The Irish Family and The Law of The Land: But What About The Children?

 

The law can be either a weapon or a tool – in and of itself law is inanimate – or can be, and should be. What gives substance and form and power to any law is how it is interpreted and applied.

There are also degrees of law – Primary Law in the form of Universal Instruments – such as the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, see here, are designed and meant to be read and applied and interpreted as broad universally understood statements that encompass and declare the status of, and fundamental protections that Human Beings are vested with by the mere fact of being Human Beings.

For example – a Human Being – absent almost any qualification or exception – has the right to think, believe and say whatever that Human Being likes – unless by doing so it infringes upon the right of any other Human Being to do likewise. (will address Freedom of Speech and The EU in a separate article)

Because there is another thing about “Rights” – Human Rights – your rights as a Human Being are balanced against, or should be balanced against, the Human Rights of every other Human Being on the planet.

Which brings us to.

Secondary Law – or legislation, statute law, regulations, judicial decisions, directives and to some extent codes of conduct applied within certain closed environments (such as colleges and universities) are rules for controlling and regulating human behaviour and conduct.

Human conduct or behaviour is informed by attitude, by personal choice, by belief, by the type of human being one is or isn’t.

Those who do not believe in the concept of Universal Human Rights use secondary law to impose and curtail the freedoms of other human beings – they create and demand the creation of laws that by their sheer weight and extent and density and for want of a better word pernicketyness are meant to distance, to create a chasm between the over-riding principles of Universal Human Rights and the application of secondary law.

Every aspect of human behaviour is to be controlled, regulated, restricted and informed by the particular belief system or ideology of the most influential and coercive “group” and each law is to be interpreted and applied through the prism of their “ideology” – and should enough people – especially those in a position to apply a particular law – believe the corrupt and biased “interpretations” of this “group” then when it comes to making that choice as to how to interpret or apply a particular law – the corrupt ideological approach – wins.

There is in the western hemisphere none more corrupt and vile ideology than feminism – feminists will tell those in government, in power, in the legislature that – this is what this means – or in this situation the law should be applied this way – and they have been listened to – in some cultures and societies to a greater extent than others.

Depends on what informs and has informed the development and history of that particular culture.

Of all the areas where feminism has focused its most malign influence, most corrosive attention, it is in the area of Family Law – because human societies and human beings are made up of families, all human beings are born with the historical legacy of previous generations, and with an innate desire and impulse to form or be part of a kinship group – especially when it comes to having children – to reproducing – to expanding their family.

I’m not even going to address points made along the lines of “but not everyone wants or needs children” for the simple reason that what I am talking about is an innate deeply embedded impulse in ALL species – including human beings.

Without children – in sufficient numbers I might add – the human species is doomed – yep doomed, see here, here and here – probably not to extinction, we dodged that bullet circa 74,000 years ago – but to descending into chaos, into societies that are dysfunctional, burdened by an inability to sustain and care for its members, and societies that are polarised – resources will become scarcer and scarcer and two things will happen – the gap between those have, and those who have not, will grow wider and wider, and the glue that holds societies together – families – will disintigrate – it is already happening. These articles tend towards the economic consequences of falling birth rates – but the negative social consequences are just as relevant as are the influences that precipitated this impending demographic disaster.

Having said that – simply producing more children isn’t enough – those children need to be nurtured, educated and guided into becoming decent human beings, into taking their place as part of the larger human family, into being part of the wider society and culture in a positive way.

There is only way to achieve this – a tried and tested way that has sustained and allowed the human species to grow from an almost extinct level number of approx 10,000 adults of reproductive age to the primary species on the planet – raising the young in kinship groups – in FAMILIES.

Am sure I don’t have to tell anybody this, but human children come in two distinct types – boys and girls – it is generally the first question asked when a child is born – “is it a boy or a girl” and the human parents who created this child also come in two distinct types – male and female – it is the genetic combination of two sets of DNA that created this unique and separate little person, and those boys and girls model themselves on their parents – or whoever their “primary caregiver” is.

Again – not addressing the “but you don’t need a man to have a baby” – see above – yes you bloody do – unless those idiot women are claiming that they have had another miraculous conception – do you need the physical presence of a male person to create this unique and separate little human being? Not necessarily – but you DO need what ONLY a male human being can give – contribute the other genetic half of this little human being.

And here’s something all you idiot feminists, and dumb as a bag of hammers women better get your heads around – what makes that little human being what he or she is only half of you – their genetic legacy comes from someone ELSE – and has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

All children are the sum of not just the two persons who combined their DNA in a unique way to create this little person but of previous generations – so no I personally do not believe that children arrive into this world as “bank slates” they inherit all sorts of potential traits, of particular “family traits” and it is what happens after they are born that determines what sort of human being they eventually end up becoming.

Depending on the influences upon them, their inherent traits are either encouraged in a positive way or a negative way – they are nurtured to be fully functioning and independent human beings or they are used as “an experiment” in “social engineering” informed by a toxic ideology whose primary purpose is to destroy the very thing that makes human beings – human beings – decent human beings – FAMILIES.

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

Because without exception – feminists know fuck all about children, about raising children, about what is or isn’t best for children, what children need. Absolutely fuck all.

Feminists are the absolute worst possible people to entrust children to – the worst possible people to listen to about raising children – and the worst possible people to have children – am I saying they shouldn’t be allowed to have children? Nope. What I am saying is that having a child and raising that child according to the tenets of feminism is a deliberate and conscious choice to damage that child.

Because for feminists – fathers are redundant – fathers are merely “sperm donors” fathers are “oppressive” and women are the BEST people to raise children – ALONE, and most of this crap has been peddled by loony lefty lesbian radical feminists.

BULLSHIT!

Feminists have been peddling this toxic shit for nigh on 30 years – its influence has spread from the US and the UK to the rest of the western world with varying degrees of success – and millions of dumb as a bag of hammers women have swallowed this crap hook, line and sinker – did they do this because they believe that this is true – up to a point – yes they did – but – in order for this toxic mantra to take hold – feminists engineered societies to make it worth their while for these dumb as a bag of hammers idiot women to have children – ALONE – to excise fathers from children’s lives – they PAID them.

Or rather exerted their toxic influence upon governments and legislatures to PAY stupid, ignorant and to some extent moronic women, to embrace the, “single mothers are so cool” mantra.

Actually single motherhood is probably the worst possible way to bring up children – with a few exceptions – (having that child’s biological father as an essential part of that childs life)

See this study and this  research

Children thrive the BEST in families with both their mother and their father – women who deliberately exclude fathers from their children’s lives are toxic, nasty, vile and vicious creatures – who, never mind leaving a child in their care – I personally wouldn’t leave my cat in their care.

What happens is that in order to continue to propel this toxic agenda, and maintain a myth – nobody wants to look at the facts – even the research I cited to a certain extent downplays the negative parenting of single mothers and the effects it has on children – nowhere is this more obvious that turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children by women, see here – and a refusal to accept the blindingly obvious – if these single mothers are the sole “primary carers” of children – and that IS the paradigm that has been peddled – then it is those “primary caregivers” who are responsible for any abuse, neglect or harm to their children

I should note here, that not all parents who dont live together act like this – some of them actually do try and do their best for their mutual children – after all marriages and relationships end – but being a parent is forever.  Some rare people actually get that.

Of all the toxic behaviours displayed by women, one of the worst ( but not the worst)is  Parental Alienation, and it is mostly mothers who launch these campaigns, and judges when faced with one of these toxic wretches, who fail to recognise it, are colluding in child abuse – are exercising their influence and authority to inflict damage upon children, by applying the law in such a way that it allows these nasty vile creatures to damage and harm CHILDREN.

Because they have listened to the toxic bullshit disseminated by feminists, and allowed it to influence and inform their “decisions”

So – after all that – what IS the law in Ireland? And why is it applied the way is stimes is?

First I want to say this – lots of things are “illegal” or “against the law” driving under the influence of alcohol – but people still do it – not as much as before – because of focused campaigns to make this socially and culturally unacceptable. Murder – the unlawful killing of a human being – but people still do it. Stealing other people’s property – but – yet again people still do.

The point I am making is this – you can demand and lobby for “the law must be changed” to reflect whatever YOUR particular ideology demands – but – even if something is or isn’t permitted by law – people will or won’t abide by it – depending on what kind of people they are – what informs their actions and behaviour – and what they believe, and how much ones society or culture is prepared to tolerate such behaviour.

Family Law is no different – the law allows or doesn’t allow certain things – but it is ATTITUDES that inform how that law is applied, interpreted and enforced.

There were are are two types of fathers recognised in law in Ireland – married fathers – those who are legally married to the mother of their child/children and unmarried fathers – those who are NOT married to the mothers of their child/children, married fathers had the benefit of Constitutional protection of their “rights” as parents.

As I stated in the previous post The Irish Family and Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937)

ARTICLE 41 

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937.

In the context of this Article Family is based upon Marriage1 between one man and one woman, and in spite of efforts over the last decade or so to convince the wider Irish public otherwise – THAT is what the vast majority of Irish people believe, yes there has been a shift in attitude to concede that “families come in all shapes and sizes” but – I would challenge anyone to lobby for a Referendum to have THAT Article completely deleted, though yes there has been a Referendum to have this amendment inserted.

The result was challenged in The High Court and rejected – though there is no appeal as yet to The Supreme Court – to the best of my knowledge.

Note 1 –  Article to follow – The Irish Family: Unholy Wedlock – Poisoning the Well.

Children – Article 42A – to be inserted

1         The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2         1°       In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2°       Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3         Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4         1°       Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings –

i           brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii         concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2°       Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

And this one repealed.

Education – Article 42.5 – to be repealed

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

– but no-one is going attempt to persuade the wider Irish voting public to completely reject the concept of family being the core fundamental unit of Irish society.

Having said that – not everyone was impressed with this new amendment, see here for example (these people have a feminist bias by the way, in spite of being called Human Rights in Ireland (Ironic and a bit creepy)

This is the current legislation on the cards in Ireland – Children and Family Relationships Bill 2013here, here, here

I personally have a some reservations about it. Another separate article.

See here as well.

So, Legislation is being and has been introduced to reflect these changing “attitudes” and allow different “types” of pairings and ways of forming families to be legally recognised, and the legislation being introduced to address the issue we are talking about here – the legal anomaly drawn between “married fathers” and “unmarried fathers” and children’s rights all sounds marvellous doesn’t it?

Our government and legislature is addressing issues of parental rights, children’s rights and acknowledging different types of families.

Now before anyone gets their knickers in a knot and takes me to task for not addressing individual specific sets of circumstances – such as – “but gay and lesbian couples are this that and the other” – or – unmarried fathers are discriminated against in court”

On the first – gay and lesbian couples form a minority of family types and re the reality of fathers experiences in Family Court – I KNOW – what I am addressing here are the underlying broad concepts – the ATTITUDES that inform the interpretation and application of the Law – as it existed, and as it now exists. So, bearing in mind all the hoo hah made about “gay and lesbian” couples –let’s just see how representative they are of the general population. First in Ireland.

“SUMMARY

THE overwhelming majority of individuals defined themselves as heterosexual. Most reported only opposite-sex attraction, but the proportion reporting some level of same-sex attraction was more than double the proportion identifying as other than heterosexual.

Similarly low proportions of men and women have had same-sex sexual experience.

2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.

5.3% of men and 5.8% of women reported some same-sex attraction.

7.1% of men and 4.7% of women reported a homosexual experience some time in their life so far.

4.4% of men and 1.4% of women reported a genital same-sex experience in their life so far.

3% of men and 1.1% of women reported a genital same-sex experience in the last five years.”

Page 126.

Let’s put that into perspective – according to the last Census in 2011, there were 1,545,073 females in this country between the ages of 15 – 64. 1.2% represents 18,540 potentially bisexual or lesbian as apposed to 1,526,533 NOT

On that basis – why the hell should anyone listen to the crap peddled by rancid radical lesbian feminists – it’s not like they represent the MAJORITY of women – in any way shape of form – is it? All 1.2% of them.

Though to be fair I am prepared to concede that maybe only half of them are feminists – so that would be a massive 0.6% of them claiming to speak on behalf of ALL Irish women.

By the way this pattern repeats in almost all western states – a tiny minority of women identify as lesbian2 – and yet! In Canada, where apparently they churn these toxic wretches out by the coven load, then foist them on the rest of the world, the picture is more or less the same.

“CCHS Cycle 2.1 is the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation. This information is needed to understand differences in health-related issues between the homosexual (gay or lesbian), bisexual and heterosexual populations. These issues include determinants of health, such as physical activity, mental health issues, including stress, and problems accessing health care.

Among Canadians aged 18 to 59, 1.0% reported that they consider themselves to be homosexual and 0.7% considered themselves bisexual.

About 1.3% of men considered themselves homosexual, about twice the proportion of 0.7% among women. However, 0.9% of women reported being bisexual, slightly higher than the proportion of 0.6% among men. 

Total number of participants in survey – 316,800

Maybe they all ended up teaching in the University of Toronto? Would certainly explain a lot.

Really does beg the question being asked again – why on earth does anybody, anywhere, give any credence to the unutterable crap being peddled by rancid lesbian radical feminist

Note (2) Forthcoming Article – Why are We Listening to Looney Lefty Lesbians? (its slow going because I can only read so much of the crap they have spewed out – without having to go and bang my head off a wall, to make the pain go away)

 

Do I give a shit what you do or don’t do in the privacy of your own bedroom? Nope. Do whatever the hell you like – but – for the last 30 plus years – the bedroom antics of a tiny proportion of the general populace of nearly all western states have had allowed pain in the arse, rancid radical lesbian nutjobs (feminists)  dictate societal and cultural attitudes and more destructively, public policy and law.

With regard to how fathers are viewed and treated in Court, again it is ATTITUDES and culturally and societal acceptable behaviours that informs what happens there, behaviour that is tolerated culturally and socially manifests itself in Court rooms, it is the cultural and societal context in which a legal system is embedded, that informs the level of approbation that the judiciary is prepared to level at these toxic little wretches – at the risk of using a rather strange example.

I mentioned above that the attitude to drink driving has undergone an almost about face here in Ireland – yes – people still do it – but there is now a pointed and prevailing cultural and societal attitude of approbation towards THOSE who “get into a car drunk, or under the influence and drive”

Utilising that same power to change cultural and societal attitudes – one can – not just inform the general public of the damage that Parental Alienation does to CHILDREN – but make those women who do this feel the full force of social and cultural approbation – and have that reflected in how the Law is interpreted and APPLIED.

Tolerating the kinds of behaviours displayed by these women needs to stop – taking off the blinkers and inculcating an attitude that alienating one parent from their children is a vile, nasty, and disgusting thing to do, and harms CHILDREN.

Because the law is applied by people who also live in that society and culture – and are influenced by the same prevailing social and cultural norms. Irish Family Law, while not perfect has within it the potential to be applied equitably – to be used in a just and fair manner – it is the attitudes that prevail towards tolerating the toxic behaviour of some nasty little wretches that lies at the heart of a lot of the problems that assail Irish fathers.

Feminists will still peddle their shit – and shriek and rage about whatever the hell their latest stupid “issue” is – but – for every piece of unutterable crap that feminist “academics” or “experts” try and foist on people, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of VALID research and studies which comprehensively prove – what a load of crap it is.

But, if you change people’s attitudes to the kinds of behaviour that feminism endorses – they will – to all intents and purposes find themselves pissing into the wind, and the default paradigm can shift. The message is:

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

Every “theory” every “study” every piece of shit “research” is designed to do one thing and one thing only – if it is in relation to children or families – and that is to damage CHILDREN.

The Law is – as it stands now – is starting to become realigned, veering towards protecting CHILDREN,

What are children damaged by? Parental Alienation.

Who are the primary perpetrators of Parental Alienation? Mothers.

What do children need in order to grow up healthy and safe and functional? Two Parents.

Who peddles a toxic and vile ideology that has seeped into the consciousnesses of ignorant and ill-informed idiots in government, in the judiciary? Feminists.

Where do feminists hide out in Ireland? In universities and colleges, in government departments, as “policy advisors” and in charities.

What do feminists use to camouflage their activities IN Ireland? Women’s rights.

What is the counter argument to this shit? HUMAN RIGHTS.

And – Men’s Rights are Human Rights.

 

 

The Irish Family and Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937)

 

THE FAMILY

 

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

 

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann.

This has been the legislative and philosophical bedrock upon which this State was founded, but it is worth noting before we examine our modern development , and the evolution of the legal impact that cultural changes have had on fathers’ IN Ireland what was meant at the time our Constitution was written, and what were the historical and cultural influences that prevailed at that time – obviously the Catholic church was a significant one – but it existed in parallel with a much deeper and more ancient tradition.

First, it is necessary to say this – the official language of this State is Gaelige – English is our “second” language – and in Constitutional conflicts over the interpretation of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 (The Constitution of Ireland 1937) – it is the Irish “version” that takes precedence. Therefore in the context of addressing the legal issues surrounding law and in particular Family Law in Ireland and “fathers’ rights” and how the current legal anomalies arose – one needs to understand the cultural and social influences that inform and informed the development of this particular area of law.

Further down the “legal” road – one then needs to incorporate the influence of the EU and how on several occasions there have been some questions raised about the extent of EU Law with regard to the relationship between the Constitutional Law of individual member states and EU law.

The situation now is this – after a long gestation period EU law now takes precedence over ALL national law including Constitutional Law, – in ALL member states of the EU.

With regard to conflicts between the Irish and English versions of the text of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 and instances where the Irish version took precedence.

This has happened quite a number of times. See below.

“Article 25.5.4o of the Constitution provides that, in the event of conflict with the English version, the Irish version of the Constitution will prevail:

 In case of conflict between the texts of any copy of this Constitution enrolled under this section, the text in the national language shall prevail.

I gcás gan na téacsanna d’aon chóip áirithe den Bhunreacht seo a bheidh curtha isteach ina hiris faoin alt seo a bheith de réir a chéile, is ag an téacs Gaeilge a bheidh an forlámhas.”

Page 1

“In his commentary on Article 25.5, J.M. Kelly, The Irish Constitution (1994), refers to a total of twenty-two Articles the Irish text of which the courts have looked at in order to elucidate the meaning of the corresponding English expressions.

The Articles in question are Articles 11, 15.4.2o, 15.10, 15.12, 15.13, 16.2.3o, 28.4, 29.3, 29.5, 30.3,

34.3.1o, 36.iii, 38.5, 40.1, 40.3.1o, 42.4, 43, 44.2.3o, 45, 45.2.i, 46.1 and 50.135”

Page 8

One of the most significant cases was this one:

“In the case of Article 40.3.1o, in McGee v Attorney General ([1974] IR 284) Justice Griffin pointed out that the Irish version,

‘Ráthaíonn an Stát gan cur isteach lena dhlithibh ar cheartaibh pearsanta aon tsaoránaigh’,

was a guarantee not to interfere with citizens’ personal rights, thus adding depth to the

guarantee to ‘respect’ them in the English version.37 Article 40.3.1o reads:

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and

vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

Ráthaíonn an Stát gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar chearta pearsanta aon saoránaigh, agus ráthaíonn fós na cearta sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

A literal translation of the Irish text reads as follows:

The State guarantees not to interfere by its laws with the personal rights of any citizen, and it further guarantees to defend and assert those rights with its laws in so far as it is possible.”

Page 15

The reason? Because up until this case there was a ban on the use of contraceptives, Mrs. McGee took a case all the way to the Supreme Court on the basis that the State was interfering in what she and her husband did in the privacy of their own home and was therefore a violation of their Constitutional Rights. They won. In essence the family is sacrosanct. The rights of The Family are “imprescriptible”

“In the High Court, in Ryan v. Attorney General ([1965] IR 294), Justice Kenny defined ‘imprescriptible’ as

‘that which cannot be lost by the passage of time or abandoned by non-exercise’74.

This term is expressed as ‘dochloíte’ in Article 41.1.1o, where the Family is referred to as ‘a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights’, ‘foras morálta … ag a bhfuil cearta doshannta dochloíte’. ‘Dochloíte’ expresses ‘indefeasible’ in Article 1 and ‘conclusive’ in Articles 25.4.5o, 25.5.3o, and 63.

According to John Kelly, ‘dochloíte’ does not have Justice Kenny’s meaning above of ‘imprescriptible’, conveying ‘only something like “irrepressible”, “indomitable”’. Following Statutory Instrument No. 51 of 1956, the last of the ten orders dealing with Irish Legal Terms, the Irish legal term for ‘imprescriptible’ is ‘dochealaithe’, ‘imprescriptible rights’ being translated in that Statutory Instrument, and subsequently in Téarmaí Dlí, as ‘cearta dochealaithe’.

Following the fourth such order (and Téarmaí Dlí), ‘fianaise dochloíte’ and ‘toimhde dochloíte’ are translated respectively as ‘conclusive evidence’ and ‘conclusive presumption’.”

Page 20

Again, in the context in which The Constitution was written and the underlying cultural and social “norms” that existed at the time – the Family, and roles within that family were perceived in a certain way – a “traditional way”

Articles 41.2.1o and 41.2.2o read as follows:

“In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

Go sonrach, admhaíonn an Stát go dtugann an bhean don Stát, trína saol sa teaghlach, cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Uime sin, féachfaidh an Stát lena chur in áirithe nach mbeidh ar mháithreacha clainne, de dheasca uireasa, dul le saothar agus faillí a thabhairt dá chionn sin ina ndualgais sa teaghlach.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has recommended eradicating this ‘dated provision which is much criticised’ and substituting in its place the following provision, which acknowledges the caring function of families without re-defining the family:

The State recognises that family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home.

Based particularly on the terms in the Irish text of the current Articles 41.2.1o and 41.2.2o, it is proposed that the Irish text read:

Admhaíonn an Stát go dtugann saol an teaghlaigh don chomhdhaonnacht cúnamh nach bhféadfaí leas an phobail a ghnóthú dá éagmais. Féachfaidh an Stát le cúnamh a thabhairt do dhaoine a thugann aire do dhaoine eile sa teaghlach.

The repetition of the word ‘cúnamh’ above, however, may create a potential problem in that ‘cúnamh’ expresses ‘aid’ in Article 44.2.4o where ‘Legislation providing State aid for schools’ is expressed in the Irish text as ‘Reachtaíocht lena gcuirtear cúnamh Stáit ar fáil do scoileanna’.

Technically, then, the second sentence of the Irish version of the amended Article 41.2 above could be read as ‘The State shall endeavour to give aid to people caring for others within the home’. ‘Tacaíocht’ rather than ‘cúnamh’ would be used in a direct translation of the above, independent of the context of the original wording of Article 41.2.1o

 

– ‘A Long-term Support Framework for Female Carers of Older People and People with Disabilities’, the title of a 1996 report, is styled in Irish ‘Gréasán Tacaíochta Fadtéarmaí do Bhanchúramóirí Daoine Scothaosta agus Daoine faoi Mhíchumas’, for example.

We also find ‘tacaíocht’ in phrases expressing ‘support’ in Articles 12.10.4o and 13.2.2o. In Article 45.4.1o, on the other hand, ‘to contribute to the support of the infirm’ is expressed as ‘cabhair maireachtála a thabhairt don easlán’. ‘Cabhair mhaireachtála’ literally means ‘living/subsistence help/aid’ and this again would involve the sense of ‘cúnamh’ which could result in the Irish text of the proposed new section being the subject of litigation.

By way of conclusion here, the above is a good illustration of the need to take both texts of the Constitution into account when drafting amendments of the Constitution.

It is worthy of note that while at this time – circa 1996 – there were rumblings about how women were perceived – as “mothers” first and foremost – that there was no groundswell of opinion to have “the family” abandoned as the “core unit of Irish society” but rather to extend beyond the home the “role of mothers” the fact that the 1996 report without any irony, presumes that it is women/females who care for older people or people with disabilities is illustrative – having said that – women themselves – Irish women, endorsed this paradigm – the issue was that they were not being sufficiently recognised or acknowledged – not that they rejected this “role”

In many ways it is this attitude that on the one hand has driven feminists round the bend when trying to impose their doctrine in Ireland and on the other hand,  it is why when it comes to using an attack on the family in Ireland feminists have to tread very very carefully here.

An example – around 4 years ago I sat in on a lecture being given by a Canadian feminist about this very subject – how women were not being valued for the “care work” they did – how there should be a monetary value placed on this – in her stupidity and ignorance she prattled on and on about “the patriarchy” and “women’s oppression” to absolute silence.

One of the first “comments” when she shut up long enough to allow “comments” – “are you trying to say that after years of bringing us up, taking care of us, and doing their best for us – that we should be PAID for looking after our own parents?”

One of the “issues” that raises its head from time to time in Ireland, and under the influence of ignorant feminists is that our Constitution is “sexist” in fact one the prevailing whines from feminists in the wider world is that “laws are written by men for men”

Actually – not in Ireland – and not as a matter of historical fact, except in cases where the Constitution specifically refers to “mothers” illustrated above.

“The English text on the other hand is gender-proofed to read ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man or woman’.

On approximately forty occasions in the Constitution ‘duine’ expresses ‘person’; therefore, translated literally, ‘chun duine ar bith’ would be ‘towards any person’. In view of this, ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man’ might be gender-proofed to read ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man person’.

Other possible cases where the English text could be differently genderproofed, based on the Irish text, are outlined in Appendix 3, which Appendix looks at cases where there would appear to be an option in how the text is gender-proofed and at some wider textual consequences of gender-proofing.

We shall see in the study which follows that in a few cases gender-proofing the Irish text may

necessitate amending clauses more severely than simply altering ‘sé’ to ‘sé nó sí’ or ‘é’ to ‘é nó í’’.

As can be seen from the gender-proofed English version of Article 12.6.2o, it has occasionally been necessary to emend whole clauses, the gender-proofed version of that subsection reading as follows

If A member of either House of the Oireachtas be who is elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his or her seat in that House.

The Irish version, however, only needs the following straightforward additions:

Má thoghtar comhalta de cheachtar de Thithe an Oireachtais chun bheith ina Uachtarán nó ina hUachtarán, ní foláir a mheas go bhfuil scartha aige nó aici le comhaltas an Tí sin 

The opposite situation arises in the following three instances, which would need more emendation than most of the Articles. While the English version of Article 31.2.ii 

Every person able and willing to act as a member of the Council of State who shall have held the office of President or the office of Taoiseach, or the office of Chief Justice, or the office of President of the Executive Council of Saorstát Éireann’, needs no gender-proofing, the words in bold below indicate the insertions which would have to be made to the Irish text in particular to include women who held the various offices listed above 

Gach duine ar cumas dó nó di agus ar fonn leis nó léi gníomhú ina chomhalta nó ina comhalta den Chomhairle Stáit, agus a bhí tráth ina Uachtarán nó ina hUachtarán nó ina Thaoiseach nó ina Taoiseach nó ina Phríomh-Bhreitheamh nó ina Príomh-Bhreitheamh, nó ina Uachtarán nó ina hUachtarán ar Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstát Éireann.

The repetition in the above text could be avoided by emending the text as follows, this being a more literal translation of the English. 

Gach duine ar cumas dó nó di agus ar fonn leis nó léi gníomhú ina mar chomhalta den Chomhairle Stáit, agus a bhí tráth ina i seilbh oifige mar Uachtarán nó ina mar Thaoiseach nó ina mar Phríomh-Bhreitheamh, nó ina mar Uachtarán ar Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstát Éireann.

 

Put simply – our Primary Legislative Instrument is already, with few exceptions “genderproofed” because of the references to “person” in effect our Constitution is “gender blind” but this isn’t actually good enough for feminists – is it?

Because rather than professing an ideology that is built on a foundation of true “equality” or my own personal preference “equity” feminists want a SPECIAL exception to be made FOR women – a SPECIAL case – hence the rather obvious inequitable insistence on phraseology that reads – men AND WOMEN – and yes – not only just did I capitalise those words deliberately, but also because this is what permeates feminist thinking – men in small letters and “AND WOMEN”

A perfect example of this in The Gender and WOMEN’S Studies Centre based in Trinity College Dublin – now forgive me – but are there three “genders”? Gender (s) and WOMEN?

So, WOMEN get a distinct, biologically based “category” but men are consigned to a “gender” and here I was thinking that “gender is a social construct” or so I’ve been reliably informed by innumerable feminists over the last 20 years or so – ladies make up your bloody minds!

“The Centre for Women’s Studies was established in Trinity College in July, 1988. In 1999, in order to reflect the increasing diversity of its interests in areas such as sexualities and masculinities, the Centre expanded its title and remit to become the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies. In 2005, the Centre became a full member of the School of Histories and Humanities. According to a 2006 evaluation, ‘Trinity is now the academically strongest Gender and Women’s Studies Centre in Ireland’

Since its inception, the Centre has developed and sustained an M.Phil programme and a doctoral programme of the highest quality, has undertaken significant research activities and engaged in both innovative and traditional community outreach. Members of the Centre are recognised both nationally and throughout the EU for their expertise on gender issues.

Dr. Catherine Lawless

Director/Academic Co-ordinator

 

To put it bluntly, this is where most of the feminist inspired garbage emanates from, and gets disseminated to government departments, that then informs public policy and has been instrumental in beavering away, since 1988, and with a more intense effort in complicity with the EU since 1999, to try and reframe Irish cultural and social attitudes – none more so than in how Family is viewed IN Ireland.

1999 being when the money really started rolling in, about 15 years ago.

“Trinity is now the academically strongest Gender and Women’s Studies Centre in Ireland”

Professor Diana Leonard, Institute of Education, Unversity of London. 2006 External Evaluation.”

And who is or rather was Professor Diana Leonard?

“Few people had considered marriage a tool of patriarchal oppression until Diana Leonard told them it was. From her post at the University of London’s Institute of Education, the radical feminist remained at the forefront of the women’s liberation movement throughout the 1970s.”

(If you click on any link, click on this one, Diana Leonard is almost a cariacature of a radical feminist)

 

Though to be fair – it DID take Trinity College’s Gender and WOMEN’S Studies Centre till 2006 to meet with the “approval” of this doyenne of feminism – what with there being an almost unconscious resistance within the not just the wider Irish public, but at government level to the blandishments of definitely radical feminism but even of so called “equity feminism”

The reason – FAMILY – the Irish allegiance to the concept of FAMILY – and of marriage being the bedrock upon which to build and consolidate one’s wider FAMILY.

All the shit that feminism peddles in order to embed its toxic doctrine into not just the consciousness of people, but into the political consciousness of government and public policy makers needs MONEY, lots of MONEY in order to implement its “programmes’” and as you can see – while 2006 must have been a red letter year, for The Gender and WOMEN’S Study Centre in Trinity College – three years later – the shit hit the fan – big time – up until then – all the “programmes” devised by this place  and a couple of others – then peddled to government were to all intents and purposes funded by the EU – imposed on us by the EU – unfortunately we now owe in the region of 130 BILLION Euros – it may be more – TO the EU.

There are three strands by which feminism has attempted to, for want of a better phrase, infiltrate the zeitgeist IN Ireland – through political pressure – which until we joined the EEC was getting them absolutely nowhere –  even afterwards it got absolutely nowhere – until the mid 1990’s – through media – TV and newspapers mostly – again – “women’s libbers” were are, and to some extent still perceived as idiots, or as screechy, ranty whiney harridans – and through academia – by influencing public policy – they had better luck that way – slowly – but overall – none of those methods has truly managed to have feminism accepted as the one, the only default paradigm through which Irish people will view cultural and social issues.

It is in the only the last few years – that feminists have started to pop up peddling their wares on newspapers and via the internet – with the internet having a slow start “catching on here” – what you are seeing with the likes of Una Mullally and Laura McInerney with their peddling of “rape culture” and other unutterable crap, etc are Irish feminist idiots joining the fevered panic of other western feminists as they try to raise the hysteria level – these idiots are jumping in at the last ditch attempt of western feminists to stop themselves being cast aside, exposed for the rancid toxic wretches they are.

Twats like Mullally and McEnerney have deluded themselves into believing that “women’s rights” is still a valid issue IN Ireland – and that the crap they’ve read and heard there (in uni) and that is still being peddled there, by the out of touch, hard core feminist lecturers is “the truth” – academic feminists in Ireland are about 10 – 15 years behind the times of other western feminists – they just don’t know it yet.

But – that is changing and will change.

Are Irish people a mass of conflicts and contradictions – is our culture a mass of conflicts and contradictions? Absolutely – we have a historical and deeply embedded allegiance to the concept of Family – but at the same time our society and culture changed so rapidly and with such force that Family along with it became something that rather being the bedrock, the stabilising core unit of our society – all of a sudden changed – and we were swept along with those changes – are there issues – deep concerns about the nature of some families? Yes there are. Have we had to open our eyes to some disturbing truths? Yes we have.

But – having said all that – Family – and the concept of Family still lies at not just the core of our society and culture – but at the core of ourselves – as a people.

We need to embrace that – anchor ourselves in that – focus our attention on protecting that.

 

All extracts from:

Bunreacht na hEireann: A Study of the Irish Text; Micheal O Cearuil – with original contributions by Professor Mairtin O Murchu. Download here.

Ó Government of Ireland 1999

 

“Keeping It in The Family”

 

“níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin”

 

Translation here.

 

I made the point in Part 1 of the series “The Irish Family” – that Family – and yes in Ireland this does come with a capital “F” is everything – and that Family is the bedrock upon which this State was founded – it is – anyone who attempts to argue otherwise is either a fool or is refusing to acknowledge a basic fundamental truth about Ireland and “the Irish”

On that basis – “feminism” has had a tough sell, until relatively recently, in Ireland, because the driving force behind the campaign to get feminism established as the default paradigm through which law, politics, social and cultural issues is viewed is predicated upon destroying the “family” of replacing the concept of family with the concept of the State as the guardians of and primary caretakers par excellence of its citizens.

Daddy State.

You could NEVER in a million years sell that crap in Ireland – unless you water it down – repackage it – give it a few layers of carefully constructed subterfuge – and you could only really find buyers of a certain type – already dysfunctional, already disturbed and completely ignorant of Irish culture, idiots.

We imported ours – or we – in our naivety and stupidity sent our sons, but mostly our daughters to places where this crap was being manufactured to “learn the ropes”.

Right now IN Ireland – we are to put it bluntly struggling with serious economic and cultural issues – the economic ones are and have been on ongoing feature of the history of this State – the cultural, social and political ones have sent shock waves through our society.

What Irish people fall back on when they are being beset, when the shit hits the fan – is – Family.

Having said that – IN Ireland – the Family is both a blessing and a curse – sometimes at the same time – it has been our greatest strength and sometimes our greatest weakness – we honour and revere the Family – we cannot imagine ourselves as NOT being part of a family – but at the same time – we hide our troubles within the family – we “keep it in the family” to betray your family would have been, and is still to some extent a terrible thing IN Ireland.

Irish society has a long history – thousands of years – deeply inculcated into our psyches is an almost visceral element of tribalism – of clannishness – of – “who your people are”.

A traditional if jokey marriage proposal in Ireland goes like this “how would feel about being buried with my people?”

This is what makes Ireland so completely different from the US, the UK, Canada and Australia – and has more in common with countries like Italy, Spain, and Greece – FAMILY – in favour of the emphasis on individualism – on promoting the individual as the core component of society – within family orientated societies – yes indeed – being an individual is acknowledged and valid factor – but THAT individual is placed within the context of his/her family. His/her people, his/her clan or tribe.

The mistake feminism makes and has made – in particular in Ireland is to whine on about the “traditional family” as the tool of oppression of the patriarchy” by applying a very narrow and ill-formed interpretation of what this “traditional family” is. What it means FOR distinct societies and cultures.

For feminists – “traditional family” is based on husband and wife and children – with husband working and wife chained up in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

In an attempt to present different models of “family” or “valid social units” they will offer – gay and lesbian duos – single mothers – so called “urban families” as proof that “families comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

Superficially this is true – they do – but in Ireland – Family is everybody you are related to by either blood or marriage – this may include all sorts of combinations – but FAMILY is a much broader and wider “construct” part of the reason why feminism took such hold in the US and the UK – is because they attacked the family – as it was viewed in THOSE societies – a smaller less inclusive interpretation of family than in cultures like Ireland, Italy Spain and Greece.

Slightly different influence’s operated in these countries – but they all had one thing in common – either Catholicism or in the case of Greece – Greek Orthodoxy – the social and cultural development of these countries is starkly different from that of other countries in Europe after what is called The Reformation – none more so that two – the UK and Sweden. To some extent Canada and Australia.

For those who like a meatier read this book is available to read online.

The History of The Reformation. Vol 1.

With regard to the US and to some extent Canada and Australia you could be talking about life on another planet (s) all one has to do is examine how emigrants from these countries, Ireland or Italy for examples etc, behave even as they live in those countries – they try to recreate the same cultural and social norms by which to live, embedded in the larger culture – the host culture – they form “Little Italy’s” “Irish Enclaves”

An odd and in the context of more recent history, a minor element in the distinct social and cultural development of all these countries – is the weather, or more specifically climactic changes and environmental factors. Environmental factors had a huge impact though on our evolutionary history.

Spain, Greece and Italy, while following a social development pattern built on the foundation of family had at least a sunny climate – and a relatively relaxed but committed attitude to the concept of family – in Ireland – it pisses rain all the time – we have the same commitment to the family but our almost fanatical allegiance to the church, had a darker side. An extreme side.

It’s bloody cold in Sweden – and rather than developing a social paradigm built around the concept of the family – it was built around the individual – to an extreme length – and the individual who held pre-eminence is Sweden? The female of the species.

Both Ireland and Sweden took their separate developments of a cultural paradigm to almost fanatical lengths.

The development of societies and cultures – is affected by all sorts of things – its social history, its economic history and the actual physical environment in which that culture and society develops. In fact environmental factors impacted on whether we actually survived as a species.

For example Homo Sapiens almost became extinct circa 74,000 years ago – not a huge space of time in evolutionary terms – as the result of climactic changes and catastrophes.

“About 74,000 years ago

Near-extinction!

Modern humans almost become extinct; as a result of extreme climate changes, the population may have been reduced to about 10,000 adults of reproductive age”

We, as a species literally survived by our the skin of our teeth – at the point where we could have easily become extinct – it has been estimated that there were approximately ONLY 10,000 Homo Sapiens of reproductive age left on this planet.

Now that’s what you call a “close call” in evolutionary terms.

Human beings are social animals – gregarious – at our core we instinctively form kinship groups – clans – tribes – based around ties of blood and that kinship – THAT’S what defines us, what makes us human. Those clans and tribes evolved into families, then into communities of families – it is a deeply embedded evolutionary impulse.

The development of different societies and cultures rests on a central premise – the level of importance placed on that evolutionary impulse in parallel with the distinct social and political history of a culture – with either the emphasis placed on either the family as the core unit of society – or on the individual as the core unit of society.

In Ireland it is The Family – first, last and always – one cannot shake off thousands of years of social and evolutionary history – one cannot persuade, or talk out of, the members of a distinct culture of that deeply culturally embedded impulse no matter how fancy your rhetoric, how much you can bedazzle with your statistics, your “theories” your bullshit – you may affect their behaviour on a superficial level to some extent, you may even persuade some of them – willing to BE persuaded that the Family is “the root of all evil” but you will never excise that basic fundamental almost primeval need in human beings to – FORM FAMILIES – to want to be part of families – to yearn for a family.

Feminism has succeeded to a large extent in the US and Canada and the UK in suppressing that instinct, in corrupting that instinct and in turning it into something negative – but all the indications are that without families – human beings are miserable, and human societies decay, descend into social chaos, and become more and more dysfunctional.

Ok so, let’s put this into context IN Ireland – in Ireland marriage rates are RISING – divorce rates are dropping or remaining relatively stable – single motherhood has increased slowly and the profile of single mothers has started to change.

“The number of couples getting married here is on the rise despite the recession.

According to figures released by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), there were more than 20,700 marriages in Ireland last year — up more than 4% on 2011.

 Civil marriages accounted for nearly a third of all pairings (28%); while 65% of ceremonies took place in the Roman Catholic tradition — both reductions of 1% from 2011.

 Overall, the marriage rate stands at 4.5% per 1,000 of the population — a slight rise on the 4.3% rate in 2011.

While the marriage rate is rising, it is still some distance behind the rate of 5.2% during the boom years. It had been steadily dropping since 2008 until last year.

 There were 2,892 divorces granted by the Circuit Court and the High Court last year — an increase of 73 on 2011.

 

“About the One-Parent Family Payment

92,326 people are currently receiving the One-Parent Family Payment (December 2010). This has increased from 59,000 in 1997

98% of recipients of OPF are women (2010)

56% of recipients have one child; 28% have two children; 11% have three children (2010)

The percentage of OPF recipients under 30 years of age is falling (34.4%)

The percentage of OPF recipients over 30 is increasing (currently 65.6%) (2010)

The number of teenage parents in receipt of OFP fell from 4.4% in 1997 to 1.5% in 2010”

 

If you take that first statistic and break it down – from 1997 – 2010 the number of one parent families increased over 13 years by an average of 2,563 per year – what needs to be noted is that One Parent Family Payment covers single (never married) AND Widowed and separated parents – and this:

13.5 per cent of one-parent families are headed by a father (Census 2011)”

I am sure you have notice the anomaly – between the first assertion that 98% of OPFP are women and that 13.5% of one parent families are headed by men – not all one parent families are in receipt of this payment – this is a social welfare payment – of those 13.5% of one parent families headed by fathers only 2% claim this social welfare payment.

What all this indicates that the situation, the trends if you will are almost in direct opposition to practically the rest of the western world, Ireland is a bit of an anomaly – but then – it always was.

The last few years have seen something rather strange happen in Ireland – we have started to embrace our cultural roots once again without all the toxic baggage of the Catholic Church weighing us down.

Yes – we are dealing with massive social, economic and political problems – yes we have now become the testing ground for all the latest EU economic and social “theories” and yes indeed we are vulnerable to coercive pressure – political pressure from the EU to implement legislative and policy changes that the vast number of Irish people, if they hadn’t got more than enough shit to deal with already – would find anathema.

But – it is our “elites” our “political class” that is driving us towards this disaster – these toxic policies are being manufactured in universities and colleges and then our government is being presented with this crap as valid “research” on the one hand – on the other is the EU peddling this shit and imposing it upon our State – it is Irish people who are caught in the middle of this.

None more so than Irish men and boys.

I can say this in all honesty – Irish women do NOT hate Irish men with the visceral seething hatred that huge numbers of US and UK and Canadian women appear to do so – at least the vast majority of them don’t – some of them are toxic rancid wretches – and rightly deserve to be condemned and exposed. Irish feminists – are idiots – dangerous idiots who peddle the toxic doctrine of feminism in our universities and colleges and have weaselled their way into every government and public policy area and specifically into the “charity” area – but right now that area is under siege – but Irish feminists are caught in a bit of a dilemma here – the weight of our social and cultural history and our deeply embedded allegiance to our concept of Family.

Feminism’s attack upon the family is their Achilles heel in Ireland.

With regard to the charity issue – ALL charities in Ireland are now under scrutiny – and the largest group of charities? Women’s charities – there are literally hundreds of them – and these are the places where Irish feminists like to “hang out” the most, peddling their “women’s issues” mantra, and is it a big secret that charities run by feminists are nothing if not greedy?

And it is greed exposed by charities that has caused a huge drop in donations to ALL charities, along with a heightened scepticism of the  “don’t piss on my back, and tell me it’s raining” type.

There are none quite as avaricious, quite as determined to keep the funding and donations rolling in as those working in the domestic violence industry,  nor as willing to peddle false data, biased statistics and downright lies.

And we as a people are sick to death of being lied to.

The Irish Family: Then and Now. Part 1 of 4

 

One of the major men’s rights issues in Ireland is father’s rights – in particular the anomalous position – legally speaking – of what we call here “unmarried father’s” or men who do not happen to be married to the mother of their child or children when that child/children is/are born. Though I personally have noticed that over the last 5 – 6 years the phrase “single father” is replacing “unmarried father” in discussions or debates about this issue. I will address the legal aspects in a separate article.

Mostly because “unmarried father” carries and carried some baggage – of a feckless, irresponsible man who “had his fun and buggered off” this was part of the reason why women who had babies without being married or had any intention of getting married were up until circa 1989 referred to as “unmarried mothers” – NOT a term of approval, a phrase that carried its own baggage. I have personal experience of this – I was an “unmarried mother” in 1983 – a story for another time.

For both – and how these individuals were labelled – those labels carried with them layers of meaning – infused with the cultural and historical and religious baggage that Ireland as a society still to some extent carries – all of it under the brooding and betimes malevolent eye of the prevailing dominant “ethos” or “doctrine” that informed every aspect, every facet of our lives – up to and including at government level – the Catholic Church, and how that church operated IN Ireland.

No matter what you talk about in the context of Ireland, in relation to our social, cultural and political history and the seeds of where we are now – you will run slap bang up against the church – because up until relatively recent times, in historical terms, Ireland wasn’t just Ireland – Ireland was “Holy Catholic Ireland

So, having said that – let’s put the issue of fathers rights into context in the present day.

First of all we need to talk about the issue of divorce [1] – because there are two overlapping paradigms that contributed to the creation of the mess we have now in Ireland with regard to how “single fathers” are viewed.

Up until 1996 divorce was prohibited in Ireland – it was in our Constitution – there was a Constitutional ban on divorce. The ONLY way that divorce legislation could have been introduced in Ireland was to have a referendum – and that’s what we did – TWICE – because the first divorce referendum [2] in 1986 was defeated by a substantial margin.

63.48% against to 36.52% for the introduction of divorce legislation in Ireland, the voter turnout for this referendum was – 2,436,836, this represent 60.84% (almost two thirds of those eligible to vote)

I was a witness to not just the events leading up to both referendums, but to how both the pro divorce and anti divorce campaigns were run – nasty – very nasty – every religious freak in this country came out of the woodwork – and in the case of the first defeated referendum – was taken aback at how many of them there were.

What I want you to note is the year – 1996 – for many other western states – this is and was bizarre – 1996 – and divorce was verboten in this country – and the first attempt to change that was vigorously and vehemently resisted.

Ireland’s “conservatives” and at its core, the Irish populace up until the late 1990’s was and to some extent still is very conservative – in fact Irish conservatives make any other countries “conservatives” look positively “lefty”

That second referendum which took almost ten more years to be run – the amendment to allow the introduction of divorce IN Ireland was passed by a tiny margin – it was literally passed by the skin of its teeth.

50.28% for and 49.72% against the introduction of divorce IN Ireland (a margin of .56%) – the numbers of people who voted increased – 2,628,834, 62.15%

BOTH those referenda reflect the cultural and social attitudes prevalent IN Ireland between the years 1986 – 1996 of half and more of the population. Both men and women.

The difference, the rate if you will at which people in Ireland “change their minds” is reflected in, by how little the numbers of those totally opposed to divorce IN Ireland changed. 63.48% AGAINST in 1986, and 49.72% AGAINST in 1996 – a difference of 13.79% – not even one fifth had “changed their minds”.

In Ireland family is everything – in Ireland family doesn’t just mean your mother and father – your brothers and sisters – it means EVERYBODY you are related to by blood or marriage. The core unit of our society – and upon which this State was founded on is “The Family” it is in our Constitution – it’s still there, and no-one is agitating to have that changed – or calling for a referendum to amend this – well not many – there are campaigns to get certain sections of the Constitution amended.

So, when it comes to discussing the context in which the issues of fathers rights is viewed and embedded in, IN Ireland – the first thing you have to take into account is the cultural, social, political and RELIGIOUS forces at play here in not just the recent past but even to some extent the present.

The first thing to note is that “unmarried mother[3] was a term of abuse and approbation – and how by association, was the term “unmarried father” – when this began to change – gradually – as “unmarried mothers” morphed into “one parent” and then “lone parent” fathers were gradually excised out of the picture and became the bad guys – how under the influence of a combination of forces – with feminism being just one of them – an about face was done – to recast these women as “vulnerable” and no – it didn’t happen overnight – and yes – hard though this might be to believe in the wider Irish public – not everyone either accepts or believes or ascribes to the notion – that “lone parents” are brave vulnerable souls struggling to “do their best” in fact our current Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton has and is introducing a programme of cuts of blanket, life-long support for these “vulnerable brave souls” that is undoing that for a short period of time – historically speaking, was the paradigm that INFLUENCED GOVERNMENT POLICY – is coming to an end.

“In 1973, after much hard lobbying work, Cherish celebrated the introduction of the unmarried mother’s allowance – the first social welfare payment to acknowledge the existence of women bringing up children on their own. It was £8.50 per week.

In 1987, after many years of campaigning, the Status of Children Act finally abolished the status of illegitimacy.”

“When developing our Strategic Plan for 2004–06, it became clear that society was very different and that one-parent families now existed in many forms in Ireland. In recognition of these changes, we extended our services to all members of all one-parent families and renamed ourselves One Family.”

And yes – all along fathers have, and had been painted out of the picture – deliberately – and with great precision – but having said that – in order to understand the mechanics of how this came to be – you have to incorporate all elements, and take into account all the cultural, social and political changes that have happened IN Ireland over the last 20 years or so – feminism isn’t even close to being the major one – feminism IN Ireland is a horse of a different colour – feminism IN Ireland has up until very recently keep a relatively low profile in favour of presenting itself as “women’s rights”

Two things have impacted on the rising levels of both “single mothers” and “single fathers” – the introduction of the “unmarried mothers allowance in 1973” and the introduction of divorce in 1996, with both these sets of circumstances heavily influenced by the prevailing social and cultural norms and attitudes. Right up to 1996.

And caught in the middle? Children.

Now, factor in the impact of the revelations starting to emerge about the ongoing, and in the minds of vast numbers of Irish people, State sanctioned abuse of hundreds if not thousands of children at the hands of those purveyors of all that was right and proper IN Ireland – and the vast majority of Irish people would have absolutely agreed with that, IN “Holy Catholic Ireland” – it was devastating – to some extent we are still reeling from the scars of those revelations – and the circumstances around which these issues were dealt with. This influence – until these revelations started to emerge informed Irish attitudes to “unmarried mothers” and acted as a form of lever to “keep the number down”

A complex interconnected mesh of factors.

Factor in as well the ongoing and almost permanent state of economic crisis that this country has lived with since its foundation – except for a very brief period [4] – from about the mid 1990’s till the 28th September 2009. About 14/15 years – and then it all came crashing down – again.

During the period between 2009 and now – there has been some discussion about once more becoming “part of the UK” and no-one batted an eyelid – no-one completely lost the plot and went on a big ole rant about….you know what – THAT’S how bad it was and still is. Despite all the spin, [5] all the PR. It’s bad. Though I do have to say this – Irish people are resilient – do actually try to struggle through the various crisis that hit us – one after the other – our economy may be in the shithole – we have had most, if all our illusions ripped away from us – but – we get through them.

Relax any UK readers – there are no plans at government level to give this serious thought – apparently our current government “has it all under control” because of course they have always been just brilliant at “running this country”

Did people separate in Ireland before the introduction of divorce? Of course they did, and it was a shameful thing – culturally and socially – and in relative terms – not in huge numbers – did women have what were called “illegitimate” babies – absolutely – and they were treated in some instances quite harshly – very harshly – though it has to be said – that if those women committed infanticide – which quite a large number of them did – they were rarely either charged with that murder, or sent to prison – but were sent to the innumerable “institutions” set up to deal with these wayward women. I wrote about this in a post called “The Patriarchy Made Me Do It

Looking back over it, I realise I failed to make a point – the experiences of some of these women has been used by feminists to further THEIR agenda – but – for some of those women – those experiences were harsh. To deny this as a historical reality is to play word games – to play ideological word games. An amazingly brave woman who was one of the first to speak about her experience in one of these places in 1992 was– Christine Buckley [6]– Rest in Peace Christine, and thank you.

Let us now talk about the issue of fathers rights, IN Ireland – bearing in mind that all of the above is the back-story – the context – let’s talk about the nuts and bolts before we talk about what the underlying problems are – how fathers are treated in Court – how fathers have been gradually over a period of some 20 years or so – gone from being “the head of the family” and a person of respect and social and familial importance – to a pariah – in some circumstances – some very specific circumstances – as either the “unmarried father” of a child or children or as the – discarded and surplus to requirements, and in some cases, barely tolerated visitor in his child or children’s lives.

Let’s look at the numbers – the statistics – keeping in mind the cultural and social context in which those numbers and statistics must be evaluated, and the pertinent legislative changes that mark the institutional changes that caused shifts in perception, in attitude and in the cultural landscape, in particular among certain types Irish women – the vast number of whom wouldn’t know what feminism is or isn’t if it jumped up and bit them on their arses – and neither care nor have any interest in feminism – what they will bleat about is “women’s rights”.

Feminism IN Ireland is predominantly the provenance of middle class, middle aged privileged women who pontificate about “the patriarchy” and all the usual rubbish of feminism from their university and college lecterns – or in some cases – those who have “gone into politics” on TV shows, whining about “gender quotas” it is worth noting here that again up until recently – the 1990’s the vast majority of people who “went to college” were middle class and privileged – and completely out of touch with the lived experiences of the majority of Irish people.

The number of private households [7] in Ireland – and private household in this context mostly means families – increased in Ireland in three distinct phases. With the last phase being where “single mothers” became “acceptable”

Between the periods

1926 – 1966 – a period of 40 years, the average number of families in Ireland was – 659,280 – the increase of families in total over those 40 years was 64,626.

An average increase per year of 12,925.2

1979 – 1986 – a period of 7 years, the average number of families in Ireland was – 909,321 – between the census periods of 1966 – 1979 (13 years) the number increased by 179,722.

1991 – 2011 – a period of 20 years. The average number of families in Ireland was – 1,305,204 – with a quite significant increase between 2006 – 2011 – of 187,112

Single parent households in Ireland in 1996 were broken down thus. [8]

In 1996, (18 years ago)there were, 3,339 lone fathers, of which 282 were “single” 679 were “married” 661 were “separated” and 1,717 were “widowed”

In the same year, there were 16,762 lone mothers, of which 3,085 were “single, 4,411 were “separated” 7,319 were “widowed” so the total number of lone mothers, whether “single” or “separated” was 7,496 – out of a total number of all households of 1,123,238 – the greatest numbers of households were Husband and wife” (or couple) – 152,477, husband and wife or couple with children – 440,414.

So, 4,157 more “lone mothers” than “lone fathers”

The Perinatal Statistics Report 2012 [9] from ESRI has some interesting demographic information in it.

For the Census in 2006 these are the figures. [10]

There were 394,948 husband and wife (or couple) with children – and 21,689 lone fathers, there were 130,853 lone mothers.

In the space of 10 years, after the divorce referendum, and 34 years after the introduction of the “unmarried mothers allowance” the number of “lone mothers” jumped from 7,496 to 130,853 – during the period from 1996 to 2006. Between 1972 and 1996, it didn’t really increase by much – it took the best part of 34 years for single motherhood to become really socially “acceptable” – starting in and around 1996 – 24 years. Just as the Celtic Tiger was starting to roar and the EU was forging its “closer and closer links”

These are the raw demographics – and naturally don’t mean anything till you put them into context – the big social,. Cultural and political jumps came in the context of two things – when Ireland joined the EU in 1972, and when the Celtic Tiger began to roar.

These were rather abrupt social, cultural and most significantly political changes that Ireland experienced, even though we found ourselves suddenly “part of Europe” in 1972, it was as the “poor man of Europe” and we knew it – structurally and to a large extent improved things– on a deeper and more cultural level – things didn’t change all that much – as you saw with the divorce referenda example.

There has always been a bit of scepticism in Ireland re the EU or the EEC as it was called when we joined – being “European” wasn’t something we as a culture or a Nation ever really embraced.

The big changes came between circa 1992 – 2006 – that’s we started for want of a better phrase really “joining the world” – embracing globalisation and all that this brings – it was a slow journey – and to some extent we resisted every step of the way – Lisbon Treaty anyone?

The final thing to note in the context of Ireland and how “feminism” took actually quite a long time to take root IN Ireland and why as feminism started its inexorable journey to become the default paradigm of most western countries – in particular the US, the UK and Canada and Australia is this – there was no “swinging sixties” IN Ireland – no great social upheaval that threw all constraints on behaviour and free speech off – it was to be blunt – just more misery – more crisis – more struggling to get from day to another for most Irish people – I was born in 1961 – so grew up around the time that the sixties were segueing into the 1970’s – my mother was born in 1932 and described this period of time as “miserable” except for thing – the music.

To all intents and purposes “feminism” is a fad in Ireland – or was until relatively recently – “women’s rights” were what exercised the minds of those with an interest in this area – even now in spite of the latest offerings from the likes of Una Mullally wittering on in the Irish Times about whatever her latest drivel is – “feminism” began to influence public policy IN Ireland via the EU – and with a focused effort from about that period between circa 1992 – 2006 – in some areas – like fathers rights and domestic violence slightly earlier – around the mid 1980’s and early 1990’s – “feminism” to a certain extent operated below the radar IN Ireland – real feminism – of the kind that those in the US, UK, Canada and Australia experience didn’t start to impact IN Ireland till around the early 00’s – yes indeed – the effects of feminism’s toxic doctrine had been manifesting itself in the areas of fathers rights and domestic violence for a fair bit longer than that – but up until then feminism has had to tread a very careful path IN Ireland because of deeply embedded historical, cultural and social factors – one of which is that within Ireland – family is still seen as the core unit of society – single motherhood while for a brief time was peddled as “poor vulnerable brave souls struggling courageously” and given grudging acceptance is no longer quite the case – to be blunt – it never really “caught on”

Yes – certain types of Irish women – in particular – and no make no apology for this – single mothers embraced with alacrity this image of themselves as “brave souls” but not because they were “feminists” or all that bothered about feminism – but because social, cultural and political forces conspired together – with a subtle but effective influence from feminism emanating from the EU.

Were fathers – single fathers ignored and marginalised and painted out of the picture? Yes they were – did a framework through which those “working with single parent families” emerge which endorsed this “brave and vulnerable souls” paradigm – yes – it did.

But it was already starting to be recognised as false by for example The Family Support Agency [11] and Kieron McKeown [12] and [13] – right now – IN Ireland – and PEF (Platform for European Fathers) [14] in the EU – we are to all intents and purposes living by the grace and favour of the EU – they have us – and excuse the expression – by the balls.

Right now feminism a la “The Swedish Model” infests the EU – is corrupting the EU and making some of the most outrageous demands for assaults on the Human Rights of men and boys IN Europe – and of all the countries in the EU most vulnerable to being browbeaten into compliance by this, in my opinion, toxic and corrupt entity – it is Ireland.

THAT where Irish men’s Human Rights Activists need to focus their attention on – no offence to any US or Canadian MHRA’s but nothing that happens in those States has the power to impact on public or government policy IN Ireland, with the immediacy and to the detriment of Men’s Human Rights IN Ireland as the EU does.

If there is any place where we would “take our cue” from in relation to implementing biased and corrupt policies it is the UK.

 

With Regard to how to address Fathers’ rights issues in Ireland.

It is my opinion, and naturally open to criticism, that the issue of fathers’ rights IN Ireland needs to be addressed from the perspective that children NEED both parents, that it is CHILDRENS rights that are being abused – that addressing this issue from either the perspective of “mothers’ rights” or even “fathers rights” is and can be counterproductive. to harness that deeply embedded cultural and social alliegance to the concept of “family”

Yes – I personally know what it feels like to be alienated from one’s children – and the pain that this can cause – and this terrible emotional and psychological burden is placed mostly on men – on fathers – good decent men – that they are usually the target of this reprehensible campaign of hatred and vileness.

But without diminishing or disregarding this – children are also victims – children are handed a toxic and malign message that reaches into their very core – that one half of what contributed to who they are – where they came from – and what makes them who they are – is vile, is evil, is something nasty and horrible – what people do who launch campaigns of Parental Alienation do, is tell their children that half of you comes from something bad. Not in so many words – though this happens – but subtly, subliminally, and deviously.

That clinging to concepts like “custody” like “access” or “contact” or “child support/maintenance” does is send out another subliminal message to CHILDREN.

One parent owns you – one parent is more important that the other – one parent can’t be trusted to be your parent – one parent is so bad that they have to be regulated, restricted, supervised or ”kept on eye on”

Part of who are, what makes you who you are is yet again something to be feared, something that while it might have been good for you before – now in some cases almost overnight – ISN’T.

If there is one “concept” that I loathe with a passion in relation to this issue it is the “best interests of the child” doctrine – and how this has been first corrupted by false and distorted paradigms, and yes heavily influenced by feminism at an INSTITUTIONAL level – and then applied by those institutional bodies – ALL of them – without for minute actually considering WHAT is in the “best interests of the child”

Because the debate, the discussion, the narrative has become focused on “mothers rights” and “fathers rights”

Is this because I believe that father’s rights are irrelevant? Absolutely not – the right of a parent to be a parent to his/her child is without doubt a central and important issue – but the rights of CHILDREN to be parented by BOTH their parents is also a central and important issue that needs equal attention.

In relation to the tendency of either feminists or well-meaning but completely misinformed and ignorant do-gooders – this almost default “add on” to the “oh I agree that children need both parents………………..except in the case where there are issues of abuse or violence”

Would you all for all love of God open your bloody eyes and get this message into your heads when you peddle this shit – with the underlying implication that both abuse and violence emanates from men and only men.

Women are just as likely, if not more likely to BE abusive, to BE violent – and you are all turning a blind eye to this – to sanctimoniously peddling this shit is to be complicit in actually HARMING those children you are again sanctimoniously and self righteously claiming to be “trying to protect”

To continue to do this in order to protect an ideology, a toxic vile and malign ideology, or to cling to an allegiance to a set of beliefs that allows you to maintain your stance of believing that all men are bastards, all men are inherently violent and all men are abusive is giving permission, is endorsing, is ENCOURAGING violent abusive and frankly disgusting examples of “womanhood” to abuse children.

Even those who accept these toxic paradigms WITHOUT question – without doing their bloody homework in a well-meaning but ignorant belief that they are doing it in “the best interests of children” who may not even be feminists but blindly accept that the shit peddled by feminism must be correct, because “feminism is all about equality” – it isn’t.

Feminist doctrine HARMS children.

I will make no apology for this – those of you who do this – HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. ALL of you.

There are people in Ireland trying to address these issues – and we should support them and give them our backing – acknowledge the good they are trying to do – and join with them in that work.

Yes – some of their “ideas” are a bit off target – and some of them don’t quite get the full picture – but is it not better to work WITH them and towards getting that full picture into focus than taking a “them and us” stance” if they’re not “in the movement” then they’re “against us” I’m sorry – but no – I personally cannot support that point of view, and to be clear, there is no way in hell I would support ANY agency or body or organisation that has an intransigent feminist agenda – no way.

Personally I would rather work as well to kick out the feminists, kick out the feminist agenda and refocus those agenda towards one of Human Rights – as working towards addressing issues of Human Rights abuses.

 

References

[1] Divorce in Ireland 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

[2] Divorce in Ireland 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_1986_(Ireland)

[3] Unmarried mothers in Ireland; http://www.onefamily.ie/about-us/our-history/

[4] Celtic Tiger in Ireland; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger

[5] Celtic Tiger Starts to Stir:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-celtic-tiger-starts-to-stir-is-irelands-economy-really-back-on-the-economic-track-8877567.html

[6] Christine Buckley;

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/warrior-survivor-advocate-charmer-christine-buckley-was-a-hero-among-heroes-261631.html

[7] Private Households in Ireland;

http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=CNA29.asp&TableName=Private+Households+by+size&StatisticalProduct=DB_CN

[8] Household composition by marital status 1996

http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=103389

[9] Perinatal Statistics Report 2012: http://www.west-info.eu/files/SUSTAT48.pdf

[10] 2006 Census Household Composition.

http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76414

[11] http://repository.wit.ie/676/1/foreword.pdf

[12] http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26017.pdf

[13] http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/Fathers_and_Families_-_Research_and_Reflection_on_Key_Questions.pdf

[14] http://europeanfathers.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

 

Launch of Men’s Rights Ireland

 

Time to get serious about Men’s Rights in Ireland, I’ve been blogging for about 8 months, maybe a bit longer – though it seems like a lifetime, I started out as a complete novice, am still learning – slowly – but one thing I already knew before I started this journey into the world of online Men’s Rights activism, was that the core message of the Men’s Human Rights Movement was simple – yet profoundly urgent and necessary.

That Men’s rights are Human Rights, and that the concept of Human Rights as the absolute foundation of any civilised society has become tarnished, had become sullied and stained by decades of attacks and assaults upon it by feminism, and by feminists, who wouldn’t know a Human right if it jumped up and bit them on their arses.

Feminism has divided and conquered, has created a gulf of almost unimaginable distance between men and women, the two complimentary halves of humanity, so much so that I do sometimes despair that this gaping wound can be, or ever will be healed.

Into this gulf they have poured their poison, their vitriol, their spite and malice, and used these toxic miasmic outpourings to dismantle and destroy every last vestige of honour, of integrity and of basic humanity from both civil and political society.

In pursuit of what?

In pursuit of achieving but one gaol – to strip men and boys of their humanity, to reduce men and boys to a lesser sub -class of human beings, if even they acknowledge that men and boys are human beings.

They have done this by one mechanism – redefining humanity – elevating women and girls to some celestial class of human beings and men and boys to that lesser class of sub-human beings – and sub-human beings don’t need human rights – do they?

WRONG!

Men and boys are human beings – and Men’s Rights ARE Human Rights. It is time to take the battle to the feminists, time to take this battle to the streets, into the universities, right into the corridors of power.

That’s where I’m going – want to come?

 

About Men’s Rights Ireland (‘MRI’)

 In Ireland, the human rights of men and boys are being systematically and relentlessly assaulted by the actions and inactions of the state, as they are across much of the developed world. I have decided to launch a new campaigning group, ‘Men’s Rights Ireland’, with the objective of ending those assaults.

I’ve never been a feminist, feminism is an ideology that, like all toxic ideologies rests on a foundation of “othering” an entire class of persons, the core of all feminism(s) is radical feminism, and it is radical feminism that informs all feminisms, and exerts its malign influence on law and public policy. I’ve seen the disadvantaging of Irish men and boys becoming steadily worse since the late 1970’s, as successive governments have danced to the radical feminists’ tunes.

Radical feminism is a female supremacy ideology driven by misandry (the hatred of men). Radical feminists are parasites intent on destroying their host, civilised Irish society. MRI will raise public awareness of the damage being wrought by radical and gender feminists in Ireland, and from the outset we’ll advocate on four platforms:

 

Fathers’ Rights – the current system tolerates the perpetuation of Parental Alienation of fathers from their children, and ensures fathers are denied reasonable access to their children after relationship breakdowns, when malicious mothers deny them access, which is nothing less than emotional abuse of fathers and their children.

Domestic Violence Against Men – which happen almost on a par with domestic violence against women, but has been ignored, and where a narrative has been manufactured to paint all men as inherently violent – which is simply not true – as has been empirically proven over and over again

Criminal Justice – an ongoing campaign to have the core pillar of Human Justice dismantled – Innocent until Proven Guilty, for one category of crime – Rape and Sexual Assault. The propagandising of a non-existent “rape culture” in Ireland, and across much of the developed world.

Health and Social Funding – for male health and social issues – specifically male health issues (e.g. prostate cancer) which are on a par with specifically female health issues (e.g. breast cancer) the disparity in funding, attention and research is outrageous. Funding and housing support for homeless men and boys, funding for mental health services for men and boys.

 

On the 3rd May 2014 Men’s Rights Ireland is hosting a Public Event in The Iontas Theatre, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare with two guest speakers from the UK – tickets for this event go on sale on Wednesday 2nd April 2014, and are only available through the website:

http://mensrightsireland.wordpress.com/

 or by contacting:

mensrightsireland@gmail.com

Details about this event are on a separate page entitled “Hear The Truth in Maynooth

And me – who am I?

My name is Anne Marie Dempsey, I am a 52 year old mature student of Law and Politics at The National University of Ireland Maynooth, Co. Kildare – and I loathe feminism.

 

I’ll be waiting at www.http://mensrightsireland.wordpress.com

I’m still putting the finishing touches to the place, talk about your extra curvy learning curve – tech wise – but you’re more than welcome to drop by and say hello.

 

On a personal note, there is one person to whom I owe an enormous debt of gratitude, for answering my innumerable questions, for being the behind the scenes support of  this venture, and for his unflappable and calm serene demeanour, in the face of my many “queries” that generally start with “what the fuck………”

Mike Buchanan of Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) – the man is a saint 🙂

I will of course be supplying the Guinness in Maynooth on the 3rd May 2014.

 

Peddling rape culture in Ireland: Must’ve Been Out of Snake Oil

 

Laura McInerney in an article  called, “Accept it – ‘rape culture’ exists” in the online magazine thejoournal.ie   is trying to sell “rape culture” in Ireland, you read that right – she’s peddling this “concept” and as a bit of a sideline is peddling feminism as THE be all and end all of all perspectives/doctrines/ideologies. This is long, so make a cup of tea, grab a couple of Hob nobs and get comfy.

There are three problems with McInerneys technique, first she obviously knows sod all about feminism, other than what she might have picked up from a few Gender Studies classes and/or Cosmo.

Second, she opens her sales pitch with that most respected of empirical types of evidence – an ANECDOTE – but even better – a third party anecdote.

Lastly, she places the third party anecdotal “evidence” in a period of time, which from her perspective is a long, long, long time ago – 30ish years. The late 1970’s, in a biology class in Ireland.

“A FAMILY MEMBER told me a particularly dark anecdote recently. A teenager in the late 1970s, he recalls a sex education lesson in biology class, where female classmates were told by the male teacher that if they were ever raped, the best damage limitation would be to just lie back and try to enjoy it.”

Lets deal with this “anecdote” first – and I’ll start by making a couple of assertions, McInerney and/or her “family member” are either full of shit or liars.

Here’s why, I did my Leaving Cert in 1979 in Ireland, and I did Leaving Cert biology, and the reason why I know she could only be alluding to a Leaving Cert class, is because you could only do biology in Leaving Cert, before that you did “Science” for Inter Cert.

Now, unless McInerneys “family member” school followed a different curriculum from my school back in “late 1970’s” there were NO SEX EDUCATION classes in biology or in any other class at that time.

In fact, the first tentative “sex education” classes to be part of the school curriculum were in the early 1990’s and it was called SPHE, further it caused blue bloody murder.

“INTRODUCTION

Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) was first introduced to the Primary Curriculum in the Republic of Ireland in 1999. Prior to 1999, Health Education had formed part of the Physical Education curriculum. However, a more formal approach to social and personal education, incorporating relationship and sexuality education (RSE), intercultural education and child protection was new. Many programmes, developed to deal with specific issues during the 1990s, such as the Walk Tall programme to address substance misuse, Stay Safe to address child protection issues, and RSE to address sexuality and relationships education were incorporated into the SPHE curriculum.”

So, to suggest that this teacher would have discussed THIS issue, in that manner, in a biology class, in Ireland in the late 1970’s is stretching credulity to its absolute limits.

As someone born in 1961, who was educated in Ireland through the late 1960’s, and 1970’s I think I can reiterate, that either McInerney and/or her story telling “family member” who must be the same generation as me, are either full of shit and/or liars.

Even with the benefit of the doubt, that this “anecdote” is true, what does it prove? NOTHING. Except perhaps that somewhere, in a school in Ireland, in the late 1970’s there was a teacher who was an arsehole – big fat deal.

Moving on, McInerney continues in the vein she started this patently ridiculous article, with anecdotes, with vague unsupported references to equally unsupported contentions and assertions.

 It’s all very chummy and gosh darn it – how can you not accept that what I’m bullshitting you about is true? Because after all. I say it is.

She then moves on to selling her other toxic product, feminism. Naturally enough she assumes the “how can you not be a feminist, how can you be so mean about feminism” thing – then tells us what she has decided feminism is.

Rather predictably she ties feminism into being the champion of “sexual issues” because after all, feminism owns sex, and sexuality, and rather neatly juxtaposes misogyny alongside feminism – imputing that if one is not a feminist, one is automatically a misogynist.

“I am genuinely puzzled by the anti-feminist backlash I’ve seen in recent debates on prevalent sexual issues, two recent examples being the UniLad website’s rape jokes and Prime Time’s exposé of the sex industry in Ireland. Discussion of both subjects is to be encouraged, and in general, those opposed to the violent misogyny of UniLad and the normalisation of prostitution in Ireland seemed happy to engage with people offering different viewpoints, or people who wanted to know more about either. All well and good, and exactly how it should be. But there were still far too many comments from people who wanted neither to engage with, or be challenged by, anti-exploitation advocates. People who seemed genuinely appalled that anyone could be offended by rape jokes, or challenge the validity of prostitution as a career choice.”

But of course piffling little matters like actually throwing in a link to either of her “examples” so people could check for themselves – is just not the feminist way.

The next couple of paragraphs are just garbage, total and utter garbage about “lesbian killjoys”, women being told to “get back in the kitchen”. This article is probably the most pathetic attempt I’ve seen in a long long time to portray feminists and feminism as the victims of a terrible misunderstanding, of just plain old mean and nasty people misrepresenting saintly, caring and altruistic cuddly feminists.

Having done that, McInerney decides to answer herself, regarding her “puzzlement” at how mean people are being about feminists and feminism. Her “puzzlement” that anyone would think that feminism is way past its sell by date, way past the point where anyone with a half a brain, access to the internet or a semblance of sentience, has already made their own minds up – without any help from McInerney about what feminism is. Naturally enough, McInerney trots it out. The tired, laughable and definitely comical “definition” of feminism by………a feminist. Sigh.

“The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether it’s simply a case of misdirection and misinformation that has created this – let’s face it – fear of feminism. Don’t people know what a feminist is? A feminist is simply someone who believes that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. She is not someone who hates men, or who thinks that all sex is rape. She’s not necessarily even a She. All of the strong, intelligent, charismatic men I know are feminists; they believe in gender equality. That’s all feminism is… how could anyone proudly, publicly disagree with that?”

OK –  now stoppit – I can almost hear you all laughing – this is the “definition de jour” of feminism by feminists – yes I know, I know – it’s pathetic, it’s a joke, and this genius obviously believes it – well it’s that or she is a moron.

Personally, I’m torn – let’s be generous and assume she believes it – in that case – we’re back to she learnt her feminism from Cosmo.

I’m very tempted to suggest a reading list for Mizz McInerney, but am thinking her head might explode if she reads what some of the pioneers of her beloved feminism have ACTUALLY written – obviously Solanas springs to mind, most of the garbage by Dworkin, Millet and MacKinnon, though if I was really tempted to melt her brain I’d suggest popping over to the Counter Feminist and starting from post #1, alternating with The Unknown History of MISANDRY – between them Fidelbogan and Robert St Estephe would “re-educate” her nicely.

But, where she really needs to visit to get the full panoramic historical low down on women is here Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins.

I just love her next little paragraph, it’s a rather lame attempt to lay a guilt trip on women – women who decline to identify as a feminist.

“Sometimes you’ll hear women stating, “I’m not a feminist, but I believe in equality”. Believing in equality is exactly what a feminist does. Why should a woman be ashamed of calling herself a feminist? Because people will automatically presume she’s a radical misanthrope who’ll spray breast milk everywhere and beat men around the head with her jackboots if one so much as smiles in her direction?”

I’m NOT a feminist Laura, and I DON’T believe in “equality” it is one bullshit toxic theory propping up another toxic bullshit theory.  Shall I repeat that in case you missed it the first time, or have fallen to the floor in a puzzled swoon?

I’m female, NOT a feminist, and DON’T believe in “equaliddy” and just to hammer a final nail in the coffin you are now building for me –  or “Equal Rights”

I believe in Human Rights – applied to Human Beings – with it being irrelevant what kind of Human Being you happen to be.

Women SHOULD be ashamed to be feminists, to call themselves feminists, and to subscribe to ANY tenet of feminism – because it is a vile toxic twisted doctrine of bigotry, hatred, lies and prejudice. Only a deluded fool, an unbelievably naive, fool who has very obviously not taken the time to really investigate feminism to any degree would parrot that most pathetic of all pathetic excuses as to why feminism is a good thing.

The last thing feminism is about is “equality” the last thing feminists give a shit about are “rights” anybodies rights, never mind “women’s rights” feminists feed off the deluded, the patently stupid and the downright ignorant.

On to McInernery’s next ridiculous paragraph barely worth even critiquing.

“Some people dislike the notion of feminism because they believe that women already have equal rights in our society, and certainly, in a legislative sense, we’re coming along nicely. We’re not there yet, but I can see how people who don’t have direct knowledge of such topics as pay equality or abortion would think that we are. But as a society, we’re a long way yet from treating each other with equal respect, regardless of gender. This is where “rape culture” sticks its ugly head back in.”

The sheer level of blind arrogance and stupidity that underpins this nonsensical paragraph is epic – people “dislike the notion of feminism because they believe that women already have equal rights” WRONG – women don’t have “equal rights” women have enhanced, superior, extra rights, that men specifically don’t have – as a direct result of the lies, false data, faked statistics and insane “theories” peddled by feminism and feminists.

As for her assertion that “people” are so misguided as to “dislike the notion of feminism” because they “don’t have direct knowledge of such topics as pay equality or abortion” – really Laura? Let me guess, only feminists and hacks like you are allowed to read books, access the internet and find a veritable treasure trove of actual empirical evidence, only feminists and hacks like you are capable of evaluating, examining and reaching their own conclusions about anything? Without some barely literate, with the intellectual ability of an amoeba, feminist, to handhold them through the hard bits, people are just…………..lost?  ppppft.

“Rape culture” is a fairly new term to the popular lexicon, and again, I think that those offended by its use don’t quite understand what it refers to. If I say that we currently have a “rape culture”, many people will assume I mean that rape is socially acceptable, or that all men are rapists, or that simply being female is inherently dangerous because we live in a world of violently hormonal men. Such hyperbolic definitions mean that anyone using the term “rape culture” can be immediately dismissed as being a radical malcontent in a world full of happily smiling normals, but it doesn’t take much more digging to find the truth in the theory.”

Rape culture is a PR stunt by feminists, to whip up hysteria, to get their grubby hands on more and more government funding, even as the evidence piles up that every single thing feminists ever said about rape – IS A LIE. It is a smash and grab attempt to raise the hysteria volume up so loud, in an attempt to drown out the truth.

“There’s no denying that Ireland has a rape culture“Rape culture” actually refers to the set of societal norms that equates violence with passion, pigeonholes male sexuality, and excuses or downplays sexual violence. There’s no denying that Ireland has a rape culture. Am I being deliberately provocative by stating that? God, no. But it certainly suits many people to assume so, so they storm away, frothing at the mouth and wildly asking how I could be so terribly offensive about healthy, straight sexuality.”

No, Ireland doesn’t have a “rape culture” what Ireland has is a coven of panicking feminists who see that the con, the poisonous toxic social engineering con of feminism has been exposed, has been shown to be a lie, and this is their last ditch attempt to keep the lie alive. what you are doing is peddling a rape myth culture.

The next couple of paragraphs are more “anecdotes” which of course McInerney, in her delusional feminist mindset thinks means something, other than being another bullshit anecdote, that is.

“Rape culture definitely exists. Why not accept that, and work together to get rid of the damn thing?What would the abandonment of rape culture mean, anyway? It’d hardly be a great loss. If women were no longer afraid to walk alone at night, in case their mere feminine presence invited violent assault. If men didn’t feel that they had to conform to a very narrow definition of male sexuality, and didn’t feel emasculated if their chosen target demurred. If victims of sexual abuse weren’t afraid to speak out, weren’t bound by shame to blame themselves. If men and women who believed in equality and mutual respect weren’t demonised for using the word “feminist”.

Becaue you say so? Is that it Laura? – the paragraph above is so ridiculous that it is hard to know where to begin. Men are emasculated apparently if a woman “demurred” really? How many men did you ask Laura? She throws in the feminism = equality thing again – which I’ve already addressed.  But for the hard of thinking – like Laura and at the risk of pointing out the obvious, “getting rid of rape culture” means – getting rid of feminism and feminists.

Feminism = hatred, bigotry, lies, false data, manipulate and manufactured statistic and BULLSHIT.

“That sounds like a nice kind of way to do things, really. I don’t know how any reasonable person could object to that.

Only a fool would equate feminism with “niceness” only someone with absolutely no concept of what “reason” or logic for that matter means, could write such an infantile, deluded sentence.

“Let’s keep the debate going, because the more I think about it, the more I believe that it’s definitely just a case of misdirection and misinformation that has created this fear of feminism. I mean, the only alternative is to assume that significant sections of the population are terrified of women, and that we’re living amongst some extremely militant misogynists. And that can’t be right… can it?”

Oh Laura, no-one needs your permission to “keep the debate going” except you seem to have missed the boat on where this debate IS going.

Fear of feminism? Please. Contempt, disdain, anger, derision, ridicule, scorn, these are the words you should be using, and the only “misdirection and misinformation” is coming from feminists, and from nitwits like you.

As for “significant sections of the population are terrified of women” wrong again Laura, the same words as I used above are the ones you should be using, contempt, disdain, anger, derision, ridicule and scorn – THAT’S what men are feeling, and what significant numbers are beginning to feel towards women. Like you.

Militant misogynists? Of all the stupid things written in this article, this is the stupidest – it is the last weapon in the armoury of the inept, the inarticulate, the intellectually challenged – the last sad pathetic attempt of someone who has nothing of any substance to offer to explain why more and more people are rejecting feminism, why more and more people are waking up to the toxic, corrupt nature of feminism – the “it’s not me, it’s you” lame argument – the “you disagree with me, therefore you hate me” the “if you challenge me on my bullshit and prove, and CAN prove me wrong, I’m going to call you the nastiest name I can think of, and throw in an insinuation of violence” so there!

The phrase flogging a dead horse, springs to mind, feminism is OVER, feminism is on life support, a decaying putrid corpse kept alive by the efforts of the terminally stupid and the viciously corrupt.

But, because I’m feeling generous, I’m going to throw you a bone Laura, I’m going to start your REAL EDUCATION – read this and this and this – and when you’re done, then you’ll know what “rape culture” really is, and what really lies at the heart of your cuddly fluffy feminism.

©Anja Eriud 2014

C.U.N.T’s

 

NB. Now before anyone gets up a head of steam, the title is an ACRONYM it stands for Crazy. Uneducated. Nasty. Tramps. That’s much better, isn’t it?

There is a class of persons – in most western States – single mothers by choice, those females whose career of choice, the one that generates an income for them, is having babies that the State then steps in to support.

In Ireland we call them “scangers” in the UK I believe the term is “Chav’s” in the US it is “Trailer Trash” – I believe. I’m not sure what the vernacular is in Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

What is worth noting is, the fact that there is a generally recognised vernacular word to describe this class of persons suggests that the phenomenon is prevalent enough, visible enough, and a recognised part of the culture to acquire a descriptive vernacular word.

Had you asked me, or anyone I know 30 – 40 years ago what a “scanger” or a “chav” or  “trailer trash” was, neither they or I would have had a clue as to what you were talking about.

But now? Being a single mother is a badge of honour, an achievement, in fact ALL single mothers are heroic and brave and invariably victims of some external circumstances over which they had or have no control.  At all.

My mother was widowed at a relatively young age,  but had a simple philosophy – you want something? Work for it. There’s something you wish you had? Earn it.

What has all this to do with C.U.N.T’s?  Everything.

Now, apparently the act of giving birth to a child means you DESERVE all sorts of goodies, by right, you don’t have to work for anything, you don’t have to earn anything, you simply have to get yourself pregnant by any random guy who happens to be handy, give birth and viola – you are “special” and therefore the world OWES you.

No need to go to school, no need to ever get a job, no need to learn any manners – yes I know – an old-fashioned concept – no need to even consider for one solitary second the responsibility, the duty, that having that child imposes upon you – nope – none of that.  That’s for saps, for idiots, for fools.

I want a house, I want money coming in every month from the state fairy godmother, I want, I want, I want……..if I have a problem – someone else better solve it for me, or else.  My kid(s) has/have a problem? NOT my fault, someone else better take care of it for me, or else.  My kid (s) want to see their Daddy (s)? THAT bastard! No way – anyways – I’m not sure who that is.

What do you mean – I’m supposed to teach my kid (s) about responsibility, about how they should behave, treat other people?  Fuck off – that’s not my job – it’s the school, the social worker, it’s anybody else’s job, BUT mine.

So what if they don’t go school, big deal, school is for saps, for idiots, anyway, I never went to school – and I turned out alright. Didn’t I?

When the Unmarried Mothers Allowance (now called Lone Parent Payment) was introduced in Ireland in the late 1970’s early 1980’a, an Irish politician by the name of Alice Glenn caused uproar when she said something to the effect that a lot of girls will just get themselves pregnant to get a free house.

I recall the storm of protest this caused, though for the life of me I cannot find a reference source for it. To be clear, I wouldn’t be in agreement with a lot of Alice Glenn’s views, but on this, yeah she nailed it.

What my mother said was “it’ll end in tears – children’s and fathers tears”  how right she was.  Our current Minister for Social Protection has embarked on a programme of cutting back on payments to “Lone Parents” on tightening up the regulations, and rolling back the trajectory of the State goodie train – and it has been met with outrage, and sorrowful hand-wringing, – there’s a lot of talk about “making sure the most vulnerable in our society are not penalised by the current economic crisis”

The 1 million unemployed men are NOT the most vulnerable, the thousands of homeless men are NOT the most vulnerable, neither are the thousands of fathers who have been excised from their children’s lives, from their homes – oh yes, even  if you were married, but then kicked Daddy out of the house to go God knows where – you automatically become a “Lone parent” ergo – vulnerable.

Kieran McKeown wrote a paper, Families and Single Fathers in Ireland* in 2000, which focused on how vulnerable unmarried fathers are and were in Ireland, though, it must said, on reading this paper one will find the constant repetition that single/lone mothers are just as vulnerable gets a bit grating after a while.

“In making the case for single fathers, I wish to declare my intention at the outset to avoid any divisiveness or any suggestion that single mothers are receiving too much support or that any improvement in the lot of single fathers should be at the expense of single mothers.

There is nothing to be gained from creating competition between the needs of parents; if there is any hint of this it is certainly not my intention.

I wish only to create a space where the needs of single fathers can be seen in a similarly compassionate light to the needs of single mothers so that appropriate responses can be developed to meet the family needs of both and of their children.”

* This paper was delivered at a conference organised by Cherish: An Association of Single Parent Families, on the theme of The Changing Family in the New Millennium and held in the Conrad Hotel, Dublin on 4 May 2000. My thanks to John Sweeney and Peadar Kirby for helpful comments.

While this is a laudable effort on the part of Kieran McKeown to highlight the injustices perpetrated against single fathers, in fact a huge numbers of fathers in Ireland, I have to say this – my compassion for single mothers is………..practically non existent.  Harsh, perhaps even uncharitable but I don’t see any single mothers campaigning for the Rights of the fathers of their children. Do you? Anybody?

What I see in reaction to any attempt to cut back on State support for all these vulnerable single mothers is all the social justice warriors, waving their “studies”, and climbing up on their soapboxes and lamenting, and declare sorrowfully, that the MOST vulnerable in our society, are –  the C.U.N.T’S.

Do I really need to say who wrote these studies? Who put together these “statistics”?

The feminist “revolution” began to take root in Ireland around the 1970’s, and as with all feminists, they claimed to speak on behalf of ALL women, in fact a lot of women in Ireland opposed this new feminist takeover of the public discourse – but we all know that this has never deterred feminists – from taking over that is.

“The Galway Advertiser article was accompanied by the sub-title ‘be prepared to cringe’.  Certainly, the restrictions listed are unthinkable in 2013, and women are suitably appalled.  But it is a misconception to think that women were equally outraged in the 1970s.  Rather, there was a strong conservatism in Irish society, and this extended beyond moral values. 

There are enough letters in newspapers of the time from women opposing equal pay to indicate that, as a collective gender, women were not appalled.  Furthermore, it is important to consider the restrictions in the context of the 1970s.  The National Coalition may have baulked at the idea of introducing equal pay, but this attitude was largely influenced by the strained economic climate

After all, that same government introduced unmarried mothers allowance (as it was called at the time) and reversed the policy of withdrawing deserted wives allowance if the husband secured a divorce abroad.”

 What should be noted is that when feminism reached our shores in the 1970’s it swept all before it, feminists never actually ASK other women what they want. Never actually consider for one solitary second that anyone would NOT agree with their “interpretation” of anything – ergo – what feminism wants, feminism gets – and now we are all paying the price for not standing up against these harpies – to be fair, feminists were always very clever at hijacking legitimate civil rights movements and distorting them to serve the aims of feminism.

The legacy of this is a West awash with C.U.N.T’s, and broken hearted children and fathers.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Won’t Someone Have Pity on the Poor Poor little Rich Girls…..

 

Well, Una Mullally is at it again in the Irish times,  only this time she appears to have swallowed whole some rather large chunks of Bertie Wooster novels – her latest risible attempt at social commentary is replete with such words as “preposterous” and “for shame” and “outrageous” but this one is my favourite, her attempt at an impression of Penelope Keith a la The Good Life 

“……one simply does not have the time to fashion one’s own brie and cranberry tartlets in filo pastry because one has a bloody life.”

So, what is this latest offering from Mullally about? The title should give you a clue.

“Men need to step up to their role in Feminism 4.0”

Ah! It seems after decades of declaring feminism a penis free zone, all of a sudden the laydee’s NEED men, because the laydees apparently can’t do this “equality” stuff all by their little ole selves.  Hmmmmm, I have only one thing to say about this new demand.

Boo bloody hoo!

 

Mullally goes on about Nigella Lawson, some shoite about making gingerbread houses and a rancid tabloid, The Sun is being mean and horrible about the allegedly coke snorting cook who can’t actually cook.

“Of all the preposterous coverage of Nigella Lawson we have had to put up with, the Sun really took the poppyseed biscuit before Christmas with its revelations that the cook, an astoundingly busy career woman, had paid other people to do some stuff for her. Things that rich, busy people need to get done, such as catering and decorating a Christmas tree. For shame!”

 Crikey! Imagine that, Mullally getting her knickers in a knot about a tabloid being mean to a rich privileged twat, but in her quest for making this an “issue” worthy of ………well getting your knickers in a knot about, probably doesn’t want to be bothered thinking about all the families who barely survived on a few tins of beans and some Tesco burgers over Christmas – naw – sod ‘em – a rich privileged woman is being made fun of in the Sun – let’s start a campaign – let’s bore the pants off everybody by equating “equality” with the trials and tribulations of the rich, the privileged, the never had to struggle to survive a day in their lives.

Like Mullally’s other “victim” of “inequality” and “discrimination” one Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of facebook, but we’ll get to this “victim” shortly.

Mullally has a few more swipes to take at those mean tabloid hacks, picking on poor poor Nigella:

“By inventing a celebrity parent’s shortcomings, the Sun has condemned everyone who ever thought “Screw it” and finally got a cleaner in to do the bits they don’t have time to do, or anyone who drops their kid off in a creche on their way to work, or anyone who opted for Marks and Spencer three-for-two party food because one simply does not have the time to fashion one’s own brie and cranberry tartlets in filo pastry because one has a bloody life.”

See, Mullally knows the important issues to get on her high horse about, like getting snippy at people who have a problem with poor stressed rich folks who “finally got a cleaner in to do the bits they don’t have time to do,” or heavens to betsy the nerve, the absolute nerve of being snotty about “anyone who opted for Marks and Spencer three-for-two party food because one simply does not have the time to fashion one’s own brie and cranberry tartlets in filo pastry because one has a bloody life.”

This must all be so comforting and edifying for all those families, all those people, mostly men who have been laid off, made redundant and are now struggling to feed THEIR families, that Una Mullally is on the case, tackling the burning issues of “equality for rich people”

Ah yes, I can see why Mullally is a bit snippy about men not being exactly impressed with, or even interested in hearing about the “outrageous” calumnies perpetrated against rich people. Do these fools not realise? Can they not see?

Getting your knickers in a knot about rich privileged women is a cause that ALL men need to “man up” and get behind – stop that snivelling about your kids going to school with threadbare clothes – how dare you make a fuss about struggling to keep the heat going or the mortgage paid!  Really, don’t you know what the really really important issues are?

Feminism is just soooooooooooooooooo cool isn’t it? Ah but there’s more – you see even though both Lawson and Sandburg can literally command the media to report every inane thing they say or do, just by saying or doing it, apparently this is not enough and they are suffering, oh yes suffering, “due to the marginalisation of “serious” women’s voices”

“Of course there are endless perspectives on how to get on with one’s life as a woman, and Sandberg’s was just one of them. The reason this amplification of a singular  to perspective occurs is due to the marginalisation of “serious” women’s voices. So when one comes along, everyone simultaneously jumps on it and elevates it.”

Mullally really pushes the boat out on bleating about:

“Blokes don’t have to do that, because they talk about and to each other all the time, in their films and TV shows and parliaments and financial institutions and advertising agencies. Presumably once everything rights itself, in a few decades’ time, we’ll look at tomes such as Sandberg’s with the same amused curiosity with which we survey Victorian manuals on etiquette.”

Because you see, men talking to or about anything is a big fat no no, it’s a conspiracy you see, to silence women’s voices, if only there was a way to get this conspiracy to shut Mullally up, and rich twats like Nigella Lawson and Sheryl Sandberg and even Kim Khardasian who gets a mention from Mullally, because obviously none of these actually talk – they mime.  No one pays any attention to them, photographs them, quotes them, gives them publishing deals and television shows. Nope. Shoved into the background they are. Because:

But women, even Sandberg and Lawson, still get the crumbs from the table in terms of verbal and visual representation that isn’t about giggling and tits. So when a decent slice comes along, such as Lean In, we loaf it.

I have tears welling up at how oppressed, and marginalised and how discriminated against poor poor Sheryl and Nigella and Kim are.  It’s just so unfair isn’t it?

But never fear – Una Mullally is here, with her platform on the paper of record in Ireland, the Irish Times, to wave an admonishing finger, from her obviously silenced and marginalised and oppressed position of course, at you beastly men.

“If 2013 was about women leaning in, perhaps 2014 should be about men leaning out. Gender equality cannot happen solely by women leaning in. What are we leaning against? And why won’t these invisible boulders give way? Who is pushing from the other side? Everything would be much easier if men got on board.”

All you homeless men shivering in doorways, stop that coughing and groaning and “get on board”  all you unemployed men, struggling to feed your families and pay your mortgages, stop being so selfish and oppressive to rich women and “get on board”

Mullally preened a bit, she was on the telly, and a male panellist said something totally “outrageous”

“I was on the current affairs programme, Midweek, on TV3 recently discussing the gender pay gap. A male panellist was asked if he was a feminist. He replied, with a bit of a grin, “No comment.” How outrageous. Feminism is about equality. Would a person on television be so happy to reply “No comment” if they were asked whether racism was okay, or whether people should be persecuted for their religious beliefs? Why won’t men embrace feminism when it benefits all of us?”

It is unfathomable isn’t it, when feminism has lied, falsified data and statistics regarding domestic abuse of men, encouraged and applauded false rape allegation, parental alienation, the excision of fathers from their children’s lives, and demanded more and more and more public money so that fat arsed, useless feminist twats can demand higher and higher salaries for doing absolutely sod all of any worth.

So, Una in answer to your question.

“Why won’t men embrace feminism when it benefits all of us?”

Because feminism is a vile hate spewing ideology that seeks to benefit ONLY shrill useless spiteful vindictive and ignorant twats like YOU.

From one Non feminist WOMAN to a……………[fill in appropriate word here]

 

 

 

Jacky Jones – On her High Horse………again!

 

Jacky Jones is on her high horse in the Irish Times – again – about “Equality” and in particular about the “gender imbalance” on a newly created “working group on citizen engagement.”

 I’ll let her set the tone for her latest whine about “equality”

Equality for women is associated with better health for everyone. Despite this, equal participation of women in decision-making forums remains abysmally low.”

 There are two things to note about this opening statement, neither of which, in a whine about “equality” mentions men. In a nutshell, as long as women are happy and healthy, then by association, EVERYBODY is happy and healthy.  Because, you see the thing we all have to get into our thick heads is this – WOMEN are the standard by which all things in the universe are measured, ALL things.

 With regard to her second whine, that “women in decision-making forums remains abysmally low” Jacky is misrepresenting things just a bit, ok a lot, because the purpose of this working group is to:

“make recommendations on more extensive and diverse input by citizens into the decision-making process”.

 Sounds pretty straightforward doesn’t it, but Jacky prefers to ignore this and use it as an opportunity to have a rant on “equality” and in particular “women in decision-making forums remains abysmally low” and is so “incensed” as she says, that she took it upon herself to complain, and one presumes that because it was Jacky complaining the chairperson of this working group should have immediately hopped to and complied. Except they didn’t, nope, she got an answer that did NOT please Jacky one little bit.

 She moaned about their being “six men and two women” and when the work of this group is complete “is expected to report back to Mr Hogan in December.” Mr, Hogan being the ELECTED Minister at The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and the one with the actual “decision making power” given him by the ELECTORATE to make decisions on their behalf.

 Oh no, Jacky has decided that regardless of whether or not an individual is competent, on any “decision making forum” there has to be a 50/50 “balance” skill, talent, competence, experience or expertise is irrelevant. Don’t believe me, this is the answer that Jacky got in response to her whiney complaint:

“The members were chosen for their experience and expertise in community engagement with the State’s machinery and are not on the group to represent any particular section of society.”

 See that? Chosen for their “experience and expertise”

 Did this make Jacky happy?  Don’t be daft, of course it didn’t, so she complained AGAIN, and demanded further “answers” and when she didn’t get the response SHE demanded then she went on a big ole irrelevant rant about “volunteers” about “carers”

“two-thirds of all volunteers in Ireland are women who spend their lives dealing with the machinery of the State.”

And this:

“Almost two-thirds of carers are women who spend their lives dealing with the machinery of the State.”

 By “dealing with machinery of the State” I’m guessing filling in forms and being able to communicate with officials from the various State departments on an individual basis is more than enough “experience and expertise” to participate in a government sponsored working groups? Well THAT, and being female of course.

 But the piece de résistance of Jacky’s big ole moan was this:

“Every decision made by local authorities affects women more than men. Think pushchairs, shopping, school runs.”

There you have it, the big issues that impact on women that DESERVE the 100% attention of the entire machinery of the State are “pushchairs, shopping, school runs” male homelessness, suicide and lack of resources or facilities for male victims of Domestic Abuse are piffling concerns when it comes to shopping, and pushing babies about!

 But what really got Jacky’s goat was being dismissed, what really ticked Jacky off big time is that she was NOT listened too, she had demanded and expected an explanation, in her arrogance she obviously assumed that SHE had some valuable input and ergo MUST have HER recommendations complied with.

“With such a dismissive attitude, how can Ireland ever hope to achieve gender equality? Ireland ranks 24th out of 27 EU member states in relation to numbers of female elected representatives”

 What on earth could be this “dismissive attitude” that so “incensed” Jacky? Well it was the second response:

“When I again protested about the gender imbalance, the press office replied: “Thanks for your comments, I have high hopes that they [the members] will feed into the consultative process.”

 Cue another big irrelevant rant on more irrelevant “issues” as a smokescreen to hide Jacky’s disbelief at being dismissed, at being brushed off, at not getting the answers SHE demanded.

 Because you see, Jacky doesn’t give a shit about the purpose of this working group, she also could care less about the actual bona fides of the members of this working group as SHE dismisses THEM peremptorily and contemptuously on the basis of THEIR “gender”

“The group is chaired by Fr Seán Healy from Social Justice Ireland and has representatives from Pobal, The Wheel, South Tipperary County Council, an environment group (unclear which one), and the Community Platform. 

These may be very able people but how were they selected?”

 Because you see for Jacky “equality” means one thing and one thing only – what about the wooooooooooooomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen?

 I just love her final little smug statement, bearing in mind the utter tripe she just went on a moan about.

“Equal societies have healthier men, women and children, less obesity, less drug use, better mental health and healthier older people. What are we waiting for?”

 Is that so Jacky?  Well you of course being the expert on “equality” should have no problem with people being chosen for working groups on the basis of “experience and expertise” rather than just on whatever genitalia they happen to be in possession of? No? 

The Peculiarity of Irish Feminism. An Introduction.

Irish feminism was and is peculiar, it followed a different path than either US or UK feminisms and now EU feminism as influenced by the “Swedish Model”,  in fact I would go so far as to say that not only has, and did Irish feminism follow a different path but it was born from different soil. In fact it is incorrect to call the movement for women’s rights in Ireland feminism at all.

Alas, it now appears that Irish feminism is converging with the above named feminisms, and betraying its own historical roots. This might sound strange but Irish feminism was to all intents and purposes a women’s rights movement and as such had legitimate aims, and was grounded in legitimate causes.

To understand the women’s rights movement in Ireland one has to take into account more than simply a battle for women’s rights, but acknowledge that this is embedded in a wider framework of republicanism, suffocating religious tyranny and an underlying class struggle.  See here, here and here.

Now,  the Irish women’s rights movement is and has allowed itself to be corrupted by the insane and badly informed agenda of US/UK and EU feminism, it has made itself a joke, a caricature.  Rather than being a legitimate platform from which to address inequalities imposed on Irish women by traditional beliefs about “a woman’s place” or women’s legal status or cultural norms about how women should or shouldn’t behave it is now simply an extension of the ideology of hate that US/UK/ and EU feminism is grounded on. Grounded on misandry and fuelled by bigotry, lies and fraud.

The Irish women’s rights movement lost its way when it embraced “gender” feminism rather than holding to its position as a women’s rights movement. THAT was a legitimate platform in the context of Irish laws, Irish cultural norms and Irish society. Around circa 1980 it became redundant, it had won all the rights battles it set out win, and has succeeded in its aims to address legally enshrined inequalities against Irish women. Now “feminism” has taken over, grafted itself onto a legitimate cause and corrupted it, as feminism always does corrupt everything it touches.

Two things contributed to the disenfranchisement of Irish women, to the imposition of a cultural and legal framework that necessitated the emergence, or rather a re-emergence of a women’s rights movement in Ireland in the late 1960’s, early 1970’s, Catholicism and colonisation.  We both inherited, and had imposed upon us two external forces and influences that changed the nature of Irish society and culture, and led us down a path far from our ancient roots.

This is not to say that these influences were not embraced, not deliberately and consciously incorporated into our culture, because they were. Enthusiastically and with determination, when Irish Independence was at last gained after several hundred years or so of colonisation, rather than rejecting the legal and cultural tyranny of our conquerors and rejecting the tyranny of Catholicism, and returning to our ancient roots, we gleefully continued to utilise these cultural, legal and religious weapons against our own people. Especially against our women and in particular against the poor in our society.

Before we were finally conquered over a long period of time and subdued with the passing of “In 1800, following the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the British and the Irish parliaments enacted the Acts of Union. The merger created a new political entity called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with effect from 1 January 1801” Éire [Ireland] had an ancient system of laws and a culture stretching back some 2,000 years that was remarkably egalitarian and in no significant way treated women as less equal than men. See here, here, here and here.

So, rather than celebrating Independence, rather than congratulating ourselves on finally throwing off the yoke of colonisation, we should hang our heads in shame at taking over and imposing a worse system of tyranny on our own people. We in fact became our own conquerors, we simply continued to impose the same rigid rules, laws and cultural norms, and in fact refined those cultural norms into a more repressive and oppressive regime, with Irish women singled out for “special” attention.

What needs to be said here is, that Irish women themselves colluded in this repressive regime, they endorsed it and refined it, and gave it its legitimacy.  For every Irish man who contributed to the continuation of repressive Catholicism and legal tyranny, there was an Irish woman standing beside him fully sanctioning this, equally accountable for its existence. Equally complicit in the perpetuation of a system of repression and oppression.

So called icons of feminism like Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Kate Millet et al make me laugh with their talk of “women’s oppression” from their nice middle class well protected lives, modern day writers such as Amanda Marcotte,  really make me laugh, pontificating from their cosy ivory towers about being “oppressed” because men “treat them like sex objects” by staring at them in the street.

Try this on for size, Magdalen Laundries, Goldenbridge, not to forget how young Irish boys were abused and maltreated in places like Artane and Letterfrack, see here. THAT’S oppression, THAT’S living under a regime which denies you not just basic human rights, but denies you any recognition AS a human being.

With regard to the Magdalen Laundries, these were run by women, by nuns yes, but nuns are female.

None of these places could have existed, could have continued to operate without the collusion of Irish people as a whole, men and women.

While I do admire to a certain extent the first women’s rights activists who highlighted the legal and cultural inequalities perpetrated against Irish women, my admiration is qualified because they failed to address subtle, less obvious perhaps, or simply preferred not to see, atrocities committed against Irish men and boys, case in point, Ireland had the highest level of admittance to “Lunatic Asylums” of men. Especially unmarried men, the unwanted, inconvenient bachelor brothers standing in the way of acquiring family land. From pages 5 – 6 of this Dissertation. It’s a hefty read at 277 pages and is confines itself to the years 1817 – 1920, but does establish a unique pattern in Irish society which persisted into the early 20th century.

One of the most comprehensive arguments along these lines comes from Elizabeth Malcolm in a study of western asylums in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.12 Although women were slightly more numerous in the general population in western districts (counties Sligo, Leitrim, Galway, Roscommon, and Mayo), men were significantly more numerous in the asylum.

 Malcolm’s analysis of committal warrants and physicians’ case notes from western asylums suggests that there was a robust relationship between the high levels of emigration from the post-Famine west and the preponderance of single thirty- and forty-something men in the asylums there.

In an era of land consolidation, a shift to primogeniture, and reduced rates of marriage, emigration was a safety valve for a young, single, landless, but predominantly female cohort. Unmarried men, who for whatever reason were unable to escape the constraints of the households of their birth and resultant family strife through emigration, therefore ended up committed to the asylum in disproportionate numbers.13

Shunted out of the way into these places for greed, for avarice. Another peculiarity of Irish society, the obsessive need to own land – but a discussion for another time. In the same report at page 192.

Mark Finnane and Elizabeth Malcolm have argued, for example, that economic factors like emigration, a shift to primogeniture, and consolidation of land created “surplus” adult children. In a society increasingly bereft of family resources, both emotional and financial, they argue that the oddities of these adult children could be overstated to allow for committal to a lunatic asylum, thus relieving remaining family members of a significant burden.13

See notes at the end of post.

 I will be addressing this issue in a separate post, Irish Men on the Margins: A Historical Perspective.

 To continue:

I read accounts of how feminism operates in the US and the UK, and am carefully observing as the EU spreads the toxic message of feminism throughout the Union, but in particular how feminism has literally corrupted the very foundations of democracy in the US and am appalled, horrified and fearful as I see its influence seeping more and more into Irish society.

In many ways I am grateful that Ireland resisted the external influences of the wider western cultural norms and maintained a benign xenophobia, while also admittedly perpetuating its own internal toxic cultural norms. For two reasons, first we have to a certain extent escaped the influence of the worst of radical feminism (a situation that is now being reversed) and secondly, the emergence of radical feminist “thought” is counterbalanced by the emergence of the men’s [human] rights movement, providing an alternative voice and voices, that just were not allowed or permitted in either the US or the UK as radical feminism gained its foothold in the early 1960’s and 1970’s.

It is a small but significant plus, let us hope it is enough to build on to resist the influence of the EU as it seeks to impose the so called “Swedish Model” of feminism on us. See here, here and here.

 To Irish feminists lured by the polished and toxic rhetoric of “third wave feminism” I say this – STOP – you are being hoodwinked, lied to, manipulated, brain-washed and ultimately being used as pawns in a game with deeper and more insidious motives than “women’s rights” or “equality” take a moment to stop and think – is there anything that I as a woman am legally prohibited from doing? Is there anything that I as a woman, apart from my own limitations or ambitions simply cannot do or that only Irish men are “allowed” to do?

The answer to both those questions is a resounding NO. In fact, if you are honest and open-minded you will in fact discover that reverse is true, it is Irish men, and all men who are being discriminated against, in education, in family law, in employment, it is men who are being disenfranchised, your fathers, brothers, sons, nephews and friends. So, what are you going to do about it?

 Notes On.

POLITICS, PROFESSIONALIZATION, AND POVERTY: LUNATIC ASYLUMS FOR THE POOR IN IRELAND, 1817-1920; A Dissertation; Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Melinda D. Grimsley-Smith: Christopher Hamlin, Director Graduate Program in History Notre Dame, Indiana, December 2011

Pages 5 – 6

12 Elizabeth Malcolm, “‘The House of Strident Shadows’: The Asylum, the Family and Emigration in Post-Famine Rural Ireland,” in Medicine, Disease and the State in Ireland, 1650-1940, ed. Greta Jones and Elizabeth Malcolm, 177-194 (Cork: Cork University Press, 1999).

13 Elizabeth Malcolm, “‘Ireland’s Crowded Madhouses’: the Institutional Confinement of the Insane in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Ireland,” in The Confinement of the Insane: International Perspectives, 1800-1965, ed. Roy Porter and David Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 183-186.

Pages 192 – 193

13 See for example Mark Finnane, Insanity and the Insane in Post-Famine Ireland (London: Croom Helm, 1981), Elizabeth Malcolm, “‘Ireland’s Crowded Madhouses’: the Institutional Confinement of the Insane in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Ireland’ in The Confinement of the Insane: International Perspectives, 1800-1965, ed. Roy Porter and David Wright, 315-333 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), Áine McCarthy, “Hearths, Bodies, and Minds: Gender Ideology and the Committal of Women to Enniscorthy Lunatic Asylum 1916-1925,” in Irish Women’s History, ed. Alan Hayes and Diane Urquhart, 115-136 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2004).

 

 

Next Newer Entries