIEVE YOUR “EVIDENCE”.

From a cultural perspective – the feminists are beginning to lose control of the narrative – look at the reaction – according to this Report, more and more people are NOT believing what feminists are peddling – and the reaction from feminists to NOT being believed?

These “non-believers” hold “disturbing and harmful views” and those persons who DO NOT believe the utter tripe peddled by feminists have culminated in the “Concerning results” described above.

I can hear the gnashing of feminist teeth from here 😊

Some of those “disturbing and harmful views” that Laura House highlights in her article are these:

“What are the attitudes to violence against women in Australia?

A fifth believe that ‘a lot of what is called domestic violence is really a normal reaction to day-to-day stress and frustration’

  • 32% believe that a female victim who does not leave an abusive partner is partly responsible for the abuse continuing

  • Half believe that women mistakenly interpret ‘innocent’ remarks or acts as being sexist

  • 40% think women exaggerate how unequally women are treated and 36% believe many women fail to appreciate all that men do for them”

Emphasis added

As I said I am actually heartened by not only the results of this survey – which Laura House refers to as “A shocking new study……” but by the fact that these feminists are shocked.

Based on the above results – half (50%) of respondents reject the hysterical overreaction to remarks/comments etc that apparently the vast majority of sensitive little snowflakes are too thin-skinned to either shrug off or respond to LIKE A GROWN UP – with a smart-arse comment of their own – or do their brains not function at the same speed as “misogynists” 😉

The last two figures give me even more hope – 40% seem to realise that everything feminists have ever peddled about “inequality” is complete and utter bullshit and LIES.

THE 36% articulating the sheer lack of normal decent gratitude for the sacrifices that MEN make FOR women is hopeful – perhaps by the time they do the next “survey” there will be a “do you believe that the vast majority of wimmin are whiney, hysterical, ungrateful, vindictive and manipulative wretches?” and that 36% will look like a blip compared to the overwhelming majority who will answer that question with a resounding – YES.

One can only hope.

Slainte

Quota Queens – Gimme Gimme Gimme!

 

On Sunday just gone I was flicking through various websites and decided to click into the Irish Times and lo and behold read this:

Funds for women-only professorships aim to end gender inequality: Government to back roles in third level institutions at cost of €6 million: Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 13:00: Carl O’Brien

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/funds-for-women-only-professorships-aim-to-end-gender-inequality-1.3693939

My first reaction, bearing in mind I was only on my first cup of coffee was………what a load of shoite! Saw the name Mary Mitchell O’Connor, sighed, saved it, closed it, and pondered for a minute  – wasn’t that the idiot who drove down the steps of the Dail (Parliament) on her very first day as a TD (Public Representative)?

And so it was – here for the benefit of those not familiar with this particular embarrassment in Irish politics is our illustrious “Minister” with responsibility for “Higher Education” Mary Mitchell O’Connor arriving on her first day as a “female” politician.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWJPAC1EN8

Impressive – isn’t it?

Anyhoo, three specific statements jumped out at me – in particular because of the underlying ideological underpinnings, and because of that, the propagandist nature and misinformation being disseminated here.

The Government is to fund dozens of women-only professorships over the next three years to help “eradicate gender inequality” in higher education institutions.

It follows the recommendations of a taskforce which says dramatic steps are needed to ensure more women occupy key leadership positions.”

Clear evidence

However, Government sources say these posts will be in addition to existing academic staff and confined to areas where there is “clear evidence” of significant under-representation of women, such as science or engineering.”

Emphasis added

There are 7 (seven) universities in Ireland – ergo it naturally follows that there are 7 (seven) positions as “Head” of said universities – or as the IT article says “key leadership position(s)’

All Enrolments 2016/2017 – 125,281 in said Universities

https://www.iua.ie/the-irish-universities/university-fast-facts/

There are 14 (fourteen) Institutes of Technology in Ireland with 89,705 enrolled

http://www.thea.ie/

Overall, there are 45 publicly funded providers of Higher Education in Ireland.

Including for example The Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, The Shannon College of Hotel Management, The Garda College (Police) The Military College, The Royal Irish Academy of Music.

But feminists are not really interested in these rather specialized colleges – are they? Can’t be much kudos being in a ‘key leadership position’ in The Shannon College of Hotel Management?

The IT article and a subsequent article on Monday makes very clear where the focus of attention is being directed

For a full list of PUBLICLY funded providers of Higher Education in Ireland see link below.

https://www.education.ie/en/Learners/Information/Providers-of-Higher-Education/List.html

So, yet again we have a another feminist whine, from the Quota Queen – Mary Mitchell O’Connor – though I think of her as Driving Miss Dozy Twat –  about mean men taking all the good jobs (usually in STEMM) away from poor disadvantaged and discriminated wimmins. Because…..well because………it’s not fwaire…..sigh.

The author of the first article on Sunday penned a follow up on Monday to ask:

Are plans to close gender gap in university posts fair? Creation of women-only posts in academia set to spark objections from many factions

Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 00:00

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/are-plans-to-close-gender-gap-in-university-posts-fair-1.3694042

Only this time he (Carl O’Brien) got more specific about where the ‘unfairness” lay – toward wimmin!

‘They are also far more likely to earn less, with men accounting for the vast majority of best-paid posts in higher education.

Some 70 per cent of those earning in excess of €106,000 are men at university level, while it rises to 83 per cent in institutes of technology.

Women’s chances of occupying a professorship also vary widely across individual colleges.

NUI Galway has the lowest proportion of female professors (12 per cent), while UL (31 per cent) has the second lowest, followed by DCU and Maynooth University (30 per cent).

There has also never been a female president since the establishment of the first Irish university more than 425 years ago.’

emphasis added

There are of course many private colleges – but for the purposes of this article the focus is on those that rely on the public purse for funding – including the proposed funding announced by Mitchell O’Connor ‘The Government is to fund dozens of women-only professorships over the next three years to help “eradicate gender inequality” in higher education institutions.”

Anyone want to take a bet that one of those makey-up ‘professorships” will be in………The Institute of Public Administration? My favourite though, is of course, The Shannon College of Hotel Management – 😊

Just to be absolutely clear – out of a total of 45 PUBLICLY funded Higher Education providers in Ireland, the focus of this latest bit of whingeing from feminists is, as always directed at positions – ‘key-leadership positions’ in very specific areas – areas that are considered lucrative, high profile, and apparently dominated by males because……..fill in the blanks yourselves…though most feminist whines can be encapsulated by one simple and pathetic phrase…………men are mean!

To summarise – if I may – this proposal is intended to create – apparently out of thin air – DOZENS of professorships, in highly lucrative areas, for ONLY women.

Okey dokey – in order to qualify for a position as a professor in Ireland and in usually most places in the western hemisphere a certain educational path needs to be embarked on at least 12 (twelve) years previously – obviously in the particular area that this numbskull (MMO’C) appears to be targeting – STEMM.

So, here goes. Quick summary of the level of study, length of study etc it takes to reach the point where you would be QUALIFIED to be appointed a ‘Professor” in Ireland.

Primary Degree                       3-4 years

Masters                                     1- 2 years

Post Doc                                     6 years

Research etc                              2- 3 years

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, I’m just giving a rough idea – have no intention of trawling through college sites and calculating times for each type of area of study.

On average, to reach the level required to be QUALIFIED to be appointed as a “Professor” of something in STEMM, we’re talking a minimum of 12 (twelve) years and a maximum of 15 (fifteen) years obviously depending on the complexity of your particular area of study/research. Which for the hard of thinking would mean that our putative female “Professors” would have had to begin their studies circa 2004/05, more or less.

See the links below for a quick look at Academic Paths in Ireland.

Ireland, Academic Career Structure

https://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/AcademicCareersbyCountry/Ireland

GradIreland:Lecturer, third level

https://gradireland.com/careers-advice/job-descriptions/lecturer-third-level

Which very nicely brings us to this – courtesy of the H.E.A (Higher Education Authority)

Below is a graphic of the numbers of students enrolled in Ireland in third level study in 2004/2005 by area of study (general description) and by GENDER.

From: http://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/06/Key-Facts-and-Figures-0405-1.pdf

https://www.education.ie/en/Learners/Information/Providers-of-Higher-Education/List.html HIGHER EDUCATION: Key Facts and Figures: HEA funded Institutions 04/05

Take a good look – this is a graphic showing what areas of study Irish young people CHOOSE to embark on in 2004/2005.

new entrnts by field of study 04 05 HEA

Lets just concentrate for the moment on two areas – Science and Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction.

Science first – two areas immediately jump out with rather large discrepancies – Mathematics and Statistics where there were 122 male students enrolled compared to 65 female students – in effect nearly twice as many young men than young women CHOOSE this area of study.

But the biggest discrepancy is in Computer Science and Use (a relatively new area of study in Ireland at this time) 456 young men as opposed to 91 young women CHOOSE to study in this area – four times as many young men, CHOOSE to study an area that has now become extremely lucrative – bear in mind this I personally am not very technologically minded – but I do know that “knowing computers” is BIG.

Anyway – to continue – the next big area of discrepancy is in Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction – in all areas young men outnumbered young women by 834 males to 252 females, more than 3 times as many. In essence you only have to look at the figures to see distinct differences in the CHOICES young men and young women made (and I might add, continue to make) in their PREFERRED areas of study.

This is what feminists simply don’t get – or refuse to accept – PEOPLE make choices – young women made and make choices based on what they are INTERESTED IN – what really does stick in the craw of feminists is one thing.

Women make choices that FEMINISTS DON’T APPROVE OF.

I’d like to interject a little word to young women – DON’T let feminist arseholes browbeat you into doing or choosing things you personally DON’T like, don’t want to do and wouldn’t CHOOSE to do if feminist arseholes weren’t making you feel inadequate. – if you actually do like science, engineering, math’s etc – fantastic – me personally nope – but bear this mind – do it because you want to do it – and, if you are good at it, equally fantastic.

But – do NOT expect, or feel entitled to anything to do with your chosen profession simply because you are female – EARN your honours – get what you get ON MERIT, and if you’re the ‘only girl’ in a class full of boys in say engineering? So bloody what! Just get on with it – do the work – the same work – don’t be whining and sniveling and to be blunt being a girl – grow up – you’re either good at the subject or you’re not – it has nothing to do with whether you’re a girl or a boy.

Ok – let’s move on – and back to MMO’C and her pulling “Professorships”  out of her arse because a bunch of hatchet faced feminists have the hump over men making more money in areas where they (men) excel and women DON’T.

Let’s go back to 2004 – and have a look at Post Graduate statistics – produced by the HEA – and one would presume beyond reproach – they have a load of “Gender and Equality’ Reports currently on their website.

Anyhoo – if you recall, in order to QUALIFY for a position as a Professor in Ireland you need a PhD – so how went for this option in 2004 and more importantly in what areas and for the purposes of this article what was the “gender” breakdown?

Here it is:

post grad 2004

Just to keep it consistent we’ll stick with comparing the two areas we used for Graduate Studies – Science and Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction – shall we?

Again – see where the discrepancies occur – nearly three times as many male students went on to a Post Doc in Computer Science and Use as female students, nearly four times as many male student as female in Mathematics and statistics and in the Combined Engineering category we’re talking 34 male students to 7 female students.

I’m not going to bore you by going through each year’s figures that quantify the actual CHOICES that young people make when choosing an area of study – any normal sensible person (ie NOT a feminist) knows well that boys and girls show quite clear preferences from an early age in their areas of interest – many many studies have shown quite clearly where those differences lie.

I would recommend though that you take a look at William Collins seminal article Athena SWAN  http://empathygap.uk/?p=387  to get a clear and thoroughly researched expose of where this shoite emanates from.

What is clear is that Mary Mitchell O’Connor is an idiot – feel free to do your own research on this fool – she is after all a politician – an Irish politician – not known for an excess of functioning brain cells.

The area I really want to address with regard to this nonsense is the legal area – in a further article – but before I sign off on this one here are some resources to whet your appetite.

Bear in mind the core legal issue in this debacle will be the issue of Discrimination – and “Equality” and the place where this will be ultimately thrashed out in ECJ (European Court of Justice)

To that end – have a look here, as a bit of an insight into how the EU deals with “Equality” issues.

EU Gender Equality Law:  Seminar series in the framework of the European Commission’s Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 2014-2020

https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=bf60056a4360c508a0950b2701be87f1f1c2a17500619721220498&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=121643

Gender resources

https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=3421f2274fef8ad43052718aefb8b3ac17a3b8f000152273532005&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=121923

EU Gender Equality Law: Trier, 29-30 January 2018 – 118DV24 – EN/IT

I personally recommend you start with these two – some of the other “feminist” speakers will make you grit your teeth 😊

Positive Action and Gender Quotas in EU Law
Dr Panos Kapotas (September 2015)

Positive Action, (Gender) Quotas & EU Law
Prof. Dr Marc De Vos (May 2016)

e-Presentations

Each e-presentation features a top expert and includes high-level supporting material.

Gleiches Entgelt bei gleichwertiger Arbeit: EU-Rechtsrahmen und Rechtsprechung des EuGH
Cornelia Amon-Konrath (March 2018)

Definition of key concepts
Paul Epstein QC (March 2018)

Equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services: focus on the collaborative economy
Dr Eugenia Caracciolo di Torella (January 2018)

Gender pay gap and job evaluation
Sophie Latraverse (January 2018)

EU Working Time Regime, Work-Family Reconciliation, and Gender Equality 
Dr Ania Zbyszewska (November 2017)

UK Anti-Discrimination laws after Brexit
Prof. Sandra Fredman (November 2017)

The legal framework on gender equality
Marjolein van den Brink (November 2016)

Reconciliation of Work and Family Life
Marguerite Bolger (May 2016)

Positive Action, (Gender) Quotas & EU Law
Prof. Dr Marc De Vos (May 2016)

The EU Legal Framework on Equality
Dr Panos Kapotas (April 2016)

Remedies and sanctions in (sex) discrimination cases
Else Leona McClimans (April 2016)

EU-Recht zur Geschlechtergleichbehandlung: Definition der Schlüsselbegriffe
Prof. Dr. Christa Tobler (April 2016)

Reconciliation of Work and Family Life
Prof Dr Maria do Rosário Palma Ramalho (September 2015)

Positive Action and Gender Quotas in EU Law
Dr Panos Kapotas (September 2015)

The burden of proof
Philip Rostant (November 2014)

Le droit européen de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes
Prof Michel Miné (November 2014)

Latest EU Jurisprudence on Maternity and Pregnancy Discrimination
Prof Petra Foubert (November 2013)

Latest CJEU Case Law on Age Discrimination
Robin Allen (March 2013)

A year after the ECJ Test-Achats judgment
Prof Christa Tobler (March 2012)

Enjoy and Slainte

 

 

 

 

 

Feminist Crybabies – Men are Mean!

 

It is a truism I know to say that feminists are crazy, irrational, fact adverse, and without a doubt the most bald-faced liars on the planet.

It is also a truism to say that if a “study”  – and in the context of feminist studies I use that term extremely loosely (sitting around on cushions, swigging Lidl wine in a cat urine soaked bedsit talking shoite qualifies as a “study” in the black-hole that is the feminist psyche) flat out contradicts the feminist “perspective” then…….well ignore it and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the study finds – just like here:

In an article published on the 3 August 2018 entitled; Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy by Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

And subtitled – “We can’t achieve freedom of expression without first addressing the toxic environment many women face on the internet”.

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news-Article.aspx?id=5623027c-d0bb-40de-a4d5-3eddebe936f6

This statement was made about halfway down the article and a link was provided to a supporting “study” – there is a link to “2014 study” referenced in this toxic little paragraph.

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts

Online threats can and do lead female journalists to leave the profession. They can also lead female journalists to remove themselves from social media to avoid trauma, or stay quiet about their experience with sexual harassment online for fear of repercussions for their career. This is having a devastating impact on freedom of expression.”

What made me laugh out loud – seriously – feminists say the funniest things – was the title of the “study” referenced to support these dimwits contention that…………..boo hoo, men are mean to women on the internet.

This is the title of the study:

Demos: Male celebrities receive more abuse on Twitter than women

Link here https://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-male-celebrities-receive-more-abuse-on-twitter-than-women-2/

Not only that, this little gem also appears in the “study” cited by these feminist twats to support their boo hoo.

“The study included celebrities, politicians, journalists and musicians – specifically chosen to ensure an equal number – roughly one million – were aimed at each gender.

It found:

– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.

– Journalism is the only category where women received more abuse than men, with female journalists and TV news presenters receiving roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts.

– Men were much more likely to troll public figures via social media. Three-quarters of the abuse received by prominent men, and over 60% of abuse received by women, was tweeted by men.

– Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais and Katie Hopkins were three of the most likely celebrities to receive abuse.”

Hmmmmm, are you seeing what I’m seeing?

Ok – lets just see exactly what the feminist crybabies Jenny and Sinead (pronounced Shin – ayd) said about twitter:

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts”

And then remind ourselves of what the study ACTUALLY reported – shall we?

“– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.”

No doubt you can see that Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan of Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media published a statement that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the statement in the “Study” they cited to support the absolute bare-faced lie they told.

No doubt many of you are familiar with the feminist propensity for taking data out of context, with conflating, twisting and misrepresenting “facts” in order to support whatever tedious, ridiculous, insane “theory” they wish to shove into your face.

But this! This is so blatant, so ridiculous, so in your face that it did actually make me LOL.

Now, why am I not addressing the content of Jenny and Sinead’s little screed?

Simples – it’s the usual feminist shoite.

For example:

“Attacks like these are both gendered and life-altering events. This is why we talk about online violence and the safety of women online, rather than the issue of their polite treatment. In fact, the chilling effect that online violence and cyber-misogyny has on female voices is a direct challenge to democracy.”

Ah, right the attacks!

The attacks that happen AGAINST males at three times the rate of these so-called attacks on females – those “attacks?”

Personally, I have received some very very bizarre comments – from some very very disturbed people – ALL feminists – as they usually gleefully inform me – before they threaten me personally, sigh.

I have a folder with the choicest ones saved – for posterity…..and my personal amusement 😉

The only part of the above statement that has even a grain of truth in it is the “gendered………” part – yep the nastiest comments ALL emanate from FEMALES – feminist FEMALES.

What about the LIFE-ALTERING EVENTS thingamajig?

Phooey!

“Life-altering events” my arse – unless of course you happen to be female and NOT A FEMINIST.

This delightful quote:

“These stories are, tragically, not the exception – online violence continues to raise the stakes for women speaking, blogging, writing and reporting in the public sphere every day. We run a project at the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media called #SOFJO, short for ‘Safety of Female Journalists Online’. We focus on the issues of equal representation and media pluralism by looking at the gendered component of online violence and the way it silences female voices and female stories in the media.”

Is without exception an illustration par excellence of feminist double speak – without any irony whatsoever these two dimwits peddle the “silences female voices and female stories…” crap.

The reason why I decided to address this pathetic little article is because I was doing a quick update on what various global bodies were up to with regard to “gender” issues. The OECD, the UN, the EU, the WHO – etc. – as in – popping onto their various sites and perusing the latest “gender” shoite.

ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN.

I won’t bore you with the latest crap emanating from these organisations – but one did catch my eye.

New women leaders institute to be chaired by former Oz PM, By Liz Heron on 20/04/2018

Link here https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/new-women-leaders-institute-to-be-chaired-by-former-oz-pm/

The former Australian prime minister has been appointed to the chair of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, soooooooooo I decided to have a little look see – and – it has a blog

Global Institute for Women’s Leadership – Blog

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/blog.aspx?page=1

First article on the blog is this: Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy – and here we are.

If I was to speculate – I would posit that the level and intensity of anti-feminist and non -feminist content on the internet – blogs, twitter etc. has increased significantly since the election of Donald Trump – and no, I have no opinion re President Trump – it is palpable – as is the level of public support for non-feminist ideas, opinions and commentary – and this more than anything is what is very scary for feminists – especially feminist media.

Shutting down debate, shutting down commentators who say and publish things that are in direct conflict with feminist ‘ideology’ or ‘perspectives’ has now reached ludicrous heights – but the words, horse and barn spring to mind.

People are sick to death of feminist crap, sick to death of the perpetual whining of feminists, sick to death of the never-ending parade of “victims” I know I am.

This is what scares feminists – not being able to control the flow of information, not being in charge of the discourse – hence the manufacturing of ever more ridiculous, and ever more hysterical claims like the title of this article “Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy

Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeze – grow up and stop being such a pair of pathetic crybabies!

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Kimmel: Welcome to The Real World.

 

I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for Michael Kimmel, really, I do – he is doomed. Do I think he is a complete arsehole and full of shit? Yep. Absolutely. But – he is a human being, and from my perspective he is deserving of all the rights of due process that any other human being is entitled to – he won’t get it, but he is still entitled to it. His problem is that he has along with his feminist overlords worked to strip ALL men – all other men – of that entitlement.

Kimmels’ biggest mistake is in believing that as a self-declared male feminist he would be immune from the kinds of witch-hunting that his movement is not only famous for, but has become a parody of itself.

“Revolutions eat their children.” This observation, by a journalist during the French Revolution, was only partly true. In reality, revolutions eat their parents. In particular, history’s left-wing revolutions eat the left-wing intellectuals who made them happen. By “left-wing” here I mean revolutions that explicitly aim to use government power to reshuffle society. To remake society so it matches whatever version of “justice” strikes its promoters as attractive.”

Revolutions Eat Their Parents

https://mises.org/library/revolutions-eat-their-parents

Kimmels’ ticking time bomb of self-destruction and inevitable targeting by feminists is so self-evident, that the fact he has never considered it is a searing example of his innate stupidity.  He has a penis.

Unfortunately, his belief that he had the right kind of penis, a benign, worshipping at the feet of womynhood, let me pierce a hole in it so you can lead me around by a chain, my penis is at your service and command, was and is an exercise in monumental stupidity.

He could have chopped it off, encased it in one of those things that you encase stuff in, presented it to Hilary Clinton, along with his testes dipped in gold and made into earrings, and he was still living on borrowed time.

Kimmel in his stupidity and arrogance and hubris believed he could cook up some, how to build a better man acceptable to feminists, manual/programme/guidebook, whatever, and they would love and worship him forever.

Nah.

Apart from the fact that every single word he has ever written is complete and utter garbage, his problem was and is this.

He wrote about MEN, he took up space, time and oxygen pontificating about MEN.

HE BECAME THE GO TO GUY FOR OPINIONS ABOUT MEN

– and he did it AS A MAN.

He gave them what he believed they wanted, a turgid treatise on men and masculinity, he polished it, honed it, tied it up in a big bow and on his knees, presented them with it and waited for the accolades. He forgot. He is a MAN.

Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was in believing the oft trumpeted, tediously quoted “dictionary definition” of feminism so beloved by feminists who have run out of rational arguments (usually takes about 13 seconds) “feminism is about equality” duh.

He forgot – he is not entitled to define men, to define masculinity, to express an opinion. He forgot, while they would tolerate his views and opinions – for a while – that was never going to last – because those views and opinions were being expressed – BY A MAN. About men.

I read his monumentally stupid statement – his expectation that he would be afforded the due process he has singularly failed to endorse for other men. I rolled my eyes and while I don’t normally talk to myself, the words “you stupid stupid idiot” just popped out.

Whatever belief he has/had that they will treat him fairly, reasonably, or with even a modicum of restraint because of his “feminist” credentials, perhaps this will illustrate for him the absolute futility of believing that.

There are groups, covens, sects of so-called reasonable feminists, the type of feminist who abhors the rabid feral feminists that we all know and despise.

One of them is Laura Kipnis – this is what they did to her. And Michael – she had a vagina.

The feminist revolution is eating its own

https://nypost.com/2015/06/01/the-feminist-revolution-is-eating-its-own/

“The revolution always eats its own. That’s the lesson from a recent essay by Northwestern University’s Laura Kipnis.

Two students were so offended by her article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on why banning romantic relationships between faculty and students was silly that they filed a Title IX complaint against her.

Yes, that’s right, legislation that was originally supposed to combat sexual discrimination in public education and athletics is now being used to silence professors who write essays that contradict progressive wisdom.

The charges against Kipnis were dropped over the weekend, but not before she submitted to what she referred to as her “Title IX Inquisition.”

A law firm hired by Northwestern to investigate at first even refused to reveal the nature of the accusations against her. Lawyers told her they wanted to ask her questions but she wasn’t entitled to have her own lawyer present.”

So, who the hell is Laura Kipnis?

Well, she is a feminist, with a vagina, therefore one would assume she is immune from the worst rabble rousing, chop off her head a la Revolution Francais, style of feminist baying mob tactics!

In 2004 she wrote an article for Slate called “The Anxiety of (Sexual) Influence: Are onetime “unwanted advances” really a feminist issue?”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/03/the_anxiety_of_sexual_influence.html?via=gdpr-consent

In this article she appears to be proposing that the over-reaction by feminists to “unwanted sexual advances” needs to be dialed back – fair enough – she takes a few pot shots at professional victims such as Naomi Wolf who apparently was so traumatized by an “unwanted advance” that:

“Wolf also says this one-time advance by Bloom caused her grades to drop, caused her faith in herself and her work to plummet; it devastated her sense of being valuable to Yale as anything but a sex object, and it corrupted her entire educational experience.”

Hmmmm, while ostensibly Kipnis appears to be advocating for a reasonable and rational response to someone putting the moves on you (you, being a delicate special flower of vulnerable femininity) this comment is much more illustrative of her impeccable feminist credentials.

“Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about cases of ongoing unwanted sexual advances—or threats, or quid pro quo demands—otherwise known as “sexual harassment,” which should be subject to the most severe punishment, including loss of livelihood, property seizure, and potential incarceration. Here we’re speaking strictly of the one-time unwanted advance, as in the Wolf-Bloom contretemps.”

(emphasis added)

THIS is what awaits you Michael, you have been accused of “sexual harassment” and as such you are now………………doomed.

Did you do it? Irrelevant.

Frankly, I have no opinion on that, NONE – because I have not seen any evidence, not been privy to any detail whatsoever with regard to the substance of this accusation ergo, you are innocent of the charge.

Do I still think you’re a smarmy, up your own arse idiot? Yep?

The only “safe space” for Kimmel now is the one “space” he has consistently derided, dismissed and castigated – the Men’s Human Rights Movement.

Take a look Michael.

Michael Kimmel. Just another Harvey Weinstein #MeToo

https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/michael-kimmel-just-another-harvey-weinstein-metoo/

Every last one of them, including your “nemesis” Paul Elam, will defend to the end your right to due process, your right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty – as for the piss-taking, and general glee at the situation you find yourself in – you deserve it – you are an arsehole – but – you are a human being – a male human being – and you have rights – now – lets see you try and exercise those rights.

Methinks, that would be a step too far for Michael Kimmel – he will be bleating, whimpering and sobbing out his continued allegiance to the “feminist movement” as they lead him to the guillotine.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 


 

Previous Older Entries