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!

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

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

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

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

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

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

Anja Eriud you have 72 HOURS TO REMOVE ALL LIBEL ABOUT THE TDSB BEFORE THE TORONTO POLICE GETS INVOLVED.

 

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

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

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

REMOVE THIS FUCKING SLANDEROUS POST AND COMMENTS NOW!!!! THE TDSB IS A PRESTIGIOUS AND WORLD CLASS SCHOOL BOARD YOU FUCKING DEMENTED CYBERBULLIES!11

I SAID, REMOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT ROSELANDS & THE TDSB NOW!!!!

THE POLICE WILL HAVE YOU EXTRADITED TO CANADA TO ANSWER CHARGES OF INVASION OF PRIVACY AND CRIMINAL DEFAMATION!

REMOVE YOUR DEFAMATORY POST!

THE PRINCIPAL OF ROSELANDS SHOULD SUE YOU AND FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST YOU, FUCKER!

*********************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

amanda.schooner@lycosmail.ca

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

“REMOVE THIS FUCKING SLANDEROUS POST AND COMMENTS NOW!!!! THE TDSB IS A PRESTIGIOUS AND WORLD CLASS SCHOOL BOARD YOU FUCKING DEMENTED CYBERBULLIES!11………….”

(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
http://globalnews.ca/news/1885230/education-minister-to-make-announcement-about-tdsb-2/

“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!

What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?

 

Andrew DiKaiomata asked an interesting question as the title of an article over on A Voice For MenIs Feminism a Movement? Link Here.

Before I even read this article or the usually equally enlightening comments my gut reaction was – NO – feminism is the visible political and public policy face of a distorted and malign state of mind – it is the sly whisperings of an agent provocateur seeking to influence and corrupt the very roots of societies and cultures.

It does this through the workings and machinations of its advocates by misrepresenting facts and reality, and by exerting duress – political, societal, cultural and psychological upon that society and culture. In the key areas of influence within that society – education, media and public policy.

It also does this by infiltrating existing “movements” and moulding them, steering them in the direction that serves feminism’s needs. Feminism’s ultimate end game – which is:

Female supremacy – achieved by proxy – that is – men who are willing to dismantle all legal and political safeguards against tyranny and actual real oppression (against men and boys)…..in order to disenfranchise all men by stealth, while maintaining an appearance of “democracy” or “justice” or “fairness” or the piece de resistance – the unattainable and spurious goal of “equality”

Feminists themselves will claim that there are many feminisms, that feminism is not some monolithic entity with a central command – superficially they are correct – superficially it would appear that there are multiple strains of “feminism” but – this is merely a device to deflect the potency of any opposition – if there is no “common enemy” then that opposition can be diffused – or so the thinking appears to be.

What binds ALL feminisms and ALL feminists together is one single thing – their femaleness – and yes I know, I know – there are male feminists – and these poor saps seem to believe that they are “equal” to female feminists – is there any point in pointing out the bleeding obvious? Nope – didn’t think so.

No matter what political or ideological stance any particular feminist takes – it is her femaleness that binds her and her fellow coven members together – that underpins the rhetoric (bullshit) that emanates from ALL feminists. Including the “nice feminists”

Being female is the common denominator, ergo, it is femaleness that informs and feeds feminism(s) – but, not just any old femaleness – a particular toxic form of femaleness – a virulent bitter and corrupted femaleness – feminism (whatever its manifestation) has always emphasised the FEMALENESS of its acolytes – above and beyond anything else.

The vast majority of women are not feminists, an even larger cohort of men are not feminists – but – they don’t need to be – they only need to have had their view of reality distorted enough, corrupted enough to fail to question the validity of what they have been told, what they hear, what they see and what they believe.

They also must have been corrupted enough, just enough – to believe the lies about themselves that they have been told. By feminism. In whatever manifestation it has assumed through the ages.

They must see themselves reflected in the distorted mirror of feminist “theory” and incorporate that distorted image into their subconscious deeply enough and over a long enough period of time to replicate the visible manifestation of this distorted “image” – they must also, through their own actions within their own lives, pass on that distorted and corrupt “way of being” to their children.

Feminism has been described as a psychological disorder, a form of mental illness – I concur – with a caveat – the original pioneers of feminism – through all its so called waves have without doubt been, to use a less than scientific phrase – completely off their trollies.  There is something else that a lot of them share(d) – perfectly described Here – what these nutcases also did, was draw to this movement/cause persons who also were a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic in various degrees – though some of them were and are quite capable, as Val McDermid’s character Dr. Tony Hill, in her brilliant books calls, “passing for human

The most illuminating comments on the article came from:

Lana Voreskova> xpxpxp •2 days ago

I am not suggesting that feminists understand Marxist theory, which had very much to do with social as well as economic ambitions.

Feminists generally understand very little of anything at all. They have that in common with Marx. Feminists simply sherry-picked rhetoric that sounded good to them and interpret to mean whatever they want it to mean.

They do share a lot of ideals with Marx though whether they actually understand that or not. Many of the earlier ones did understand that and openly identified as Marxists for that reason. You simply cannot get away from the fact that much of feminist theory, was based on watered down Marxist theory.

Lets face it; you could hardly expect feminists to come up with original ideas all by themselves.”

(emphasis added)

And from:

Mateusz82

Feminists will latch onto movements in order to use them, co-opting what they can, and using the window dressing to attract followers. Feminism is just as happy using capitalism, through women in business organizations. They use atheism, through atheist +, and are more than happy using Christianity, or Judaism when they can. They’ll use animal rights, or hunter’s rights. If feminism resembles any movement, it resembles the Borg (assuming the Borg was a movement).”

(emphasis added)

The mistake I believe, that most of those make when arguing about the political aspect or focus or roots of feminism is this – feminism isn’t political in the sense that say Liberalism or Socialism is – political systems are merely the vehicles through which feminists operate – they are political passengers – or if you prefer political opportunists – the personal is indeed the political when it comes to feminism – and it is ALL personal.

Think about it – broadly speaking mass social movements such as the civil rights movement in the US are composed of a specific cohort of people bound together by a common cause – generally a deprivation of specific rights on the basis of a clear and visible commonality they all share – in this instance we are talking about black people – ALL black people – men women and children.

I realise it is rather simplistic to say this, but within the black community in the US there were no classes per se – one did not have upper or middle class black people oppressing their working class black brothers and sisters.

They were ALL oppressed.

Now – look at the feminist “movement” – look at its pioneers – without fail – all middle and upper class white women.

Oppression is a deprivation of basic Human Rights accompanied by a regime of terror and abuse and a dehumanising programme that reduces that Human Being to an object, a chattel, a non human utility.

One could hardly describe any of these pioneers of feminism in those terms – whiny petulant entitled avaricious white women with chips on their shoulders – yep – selfish self-absorbed over-indulged twats – absolutely. But – oppressed? Give me a break.

As always Peter Wright of Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins hits the nail right on the head. Link to the site is on the blogroll.

Peter Wright Mod> Dagda Mór •5 days ago

“Nope” is not a historical argument.

 Unless you can bring detail showing that gynocentrism did not come in waves, and was not an ideology before Marxism/communism, then your historical argument is, well, not historical. Think of all the gynocentric writers from before Marxism/communism – Pizan, Pozzo, Marinella, Wollstonecraft (and hundreds of other protofeminists, male and female).

Without a knowledge of history it’s easy to make the mistake that feminism came out of Marxism…. but it aint true.”

(emphasis added)

Feminism isn’t about politics, per se – politics are simply a means to an end – feminism is about female power and control – the mechanism through which that power and control is exercised is actually rather irrelevant – the purpose is that it is exercised and only by feminists.

In order to really see the evolution of a female centric worldview one must step back and take in the long sweeping panorama of history – what we have today, modern feminism – is but the latest in a series of incremental historical steps – pre the Industrial Revolution rampant gynocentrism – except amongst the middle and upper classes was constrained by the practicalities of simply surviving – post Industrial Revolution that began to change – gradually.

Alongside the Industrial Revolution was another kind of revolution a social and political one – “the masses” began to exert some influence on “policy” not that societies and cultures had reached the stage that “the masses” would be included or consulted on matters of public policy but their needs began to be factored into the equation. Again – not for altruistic reasons – but for economic ones, for political ones.

Feminism’s claims that women are and were excluded from the political system deliberately by men is a camouflage – it is merely a ruse to hide the real agenda – female supremacy so deeply embedded into all the institutional, social and cultural frameworks of societies that “politics” or the political system if you will is a front – a useful distraction for the masses – does anyone actually believe that political decisions are made in parliaments?

That elected representatives are acting autonomously? That when votes are taken on various political programmes or public policy initiatives that these emanate from “government”?

How many examples would you like of actual non partisan, non ideological, non feminist policies torpedoed BY feminist agitators, organisations and advocates, because they have wandered away from the path of total focus on FEMALE “issues”?

Now – THAT’S real power.

The contradiction if you will, is that for feminists – even those who aspire to actual visible political power – is a preference for exercising that power and control by proxy – at a remove – from the sidelines – in the shadows – in order to maintain the illusion of powerlessness necessary in order to perpetuate the never ending “struggle” for a power that already rests in the hands of those allegedly seeking it.

Convoluted – isn’t it?

The answer to that though is glaringly simple – with power and the exercise of that power comes responsibility and accountability – and – THAT is the last thing that feminists or the vast majority of gynocentic females want.

The seething bitter core of ALL feminism and ALL feminists – be they Marxist, Liberal, Socialist – whatever – is that being female automatically ascribes VICTIM status TO YOU as an individual and as part of a class of victims.

Hence why Patricia Arquette felt justified in having something of a whine about some perceived disadvantage – why well-heeled, affluent middle class harpies can whinge about being “oppressed” while ignoring the thousands of homeless men and boys, while dismissing contemptuously the suffering of ANY male person, in any circumstance, as being totally incomparable – on the suffering scale- to being – stared at in the street!

Feminism is only “political” by default – those original pioneers of feminism merely harnessed their innate gynocentrism, modified it, tweaked it and wrapped it up political rhetoric in order to exert control over the political process and to spread the influence of gynocentrism outwards and upwards.

Again – think about it – does it really matter when it comes to influencing policy, whether the feminist(s) exerting that influence – or more correctly duress – is a marxist, a socialist, a liberal or a conservative? Does it?

Of course it doesn’t – what matters is that this is A FEMINIST – a female – or a gang of females – and the political wrapping paper is irrelevant.

What matters is that the social conditioning which had and has its roots is gynocentrism, now completely out of control – kicks in – women = victim = feminism = the voice of all victims.

I do actually find myself taken aback sometimes – not by feminists – nothing a feminist says or does would surprise me – but by men who still almost automatically fall for the women= fragile victim of………everything bad – thing.

For what it’s worth – I personally reject any “political” labels for myself – I belong to no political party or subscribe to any particular ideology – as someone did comment on this particular article that on some issues he could be described as “left-leaning” and on others as “right-leaning” – so could I – it depends entirely on the particular issue. The only statement I make that could be described as political is this:

I am NOT a feminist.

The only “ideological” stance I take is an over-riding belief in the sanctity of Human Rights for ALL Human Beings – and no – I really do not give a shit what kind of Human Being you happen to be – up to and including if you are a complete twat or arsehole.

What is worth noting – from a historical perspective that is, is this – the coalescing of the concept of Human Rights as a universal touchstone if you will, took a long long time coming to fruition – from the first declaration that human beings had rights (albeit limited) to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948 almost parallels the rise of “modern” feminism – and an outright if hidden declaration of war on the Human Rights of men and boys. A war that has over the last six decades intensified and expanded.

“In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Ironic isn’t it, that as soon as a global awareness of Human Rights as a concrete concept, began to enter the zeitgeist – feminism began to marshal its forces and harness the power of gynocentrism to fracture that unified concept into prioritising FEMALE Human Rights.

“In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations.

(emphasis added)

Source: A Brief History of Human Rights. Link Here.

There was and still is no greater threat to the fulfilment of feminism’s end goal of global female supremacy than a world which embraces the concept of Universal Human Rights without regard to class, sex, political or personal orientation or status.

Which is perhaps why feminism itself is in a bit of a dilemma right now – particularly in the western hemisphere.

Hard to find much actual real “oppression” in the affluent west is there? Except of men and boys, that is – a hundred years ago one could point a well manicured middle class finger at various carefully selected examples – being sure to airbrush out any inconvenient facts of course – and claim that “as a woman” you share in this universal “oppression” of your “sisters” hmmmmm.

Oh where to find any real “oppression” now?

To a certain limited extent I agree with Andrew DiKaiomata’s comparison of modern feminism and Marxism and to the various commenter’s who pointed to the authoritarian nature of feminism, but – and it’s a big but – a political ideology, whatever it may be, is and always has been only a useful vehicle to carry the seeds of gynocentrism forward – generationally and historically – feminism is a parasite – a political parasite – whatever the “political” mask it wears, the core of all manifestations of “feminism” from “suffragettes” to “women’s libbers” to “feminists” has been and always will be gynocentrism – female supremacy.

In many respects feminists are correct – the personal is the political – feminism has taken the absolute worst aspects of female nature and politicised it.

Of all the “achievements” of feminism – and yes – the scare quotes are pertinent – several generations of women have modelled themselves and their behaviour (which yes you do have a choice about) on some of the most twisted, disturbed, irrational and dysfunctional creatures this planet has ever produced – you have internalised a belief system, a “way of being” that manifests itself, and celebrates that manifestation – in the most selfish, self-absorbed, malicious and vindictive behaviours.

Feminisms “gift” to women was to strip them of their humanity and to revel in it – celebrate it – preen themselves over it.

All the while congratulating themselves on how “special” they were!

Time for you to Get Back in Harness Guys – Suzanne Venker Says So!

 

Suzanne Venker’s articleIt’s time to end the gender war” on the Daily Caller while well meaning misses the point, and the barn, and doesn’t even hit anywhere near the barn, by a country mile or several hundred.

The first error she makes is the title. By characterizing  the current social, cultural and legal climate that exists, as the result of a “Gender War” she fails to take into account this:

War is to all intents and purposes a battle for supremacy between two factions or possibly more, with each protagonist engaging the enemy or enemies – that is not what has happened here.

This has been an invasion, an occupation, a takeover – a coup. Most definitely not a bloodless coup. Men did not, and could not fight back – but they are fighting back now – and THIS is the war that women don’t want. Women are afraid that if men don’t stop fighting back, then the war that never was, will end up with them being the losers.

Venker almost immediately nails her colours to the mast, as to what it is that women fear losing the most – the prospect of a marriage.  Because it is starting to become self evident that men and “marriage” are no longer simpatico. That men are saying – in droves – thanks but no thanks.

Venker hails her model of marriage as natural, as something that men and women are almost designed for, and implies that this is some wonderful “tradition”  and that this alleged “battle of the sexes” has thrown a spanner into the works of!

“Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to be a lifetime merger of masculine and feminine beings. Imperfect or not, it’s Mother Nature’s plan. But today it’s faced with a new threat, and it’s not same-sex marriage. The real problem is America’s gender war: the decades-long battle that has almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes.”

Actually NO, it is not, it wasn’t, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Further, this ideal template of what this version of marriage is rests on myth, fables and a fairly shaky grasp of history, and from my perspective, OTHER cultures – cultures that did not, and do not view marriage through the rather grubby rose coloured spectacles of Hollywood Rom Coms and/or looooooooooooooooove stories, nor through the prism of execrable chick lit, or the fevered fantasies of overexcited and hormonal teenagers. never mind mentioning that when this “model” was created, you were lucky and considered old if you made it to your 40th birthday.

Venker is pulling this “tradition” card, alluding to some mythical period in history when marriage was just this perfect union, this long-standing “tradition” that is now being sullied by modern influences.

Well now Ms, Venker, I will see your couple of hundred years of manufactured history and tradition and raise you a couple of thousand years of actual history and really really REALLY ancient tradition. Because the word that describes this attitude is ethnocentricity – the cure is pulling your head out of your backside.

“Lawyers writing in Irish divide first and principal marriages into three categories:

(1) lánamnas comthinchuir, ‘marriage of common contribution’,marriage in which, apparently, both parties contribute equally to the common pool of marital property;

(2) lánamnas for ferthinchur, ‘marriage on man-contribution’,an arrangement by which the bulk of the marriage goods are contributed by the man; and

(3) lánamnas for bantinchur, ‘marriage on woman contribution’,marriage to which the woman brings the preponderance of the property.

All three main types of marriage are considered by the lawyers as special contractual relationships between the spouses in regard to property, which are similar in some important respects to that of a lord and his vassal, a father and his daughter, a student and his teacher, an abbot and his lay-tenant—other pairs that hold property in common and, on occasion at least, run a common household.

What each of the pair may have given the other, consumed, or spent in good faith cannot give rise to a legal action; what has been taken without permission must be replaced if a complaint is made about it; and legal penalties are involved only when the complaint (and the appropriate legal procedure which must follow it) is ignored or when property is removed by theft or by violence.” (my note – by either party)

And yes, any of the three main types of marriage one could enter into in Ireland – right up to the 17th Century, did NOT absolve either party to that marriage from being subject to the law (Brehon Law) if they committed an act which was contrary to the law. ALL persons were held, once they had reached the age of accountability – generally about 12 years old – fully accountable for their actions, no matter what their status OR sex.

If whatever type of marriage one entered into was of persons of the same social status then:

“It was a dignified state for the wife in question: if it was a marriage ‘with land and stock and household equipment and if the wife was of the same class and status as her husband, she was known as abé cuitchernsa, literally ‘a woman of joint dominion, a woman of equal lordship’—a term which seems to be rendered domina in the canon law tracts.

Neither of the spouses could make a valid contract at law without the consent of the other. The lawyers list exceptions to this rule but, apart from the specification that these must be dealings which advance their common economy, they are mere run-of the-mill matters in the ordinary business of farming—agreements for co-operative ploughing with kinsmen, hiring land (presumably for grazing), getting together the food and drink to meet the duty of entertaining one’s lord or to celebrate church feasts, acquiring necessary tools or equipment and the like—and one would expect either spouse to make such arrangements without necessarily consulting the other.”

Naturally enough, as a marriage was a contract, breaching the terms of that contract had penalties, and could be exercised by either party.

“Besides, the grounds for unilateral divorce (with or without penalties being incurred by the guilty party) are specified in very considerable detail.

A woman could divorce her husband for many reasons: sterility, impotence, being a churchman (whether in holy orders or not), blabbing about the marriage bed, calumniation, wife-beating, repudiation (including taking a secondary wife), homosexuality, failure of maintenance.

A man could divorce his wife for abortion, infanticide, flagrant infidelity, infertility, and bad management. Insanity, chronic illness, a wound that was incurable in the opinion of a judge, leech or lord, retirement into a monastery or going abroad on pilgrimage were adequate grounds for terminating a marriage.[40]

I might add, that some of these things would have been also unlawful, and not only would the guilty party be divorced but he/she would be punished.  Needless to say the taking of a life would have incurred a greater punishment than the beating of a wife.

And before you all start boo hooing over “wife beating” unless the wife was of the Warrior class, and yes we had female warriors, then she was not TRAINED in combat skills, ergo not able or deemed capable of defending herself.  It is anecdotal to say this, but wife beating would have a rare thing in ancient Celtic culture, Irish women are not known for being passive, nor would Irish men have considered beating up a smaller person an honourable thing to do.

This extract that I took these quotes from, talks of a time circa 700 AD when Irish culture was being influenced by the spread of Christianity and by other external influences, but these “traditions” these Laws go back to the bronze age.

It was in the 17th century that finally our Laws, our traditions and our culture were irrevocably changed.

So, this “tradition” that Venker is pining to return to is a mix of gynocentric bullshit, hypergamy gone wild and a culture that allowed itself to be hoodwinked, conned and bamboozled by the machinations, ploys and feminine wiles of females who wouldn’t know how to be autonomous human beings if their lives depended on it.  Which by the way, they DO now.

Your “traditional” marriage is not the union of equals, the coming together to form a household in common, but a grown person being allowed to remain a dependant, a child, a burden, a person who contributes very little but expects to be crowned Rián for that.

What betimes makes me narrow my eyes at the arrogance of feminists and certain types of women, is the sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude they adopt when they talk about “other cultures” and how western culture is the savior of and the model for “other cultures” how your “traditions” are superior, more highly evolved and developed than those inferior and unenlightened “other cultures”

From my perspective – again – YOUR culture is savage, barbarian, unenlightened, inferior, and a plague on humanity. Your culture has been corrupted by feminism and feminists and the toxic gynocentric poison that has informed the agenda of YOUR culture and “traditions” it is superficial, shallow, tawdry and vile.

I sound angry, don’t I? that would be because I am, because YOUR rotten culture, your rotten “traditions” are now part of my culture – part of my everyday life – have infected and corrupted my culture.

The saddest part of all? My people have embraced and now revel in this toxic cultural template.

I focused on marriage, because that is the focus of Venker’s article, to be honest the rest of her article is a gosh golly darn it, why don’t you men get back into your “real men” strait jackets, so that we women can get back to destroying the planet, corrupting the legal system, emotionally abusing your children, go on murderous rampages, and find the time to sit around on our fat arse’s whining about how hard it is to be a woman.

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

The “M” Word

 

Women are crap at marriage, the “M” word” even when they yearn, they cry into their pillows at night for marriage, even when they think they believe they know what marriage is – they are still mostly crap at it.

The reason is actually quite simple, the marriage they dream of, they expect to have, they pine for, and in some instances pour scorn on (hello feminists) is a creation, a fantasy, an illusion that they created themselves, to get out of responsibility for being adults, grownups.

Lastly, but not, by any stretch of the imagination least, the western worlds model of marriage was created and cultivated for women, as a device for women to play act their way through their lives, to play at “being married”

Problem is, the illusion they created had a very short shelf life, historically speaking, the conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created “to serve” no longer exist – let me repeat that.

The conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created to serve, no longer exist – except in the minds and imaginations, and to be blunt unrealistic fantasies of women.

If ever there was a “thing” that should be consigned to the – “seemed like a good idea at the time” – category, marriage is it.

Even then, way back when the kiss of death for marriage began to take over – (that would be romance by the way) – it was a pretty shit idea. For a while it served its purpose, and depending on the maturity and intelligence of the parties involved, a lot of marriages were successful, workable, managed to stay standing, or at least did, till the kids were old enough to leave home and forge their own lives.

And our two lovebirds could stop pretending that they could stand the sight of one another.

I mentioned that the kiss of death for “marriage” is romance? It is, and right now every woman who has ever dreamed of “walking down the aisle” in some ridiculous clown outfit called “the perfect wedding dress” has fallen to the floor in a swoon. Oh please! Grow up – get up – and shut up – don’t even think about commenting or emailing me with some tearful (and probably pages long) diatribe about love, and showing your love, and how I don’t understand what romance is.

Bite me.

I know exactly what romance is and I also know, that it to love, to friendship, to loyalty, to honour, what feminism is to truth, to human rights, to sanity. And feminism is the vilest, most corrupt and corrosive set of twisted beliefs that ever found their way onto a page or into the mouths and minds of any person. I repeat.

Bite me.

The ironic thing of all, to me at least, is that women allowed feminism and feminists to destroy, to corrupt, to make unbearable (for men) the very thing that generations of women, whether they admit it or not want, yearn for, spend their lives trying to enter into – the unholy state of matrimony.

As our cultures and societies developed and progressed, many women began to feel a bit discontented, a bit unhappy, not “fulfilled”(sigh) in their marriages – enter the nutcase lesbian harridans and self promoting hippy sluts of feminism, to give these discontented and bored “housewives” a “get out of jail free” card, an excuse, a nicely exaggerated, completely and utterly false set of reasons and explanations for their “boredom”

Something is wrong with “marriage”? It can’t be me, therefore it must be you! With the “you” being men – as we all know, it doesn’t take much for women to completely lose all sense of proportion, or reality for that matter – therefore marriage must change – the legal and social framework within which marriages must be conducted in western societies must change so that women can “be happy” again.

Because, women still wanted their fantasy, their romance, their illusion – alas – of all the tinkering, all the changes, all the remodelling of marriage that feminism, feminists and women insisted needed to be done so that marriage was something that suited women – the ONLY change that could have made marriage at the bare minimum workable was not done, was never even considered, and to this day would induce rage, hysterics and poisonous articles from women and feminists with the intellectual capacity of a tree frog.

There is, and was ONLY one “thing” that needs and needed to be changed – WOMEN!

This is where I’m going to say, what for a lot of women will sound if not odd at the very least, then once again consign me, to that sphere of outer darkness that women reserve for those who “betray the sisterhood” boo bloody hoo. I LIKE it out here guuuuuurls  🙂

I like men.

I like the way they think, I like the way they talk and express themselves, and I like, with a few exceptions their sense of humour. Men are great fun, they are kind and generous (and no, I don’t mean that in a monetary way) they are loyal and trustworthy. You can depend on a man to keep his word, you can be sure that if a man says he will or won’t do something that it will or won’t be done. And yes, of course I am aware that some men can be just as big arseholes as women – but there is a vindictiveness, a spitefulness and nastiness within women that you don’t find in many men.

Most women don’t LIKE men – just the way they are – men are projects – blank slates upon which women get to write instructions upon. Women don’t SEE men as autonomous separate entities to themselves – men are an extension, a reflection, an appendage to a woman – a man is only as good as the woman in his life can either force him to be, or make him be, and that fits in with whatever bloody Disney fantasy they’ve had running in their heads since they wore their first “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” tee-shirt.

For women, men are bit players, not even co-stars, but bit players in the drama, the fantasy, the illusion that is, the life and times of ME!

Of course the other ridiculous and asinine thing that women bleat and wail about and demand that men do is to “work on our marriage”?

Excuse me?  Do what?

Like the various bits of random engines and whatever they were, my brothers used to “work on”? Like an inanimate object that you were creating, be it a piece of sculpture, a painting or a piece of furniture? Like that?

There is only one “thing” that one could possibly “work on” that would make any difference to whether or not you are in a positive, enriching, worthwhile and workable union (I’m getting fed up writing the word marriage – and I think I might be breaking out in a rash!)

YOU!

You read that right, and by the way, I AM specifically addressing women – if you have a problem in your union – then that is YOUR problem.

But, but, but, but………….he does this, he doesn’t do that, he won’t do this, he won’t do that…..boo hoo!

Answer: So?

Are you suggesting, demanding and expecting that an autonomous human being accedes to your command, your order because YOU demand it?

Personal example: I cannot explain this, I have no idea why, but whistling drives me mad, seriously, it sets my teeth on edge, my late partner didn’t whistle – much – and only did it unconsciously – so, the first time – I explained, more or less as I just did above – then I ASKED – politely, civilly. His response, sorry darling, I’ll stop,  just let me know if I do it without thinking. End of conversation.

I hear women moan and whine about “what an arsehole” their husbands or partners are – and two things – arseholery is in the eye of the beholder – and like it or lump it people have the right to BE arseholes if they want to be.  If you don’t want to be around an arsehole – LEAVE, and leave the kids behind, you’re the one with the problem, not them.

I’ll admit, I am constantly shocked at how women speak to and treat their partners, I know I shouldn’t be, but I am, and when I say things like;

“If you spoke to, or treated me in that manner, I would probably find the biggest bucket of pig swill I could find, and dump it over your head”

I am equally shocked at how shocked THEY are, at being criticised!

If she was in my house, I would throw her out, and invite him to remain, and no, I’m not kidding – women seem to believe that the normal rules for civil behaviour, for how one treats other human beings are suspended, no longer apply, magically disappear in the context of a union or partnership.

THEY DO NOT!

The problem with modern marriage, and modern relationships, partnerships, unions, whatever floats your particular boat is WOMEN – and the problem with women is that women believe and expect that getting married means at the ceremony, or whatever, a marriage fairy flies in and sprinkles magic marriage dust on you.

That the recitation of some words, the physical act of standing there in THAT absurd dress alchemically changes you – and him – and even worse should.

What you bring to a union is YOU – warts and all – and wedding ceremonies are not some kind of supernatural Compound W* that makes all YOUR warts disappear, for women actually, it does seem to cause a major outbreak of warts – big massive hairy ones.

So – women are crap at marriage, because women designed and created marriage in their own image, and need I say it – in general, with a few rare exceptions, most women are a pain in the arse.

Ladies, the wheels fell off your trolley a long long time ago – you all better start learning to walk.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Compound W is a liquid you paint onto a wart to make it disappear, sometimes it works, sometimes not, try rubbing half a potato on your wart – seriously – try it. 🙂

 

 

 

The Price of Everything, The Value of Nothing.

 

 

Maybe some of you have heard that expression, my mother used to say it as a warning, a warning to guard against seeing the world through the acquisition of things, of measuring or valuing yourself and others by all the shiny stuff you had.  Inevitably those who could afford the latest gadgets, fashions, and had reached all sort of worldly goals, would cloak themselves in the aura of these things as a mark of how much better than others they were.

She did have a less kind way of expressing this – especially in relation to women – “the fur coat and no knickers brigade” The inference, as I’m sure you’ve guessed being that, the fur coat was acquired because of the no knickers fashion statement. The modern late 20th and early 21st century way, and feminism’s way of playing out this scenario, is through the mechanism of “self-esteem”

To esteem something is to hold it, or him/her in high regard, to place a large value on it. If one esteems something, one vests that thing or person with great worth.

The other element of this pertains to the parameters through which one estimates, calculates and quantifies said value or worth. What criteria one uses.  The thing is, if we are talking about a person, then that person must have done or achieved something to EARN such a high worth estimation, to have such a high value placed on them through their achievement(s) or action(s), or perhaps talent(s). 

For example, Leonardo Da Vinci is esteemed among the great painters, because in the opinion of many, among the many great painters he is considered the greatest. Likewise such luminaries as Thomas Edison, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, even two of my own favourites, William Wilberforce and Bob Geldof.

All these people GAVE something to the world at large, something that bestowed a benefit on OTHERS.  What sets them apart from others in relation to the high esteem in which they are held, is that they EARNED that estimation.  The other thing to note is that without exception, they all had human flaws; they were not perfect people, saints in mortal form, just human beings who did something extraordinary FOR others.

Which brings us to this concept of “self-esteem”

Apparently having low “self-esteem” is a bad thing, it means that you don’t place a high enough value on yourself.  You have weighed yourself in the balance, estimated your own worth, and put too low a price on it. In addition, there is no requirement on your part to DO anything, to achieve anything, to bestow some benefit on others – nope – all one has to do is exist.  Your value, your worth comes just from – being.

Analogous to this of course is, that just from being, from existing – one is entitled, by right to hold yourself in “high esteem” no longer is one required to earn this “high esteem” from others, no longer is one required to wait, to hope, to especially, earn from one’s efforts, in whatever sphere, the result, that others will reward one, with a generous gift of “esteem” as a mark of how highly valued those efforts are viewed.

This too is longer a requirement – in fact – according to received wisdom from our favourite experts (feminists) on all things – temporal, spiritual, animal vegetable and mineral – others OWE you a default estimation of HIGH esteem, especially if you are female – if you enter this world with a uterus and ovaries. In fact, it would be no lie to say, that this ONLY applies to women. Men are exempt from having “self-esteem”.

Is it just me or this seem just a tad…………ridiculous? More than a little…………bizarre?

Not too long ago a feeeemale calling herself……”Hot Piece” (I’m not kidding – go look) took issue with  Matt Forney, who wrote a piece entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem: September 16, 2013, which garnered 2,459 Comments.

Matt Forney’s article was a tour de force, and the comments were hilarious – though it was really the Censorbot.

To give you an example of the twisted and frankly deluded thinking (though thinking is a bit of a stretch) that some females employ to justify their right to unlimited buckets of unearned “self-esteem” take a look at this. Her opening salvo.

“The world could not survive on masculinity alone. We need people to teach our children. We need people to support a family emotionally, and that’s just not something that men are traditionally good at. Without women to provide that, we’d be living in an angry, emotionally unstable world — NOT that women can’t have high-powered jobs, or that they have to find themselves in traditionally feminine roles, of course. The point is, traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine roles BOTH need to be fulfilled, regardless by whom, or the world couldn’t work.”

I’m guessing you saw what she did there? Shall I translate – women and their awesomeness, and emotionally healthy and sanctified selves, are absolutely crucial to…….the world, because men are ignorant, angry, emotionally unstable barbarians. Women = good, men BAAAAAAAAAAD.  Worship at the feet of the golden uterus you savages.

I should also point out, that she read the Forney article but she didn’t READ it, hence why, in reply to an article entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem, she emmmm didn’t actually “get it” Nope, that quote came  close to the start of her “critique” one does have to establish the proper order of things first, after all.

The problem according to feminists is that if women feel bad about themselves this is – well is a bad thingWomen are exempt from “feeling bad about themselves” excluded from having their value or worth as human beings questioned, criticised, held in anything less than high esteem.  Regardless of what they do, say, or cause to be done. Conversely men are exempt from feeling good about THEMselves.

In fact, if something that a woman does actually causes any other person harm, discomfort, pain, anguish or even to suffer injustice, it the fault of THAT person, especially if it is a man – to do otherwise is to cause a loss of self-esteem in a woman, to make her feel bad about herself – and as we know – making a woman feel bad about herself is a crime against humanity of epic proportions, and NOT to be borne.

Feminists also equate self-confidence as the obverse side of the self-esteem coin – if one has confidence in one’s own abilities, regardless of whether or not that confidence is misplaced or patently ridiculous, due to a lack of talent in said abilities – then others are obliged to reward this self-confidence, misplaced or not – with even more buckets of self –esteem top-ups, also shiny gold stars in the form of positions of authority and responsibility, in the form of gifts, large salaries, and in the form of some “extra” benefits to reward this self-confident woman, for sharing this heady mix of vaunting self-confidence and cosmic self-esteem, on others.

Because you see, yet again, the withholding of these things mentioned above might lead to not just a loss of self-esteem, which we know is a BAD THING – for a woman – but might, almost as egregiously shatter her self-confidence, a very very bad thing. For a woman.

Men do not get any gold stars, for anything – to do so would make some woman, somewhere feel bad about herself.

It is NOT TO BE BORNE.  The pinnacle of achievement for a woman, by right, is to feel GOOD about herself, at all times, in all circumstances, and without any regard whatsoever for the consequences upon others, that reaching this pinnacle of feeling GOOD about herself – might cause.

This next quote lays out why women not just have and deserve to have huge self- esteem, but also buckets of self-confidence, because of their innate awesomeness. Though in this instance, “Hot Piece” might just suffer from that “over confidence I talked about earlier.  The essence of the Forney article was that “you ain’t all that and NO, I don’t want to fuck you, just because you’re there. 

“Confidence doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t have the capacity to feel that her man enhances her life. It just means that she knows she deserves the positive influences he has over her, and that — more importantly — if he were suddenly not to be in her life any more, she could easily find a different man, if not as good, better, to replace him. If that mindset is a turn-off to you, to know that you’re replaceable, that speaks not to her confidence, but to your own insecurity.”

See what I mean, she doesn’t get it, she is confusing, narcissism, self-absorption, selfishness and overweening egotism and vanity with “self-esteem” and “confidence” one of the things that women believe they are entitled to by right, is the unswerving and automatic adoration of men, at all times. Men who do not automatically subscribe to this worldview are crippled by “insecurity” which is a handy way of keeping your “self-esteem” intact and striding out to go shopping for a new man, to replace the one who just left…..because of his “insecurity” till of course, the shelves seem to be bare and new candidates are thin on the ground.  This is then because ALL men are bastards, and you are still awesome.

 

In a parallel universe populated by persons with the intellectual abilities of sea slugs, and the moral compass of sociopaths THIS would make perfect sense.

Oh. Wait………….damn!

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

The Myth of Womanhood ™

 

Women have some serious fundamental problems,  with….well being women, and it has all to do with the cult of The Myth of Womanhood.™ Collectively known as feminism.

And progress. Technological, cultural, legal, and societal changes that have accelerated exponentially since the dawn of the industrial age.

And knowledge. In essence, almost universal education and the growing availability of information at the click of mouse.

In order to sustain a myth one needs a culture of ignorance and a means to control those who would question that myth – a bit like the child in the fairy tale who exclaimed “the emperor has no clothes!”.  One small lone voice in a sea of silenced and, coerced into submissive acceptance, voices.

One also needs one other thing in order to sustain a myth, a willingness on the part of others to believe this myth.

Perhaps the most well known of people in history who have suffered as a result of questioning  a myth, or in this case a religious belief has been Galileo Galilei 15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642, generally just known as Galileo, and referred to as the father of Modern science.

He challenged a myth/belief, not out of a sense of wanting to be “ornery” but because he discovered that the myth/belief was untrue. So, in a desire to correct an error of belief he shared what he had discovered. This is what happened to him.

“Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy“, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

 He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

 His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.”

You will note that Galileo lived a long long time ago. Centuries passed, centuries in which everything that Galileo had said was proved to be true, in fact universally accepted by everyone, not just in the scientific community but in the wider world, one would have thought then, that those, the keepers of the original myth/belief would have conceded the truth he discovered, and made things right? Apologised profusely and redeemed Galileo unequivocally?

Alas, those who proclaim themselves the keepers of myths are not so gracious.

“On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI)

“The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”

“It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views.

Another keeper of the myth went just a tad further a couple of years later – but just a tad.

“On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei…………………….A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.”

This is all very well and good I hear you thinking, but what has this to do with feminism and the Myth of Womanhood? ™

It illustrates perfectly what feminists believe that their ideology is – an unassailable and almost spiritual belief – in fact a religion – but even more than just a religion, a religion that takes its cue from the dogmatic, infallible and unquestionable doctrines of the 17th century Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who does question, does present evidence of the falsity of its beliefs is, just like Galileo was, be “vehemently suspect of heresy“, and there will be calls and demands and efforts expended to induce those heretics to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

What Galileo proposed was called heliocentrism, and rejected what was known as geocentrism, (remarkable similar to the word gynocentrism, isn’t it?)

“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.”

For simplicity’s sake, Geocentrism is the belief that the earth is the cosmic centre of the universe, and heliocentrism is that it isn’t, rather one celestial body in a universe of celestial bodies

“The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy’s geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from Christian theologians, who were reluctant to reject a theory that was in agreement with Bible passages (e.g. “Sun, stand you still upon Gibeon”, Joshua 10:12 – King James 2000 Bible), but also from those who saw geocentrism as an accepted consensus that could not be subverted by a new, unknown theory.”

The Myth of Womanhood ™ is the geocentrism of the modern age, we just need to change one letter, the “e” to a “y” and add a letter, an “n” and we have Gynocentrism, and just as in the passage above, one doesn’t actually need to be a fully paid up member of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ to be a believer, one just has to believe in the myth– while the original tyrannical defenders of geocentrism were Christians, our modern feminists, in fact all cults, all systems of belief based on unfounded assertions, need their useful idiots, their blindly following acolytes, in the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ these are just called……..women. There is a dedicated band of male followers, but these are merely those men who accept their lesser status in the human universe. Because you see, the core belief of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood states that.

Women are the centre of the Human Universe – around which all other human beings orbit.

Just as in the 19th century, despite growing knowledge, despite technological advances to further the acquisition of human knowledge, despite the increasing availability and access to human knowledge via education for more and more people– the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ has persisted, has been assiduously cultivated and propagated. By women.

One can reject belief in a God that one cannot see, or prove the existence of, but when one has millions of putative Goddesses (all women) right there in front of you, doing what our naked emperor did in the fairytale I mentioned – exerting coercive methods, either passively or aggressively to ensure your acquiescence in what is patently untrue – it is difficult to be that lone small voice shouting out from the crowd.

“The emperor has no clothes”

I coined the phrase The Myth of Womanhood ™ as the title to a larger piece of work – a historical work – that will look back at the origins, perpetuation, entrenchment and finally demise of a belief system, a cult that infected the race of humans in varying degrees over a long period of time. It is almost time to write the last chapters, because persistent though it was and is – the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood is dying, it is in its final death throes.

Because you see, rather than there being one small childlike voice shouting from the crowd that the “emperor has no clothes”, though in this case, it should be “empresses” – there is a chorus of voices, a veritable full choir of voices, all saying in harmony.

“The empress has no clothes”

It is those who persist in clinging tenaciously to their belief in this cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ who are being drowned out, and whose “leaders” are making fools of themselves, laughing stocks of themselves – because they still believe that……………the earth is the centre of the known universe.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Say Hello to your Gender Fairy…Godmothers.

 

According to feminism, and feminists of all stripes women – all women – are forced into gender roles, not only that, this nefarious patriarchal plot has been going on for ever.

Don’t know about anybody else, but the gender fairy didn’t fly into my room every morning, drop my gender script for that day’s performance of my “role” on my head, and fly out again.

There were no lines to learn, no costumes to wear, no character to “get into to” in fact I’m sure my parents and everybody’s else’s parents would’ve noticed fairies flying in every morning and dropping gender scripts on their children’s heads!

I say children, because apparently it is as children we “learn, or are forced to learn” our gender roles – presumably as we grow up, we have the lines and character down pat, and have played our part so many times that it becomes second nature to us.

But but but……feminists will protest, it is society that forces people – and when feminists say people, they mean women – into gender roles. Men are “not people” they are oppressors, patriarchal bastards and all round bad eggs, so they get to be the part of society that imposes these gender roles.

Hmmmm, is that so? Well I’m “people” ergo part of society, some of my family and friends are “people” though a majority are of the “not people” category, but nonetheless, therefore also part of society – and nope – never once in my entire life has any one of these “not people” – men, forced me to play some scripted gender role.

Actually, quite the reverse, when it came to either saying directly or by insinuation that there was a right way and a wrong way to “be a girl” it was invariably females. Any attempted oppression or threat of social disapproval for stepping outside the “girl” role came without exception, from other females.

Which brings on to another aspect of acting out a role – or being forced to act out a role – there is always a script – someone has to write the script for these roles. Now who could that be?

Who have always been, throughout history the ones who spent the vast majority of their time worrying about, writing about, setting down the rules, and dictating what is or isn’t proper behaviour for “men” and “women”?  It should be noted that some men did write about proper behaviour, but curiously mostly confined themselves to the behaviour of men or of men towards women.

“The basis of good manners is self-reliance. Necessity is the law of all who are not self-possessed. Those who are not self-possessed, obtrude, and pain us. Some men appear to feel that they belong to a Pariah caste.

They fear to offend, they bend and apologize, and walk through life with a timid step. As we sometimes dream that we are in a well-dressed company without any coat, so Godfrey acts ever as if he suffered from some mortifying circumstance.

The hero should find himself at home, wherever he is: should impart comfort by his own security and good-nature to all beholders. The hero is suffered to be himself. A person of strong mind comes to perceive that for him an immunity is secured so long as he renders to society that service which is native and proper to him, — an immunity from all the observances, yea, and duties, which society so tyrannically imposes on the rank and file of its members.

“Euripides,” says Aspasia, “has not the fine manners of Sophocles; but,” — she adds good-humoredly, “the movers and masters of our souls have surely a right to throw out their limbs as carelessly as they please, on the world that belongs to them, and before the creatures they have animated.” (*)

(*) Landor: Pericles and Aspasia.”

From: The Conduct of Life.  V: Behavior  (1860, rev. 1876) by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Interestingly Ralph Waldo Emerson talks of “…..observances, yea, and duties, which society so tyrannically imposes on the rank and file of its members…” the question to be asked though is, WHO imposes these “observances” and “duties” on the members of society? WHO has always dictated the proper behaviour for men and women – in essence WHO wrote the script (s) for these gender roles that apparently only women are, or were ever, forced to play?

Let’s just take a look at perhaps the most famous of all experts on etiquette,  Emily Post 1873–1960. Etiquette being just an old-fashioned way of describing how people should behave – i.e. – play out their gender roles.

Now Mrs Post was writing at a time when the expectation was that people got married – though in a previous post (See: Forsooth! Oh Save me Oh gallant Knight) not all men were inclined to do so, and one Mrs Charlotte Smith had some harsh words for those reluctant “patriarchs”. For those who did get married the inimitable Mrs Post had some wise words for new bride.

From:  Etiquette.  1922.  Chapter IX.  One’s Position in the Community.

“A bride whose family or family-in-law has social position has merely to take that which is hers by inheritance; but a stranger who comes to live in a new place, or one who has always lived in a community but unknown to society, have both to acquire a standing of their own. For example: “

Now that she has established that a new bride’s social position is not based on any merit, or on any skill, but simply on the circumstances of her birth, she continues to set the stage for civilised behaviour in a civilised society. 

THE BRIDE OF GOOD FAMILY

The bride of good family need do nothing on her own initiative. After her marriage when she settles down in her own house or apartment, everyone who was asked to her wedding breakfast or reception, and even many who were only bidden to the church, call on her. She keeps their cards, enters them in a visiting or ordinary alphabetically indexed blank book, and within two weeks she returns each one of their calls.” 

What this is saying is that our new bride merely waits for others to “pay their respects” to her – on the sole basis that she got married. There is no onus on her to make any real effort to go out and forge her own way. 

  “As it is etiquette for everyone when calling for the first time on a bride, to ask if she is in, the bride, in returning her first calls, should do likewise.

As a matter of fact, a bride assumes the intimate visiting list of both her own and her husband’s families, whether they call on her or not. By and by, if she gives a general tea or ball, she can invite whom, among them, she wants to.

She should not, however, ask any mere acquaintances of her family to her house, until they have first invited her and her husband to theirs. But if she would like to invite intimate friends of her own or of her husband, or of her family, there is no valid reason why she should not do so.

This is the most interesting passage, because it is here that we see exactly who controls “society” who dictates who is or isn’t worthy of being included in civilised society. Remember we are talking about a time when people entertained in one another’s homes – when being invited or not invited was the mark of acceptance or rejection – by – Society.

Lo and behold, as soon as our bride gets that ring on her finger, is SHE who assumes control of the only social outlet available at that time.

“As a matter of fact, a bride assumes the intimate visiting list of both her own and her husband’s families, whether they call on her or not. By and by, if she gives a general tea or ball, she can invite whom, among them, she wants to.”

If we travel a little further forwards in time we see that it was always women who dictated the proper behaviour for both men and women;

From: 177.9 A425-1 (1950) Behave Yourself! Etiquette for American Youth by Betty Allen

“[Women] aren’t supposed to know how much dinner-for-two comes to or how generous your escort tips. So don’t look very interested when the waiter brings the check. It’s his privilege to scan the figures on the bill before paying it. During this little episode you could perhaps be gazing out the window or looking for an imaginary something in your handbag.”

Mind Your Manners by Betty Allen

And this little snippet from 177.9 E77 (1953) Esquire Etiquette

“Hold all doors for her, just as if she hadn’t a muscle in her body.”

Even the most cursory delve into the area of etiquette, and what is or isn’t proper behaviour – or if you prefer – the correct way to play your gender role, will show that it is and always has been women who have dictated the parameters of these oppressive (to women) gender roles:

 Other notable 20th century etiquette experts included:

 — Amy Vanderbilt (1908-1974), a New York City native, newspaper reporter and public relations consultant, who published “Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette” in 1952. She also hosted television and radio programs on good manners. Vanderbilt — a distant relative of the famed Cornelius Vanderbilt family who did not share in their wealth – was regarded as a successor to Emily Post, and her books, like Post’s, have been updated numerous times.

 — Letitia Baldridge (born 1925), daughter of a Congressman and sister of a Reagan Cabinet official, served as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s White House social secretary from 1961 to 1963. She wrote two Amy Vanderbilt etiquette books in the late 1970s (after Vanderbilt’s death) before branching out on her own in the 1980s.

 — Judith Martin (born 1938), author of the “Miss Manners” syndicated advice column. Martin’s columns and books – with titles such as “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” and “Miss Manners’ Guide to Rearing Perfect Children” – are known for their wit and humor.

 — Marjabelle Young Stewart (1924-2007), an Iowa native who learned good manners from the staff of an orphanage she lived in for several years after her parents divorced. As an adult, she became a professional model and sponsored charm school classes for all ages. Her annual list of America’s “best mannered” cities frequently cited Charleston, S.C., Savannah, Ga., and – surprisingly — New York City.

 Baldridge, Martin and Stewart all lived or worked in Washington, D.C. and were part of its social scene during their careers. Baldridge and Martin still live in D.C., while Stewart spent her later years in Kewanee, Ill. after marrying her second husband.

 

So, feminists – what was that you were saying, about how men imposed oppressive gender roles on women?

 

Form a Posse Men…….There’s Wimmin Needing rescuing…..Giddy up!

 

 Paul Elam of A Voice for Men published an article sounding a warning bell at something emerging within the WordPress “Community” that warning bell was in relation to this article.

 Written by someone called Sarah Gooding it calls for “Cultivating a Culture of Respect in the WordPress Community

I’ve read Gooding’s article and first impressions – sanctimonious, self-righteous, passive aggressive busybody, she has decided that the “standards” SHE see’s in the “WordPress Community”, do not meet with her approval.  At all. The other thing to note about Gooding’s opinion is that because she is female, a woman, everyone needs to sit up straight and TAKE NOTICE.

A WOMAN is “uncomfortable” a WOMAN is “not happy” other people are behaving in ways “at parties” that a WOMAN does NOT approve of.

The only way to describe Gooding’s whiney little screed is to say – she is talking out of her gynocentric arsehole.

Gooding is a perfect example of what women have been doing, expect to continue to be allowed to do, and assume they have the right to do.

Dictate to all and sundry, how they must speak, how they must act, and how they must interact – because WOMEN are the historical etiquette police of the human race, women are the arbiters of what is “good and proper” and more importantly what isn’t – we could be sitting in a Victorian parlour listening to some pursed lipped, snooty spinster hold forth on the deplorable manners of the lower classes. 

How uncouth, how unrefined, how beastly they are.

Our putative spinster busybody is so overcome at the uncivilised behaviour of these lower classes, that when she encounters them she almost swoons with the assault on her delicate sensibilities.

THAT’S what Gooding is – a snooty, self righteous sanctimonious Victorian spinster looking down her pointy nose at the lower classes.

Well fuck you Mizz Gooding.

One of the themes of Gooding’s article is a demand that people treat one another with respect – mainly her of course – well I have a question for Sarah Gooding.

What exactly have you done to EARN MY RESPECT?

Yes, you read that right, EARN. MY. RESPECT. Because right now, with your whiney female snivelling, all I hear and read is, I have a vagina, I have ovaries, I am FEMALE – ergo – you OWE me respect – basically because I exist. Yet again I have one thing to say to that.

Fuck you Mizz Gooding.

Paul Elam in his article lays out the modus operandi of whiney “you hurt my feelings” victims everywhere.

.”“They are even approaching this with the same M.O.. First, set up the victim narrative; create a crisis for women that literally does not exist. This is done by a small number of very vocal ideological women who claim to be victims, and who need “special” enforcement of even more “special” rules, in order to make them feel safe and welcome (because we all know that women are not welcome anywhere, especially by men, right?). Then, of course, the idea is to punish anyone who disagrees with them with demonization and ostracizing

This is exactly what Gooding does, she starts off by setting up what Typhonblue (Alison Tieman) calls the Threat Narrative – i.e. create a false “threat”

“The WordPress project is going through some growing pains. After 10 years there are millions of people around the world using this software and interacting with one another on a daily basis. The vast majority of these interactions are positive and respectful and for a long time we haven’t needed any kind of official code of conduct, but this is changing.

“Women in WordPress” is currently a hot button topic and has been for years, with many discussions cantered around how to make women feel more welcome.”

Suggesting that something needs to be done “to make women feel more welcome” is femspeak for saying, people are being mean and nasty and just horrible to women, but because women are soooooooooooooo nice, and don’t want to just come straight out and say this, they use euphemisms like making women FEEL more welcome.

Oh she pops in a few more little hints at this “threat” to women, but more importantly she introduces the underlying agenda.

“A few incidents of harassment have popped up in our community and other open source communities, prompting a movement to create a Code of Conduct

Now what Gooding is doing here is appealing to chivalry, appealing to an age old code created and sustained by women throughout the ages that states, women must not be inconvenienced, upset, discommoded, annoyed, irritated or plain ole pissed off in any way shape or form. It is the responsibility of men to shield women, to protect women, and to never put a woman in a position where she has to act like a bloody grown up, take responsibility for HERSELF, and not expect the entire world to tippy toe around her sensitive and fragile feelings.  Hence the “Code of Conduct” it is Chivalry 101.

In essence – MEN die and women swoon.

The next little quote contains a nugget worth noting – when women “suggest” things, especially when it benefits ONLY women, and has the effect of imposing sanctions on men.  

“Stephanie Leary posted on the Women of WordPress site concerning harassment at WordCamps after speaking with a couple of people who experienced minor harassments at events but hadn’t reported it. She suggests that WordPress create its own harassment policy and that WordCamp organizers designate a safety officer:”

Such a sweet innocuous little statement, isn’t it? So self effacing, so concerned?  Naw, this is bullshit, female bullshit, it is a turd wrapped  up in pretty paper, tied up in ribbons and coyly offered as a “suggestion” when in actual fact THIS is the agenda, THIS is gynocentrism in all its putrid, underhanded, devious glory.

Translation from Femspeak to plain english.

Right now I’m being as sweet as pie, and playing the poor widdle damsel in distress, but, if you don’t comply, and do what I want, then I will cause such a shitstorm of female disapproval, tears and tantrums, and make such nasty, underhanded, mostly untrue, and definitely misrepresented statements, that your name (s) will be mudd.

 Gooding goes on, with some anecdotal “evidence” with her in the starring role as the sweet, delicate and naive damsel who doesn’t want to make a fuss or “cause a scene” it’s all bullshit, and she shirts very close to basically libelling some anonymous and innocent man, but plays that other female card, insinuation, she insinuates, she suggests, she leaves little clues and hints, and waits for everyone else to fill in the blanks.  For the requisite :

oh my God, you poor poor thing, that’s just awful, you’re sooooooooo brave”

With the piece de résistance being

“Men are such pigs – something NEEDS to be done about this” tad dah! Score!”

This whole article is an exercise in propaganda and femspeak, with one agenda and one agenda only – to “feminize” WordPress – to make it in the image of something that women can be “comfortable” with.  That only means one thing – Free Speech? Forget it – what if your opinion or your style of communication hurts some widdle sensitive and fragile woman? What if you say mean things about something a woman has said? What if some woman has posted God-awful tripe and you say that? Forsooth! What if she then………………………….cries?!

This last quote is the cherry on top of this toxic little pie – talk about threat narrative, talk about putting a silent unspoken “or else” at the end of something

“Community can make or break a project. A set of community expectations is the first step in laying a foundation for respectful behavior. I wish we didn’t need them, but we do.”

Cue big sad sigh, complete with trembling lip.

What Gooding is really saying here is – I will harness the power of the vagina, the golden uterus, and if I don’t get what I want – I scweam and scweam and scweam till I’m sick, till you give in and……………..WordPress exists to serve the needs, wants, whims and petty agendas of pathetic, snivelling, spineless, manipulative toxic little wretches like Sarah Gooding and her gal pals.

 

Toxic Mothers.

 

Mike Buchanan over at J4MB posted a link to this article in the Daily Mail online, the headline is an attention grabber.

 Mums who cut fathers out after separation: One in three say Dad should not have say in their child’s upbringing

” Study found 32% mothers feel they can better handle problems alone.  Comes as deepening concern millions of children don’t have male role model.  85% of fathers would prefer to make decisions as a unit, research finds

 “One in three separated mothers think their children’s fathers should have no say in their upbringing, according to a report yesterday.

It found that 32 per cent of separated mothers thought that they alone had the right to make decisions about their children’s future.

 The high proportion found by a survey implies that more than one in 10 of all the families in the country include mothers who do not want the fathers of their children to have a say over the future of their children.”

The original YouGov survey that RELATE based theirs on is here.

What is revealing though are the comments, and for this article there were, at the last count when I checked, 124 comments. The ensuing discussion about the results of this survey generated some interesting comments, on two levels.

First, the overwhelming support for equal parenting, from both male and female posters, or at least as far as I can tell with regard to sex – and secondly, the distinct lack of support for that deeply held entrenched belief that women own their children, and that fathers should be relegated to visitors, or barely tolerated back-up babysitters to the primary parent – the mother.

There were a few dyed in the wool “mother knows best” types and a few who trotted out the lame – “but of course fathers should have an equal say except in the case of abuse or violence”

Let’s just knock that one on the head straight away – it is overwhelmingly MOTHERS who abuse their children, neglect their children, and in the context of relationships, violence is a two way street.

If we are going to have “conditions” then those conditions apply EQUALLY to mothers and fathers, with absolutely no assumption that mothers are the “primary care givers”

Further, if there are issues of violence in parental relationships then it is the perpetrator – male or female who gets the sanctions and the OTHER parent who “gets the kids” as in the recent judgement by Mrs Justice Parker ruled – the FATHER was awarded primary custody of the children and the violent abusive mother got supervised access.

 Having said that, concepts of custody and access or contact have no legitimate place in the realm of parenting, the idea that one parent allows the other parent to BE a parent is vile, it is mendacious and it needs to GO.

The same with this concept of child support – where one parent pays the other parent – if we are talking about two adults, then they are responsible for supporting themselves in their own separate homes, if that is what they want.  Child specific expenses are also a separate issue – and depend on what works out best for the parties involved and the child expenses should be borne equally by both parents.

In the case of a family home – by agreement – if whoever wants to live in it then YOU pay the mortgage – if you can’t afford it then you sell it, pay off the mortgage and divide any excess equally between you.

Alternatively, if selling is not an option then, try this on for size.

One of the things I think might work is that in order to prevent children from being moved around, that the children remain in the house, their family home, and the parents take turns staying with them, in the family home – you rent a small place, or whatever you can afford between you, for when it is the others parents turn with the children.

Now, before all you delicate fragile women get your knickers in a knot – why not? So what if it’s “inconvenient” for YOU – this is about what is best for your mutual children – not YOU.

You’re ADULTS – work it out!

How about this?

Monday to Wednesday  – Mother stays in house with children.

Thursday to Saturday – Father stays in house with children.

Sunday – family day – grit your bloody teeth – paste a smile on your face – this is about what is best FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

Oh and by the way – as the primary reason for this arrangement is for YOUR children – you DON’T GET TO MOVE YOUR LATEST BOYFRIEND or girlfriend in – that’s what your one bed flat is for – grown up time.

Anyhoo – on to the comments on this article, lets start with the top rated ones. The first is this one.

Catherine, Edinburgh, 9 hours ago

I presume that this 30% of mothers will on principle refuse maintenance from their ex husbands too?

807 positive – 61 negative”

This was the highest rated comment and it looks like it was by a female person – a woman – I like Catherine’s style, it’s short, sweet and to the point and it got 807 positives to 61 negatives, I believe we can rightly describe that as an overwhelming amount of support?

Now Catherine got a few replies, the first one, also by a female, missed the point by a country mile and got a majority of negative responses, because SilverLady here assumes that mothers are the “primary” parents – bit of a fail there SilverLady.

SilverLady, SilverCity, 7 hours ago

Financial contribution to one’s child’s upbringing is an obligation to the child, not to the mother!

82 negative – 51 positive”

The next reply to Catherine’s comment was this one.

of course, theothersideofnowhere, Australia, 6 hours ago

no but if the father refuses to contribute how about he doesn’t get a say in how the children get brought up (NOT that he doesn’t get to see them, that’s not relevant to whether he contributes financially or not) but if he’s not supporting them financially why should he get a say in the decisions on how the money is spent? its a lose lose situation unfortunately

14 negative – 43 positive

This is a bit confused and hard to really get what this commentator is saying – he/she seems to be making the point that financial contributions to child upkeep should have nothing to do with whether a father “gets to see” his children or not and if he isn’t then, the rest of the comment is rather incomprehensible?

But the point is valid with regard to tying payment with being allowed to see your own children!

The highest negatively rated comments were equally interesting, though this first one I find personally less of a problem than some of the more outright – “women own their children” ones. Here it is.

Just call me queen., Over the hill and far away, Monaco, 7 hours ago

I’m in a tricky situation at the moment. I have a toddler son with a man who lives thousands of miles away from me. He loves us very much, but I’m not sure about my feelings anymore for him. I love him , but no longer romantically. I want to make sure that my son and his father remain in close contact ,but does that mean sacrificing my own happiness? I am sure that separation would mean hotels costs. He would be happy to pay for plane tickets still, but could not afford the added hotel costs, and neither can I . So I’m stuck right now 😦

38 negative – 7 positive”

What I see here is innate selfishness and more than a touch of self absorption – “but does that mean sacrificing my own happiness?” Duh!  Well yes it does – you waived your right to put YOUR “needs” first when you had that child – my impulse is to say to silly twat – grow up!

This next wretch literally screams Parental Alienation.

Martha, Allotment, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago

Children aren’t stupid, our young teenage son often tells his dad what we do is no concern of his anymore. More grown up then his dad.

32 negative – 21 positive”

As does this one – because we all know what women do to “gain custody”

janet c, London, 6 hours ago

the decisions should be made by whichever parent gains custody as they have to manage the child’s upbringing.

31 negative – 14 positive”

Even in this brief comment you can see exactly the way this wretch thinks – MY children, I will WIN, this is battle for possession.

One the things that emerges from the article is that RELATE seem surprised at the percentage of women who outright admitted that in a nutshell – the fathers of their children were unnecessary – for their children.

“Chief Executive Ruth Sutherland said: ‘The one thing everyone can be sure of is that it’s the wellbeing of children which is of paramount importance here – so finding ways to work together as parents in the best interests of our children is vital.’”

Ah yes, let’s just all sit down and have a nice cup of tea and chat about what to do about this “silly old separation business”!

What planet have these people been living on for the last 60 years? Seriously?

They’re are in the “relationship” business and THIS is a bit of a surprise to them? Toxic, vicious alienating mothers?  Fathers being excised from the lives of their children? Or do only nice people go to RELATE to separate in a nice civilised manner?

What is clear from the comments is that rising from the general public – if Daily Mail commentators can BE called the general public – is a backlash against  these toxic, vicious alienating mothers and their era is finally, hopefully starting to draw to a close.

Will they give up without a fight? Doubt it.  There will always be bitches and wretches, there will always be gyncentrism embedded in some women, but the Men’s Human Rights Movement exists to dismantle every last legal, social and political support that gives these women permission to vent their gynocentrism without sanction.

We cannot of course forget about the feminists, but feminism is now such a toxic brand in its own right – that every time one of these twats opens her, and in some cases his mouth – it is usually just to change feet.

Long may that continue.

 

 

Next Newer Entries