Stop Talking About Fathers Rights – Start Talking About Children’s Rights.

 

I’ve been keeping an eye on a “Fathers Rights” facebook page (Fathers Rights Ireland) for about six months now, and reading some of the posts of the person who appears to be “in charge” of this page I have come to the conclusion that this person is not only ill-informed, but is definitely NOT someone to whom a father in the distressing situation of being alienated from his child(ren) should be listening to, taking “advice” from or supporting. At all. This person if I may use the vernacular is a lunatic – an ill-informed, hysterical, ranting lunatic.

Having said that – he (I presume the person of charge of this facebook page is a he) does post links to relevant newspaper articles etc. – his problem is simple though – he reacts emotionally and subjectively to practically every item and lacks the ability or the will to analyse OBJECTIVELY and calmly the CONTENTS of these “links” with a view to furthering, in any meaningful way, the recognition and APPLICATION of the CURRENT law in any case, or use any “judgement” as supportive of an application in ANOTHER case – i.e. YOUR case.

Therein lies the problem with these kinds of groups – they are so blinded by their rage and self-referential “hurt” that they have a tendency to just fling accusations of “conspiracy” and “fraud” and malfeasance against…..well everybody and anybody – most especially judges, solicitors, state agencies – in particular – TUSLA. (What I am saying here is that these are unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and that they are counter-productive and irrelevant and will not HELP you in any meaningful way when YOU are the one standing in Court in front of a judge pleading YOUR case, unless you have actual EVIDENCE to support these allegations specific to YOUR case)

I might add, if you do go into Court ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” in a random and unhinged manner (and yes, I have seen this) you will come across as unhinged. Let me be blunt – if the object in “going to Court” is to do with access/custody of your children – first familiarise yourself with the law regarding children, second INVOKE your Children’s Rights – third – make a rational, intelligent, INFORMED argument – supported by case law – and make it all about YOUR CHILDREN. What actually pisses me off about a lot of these so-called Fathers Rights Groups is this – there is always a “leader” a loud-mouthed arrogant egotistical arsehole who is so enraged at what he perceives as how hard done by he is that EVERYTHING is about his ego-driven agenda – and yes I know – I’ve heard all the bullshit that “it’s all about the kids” – it isn’t – that he then manages to gather a group around him and they follow like sheep – sometimes, genuinely distressed fathers – genuine fathers who are floundering as to what to do about the awful situation they find themselves in, and end up listening to and reading the utter tripe these idiots spout out.

Guys – just because YOU don’t know what to do, just because you’ve found this loud mouthed arsehole pontificating about “Fathers Rights” just because, in a million years you never thought you’d find yourself in this position – it doesn’t mean that first loud-mouthed arsehole you come across, on the internet or at a “Fathers Rights” meeting has all the answers or ANY of the answers.

The clue is this – if you have to go to Court to try and get access/custody of your children – then what you need to inform and arm yourself with IS THE BLOODY LAW. From the source – not from some idiot on the internet, or some loudmouth running “Fathers Rights” meetings.

If you actually believe that some loud-mouthed arsehole on the internet ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” to a bunch of sheep-like “followers” on a facebook page is going to have ANY impact at all when YOU are the one standing in front of a Judge in a Court then you are sadly mis-informed.

To put it bluntly – you don’t get to choose the battleground (The Court) you don’t get to dictate how the Court operates – its been operating for several hundred years – what YOU get to do is choose which weapons you bring onto the battleground – those weapons are THE LAW – both legislation and case law – both of which you are free to use in your presentation – and present the Court with an interpretation of either or both (preferably both) that supports YOUR APPLICATION.  You have an array of legislation, of Human Rights Instruments and CASE LAW to choose from – it is up to you to ARGUE your case and persuade the Court that your argument is SOUND.

Now – before I go any further with this – let me make my position clear.

I am absolutely totally and adamantly NOT a feminist – I loathe feminism, in all its putrid, toxic manifestations with a passion – I absolutely endorse without equivocation the presumption IN LAW that parents are jointly endowed with EQUAL responsibilities to their child (ren)

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse the presumption IN LAW that children are entitled to maintain without interference, conditionality or “ranking” a parent/child relationship (with all that this entails) with BOTH parents.

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse that it is CHILDREN who are endowed with RIGHTS and parents who are endowed with RESPONSIBILITIES – to the children.*

*I will post the skeleton argument that “Joint Legal Custody” of Children is already presumed in Law – in a day or two – with supporting case law.

The legal nuance here is this – the parental “Rights” that are being violated are the “Rights” of parents to be allowed to fulfill THEIR obligations and duties AS A PARENT to their child.

Ergo – to speak of “Fathers Rights” or for that matter “Mothers Rights” is to ignore a fundamental basic fact – you CANNOT “be” a parent unless you have a child – your “Rights” as a “parent” are absolutely and solely dependent on the existence OF A LIVING CHILD.

Ergo your “Rights” are secondary and subservient to the innate and inherent “Rights” of the child as a vulnerable person entitled to the full and absolute protection of THEIR human rights – one of which is to have the protection, guidance and benefit of A PARENT taking full responsibility for the health, welfare, safety and well-being of that child.

Your “Rights” as “a parent” or “Legal Guardian” are that YOU be allowed to fulfil and exercise YOUR obligations and duties in ensuring the health, welfare, safety and well-being of THAT CHILD.

If – you are prevented from fulfilling your obligations and duties to your child – it is NOT “Your Rights” as an individual human being that are being violated – IT IS YOUR CHILDS HUMAN RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED.

So please – shut up about “your rights” shut up about “Fathers Rights” SHUT UP about how hard done by you are, SHUT UP ranting and raving about “conspiracies” and “fraud” and whatever other ridiculous nonsensical and IRRELEVANT matter that appears to ignite and trigger innumerable badly written, ill-informed and hysterical “posts” on various different facebook page and blogs.

It might sound obvious, though I sincerely doubt it – but the area of LAW all you so-called “Fathers Rights” groups and coalitions are enmeshed in is FAMILY LAW, and while for these purposes The Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 primarily addresses the LEGAL issue of dissolving a lawfully constituted MARRIAGE in Ireland – one can be married without having children. The Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989 addresses issues when two legally married people wish to dissolve and divest themselves of any legal obligations to the other spouse.

The canon of “Family Law” that addresses issues with regard to CHILDREN only, are primarily contained in other legislation, (Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964) in effect the only substantive legal issue directly impacting upon ADULTS in the context of “Family Law” is simple – dissolving a marriage/ending a marriage BETWEEN ADULTS. And yes, children and issues around children are contained in these two pieces of legislation – the point I am making here is this – draw a distinct line between issues that ONLY effect ADULTS and issues that affect CHILDREN.

No longer being married to the other parent of a child should only impact ON THE ADULTS – not the children – no longer living with the other parent of a child should only impact on the ADULTS – not the children – in other words – your “living arrangements” should absolutely NOT impact on the parental relationship between a child and BOTH his/her parents – at all. Ever. Any person who uses a change in their living arrangements with the other parent as an excuse to interfere with the child’s relationship with that other parent is violating THE CHILDS RIGHTS.

And no – I’m not getting into a discussion about spousal support, division of assets, etc. – again – WITHOUT children IN the mix – those are legal issues BETWEEN ADULTS, and yes involve a separate but connected area of the toxic culture engendered by an endorsement of the “feminist” perspective on how “strong and independent” and “you go girl” wimmin are. Sigh.

Though I have often thought that “wimmin” of a certain type (which is most of them) should really be treated as having the same lack of mental/legal capacity as children – and dealt with accordingly – a discussion for another time.

Moving on.

What triggered this response? First, though I rarely respond or comment on other people’s blogs, or posts on facebook (never) in particular blogs or posts by Fathers Rights activists I have, to be blunt, a low opinion of most of the content – in particular content that bangs on and on about “the law” or erroneous “judgements” yet do not link or reference the law or judgement they are – banging on about with one notable exception – ExInjuria https://exinjuria.wordpress.com/about/ Nick Langford writes and analyses with clarity and precision any issue of law he addresses. I highly recommend a visit to his site.

So, the first “post” that irritated me was posted on the 25th December 2018 and contained a link to this article Abducted by a parent: Heartbreaking cases of the Hague Convention Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 02:00

Colm Keena

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abducted-by-a-parent-heartbreaking-cases-of-the-hague-convention-1.3740959?fbclid=IwAR3FgzFr6u-IL07kQSG-aSnp2W1x3_05uCaPaZfnR6uFKj0MI6BfrQbAozw

Before I get into dissecting this article – this is what irritates me – if you are purporting to “advise” people about a specific topic, or equally are purporting to be “helping” other people – in particular with regard to a legal issue, and ever more particularly with regard to a family law issue – and you actually want to help the people you are purporting to help – here’s a bit of useful ADVICE.

Reference the goddam Law – post a link to the bloody JUDGEMENT(S) – so that people can read for themselves – so that people can download the judgement or the piece of legislation and DO THEIR OWN BLOODY ANALYSES.

But to pontificate and spew out ill-informed rubbish about what you think it means or even worse simply regurgitate what another ill-informed idiot on the internet has concluded this or that ruling/judgement/determination means is beyond arrogant, beyond vanity, beyond egotistical bullshit – it is venal and self-aggrandizing in the extreme.

So, lets take this article and see is there anything in it that could possibly be useful for a person in that situation to know?  Is there anything there that could direct or guide a person in that situation in the preparation of their case?

Several things.

First the name of the Judge tasked with dealing with “Hague Convention” cases is Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh – at this juncture I would point out that at various times different judges are assigned different areas of law. In this instance – to repeat – Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh was assigned “Hague Convention” cases – abduction cases – that is children abducted FROM this jurisdiction to another jurisdiction by one parent.

The next thing I would point out is this – the vast majority of Family Law hearings are in camera – i.e. the public is excluded from the court with a few exceptions – which we will get into another time.

But – the JUDGEMENTS- in particular those that may have a public interest element – are PUBLISHED with all identifying information anonymized. On the court’s website – www.courts.ie

So, this constant bleating about “secret courts” is nonsense – it is the IDENTITY of the parties that is “hidden” NOT either the nature and facts of a particular case or the issues of LAW being determined.

Are all judgements published? Nope – not all – but most.

Try this – google www.courts.ie

On the right-hand side underneath “online” the third option down is “Judgements and Determinations” click on it.

Across the top on the first menu line you will find three options:

1. Judgements by Year, 2. Judgements by Court and 3. Judgements by Judge.

Underneath you will find three more menu options – the first is “Determinations” these are rulings of the Supreme Court – the next two are “Judgements Help” and “Disclaimer and Copyright”

Click on “Judgements by Judge” and scroll down and search for Ni Raifeartaigh J.

What you should notice is that EVERY judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is listed – all you have to do is click on the little blue triangle beside each judge’s name and a FULL list of their published judgements comes up.

Try it – click on any judge’s name – and then scroll through the list of judgements – on the right-hand side of this list you will see WHICH Court any particular judgement was given in – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court – what you should also notice is that ALL judgements to do with ANY aspect of Family Law or to do with children is listed with INITIALS ONLY.

E.g.:  if you right click on the DATE 11/21/2018 R.B. -v- D.K OF THIS LISTING and click “open in a new tab”. (the reason for doing this is to keep the list OPEN.

What comes up is this: the judgement is the case of R.B – v – D.K neutral citation [2018] IEHC 728:

The “Title” with ALL identifiers anonymized is:

“THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL

ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND

IN THE MATTER OF N. B., A CHILD

BETWEEN:

R.B.

Applicant

-AND-

D.K.

Respondent

Judgment of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 21st day of November 2018

Nature of case

  1. This is a case in which the applicant (the father of a child) seeks the return of the child to England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”) and EU Council Regulation 2201/2003. The child, N, who is three years old, is currently living in Ireland with his mother, the respondent in these proceedings. The date upon which they came to live in Ireland is the core matter in dispute in the case. Counsel on both sides of the case agreed that there was a single net issue in the case, namely as to where the child had its habitual residence at the relevant time, and that the Court was required to resolve a conflict of fact in this regard.”

What follows is the judgement – in full – in detail. Study it.

I will confine myself to just posting the Conclusion here paras 34 – 36

“34.     In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the child N has been the subject of a wrongful retention in Ireland because the applicant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the child’s habitual residence had not changed as of the end of April/beginning of May 2018 when his mother refused to return him to England. For completeness, I also find that, insofar as the respondent relies upon the defence of consent, she has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the father gave his consent either to a permanent removal or retention of the child in Ireland. I will therefore make an order for the return of the child to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  1. In order to allow for an appeal, I will place a stay upon the execution of this order pending the expiry of the time limit for an appeal, with time of course running from the date of the perfection of the relevant order for the child’s return.

 

  1. I would like to refer this judgment to the Irish immigration authorities for further investigation, having regard to some of the evidence in the case. However, as this is an in camera matter, such a move needs to be approached with caution and I will not take any step in that direction without alerting the parties in the first instance and giving them an opportunity to address me on any relevant law. This should not prevent the perfection of the order and the progress of any appeal with regard to the Hague Convention issues.”

(emphasis added)

As you can see Her Honour Judge Ni Raifeartaigh ordered the child abducted from the UK by his mother, who re-located in Ireland RETURNED to the UK.

I strongly suggest to study this judgement and some of Ni Raifeartaighs other judgements in detail to get a clear grasp of the legal principles that are applied in these kinds of cases.

Moving on. If you look up to the top of the page – the one with the judgement on it – you will see another menu bar: above the dark blue line that says Judgements and Determinations: Homepage – just above that you will see a button that says “Printable Version

So, whatever judgement you have decided to look at – you then think to yourself – “I’d like to have a printed copy of that”

Ok so – click on “Printable Version” and voila – a small print box opens and all you have to do is decide, for example, how many copies of this judgement do I want? Do I want it in black or white or in colour – then click print.

One thing to watch out for – if you click on “Printable Version” and the print preview just shows blank pages – this means the judgement hasn’t downloaded properly – close the print box and click the “Printable Version” button again until you see the message “loading preview” what happens – as far as I know – I have a tendency to leave all the little “print boxes” open and the thing seems to get stuck – as soon as I close those open boxes it seems to “unstick it”

I would suggest that you take your time and explore the courts service website – EVERYTHING you need to know about how the courts function in this jurisdiction is literally there at your fingertips – Rules of the Court – Court Forms – Practice Directions* – EVERYTHING.

*HC051 – This is Practice Direction 051 – the HC stands for High Court – click on the blue link on this page and a word version of this Practice Direction – FOR FAMILY LAW IN THE HIGH COURT – will download for you.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/bec9deb0b6dae2a980258121003f3720?OpenDocument

If you click on “Home” on the left-hand side of the Courts website, you will see a list – the list is headed in bold “For Court Users” click on the links and they bring you to different areas. Court Rules, Court Forms, etc. THAT’S where you can find everything you need to know about how the Courts works, what the rules are, and what “Forms” you need to use for different kinds of Applications/Motions – not from some twat on the internet or on facebook.

You really don’t need some idiot on the internet pontificating and blustering and talking shoite about “how the courts work” or giving you his “version” of how to go about doing something in court – it’s all there – and yes I appreciate that for a lay litigant it can be very difficult to get your head around some of the “Rules” or figure out how to use the various “Templates” for different kinds of applications – but – if you just take your time – any reasonably intelligent person can – with a little hard work figure it out, least anyone opines that I am just another idiot pontificating – you might note that I am directing you to independent OFFICIAL sources where you can find out for yourself what the law is, what the Rules of the Court are and where they can be found, and where to find judgements.

For EVERYTHING to do with “going to Court” there is a Law or a provision of Law, there is a “Rule” and there is a Form, on top of all that, there are ways of doing something, and that is contained in the Practice Directions – they all function together.

Let me give you some unsolicited “advice” advice I was given in law school – every judgement has some discussion about how this or that rule or law works or is applied – EVERY judgement – it is in effect a practical demonstration of how the law operates or in some instances doesn’t operate – read them – read them thoroughly and LEARN how the inert words of the written law come to life in a practical way by studying how those “words” are brought to life and applied in real life situations.

READ the judgements – and read them again – until – hopefully a light bulb goes off in your head and you have a “eureka” moment.

Whatever you do – do not base your case on the ill-informed rantings of some idiot on the internet or most definitely not on the idiots “interpretation” of a “judgment” or commentary on an article about a “judgement” find and read the judgement YOURSELF – make up your own mind – apply the facts of the case (in the judgement you are reading) to your situation and see if there is something in there that is applicable IN YOUR CASE. And no, the facts in the case do not have to be exactly the same as in your case – you are looking for areas of general commonality – not an exact replica – similar NOT the same.

THAT’S how you ‘Do law”

Because here a fundamental basic fact.

If you are embroiled in a Family Law case in this jurisdiction – Ireland – you will end up in an IRISH Court – and you can bitch and moan and rant and rave all you like but – it is the Law as it stands NOW – it will be the Rules of the Court as they stand NOW that will be applied – NOT what some idiot on the internet “thinks” the law should be, or believes it to be or claims is ought to be – it is the law as contained in Acts of the Oireachtas, Statutory Instruments, ALL available to you at www.irishstatutebook.ie at the click of a mouse.

Your “argument” or your “pleadings” should be grounded on how the current law is being applied – and if it is being applied or “enforced” arbitrarily, prejudicially or unfairly then MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

Finally – if you want to “talk about rights” then I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the text of these documents – and again, not on some idiot on the internet rantings about “rights”

European Convention on Human Rights*

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

*Transposed into Irish Domestic Law with; The European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 – found at www.irishstatutebook.ie

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

UN Convention on The Rights of The Child

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

To start with.

Then do some study on these:

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015, Family Law Act, 1995, Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989.

I’m not giving you a link to these – you can easily find them and ALL amendments to any provision of these Acts at www.irishstatutebook.ie it will be good practice – if you are serious about addressing YOUR legal ISSUES in a clear, INFORMED and intelligent way.

If you do decide to “look up the law” then read the whole Act – yes – all of it – no piece of legislation exists in a vacuum – you might read in section 6 (a) (i) something that applies directly to your case – BUT – if you see the phrase “subject to the provisions of section 14, then there is a proviso – i.e. this section ONLY applies if the provisions of the other section are fulfilled AS WELL.

Having said all that – I am perfectly aware that in provincial circuits – in particular the Midland Circuit – which is the one I am most familiar with – the law is NOT applied either with fairness or without prejudice – to fathers in particular.

I am also perfectly aware that most if not all Family Law proceedings begin in either the District Court or the Circuit Court – and the Orders made in some instances are…………………. staggeringly bad law.

Again, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court with regard to two distinct legal process’s – An Appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court (bearing in mind if the Order in dispute was originally granted in the District Court you will have to Appeal to the Circuit first) and the Rules governing Judicial Review.

Please note: There are THREE sets of Rules of the Court – Rules of The Superior Court and Rules of The Circuit Court and Rules of The District Court

See here: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/webpages/bb9a582b582f736880256d2b003f6633?OpenDocument&l=en&p=042

Before “moving” on any matter – in other words before making an application/motion etc. or launching an “Appeal” from the Circuit Court to the High Court – READ THIS.

ORDER 61

Rules of the Superior Courts Order: 61; Appeals from the Circuit Court

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/d5629e64d4c7cae680256d2b0046b3ae?OpenDocument

Pay particular attention to the emboldened parts:

  1. In this Order:

“the Act” means the Courts of Justice Act, 1936:

“County Registrar” includes any deputy County Registrar and any person appointed to act as such Registrar or deputy and also where the context permits, any person appointed to act as Registrar to the High Court on Circuit.

  1. Every appeal under Part IV of the Act shall be by notice of appeal which shall be served on every party directly affected by the appeal within ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced in open court. The notice shall state whether the whole or part only of such judgement or order is appealed from and in the latter case shall specify such part. The notice shall, in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin, be for the first opportunity after the expiration of ten days from the date of service, and, in the case of appeals to the High Court on Circuit, be for the next sitting of the High Court on Circuit after the expiration of the said ten days. Such notice of appeal shall be either in the Form No. 1 or the Form No. 2 (as the case may be) in Appendix I.

 

  1. The appellant shall, within the said period of ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced,

(a)        in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin lodge two copies of the notice of appeal,”

NOW – Print out (printable version – look up) and study Order 61 – including the links above the body of this Order – they contain amendments made to the Order.

Click on EVERY link in the body of the text of this Order and study ALL of it. The above is ONLY an EXTRACT from Order 61 – of – The Rules of The Superior Courts.

The second procedure I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with is Judicial Review.

Order 84 – Judicial review and orders affecting personal liberty

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument

Last but not least – if you are claiming that the “other side” has failed to adhere to a provision of any Rule of The Court – this is how you might state it:

Example of how to phrase and cite a provision of an “Order of The Court – in this instance Order 61, Rule 2.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Order 61, Rule 2, The (Applicant/Respondent] delete whichever one is not applicable – i.e. if you’re “The Applicant” delete the brackets, the forward slash and the word “Applicant” ) Respondent failed to serve a Notice of Appeal within ten days of the pronouncement of the Order granted on the………day of……….20…..granting Joint Legal Custody of the two minor children [……] and […..] to me, their Father and Legal Guardian. Her attempt to now Appeal said Order is out of time, being 18 months since the Order of the……. day of……….20….. was granted.”

(This an example of how you could cite a Rule of the Court – do it your own way – as long as you correctly cite whichever “Rule” of whichever “Order” you are invoking/relying on)

Before you all go mad and rush out to lodge Appeals or Applications for Judicial Review of a lower courts decision that affects you – READ THE RULES FIRST then READ THE BLOODY CASE LAW.

You are NOT automatically “entitled” to succeed on an Appeal or an Application for Leave to file a Judicial Review just because you are aggrieved by a decision of a lower Court – YOU MUST HAVE STATEABLE GROUNDS.

You must have an “arguable case” and that “argument” MUST be grounded in law – supported by previous CASE LAW – so again – read the bloody case law – read the law – familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court.

The second time this group/person really pissed me off and irritated me, triggering this response was a post on the 26th January 2019 linking to this article.

Mum loses custody of three children after coaching them to badmouth her ex husband; Nic Brunetti; Thursday 24 Jan 2019 1:54 pm

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/24/mum-loses-custody-of-three-children-after-coaching-them-to-badmouth-her-ex-husband-8385971/?fbclid=IwAR2xxTV-1L70EtThWW61CZQsVAVbnb2x5qJMQKML2gBLqasGzQqUvW5KkZc

The “comments” to this posting of this “article” are inane in the extreme – what surprised was no-one asked for a link to the judgement itself! Nor I might add this the “leader” of this group Fathers Rights Ireland supply a link to the judgement!

Perhaps this idiot thought he or his sheep-like followers could just stroll into Court with a copy of the Metro article clutched in their hot sweaty hands and they could just wave it around in front of the judge and he/she would be overcome with the brilliance of their “presentations” hmmmmm.

At that point I knew this guy was a pure gobshoite, a self-serving egotistical arsehole with zero real interest in “helping fathers” a ridiculous fool ranting and raving from behind his keyboard to massage his own inflated ego.

Here is the link to the judgement https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.html&query=(ZE17C00740)

Here is the printable PDF version  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.pdf

It is Case No: ZE17C00740 in the Family Court at Croydon on Wednesday the 22nd August 2018.

It is an extraordinary judgement for its clarity, for the depth of analysis of the substantive issues by His Honour Judge Charles Atkins and for his grasp of the fundamental damage done to children by “Parental Alienation”

What this judgement also is – is something YOU can use in an Irish Court to lend weight and AUTHORITY to YOUR case.

Download this judgement – study it – and study it again. Now you have something of substance to get your teeth into – and stop listening to or reading bullshit from gobshoites.

With regard to ‘Hague Convention” cases – download this judgement – study it – and study it again.

G.T and K.A.O and The Attorney General [2007] IEHC 326

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/e77d90ebb1cd0ca88025739900341ef8?OpenDocument

When I get a bit more time, I will post a list of cases that address different issues in “Family Law” cases both Irish, UK and other common law jurisdictions.

DISCLAIMER: Just in case some petulant arsehole gets the hump and decides that I am “unlawfully” giving “legal advice” here’s my disclaimer.

  1. Bite me
  2. I am NOT purporting to give anyone legal advice – I am pointing you to legitimate and accredited SOURCES of information that if you chose to access, will assist you greatly in applying the law to whatever “Case” or legal difficulty you might have.
  3. You are perfectly free to chose to click on any link I have posted here – what you do with it after that is entirely up to you – if you then go ahead and use any of the information I have linked to here and it goes pear-shaped for you – your problem, not mine.

Now – if the person or persons I have “had a go at” decides to get all “internetty” and post shit about me or engages in the usual…what do feminists call it……. whatever it is that feminists are always whining about……amounts to saying mean things about them on the internet.

My response? Bite me.

But – if you do step over the bounds of normal rational or acceptable behavior and it impacts me personally and out here in the real world – I will come after you – I will drag your sorry arse into Court – and I WILL personally rip you a new one – in Court.

Just so you know – as far as I am concerned – you do NOT represent the vast majority of fathers who are being put through the ringer in Family Courts in this jurisdiction, you are NOT a spokesman for any of them – you are NOT evolved enough, competent enough, informed enough, intelligent enough or decent enough to speak for anyone – especially NOT fathers.

You are an ignorant ill-informed arsehole who just wants a platform who spew out his self-serving bullshit, bullshit and mis-information that will actively sabotage, de-rail and damage the case of a DECENT father struggling with the toxic effects of being alienated from his children. So.  SHUT UP you idiot.

Slainte

Feminists Don’t “Do” Research – Do They? Narcissism and Anorexia Nervosa, Joan Bakewell and Frank Sinatra Doing it “His Way”.

 

It’s 11.51 am on a Saturday morning, I’ve had my three cups of coffee, listened to the birdies singing their little hearts out, and spent the last two hours “doing research” in an admittedly haphazard and fairly relaxed way – i.e. – in between “doing research” I’ve popped in and out of various blogs, news sites and generally had a bit of a ramble around the internet. As ya do, while you wake up – on a Saturday morning.

Anyhoo – I came across this post from here

https://j4mb.org.uk/2019/01/19/young-men-who-endorse-the-masculine-ideal-of-success-enjoy-greater-psychological-wellbeing/

Young Men Who Endorse The Masculine Ideal of Success Enjoy Greater Psychological Wellbeing

Which led me to here

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/01/18/young-men-who-endorse-the-masculine-ideal-of-success-enjoy-greater-psychological-wellbeing/

And then here

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/07/29/10-of-the-most-widely-believed-myths-in-psychology/

10 of The Most Widely Believed Myths in Psychology – By Christian Jarrett.

“Myth” No. 8 caught my eye.

8. The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men

A British survey published in 2014 found that over 65 per cent believed it was probably or definitely true that domestic violence is overwhelmingly committed by men. It’s easy to understand why – men are responsible for more violent crime overall, and being bigger and stronger, on average, men are seen as a more obvious threat. Yet official statistics (cited by Scarduzio et al, this year) show that partner violence against men by women is also a major problem. For example, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in the US found that one in four men had experienced physical violence, rape, and/or stalking from a partner (compared with one in three women) and that 83 per cent of the violence inflicted on men by partners was done so by women. This is not to diminish the seriousness or scale of the problem of partner abuse by men toward women, but to recognise that there is also a significant, lesser known, issue of women being violent toward men. [Editor’s note: more background to this myth is available in the comments section, including our choice of wording for the item subhead, and further academic references].

As soon as I read it I knew that it would garner a response from………………….an irritated feminist, and lo and behold it did, in the person of someone calling themselves “emmahatred” charming!

And here it is – the knee jerk, typical, irrational, unfounded, baseless and oh soooooooooooooo easily debunked “considered opinion” of – yes – you’ve guessed it – a feminist.

emmahatred says: December 20, 2016 at 11:01 am

Item 8 is quite disturbing — but only because of its presence on this list. The text itself fails to illustrate that the idea is a myth; those statistics actually reinforce the (true) belief that DV is overwhelmingly committed by men.

99% of DV on women is perpetrated by men (this is the corollary stat in the article cited, conveniently failed to make an appearance here…).

And the 83% statistics — that leaves us with 17% of DV on men being perpetrated by men, yet only around 6.1% of men have sex with men (1) (other studies put incidence between 4-8%.) (We can infer the % of men in *relationships* with men is lower still.)

Men are also overwhelming more violent — more enduring, more lethal — in the violent acts they commit. According to ONS statistics, in England and Wales in 2015, a woman was murdered by a current or former partner on average once every three days (around 100 per year). How many men were murdered by a former partner? Around 30. And ~9 of those murders were committed by men.

These statistics are very easy to find, by the way — whereas I expect the author of that list item had to dig pretty deep to find some figures he could verbally torture to promote his bogus idea.I can’t think of any good reason why this list intends to perpetuate a really harmful (not just dumb, but actively dangerous) myth under the guise of science.

  1. Johnson AM, Wadsworth J, Wellings K, Bradshaw S, Field J (December 1992). “Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk”. Nature. 360 (6403): 410–2.

I have to say I was deeply impressed by the response – cool calm and ever so slightly disdainful. Warranted, I might add.

BPS Research Digest says: December 21, 2016 at 11:01 am

The wording of the myth “The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men” is taken verbatim from the book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology by Scott Lilienfeld et al. The same wording was also used in a subsequent survey of belief in popular psychology myths published by Adrian Furnham and David Hughes, published in the journal Teaching of Psychology. The reason this is a myth is that crime statistics show that actually a considerable number of women are violent toward men in intimate relationships. Though these stats suggest men are more often violent toward women than vice versa, it is not the case that the “overwhelming majority” of such acts are committed by men. We cited some contemporary figures to illustrate this point, although readers may have different interpretations of what would constitute an “overwhelming majority” in weighing up these figures. However, the evidence against the claim that “the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are committed by men” runs much deeper.

Family conflict studies, that look at rates of domestic violence that are not necessarily recorded as crimes, find about equal rates of violence by men against women and by women against men: in fact sometimes the results suggest more domestic violence by women against men than vice versa. Writing in the late 1990s, the sociologist Murray Straus described the backlash against his and his colleagues’ “disturbing discovery” in the 1970s “that women physically assaulted partners in marital, cohabiting and dating relationships as often as men assaulted their partners”. He adds: “The finding caused me and my former colleague, Suzanne Steinmetz, to be excommunicated as feminists”. Feminists and female victim advocates, understandably perhaps, fear that drawing attention to male victims undermines the seriousness of the problem of male abuse of women, and of female oppression more broadly.

This heated controversy has persisted through the decades. In 2000 a seminal meta-analysis by Archer looked at all published data available on domestic violence at that time (including data from family conflict studies, crime surveys and police records) and concluded that “Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” Since then as more findings have emerged, the field has broadly divided into two camps – those who highlight the greater seriousness of male domestic violence toward women (for example, based on injuries being more serious and the motives being more controlling), and the other camp who highlight the largely unknown, among the public at least, and surprisingly widespread phenomenon of female domestic violence toward men.

A recent paper in The Journal of Family Violence by feminist researchers, led by Nicole Johnson, tried to overcome this impasse by acknowledging that context is all important, and that in some domestic contexts men are more violent, whereas in others women are the more violent (and noting that many past studies have been influenced by the political leanings of their authors). But ultimately they urge the field to move beyond this argument of relative rates of abuse by the genders, to find out more about why domestic violence occurs and how to stop it in all its forms.”

So far, so typical – what intrigued me wasn’t the wearisome regurgitating of ill-informed and baseless femspeak regarding the TRUTH about DV, nor for that matter BPS Research’s response, it was emmahatred herself.

Generally, feminists bore me, have heard it all, read it all, and there are now innumerable highly qualified, competent and adept persons more that capable of batting away the usual feminist crap – usually without breaking a sweat.

But – this little toxic vixen caught my eye – it was the name “emmahatred”! crikey – anyone who incorporates the concept of “hatred” into their online persona – has some real serious issues – I thought to myself. And is most likely young (compared to me that is)

Here’s where a click of a mouse led me: ILL/LITERACY https://emmaseaber.wordpress.com/about/

Had a rummage around her blog, clicked into her various links, got curious as to what “Medical Humanities” was:

My name is (usually) Emma Seaber and I’m a PhD student. I’m based in the English Department at King’s College London and my research project explores the special status of reading and writing practices in anorexia nervosa.

I started my PhD in October 2015. Before that I did a part-time MSc in Medical Humanities, also at King’s, while spending a few years working in the education sector. Although I have a broad range of interests, my academic background is principally in English: I also have an MA in English & American Studies, with a concentration on gender studies, and an undergraduate degree in English Lit. So I tend to gravitate towards literary projects rather than historical ones — and I’m very glad to be at King’s, where medical humanities is lovingly held in the bosom of the English department.

So, went and had a look, here:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught-courses/medical-humanities-msc.aspx

Sounds ridiculous.

“Emma” appears to be a bit obsessed with “anorexia nervosa” in fact when Joan Bakewell wrote a piece opining that “anorexia nervosa” was a form of “narcissism” little Emma lost the plot, to the extent she penned a screed.

I did try and read “Emma’s” long long diatribe on whether or not she is obsessed with anorexia nervosa because she either had it, or has it – but – to be honest – couldn’t get through it – eyes started to glaze over after the very first paragraph – found myself not giving a shit if she did or didn’t.

Anyhoo – back to what triggered her to write this:

About Joan Bakewell https://medium.com/@EmmaHatred/about-joan-bakewell-4ea98339ee4f

A snippet from Emma’s big ole, and yep, ill-informed, rant against Ms. Bakewell.

……….Anorectics whose eating disorders are not accommodated by the prevailing narrative are less likely to seek help and are less likely to have their problems recognised as such if they do. Delays in diagnosis and treatment have well known negative consequences for illness duration and recovery trajectory. And knowing that the prevailing narrative — of narcissism, vanity, Barbie dolls and models — is false, only makes the facts sadder.”

The entire piece confirms, as if confirmation was needed, that 99.99% of feminists are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Brief interlude while I go feed the birdies, enjoy 😉

For what is a man, what has he got?

If not himself then he has naught

To say the things he truly feels

And not the words of one who kneels

The record shows I took the blows

And did it my way

Yes, it was my way

Lyrics here if you want to sing along.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/my-way-lyrics-frank-sinatra.html

Ole Blue Eyes doing it “his way” here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AVOpNR2PIs

Ok – back. Love that song – my father loved that song. Not so keen when my mother got all eeeem soppy about “Francis Albert” as she called him. 😉

Anyhoo – narcissism and anorexia?

Joan Bakewell was actually on the right track – albeit she could’ve done just a tad more RESEARCH and put up a more robust defense against little Emma’s hysterical rant – but – she didn’t – while her point about being entitled to an opinion is and was valid, notwithstanding Emma’s classic self-important egotistical statement here:

I don’t really understand why Bakewell is persisting in trying to paint her critics as unreasonable by asking of them goading questions that suggest their primary challenge is to her right to speak at all, not to the content and effect of her speech.

I also don’t understand why she hasn’t now, having read what people like me have been saying to her and about her article more generally, issued a subsequent statement something along the lines of “You’re right. I shouldn’t have spoken up on an issue about which I know less than nothing. It was wrong and, moreover, irresponsible of me to speculate in the national press about this topic, especially since my views, whatever my intention in expressing them was, embarrassingly and dangerously reinforce false perceptions of eating disorders and the people who have them”.

(Emphasis added)

“…………people like me have been saying to her………”  seriously? Little Emma is demanding a full groveling public retraction from Joan Bakewell, because “people like me” (Emma) expect and are entitled to it……………………………………. WHY?

Is there a connection between anorexia and narcissism? Yes, there is.

Has any research been done? Absolutely loads

Do or did either Joan Bakewell or Emma have ANY knowledge at all about either anorexia or narcissism? From what I’ve read from both? Nope. Though Ms. Bakewell was onto something (do research!)

Notwithstanding Emma’s obsession with anorexia.

I did a quick literature review of the very topic of “anorexia and narcissism” here’s a sample of what I found – over the course of about an hour – its Saturday – have stuff to do. Laundry doesn’t do itself ya know 😉

I went onto an academic database after doing a quick google search – got directed to the first article Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer Emma Foster Anna Skelton; International Journal of Eating Disorders Volume 40, Issue 2; First published: 01 November 2006.

Okie dokie – log into “Wiley Online Library” put in title of article, this is the search result.

“66 results for “Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders” anywhere SAVE SEARCH”

I have copied and pasted the titles to the following articles along with the abstracts of these articles.

  1. Narcissism and narcissistic defences in the eating disorders; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer Emma Foster Anna Skelton; International Journal of Eating Disorders Volume 40, Issue 2; First published: 01 November 2006″

“Abstract

Objective:

This study examined the associations between eating pathology and narcissism in an eating‐disordered group. Narcissism was conceptualized in terms of both its core element (entitlement, grandiosity) and the narcissistic defenses that are used to maintain self‐esteem.

Method:

Seventy non‐clinical and 84 eating‐disordered patients completed a measure of the different elements of narcissism, and a standardized measure of eating pathology.

Results:

The eatingdisordered group scored higher than the nonclinical women on the measures of core narcissism and of the narcissistically abused style (“poor me” defense). The pattern of dimensional associations between narcissism and eating pathology was highly similar across the clinical and nonclinical groups, with the narcissistic defenses playing the strongest role. The poisonous pedagogy style (“bad you” defense) was positively associated with restrictive attitudes toward eating, while the narcissistically abused style was positively associated with restraint, eating concern, body shape concern, and body weight concern.

Conclusion:

The narcissistic defenses are particularly relevant in understanding the eating disorders. Implications for future research are outlined, and suggestions are made about the need to assess and respond to these associations in treatment. © 2006 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Eat Disord 2006”

For further research purposes (for anyone who might be interested) here is the “References” section of this paper. You might be able to get some of them online without the need to access a database.

References

  1. Mogul LS. Asceticism in adolescence and anorexia nervosa. Psychoanal Study Child 1980;35:155–175. 2. Sands SH. Self psychology therapy. In: Miller K, Mizes JS, editors. Comparative Treatments of Eating Disorders. London: Free Association Books, 2000, pp. 182–206.

  2. Lehoux PM, Steiger H, Jabalpurwala S. State/trait distinctions in bulimic syndromes. Int J Eat Disord 2000;27:36–42.

  3. McLaren L, Gauvin L, Steiger H. A two-factor model of disordered eating. Eat Behav 2001;2:51–65.

  4. Steiger H, Jabalpurwala S, Champagne J, Stotland S. A controlled study of trait narcissism in anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord 1997;22:173–178.

  5. Steinberg BE, Shaw RJ. Bulimia as a disturbance of narcissism: Self-esteem and the capacity to self-soothe. Addict Behav 1997;22:699–710.

  6. Davis C, Claridge G, Cerullo D. Reflections on narcissism: Conflicts about body-image perceptions in women. Pers Indiv Differ 1997;22:309–316.

  7. Karwautz A, Volkl-Kernstock S, Nobis G, Kalchmayr G, HafferlGattermayer A, Wober-Bingol C, et al. Characteristics of selfregulation in adolescent patients with anorexia nervosa. Brit J Med Psychol 2001;74:101–114.

  8. Miller A. The Drama of the Gifted Child. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

  9. Miller A. Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1984.

  10. Miller A. For Your Own Good. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1985.

  11. Slade P. Towards a functional analysis of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Brit J Clin Psychol 1982;21:167–179.

  12. Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Shafran R. Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: A ‘transdiagnostic’ theory and treatment. Behav Res Ther 2003;41:509–528.

  13. O’Brien M. Examining the dimensionality of pathological narcissism: Factor analysis and construct validity of the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychol Rep 1987;61:499–510.

  14. O’Brien M. Further evidence of the validity of the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. Psychol Rep 1988;62:879–882.

  15. Beck AT, Freeman A, Davis DD. Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford, 2004.

  16. Young JE, Klosko JS, Weishaar ME. Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford, 2003.

  17. Brunton JN, Lacey JH, Waller G. Narcissism and eating characteristics in young non-clinical women. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005;193:140–143.

  18. Brunton JN, Lacey JH, Waller G. Eating pathology in young non-clinical adults: A pilot study of the impact of parental responsibility. Eur Eat Disord Rev 2005;13:406–410.

  19. Waller G. Why do we diagnose different types of eating disorder? Arguments for a change in research and clinical practice. Eat Disord Rev 1993;1:74–89.

  20. Fairburn CG, Beglin SJ. Assessment of eating disorders: Interview or self-report. Int J Eat Disord 1994;16:363– 370.”

To continue:

  1. “Emotional awareness among eatingdisordered patients: the role of narcissistic traits; Rachel Lawson; Glenn Waller Jennie Sines Caroline Meyer; European Eating Disorders Review Volume 16, Issue 1; First published: 23 October 2007″

“Abstract

The narcissistic defences and a lack of emotional awareness (alexithymia) are both salient features of eating disorder pathology, as well as being linked to each other. As each of these characteristics impacts independently on treatment, it is important to understand how they interact within an eating‐disordered population.

The present study assessed the associations between the three core elements of alexithymia and the core and defensive elements of narcissism in this clinical group. Seventy eating‐disordered patients completed standardised measures of alexithymia and narcissism, and multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to examine the relationship between these variables.

Core narcissism (e.g. grandiosity, entitlement) was associated with difficulties in describing feelings to others, whereas the narcissistic defences were associated with difficulties in identifying feelings and distinguishing them from somatic experiences. These patterns of association suggest that different aspects of alexithymia are associated with different aspects of narcissism. Clinical suggestions are made for how these characteristics might require modifications of standard treatment approaches for the eating disorders. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.”

I referenced the next two because while not per se about the connection between anorexia (eating disorders) and narcissism, it suggests a further interesting line of enquiry and RESEARCH.

  1. “The Spectre at the Feast: An Exploration of the Relationship Between the Dead Mother Complex and Eating Disorders; Wendy M. Pitcairn; British Journal of Psychotherapy Volume 29, Issue 1; First published: 22 January 2013″

“Abstract

This paper sets out to explore the relationship between postnatal depression in a mother and the subsequent development of an eating disorder in her daughter who was seen for individual work. It is suggested that postnatal depression impacted negatively on the developing relationship between the mother and her infant producing an insecure attachment leading to the development of an eating disorder. This is explored with particular reference to Green’s concept of the dead mother complex. Parallels are drawn between the dead mother complex and the psychopathology of eating disorders and a number of common themes are identified.”

  1. “PROJECTION, INTROJECTION AND IDENTITY IN ANOREXIA NERVOSA; Anthony P. Winston; British Journal of Psychotherapy Volume 21, Issue 3; First published: 17 November 2006″

“Abstract

In some cases of anorexia nervosa, the mother uses projective identification to produce a state of fusion between herself and her child. This makes it impossible for the child to develop a sense of herself as separate. The rejection of food represents a symbolic rejection of these maternal projections. This defence also prevents the healthy introjection of parental objects which is required to establish a sense of identity. The anorexic is left with a profound sense of inner emptiness and an inability to develop adult relationships. The therapeutic relationship can provide a non‐invasive environment in which the patient can begin to develop a sense of self. Case material is used to demonstrate how progress was closely linked to the patient’s growing awareness of the therapist as a separate individual.”

Now. I put a search into JStor using these keywords: anorexia eating disorders causes and got 752 results (you should try it Emma)

Here is a brief snapshot of some of those results.

From page 1 –

“Fearing Fat: A Literature Review of Family Systems Understandings and Treatments of Anorexia and Bulimia; Kyle D. Killian; Family Relations, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 311-318

Topics: Anorexia nervosa, Bulimia nervosa, Appetite depressants, Family therapy, Parents, Adolescents, Mothers”

From page 4 –

“The Influence of Naive Causal Theories on Lay Concepts of Mental Illness; Nancy S. Kim, Woo-Kyoung Ahn; The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 115, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 33-65

Topics: Symptoms, Disorders, Anorexia nervosa, Causal theory, Major depressive disorder, Reasoning, Body weight, Compulsive personality disorder”

Lots of “feminist perspective” articles and papers of course.

Conclusion and Advice – and yes emma I’m talking to you.

You actually appear to be a reasonably intelligent young woman (if a bit deluded) but you are allowing yourself to become indoctrinated by an ideology that is inherently toxic and FRAUDALENT.

While it might appear as if the “feminist perspective” is giving you an insight into human behavior, whatever that behavior might be – in fact what your “allegiance” to this “feminist perspective” will ultimately do is handicap your development as a rounded, self-aware and empathic HUMAN BEING.

You might be able to convince yourself that if you maintain this tunnel visioned, blinkered and rigid focus on ONLY “research” conducted from a “feminist perspective” that you will become an “expert” on all forms and manifestations of human behavior – but – the weight of science, hard data, properly conducted research, and history is against you.

Further – look around – at human beings – ALL human beings – what a diverse and interesting group they are – some bad – some good – and that badness or goodness has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with whether any particular human is male or female. NOTHING.

What is the ultimate pinnacle of badness, of evil, of insanity is this – an ideology that promulgates hatred against a distinct class of human beings – from the day they are born because that tiny little new human being happens to be a male human being.

THAT is your feminism.  An ideology of hate.

Slainte.

Edit: while having a bit of a browse, looking for studies that would be accessible online I came across this one – Eating disorders in adolescence: attachment issues from a developmental perspective ;Manuela Gander 1 *, Kathrin Sevecke 2 and Anna Buchheim 1

1Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria,

2 Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530258/pdf/fpsyg-06-01136.pdf

“Summary

“………………..The most striking result that emerges from the latest state of narrative based research is the high prevalence of the unresolved attachment status in adolescent patients and their mothers. Only a small number of studies included fathers and they show that patients feel more alienated from them and they describe them as less caring and more controlling. Furthermore, recent studies demonstrate that adolescents with an unresolved attachment representation have a greater rate of comorbid disorders like PD and depression and higher ED symptom severity. Future studies that investigate traumatizing events, symptom severity and comorbidity in a larger sample of adolescents with ED using a narrative attachment measure might provide a better understanding and treatment of this complex and painful condition.”

Had a bit of a lightbulb moment – ED (eating disorder) Parental Alienation – controlling, alienating, narcissistic mothers?  Hmmmmmm. More research methinks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism = Cultural, Political and Social Poison.

 

I’ve been reading (avidly I might add) the thousands of comments on various different articles, news reports etc. in response to the Gillette ad. (google it if you haven’t heard)

I watched this Piers Morgan segment, (link below) not for Mr. Morgan going off on one but for the reaction of the females, especially the fat blonde one*.  Classic feminist reaction, with a twist, she was obviously building up a head of steam as a prelude to spewing out the usual feminist “how dare you disagree with my toxic world view” crap but, something strange happened – she realized, neither Piers Morgan or Peter Lloyd were going to back down, get all apologetic, or start dissembling and ducking and diving to avoid triggering FEMALE DISSAPROVAL – they quite clearly didn’t give a rats ass if these harpies with-held their “approval” or took the usual female stance of getting all offended and snippy because some man took issue with their crap!

Well…………………. hallelujah!

*aside to fat blonde re “fat-shaming” Oi – yep, you should be ashamed – get your fat arse out of the fridge and lose some weight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTyczkAkM2Y&frags=pl%2Cwn

Seriously watch the clip and watch the fat blonde when Piers Morgan starts talking – but – horror of horrors – starts talking over her.

Why am I making a big deal about this?

Simples – the continuing endorsement of toxic feminist crap by MALES is what is keeping toxic feminist crap alive.

Bear with me – am not giving out to men en mass (well not really) what I’m asking you all to do is WATCH AND LEARN.

Feminism cannot survive without MALE endorsement and feminism is toxic crap that demonizes, pathologizes and devalues MALENESS and masculinity.

As a former female Irish politician once quipped – “its just like turkeys voting for Christmas” or words to that effect.

Men who endorse feminism or its more toxic cousin gynocentrism are just like turkeys voting for Christmas.

The comments I’ve been reading from both men and women in reaction to the Gillette ad are over-whelmingly negative – and deservedly so.

Guys – please I’m begging you – take a step back – a BIG step back, and THINK.

Think about all the stupid asinine and frankly deranged shoite that women come out with – now imagine if a man said any of that crap to you? Or a two-year old?

How about this one “I’m going to scream and scream and scream, stamp my feet, flounce about like a demented tantrum throwing two-year old till you…………………………………..” fill in the blanks yourselves.

Seriously? Would you take that crap from a two-year old?

I’m female and I’m telling you – as men – you owe me nothing, my opinions or views are no more valid than yours, my needs/wants/desires or even random whims (mostly for magnums) are no more valid that yours.

As a female, I am no more special a human being than you are – I am no more entitled to exercise the full range of Human Rights than you are.

ALL my heroes are men – can I suggest that ALL your heroes should be as well, so many many of your fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers sacrificed so that you, and me, could live in a safe world, could have all the modern conveniences of modern 21st living – so many men gave their lives so that YOU and me could be free.

All the qualities that previous generations of men had – courage, endurance, stoicism, selflessness and integrity – THOSE are qualities that should be applauded.

All of the “qualities” that feminism espouses – spitefulness, vindictiveness, dishonesty, narcissism, stupidity, callousness and lack of empathy – THOSE are the “qualities” that feminism brought into the world and poisoned our culture with – and need to excised. NOW.

Feminism wants you to believe that all those previous generations of brave selfless men did this because………….patriarchy! (their twisted version of “patriarchy)

Bullshit.

They did it for you and FOR them – and these toxic, vile hideous harpies are literally spitting on the graves of all these selfless brave MEN.

So, stand up for yourselves, and for your forebears, and tell these horrible nasty and feminists and gynocetrists to go………………………………….f..k themselves, no matter who they are – your wife/girlfriend/partner – sister/niece/aunt/mother.

Any female who demands you kneel and worship at her feet and treats you like shit – is an arsehole.

Okie dokie – got that off my chest now – time for a magnum 😉

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism and The Flat Earth Society: Comrades in Stupidity.

 

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

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

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

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

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

For example – believing the earth is flat.

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

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

I have always believed the world is round;

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

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

I have always believed the world is flat;

Other/Not sure

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk

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

Okie dokie!

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

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

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

So, what’s the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT FEMINISM IS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States of America

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

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html?guccounter=1

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

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

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

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

http://thelala.com/believe-womens-equality-identify-as-feminist/

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

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

United Kingdom

Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

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

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

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

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

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

Canada

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

https://www.chatelaine.com/living/68-of-canadian-women-dont-call-themselves-a-feminist/

“Kat

@Knymz

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

8:31 PM – Dec 3, 2015”

Australia

Women against feminism

http://antifeminismaustralia.com/women-against-feminism/

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

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

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

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

What is prevalent in Ireland is toxic gynocentric – see this article, Diagnosing Gynocentrism by Peter Ryan on a Voice For Men link here – https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/diagnosing-gynocentrism/

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

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

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

Angry Harry – http://www.angryharry.com/

A Voice For Men – https://www.avoiceformen.com/

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT KIND OF HUMAN BEING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

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

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

Republic of Ireland

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

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-f-word-why-are-some-women-reluctant-to-call-themselves-feminists-462961.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism now

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/century/century-women-and-the-vote/feminism-now-1.553554

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism is Cultural and Political Cancer.

 

Slainte

 

 

Feminist Crybabies – Men are Mean!

 

It is a truism I know to say that feminists are crazy, irrational, fact adverse, and without a doubt the most bald-faced liars on the planet.

It is also a truism to say that if a “study”  – and in the context of feminist studies I use that term extremely loosely (sitting around on cushions, swigging Lidl wine in a cat urine soaked bedsit talking shoite qualifies as a “study” in the black-hole that is the feminist psyche) flat out contradicts the feminist “perspective” then…….well ignore it and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the study finds – just like here:

In an article published on the 3 August 2018 entitled; Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy by Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

And subtitled – “We can’t achieve freedom of expression without first addressing the toxic environment many women face on the internet”.

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news-Article.aspx?id=5623027c-d0bb-40de-a4d5-3eddebe936f6

This statement was made about halfway down the article and a link was provided to a supporting “study” – there is a link to “2014 study” referenced in this toxic little paragraph.

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts

Online threats can and do lead female journalists to leave the profession. They can also lead female journalists to remove themselves from social media to avoid trauma, or stay quiet about their experience with sexual harassment online for fear of repercussions for their career. This is having a devastating impact on freedom of expression.”

What made me laugh out loud – seriously – feminists say the funniest things – was the title of the “study” referenced to support these dimwits contention that…………..boo hoo, men are mean to women on the internet.

This is the title of the study:

Demos: Male celebrities receive more abuse on Twitter than women

Link here https://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-male-celebrities-receive-more-abuse-on-twitter-than-women-2/

Not only that, this little gem also appears in the “study” cited by these feminist twats to support their boo hoo.

“The study included celebrities, politicians, journalists and musicians – specifically chosen to ensure an equal number – roughly one million – were aimed at each gender.

It found:

– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.

– Journalism is the only category where women received more abuse than men, with female journalists and TV news presenters receiving roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts.

– Men were much more likely to troll public figures via social media. Three-quarters of the abuse received by prominent men, and over 60% of abuse received by women, was tweeted by men.

– Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais and Katie Hopkins were three of the most likely celebrities to receive abuse.”

Hmmmmm, are you seeing what I’m seeing?

Ok – lets just see exactly what the feminist crybabies Jenny and Sinead (pronounced Shin – ayd) said about twitter:

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts”

And then remind ourselves of what the study ACTUALLY reported – shall we?

“– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.”

No doubt you can see that Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan of Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media published a statement that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the statement in the “Study” they cited to support the absolute bare-faced lie they told.

No doubt many of you are familiar with the feminist propensity for taking data out of context, with conflating, twisting and misrepresenting “facts” in order to support whatever tedious, ridiculous, insane “theory” they wish to shove into your face.

But this! This is so blatant, so ridiculous, so in your face that it did actually make me LOL.

Now, why am I not addressing the content of Jenny and Sinead’s little screed?

Simples – it’s the usual feminist shoite.

For example:

“Attacks like these are both gendered and life-altering events. This is why we talk about online violence and the safety of women online, rather than the issue of their polite treatment. In fact, the chilling effect that online violence and cyber-misogyny has on female voices is a direct challenge to democracy.”

Ah, right the attacks!

The attacks that happen AGAINST males at three times the rate of these so-called attacks on females – those “attacks?”

Personally, I have received some very very bizarre comments – from some very very disturbed people – ALL feminists – as they usually gleefully inform me – before they threaten me personally, sigh.

I have a folder with the choicest ones saved – for posterity…..and my personal amusement 😉

The only part of the above statement that has even a grain of truth in it is the “gendered………” part – yep the nastiest comments ALL emanate from FEMALES – feminist FEMALES.

What about the LIFE-ALTERING EVENTS thingamajig?

Phooey!

“Life-altering events” my arse – unless of course you happen to be female and NOT A FEMINIST.

This delightful quote:

“These stories are, tragically, not the exception – online violence continues to raise the stakes for women speaking, blogging, writing and reporting in the public sphere every day. We run a project at the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media called #SOFJO, short for ‘Safety of Female Journalists Online’. We focus on the issues of equal representation and media pluralism by looking at the gendered component of online violence and the way it silences female voices and female stories in the media.”

Is without exception an illustration par excellence of feminist double speak – without any irony whatsoever these two dimwits peddle the “silences female voices and female stories…” crap.

The reason why I decided to address this pathetic little article is because I was doing a quick update on what various global bodies were up to with regard to “gender” issues. The OECD, the UN, the EU, the WHO – etc. – as in – popping onto their various sites and perusing the latest “gender” shoite.

ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN.

I won’t bore you with the latest crap emanating from these organisations – but one did catch my eye.

New women leaders institute to be chaired by former Oz PM, By Liz Heron on 20/04/2018

Link here https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/new-women-leaders-institute-to-be-chaired-by-former-oz-pm/

The former Australian prime minister has been appointed to the chair of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, soooooooooo I decided to have a little look see – and – it has a blog

Global Institute for Women’s Leadership – Blog

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/blog.aspx?page=1

First article on the blog is this: Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy – and here we are.

If I was to speculate – I would posit that the level and intensity of anti-feminist and non -feminist content on the internet – blogs, twitter etc. has increased significantly since the election of Donald Trump – and no, I have no opinion re President Trump – it is palpable – as is the level of public support for non-feminist ideas, opinions and commentary – and this more than anything is what is very scary for feminists – especially feminist media.

Shutting down debate, shutting down commentators who say and publish things that are in direct conflict with feminist ‘ideology’ or ‘perspectives’ has now reached ludicrous heights – but the words, horse and barn spring to mind.

People are sick to death of feminist crap, sick to death of the perpetual whining of feminists, sick to death of the never-ending parade of “victims” I know I am.

This is what scares feminists – not being able to control the flow of information, not being in charge of the discourse – hence the manufacturing of ever more ridiculous, and ever more hysterical claims like the title of this article “Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy

Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeze – grow up and stop being such a pair of pathetic crybabies!

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Kimmel: Welcome to The Real World.

 

I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for Michael Kimmel, really, I do – he is doomed. Do I think he is a complete arsehole and full of shit? Yep. Absolutely. But – he is a human being, and from my perspective he is deserving of all the rights of due process that any other human being is entitled to – he won’t get it, but he is still entitled to it. His problem is that he has along with his feminist overlords worked to strip ALL men – all other men – of that entitlement.

Kimmels’ biggest mistake is in believing that as a self-declared male feminist he would be immune from the kinds of witch-hunting that his movement is not only famous for, but has become a parody of itself.

“Revolutions eat their children.” This observation, by a journalist during the French Revolution, was only partly true. In reality, revolutions eat their parents. In particular, history’s left-wing revolutions eat the left-wing intellectuals who made them happen. By “left-wing” here I mean revolutions that explicitly aim to use government power to reshuffle society. To remake society so it matches whatever version of “justice” strikes its promoters as attractive.”

Revolutions Eat Their Parents

https://mises.org/library/revolutions-eat-their-parents

Kimmels’ ticking time bomb of self-destruction and inevitable targeting by feminists is so self-evident, that the fact he has never considered it is a searing example of his innate stupidity.  He has a penis.

Unfortunately, his belief that he had the right kind of penis, a benign, worshipping at the feet of womynhood, let me pierce a hole in it so you can lead me around by a chain, my penis is at your service and command, was and is an exercise in monumental stupidity.

He could have chopped it off, encased it in one of those things that you encase stuff in, presented it to Hilary Clinton, along with his testes dipped in gold and made into earrings, and he was still living on borrowed time.

Kimmel in his stupidity and arrogance and hubris believed he could cook up some, how to build a better man acceptable to feminists, manual/programme/guidebook, whatever, and they would love and worship him forever.

Nah.

Apart from the fact that every single word he has ever written is complete and utter garbage, his problem was and is this.

He wrote about MEN, he took up space, time and oxygen pontificating about MEN.

HE BECAME THE GO TO GUY FOR OPINIONS ABOUT MEN

– and he did it AS A MAN.

He gave them what he believed they wanted, a turgid treatise on men and masculinity, he polished it, honed it, tied it up in a big bow and on his knees, presented them with it and waited for the accolades. He forgot. He is a MAN.

Perhaps the biggest mistake he made was in believing the oft trumpeted, tediously quoted “dictionary definition” of feminism so beloved by feminists who have run out of rational arguments (usually takes about 13 seconds) “feminism is about equality” duh.

He forgot – he is not entitled to define men, to define masculinity, to express an opinion. He forgot, while they would tolerate his views and opinions – for a while – that was never going to last – because those views and opinions were being expressed – BY A MAN. About men.

I read his monumentally stupid statement – his expectation that he would be afforded the due process he has singularly failed to endorse for other men. I rolled my eyes and while I don’t normally talk to myself, the words “you stupid stupid idiot” just popped out.

Whatever belief he has/had that they will treat him fairly, reasonably, or with even a modicum of restraint because of his “feminist” credentials, perhaps this will illustrate for him the absolute futility of believing that.

There are groups, covens, sects of so-called reasonable feminists, the type of feminist who abhors the rabid feral feminists that we all know and despise.

One of them is Laura Kipnis – this is what they did to her. And Michael – she had a vagina.

The feminist revolution is eating its own

https://nypost.com/2015/06/01/the-feminist-revolution-is-eating-its-own/

“The revolution always eats its own. That’s the lesson from a recent essay by Northwestern University’s Laura Kipnis.

Two students were so offended by her article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on why banning romantic relationships between faculty and students was silly that they filed a Title IX complaint against her.

Yes, that’s right, legislation that was originally supposed to combat sexual discrimination in public education and athletics is now being used to silence professors who write essays that contradict progressive wisdom.

The charges against Kipnis were dropped over the weekend, but not before she submitted to what she referred to as her “Title IX Inquisition.”

A law firm hired by Northwestern to investigate at first even refused to reveal the nature of the accusations against her. Lawyers told her they wanted to ask her questions but she wasn’t entitled to have her own lawyer present.”

So, who the hell is Laura Kipnis?

Well, she is a feminist, with a vagina, therefore one would assume she is immune from the worst rabble rousing, chop off her head a la Revolution Francais, style of feminist baying mob tactics!

In 2004 she wrote an article for Slate called “The Anxiety of (Sexual) Influence: Are onetime “unwanted advances” really a feminist issue?”

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/03/the_anxiety_of_sexual_influence.html?via=gdpr-consent

In this article she appears to be proposing that the over-reaction by feminists to “unwanted sexual advances” needs to be dialed back – fair enough – she takes a few pot shots at professional victims such as Naomi Wolf who apparently was so traumatized by an “unwanted advance” that:

“Wolf also says this one-time advance by Bloom caused her grades to drop, caused her faith in herself and her work to plummet; it devastated her sense of being valuable to Yale as anything but a sex object, and it corrupted her entire educational experience.”

Hmmmm, while ostensibly Kipnis appears to be advocating for a reasonable and rational response to someone putting the moves on you (you, being a delicate special flower of vulnerable femininity) this comment is much more illustrative of her impeccable feminist credentials.

“Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about cases of ongoing unwanted sexual advances—or threats, or quid pro quo demands—otherwise known as “sexual harassment,” which should be subject to the most severe punishment, including loss of livelihood, property seizure, and potential incarceration. Here we’re speaking strictly of the one-time unwanted advance, as in the Wolf-Bloom contretemps.”

(emphasis added)

THIS is what awaits you Michael, you have been accused of “sexual harassment” and as such you are now………………doomed.

Did you do it? Irrelevant.

Frankly, I have no opinion on that, NONE – because I have not seen any evidence, not been privy to any detail whatsoever with regard to the substance of this accusation ergo, you are innocent of the charge.

Do I still think you’re a smarmy, up your own arse idiot? Yep?

The only “safe space” for Kimmel now is the one “space” he has consistently derided, dismissed and castigated – the Men’s Human Rights Movement.

Take a look Michael.

Michael Kimmel. Just another Harvey Weinstein #MeToo

https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/michael-kimmel-just-another-harvey-weinstein-metoo/

Every last one of them, including your “nemesis” Paul Elam, will defend to the end your right to due process, your right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty – as for the piss-taking, and general glee at the situation you find yourself in – you deserve it – you are an arsehole – but – you are a human being – a male human being – and you have rights – now – lets see you try and exercise those rights.

Methinks, that would be a step too far for Michael Kimmel – he will be bleating, whimpering and sobbing out his continued allegiance to the “feminist movement” as they lead him to the guillotine.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 


 

Knowledge – v – Information

 

 

We live in an information age apparently; everything about everything is available literally at the tips of our fingertips. Yet – we know very little about anything worthwhile.

Let me try to explain.

Information is merely the flat shallow recitation of what is or isn’t as the case may be, knowledge is a multilayered, multifaceted deep understanding of why and how something is or isn’t.

Information can be manipulated, manufactured, corrupted and twisted to suit a particular purpose – knowledge requires looking beyond information, dissecting information, peeling back layers of information to reveal the source and motivation of the giver or disseminator of that information.

Information merely requires the passive acceptance of this flat, hollow and carefully constructed edifice of “facts” “theories” and “analysis” knowledge demands a more proactive challenge to this “information” acquiring knowledge means being willing to look beyond the surface and question so called “truths” or “facts”. Acquiring knowledge means being willing to discard information, reject the validity of information, including information upon which one has built one’s external place in the vast sea of humanity and the internal psychological scaffolding we have constructed to allow us to navigate and filter all the information, both sensory and otherwise that bombards us continually.

Setting our internal filters to accept only those pieces of information that maintain this internal psychological scaffolding in place allows us to sail through our lives without ever having to challenge ourselves, make ourselves uncomfortable or question the very basis upon which we anchor ourselves in the here and now.

Knowledge requires an inner journey fraught with peril to our carefully constructed psychological scaffolding – information allows us to coast through life, both external and internal, without questioning the journey, the destination or the means of travel.

I have been pondering on several clichés that seem to have acquired deep purchase into the zeitgeist and are expounded with monotonous regularity. One of which is that “life is complicated” bizarrely pointing to the technological advances and hyper technology within which modern societies conduct the business of human interaction. As if, the more “hi-tech” a society is, it follows that this society is also extremely complex and “advanced”

Actually “modern” society is savage, superficial, tawdry and shallow – the driving impetus behind the vast majority of “modern” societies is greed, selfishness, vanity and egotism – hardly what one would call “advanced” not from a human evolution perspective that is.

Look around you – what do you see?

A world of mass consumerism, a vast sea of humanity almost permanently attached to some piece of “technology” that most have no clue about how it works (including me by the way) waves of “information” pouring out from this “technology” and embedded in all this “information” carefully crafted “messages” designed to mould and steer the consumers of all this “information” in a certain way – passively.

Let’s just take a moment to reflect on something rather bizarre – 100 years ago – not actually that significant an amount of time historically speaking, human beings, despite the more environmentally perilous nature of society were actually healthier. Mentally and physically.

Yes, I know – infant mortality was high, life span was shorter and life was tougher – I am not disputing that in western societies infant mortality has plummeted and life span has grown longer – nor am I disputing that living has become less an exercise in survival and more an exercise in staving off boredom – for some.

Now, compare the technological advances to the actual state of humanity.

100 years ago people were striving to improve not just their physical environment but their intellectual environment – there was a seething desire to know – to understand – to learn.

Today? Hmmmm.

When the doings of an intellectually challenged nitwit “celebrity” invariably female, dominate all sources and avenues of “information” and the hysterics of yet another coven of brain dead females about the shirt a scientist who has just achieved an amazing technological feat is wearing is deemed of more importance than said scientists achievement – then you know – you must know that humanity has been and is not evolving – but de-evolving.

Let’s go back to the original premise of this piece for a moment – the difference between knowledge and information.

All of the great thinkers of humanity have invariably been male – note to feminists – shut up whining and pay attention.

As I said – all the great thinkers of humanity have been male – from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas to Emile Durkheim and Emmanuel Kant – and they addressed that eternal question – to paraphrase – the meaning and purpose of life (yes – I know it’s more complicated than that) in effect the big questions.

But – before they did, they spent many years in study and reflection and contemplation – they spent time thinking, acquiring and testing information to achieve knowledge.

What is significant to note is that, not only the ones I mentioned above but many many more produced what are referred to as seminal works – the distillation of the knowledge they had strived to acquire. Invariably one or two works of such significance that the content is still being discussed today.

Time to mention feminism (did you all think I’d forgotten about the toxic influence of feminism?)

If there is one thing that distinguishes feminism from all if not most “theories” or “belief systems” it is the sheer volume, the unending deluge, the unabated outpourings of unadulterated crap that feminism has produced. A positive avalanche of ……………………verbal diarrhoea, and it never stops, does it?

And all of it on one singular topic – being female. A biological accident of birth over which no-one has any control. One is either born male or female and that is out of the hands of either of the two human beings who contributed the genetic material to create this new human being.

But – before we get off track – the question to be asked is – why the need for such a deluge of “information”? Why the need to keep regurgitating and spewing out the same “information” over and over and over again?

Simples. To hide the paucity of knowledge and insight into the human condition in this deluge of “information” to disguise the shallowness and superficiality of feminist “theories” and of course to deaden and neutralise any desire to question all of this crap by its sheer weight and constant and interminable repetition.

There is of course another agenda in operation – for almost six decades the western world has been inundated with this crap (feminism) in order to deflect attention away from another agenda – the neo-liberal agenda to consolidate and bring under the control of global entities all the worlds resources, including controlling the flow of all this “information”

Feminism is and was the perfect vehicle through which to exert this covert social, political and cultural control – because if there one thing feminism is good at, in fact is excellent at – it is spreading stupidity, passivity, damping down intellectual curiosity, numbing the desire for knowledge, narrowing the psychological filters of a human being to such an extent, that only the carefully constructed “messages” get through.

It sounds like feminism is a bigger player in all this than it really is – yes and no – feminism is merely the mask, the vehicle, the delivery system – but it did harness, corrupt and twist deep seated impulses embedded within human beings in order to find purchase in the cultural and political frameworks of western societies.

Sounds like it’s all over for humanity doesn’t it?

No, it isn’t. Human beings are naturally endowed with curiosity, with a desire to know – why? How? Human beings are also naturally endowed with an inbuilt bullshit meter – you can deaden it, you can trick it, you can even turn it off in some people – where they will in effect literally believe anything – and I mean anything – you tell them.

But – as someone once said:

“You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”

The second thing to note is this – I believe that human beings also have a deep-seated desire to move forward, to improve, to harness and understand the positive and find ways to defeat and diminish the negative – be it poverty, hopelessness, despair – but above and beyond all that, human beings have an almost visceral need and desire to be part of a community of human beings.

Both feminism and neo-liberalism working in concert have elevated the cult of the individual and the cult of selfishness and self-absorption to epic levels.

Neo-liberalism emphasises and lauds the separation and disconnectedness of human beings – the dog eat dog mentality – and feminism emphasises the inward looking, egotistical, shallow and vapid female-centric world view that creates an imbalance, a toxic fracture in human relationships, solidifying and entrenching the neo-liberal agenda – it has become a vicious circle.

Yet – both these agendas emanate from a small elite of persons exercising social, cultural and political control over a larger majority upon whom this control rests.

The thing is – the vast majority of people are actually “not like that” selfish, avaricious, egotistical, shallow and mercenary.

Now – don’t get me wrong – yes indeed huge numbers of people exhibit those kinds of behaviours, and particularly some women, those behaviours have been assiduously encouraged and cultivated, nor am I excusing or justifying those behaviours – but – it goes against the grain for some of them – they are acting out their social conditioning – following their programming – consciously and deliberately to be sure.

What is feeding this behaviour, what is creating the conditions, the societal and cultural conditions that allow this behaviour to prevail is a manifestation of the deliberate and conscious fracturing of the bridge between information and knowledge.

Acres and acres of information filling up every corner of the human psyche in a never-ending stream, layers and layers of data, of “facts” of “slogans” of “theories” of “messages” with no pause.

Ask yourselves – is there any time during the course of your day when you are not being bombarded with “information”? TV, Radio, Internet, iphone, magazines, newspapers, you name it.

I personally don’t watch television or listen to the radio, except in the car – I use the internet to access only a few things, mostly for research but I do have some sites and blogs that I visit regularly – I don’t use facebook or twitter and I certainly don’t feel deprived or starved for “information”

As far as I can see – most of the “information” out there is complete unadulterated crap, and I have zero interest in it.

With regard to feminism – this last year has seen a definite and accelerating souring of attitudes to feminism and feminists, and because of the innate stupidity of the vast majority of feminists they have countered this turning away by becoming even more toxic and insane (if that was even possible)

My personal feeling is that the conversation has moved on – humanity is moving on – or at least is struggling to do so – the tactics of feminism merely indicates a frantic desire to pull everybody backwards – to drag the conversation back down into the cesspit of feminist control.

With regard to the neo-liberal agenda, the other side of the toxic social control coin – this is actually being thrown into stark relief here in the Republic of Ireland – we are literally trapped in the grip of this agenda in an unrelenting and vicious cycle.

But – they have gone too far here – they have awakened a sleeping beast – every day more and more people are waking up and rejecting the programming – all the programming – including feminism – over the last couple of months I have met and spoken to one feminist – every other female I have spoken to has vehemently rejected feminism – in quite trenchant language I might add J

What is very significant is that alongside this awakening is a renewed enthusiasm for knowledge, for understanding, and for putting into context raw information, rather than simply accepting and internalising this “information” undigested, unquestioned and unchallenged.

Because of its intertwined relationship with the neo-liberal global agenda feminism is also coming under more intense scrutiny – a process that began to gather momentum with the advent of the internet and is now unstoppable.

If I had one wish it would be this – disengage from the trivial, unplug yourselves from the never ending conduit of asinine and pointless “information” streams – including endless TV and create space, time and silence for the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

You don’t have to know every tiny inconsequential detail of every tiny inconsequential event that happens in the world, but if you allow yourself to think, to challenge yourself then you can begin to see that most of frenetic activity around you is pointless and is merely a ploy to engage you in said activities to distract you from the broader picture then from there you will see the patterns of control emerging from the shadows – if you can see it – you can begin to disengage from it.

 

Slainte

 

Previous Older Entries