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

 

 

You can be a feminist OR a Decent Human Being – BUT – You Can’t be Both!

 

 

Its been a while since I’ve had a good ole rant about feminism – mostly over the last few years I’ve just ignored the wretches, better things to do, couldn’t be arsed, not like there are not more than enough capable and committed people out there doing everything in their power to draw attention to the toxic malignancy of feminism in all its forms.

But, shit happens, as they say, and the toxic ingredients of the particular kind of shit that I encounter is absolutely informed by toxic feminist “perspectives” and by the complacency, stupidity, moral laziness and ignorance of those who work in this particular area and those who give tacit approval to the shit.

Anyhoo – here goes. Being a feminist, any kind of feminist, including being unaware that you are a feminist, excludes you from the right to claim to be a decent human being

And no – before all the “well there are different kinds of feminism” crap starts getting spewed out – it is irrelevant whether you are one of the foaming at the mouth, has stopped taking the medication, kill all men, who let this bitch out of her cage feminasty, to the “I’m not a feminist……..but……..I just want ewqual wrights for womens ‘cos men are sooooooooooooooo mean and hworrible….” Femibarbie doll.

Even if you can’t spell F.E.M.I.N.I.S.T , live in a cave, up the top of an inaccessible mountain but deep in your heart and soul know, and I mean KNOW, in your twisted little soul, that your vagina is the gateway to heaven, your possession of ovaries endows you with a ‘special” type of humanity and ergo your needs, whims, passing fancies and desires are to be indulged…………..immediately, then you are a feminist because you ascribe either consciously or subconsciously, by your attitudes and behaviours, to the notion that being female is somehow a privileged type of human being.

If you primp and preen, engage in obvious, in your face MATING behavior (i.e. behavior specifically designed to draw attention to YOUR availability for sex) then scream blue bloody murder because the target of this behavior declines to PAY for access to your magic vagina, with money, access to ALL his worldly possessions, or declines to prostrate himself in worship at your feet, which you will then use to stomp all over him – you’re a bloody feminist, if you shed your clothes at the drop of a hat to highlight nonsensical imaginary “injustices” perpetrated against women – all women, everywhere – no matter what political, economic, social or cultural power these “disadvantaged, victims of global patriarchy’ have, then not only are you a feminist, duh, you’re a gobshoite, an attention seeking, brain dead numbskull with serious mental health issues.

But above all else – if you fit in at any place along this range of dysfunctional behaviours, if you have engaged in ANY form with any of these behaviours then – not only are you a feminist you are a rotten human being.

Because no decent human being sneers at, dismisses, ignores, pours scorn on, tries to bury, or in any way treats the suffering, distress or pain or trauma of another HUMAN BEING as a joke, as irrelevant, as a nuisance.

No decent human being lays claim to being a “special” type of human being, a human being who is entitled to be treated in exceptional ways, based on one and only one criteria – they happen to be a female human being – or  in the alternative – is a human being who has passed the shit test, a shit test whose terms are set by that “privileged” and “special” group of human beings – i.e. feminists.

But, but, but……..(I hear all the nice women say) I am  a decent human being, I’m kind to people, I’m not one of those crazy women ranting about stupid irrelevant shit, I love my father, my brothers, my nephews, my other half – I don’t “do” “believe” or endorse any of that awful stuff.

Really? And no doubt you are all of the above, nice, kind, wouldn’t hurt a fly, give to charity, help old people across the road, teach your children to be kind and courteous etc etc – of that I have absolutely no doubt – I have met and spoken to hundreds of women just like you. Mothers, grannies, aunties, sisters, nieces and friends of………………………..some man up to his eyes in toxic shit.

What characterizes you all, is your total bewilderment and disbelief that there are people, women in the world who are NOT LIKE YOU.

What also appears to be an almost universal trait as well, is a belief that “oh I’m sure the government, the authorities, the Courts, the people in charge……etc. wouldn’t let such horrible things happen!”

These would be the “I prefer to see the good in people” contingent – it is, in my opinion, a form of moral cowardice, a deliberate and conscious CHOICE to screen out any knowledge or real consciousness of the sheer nastiness, corruption, mendacity, cruelty and sheer bloody EVIL that lies at the very core of the feminist belief system, and those who ascribe to it, who take advantage of the privileges it endows them with, who use it as a political, legal and cultural screen and weapon behind which they are safe to act like complete and utter arseholes.

Feminism, in all its manifestations, forms, cabals, covens, types, waves or whatever the hell they want to call or identify themselves as have engineered, created, fed and perpetuated a moral crisis in the world, yes, THE WORLD, because if all social, political , legal and institutional policy is underpinned by an acceptance of any “feminist perspective” and it bloody well is – then it is inherently corrupt, twisted, malign and EVIL and amoral.

So yes, feminism has created a moral crisis that affects the globe, a moral crisis that has allowed, given tacit approval to, endorsed and sanctioned a zeitgeist that DE-HUMANISES one half of the worlds population because they happen to be a particular type of human beings – MALE HUMAN BEINGS.

So, if you are standing by and NOT questioning, querying, looking askance, or even feeling uncomfortable by the underlying hum of toxic gynocentric white noise that permeates every single aspect of global cultural, political, legal and social discourse, on any level – then you are standing by and endorses and giving credence to the perpetuation of this moral crisis.

 

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

Dante Alighieri

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/dante_alighieri_109737

 

Slainte

 

Schooldays – Best Days of Your Life: Unless Your Parents are Separated and School is just another Battleground.

 

There are 365 days in a year.

Duh! I hear you say – so what?

Well, for most children in Ireland they are required to spend a minimum of 183 days attending school if in primary school (approx. 5/6 years old to approx. 11/12 years old) and 167 days attending school if in secondary or post-primary. (11/12 years old to 17/18 years old)

“Although children are not obliged to attend school until the age of six, almost all children begin school in the September following their fourth birthday. Nearly 40% of four-year-old’s and almost all five-year-old’s are enrolled in infant classes in primary schools (sometimes called national schools). Primary education consists of an eight year cycle: junior infants, senior infants, and first to sixth classes. Pupils normally transfer to post-primary education at the age of twelve.” [1]

Summer Holidays

Schools are required to be open for a minimum of 167 days at post-primary level and 183 days at primary level. School summer holidays are not standardised and schools may use discretionary days to determine the precise start and end of the school year.”

Standardisation of the School Year in respect of Primary & Post-Primary Schools for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20.  [2]

(emphasis added)

“Schools will normally re-open during the week in which 1st September falls. However, the school year may start in the week prior to that in which 1st September falls if this is necessary in order to meet the overall requirement of a minimum of 167 days at post-primary level or 183 days at primary level.

You should check the exact dates with your school.

Easter, Christmas and Mid-term Breaks

The standard breaks at Christmas, Easter and Mid-term in the first and second terms for the 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 school years are available under Standardisation of the School Year in respect of Primary & Post-Primary Schools for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20,”

In other words, children from the age of about 5 years old to 12 years old spend about 50 % of the year in school – generally from about 8.45 am – 3.00 pm.

From about 12 years old to about 17 years old they spend a little less time in school – about 48%

What is the point here?

Well one of the issues facing fathers separated from their children is when they seek to obtain information about their children from their children’s schools – when they seek to exercise their rights as parents and as Legal Guardians of their children. In some cases, difficulties finding out which school their children have been enrolled in. As many fathers will know, its an old trick to yank your children out of their schools and enroll them, without your knowledge or CONSENT in another school to frustrate, disrupt, impede and prevent you, as a father, having a meaningful parental relationship with your child or children.

List of schools in Ireland [3]

A two-fold problem contributes to what can only be described as the intransigence and obstructiveness of the schools (teachers and principals) and a discriminatory attitude to these fathers, with this negative attitude being initially initiated by the mother and then endorsed by the school. This whole toxic attitude towards fathers being fed by a societal and cultural attitude that fathers don’t matter, fathers are NOT “real” parents, and fathers are to all extents and purposes “nuisances” Fathers don’t have rights, even when their own National Organisation INTO tells them otherwise. [4]

“Q. In a situation where parents are separated/divorced are both parents entitled to receive school reports and attend parent teacher meetings?

A. Each parent has a right to be informed of and to attend parent teacher meetings and to receive school reports unless there is a Court Order in place preventing them from doing so. Teachers should attempt to facilitate separate meetings if both parents cannot attend together, and should generally act in a fair and even-handed way in respect of both parents.”

The fact that the question is even asked indicates the mind-set – does it not?

The second overlapping problem is simple – too many schools do NOT believe that they are obliged to recognize the LAWFUL status of fathers as parents and Joint Legal Guardians of their children. Well one father decided enough was enough and took a case to the Equality Tribunal – and won. [5] and [6]

“The complainant had referred a complaint to the Equality Tribunal as outlined above in respect of the enrollment of his daughter in the school and this case was subsequently withdrawn following mediation. The complainant submits that he was victimised following the referral. I note that the Principal informed Ms. A of this complaint and showed her the documentation. It is my view that the Principals actions served no useful purpose other than to cause friction between the parents and to portray the complainant in a negative way. I am satisfied that this treatment together with the treatment in relation to the sports day and the subsequent request for the Court Orders constituted victimisation within the meaning of the above cited section. I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of victimisation.”

(emphasis added)

I strongly suggest you read the judgement, what emerges is evidence of a toxic school environment created, engineered, sustained and fed by the collusion of teachers (mostly female) with alienating mothers.

Another problem identified with regard to boys and schools is that the vast majority of teachers are female – see [7] and [8]

In Ireland, we have the same skewed demographic in our schools. From:

Press Release Women and Men in Ireland 2013: Irish women are more highly qualified and work fewer hours. [9]

Economic sectors: Over a third of women at work in Ireland in 2012 were working in the health and education sectors. Women accounted for four out of five employees in the health sector and three-quarters of those at work in education. The sectors with the highest proportions of men in 2012 were construction, agriculture and transport. In primary education 85% of teachers are female while 68% are female at second-level. However women are not well represented at senior levels: 44% of primary school managers, 41% of second-level school managers and 37% of medical and dental consultants are women. (Tables 2.7, 4.7, 4.8 and 5.14).”

As you can clearly see, in both primary and secondary school’s female teachers outnumber male teachers to the extent that the percentage of male teachers isn’t even worth calculating.

Naturally enough a sideways swipe at gender equality “issues” is included – almost by default. Sigh.

“…….However women are not well represented at senior levels: 44% of primary school managers, 41% of second-level school managers……”

Ye Gods – don’t know about you but am sick to death of this shoite – boo hoo wimmin don’t get the big jobs – sniffle, whine and sob – “I’m not the boss because………………….men are mean”

First, and using the bloody CSO’s own figures – 44% of women are school managers! Eh hello – while not exactly being a math’s genius, even I can see that 44% is only 6% LESS than 50%. In effect, almost PARITY. Almost HALF.

Second – 41%! Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuze – again – if it was a meagerly 12% or even say 23% there might – and I mean MIGHT be some cause for a few questions – but 41% – grow up!

What is almost ironic is that contained in the same press release is the REASON for this miniscule disparity

“Irish women are more likely to have a third-level qualification than men. More than half of women aged between 25 and 35 have a third-level qualification compared with just over four out of ten men, according to the report Women and Men in Ireland 2013, published by the CSO today. Men work longer hours than women in paid employment.

Irish women, along with women from France, have the joint highest fertility rate in the EU. Boys are more likely to leave school early. Men have a higher rate of employment but also a higher rate of unemployment. Men are more likely to be in the labour force and those looking after home/family are overwhelmingly female. Most workers in the Health and Education sectors are women while most workers in Agriculture, Construction and Transport are men. Most murder victims are male and the vast majority of the prison population is male. Ireland is the ninth highest among EU27 countries for gender equality.

Employment: The employment rate for men in Ireland stood at about 76% in recent years but in 2009 it dropped sharply to 66.8% and continued to decrease over the next three years to reach 62.4% by 2012. However in 2013 there was an increase in the male employment rate to 64.6% followed by another rise in 2014 to 65.7%. The female employment rate reached 60.6% in 2007 before dropping to 57.6% in 2009 and it continued to decrease over the next three years to stand at 55.2% by 2012. The last 2 years have seen a small rise in the female employment rate to 55.9% in 2014.

Men worked an average of 39.2 hours a week in paid employment in 2013 compared to 31.2 hours for women and married men worked longer hours than married women, with close to half of married men (44.1%) working for 40 hours a week or more compared to just 16.8% of married women. (Tables 2.1, 2.8 and 2.9).

Unemployment: The unemployment rate for men in Ireland was about 5% in recent years but in 2009 it increased dramatically to 15.3%, followed by further rises over the following three years to reach 18.1% by 2012. There was a drop in the male unemployment rate in 2013 to 15.9% and another decrease in 2014 to 13.8%. The female unemployment rate, which stood at about 4% in recent years, also increased strongly to 8.3% in 2009 and continued to rise over the next four years to reach 11.4% in 2013. However the female rate of unemployment decreased in 2014 to 9.9%. The younger age groups have been most affected by unemployment, with approximately three out of ten men and two out of ten women aged 20-24 unemployed in 2013. (Tables 2.11 and 2.12).”

(emphasis added)

My general default response to whiny females complaining about not being the top dog in whatever area of employment is this – STFU – if you want to be in charge, for example, the Taoiseach, The President, whatever – here’s how you do it:

MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO VOTE FOR YOU THAN THE OTHER CANDIDATES!

If they DON’T vote for you then the reason is simple – THEY DON’T WANT TO! GOT IT? GOOD – now STFU.

Anyhoo – moving on.

So, what to do if the school your child(ren) is enrolled in is run by a gate-keeping dragon?

First, while it is reprehensible that a parent, simply because that parent is male has to prove to these witches that he IS a parent, do it.

Step 1. Get your child(rens) birth certificates. If you are or were legally married to the mother of your child(ren) get your marriage certificate as well. Having these is incontrovertible PROOF that you are, Constitutionally and Statutorily your child(ren) Joint Legal Guardian. [10]

Step 2. If you were not married to the mother of your child(ren) the situation is more complex unless you have an Order of the Court grating you Guardianship. [11]

Step 3. Print off a copy of Schools and family law: In Touch January/ February 2004. [4]

Formally write to the school, enclosing copies of the above (do not send them the original of the certs) and request that you be directly supplied with all reports etc with regard to your children. Give them the standard 14 days to comply.

Step 4. I strongly suggest, that you only include a copy of A Father v. A School (represented by Hugh J. Campbell & Co.) File Reference: ES/2013/092. [5] if the school digs its heels in and starts being obstructive.  There should be absolutely no need for you as a parent to be expected to junp through hoops to “prove” anything – nor should you as a parent be put in a position where you have to grovel  or repeatedly ask for information to which you are lawfully entitled to with regard to your own children.

For those you are now up in arms about fathers “threatening schools with legal action” I suggest you read the judgement, and take on board this:

How do think most fathers get to be excised out their children’s lives? Because the mothers of these children TAKE LEGAL ACTION to ensure that this is what happens.

If the same amount of time, money and energy was expended on reaching a Shared Parenting Agreement as is spent on this toxic exercise then these statistics would not be the norm:

The solution is SHARED PARENTING. [12]

“Shared Parenting

Is there a country with a working and effective model of Shared Parenting? Yes – Shared Parenting works so amazingly well in Sweden:

Here are some details from a presentation by Malin Bergström from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Malin’s powerful presentation showed how Sweden has, in the space of just 20 years, transformed the landscape for shared parenting. She reported that:

approximately 40% of separated parents share care 50:50, higher amongst younger children

the majority have shared care arrangements where each parent has at least 30% of parenting time

shared parenting arrangements continue to grow strongly year-in-year-out

14% of family disputes are resolved  through mediation and above all…

just 2% were resolved through courts!

Her presentation also demonstrated the considerable health benefits to children of Joint Parental Care arrangements.

Her comment on the day was “If one of my friends did not share parenting equally after separation, I would find that weird.”

How quickly can we or rather the more ponderous UK government get there? We live in hope, but the writing may be on the wall.”

Does shared parenting positively affect children? Yes.

There is a wealth of expert literature which repeatedly demonstrates that shared parenting benefits children in a huge variety of ways:

  • ‘…children in joint custody are better adjusted, across multiple types of measures [including emotionally and behaviourally], than children in sole (primarily maternal) custody.’ (Bauserman, 2002)
  • Joint legal custody is not a requirement to achieve better adjustment, but children need to spend a ‘substantial’ amount of time with their non-resident parent. (Bauserman, 2002)
  • Children with non-resident fathers highly involved in their lives have lower levels of delinquent behaviour as adolescents. (Coley & Medieros, 2007)
  • “Children in separated families fare best when they have close contact with each of their parents and all the important adults in their lives, including grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and family friends. And co-parenting by both mother and father should be the norm, except when issues of safety are involved.” (Layard & Dunn, 2009)
  • “On average, children are less likely to fail at school or suffer depression the more they see their separated father.” (Layard & Dunn, 2009)
  • Children who spend nights at their father’s and mother’s houses have ‘few social problems’ and ‘fewer attention… and thought problems.’ (Pruett et al, 2004)

Bauserman, R. (2002). Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review.  Journal of Family Psychology. 16(1): 91-102.

Coley, R. & Medieros, B. (2007). Reciprocal Longitudinal Relations Between Nonresident Father Involvement and Adolescent Delinquency. Child Development. 78(1): 132-147.

Layard, R. & Dunn, J. (2009). A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age. London: Penguin Books.

Pruett, K., Ebling, R. & Insabella, G. (2004).  Critical Aspects of Parenting Plans for Young Children. Family Court Review, 42(1): 39–59.

Are fathers just as important as mothers in a child’s life? Yes.

“Fathers are no less important than mothers in a child’s life. The closeness of fathers to their children influences the children’s later psychological well-being, even after allowing for the mother’s influence. If fathers are more closely involved with their children, other things being equal, children develop better friendships, more empathy, high self-esteem, better life satisfaction, and higher educational achievement, and they are less likely to  become involved with crime or substance abuse.”

Layard, R. & Dunn, J. (2009). A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age. London: Penguin Books.

From the Families Need Fathers website at https://fnf.org.uk/

NB I edited the text slightly without changing the content.

See this by Richard Warshak [13]

“To assess where science stands on the issue of shared parenting and overnights for young children, I spent two years reviewing the relevant scientific literature and vetting my analyses with an international group of experts. This work, published in an American Psychological Association journal, was endorsed by 110 leading researchers and practitioners.

Here are the two main conclusions: First, shared parenting should be the norm not just for children whose parents live together, and not just for older children, but also for children of all ages whose parents live apart from each other. Children need a father, not an uncle-daddy. Second, if we want to give children the best chance for normal relationships with their fathers, limiting fathering time to daytime hours until children enter kindergarten is not the way to do that.

To be sure, shared parenting is not for all families after divorce. But there’s a general consensus that it is good for many of them.

If we value dad soothing his fretful baby at 3 a.m. or reading “Goodnight Moon” to his toddler while the parents are living together, why deprive the child of these expressions of fatherly love just because the parents no longer live together, or just because the sun has set?

Richard A. Warshak, PhD, is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and the author of “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report” and “Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing.”

(emphasis added)

One of the objections to enforcing Shared Parenting as the default presumption is logistical – the “moving children back and forth” argument.

Actually, ALL of the current, legitimate and properly conducted research absolutely endorses Shared Parenting in situations where the parents don’t live together – in effect – a Shared Parenting arrangement IS – In the best interests of the child, which is the mandatorily required consideration to be applied in custody cases:

See Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015 Part V “Best Interests of the Child [14]

63. The Act of 1964 is amended by the insertion of the following after Part IV:

“Part V: Best interests of the Child: Determination by court of best interests of child.

Section 31 (j)

“(j) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, and to maintain and foster relationships between the child and his or her relatives;”

(emphasis added)

I have emboldened the most important words – bearing in mind this – these words are not aspirational, not subject to whether or not the obstructive parent is “in the mood” to co-parent. These words form part of a LEGAL requirement to be WILLING – and by your behavior and actions to FACILITATE and ENCOURAGE.

So, manufacturing conflict, creating “access” (I hate that word) difficulties, being intransigent, unco-operative, attempting to sabotage, damage or disrupt the other parents “close and continuing relationship” with his child (ren) is something the Court is OBLIGED under the statute take into consideration.

All this broo ha ha about “moving children back and forth” is a smokescreen, a cynical exercise in parental obstruction.  Any reasonable parent, who recognizes that children need both parents as parents can cut the crap, stop creating unnecessary difficulties and make it work – FOR THE CHILDREN.  It’s the attitude of these gate-keeping toxic mothers that is the problem, nothing else.

Let’s go back to the school calendar at the beginning:

Print out a calendar – make out the weeks when the children are in school, mark out the holiday periods and any other special days and sit down like two grown-ups and work out how to share the time as equally as possible between you.

If she’s being a total bitch – do it yourself and present the Shared Parenting Schedule to the Court.

What tends to work the best is one week with one parent, one week with another – if the parents live in reasonable close proximity to one another.

This shoite about kids missing out on friends etc. – this is the 21st century – kids make friends in school – then make arrangements for “playdates” in one another houses. Usually one parent picks the little rug-rats up, brings them home, they go mental for a few hours then their respective parents come pick them up.  Then the host parent has a small nervous break-down.

Or kids go to various activities – usually after school – where they have another group of friends – after this activity the kid is picked up by the parent and home we go.

What the hell is the big deal? What bloody difference does it make if one or the other parent brings the kids to dancing, to football, to whatever it is the child is involved in.

Because here’s the thing – when two parents are together, what happens is this – they each take turns bringing the kids to their activities i.e. you bring them to the swimming pool on Wednesday and I’ll bring them to the football match on Saturday.

Or, little Michael and Michelle need to go to the dentist on Friday after school, I have to go do something so you pick them up and bring them.

NOT A BIG DEAL – is it?

It only becomes a big deal when one parent is determined to excise another parent from his child’s life – then all these normal everyday parent/child things becomes a HUGE deal.

The ONLY reason for creating a big hoo hah over this (bearing in mind the child gets to go to his/her activity and gets to go on playdates with his/her schoolfriends) is the ridiculous need of one parent to “be in charge” of EVERYTHING including removing any possibility of a father having a normal boring day to day parent child relationship – dentist, swimming, football, homework, pizza in front of the TV (only on Fridays 😉) brush your teeth, do your homework, pick up your toys, stop picking on your younger brother, what do mean you need an octopus costume for school TOMORROW – usually announced at bed-time. Normal. Parent. Stuff.

So, working out the “logistics” is bloody straightforward – if you click on the Standardisation of the School Year in respect of Primary & Post-Primary Schools for the years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 link up above, you’ll note that the school calendar is more or less set till 2020!

You know when the all holidays are for the NEXT THREE YEARS! You know when your kids are in school for the NEXT THREE YEARS.

Summer – 8 weeks – 4 weeks each – options are multiple. 4 straight weeks each. 2 weeks with one parent, 2 weeks with the other parent in any bloody combination that suits both the parents and the children’s summer activities. WORK IT OUT.

Easter – two weeks – simples – one week each.

Mid- term breaks – share them.

Christmas – kids get about 2 weeks holiday – the significant days are, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and St. Stephens Day. (Boxing Day in the UK)

Simples –

Year 1 Christmas Eve from 5pm to Christmas day at 3pm.  Parent 1

Christmas Day from 3pm to St Stephens Day at 3pm. Parent 2

Year 2 just bloody swap it around – work out the rest of the holiday REASONABLY.

Shared Parenting is not only workable it is essential – FOR CHILDREN.

MAKE IT WORK.

 

Personal message to women creating conflict and difficulties.

Get over yourselves – stop being a selfish self-centered bitch and put your children FIRST!

To the friends, besties, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers and anyone who knows one of these bitches – shame on you if you are standing by and letting this wretch destroy the lives of these children.

Do something, say something.

 

If any fathers out there would like to share (or publish) their stories, feel free to contact me – I moderate all comments, so just post a comment with a valid email address and we’ll take it from there. If you don’t want your comment published, just say so and I will respect your wishes.

I’m particularly interested in hearing about father’s negative experiences with solicitors practicing in Family Law – one of the things that I would like to highlight is the lack of familiarity certain Family Law Practitioners seem to have with the provisions of the Code of Conduct in Family Law Matters [15]

Or the requirements of Order 59 of the Circuit Court Rules. [16]

 

 

Slainte.

 

 

References

 

[1]  https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Primary/

[2] https://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0009_2017.pdf

[3] List of Schools in Ireland

https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Data-on-Individual-Schools/Data-on-Individual-Schools.html

[4] Schools and family law: In Touch January/ February 2004

http://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/ParentTeacherRelations/ParentalSeparation/FamilyLawArticle.pdf

[5] DEC-S2014-018:Equal Status Acts 2000-2012

A Father v. A School (represented by Hugh J. Campbell & Co.) File Reference: ES/2013/092

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/October/DEC-S2014-018.html

[6] http://www.thejournal.ie/equality-tribunal-school-discrimination-separated-father-2396939-Oct2015/

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8DDbE4I8Ig

[8] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

[9]http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2014pressreleases/pressreleasewomenandmeninireland2013/

[10] https://www.birthsdeathsmarriages.ie/certificates/birth-certificate/

[11]http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/guardianship_status_of_fathers.html

[12] https://fnf.org.uk/publications/shared-parenting-research

[13] https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/26/divorce-shared-parenting-children-health/

[14] http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/section/63/enacted/en/html

[15] Code of Conduct: Family Law in Ireland.   https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/committees/family/family-law-handbook-2017.pdf

[16]Order 59 Rules of the Circuit Court http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/1cca506f57cc910480256d940064796c?OpenDocument

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

BULLSHIT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She quotes from some of the comments and acknowledges that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah right – that’ll work.

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

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

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

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

Before the MHRM

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

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

After the MHRM

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

Are you mad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men have gone along with this agenda”? Really?

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

Like this you mean:

“We support and protect the rights of women by:

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

(emphasis added)

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

First published: 4 November 2010

Last updated:27 March 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Individually and collectively.

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

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

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

Am done with Kathy Gyngell.

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

 

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

Link Here

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

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

Seriously?

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

Men Should…….”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reality bites – doesn’t it?

You know what you should have called your article?

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

And you should have directed it at WOMEN!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that about covers it 🙂

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

No shit Sherlock!

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m shocked!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are so NOT worth it!

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

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

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

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

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

Then everything went to shoite.

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

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

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

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

But I’m not.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Slainte 🙂

There Is a Disturbance In The Force…….

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link here http://gynocentrism.com/

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

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

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

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

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

Put rather simplistically – who controls the flow of information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much more could you possible want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of those factors impact upon both men and women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

  1. Introduction to Gynocentric Personality Disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But first – let’s just familiarise ourselves with:

  1. The Law on Sexual Offences in Ireland

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

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

Rape

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

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

Sexual Assault/Aggravated sexual assault

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

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

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

“Sexual assault.

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

Now read the LEGAL definition of Sexual Assault again.

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

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

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

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

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

Have the bitch arrested and charged.

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

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

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

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

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

The next step up is:

 

“Aggravated sexual assault.

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

  1. Unwanted Sexual Experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,811 – female
926 – male
15 – other

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

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

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

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

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

Women – 56 – 3.09%
Men – 9 – 0.97%

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

Women – 8 – 0.44%
Men – 2 – 0.22%

Other                                                                                                                                     

Women – 6 – 0.33%
Men – 6 – 0.65%”

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

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

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

That is actually the LEGAL definition of rape:

“Rape under section 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female – 19.93% OF 1.726% total female students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Consent also means acquiescence by the way.

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

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

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

Express Consent:

Consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.

Implied Consent:

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

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

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next question was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I make just a teeney tiny suggestion?

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

 

ADDRESS THAT!!

 

 

 

References

[1] This is the link to her “survey”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] Consent to Torts Against Persons.

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

[12] Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

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

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

Previous Older Entries