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.


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

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

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……..”


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

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

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

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 obliged this little weasel by publishing her nasty little article. [2]

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

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

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

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

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

But first – let’s just familiarise ourselves with:

  1. The Law on Sexual Offences in Ireland

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

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


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

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

Sexual Assault/Aggravated sexual assault

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

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

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

“Sexual assault.

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

Now read the LEGAL definition of Sexual Assault again.

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

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

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

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

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

Have the bitch arrested and charged.

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

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

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

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

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

The next step up is:


“Aggravated sexual assault.

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

  1. Unwanted Sexual Experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

1,811 – female
926 – male
15 – other

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

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

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

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

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

Women – 56 – 3.09%
Men – 9 – 0.97%

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

Women – 8 – 0.44%
Men – 2 – 0.22%


Women – 6 – 0.33%
Men – 6 – 0.65%”

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

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

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

That is actually the LEGAL definition of rape:

“Rape under section 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female – 19.93% OF 1.726% total female students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Consent also means acquiescence by the way.

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

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

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

Express Consent:

Consent that is clearly and unmistakably stated.

Implied Consent:

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

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

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The next question was:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I make just a teeney tiny suggestion?

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







[1] This is the link to her “survey”

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

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

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

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

[6] The law on Sexual Offences in Ireland.

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

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

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

[10] Feminists don’t understand consent.

[11] Consent to Torts Against Persons.

[12] Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

[13] UCC alcohol research signals last call

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young men from 15 – 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

15 – Other

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

“Physical Mistreatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


They were also asked this question.


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

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

“6.1 Extent of Physical Mistreatment

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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


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


Women  – 34
Men – 13
Other – 1

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

Women – 6
Men – 9

Choked, dragged, strangled or burnt.

Women – 19
Men – 2
Other – 1

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

Women – 36
Men – 41
Other – 1

Something thrown at you that could hurt you.

Women – 66
Men – 34
Other – 2

Pushed, slapped, shoved or had your hair pulled.

Women – 112
Men – 38”

Let’s do some “feminist” math!

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

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

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

Can you see the headlines?

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

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

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

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

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

Women – 36
Men – 41
Other – 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushed, slapped, shoved or had your hair pulled.

Women – 112
Men – 38”

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

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

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

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

Something thrown at you that could hurt you.

Women – 66
Men – 34
Other – 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It????? What “it”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Physical Mistreatment

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

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

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

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

What to do, what to do?

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

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



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

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

[3] UCC alcohol research signals last call

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

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

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

Further Reading

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the link to her “survey”

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

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

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

See link to HEA (Higher Education Authority) below.

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

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

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

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

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

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


For your information:

“How are Crime Statistics Collected in Ireland?

Counting Procedures in Ireland and Abroad

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

Source: National Crime Council


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

Total 211,633

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

1,811 – Women
926 – Men
15 – “other”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No matter what you think or feel or believe.

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

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

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

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

Let’s take this step by step

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

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

(emphasis added)

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


Females – 59,453 – Males – 51,8886


Females – 8,480 = Males – 3,513

Institutes of Technology*

Females – 37,030 – Males – 51,271

*we’ll talk about STEM another time

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

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

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

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

The actual numbers break down like this:

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

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

Teacher Training College – 23

Other – 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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


In a learning environment

Female – 9.36%
Male – 6.37%

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

Female – 13.14%
Male – 6.7%

Other areas on campus

Female – 20.7%
Male – 12.42%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pissed as farts!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

UCC alcohol research signals last call


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

In a learning environment

Female – 5.26%
Male – 5.72%

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

Female – 7.06%
Male – 7.99%

Other areas on campus

Female – 8.11%
Male – 11.66%

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

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

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

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

What are you? Gay?

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

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

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

Moving on.

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

For example this:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


“Further issues

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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


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


Comment No. 1 at 11.52am

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

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

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



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

Posted on – What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?

Amanda Schooner

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

Anja Eruid,

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

You should remove this article and the entire thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Posted to – What Are the Toxic Roots of Feminism?

Amanda Schooner

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



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

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

Amanda Schooner

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






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


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

Cont// – aaaaaaand we’re back!

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

No. Good.

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

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

Let’s start with your laughable claim.

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

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

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


(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

Will you?

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

“Jennifer Platt 8 days ago

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

What about this person?

“Citizen 1 8 days ago

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now fuck off before I get really annoyed!

Previous Older Entries