Irish Politics: Dumb, Deranged Feminist Award Goes To……………………………


Alison O’Connor of the Irish Examiner for this pathetic little screed, entitled “Same old Territory for the election of women


No doubt it would be futile to explain to this asinine womyn and her ilk a simple fact – the operative word in her title is the word ELECTION.

Now, I know femtards struggle with language, with the actual meaning of words – after all a word is whatever any random aggrieved deranged psychologically dysfunctional femtard decides it means, depending on their mood, the tides, messages from the great vagina in the sky, how effective their medication is etc. – but in the context of politics, the word ELECTION has one, and only one meaning.

TO CHOOSE – to ‘elect” to decide, based on several options, WHO the elector wishes to give their vote to!

See Alison – not complicated.

Unlike Ms. O’Connor’s screed – which is very complicated – full of percentages, numbers, ratios, woven around a tiresome whiny petulant Nancy Pelosi type tantrum – you know the one – I twied and twied to get my own way and I didn’t, so am going to have a global hissy fit to show how “classy” how gwacious I am…………….NOT.

Would someone please put that bloody womyn (Nancy Pelosi) in a quiet room somewhere, take away all her toys until she learns how to play with grown-ups.

Anyhoo – back to Alison – I have a question – did you look at any of the polls done before the election to see what were the issues that dominated the concerns of the Irish ELECTORATE?

I mean, even a quick glance perhaps – allow me to remind you, from your own paper!

What issues will dominate the 2020 General Election campaign?

“As the start of the 2020 General Election campaign gets under way, two major issues are expected to dominate political battle.

Fine Gael will have to defend their stance and performance on the state of the health service and the worst-ever housing crisis to hit Ireland.

Did you not see that Alison – HOUSING AND HEALTH.

Please feel free to do your own research Alison – oh wait….feminists don’t do research – feminists do tantrums, whines, hissy fits, and of course, if you don’t pick me its because you’re a…………………..fill in the blanks yourselves – how about this for a reason why the Irish Electorate didn’t VOTE based on what a candidate had in their knickers – because they didn’t CHOOSE TO, based on policies, performance, past political record, and a myriad other reasons why a reasonably intelligent ADULT evaluates a candidate, and then exercises their Constitutional Right to vote for whoever they bloody want to vote for.

Sometimes, people don’t vote for a candidate because they simply don’t like them – i.e. they are not likable.

Whatever the reason – if your “preferred” candidates (female) didn’t “get picked” for team vagina – here’s my advice – shut up, suck it up – and perhaps go rip up some paper till you calm down.

I’ll make it easy for you Alison – I’m a woman (biologically female) have been since the day I was conceived – many many years ago I lived in Roisin Shortall’s constituency – have met Ms. Shortall, liked her, intelligent, articulate and very likable – didn’t vote for her – because I didn’t support her particular political stance.

By the way – congratulations Ms. Shortall, well done, while I personally have never voted for you, I have always admired your sincerity, your commitment to your constituents and your obvious intelligence and sound political instincts. Well done.

Congratulations also to Ms. Mary Lou McDonald, again, never would vote for you, but have to say you are also an intelligent articulate and committed person – don’t agree with a single word you say – but congratulations.

Have met quite a few politicians in my time, both male and female, and do know what Alison, I’ve never voted for a female politician, NEVER, I’ve also never voted for an equal number of male politicians, in other words you dumb airhead, what they had, or in this day and age, what they claim to have in their knickers is irrelevant to me – I vote based on their POLICIES, or at least their stated policies, I vote based on their record and as above on a myriad other factors.

I vote because I have the right to exercise  CHOICE – neither you or any other brain dead femtard twat gets to whine, lecture or disdain ANY Irish Citizen who does not vote in compliance with some “gender” agenda dictated to them from a great height by a brain dead femtard who also doesn’t understand another word


Heres’ an interesting quote from this fool’s article:

“Then you have the Social Democrats with their joint female co-leaders Catherine Murphy and Róisín Shortall. That party had a 57% female election candidate slate.

They steadily and thoroughly went about the business of the campaign and managed to get themselves re-elected, as well as the aforementioned Holly Cairns in Cork South West, Garry Gannon in Dublin Central, and likely Cian O’Callaghan in Dublin Bay North and Jennifer Whitmore in Wicklow.

So, in that instance, you would have the highly unusual scenario of an Irish political party — albeit a small one — dominated by women.”

It would appear that Alison is cool with a political party “dominated by women” but not so cool with one dominated by men!

Hmmmmm, cognitive dissonance anyone?

Finally – throughout this pathetic excuse for an article – did Alison focus on any the above-mentioned female politician’s policies, ideological stance (whatever it may be) perhaps their past record, or even their parties Agendas for governing this State?

Did she?

Of course, she bloody didn’t – the one and only thing that defines these particular politicians is that they all (allegedly) have a vagina. That’s it.

You know, if I was Roisin Shortall or Mary Lou McDonald – I’d be insulted that some brain dead twat disregarded my intelligence, my hard work, my commitment to a particular political stance, the time I’ve taken to develop and hone said political stance and reduced me down to a bag of flesh attached to a vagina.

Or is it just that feminists believe that the site of reason, logic, intelligence and sentience is located between their legs? That the first thing reasonable people want to know about a prospective candidate is “oh my God, does it have a vagina?”

Shut up Alison – you stupid stupid ridiculous womyn.












Feminism and The Flat Earth Society: Comrades in Stupidity.


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

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

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

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

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

For example – believing the earth is flat.

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

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

I have always believed the world is round;

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

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

I have always believed the world is flat;

Other/Not sure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okie dokie!

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

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

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

So, what’s the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

United States of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom

Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

8:31 PM – Dec 3, 2015”


Women against feminism

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

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

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

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

What is prevalent in Ireland is toxic gynocentric – see this article, Diagnosing Gynocentrism by Peter Ryan on a Voice For Men link here –

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

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

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

Angry Harry –

A Voice For Men –

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Republic of Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism is Cultural and Political Cancer.





Quota Queens – Gimme Gimme Gimme!


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

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

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

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

Impressive – isn’t it?

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

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

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

Clear evidence

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

Emphasis added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

emphasis added

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary Degree                       3-4 years

Masters                                     1- 2 years

Post Doc                                     6 years

Research etc                              2- 3 years

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

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

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

Ireland, Academic Career Structure

GradIreland:Lecturer, third level

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

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

From: HIGHER EDUCATION: Key Facts and Figures: HEA funded Institutions 04/05

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

new entrnts by field of study 04 05 HEA

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

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

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

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

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

Women make choices that FEMINISTS DON’T APPROVE OF.

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is:

post grad 2004

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

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

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

I would recommend though that you take a look at William Collins seminal article Athena SWAN  to get a clear and thoroughly researched expose of where this shoite emanates from.

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

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

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

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

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

Gender resources

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

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

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

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


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

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

Definition of key concepts
Paul Epstein QC (March 2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The burden of proof
Philip Rostant (November 2014)

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

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

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

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

Enjoy and Slainte






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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young men from 15 – 24.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

15 – Other

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

“Physical Mistreatment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


They were also asked this question.


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

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

“6.1 Extent of Physical Mistreatment

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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


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


Women  – 34
Men – 13
Other – 1

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

Women – 6
Men – 9

Choked, dragged, strangled or burnt.

Women – 19
Men – 2
Other – 1

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

Women – 36
Men – 41
Other – 1

Something thrown at you that could hurt you.

Women – 66
Men – 34
Other – 2

Pushed, slapped, shoved or had your hair pulled.

Women – 112
Men – 38”

Let’s do some “feminist” math!

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

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

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

Can you see the headlines?

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

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

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

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

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

Women – 36
Men – 41
Other – 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pushed, slapped, shoved or had your hair pulled.

Women – 112
Men – 38”

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

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

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

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

Something thrown at you that could hurt you.

Women – 66
Men – 34
Other – 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It????? What “it”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Physical Mistreatment

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

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

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

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

What to do, what to do?

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

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



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

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

[3] UCC alcohol research signals last call

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

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

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

Further Reading

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the link to her “survey”

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

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

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

See link to HEA (Higher Education Authority) below.

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

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

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

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

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

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


For your information:

“How are Crime Statistics Collected in Ireland?

Counting Procedures in Ireland and Abroad

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

Source: National Crime Council


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

Total 211,633

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

1,811 – Women
926 – Men
15 – “other”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No matter what you think or feel or believe.

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

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

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

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

Let’s take this step by step

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

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

(emphasis added)

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


Females – 59,453 – Males – 51,8886


Females – 8,480 = Males – 3,513

Institutes of Technology*

Females – 37,030 – Males – 51,271

*we’ll talk about STEM another time

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

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

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

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

The actual numbers break down like this:

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

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

Teacher Training College – 23

Other – 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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


In a learning environment

Female – 9.36%
Male – 6.37%

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

Female – 13.14%
Male – 6.7%

Other areas on campus

Female – 20.7%
Male – 12.42%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pissed as farts!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

UCC alcohol research signals last call


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

In a learning environment

Female – 5.26%
Male – 5.72%

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

Female – 7.06%
Male – 7.99%

Other areas on campus

Female – 8.11%
Male – 11.66%

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

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

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

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

What are you? Gay?

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

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

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

Moving on.

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

For example this:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


“Further issues

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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



Irish Feminism Has Found its Super Mangina – Ian Hughes.


Ian Hughes is an Irish blogger and recently one of his blog articles

found its way onto the the title of this putrid piece of apologia by a male person for feminism says it all – it is entitled –

Why are men more likely to be violent than women? Link here.

and…it is complete, unadulterated rubbish.

Before I get into this piece of feminist drivel – how do I know that Ian Hughes is a super mangina?

Simples – I went onto his blog and checked his sources –for what he laughably calls “the facts”

Here they are.


1.Feminism and Men, Nikki van der Gaag, Zed Books, London, 2014, page 198

2.Men Explain Things To Me, Rebecca Solnit, Granta, 2014, page 30

3.Men Explain Things To Me, Rebecca Solnit, Granta, 2014, page 23

4.Quoted in Understanding Violent Crime, Stephen Jones, Open University Press, 2000, page 73

5.Feminism and Men, Nikki van der Gaag, Zed Books, London, 2014, page 62”


Well now! There’s a bleeding surprise. NOT.

He does provide three links in the body of The Journal article – which – yep – I clicked on.

The first leads to a NY Times article – Is Delhi So Different From Steubenville? Link here and the second goes to……….wait for it………wait for it.

Steinem: More women killed by partners since 9/11 than deaths from attacks, ensuing wars

Yesirreebob – that would be Gloria Steinem, Gloria. Bloody. Steimem!

There is a third link provided in the body of the article on The Journal, which apparently is the source for his contention that:

“Research into group violence, such as racial and homophobic assaults, has shown that violent groups are typically made up of four different types of offenders: thugs for whom violence is their normal means of resolving disputes; xenophobes who blame others for their own troubles; sympathisers who become involved through peer pressure; and politically motivated offenders, who are usually educated and indulge in violence in pursuit of their political beliefs.”

Do you know where it leads to? To a scholarly article? Nope. Perhaps an academic journal? Nope again. Alright – a paper about the dynamics of group violence? Wrong again.

It is a link to…….an ad for a book – NOT the actual book, NOT any source material, nope – it is simply the retail information for a book – which apparently ISN’T AVAILALBE as an ebook.

Sooooooooooooooo, if you wanted to verify Ian Hughes source material, you can’t – unless you go onto amazon and buy the book!

Hmmmmmmm, so far Ian Hughes has failed miserably to back up his ludicrous contentions with anything even remotely resembling adequate verifiable reference material.

Two articles and an ad for a book just don’t cut it Ian.

But, but, but – he cites some references in the blog article! Indeed he does – and oh boy – if you wanted to, you couldn’t find more dubious, compromised, tainted and probably corrupt sources than the two feminists he cites.

Let’s start with Rebecca Solnit – link here (its wikipedia, but I couldn’t be arsed researching a feminist)

“Solnit is credited with the concept behind the term mansplaining, a habitual gender-based condescending language style that emerged shortly after her April 2008 blog post “Men Explain Things to Me,” although she did not invent the portmanteau word itself.[17][18][19] The term has since been widely adopted.[19]

She is also the author of this little gem: Why “Mansplaining” Is Still a Problem

A snippet:

“The battle for women to be treated like human beings with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of involvement in cultural and political arenas continues, and it is sometimes a pretty grim battle. When I wrote the essay below, I surprised myself in seeing that what starts out as minor social misery can expand into violent silencing and even violent death.”

Solnit is – a professional whiner – sigh.

What about Ian Hughes’ other feminist source? Nikki Van Der Gaag. Well, she is also the author of this: Why involve men in work on gender equality? Link here.

This is her little gem:

“First, because the focus on men does not always come from a gender equality perspective, but from the idea that it is men who are now the victims. For example, Atlantic Monthly ran an article noting that men are becoming redundant with an ‘unprecedented role reversal now under way’. And in 2010 Newsweek ran a cover story on ‘reinventing masculinity’, analysing assertions that women are taking over the world – or at least the US.

This is dangerous nonsense. Of course there are individual men who face rape or violence from women, but they are in a tiny minority. Overwhelmingly, it is still predominantly women who face abuse, violence and discrimination from men. Things may look better in the rich world, but for example, in the US, a woman is battered by her intimate partner every 15 seconds in the UK, women working full time still earn on average 15.5% less an hour than men. Globally, women hold only 19% of positions in national parliaments.

Second, there is suspicion from feminists, and from some women and women’s groups about working with men. (Not to mention the scepticism from some women and men about the value of gender work at all in our ‘post-feminist’ era). They question men’s motives. And they feel that the debate is hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women. They are right.”

(emphasis added)

How many falsehoods, lies and misinformation did you spot?


Ok so – you may be wondering why I haven’t torn into Ian Hughes actual article.

Good question. As soon as I saw the title and the sub-heading of his article

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

I had two thoughts – first, this is going to be shit and I’m going to want to kick something (ouch by the way) and second – I wonder which feminazi is pulling his strings?

The reason for the second thought is simple – it is patently obvious that brand feminism is toxic and getting more so day by day – and what do women (feminists) do when they are failing to achieve their goals through their own efforts?

They rope a man in, wind him up like one of those monkeys with a drum and push the poor sod out into the firing line.

It isn’t so much violence by proxy, but propaganda by proxy – you see feminism depends on male acquiescence in sufficient numbers for its very survival. Seriously.

It also depends on male guilt for all those supposed aeons of “oppression” and a continuance of assuaging that guilt by lots and lots of compliant………………………FUNDING!

Feminists neeeeeeeeeeed other men to whip all those non compliant men back into line – they have realised that the shrieking nagging bitter old harpies of feminism are waaaaaaaaaaaaaayy past their sell by date and that the “youngsters” of this supposed new wave of feminists are quite simply vacuous morons – ergo – feminism needs compliant men to lay some man guilt on the boys!

Eeeeeemmmmm, good luck with that!

Van Der Gaag actually makes a valid point – there are approx only about 19% ish of politicians who are female – but she, like all feminists misses the point.

First – that’s because women are less interested in pursuing political careers and second – so bloody what!

Lastly – as feminism and its never ending demands, whining and caterwauling reaches that point where it is definitely getting on everybody’s last nerve – one lives in hope that sanity, reality and commonsense starts to prevail and “being female” is as about as relevant as being tall, or short, or having blue eyes or red hair.


Apparently (according to Ian Hughes) – The Republic of Ireland is awash with the bodies of battered, murdered and assaulted women – in fact Irish women have allegedly been at the receiving end of unrelenting violence and assault in this State for decades, eons – forever.

Except this is not true – in fact it is an outright lie – a fabrication – a fraud – complete and utter horseshit.

Let’s start with murder – Homicide – the ultimate act of violence. Link Here, the first thing to state is that Ireland has one of the lowest rates of Homicide in the world.

“During the study period there was a total of 205 incidents resulting in the death of 214 victims. The average population of the State during this period was 3,575,900 and this gives an average homicide rate for the five years of 1.2 per 105 per year.”


That’s 1.2 persons out of every 10,0000 – that’s 0.0012%

Depending on which feminist you can bear to listen to, or read, its either 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 – so what would the actual numbers of those “percentages” be? based on the female population of The Republic of Ireland.

20% (1 in 5) would be 715,180           

25% (1 in 4) would be 893,975          

But the ACTUAL average rate of 0.0012% would be………………43

Can you spot the astronomical difference between the actual average of 43 and the feminist “percentage” of 715,180? Hard to spot, isn’t it? Those two numbers are sooooooooooooooooo close!


But – let’s be fair – (an unknown concept for feminists) and let them have one of their “statistics” and calculate a rate of “two women a week murdered”

That would add up to 102 women a year out of an average female population of 1,808,083

102 (102.1567)            women murdered per year would represent 0.0057% of the average female population of The Republic of Ireland.

The actual average number of female victims of Homicide yearly in the Republic of Ireland is – 10. This works out at less than one per month.

The average numbers of male victims of Homicide in The Republic of Ireland yearly is – 32.

For the hard of thinking (feminists) three times as many males are victims of Homicide in the Republic of Ireland than females.

Yet – not only do feminists go into hysterical paroxysms over female Homicides while ignoring the three times as many male Homicides – the mainstream media follows suit and peddles this toxic feminist shoite that a female life is not only worth more than a male life – but even when a female does kill – she is given a pass – see below.

The most prolific and poisonous of all misinformation (outright lies) agents is womensaid – and this is what they claim on their website:


“Since 1996, there have been 204 women murdered in the Republic of Ireland. 127 women (62%) were killed in their own homes. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


During this same period 1,061 men were murdered in The Republic of Ireland.


“In the resolved cases 78 women (53%) were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


During the period 1994 – 2005 out of a total of 205 Homicides – 46 male perpetrators killed a female and 20 female perpetrators killed 15 males and five females. The remaining homicides were of a male killing another male – usually in an unpremeditated incident precipitated by a quarrel and while intoxicated.


“Another 52 (35%) women were killed by someone they knew (e.g. brother, son, neighbour, acquaintance). Thus, a total of 130 women (89%) were killed by someone known to them. In all of the resolved cases, 99% of perpetrators were male and 1% was female. (Women’s Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2014)”


Naturally womensaid, and no doubt Ian Hughes won’t be mentioning this:


“In the present study female perpetrators killed a spouse in 7 (35%) cases, or a family member in 9 (45%) cases. In only a single case did a female perpetrator kill a stranger.

The corresponding figures for male perpetrators are the killing of a spouse in 18 (10.2%) cases, and family members in 25 (14.1%) cases. In 47 (26.6%) cases the victim of a male perpetrator was a stranger. “


(From Homicide in Ireland 1994 – 2005 – see link below)

Womensaid are doing the usual feminist two step – sleight of hand – or for the more pragmatic – outright lying by omission – creating a smokescreen of hysteria around the figures of female victims of homicide while ignoring not only the greater numbers of male victims of homicide but the fact of female killings of males, and other females.

Look at it this way – out of the total of 205 homicides between 1994 – 2005 – 51 females died as the result of unlawful killing – 46 were killed by a male and 5 were killed by a female – 10% of them were killed by females NOT 1% as stated by womensaid.

Having said all that – all unlawful deaths are a tragedy – ALL of them.

The only year where the Census and the Crime figures correlate is 2002, the female population in 2002 was 492,760, in that year 9 victims of homicide were female this represents 0.00183% of the total female population of The Republic of Ireland, 43 victims of Homicide were male.


What this means is that 99.9% of Irish women didn’t die and probably won’t die from being “unlawfully killed”.


For the total numbers of Homicides from 2006 – 2013 see here;

Between 1994 and 2005 there were 120 female victims of Homicide in The Republic of Ireland – during that same period there were 381 male victims of Homicide.

The average number of female victims of homicide over that 12 year period was 10 per year. If we take that average figure and calculate for the years 2006 to 2013 (8 years) we get another 80 female victims of Homicide. Then we add 80 to that figure of 120 and get 200 – which is pretty close to the figure of 204 cited by womensaid from 1996 – 2014.

Except they do not mention the 1,061 male victims of Homicide during that same period.

So over the course of the period 1994 – 2013

204 victims of Homicide were female

1,061 victims of Homicide were male.

Nor do they, or Ian Hughes expend one single solitary moment of concern or even sympathy for ANY male victim of unlawful killing.

But there’s more. From – HOMICIDE IN IRELAND 1992 – 1996 – Dr. Enda Dooley – Link Here.

“In 151 (73.7%) of the 205 cases the main victim was male while in the remaining 54 (26.3%) cases the victim was female. In 200 cases the gender of the perpetrator was known and in 180 cases (90.0%) the main perpetrator was male with a female perpetrator in the remaining 20 (10.0%) cases. Overall there has been little alteration in the male to female perpetrator ratio.

In 134 cases both victim and perpetrator were male while in 46 cases a male perpetrator killed a female victim. In the 20 cases where the perpetrator was female the victim was male in 15 cases and female in 5 cases.

As has been shown previously female perpetrators are significantly more likely to kill a spouse or family member compared to males.

In the present study female perpetrators killed a spouse in 7 (35%) cases, or a family member in 9 (45%) cases. In only a single case did a female perpetrator kill a stranger.

The corresponding figures for male perpetrators are the killing of a spouse in 18 (10.2%) cases, and family members in 25 (14.1%) cases. In 47 (26.6%) cases the victim of a male perpetrator was a stranger.

This difference (spouse or family members vs others) is highly significant (X2 = 24.2; p<0.00001).”

(emphasis added)

Male spouses are three times more likely to be killed by their female spouses than female spouses are to be killed by their male spouses.

In fact, this study goes on to say this:

“The present study has confirmed the finding previously that the ‘typical’ homicide in Ireland occurs late at night and involves the killing of a man in his thirties by another, somewhat younger, man. Frequently one or both parties will have been intoxicated and the incident will not have been premeditated.

In the majority of cases the victim and perpetrator were known to each other and the incident occurred in the context of an argument or quarrel. The majority of perpetrators co-operated with the subsequent investigation

In the small number of cases involving female perpetrators the victims were more likely to be related to the perpetrator and to be young.

Homicide remains overwhelmingly perpetrated by males on other males. In the small proportion of cases involving a female perpetrator the victim is much more likely to be a partner or family member.”

(emphasis added)

From this study it is patently clear that when women kill they overwhelmingly kill their spouses/partners, of the relatively small numbers of unlawful killings in the Republic of Ireland those by men are of other men during the course of a fight/quarrel/argument and it is generally unpremeditated – ie – manslaughter.


Figures extracted from: Here


There is one area where the female “rate” reaches 50% – getting away with murder!


“Similar to the previous study finding was that female perpetrators were significantly more likely to have a nolle prosecui entered. Of the 20 cases involving a female perpetrator 10 (50%) had a nolle prosecui entered compared to 19 of the 180 where the gender of the perpetrator was known to be male (X2=19.52; p<0.0001).”

Of those 20 cases were the perpetrator was female – 15 of those victims were male – five were female.


*Nolle Prosecui = Do Not Prosecute.


Let me put that in clear unequivocal terms – 50% (half) of female murderers “get away with it” and 10.55% (one tenth) of male perpetrators do.

Have you any idea how totally unbelievable it is that one half of a set of murderers are given a pass (nolle prosecui )

These people took someone’s life!

Except they’re not just people are they? They’re WOMEN!

Who do they kill? They kill their spouses/partners, their relatives…………………….and their children, and they have a fifty/fifty chance of getting away with it.


“The overall picture of the relatively small number of homicides which might be attributable to mental disorder is one of domestic tragedy. To a disproportionate degree these events involve close relatives, more likely involving a female perpetrator and a young victim and usually occur in a domestic setting.

There is often a well documented psychiatric history (though by no means necessarily any history of previous violent behaviour). Unlike the situation in ‘normal’ homicide acute intoxication is rarely a factor in these events.

The striking factor concerning this particular category is the high proportion of cases which are discontinued. Only four of the fifteen cases resulted in a court verdict. There were no convictions for Infanticide recorded during the study period (three of these cases involved the killing of a child under the age of one by his/her mother and so, potentially, would have been liable to this verdict, if it was raised).

Only two of these fifteen cases resulted in a psychiatric verdict (Unfit to Plead or Guilty but Insane). In all only three (1.5%) of the 205 cases in this study received a legal psychiatric disposal and this is a marked decrease from the proportion (5.1%) in the period 1972-91.”

(emphasis added)


By the way, for all those idiots who posted comments to the article in The Journal ignorantly declaring “it’s an excess of testosterone” blah blah blah. YOU. ARE. WRONG, on two counts – first for giving any credence to this garbage by Ian Hughes in the first place and secondly for spouting ignorant rubbish yourselves.

From: Testosterone does not induce aggression, study shows: Date: December 9, 2009

Source: University of Zurich


New scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior. A study with more than 120 experimental subjects has shown that the sexual hormone with the poor reputation can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one’s own status.”

And this:

Testosterone increases honesty, study suggests: Date: October 10, 2012

Source: University of Bonn


Testosterone is considered the most important male hormone, associated with aggression and posturing. Researchers have now been able to demonstrate that this sex hormone surprisingly also fosters social behavior. In play situations, subjects who had received testosterone clearly lied less frequently than individuals who had only received a placebo.”


Let’s go back to Hughes’ foundational premise that:

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

If this is true, then it is true for The Republic of Ireland – more women are killed by male violence than by cancer and traffic accidents “combined”– we’ll stick to those two – we don’t get much malaria here in the Republic of Ireland – and not much “war”.

But – if it is not true – then the platform upon which Ian Hughes has built his “argument” crumbles into dust.

These are the actual figures for female deaths from all forms of cancer, and road traffic accidents (RTA) and Homicide in the Republic of Ireland from 1997 – 2005

Year     Cancer RTA    Total 

1997    1636    122      1758    Female Homicides – 13

1998    3471    102      3573    Female Homicides – 9

1999    3430    111      3541    Female Homicides – 8

2000    3546    81        3627    Female Homicides – 10

2001    3559    82        3641    Female Homicides – 13

2002    3433    83        3516    Female Homicides – 9

2003    3593    78        3671    Female Homicides – 8

2004    3577    61        3638    Female Homicides – 6

2005    3664    80        3744    Female Homicides – 9


Central Statistics Office: Deaths Registered Provisional (Number) by Sex, Cause of Death and Quarter. Link here.

National Crime Council: Homicide Victims by Sex 1994 – 2005. Link Here.


 Res Ipsa Loquitr


It goes without saying that this kind of putrid garbage is par for the course from feminists – from a male person it is outrageous – in particular because Ian Hughes claims to be “scientific” I have news for you Ian – regurgitating feminist claptrap is NOT even close to being either scientific or factual – unless you consider pulling numbers and statistics out of your arse “scientific”

I rarely do this, but I demand that Ian Hughes correct the outrageous falsehoods and misinformation in his article and APOLOGISE to the vast majority of Irish men who do not, have not or ever will perpetrate violence of any kind against anyone and for peddling such egregious poisonous and fraudulent rubbish.

I will leave you with some advice Ian Hughes – I definitely wouldn’t turn your back on your new feminist pals – and just to be on the safe side – if I was you – I’d sleep with one eye open.

Happy New Year from the National Women’s Coven of Ireland!


It is actually hard to think of a dumber bunch of women than the ones faffing about in a twitter about utter rubbish than the women of the NWCI (National Women’s Council of Ireland) These sterling examples of Irish “womanhood” appear to exist in a rift of the time space continuum and are trapped somewhere in the mid seventies – when “women’s rights” was a thing – in Ireland – and the toxicity, fraud, bigotry, ignorance and stupidity of feminism was somewhere in the more enlightened future.

I read this article a couple of times and it was like being flung back decades, the rhetoric is the same, the blatant falsehoods peddled as “received wisdom” is the same – I swear, I was just waiting for the usual keywords to surface – intersectionality – patriarchy – male privilege blah blah blah – instead they went for that phrase so beloved of feminist “academics” and “women’s studies” graduates – ie – ignorant twats – “gender binary” ooooooooooooooooohhh my, aren’t we clever!

Usually we don’t hear much from the NWCI – they suck up public funds, keep their heads down, and bask in a warm and fuzzy glow inside about “representing” the views of Irish women and being the voice of Irish women – while collecting nice healthy pay checks paid out of government funds – sigh.

Hmmmmm, I’m female, and Irish – and my view is this – please for the love of God shut the hell up ye shower of ignorant parasitic twats.

Go away and knit something useful – like a gag.

Right – now that I have that off my chest – shall we rip this piece of crap article apart?

It’s called – Preventing domestic violence tops women’s 2015 wishlist – poll – link here

Naturally enough it appears in the Irish Whines – ooops did I say Whines – meant to say Times.

First thing to note is this – this poll was conducted among a miniscule number of respondents – online.

“In the lead-up to the New Year, NWCI conducted a poll among members asking them about their hopes for the Government’s priorities in 2015. The poll consisted of 10 issue-based questions. It was on social media over 10 days and received 600 responses.

“That the three most prominent issues were violence against women, abortion and affordable childcare was no big shock,” Ms O’Connor said.”

(emphasis added)

So, let’s just examine that a bit closer – this online poll was conducted “over Christmas” “on social media” a time when, to be blunt, the vast majority of Irish people are indulging in a lot of drinking, carousing and general “craic” that is, other than feminists – say, like Jessica Valenti who had a big ole fit of the screamies about NOT wrapping all the Christmas presents?

A time when your average man hating fembot is probably in misandry hyperdrive and positively marinating in manhate? What with all that jollity, rambunctiousness and present wrapping and giving going on. not to mention all the mistletoe hanging about. 

THAT’S when and where this “poll” was conducted? Link here.

“There were 575 responses in total, outlining what people want the government to prioritise for women in 2015. • 96% of respondents were women, 3% were men and 1% identified as outside the gender binary. • Over 60% of respondents were between 18 and 40. A further 30% were between the ages of 44 and 55.”

Who wants to bet that not only were the respondents dyed in the wool feminists – a minority of almost every single western population – but probably the most rancid of all feminists – being members of the NWCI being a big clue, and yet here in the paper of record of the Republic of Ireland amidst the usual bullshit fanfare that accompanies any breathless feminist “see, we told you – all men are bastards” we are supposed to believe that these 552 (96%) “women” are representative of the almost two million women in Ireland?

Over the course of the last 30 years or so – when I first became aware of, and dismissed “women’s rights” and feminism as the rantings of seriously disturbed wretches, I’ve seen some execrable and corrupt pieces of garbage masquerading as “surveys” and “research” and “polls” but this putrid piece of propaganda takes the biscuit – we have definitely hurtled back in time to the mid seventies!

Moving on – The second thing to note is the absolute bias of each and every question – see for yourself: “

1. Protect women from domestic and sexual violence 86%

2. Ensure access to safe and legal abortions 81%

3. Make childcare more accessible and affordable 73%

4. Protect women workers’ rights and ensure decent pay for women 71%

5. Ensure that the voices of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable women are being heard 70%

6. Ensure justice for victims of institutional abuse 66%

7. Provide greater work-life balance and opportunities to share care work more equally 62%

8. Increase the number of women in senior leadership positions in Ireland 60%

9. Ensure adequate pensions for all women 55%

10. Protect the health and welfare of asylum seekers by ending the direct provision system 64%

11. Significantly invest into training and education for young women 51.1%

12. Reform Irish political culture to make it more appealing to women 51%”

But that’s not the best bit – in order to justify peddling this outrageously biased “poll” by literally spoonfeeding people the “right answers” the NWCI offers as an explanation that “…it would have been too confusing to ask respondents to weight each of the twelve options.”

“The survey asked respondents to answer whether the above issues were ‘very important,’ ‘important’, ‘less important’ and ‘I don’t know’. • Due to the large number of options, it would have been too confusing to ask respondent to weight each of the twelve options. Due to the flexible nature of the poll questions, it was possible that respondents could rank all options as ‘very important.’ However, we can see from the results that there was a definite pattern in terms of what women want for 2015, with three issues polling more strongly than others”

(emphasis added)

By the way – you know what a really large percentage of a really really small number is? AN EVEN SMALLER NUMBER!

God forbid that the NWCI would trust Irish women to list the most important “issues” for themselves, without spoonfeeding from the hags at both the NWCI and at the Irish Whines.

Now, why would any sentient autonomous human being be a bit insulted at the idea they are incapable of listing a least three “issues” that they consider important? (without prompting)

Ah wait – I forgot – “women” are not sentient autonomous human beings – unless they are – and even then – it depends!

The article, and by extension the NWCI, nails its colours to the mast right from the get go with some of the biggest lies/frauds of feminism.

“Male violence is still an inescapable backdrop in the lives of one in five women in Ireland. Equally, the issue of safe and legal abortion is one which has affected hundreds of thousands of women since the Eighth Amendment was inserted into the Constitution in 1983 and was rarely out of the headlines last year, while the lack of affordable, accessible childcare is a massive barrier to women’s equal participation in the workforce.”

One in five – there it is again – that ubiquitous “statistic” or when used by feminists – a number we just pulled out of our arse/made up/invented/got from someone who read something by someone, once upon a time – and of course the piece de résistance the juxtaposition of the word “male” with “violence”.

From this article

“Why are there no refuges for male victims of domestic violence?”

I reproduce this excellent comment

“David Mortimer Jul 7 8:03 PM

Domestic Violence is a social issue, not a gender problem. It will never be reduced until both sides of the problem are acknowledged and addressed by those who claim to be concerned about it. The persistent claim that the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence are women is not supported by any impartial research, either in the UK or elsewhere.

The results of all gender-neutral studies of domestic violence in couple relationships, published to date, indicate that there is an almost equal numerical culpability between men and women. In spite of mounting evidence the issue of women’s violence has been discounted or ignored by the media, law enforcement agencies and the social services.

Furthermore, there is reason to be alarmed when our understanding of family violence, policy making and allocation of scarce resources has been significantly shaped without regard to an abundance of evidence showing that family violence as a social phenomenon is not gender-specific.

This clearly has important implications for research, education funding and social policy. The technique of collecting data from Women’s Aid type groups is misleading the public about domestic violence because they use surveys that show higher rates of men as aggressors based on National Crime Survey data or official law-enforcement records, but these studies are flawed methodologically because the samples are not representative and because men are less likely to lodge official victimisation reports.

Another problem with much of the domestic violence literature is that it is based on clinical populations, specifically battered women receiving shelter services or therapy. Data collected and conclusions drawn from those who seek shelter or therapy cannot be generalised to the broader population. Victims who seek services may differ significantly from the broader population, so the value of these studies lies primarily in spawning clinical prescriptions for treatment, not in describing or explaining domestic violence in general.

Studies of residents in shelters for battered women are sometimes cited to show that it is only their male partners who are violent. However, these studies rarely obtain or report information on assaults by women, and, when they do, they ask only about self-defence, precluding information on female initiated assaults.”

(emphasis added)

Every single point made by Mr. Mortimer is supported and confirmed by properly conducted research – absolutely reams and reams of research. Valid, verifiable provable, TRUTHFUL research.

Moving on:

“….Equally, the issue of safe and legal abortion is one which has affected hundreds of thousands of women since the Eighth Amendment was inserted into the Constitution in 1983…”

Hundreds of thousands of women…..”? the average number of women seeking abortions in the UK is approx 6,000 per year – from 1983 to the end of 2014 is 31 years – therefore we are talking about 186,000 approx – NOT hundreds of thousands.

I’ve already written about this topic – and my views have not changed – I do not subscribe to the notion that abortion is “a right” it is a choice – your choice – make it if you want – and unless it is a medical necessity/emergency then bloody well organise and pay for it yourself.

“Getting The Boat” – Abortion, Rape and Ireland”

Do I acknowledge your right to make that choice? Yep. But you won’t get a round of applause or a clap on the back from me – am not going to assuage your guilt/angst/discomfort whatever, by making you the star of your little psychodrama, or pander to your need to have every single thing you do met with absolute approval by “not judging” you – why should it matter anyway what anybody thinks of you?

It’s your choice isn’t it? – you live with it.

Just to be clear – I personally do not give a shit if you do or don’t have an abortion – as I said “your choice” but don’t play the poor fragile victim – you got pregnant – you don’t want to be pregnant – you got rid. Aligning yourself with women with genuine medical emergencies and/or non viable pregnancies is – in my opinion sick and twisted – would have more respect for someone who just honestly said – “I got an abortion because I don’t want to have a child” end of – none of this faux “oh my God I am a tragic victim and the whole bloody world needs to weep over my poor tragic ass” pffft.

Next up:

“……lack of affordable, accessible childcare is a massive barrier to women’s equal participation in the workforce….”

“Public spending on childcare in Ireland as a percentage of GDP is low and childcare costs are among the highest in Europe “averaging €800 to €1,000 a month for a full-time place,” Ms O’Connor said.”

“Equal participation in the workforce…..” oh pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuzeeee – right now in the Republic of Ireland there is massive unemployment, MALE unemployment – so how much more “equal” do these twats want women to be? As for the barrier that having children is, to this “equal participation in the workforce” – how about this? – it is YOUR responsibility to look after the children YOU CHOSE to have – or has that not occurred to any of you numbskulls?

Alternatively – don’t have any little “barriers” – there ya go – problem sorted.

At an average of €900.00 per month for “childcare” this works out at €10,800.00 per year – the rate of payment for a single unemployed person in Ireland is €188.00 per week or €9,776.00 per year.

So, these selfish avaricious hags believe that the government should step in and pay more than the equivalent that a single unemployed person (mostly young males) gets to live on, so that they can leave their children in crèches and nurseries all day and go do something useless and pointless instead of raising their own children – and they call this pursuing “a career” and get to feel all superior and “empowered” ppppppfft!

“The NWCI is calling on the Government to introduce a second free pre-school year and to make sure paternity leave is introduced “to send the message that fathers also have an important role to play when it comes to care.”

(emphasis added)

On the very last line of this piece of garbage we find the word “fathers” thrown is as an afterthought – note that it is almost reluctantly, grudgingly it is conceded that “fathers also have an important role to play when it comes to care.”

Is there any doubt that role is a supporting one – second string – if even that – after all when it comes to “important issues” in the parallel universe inhabited by the National Women’s Coven of Ireland – NWCI –  humanity consists of – women………………………..and others.

Does Jackie Jones Have Tourettes? Part 1


“Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics. The disorder is named for Dr. Georges Gilles de la Tourette, the pioneering French neurologist who in 1885 first described the condition in an 86-year-old French noblewoman.” [1]


It goes without saying, or it should, that whenever one of the Irish Times female “columnists” writes anything about so called “women’s issues” you are in for a screed of unadulterated rubbish, a toxic, biased, prejudiced and misrepresentative picture of……………..well…everything, but especially about men.

Not only that, but it’s usually interspersed with outright lies, deliberate fraud, and selectively dodgy “facts” and in Jones’ case an inability to articulate one thought at a time or write a sentence that makes any sense. It’s the “I’ll just throw out a bunch of random and disconnected whines then…..”

And no-one is more adept at this that Jacky Jones – in fact Jones is distinguished among her fellow female columnists because not only is she an idiot, she is obviously delusional and possibly suffering from some form of Tourettes. But it is the manner in which she literally vomits out random “issues” and perceived calumnies perpetrated against wimmin that makes me ask the question – Does Jackie Jones have Tourettes?

Second Opinion: Inequality, abuse and the cost of childcare preserve the marriage bar – Jacky Jones – link here.

The title of her piece says it all.

She uses three undifferentiated “issues” “Inequality” “Abuse” and “The Cost of Childcare” to protest against something that doesn’t exist – in Ireland – in the present day. It did – up till 1973, 41 years ago, and was a product of the times, but, let me repeat – that was 41 years ago. The “Marriage Bar” as it was known was introduced in 1932, and applied to married women employed by the State.

It was abandoned in 1973, so was in force for 41 years – years which included the period 1939 – 1945 – WWII. Years which also included the depression, recession, massive unemployment and massive emigration of the 1950’s and early 1960’s.

That’s the short version – the long version requires a look at Irish history – and when I say Irish history I mean our actual history – as a culture, not the pseudo history cited by feminists and usually wrapped up in some vague reference to “traditional gender roles” alluding to some equally vague period of history in some undefined place where “women were traditionally oppressed” but we’ll get to that in a moment.

With regard to Jones’ article – pppfft – it garnered four comments, two each from two male posters, succinct and spot on, in rightly dismissing the entire article as a piece of rubbish. I’ll take her article apart separately, but first I want to put a bit of historical fact on the table, and put some things into context so to speak.

Yes I know, I know, feminists are allergic to facts, they break out in rashes and have an uncontrollable urge to scream like banshees when facts rear their ugly heads – but – bummer.

Like all “women’s rights” windbags (like Jackie Jones) and/or Irish feminists they use things like the “Marriage Bar” as some kind of all encompassing justification upon which to shriek about “inequality” and other really really important “wimmins stuff” – Jones naturally enough fails to put that (the marriage bar) or anything else into historical or cultural context – particularly in relation to Ireland – which is rather unique among the nations of Europe for so many reasons.

But from her rather limited perspective, it’s a handy little device upon which to manufacture some suitably artificial outrage and beat the feminist drum with, or the “wimmins’s rights” drum or just have a whine about……………

“I’m unhappy about something, I’m a woman, therefore ALL women are unhappy about… whatever it is…..and its men’s fault. I know fuck all about anything, but as long as I throw in the words, abuse, inequality, violence, blah blah blah, then I’m right, because I’m a woman, and all men are bastards”

I think that about sums up the basic premise upon which all feminists and “women’s rights” windbags ground their “arguments” on.

Anyhoo – I have no qualms about stating that – yep – the Marriage Bar existed, on its face it was discriminatory towards married women – but – it had sod all to do with patriarchy or some patriarchal conspiracy against women – and more to do with the actual economic. social and cultural realities of the times.

Let’s start with the history – and in relation to Ireland where it all started to go wrong.

“The 1922 Free State Constitution granted women over the age of twenty one the parliamentary franchise and so gave Irish women the same rights of political citizenship as men, the right to vote. All citizens were guaranteed equal religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities, regardless of their gender.[11] Under the terms of the new Constitution the future for women in the Irish state looked bright.

The parliamentary franchise had been extended to women on equal terms with men, six years before women in Britain could claim such a victory.[12] The Constitution also guaranteed the equal rights of men and women “without distinction of sex” which, it was hoped, would prevent further discrimination against women. It is not surprising, therefore, that feminist activists were optimistic about the future of Irishwomen. Esther Roper, in a letter to Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, expressed her hopes for women in the Irish Free State.

My noteup until that point Ireland was not an independant sovereign nation and had not been for several hundred years (a discussion for another time)

She wrote that “never had there been such a firm foundation of justice and freedom guaranteed by any country of its women citizens”.[13]Within a few short years, however, the promise of equal citizenship for women in the Irish Free State had been dashed. The first government of the Irish Free State, Cumann na nGaedheal, led by William Cosgrave, introduced a number of measures during the 1920s which were to have serious repercussions on the right of women to equal citizenship. These policy decisions reflected the growing influence of Catholic teaching on Irish social legislation. As early as 1925, the influence of the Church on Irish legislators was becoming clear.” [2]

What is worth pointing out here are two things – the largest numbers of advocates and supporters of distinctly Catholic inspired social policies were and still are women.

Secondly, at that time, and even right up until the present day Ireland has never been an industrialised country. This is important to bear in mind when discussing “employment” in Ireland and in particular female employment. The industrial revolution passed us by more or less in the sense that we had, and have no major heavy industry, this had and has had a major influence on the structure of Irish society.

“Ireland has changed from being a predominantly rural country to a more urbanised one during the course of the last 50 years. The 1946 population could be characterised as mainly rural with over 60% of persons living either in the countryside or in smaller towns and villages with a population of less than 1,500 persons.

In contrast, over 58% of the population lived in urban areas in 1996, as revealed by the most recent census. In the 50-year period 1946 to 1996, Leinster’s population has grown from 1.3 million to over 1.9 million. The increase in population in the Munster area was far less pronounced (from 900,000 to just over 1 million).” [3]

But, up till 1996, 42% of the population lived in rural areas – compared to the rest of the western urbanised world that’s rather unique.

It has been said that what we excel at producing and exporting is our own people.

Let’s put that into context – Jones attempts to imply that married women or women in general are or were kept out of the workforce, though, with how she has conflated all sorts of disparate “issues” and bounced around like a jack rabbit on speed from one “issue” to another it’s like trying to nail jelly to a wall – but from her title she has used the “marriage bar” as some kind of symbol to infer that………married women are especially discriminated today just as they always have been? Or something like that.

“Society should be structured in such a way that women can easily combine children and a career. The egg-freezing stunt shows that their right to have children and a full-time job is just not taken seriously.” [4]

Right. Is there some part of Ireland has been a predominately rural country with little industrialisation for most of its history, that people like Jones don’t get? The vast majority of people lived on small family farms, and any jobs available that were not related to farming or to the small mining industries were in the Civil Service or in State paid occupations, like teaching or nursing?

The other thing worth noting is our falling population – it reached its lowest point in 1961 – we’ll get to that later.

While not the smallest country in the world or the least densely populated there are less people in the entire country than they are in some cities – so where the ever loving fuck are all these high-powered “career women” supposed to work? Doing what? Teaching pilates to sheep?

People didn’t have “careers” they had jobs – they worked – if they could – to earn money to live on – to feed their families.

Until the 1990’s we had neither the funds or the inclination to “make up jobs”, or “create jobs” so that women could have “careers” – people were employed when there was actually something for them to do, when there was an actual need to employ someone to do…………………….whatever.

What is worth noting here is that the biggest employer of women in this State – is the State.

Ok – let’s have a look at more recent data in relation to male/female employment in Ireland, shall we?

“Occupations: There were 851,300 women and 970,000 men employed in Ireland in 2011. Nearly a quarter of women (23.7%) in employment were in professional occupations and just over a fifth (20.9%) in administrative and secretarial occupations. Nearly a quarter of men (24.7%) in employment in 2011 were in skilled trades occupations while 15% were employed in professional occupations (Table 2.7).

Economic sectors: The Education and Health sectors employed the highest proportions of women in 2010 with women accounting for more than 4 out of 5 people at work in the Health sector and nearly three quarters of those in Education.

The sectors with the highest proportions of men in 2010 were Construction, Agriculture and Transport. In primary education, 85% of teachers are women. And in second-level education, 63% of teachers are women. Despite this, women are not well represented at senior level positions: only 36% of medical and dental consultants are women, 53% of primary school managers, and 41% of second-level school managers (Tables 2.8, 4.6, 4.8 and 5.14).” – [5]

Apart from the reference to women not being well represented at senior level positions can you see what I see? The vast majority of women are employed in cushy pensionable State jobs – and the vast majority of men are employed in exactly the kinds of occupations that are vulnerable in times of economic recession.

As for the “only 36% of medical and dental consultants are women” nobody says it better than angryharry [6] – except to add that becoming a consultant requires 100% dedication and commitment and this extract– from an article in the Irish Medical Journal press release, whining about discrimination against female doctors says it all.

“They propose a possible solution “The majority of interviewees saw that more job sharing and part time work as the mechanism to retain women and some noted that flexible work practices would benefit both genders in medicine.” All of the childless and single women interviewed were satisfied with their work life balance.

The majority of mothers (17/21) were dissatisfied and felt expectations of them were unrealistic and colleagues assumed they should just make the necessary commitments. Sacrifices were made by all mothers to deliver at work and their children were considered to have suffered. Older mothers expressed bitter regrets and three had dissuaded their daughters from pursuing a career in hospital medicine.” [7]

Ah well – part-time consultants? That’s what we need to inspire patient confidence – someone in whose hands we are being asked to put our health and in some cases lives into, showing up – part-time. Being totally focused and committed on the job apparently is characterised as “expectations of them were unrealistic and colleagues assumed they should just make the necessary commitments”

As for the other percentages – need I point out that higher level managerial positions require increased responsibilities and accountability – and women especially are not noted for either being willing to assume extra responsibilities or more particularly, being accountable – for anything they do. The percentages are just fine – in fact in one instance they are 53% female primary school managers – ergo more women than men – but no-one is screaming about men being discriminated against – are they?

I wasn’t even going to bother with the “gender pay gap” rubbish except for this:

Employment: The employment rate for men in Ireland stood at about 75% over recent years, but in 2009 it plummeted to 67.3%, decreased sharply in 2010 to 64.5% and dropped again to 63.3% in 2011.

The EU target rate for women in employment is 60% by 2010, a target that was met by Ireland in 2007 and 2008, but not in 2009, 2010 or 2011, when the rate had fallen to 56%. In 2011 46.7% of those in employment were women.

Men worked an average of 39.4 hours a week in 2011 compared with 30.6 for women and married men worked longer hours than married women, with nearly half (44.5%) of married men working for 40 hours or more a week compared with only 14.7% of married women (Tables 2.1, 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10).” [8]

Sooooooooooo, men work on average 8.8 hours more per week than women.

44.4% of married men work 40 or more hours per week compared to

14.7% of married women.

And yet according to Jones’ one of the burning issues apparently is this.

“Women still do five hours of unpaid work every day compared with men’s two hours.” [9]

Maybe because they’re at bloody work, if they’re lucky enough to have a job – and if they’re really lucky, a job paid for by the State?

“The long-term unemployment rate (unemployed for one year or more) for Irish men was stable between 2001 and 2008, at about 2% or just below, but increased in 2009 to 3.6%, rose sharply in 2010 to 8.1% and increased again to 10.4% in 2011.

The long-term unemployment rate for Irish women was less than 1% between 2001 and 2008 before rising over the last three years to stand at 4.5% in 2011.” [10]

I don’t know, is it just me or do those figures look pretty shit for Irish men? What with more than twice as many men consistently unemployed as women.

Having said that, let’s just take a moment to reflect on what the core message of feminism is – that historically for millennia; “all women have been oppressed by all men”. There’s a lot of hoo hah about “traditional gender roles” spouted by present day Irish feminists without actually pointing out the historical basis for these presumably oppressive “traditions” or where they came from.

I read it all the time on feminist articles/blogs etc and it’s all grounded in a particular cultural paradigm – chivalry – dashing white knights and fair maidens – where men were lords and masters of all they surveyed and women were……………….supposed to be grateful. Lots of other tosh about women being chattels and to all intents and purposes enslaved by nasty patriarchal men.

I cannot recommend highly enough Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins for a thorough and comprehensive analysis of not just the historical reality of women’s lives but for how feminism is merely an offshoot of cultural gynocentrism.

All very well and good you might say – but what has that got to do Ireland and in particular the legitimacy of Irish feminism – bearing in mind that Irish feminists are singing  the same “all women are and were oppressed by all men for millennia” tune?.


Irish feminists are grounding their claims in an alleged history of oppression that didn’t exist – in Ireland – in fact has never existed anywhere – but in particular not in Ireland.

But they’re like those wind up toys – ever since the first hairy arm pitted lesbian man-hating nutjob with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, started screaming about oppression, one hint that women might be inconvenienced and they’re off – “oppression, oppression, discrimination, abuse, violence, wah wah wah wah” they made up this “history” – literally invented history and started screeching – only one tiny flaw in all of it though – it’s all bullshit.

You see our history, our culture, is starkly different from the European history that informed and was transplanted via colonialism to the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and any other place that can trace its history back to the one common source – England.

All that lords and ladies, chivalry, knights in shining armour stuff? All that trapped in the kitchen in the 1950’s crap. Nope – didn’t happen in Ireland – our culture was unique, distinct, and has no comparison to any other civilisation or culture in the western world. We lived under a system of laws called the Brehon law – which was egalitarian and based on the concept of equality of men and women – traced back to around the Iron Age and managed to stay as the law of the land till around the 17th century.

“The laws are significant because they shed light on the complex sophisticated society of early Ireland that the laws reflect,” she says.

“The laws reveal a culture in which modern concepts such as equity, social mobility, negligence, unbiased witnesses and fair and open process of law and women’s rights were developed.”

 Brehon Law was generally operational in Gaelic areas until the completion of the English conquest of Ireland in the early 17th century. They were first set down on parchment in the seventh century and were named after wanderings lawyers the Brehons.
By the time of Elizabeth I, the Brehon Laws were considered to be old, lewd, and unreasonable. They were banned and English common law was introduced. [11]

So, there you have it – whatever historical oppression that feminists are talking about in some vague ill-defined time and place – that time and place wasn’t Ireland.

Our history from the 17th century to the early 20th century is well known – no need to go into it here. We emerged from that in 1922 as The Irish Free State – and enacted our first Constitution 1922 [12] – the one referred to in the first extract.

It was replaced 15 years later by our current Constitution 1937 [13] Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 – and we became The Republic of Ireland in 1948.

So that’s grand – except – our society had changed – apart the ongoing misery and deprivation, we were now Holy Catholic Ireland – and again – that history is well known. Between the 17th Century and the early 20th century the Catholic Church had tightened its hold on Irish Society.

The reality of people’s lives was harsh.

“During World War II (or The Emergency as the war was called in Ireland), ordinary life was severely affected. There was widespread rationing, covering butter, margarine, bread, tea, flour, clothes, coal, firewood, gas and matches.
There was a shortage of fuel for cooking and heating. As the war wore on, private motoring ceased to exist and horse-drawn vehicles were brought back into service. The hardship continued for some years after the war. In 1949, life began to return to normal and most rationing ceased. But normal life in 1949 was very different from what it is today.

The risk of death from tuberculosis and other infectious diseases was high. Very few people had telephones or cars. The radio was widespread, though the television had yet to be seen. Society was, by current standards, very conservative.

Censorship was severe—George Orwell’s 1984 was banned in 1949. There was little cohabitation, and births outside marriage were rare. Women, when they married, usually ceased working outside the home. We were a still a mainly rural society: only two-fifths of the population lived in towns of over 1,500.” [14]

From the extracts above you can see that between 1926 and 1946 we are talking about a society that was mostly rural, one where marriage was not always on the cards, and where women who worked in the tiny State bureaucracy were expected to stand aside in favour of either single women, or married men.

Irish society was centred around family, and part of the reason for this marriage bar was economic – to protect male employment and ensure a family income. The notion that a married woman would continue to work if she was married to a man who was working, and be in receipt of two wages was considered selfish, in a society were jobs were hard to come by, life was harsh, and generally shit. State jobs were good jobs, pensionable jobs, highly sought after.

“Under the Fianna Fail administration, the right of women to work outside the home was once again under threat. A public service marriage bar was introduced in 1932 which prevented women teachers, and later female civil servants, working after marriage. Mary Kettle, chairman of the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, was outspoken in her opposition to the marriage bar. She claimed that women in the civil service “from their entry until they reach the ages of 45 or 50 are looked on as if they are loitering with intent to commit a felony – the felony in this case being marriage”.[57]

Despite the objections raised by organisations such as the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, it was not until 1972 that the public service marriage bar was finally removed. The 1936 Conditions of Employment Act was the most serious attack on the right of women citizens to work outside the home. Section 16 of the Act gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce the power to control and restrict the number of women working in any given industry. In an effort to alleviate male unemployment, the government was willing to restrict the employment opportunities of women. The Irish Women’s Workers Union[58] campaigned against the new legislation but failed to have the offending clause removed.[59]

Opinions regarding the employment of women were mixed within the Trade Union Movement. Women working in industry faced long hours and low rates of pay. As a result, the employment of women was thought to jeopardize not only men’s jobs but the family wage traditionally earned by men. Even Louie Bennett, President of the Irish Women Workers’ Union, had her doubts about the recruitment of women into the workforce. She suggested in 1932 that the employment of women in industry had “not raised their status as workers nor their wage standards … it is a menace to family life in so far as it has blocked the employment of men”.[60]” – [15]

What this does not make clear is that the marriage bar applied to State jobs, Civil Service jobs – not private sector jobs.

Let’s take a pause here and consider that concept – family wage – Ireland is a distinctly family orientated culture – both for men and women – people, when they did get married – got married with a view to starting families – for most of our history since independence the economy has been shaky to say the least – but – people still wanted to get married and start families.

Rightly or wrongly the marriage bar was an attempt to ensure that there was at least a fair distribution of what were relatively scarce resources – such as jobs – jobs that could provide a decent income for as many people as possible. The kinds of jobs available were limited – farming, teaching, nursing, a bit of tourism, a bit of mining, some light industry. Up until the late 1980’s early 1990’s “careers” were some ridiculous concept that had no basis in reality for the vast majority of people. You got a job, you worked to put bread on the table. End of.


“Fifty years ago, statisticians did not have computers at their disposal. Graphs* such as these, which appeared in The Trend of Employment and Unemployment in 1951, were drawn by hand. They portrayed the likely future experience of 1,000 males and females aged 14 in 1946, up to the age of 50, using the latest data then available on emigration, marriage, mortality and the labour force. In a sense, this was a precursor to the CSO’s subsequent population and labour force projections.

There were earlier forecasts. In 1935, R C Geary (who was to become the first Director of the CSO in 1949) predicted, in a paper entitled The Future Population of Saorstát Éireann and Some Observations on Population Statistics (in the Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol. XV, 1934-1935) that the population of Ireland was “unlikely to exceed 3,700,000 during the next 80 years”.

His prediction for the total figure held true for the following 63 years, and only in 1998 did the population increase to over 3.7 million. The graphs in the 1951 Trend illustrated how things would turn out over the next 36 years if current patterns continued. So, what story did these graphs tell? How well did the forecasts turn out?

The graphs reflected some harsh realities of the times. Mortality was higher (and life expectancy shorter) in the 1950s.

Only 90% of the imaginary cohort were expected to live beyond the age of 50, whereas today about 95% of boys and 97% of girls aged 14 can expect to reach at least their 50th birthday. Life expectancy for children born in 1996, at around 73 years for boys and almost 79 years for girls, was a considerable improvement on the 1950s. Indeed, with the continuing advances in medical science, today’s young people can look forward on average to even greater longevity.


As many as 30% of males and 40% of females were expected to emigrate, most before the age of 30. The men and women who remained would have very different lifetime experience of the labour force. The majority of men were expected to be gainfully occupied. However, a much lower percentage of women would remain in the labour force after their early 30s. The career options available to women were fewer and, in general, women left their jobs when they married. The label “not gainfully occupied”, which applied to those women who married and became homemakers, looks quaint today!” [16]


What we are talking about here is a period of some 92 years, from 1922 to the present day – the first 50 years of our Independence were dire – poverty, recession, high unemployment, massive immigration, stagnant economy, high mortality rates, a totally repressed, insular and depressing place – it was shit – and it was shit for everybody – men women and children.


“To gain a fuller appreciation of recent population trends, it is necessary to view them over a longer period. As the graph shows, the population of the area comprising the Republic of Ireland was over 6.5 million in 1841. The deaths caused by the famine of 1846/47 as well as the large-scale emigration that followed in its wake and which continued through the second half of the 19th century resulted in a halving of the population by 1901.


Further declines, albeit more modest compared with earlier periods, followed between 1901 and 1926. The population then stabilised at around 2.9 million for the next quarter of a century, before falling to a historical low point of 2.8 million in 1961. Apart from the slight decline experienced between 1986 and 1991, the direction of population change has since been firmly upward. The change in population between two periods is due to changes in the number of births and deaths as well as the difference between inward and outward migration.

The table shows each of these components of population change on an annual average basis for each of the intercensal periods since 1946. In the earlier part of the period, net outward migration exceeded the natural increase in the population (births less deaths), resulting in the population declining to its 1961 low point. The main factor causing this fall was the high emigration that occurred during the 1950s. [16]


Again – let me put that into context – in the year 1841 the population of Ireland was 6.5 million – 120 years later it reached its lowest point in 1961 of 2.8 million – and it’s not like we weren’t having babies – we were – for export – millions of people emigrated. Left. Vamoosed. Skedaddled.

“Births began to increase in the 1970s to reach a peak of 74,000 in 1980. During the same period migration turned from outward to inward with the result that the population grew by 465,000 in the ten-year period from 1971 to 1981. Net outward migration strengthened during the eighties and this resulted in a slight decline in overall population levels between 1986 and 1991. However, since then the fall in outward migration has given rise once more to population growth.” [17]

What’s the point of all this? Well, the population of Ireland has only risen very slowly since the high point of 1841 – when it was 6.5 million – 170 years have passed since then – and the population has still not reached that high point of 6.5 million. In 1950 the number of births were 63,565, 56 years later in 2006 it was 65,425. [18] The increase of the last 10 years can be attributed to a combination of inward migration and low immigration – but those trends are being reversed – emigration is once more a feature of Irish life and many of those who immigrated into Ireland are leaving or have left.

We are once more economically up shit creek without a paddle, we have a housing crisis, we have a health service in shambles, we have people living in poverty on the streets, we have an epidemic of male suicide, we have children on years long waiting lists for surgery and treatment, we have every bloody social ill you can name – and we have people like Jackie Jones whining like this.

“Society should be structured in such a way that women can easily combine children and a career. The egg-freezing stunt shows that their right to have children and a full-time job is just not taken seriously.” [19]

Women’s “……right to have children and a full-time job is just not taken seriously” yep – you read that right – not just a job – a full-time job – and not even a full-time job – a career – because you see, even though there was grumbling about the marriage bar at the time – people were much less selfish and self-absorbed then – people didn’t demand “careers” useless made up pointless occupations to make them feel important or massage their over-developed egos, most people were grateful to have a bloody job – to be able to earn enough money to feed their families – or to be able to stay in their country and not have leave.
She also has a whine about;

“Full-time childcare for two children costs about the same as a medium-sized mortgage, or about €1,200 every month. Women in Ireland will never be equal until we have affordable childcare funded by the taxpayer.” [20]


By taxpayers I presume she doesn’t mean the thousands of people who leave and have left this country since the foundation of this State? Just the poor sods who are left.

€1,200 every month – paid for by Irish taxpayers – that’s €14,400 per year – do you know what the rate of payment is for a single man on Jobseekers Allowance? [21]

Its €188.00 per week, that’s €9,776.00 per year, or to make the comparison €814.66 per month – that’s to live on – to buy food, clothes, pay for heat – everything – out of that, even if you are granted Rent Supplement you still have to pay €30.00 per week for rent – that takes approx €130.00 out of your monthly payment of €814.66, leaving you with a massive €684.66 per month to live on.

From approx Oct to the end of March you get an extra €20.00 per week payment called Fuel allowance – works out at about an extra €500.00 per year – bringing your yearly total up to €10,276.00 or €856.33 per month.

So, according to Jackie Jones – women are entitled – ENTITLED – to have up to €1,200.00 in childcare costs paid by the taxpayers of this State so they can have the “careers” that they are ENTITLED to.

There would of course be those with hearts of gold who might suggest condescendingly that men should just get off their arses and get a job. Ever heard a phrase called “the working poor”?

“Poverty: The proportion of men at risk of poverty in 2010, after pensions and social transfers, was 15%, just above the rate of 14% for women. At risk of poverty rates were considerably lower for those in employment, at 10% for men and 5% for women (Table 3.6).” [22]

You might find yourself wondering why is the risk of poverty twice as high for men in employment than for women? It’s odd isn’t it?

Ah, but you see, here’s something that Jackie and her fellow harpies won’t mention;

298,000 men in employment are separated/divorce in comparison to 473,000 women separated/divorced and you can bet your bottom dollar that a large number of those separated/divorced women are not only claiming OPFP (One Parent Family Payment – which they can do even if they have jobs, and are also demanding and receiving maintenance/child support from a large number of those 298,000 separated/divorced men.


Makes sense now, doesn’t it? Why a man with a job would be at twice much risk of poverty as a woman with a job – I would posit that the woman with a job at risk of poverty has no poor bastard of a man to leech off – but – having said that – I can also guarantee that the 5% of women at risk of poverty will evince all sorts of hand wringing and outrage – while the 10% of men will be…………………….ignored.

Over the lifetime of this State – poverty, economic instability, unemployment, and vulnerability to unemployment have almost all been borne by Irish men – the burden of providing for and being responsible for women and children has also rested on Irish men – this was a responsibility that men themselves accepted for themselves and women expected them to shoulder – not hoped that they would but EXPECTED them to.

While this little trip down memory lane has been relatively brief, what it has shown is that albeit there was some grumbling about the marriage bar – there was a reluctance to “push it” because of the dire economic circumstances that prevailed, the cultural and societal norms that existed at that time – a society of families – a predominately rural culture – with the only guaranteed jobs being State jobs – everyone else was on their own.

Fast forward 80 some years – and the gloves are off – once again we are up shit creek without a paddle – and Jackie Jones believes that women are ENTITLED to a payment of €1,200 per month – a sum that is €344.00 MORE than a single unemployed person – the vast majority of whom are men – is granted to live on – paid by Irish taxpayers – so that women can pursue the “careers” they “have a right to”

You know – I can actually see the point of that marriage bar – and am quite impressed that some of the women’s groups at the time could see and acknowledge the big picture – the economic and cultural realities – and yeah – the attitude to women was patronising and condescending and would probably get on my nerves as well – but – as the Report says in its title.


That was then, this is now.



[1] Tourette Syndrome Fact Sheet
[2] Women, Citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish Free State, 1922-1948; CAITRIONA BEAUMONT; University of Glasgow, United Kingdom pp – 535
[3] That was then, This is now; Change in Ireland, 1949-1999 – Changing Population Structure; Aidan Punch, Catherine Finneran pp 14 – 15
[4] Second Opinion: Inequality, abuse and the cost of childcare preserve the marriage bar – Jacky Jones –
[5] From: Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 11
[6] angryharry
[7] Irish Medical Journal Press Release
[8] From: Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 10
[9] Second Opinion: Inequality, abuse and the cost of childcare preserve the marriage bar – Jacky Jones –
[10] Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 24
[12] Constitution of the Irish Free State 1922
[13] Constitution of the Republic of Ireland
[14] That was then, This is now; Change in Ireland, 1949-1999; Introduction – pp – 5
[15] Women, Citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish Free State, 1922-1948; CAITRIONA BEAUMONT; University of Glasgow, United Kingdom pp – 573
[16] That was then, This is now; Change in Ireland, 1949-1999;
Changing Population Structure; Aidan Punch, Catherine Finneran pp – 13

[17] ibid
[20] ibid
[21] JSA – Rates of Payment
[22] Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 11

Happy Fathers’ Day “Da”


Yesterday was Fathers’ Day here in Ireland, as it was in many other countries – I didn’t know that, my own father died when I 16 years, I am now 52 years old.

I don’t actually recall ever “celebrating” Fathers Day, but I do remember my father, I remember how he taught me to play chess, how he taught me to think, to question, to challenge ideas and assumptions.

I remember he was always there, I remember his love of books and reading and I remember many other things. Were there conflicts? Oh yes – if there was one thing I definitely inherited from my father it was a determination to “stand my ground” to fight for what I believed in, to refuse to be swayed by “popular” opinion.

THATS what I inherited from father – and for that I will always be grateful, always honour his memory and always remember that I am who I am because of my parents, both my mother and my father.

I know who I am because I knew and had my parents in my life, both of them, my father for such a short time. To this very day I know without a shadow of a doubt that my father would be 100% standing beside me in this path I have taken, I know he would be enraged and incensed at the injustices and the calumnies visited upon many many fathers today.

I am one of the lucky ones, I had my father in my life, and at a time when the vile ideology of feminism was struggling to take root here in Ireland.

This also I know – he had no time for “women’s libbers” as they were called way back when, nor did my mother for that matter. That would have been the general consensus of opinion when I was growing up, these women we saw on the news, ranting and raving and talking shoite were middle class, privileged fools with nothing better to do with their time than make fools of themselves, talking out their arses.

I did ask him once “what does women’s lib mean”? I was about 11 or 12 years old.

His answer – “you don’t need to be liberated, you are already free”

In fact, at the time I grew up, in the 1960’s and 1970’s all those men like my father, my uncles, my friends fathers would have been according to feminist ideology part of “the patriarchy” that vast global conspiracy of all men oppressing all women – everywhere.

These men, all these men worked, some like my father worked themselves to death FOR their families, morning, noon and night, for shit wages, in shit conditions, barely surviving from one week to another. They worked because they had no choice, they worked because they had responsibilities, they worked because THAT was what you did. If you were a man in Ireland, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. You worked or you starved, and your family starved, your children starved.

My father also did something else, he became involved in politics, he started to fight back against the real oppression, the real issues, the real injustices – and he didn’t do it because he wanted power – he did it because he couldn’t do anything else, because all around him he saw that injustice, he saw that oppression and it was visited upon everybody.

So, when I hear ignorant, ill-informed and snivelling feminists whine about “the patriarchy” about “oppression” and all the other shoite that spews out of the mouths and keyboards of these morons – I know – you are all talking out of your arses – that’s my father you’re talking about, my uncles, my friends fathers, and you are full of shit.

So, it was that I came to read this article, “Lack of justice for fathers one of biggest scandals of our time” by Lorraine Courtney Published 16/06/2014 [1]

I was pointed to it by Joe Egan of:

Fathers Rights Ireland [2]

Platform for European Fathers (PEF) [3]

See also facebook. [4]

While I welcome the main thrust of the article, several things made me grit my teeth in frustration, and I was almost tempted to decline Joe’s request to reblog or repost it. But then I realised – baby, bathwater.

Ms. Courtney makes some valid points, most notably in her opening paragraph.

“Friday Fathers’ Rights Ireland held a public stunt outside the Four Courts where they used a medieval pillory to symbolise the legal torture dads can be put through when relationships with their children’s mother turn sour. Here in Ireland, a father needs to be married in order to get automatic guardianship of his children. When a couple isn’t married, the mother remains the sole legal guardian until the father looks for guardianship.”

Torture is a good word to use, because that is what happens, legalised torture – of men – of fathers – what she fails to mention here is the toxic influence of feminism that has deliberately and purposely created both the circumstances and the attitudes that allow this torture to prevail. I object completely to the use of the word “stunt” a legitimate protest is NOT a “stunt”

“However, if the mother objects to this, the father must apply to his local district court to be made a guardian.It’s an all too common scenario now since 33pc of all children born in Ireland are to unmarried parents.Married men are entitled to guardianship of their kids but this can all change horribly when marriages fall apart.A father might believe he has rights but then can find that he’s expendable and faced with a horrendous and expensive legal battle on separation. A father has to fight bitterly to get what is automatically awarded to mothers.”

Her next paragraph touches on something pertinent – she says “A father might believe he has rights but then can find that he’s expendable and faced with a horrendous and expensive legal battle on separation

Actually a father does have rights – a married father that is – that is not the issue – the issue is that those rights are almost casually ignored, brushed aside, swept away – what is happening is that men and fathers rights have now been relegated to barely second place – if even that – this is not a case of not having rights, this is a system that has evolved, that functions to deny to violate and to abuse those rights. If you are a father and you do not happen to have been married to the mother of your child or children then yes – rights – are not something you can invoke.

Because this is a system that has been infected by a poisonous doctrine, an ideology based in hatred of men, founded on hatred of men, fed by hatred of men, and in particular by men who are fathers.

“And if he doesn’t have the cash, he doesn’t get to see his children. But even fathers who can afford it are stripped of their assets by costly legal battles and then might be told that they can’t have their child to stay overnight because their humble bedsit isn’t suitable.

In more unpleasant separations, a man might be falsely accused of all kinds of physical or sexual violence so that the court case drags on unnecessarily while this is investigated.Just take a look at the many fathers’ rights websites and you’ll soon see that men today tend to be victims of an unjust system that benefits the mum as opposed to the dad when it comes to children.

In fact, judging by messages left on the websites, false allegations are rampant and our court system separates too many innocent fathers from children”

She now touches on something here that is not only rampant, but is actively encouraged – Parental Alienation – even when the mothers – and it is mostly women who perpetrate this vile behaviour are not feminists – just nasty toxic individuals – it is feminism that has allowed these kinds of disgusting behaviour to proliferate – who have actively and deliberately engineered ancillary services to foster the breeding grounds that feed this toxic behaviour, in particular the infestation of feminists into social work.

In fact the American organisation NOW (National Organisation of Women) [5] the largest and loudest feminist organisation in the world and one of the first established after the so called second wave of feminism got going in the late 1960’s early 1970’s recently issued a statement [6] calling for Parental Alienation Disorder (as it is called here) to not be recognised.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, SEE.

[7] The Impact of Parental Alienation on Children; Every child has a fundamental need for love and protection. Published on April 25, 2013 by Edward Kruk, Ph.D. in Co-Parenting After Divorce

[8] Parental Alienation: Southern England Psychological Services

[9] Karen Woodall

[10] Parental Alienation page.

Feminists would rather allow children to suffer than to admit that women are just as capable, and in some cases more so of being total and utter arseholes just as some men are – to do so would undermine every single tenet of feminism, every single one, including the very basis upon which all feminist “theory” rests – men bad – women good.

“Family law researcher Roisin O’Shea observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in 2010 which are ordinarily held in private.She didn’t find a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse and had only seen the courts order joint custody in two cases.

Tina Rayburn, co-author of ‘I Want to See My Kids! A Guide for Dads Who Want Contact with Their Children After Separation’, writes: “Until people acknowledge the current system is flawed and has an overriding female bias, it will be difficult to see anything changing.

There are two core problems. I don’t think the courts recognise a child can live happily in two homes and they are loath to take a child away from its mother. There is still a perception that these guys have done something wrong and they don’t deserve to see their children.

“It seems that both women and men are more comfortable aligning themselves with campaigns to help the sisterhood, whereas nobody wants to be seen siding with the brotherhood”

The two bolded parts are the pertinent points – the system is flawed and the cause is ignorance, misinformation and a blind allegiance to myths peddled by toxic ideologues. The second point is about attitudes – social and cultural attitudes – again fostered and promulgated by toxic ideologues – and it must be said embraced with alacrity by some women, who while they themselves may not identify as feminists – this toxic paradigm gives them permission to manifest without any consequences the vilest, most reprehensible behaviour imaginable.

“Over the past few decades we have quite rightly been tackling issues like making sure that women have an adequate income after separation and patriarchal abuses like domestic violence. But doesn’t it seem like the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction?”

And this is where I gritted my teeth – the second point first – DV is NOT, has never been a manifestation of “patriarchal abuses” bearing in mind that DV is almost equally perpetrated by women and men – and up to 50% if not more is mutual. In fact in instances where DV or IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) is unidirectional (perpetrated by one person upon another) it is MORE likely that the abuser is female.

See the PASK (Partner Abuse State of Knowledge) [11] and see [12] for an analysis.

“To be clear, what PASK reveals is that the claims of the domestic violence establishment are wrong and have been from the start. That establishment that receives such largess from governments and private sources has been revealed once and for all to be intellectually bankrupt.”

“Section Two: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration. The authors studying data in this area analyzed 111 separate data sets comprising about 250,000 subjects. They found that about 25% of those subjects reported perpetrating physical violence against a current partner or one in their last relationship. That represented 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men who perpetrated violence against an intimate partner. Subjects came from across the industrialized, English-speaking world.”

“Section Three: Rates of Bi-Directional and Uni-Directional IPV. In this area, 50 separate studies that recorded rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional violence were analyzed. Researchers found that, in the largest samples studied, among couples reporting domestic violence, 57.9% reported reciprocal or bi-directional violence with the remainder, 42.1% reporting uni-directional violence. In the uni-directional group, women were over twice as likely (28.3%) to perpetrate violence as were men (13.8%).”

“Smaller samples revealed similar rates of bi-directional violence but community surveys showed 22.9% of women versus 17.5% of men perpetrating uni-directional violence. Among subjects in high school and college, 31.9% of women perpetrated uni-directional violence versus 16.2% of men.”

“Only in the sample of U.S. military personnel and “at-risk” males did men’s (43.4%) uni-directional violence rates outstrip those of women (17.3%).” [12]

Similiar results were found by Kieron McKeown and Phillipa Kidd in 2002 in Ireland – [13]

Men and Domestic Violence: What Research Tells Us by Kieran McKeown & Philippa Kidd

Kieran McKeown Limited, Social & Economic Research Consultants, Report to the Department of Health & Children March 2002

“With the exception of sexual violence which is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women, the results of these studies are fairly consistent in showing that, in approximately half of all intimate relationships where domestic violence occurred in the last year, both partners were mutually violent, with the remainder divided fairly equally between male -only violence and female-only violence.

As a result, the self-reported prevalence of domestic violence among men and women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is broadly similar for physical and psychological violence, both minor and severe. In addition, both men and women are about equally likely to initiate domestic violence and seem to give broadly similar reasons for doing so.” [13]

NB – A caveat regarding the McKeown/Kidd Report – while I agree in substance with the overall results of this report I do not agree with all the conclusions and interpretations that are contained within this report – in particular with the opening sentence of this paragraph and with this concluding section of the same paragraph.

“However it needs to be emphasised that the outcomes of domestic violence in terms of physical and psychological injuries tend to be considerably more negative for women victims than for men victims.”

This is simply wrong – and is once more a manifestation of the “men don’t really suffer” paradigm – this is wrong – it de-humanises men, it fails to recognise that men are human beings and human beings, whatever sex they are – suffer.

“These findings indicate that the existing consensus on this issue does not fully reflect the reality of violence between men and women in intimate relationships. The converse of these findings also needs to be emphasised: the vast majority of men and women are not violent to each other in intimate relationships. A key implication of these findings is that domestic violence is not a women’s issue or a men’s issue but a relationships issue.”

What is also worth emphasising is that domestic violence and abuse has sod all to do with a mythical patriarchy.

The first point is so beyond ridiculous that I sincerely doubt that Ms. Courtney even realises what she just wrote – and I am only conceding that point because in the main her article is a pretty good one.

Here’s the problem – why pray tell is it only important that “women have an adequate income after separation”? let me guess – men have no need for shelter, for food, for clothing, for medical care, men have no need for heat, for transport, for any of the necessities of life?

Would that be because they can call upon this vast global patriarchal conspiracy? Except there is NO patriarchy – there is NO conspiracy – it is a lie.

It is a lie told by feminists – because men are deemed NOT human beings – NOT even worth considering where they will l.ive, how they will live or even that they deserve to live – after all – men are not human beings – are they? Ms Courtney continues.

“Meanwhile, the father’s rights movement continues to be politically marginalised. But women aren’t the only “natural” caregivers and men can and should play an equal role in raising their children. The horrible injustices suffered by many dads and their children go by without as much as a whisper.The lack of justice for fathers is one of the biggest social scandals of our time.We have a legal system that is utterly out of touch with the way we live now in a world where dads change nappies, push buggies and spend hours cuddling their children in exactly the same way that good mothers do

She is right and wrong here – the fathers rights movement and the men’s rights movement may be as she says “politically marginalisednow – but that is changing – and will change – because after 40 + years of this shit – many many men have had enough – had enough of listening to feminists and women whining, shrieking and demanding more and more resources, more and more on the sole basis that they are female.

Alongside those men are other women – like me – who are not willing to stand by and allow these wretches, these toxic vile creatures to claim they speak for or on behalf of ALL women.

Wrong because she has made the rather lame point that this is somehow to do with changing nappies (diapers), pushing buggies (strollers) and “spending hours cuddling their children in exactly the same way that good mothers do

This is about the Human Rights of both fathers AND children – my father didn’t change nappies, and I doubt he ever (though I could be wrong) pushed a buggy – but he showed his love in the only way he could have – he showed his children every day how much he cared – he worked, he worked himself to death.

When I was about ten – I decided I wanted to be a writer and I was going to write plays – I told my “Da” know what he did?

He built me a tiny little “theatre” in the back garden – with a stage – and my mother made the curtains – took him two weekends, after working all week, he even made the benches for the “audience”(God help them) to sit on, and he sat on those benches cheering and clapping when my first “play” was performed.

I couldn’t tell you what this “play” was about – probably pirates – I had a big dream of being a pirate – but what I do remember is handing him nails, bits of scrap wood, of him explaining why this bit of wood went here and that bit went there – and I remember he did it – his child had made a wish – and he made it come true.

THAT’S what a father does.





[1] Lack of justice for fathers one of biggest scandals of our time

[2] Fathers Rights Ireland

[3] Platform for European Fathers (PEF)


[5] NOW


[7] The Impact of Parental Alienation on Children; Every child has a fundamental need for love and protection. Published on April 25, 2013 by Edward Kruk, Ph.D. in Co-Parenting After Divorce

[8] Parental Alienation: Southern England Psychological Services –

[9] Karen Woodall –

[10] Parental Alienation page. –

[11] PASK


[13] Men and Domestic Violence: What Research Tells Us by Kieran McKeown & Philippa Kid – Kieran McKeown Limited, Social & Economic Research Consultants, Report to the Department of Health & Children March 2002 – Launch New Campaign to Highlight Domestic Abuse Against Men in Ireland


Of all the issues faced by Irish men – the most hidden and least acknowledged is being the victim of a violent and abusive partner – even by men themselves today launched it’s campaign to bring this hidden trauma to the public consciousness.

“Amen, the Navan-based voluntary group which provides support to male victims of domestic violence, has come across some extreme cases involving men who have been hit, kicked, slapped, stabbed with scissors or had boiling water thrown at them.

 Another problem is a widespread contemptuous or dismissive attitude to male victims of domestic violence. Niamh Farrell, manager at Amen, says: “We’ve had a regular flow of men coming in to talk about physical abuse. They feel they can’t report it because they don’t think they’ll be believed — women hitting men is not taken that seriously.”

“It can take men a while to take it seriously themselves — they’ll often endure sustained abuse before they come forward and only come when things are really bad.

“Women don’t take it seriously — if Nigella Lawson had done that to her husband it probably would not have got the same coverage even though it would be equally as serious.”


THE hidden agony of men whose abusive partners demand their wages and demean them with an ‘allowance of €20 to €30’ a week is revealed in a new report.

 They are among thousands of men seeking help for physical, emotional, psychological, financial and even sexual abuse perpetrated by their female partners or wives.

 Some are having to wear make-up to cover bruises and feel humiliated and demoralised, the annual report of Amen, the support service for men revealed.

 The organisation is reporting a strong demand for its services with more than 5,225 contacts last year, a rise of 18pc.

 These contacts include helpline calls, one-to-one meetings, court accompaniments, emails, text messages and letters.

 One in four men who is contacting the support service say they are being physically abused by their partner or wife. Three-quarters are suffering a combination of verbal, psychological and financial abuse. And about 1pc of men who are seeking help are being sexually abused by their partners, according to the figures.

 “Many men have expressed that they ‘envy’ males who have physical scars because the scars from emotional or verbal and psychological abuse are far more damaging,” the report said.

 “The constant criticism and belittling have a long-lasting, damaging effect on a victim of domestic abuse,” it said.

 Since the service started in 1997, support staff have heard accounts from men who have experienced severe and at times life-threatening physical abuse.”


It is way past the time for feminists to shut the hell up about “violence against women” and time to start talking about violence BY WOMEN.


It is way past the time to start talking about violent PEOPLE – to start recognising that violent people are violent because that is how they are – NOT because they are male – or even because they are female – but because they are violent and abusive.


Our national TV station RTE ran a report earlier today about this launch on the news programme Six One News –  Report starts at 29.10 mins



Previous Older Entries