It’s A Boy! – Damn…………….Better Luck Next Time.

 

Horrible title isn’t it? Yet, is it any more horrible or inhumane or just downright sick that this one?

 

International Day of the Girl Child

 

Link Here

Imagine being so deluded, so tunnel-visioned, so lacking in any compassion or empathy for the suffering of one half of the world’s children that you actually believe only focusing on half of the world’s many many children who suffer terrible calamities, poverty, torture and disadvantage – IS A GOOD THING!

Naturally, there is no International Day of The Boy Child. One of the – in my opinion – sick twisted individuals behind this abhorrence is none other than Nikki Van Der Gaag, one of the sources for Ian Hughes excrable article in The Journal.ie.

Nikki van der Gaag has been writing about development issues for more than 20 years. After leaving Oxford, she went to work in India for Time Out magazine. Since then she has held editorial and communications positions in the charity and not-for-profit sector, including Oxfam, Oxford-based New Internationalist magazine and the Panos Institute, which work with journalists all over the world.

For the past 10 years she has been an independent consultant and writer, focusing in particular on gender, especially girls and young women, and more recently on men and masculinities around the world.

Nikki is on the International Advisory Board of Young Lives, a 15-year study of child poverty in four different countries based here at Oxford, an Advisory Trustee of New Internationalist and until recently a trustee at Asylum Welcome, a local refugee organization.

Books and reports include five of the seven State of the World’s Girls reports, published by Plan International, the most recent being In Double Jeopardy: Adolescent girls and disasters; Changing Lives in a Changing World, Young Lives (2012), Speaking Out: Case studies on how poor people influence decision-making Oxfam/Practical Action 2009; The No-Nonsense Guide to Women’s Rights New Internationalist 2008 and How the World Came to Oxford: refugees past and present. Oxford Literary Festival, March 2007. Nikki is currently working on a book for Zed Press on men and feminism.”

(emphasis added)

Link Here

Plan International is where this International Day of The Girl Child originated, and Nikki Van Der Gaag is one of the people behind it – as you can see, she is in a unique position to influence where, when and how resources, aid and development funding goes. For children.

There are no State of the Worlds Boys reports either, by the way. Not on the bloody UN website, or the WHO website or any other international global NGO. None. Not one. Nada. Zilch.

Oh wait – in 2011 boys got a mention, from Plan International: the Report is called – Because I am a Girl: So, what about boys?

This is what Plan International has to say about boys.

‘Because I am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls 2011 – So, what about boys?’ is the fifth in a series of annual reports published by Plan examining the rights of girls throughout their childhood, adolescence and as young women.

The report shows that far from being an issue just for women and girls, gender is also about boys and men, and that this needs to be better understood if we are going to have a positive impact on societies and economies.

Drawing on research and case studies, the report argues that working for equality must involve men and boys both as holders of power and as a group that is also suffering the consequences of negative gender stereotypes.

It also makes recommendations for action, showing policy makers and planners what can make a real difference to girls’ lives all over the world.

(emphasis added)

Aaaaawww, that’s nice, boys get mentioned – boys living in abject poverty, in terrible disadvantage and distress are described as “holders of power”

What doesn’t get mentioned is that that boys have rights – “…….throughout their childhood, adolescence and as young ..men”.

From the summary of the Report

Because I am a Girl: THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S GIRLS 2 011: YOUTH SUMMARY: So, what about boys?

This is how boys are viewed, will be viewed and no doubt will always be viewed as long as people like Nikki van Der Gaag have anything to do with children.

“So, why are we talking about boys?

The ‘Because I am a Girl’ report is still primarily a report about girls, and will continue to be about girls, but this year we are looking at why it is so important for men and boys to be a part of the solution in achieving gender equality. In many places support for equal opportunities for boys and girls does not exist. Men and boys are still the main decision makers in relationships, families, communities, businesses and governments. If projects and programmes throughout the world only work with women and girls we will struggle to make a difference.”

(emphasis added)

First, the fact that these people believe asking that question “So, why are we talking about boys?” is legitimate says everything you need to know about their ethos – the more legitimate question is this:

Why aren’t you talking about boys?

As unique human beings in their own right – with their own unique perspectives, thoughts, feelings, needs and wishes? Why are you not treating boys as equally valuable and worthwhile human beings, as INDIVIDUALS – not as some ever present problem FOR girls?

Why?

I typed International Day of The Boy Child into the UN search box – and I got 1,352 results – this is a list of the top twenty. On the UN Womens site http://www.unwomen.org/en – on the basis that – women – mothers – children – boys are children?

The Top Twenty Results

  1. International Day of the Girl Child 2012 – Date :February 7, 2013
  2. International Day of the Girl Child — “Innovating for Girls’ Education” – Date :January 13, 2013
  3. Joint Statement: International Day of the Girl Child 2012 – Date :October 10, 2012
  4. International Women’s Day 2013 – Date :May 9, 2013
  5. International Women’s Day 2013 – Date :May 9, 2013
  6. International Women’s Day 2014 – Date :May 9, 2013
  7. International Women’s Day 2015 – Date :May 9, 2013
  8. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  9. International Women’s Day 2012
  10. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  11. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  12. International Day of Older Persons – Date :October 1, 2012
  13. International Widows’ Day 2013 – Date :June 21, 2013
  14. International Day of Peace – Date :September 20, 2012
  15. International Day of the World’s Indigenous (women)Peoples – Date :August 8, 2013
  16. International Widows’ Day – 23 June 2011 – Date :June 23, 2011
  17. International Widows’ Day Conference at the House of Lords – Date :June 24, 2013
  18. International Women’s Day Celebration in Egypt – Date :March 8, 2012
  19. Media Advisory: International Widows’ Day Conference Date : June 22, 2011
  20. International Women’s Day Observances and Events Date : March 13, 2012

If you type the same search term into the main UN search box, the results are even more dispiriting see here.

 

The keyword that gets highlighted the majority of the time is the word “the” followed by “child” and “international” the word “BOY” simply does not register. At all. In the United Nations.

Because you see – ALL these organisations have been infested by feminist ideology and feminists – like Nikki Van Der Gaag.

As a feminist – you can be sure that NONE (or a miniscule amount) of funding/aid goes to little boys or young men – not in any significant amounts that is.

That’s what feminists do, have done, and will keep doing unless they are stopped, unless the vile ideology of feminism is rooted out from every single level of government and civil society.

Now, apparently Van Der Gaag is an expert on “men and masculinities” never mind she isn’t actually male, has zero experience of being male – she is an expert.

And eejits like Ian Hughes are so pathetically emasculated that he and his ilk (male feminists) parrot the unutterable crap that is spewed out from the likes of Van Der Gaag – writing articles entitled Why are men more violent than women?

Citing this wretch as a plausible “reference”

It sounds like I have a huge problem with resources, aid and funding being channelled to girls, doesn’t it?

I don’t – millions of girls in the world suffer all forms of abuse, disadvantage and distress – millions of them – SO DO MILLIONS OF BOYS! But you won’t hear a word about those little boys from Nikki Van Der Gaag.

You see – I’m NOT a feminist, so I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that millions of wee little lassies suffer unimaginable horrors, terrible disadvantage, poverty and trauma, as do millions of wee little laddies.

Because I’m NOT a feminist – I don’t see a “boy child” or a “girl child” and calculate a value or worth for that little creature based on their genitalia – I SEE A CHILD.

A child in need, a child who is suffering, a child who needs help.

From Nikki Van Der Gaag’s piece entitled Why involve men in work on gender equality? Link here.

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

There in a nutshell you have it – feminism’s greatest fear “hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women.”

Their second greatest fear is losing control of the discourse, of losing control of the narrative. But above and beyond all this, is that absolute dread, fear and terror that anyone in a position of power will start listening to the VOICES OF MEN!

The wrong sort of men – men who don’t give a shit about feminism, men who have listened to the “message of feminism” and declared it to be what it is.

Complete unutterable shoite. Poisonous, vile, malicious. Fraudulent CRAP!

To Ian Hughes and any other poor sap like him who thinks or believes that feminists like Nikki Van Der Gaag “has a point” here’s what she really thinks of you – as a man.

You are a penis wielding barbarian, your very sexuality is toxic, you are a perpetual threat and a danger to the safety and wellbeing of every single female who comes anywhere near to you. You are not to be trusted around children, especially female children and your very core being dictates that you dominate/enslave all women, everywhere.

Given half the chance you will beat the living shit of any woman who dares to oppose/defy/question you or your “male authority” which incidentally is bestowed upon you at the moment of your birth – even if you are born in a hovel in the worst hellhole on this planet – your tiny little baby penis has magic powers!

Speaking of your penis – it isn’t just a part of your body, part of the whole person that you are – it is a weapon, a device whose sole purpose is to harm, to punish, and to inflict violence – on women – all women. Whenever the opportunity arises – and – as a man – you are always on the lookout for that opportunity.

THAT’S what feminists absolutely believe you are – as a man – from the moment of your birth.

You made two mistakes when you penned your dire article Ian Hughes – first you swallowed without question the hypothesis that being male was inherently a bad thing – in effect you took upon yourself the belief that as a man – you were a flawed human being. YOU. As a man.

Secondly – you regurgitated the poisonous “theories” of not just one feminist but two without DOING YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

It took me less than two hours * to put together enough actual verifiable evidence to debunk, discredit and demolish your primary contention.

* To be fair, I had already downloaded Dr. Enda Dooley’s’ studies and the data from The Crime Council and The CSO – Central Statistics Office so, I’ll concede that it would have taken you more than two hours to gather the same evidence – except you didn’t bother

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

And I went for a bloody walk halfway through!

I can already tell you that each and every one of the “five of the seven State of the World’s Girls reports” put together by Nikki Van Der Gaag will be full of inaccuracies, misinterpretations of data/statistics, deliberate fallacies and probably outright fraudulent assertions, and I haven’t read any of them yet – but I will – every single one. I can make this claim because Nikki Van der Gaag is a feminist – and feminist is just another way of saying – lying snivelling weasel.

 

 

 

 

Finally.

Question: How can you tell when a feminist is lying?

 

Answer: Her lips are moving!

 

To Boldly go………Absolutely NOWHERE good!

 

According to this next generation of baby feminists – you know the one’s I’m talking about –  the ones who write asinine little pieces and articles in online publications and blogs – the ones who took “women’s/gender studies classes in college and came out clutching their parchments in one sweaty hand while striding forward to take their place as the leaders and shakers of the world. During the last 10 to 15 years, they are the new fourth wave of 21st century feminism

Those baby feminists, those social justice warriors, those social and cultural “commentators” are here to take up the banner of feminism and achieve what previous “waves” of feminism have apparently failed to do, after over nearly 100 years or so of activity – equality. For women. (that’s some effective campaign you got going on there, if you haven’t achieved your goal after 100 years!)

Yep – according to them, feminism is about achieving equality – for WOMEN. That’s it, equality per se is never actually defined, a cogent analysis of where, what and how supposed “inequality” manifests itself is never offered – it just happens – so there! Not talking about bullshit “issues” like the “male gaze” or being “objectified” or a mythical “rape culture” which is simply a product of the fevered and over active imaginations of over sexualised sluts, and a device to keep feminists in lucrative jobs.

I have a few insights for them – first one being – they’re not really feminists – seriously – you’re not – oh you’ve got the jargon down pat, you may even have read a few tedious examples of feminist “literature” and some feminist “studies” but in general, you went into college with one huge disadvantage, and came out with a useless piece of paper and an attitude. A particularly nasty, unlikeable, and rather immature attitude. What you didn’t come out as was – educated.

What? I’m admitting that girls go into and come out of college with a disadvantage? Yep, I am, but before all my fellow MHRA’s get ready to take me to task – let me explain.

BOTH boys and girls leave school with an enormous disadvantage, which manifests itself differently in boys than it does in girls.

The problem for both boys and girls is the very nature of both primary/elementary and secondary school/high school – boys get discouraged from learning because how they like to learn is deemed to be “wrong” and girls get over encouraged, because how THEY like to learn is deemed “right”.

Neither approach achieves the things that school is meant to achieve – develop the ability or desire to continue learning, or to give students the learning tools they need to progress to next level – self-directed learning. –

The other problem of course is what and how girls are “taught” – girls are praised for being mediocre, for showing up, for producing sub-standard “work” for merely parroting what they are indoctrinated with. In effect, girls come out of secondary school with the intellectual and emotional maturity of 12 year olds, spoilt, obnoxious, shallow 12 year olds, and as tantrum throwing brats and total pains in the arse.

Over the last 20 years or so, colleges and universities have not just recognised, encouraged and facilitated this, but have tailored their “courses” the ones that the vast majority of girls take, to accommodate this lack of cognitive ability, lack of critical thinking ability and complete lack of ability to form either a coherent thought or express it in anything other than the most immature, superficial and to be blunt dumbest way.

While boys are more seriously disadvantaged by this less than adequate primary and secondary educational “experience” they have one singular advantage over girls – generally boys chose different areas of interest, they have different capabilities which are not dependant on their “feelings” and boys are capable to a greater extent than girls of self-directed learning, not just from an early age, but inherently.

Girls need to be coddled, encouraged, constantly praised for every little thing they do, girls want ongoing approval and gold stars – boys?  Boys will take apart a computer, a toaster, a car – just to see how it works – and more importantly WHY it works.

I realise I am making some rather grand sweeping assumptions here, and that there are exceptions, but this is not a academic essay outlining empirical conclusions – just a general overview of the phenomenon of the complete dumbing down of education, primary, secondary and college education – and a hypothesis that posits – the dumbing down starts on the first day of school. Boys can and do overcome it, girls chose not to.

Back to my original assertion – that our current crop of baby feminists are not really feminists. They couldn’t possibly be, for one simple reason, they are completely incapable of evaluating, comprehending or analysing anything but the most basic concepts. They come to college educated on a diet of soundbites, of superficial feelings based “opinions” and with an egocentric worldview that filters everything through the prism of HOW it makes them feel. The onus being on, if something makes them feel bad, it is bad. They are feminists in name only.

Now, while most of the “writings” of those pioneers of second and third wave feminism (the ones that find themselves onto college reading lists) are turgid incomprehensible academic gobbledygook, even this shoite is beyond the comprehension ability of our latest generation of baby feminists, oh yes they’ve probably “read” it, maybe even written assignments citing it, but in possession of an ability to critically assess or analysis it? Nope. Bit like eating corn, it goes in and comes out the other end looking more or less the same. (Sorry – gross image, but effective?)

Nothing makes an intellectual pygmy feel more “bad” than feeling like an intellectual pygmy. Struggling to understand concepts, being confused and unable to process complex or convoluted “philosophical” ideas – all this makes someone who has been indoctrinated to believe she is super special, super smart and super brilliant feel really REALLY bad, ergo – it is bad – and if it is bad – it is wrong. End of discussion. Unless it is feminist “thinking” then even though they haven’t really got a clue what the hell the “author” is on about – its feminism, its about WOMEN – ergo – it MUST be good! Duh!

Shall I pause while all those baby feminists finish spluttering in rage, get all that “how dare you tell me I’m not a feminist” ranting out of the way? Guuuuuuurls, here’s how it works, you don’t get to tell ANYONE what feminism is or isn’t – it’s an idea, a set of opinions, a mish mash of “concepts” put out there into the public domain – ergo – it is whatever those who evaluate it say it is. Get over it.

 Moving on.

Historically,  “women’s rights” advocates, and unlike feminists, and I DO draw a clear distinction between advocates for “women’s rights” and feminists – regardless of feminists efforts to not just rewrite history, but to assimilate into feminism some of those who would have been horrified to be associated with “feminism”  – anyway, they wrote some stuff – quite intellectual “stuff” the kind of “stuff” that would go completely over the heads of these baby feminists – and when I say “women’s rights” advocates, I don’t mean female suffragettes/ists either.

I’m using the word “stuff” so as not to scare all the baby feminists, or make them feel bad about themselves – also, I’m not talking about frustrated housewives (Betty Friedan) sociopaths (Valerie Solanas), self-promoting attention seeking hippies (Germaine Greer) seriously disturbed man-hating lesbians (Andrea Dworkin/Shulamith Firestone/Kate Millet) or even more seriously disturbed bitter and twisted legal experts (Catherine MacKinnon)

Nope – hard though this may be to believe – the world of intellectual, philosophical thinking DIDN’T begin on the 1st January 1959.  Perhaps even harder for you all to believe, women contributed very little to the canon of philosophical thinking and literature – which is probably why you’ve never actually been exposed to these great thinkers – the emphasis being on the word “thinkers”

What all you baby feminists are is Gynocentrists – you are all simply whining and wailing for a world where being female means being endowed with special privileges, with unearned adoration for being born, with an unlimited and ever expanding freedom to be as obnoxious, as vicious, as criminal, as abusive, as nasty, as vile, as inhumane, as toxic, as stupid, as murderous, as avaricious, as greedy, as unethical, as egotistical and narcissistic as you like – and to be allowed to get away with it.

You could give a rat’s arse about “rights” – Human Rights – what you care about is maintaining and expanding female privilege.

Misguided, deluded and disturbed as most of those second and third wave pioneer feminists I mentioned above are and were, they did superficially “care” about “women’s rights” – granted they were completely wrong, and indulged themselves in major histrionic meltdowns about MINOR issues that were and would have been resolved in a reasonable and intelligent way – but – to be fair – now and again – they made some MINOR valid points, about societal attitudes prevalent at that time – but one does not and cannot legislate for “attitudes” for cultural mores – nor does one campaign for “rights” that can only be achieved by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs.

So, they launched a campaign of whining, of political nagging, of tantrum throwing, of petty vicious and nasty social, cultural and legal aggression. They bullied, coerced, blackmailed and LIED.

Feminism was and is a campaign for INEQUALITY if it is anything. From a legislative perspective, there are no rights that men have that women DON’T HAVE – in fact the reverse is true – it is Men’s Human Rights that have been systematically stripped from them over the last 50 or so years.

So, to all you baby feminists, not only are you not feminists but Gynocentrists, you are all, without exception as dumb as a bag of hammers. Read a goddamn book now and again – would you? Take a look in a mirror at yourselves, try to imagine for one instant when you’re being YOU what other people see.

In fact, rather than dismissing what the MHRM says about females like you – consider this – it isn’t them – it IS you – you are everything and more we say you are – even on your best day – most of you are barely tolerable human beings. You are enveloped in an invisible cloud of nastiness, vanity, shallowness, egotism and narcissism that completely blinds you to what you really are. Not super special, NOT super smart, NOT super brilliant, and with the intellectual depth of a puddle, but more than this, you are invariably:

Exceptionally nasty human beings.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Old W[h]ines Fancy New Bottles – Part II

 

 Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article for AVfM, where she casts her eye over a new documentary film called The Mask You Live In – even the title makes me shudder.

Anyway – in her first two paragraph, Hoff Sommers indulges herself in a bit of hand-wringing and worrying, about how this film might, just might be misrepresenting boys. Then goes on to do just exactly that herself.

“ It argues that American boys are captive to a rigid and harmful social code of masculinity. From the earliest age, they are told to “Be a man!” “Don’t cry!” “Stop with the emotion!” and “Man up!” This “guy code” suppresses their humanity, excites their drive for dominance and renders many of them dangerous. The trailer features adolescent men describing their isolation, despair and thoughts of suicide, artfully interspersed with terrifying images of school shooters and mass murderers.”

Fair enough, though the fact that the filmmaker is described BY Hoff Sommers as  “filmmaker and feminist activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s” might be a great big bloody honking clue as to how Newsome might view boys and all male human beings!

In light of the fact that it was Hoff Sommers own book – “The War Against Boys”, in which SHE described this “war” as a “war” initiated, waged and perpetuated by BLOODY FEMINISTS “Against Boys.” The rest of her “article” is………..bizarre.

But, alas, one of the things that feminists are famous for is, backpeddling, indulging in a little linguistic sleight of hand, depending on which way the wind blows, and how uncomfortable that fence they’ve been sitting on is getting. Sommers apparently is no exception as this article illustrates.

“Christina Hoff Sommers, who played a starring role in the anti-feminist backlash of the 1990s, is back again with a new edition of her book The War Against Boys. Originally subtitled How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, it’s now relabeled How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men;”

Well now! Isn’t that intriguing? All of a sudden feminism is quietly swept under the carpet, and “policies” are now the big bad wolf creeping up on the hen house. Such a nice “let’s not point the finger at anybody or anything in particular” just some unattributed vague neutral “policies

Eh, yeah, right!

The article was published on Feb 14th 2013  – the author of this piece, Jim Naureckas, is very obviously not a fan of Sommers, and in this instance who can blame him.

I’m wondering, to myself, is this a chance to seize an opportunity to come in from cold? It can be a mite chilly being outside the sisterhood, especially when one yearns for “nice feminism” to come back into fashion. Naureckas helpfully supplies a link to another article, this time penned by Hoff Sommers herself.

Perhaps we’ll just let Hoff Sommers explain the little word substitution herself – I took a screen shot of the relevant paragraph, because for some reason I couldn’t copy and paste it, and am no good at figuring out what the problem is.

In her own words then. Click on the link above to go read the article yourself.

“For a revised version of the book, due out this summer, I’ve changed the subtitle – to “How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men” from “How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” – and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerence disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminilize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling.  As our schools have become more feelings-centred, risk-averse, collaboration-orientated and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities.  Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more that a decade later, there are major policy reasons – besides the stale “culture wars” of the 1990’s – to focus on boys schooling.”

Ah, well then, let’s all stopcriticising feminism” because obviously since from the first time Hoff Sommers published her ground-breaking book, it appears that  now, feminists have become so much nicer, so much more concerned about boys, it would be better if we all just learned to get along, and play nicely together. You read it from the horse’s mouth – feminism is OFF the hook.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T  – did I mention that this is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T?

Sommers does make a few friendly and nicesuggestions” as to how Newsome can improve her film, but decides to regale us first with some nice descriptive words about what men are, and what women are.

“A recent study on sex differences by researchers from the University of Turin, in Italy, and the University of Manchester, in England, confirms what most of us see with our eyes: with some exceptions, women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded, while men tend to be more utilitarian, objective, unsentimental and tough-minded. We do not yet fully understand the biological underpinnings of these universal tendencies, but that is no reason to deny they exist.”

 Where is the link to this “study please? I’d like to read it myself, and make my own mind up about what it found, if that’s all right with you Dr. Sommers?  Because what I’m seeing here is a pithy little analysis that functions to confirm and perpetuate STEROTYPES – what is “stereotypical female behaviour, and stereotypical male behaviour or if you prefer. Myths.

 What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and all things nice………..you all know the rest.

 I especially liked the words “sensitive” and “tender-minded” applied to women, I must have misinterpreted all those RED PILL stories from all those MEN on AVfM forum, where they described the horrors they endured at the hands of “sensitive” and “tender-minded” women – but the words she uses for men are classic gynocentrism wrapped up in nice feminist bullshit, my absolute favourite being “utilitarian” ah yes – men have always been “utilitarian” FOR the benefit of women.

 But it was Hoff Sommers suggestion No, 4 that made me literally drop my jaw in amazement – in one paragraph she chides Newsome for misrepresenting boy’s mental health, claims that most boys are basically as happy as Larry AND points out that “Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male.

 But the cherry on top of her “suggestion“ to Newsome is that in spite of all these happy go lucky boys that “Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable” BUT also that  “Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

“4. Make clear that most boys are psychologically sound and resilient

 The Mask You Live In gives the impression that the average adolescent boy is severely depressed. In fact, clinical depression is rare among boys. (National Institute of Mental Health data show that the prevalence of depression among among 13- to 17-year-old boys is 4.3%; among girls of the same age group, it is 12.4%.)

Newsom’s film reports that every day in the U.S. three or more boys take their own lives. Suicide is, indeed, primarily a male disease. Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male. In 2010, a total of 3,951 young men died by their own hands. Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable. Still, in a nation of nearly 33 million boys, that means that the percentage of boys who commit suicide is close to 0.01%. Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

 So, let me see if I have this right? Boys are NOT suffering from clinical depression, because MORE girls, almost three times as more get diagnosed with REAL clinical depression – yet MORE boys than girls actually take their own lives – but not because they are as depressed as girls?

What am I missing here? Oh yeah – when girls are depressed its REAL depression, but when boys are depressed it’s………? Because obviously with nearly “33 million boys” What difference does it make if 0.01% of them take their own lives, plenty more to spare. It’s the percentages that matter, NOT the actual real human beings – because after all, it’s just a FEW BOYS! I’ll be honest, that almost made me puke in disgust.

 Hoff Sommers next suggestion made me spray my coffee out all over my computer screen – she lauds the efforts in Australia to improve men’s “mental fitness” because of a report in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2006.

“Some of the most promising, innovative ideas are coming out of Australia. In 2006, a report in the Medical Journal of Australia argued for a paradigm shift in the nation’s mental-health system. Rather than blaming “masculinity” or trying to “re-educate” men away from their reluctance to seek help, the author asks, “Why not provide health services that better meet the needs of men?”

 I’m just going to leave the link to Janet Bloomfield’s (aka Judgybitch) brilliant article on the issue of Male Health Studies in Australia here and this link here, and say just one thing to Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers.

 What fucking planet, what parallel universe have you been living in since………being the poster girl for cool and trendy nice feminists, way back, when sitting on the fence was much more comfortable than it is now?

 You cite some report from 2006, from almost eight years ago, without actually providing a link to said report, yet seem oblivious to events of recent days regarding the FIRST attempt to offer a Male Studies course – that IS actually about Male Health in Australia?

 Here’s what I think – that Christina Hoff Sommers sees an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of feminism 4.0 via two avenues, first by re-issuing her book – with a new suitably sanitised tag line under the title, that takes the heat OFF feminism, and two, by offering a half baked apologia/endorsement/half fat approval, for this execrable toxic little film that is a vehicle for a repackaged, rebranded, renewed, boy friendly feminism.

 The message is the same – men and boys bad – girls and women good – it’s still FEMINISM – it just got itself a makeover, has quietly nudged the screechy ranty bad feminists back into the shadows, or up into the attic and is now doing the fluffy feminist two step.

 Bullshit.

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

NB. I wrote this article yesterday, but held off posting it last night, because as I read the comments on AVfM on this article – with almost no exceptions the comments were all rather gushing in praise of Hoff Sommers.  So I slept on it – thinking – am I just imaging this? That this article is a thinly disguised apologia FOR feminism? That this article is a sloppy, poorly researched, lazy, knocked it off in an hour piece of pro feminist bullshit?  That Hoff Sommers is skating by on past glories?

Now to be fair to Hoff Sommers, her book The War against Boys was groundbreaking and rightly deserves kudos, but that was then, this is now. What I did notice about the comments as well, was that with the exception of a few minor “issues” pointed out in the actual BODY of her article – no- one directly critiqued it. No-one took this article point by point and examined it very closely. There was a lot of tippy toeing around, a few vague references to a few vague, as I said “issues” but overall it was a love fest – Christina Hoff Sommers was so cool, was so brilliant and the MHRM was sooooooooo lucky to have her!

 

Added this Morning: What is written above is my honest to God opinion – I stand by every word of it – should anyone wish to “take me to task” for taking swipes at the untouchable Christina Hoff Sommers – go ahead – I won’t stand in your way – won’t close comments, censor you or bar you from commenting, obviously if you decide you post poisonous ranty illiterate diatribes I might use my discretion – it is MY blog after all – otherwise nope.

 What I will point out is that A Voice for Men has my full 100% support, now and always, without AVfM and Paul Elam’s vision and persistence the MHRM would probably still be in the doldrums, still languishing in dark corners of the internet, and feminism would have won – Men’s Human Rights would probably be fast becoming a distant memory.

 Anja

 

Old W[h]ines, Fancy New Bottles.

 

 I hate when people try to pull the wool over my eyes, really, hate it, especially when it is some well-meaning and sincere “concerned” person who wants to piss on my back and then expects me to believe that it is raining.

Perhaps more than that, I have no time for those who rush headlong into promoting something that according to them is in essence a “step in the right direction” yet fail to do the one thing that might convince me that these steps are indeed IN the right direction. Their bloody homework!

So, it is with a certain degree of reluctance that I feel I must take Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers to task, for this article on AVfM.  Now before I do, I have to say of the few feminists I can tolerate, Hoff Sommers is on that “can count them on the fingers of one hand” group, hence the reluctance.

Moving on, I have been wondering, pondering even on what form the PR campaign for feminism 4.0 would take, how “they” would package it? So, I watched the trailer of The Mask You Live In, and two things jumped right out at me, first, Michael Kimmel popping up as the token male (feminist) representative, and the less than subtle subliminal message embedded into this little PR stunt for feminism 4.0 – the new caring sharing, we really, really do want to “help boys” feminism 4.0.

So, first off,  let’s just plant something into the minds of those watching by showing images of boys holding pieces of paper with the word “anger” written on them! Because boys = anger? Duh!

As for Kimmel, Kimmel is a patsy, he is the useful male idiot reading from the script his feminist mistresses have pre-approved, a flim flam artist, a sycophant, ass kisser, and his “Guy Code”, the one Hoff Sommers mentions a few times? There might be a male (or nice female feminist person) person mouthing the words, but there’s some rancid feminist harridan with her hand up his/her  backside making his/her  mouth work.

This is a slick and shiny plausible PR stunt, a definite improvement on a certain scarlet haired wretch warbling “Cry me a River” – but – a PR stunt all the same. The purpose of which is to “road test” the roll out of feminism 4.0.

I have some knowledge, at a remove, of how the film industry works – here’s the bottom line – he or she who pays the piper, gets to pick the tune, the music, the orchestra, and the song. Artistic integrity, or individual “vision” be damned. Ppppft.

So, in that vein, I followed the money. Obviously my first port of call was the organisation behind this little boy friendly movie, The Representation Project. Here is what they say about themselves

From About Us – Our History.

“As an organization, The Representation Project remains true to the message of Miss Representation that limiting stereotypes harm all of us and that women deserve a seat at the table. We take that commitment forward with us, as we tackle the biases that impact our larger society.”

They are also into “education

From Resources and Education – Curriculum

“Miss Representation’s Curriculum gives media literacy a much needed gender focus. The curriculum asks girls and boys alike to think about the effects of the images they see—particularly the ways media affects women and girls’ ability to see themselves as leaders and be seen as leaders by others in society.”

Just in case you missed the core mission of The Representation Project, it is reiterated further down in their little vignette about how they go about “education”

“Think critically about how stereotypes of femininity and masculinity limit girls and boys. Examine the impact media has on a woman’s ability to see herself as a leader and obtain a leadership position.”

 What I’d like you to note in this altruistic little statement is that the goal is for women to “OBTAIN a leadership position” NOT earn, NOT be qualified for, NOT work for – OBTAIN – as a right – because she is a woman.

Do the words, “horse” and “mouth” ring any bells?

Something else about this now, “concerned about boys” organisation to be noted – WHERE does their money come from? Glad you asked, they have Founders and Donors. Who they thank very graciously for their support in giving them the means to peddle – oops – sorry – present this “concerned about boys” little film.

“Founders and Donors – About Us

We are particularly grateful to the donor leaders of our Founders Circle for their generous multi-year support of our continued success.”

Ah, that’s nice, good manners are always welcome – but, let’s just take a closer look at these generous patrons, shall we. The first two on the list are “anonymous” hmmmm, and for the purposes of this article I will only take the top three to have an in depth look at. Shall we begin?

Founder’s Circle

Anonymous

Anonymous “

Next up on the list is Susie Tomkins Buell, Susie has a Foundation, and :

Their front page slogan is –

“Empowering, educating and promoting leadership among women and girls.”

Hmmm, ok do I need my eyes tested? Anyone spot the word “boys” there? Anyone?

Maybe it’s on their Mission Statement?

Foundation Mission

 “The Foundation has two aims:

 To support women in reaching their full potential in public service, especially in the political arena.

 To inspire activism about our planet’s environmental crisis, especially among youth and women.”

Well! I’m shocked, nothing about boys there either, how about what they say about why they/Susie “sponsored” this film.

“Miss Representation is the award-winning documentary film that exposes how mainstream media contributes to the underrepresentation of women in positions of power and influence in America.

The new documentary film, The Mask You Live In, asks: as a society, how are we failing our boys? The film will examine how gender stereotypes are interconnected with race, class, and circumstance, and how kids are further influenced by the education system, sports culture, and mass media- video games and pornography in particular. The film also highlights the importance of placing emphasis on the social and emotional needs of boys through healthy family communication, alternative teaching strategies, conscious media consumption, positive role modeling and innovative mentorship programs. The goal of this film is to spark a national conversation around masculinity and ultimately create a more balanced, equitable society for all.”

Well, masculinity gets a mention, but, only in the context that there is something wrong with masculinity that needs to be fixed – by feminist filmmakers and organisations dedicated to the “empowerment” of women and girls?. By having complete twats like Kimmel endorse this new fuzzy warm and cuddly feminism 4.0

Maybe the next “Founder and Donor” sees boys as inherently good, as small human beings that just happen to be male, and that it is society, and societal attitudes towards boys that needs to change?

She is called Abigail E. Disney

“Full Biography

Abigail Disney is a filmmaker, philanthropist and activist based in New York City.  Her longtime passion for women’s issues and peacebuilding culminated in her first film Pray the Devil Back to Hell.  Abigail created the groundbreaking PBS mini-series Women, War & Peace, the most comprehensive global media initiative ever mounted on the role of women in peace and conflict.  She has played a role in many film projects and is currently at work on a film highlighting the key role of women in the Arab Awakening.  She founded the Daphne Foundation, Peace is Loud and co-founded, along with 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, the Gbowee Peace Foundation USA.

There is one other thing – Regular contributor – Huffington Post.”

Say no more.

Abigail seems to have one overriding theme in her “work” doesn’t she?  Women!

What about the next Founder and Donor, that would be one Linda Gruber.

Linda is another person who has a particular focus, in her work – just like Susie and Abigail, and that focus is. Women, through the good offices of the Global Fund for Women.

Just what is this Global Fund for Women? – Well here is their Mission and History statement.

“Mission & History

Our Mission

 We advance the rights of women and girls worldwide by increasing the resources for and investing in women-led organizations and women’s collective leadership for change.

 Our Vision

 We envision a just, equitable and sustainable world in which women and girls have resources, voice, choice and opportunities to realize their human rights.”

What is Linda’s role in this Global Organisation for Women?

“Linda Gruber, Secretary United States

Linda Gruber is a long-time community volunteer and president of the Gruber Family Foundation which funds in the areas of education, progressive media, the arts and women’s issues, including reproductive rights. She also serves on the boards of the San Francisco Museum of Art and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

The ones I looked at here are not some fly by night temporary organisations, they have clout, influence and………power, political power. So, we’re talking about some heavy hitters here.

Here are the rest of the Founders and Donors of The Representation Organisation.

 Maureen Pelton and Charles Hartwell

The Eagle and The Hawk Foundation

JaMel Perkins

Lisa and John Pritzker

Amy Rao

Sarah Johnson Redlich

Regina K. Scully

Pheobe Snow Foundation

NoVo Foundation

 Getting back briefly to Hoff Sommers article, this quote illustrates the sloppy thinking that well-meaning but deluded “nice feminists” either display or exhibit when it comes to assessing whether something is or isn’t a step in the right direction.

“I admire Newsom for using her considerable talent to advocate for boys. But I worry that she is less concerned with helping boys than with re-engineering their masculinity according to specifications from some out-of-date gender-studies textbook

Sigh – it’s a shiny new “text-book” same toxic feminist shoite, but with a new super cool cover and better PR,

Maybe it’s some naive but sincere belief that feminism can rehabilitated, or that feminism was once good, was corrupted but can be good again?

I honestly don’t understand why people like Hoff Sommers pine for some mystical good feminism – that NEVER was, never will be, cannot be a good feminism. So, welcoming someone like Newsome as an “advocate for boys” is at best naive, at worst, complicit in perpetuating the toxic and corrosive ideology of ALL feminisms.

Unlike Hoff Sommers, I don’t worry about people like Newsome, not in the sense she does, I worry that people will fall for this bullshit, that this slick pseudo “concern for boys” will lull people into a false sense of “all is well, all is well, the nice feminists are on the case”

By the way, no need to thank me for doing your homework, but you can drop your lunch money on my desk every day before recess for…………..let’s say a week.

Cheers.

Anja.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

Oppression? Where?

 

You know as oppressive regimes go, the patriarchy is doing a pretty shit job of being……….well, oppressive.  In fact on a worldwide scale of oppressive regimes, the patriarchy is a big fat failure.

This failure is actually a two way street, both by the putative oppressors, and the putative oppressed, those in the western hemisphere that is, are just not really getting with the oppression programme, and DOING THEIR JOBS!

Let me explain, then maybe all you lads and lassies can start being oppressed and oppressing………properly. You know, put some effort into it.

Taking oppression to mean living in a place, a country, a state or territory where basic fundamental Human Rights, that we all generally agree on as being basic fundamental Human Rights, are suppressed, violated, suspended, ignored or simply don’t exist.  Where your life is literally NOT your own, and the fact of your existence is to be a disposable entity for the use of your oppressors.

For the sake of argument let’s just take these as two of the most important absolute basic fundamental Human Rights.

The Right to Freedom of Expression, Thought, Speech, Belief and Conscience.

I put this first because of all the basic fundamental Human Rights, being able to speak out, to think whatever you like, to believe exactly the opposite of what those in power do, and to know that you will be allowed to keep breathing is, in my opinion, true freedom. The suppression and silencing of those who would criticise, question and reject the prevailing ethos of an oppressive regime guarantees that the oppressed will live in constant fear and compliance.  To know that a stray thought, a random off the cuff remark, a mild query or question could lead to their death or worse torture, is the mark of a functioning and effective oppressive regime.

True despots such as Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ayatollah Khomeni, and so many more knew and  exercised  and in fact  continue  to exercise this tool of oppression to great effect in some parts of the world. Just not in the west.

So, how does the west stack up, how does the patriarchy, this ever present, all encompassing oppressive mechanism under which ALL women in the west apparently live, measure up?

Hmmm, not very well, if one is to judge by the thousands of blogs, sites, articles, books, talks, speeches, TV shows, films and random conversations going on all over the west, every minute of every day.

I have yet to hear of any woman, in the west, being hauled off in the dead of night with a hood over her head for exercising her right to “Free Speech” In fact to be blunt, the problem isn’t that women are being denied the right to speak, to express their “opinions” to hold some strange and outright bizarre views, nope, the problem is the reverse – getting them to SHUT UP!

The utilising of  the “Freedom of Speech” is being suppressed banner, by feminism and empty-headed vacuous women is an insult, an affront to all those who have, and are continuing to have their Freedom of Speech suppressed, sometimes violently.

The Right to an Education, at the very least primary education.

All Human Rights Instruments and Conventions, recognise that children are entitled to at the very least a primary/elementary education, and most states also extend this right to encompass secondary/high school education.

It has ever been the tool of oppressive regimes to deny their enslaved peoples an education, an ignorant and illiterate populace is a docile one. In regimes where “education” is offered, it is strictly controlled and regimented to reflect the ethos and ideology of the oppressive regimes tenets. There are many words that have been used to describe this kind of “education” this kind of societal “reprogramming”

In the Peoples Republic of China it was called “THE THREE REPRESENTS CAMPAIGN”, in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge it was called “The Four Year Plan” in the USSR it was a campaign to “promote a sense of Soviet identity

But one word covers all these methods of suppressing the kinds of Human Rights we are talking about here perfectly – Indoctrination.

So, what about the west? Well let’s see, not only are ALL children expected to go school, it is a legal requirement on the part of parents to SEND their children to school. Not only that, most states BUILD schools and PAY teachers from state resources (tax’s) to work in these schools.  In fact if one has enough money and a desire to do so, anybody can start a school. Anybody.

Ah but, it’s what is being taught in these schools that perpetuates this nasty oppressive regime of patriarchy, training young girls to be subservient and docile, and young boys to be dominant, brutal and……..emmm…..oppressive and patriarchal!

Really?  Is that so?

There has been one major influence that has surpassed all other influences bar none in the education systems of the west for nigh on fifty years now, it is called feminism, and feminism is and has always claimed to be, the voice of and for – WOMEN!

The impact of feminist inspired policies on education was felt almost immediately, and did start to raise concerns, in fact some feminists even went so far to conduct their own “studies” all the while being careful to make sure to keep in focus that feminism per se must NOT be blamed. It was subtle, but it was there.

As for what is taught in these academies of patriarchy? That girls are brilliant, multitalented, and utterly fantastic and destined to be the future leaders of the free world, and that boys are shit, boys are horrible, mean, nasty and stupid. In fact this programme of indoctrination is so successful, that both boys and girls leave these places BELIEVING this shit.

Because you see, what happens next is proof positive that girls leave these indoctrination camps in vast numbers to go onto the next stage of training to be the “leaders of the free world” and boys? Well, boys are left floundering, that is even if some of them manage to “get a place” in these so called “places of higher learning” they encounter the last and final stage of the “oppressive” system of education in the west. A system that is, and has been designed to hammer the final nail into the coffin of a boy’s life chances.

Gender Studies.

It is in these erroneously named “places of higher learning” that boys are “finished off” in the sense that they learn they are potential rapists, abusers, violent thugs, despicable human beings, if it is even acknowledged that they ARE human beings. It is in these places that boys learn once and for all that they are unwanted.

This is also the place where girls get to emerge from their chrysalis as fully fledged “empowered women” sweeping all before them, as they take their rightful places at the head of the queue for………………..EVERYTHING!

Ahem – one moment please. Are we not all forgetting something? First, girls going to university and college in higher and higher numbers, secondly, the numbers of boys going is falling?  But you see according to feminism this is ALL men’s own fault, yep, even though there is a definite crisis in boy’s education, it has nothing to do with the toxic influence of feminism. Boys are just not handling girls success to well.

Girls! This is not good enough, stop all this empowered business this instant and get back to being “oppressed” all these “slut walks” “take back the night” all this “learning” “blogging” voicing of your never ending opinions of everything and anything, all this “my body, my choice” crap. Get back into your homes and under the rule of your oppressive fathers.

Sorry what? Your mother kicked your father out of the house when you were just a child, and had hysterics if you even mentioned you wanted to see your Dad? Well then, under the rule of your brother then.

Pardon me?  What did you say?  Your brother took his own life after perhaps years of abuse from your mother? Perhaps after being the target for your mothers rage. Ah, ok.

Well then boys, step up to the patriarchy plate and get oppressing.  I’m sorry what did you say? You don’t know how? You’ve been told you’re a piece of shit since you were a small boy and now you believe it. No-one has ever shown you ”the ropes” so to speak, the patriarchy ropes, because your Dad was kicked out of the house as well. You don’t have the energy to be oppressive, because you’ve been on this medication for so long, since you were a small boy, that you don’t know who you are anymore.

Actually, you know, you are right, there is an oppressive regime in place in the west, it is pervasive, it is all enveloping, and it is toxic.

It is called feminism.

 

 

MRA’s are just Big Meanie’s

Yep, those among us who stand with the Men’s [Human] Rights Movement, an umbrella term that covers a multitude of online sites, bloggers, Men and Boys Rights organisations, MGTOW sites, in fact anyone either online or in real life who makes any statement that in way asserts that:

 Men have Rights – Human Rights.

 Are just big ole meanie’s who hate women, want women to “suffer” and believe that women should be, I guess, seen and not heard, the more vociferous, malign, and vituperative of those who object to the notion that Men Have Rights, will support their contention with outrageous statements that contrarily assert that men, all men, are bastards, rapists, inherently violent, want to dominate and oppress women, are evil, untrustworthy and in some cases a vile subhuman subset of the species Homo Sapiens who need to be culled.

But absent these obviously disturbed, seriously dysfunctional creatures, the general consensus seems to be, that the notion men have rights equable to women, is an affront, an insult, and just………..mean.

Because you see, ALL conversations, discussions and debates, whether in private conversations between individuals, or in the public domain, about Rights, about Human Rights abuses mean, that these conversations, discussions and debates and more importantly, attention and resources are, and should be about WOMENS ISSUES. Just take a look at the Directory of UN Resources on Gender and Women’s Issues.

If you put “mens issues” into the search box on the home page below is what you get:

A Blank Page

Go on, click on it and see for yourself.

Even if you click on their “suggested” search term this is what you get:

“Your search – “men”s issues” – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing “”men”s issues””. Suggestions:

  • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

  • Try different keywords.

  • Try more general keywords. “

If one insists on shifting the emphasis to Men’s Rights, it means you are ignoring, sidelining, rendering unimportant, and devaluing women’s rights, in fact you are just being plain old rude, a horrible person, and MEAN!

Now, to be fair, as long as the main thrust of these exchanges is about, women’s rights, one is allowed to mention, in passing, the notion that men might have rights, that there might be some value in acknowledging that men and boys could have rights. In fact some daring souls have gotten away with suggesting that men and boys rights might be violated, ignored or abused they have either not been listened to or, in the case of the second example I use, Christina Hoff Sommers, cling onto a self-identification of themselves as feminist, for reasons that escape me, though I do have to say Sommers is one of the few voices raised in defence of boys, in particular.

But, to have a conversation, discussion or debate about Men’s Rights as a stand alone topic, as a subject apart from and separate from the topic of women’s rights? Big fat NO! NADA, Niet,

The reason? The people who are in charge of these discussions and debates on Human Rights, the people who have set the parameters, have dictated the agenda, and who have laid out the rules for discussing Human Rights? Women! Not just women full stop, feminists. Just go take a look at the UN site again. Because, if you look at the title it says”…….Gender and Women Issues” we all know what “women” means, so what does “gender” mean?

Not men, because there ARE no resources for men, so “gender” must mean “women” as well!

So, MRA’s are just big ole Meanie’s because they won’t follow the rules, they won’t stick to the agenda, and they DON’T want to talk about women’s rights. At all. And, perhaps because men are talking about Human Rights, and the Human Rights of only men, without getting permission from………women! Sometimes, they don’t even mention women at all, well, except to be mean and horrible about them.

MRA’s talking, discussing and debating men’s rights is just all, me, me, me, me, me, me!

So, Men suffer  and get shafted in family courts and lose their homes, their children, everything?  Ppppft.

Men have pain, anguish and feel isolated, depressed even suicidal? Ppppft.

Boys struggle in school and are discriminated against just for being boys? Ppppft.

 Men are beaten, are abused  and  are traumatised in relationships? Ppppft.

 Men and boys are raped, and boys used as cannon fodder and as child soldiers in ethnic conflicts all around the world? Ppppft.

You know what the usual response is to these issues, whether directly or indirectly, but mostly indifferently?

SO WHAT? What about the womeeeeeeeeeeeeeen? Women suffer sooooooooooo much more, we need to get back to “talking about the women”!

So, if you talk about, discuss or raise “men’s issues” you are just a big ole MRA meanie, and that’s ALL you are!

 I’m hoping that if you are reading this, if you are not preparing to pen a scathing and polemic diatribe to launch a counter attack to “put me in my place * you will at least give what I’ve written some thought, think about it at least, are men’s rights now being attacked, being ignored, becoming a distant cultural memory?

I hope that you at least clicked on some of the links, yes I know, there are quite a lot of them, but take your time.  In case you are thinking that what appears to be, superficially a rather light-hearted general rant on acknowledging and giving a platform to the discussion of Men’s Rights, it is and it isn’t.

The issue of Men’s Human Rights abuses is an urgent and necessary topic, that WE as a Human species need to start having. Not in the context of an addendum to women’s rights, not as an “add on” to the Human Rights agenda under “any other business” but up front and centre.

To continue to frame the Human Rights Agenda in the context of women’s rights, and women’s rights only is in and of itself, an abuse of Human Rights.

To continue to dismiss, diminish, render unimportant or even, irritating, annoying and rude, and yes, as mean the issue of Men’s Human Rights, is scandalous, is abhorrent, and is INHUMANE.

If you, for whatever reason believe or subscribe to the view, that talking about Men’s Human Rights, addressing Men’s Human Rights abuses will somehow cause the Human Rights of women to disappear overnight, to become obsolete, to be wiped from the statute books and canons of law in whatever country you happen to be in, then you are either a fool, an ignoramus, or blind to the reality around you, and if you self-identify as a feminist and are peddling this cant, this drivel, this outrageous calumny. Then:

You are a liar, a vindictive spiteful reprehensible liar and you need to shut up! NOW.

So that decent human beings can have these conversations, can address these issues.  So that policy makers, law makers and Human Rights organisations can start undoing the damage that feminism has done, and will continue to do to the Human Race.

You are either FOR or against Human Rights for ALL Human Beings.  Pick a side.

*For anyone who might read this, and I’m only hoping that someone will, not expecting, and it triggers a feminist, of which there are many varieties, from the relatively benign but misguided, to the all out rabid invective hurling, foaming at the mouth type, who decides to “respond” fine. Likewise anyone who stands in the “I’m not a feminist but……..” camp.

Go ahead, post, comment, review, misrepresent, misunderstand and/or totally and utterly miss the point, do that, after all, you also are entitled to hold whatever opinion or view you wish. But bear this mind, just like me, your opinion,  your view, is open to be challenged, to be shown as flawed, as misguided, and as just plain WRONG.

I won’t censor, block or prevent you from “expressing your opinion” subject to my commenting policy as outlined in Housekeeping. But, you better have some damn good evidence that Men’s Rights are not Human Rights – of the “tablets brought down from the mountain top by Moses” variety!

 

© Anja Eriud 2013

Que Sera, Sera……

For those of you not old enough to remember, this is the title of a song Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)“, first published in 1956, is a popular song written by the Jay Livingston and Ray Evans songwriting team. The song was introduced in the Alfred Hitchcock film The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), starring Doris Day and James Stewart in the lead roles”. See here and here.

Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

When I was just a little girl

I asked my mother, what will I be

Will I be pretty, will I be rich

Here’s what she said to me.

Que Sera, Sera,

Whatever will be, will be

The future’s not ours, to see

Que Sera, Sera

What will be, will be.

When I was young, I fell in love

I asked my sweetheart what lies ahead

Will we have rainbows, day after day

Here’s what my sweetheart said.

Que Sera, Sera,

Whatever will be, will be

The future’s not ours, to see

Que Sera, Sera

What will be, will be.

Now I have children of my own

They ask their mother, what will I be

Will I be handsome, will I be rich

I tell them tenderly.

Que Sera, Sera,

Whatever will be, will be

The future’s not ours, to see

Que Sera, Sera

What will be, will be.

 

Song lyrics hereYoutube of song performance here

It’s a catchy song with a nice melody, and of course, it is just a song, no earth shattering philosophical revelations.  Thing is, it does encapsulate a couple of rather important ideas. From a parenting perspective.

First that children turn to their parents, as role models, as the source of reassurance and guidance, and more importantly for answers.

It also illustrates something fundamental, a question that children and young people yearn to have an answer to – What will I be?

Our children are to some extent what we, as their parents make them, for good or bad, which is of course subjective, individuals having their own measure of what constitutes good, and bad. The song was released in 1956, and is of its time, for those who take issue with the lines about “will I be pretty” or “I asked my sweetheart”.

It  is worth noting that in 1956 getting married and having children was the “norm” mothers staying in the home to raise those children was the “norm”.  Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique wasn’t published till 1963, the book that is “credited with sparking off second wave feminism” see here.

Today’s generation of 15 – 17 years olds were born between 1996 – 1998 and their parents, who lets just assume were about 25 when they were born, entered this world in 1988, and their parents in 1963, the year Friedan’s book came out.

So, roughly we could say that we now have two generations who came of age under the influence of feminism and for todays 15 – 17 year old’s whose grandparents and parents were living during what has been characterised as the second and third wave of feminism. We’ll leave “first wave feminism” till last.

Second Wave feminism.

“The second wave began in the 1960s and continued into the 90’s. This wave unfolded in the context of the anti-war and civil rights movements and the growing self-consciousness of a variety of minority groups around the world. The New Left was on the rise, and the voice of the second wave was increasingly radical. In this phase, sexuality and reproductive rights were dominant issues, and much of the movement’s energy was focused on passing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing social equality regardless of sex.” See here.

“We then move on to the second wave of feminism, which emerged in the 1960s to 1970s in postwar Western welfare societies, when other “oppressed” groups such as Blacks and homosexuals were being defined and the New Left was on the rise. Second-wave feminism is closely linked to the radical voices of women’s empowerment and differential rights and, during the 1980s to 1990s, also to a crucial differentiation of second-wave feminism itself, initiated by women of color and third-world women.” See here

Third Wave feminism

 “We end our discussion with the third feminist wave, from the mid-1990s onward, springing from the emergence of a new postcolonial and post socialist world order, in the context of information society and neoliberal, global politics. Third-wave feminism manifests itself in “grrl” rhetoric, which seeks to overcome the theoretical question of equity or difference and the political question of evolution or revolution, while it challenges the notion of “universal womanhood” and embraces ambiguity, diversity, and multiplicity in transversal theory and politics.” And here.

“The third phase of feminism began in the mid-90’s and is informed by post-colonial and post-modern thinking. In this phase many constructs have been destabilized, including the notions of “universal womanhood,” body, gender, sexuality and hetreronormativity. An aspect of third phase feminism that mystifies the mothers of the earlier feminist movement is the readoption by young feminists of the very lip-stick, high-heals, and cleavage proudly exposed by low cut necklines that the first two phases of the movement identified with male oppression. Pinkfloor expressed this new position when she said; “It’s possible to have a push-up bra and a brain at the same time.” here.

So what is it that will influence the world our children will inherit? Is it to be a continuation of feminism that this present generation of boys and girls will be influenced by? Is feminism to be the dominant ideological influence that informs the majority of public policy?

What WILL our soon to enter the adult world, children and young people be? In particular what will your sons be, or allowed to be?

Well, with each succeeding generation the influence of feminism has grown, has impacted not just on how we think and feel about men, women, children and human relationships, but insinuated its influence into the very political structure of our societies and cultures.

Before we go on, you might have noticed that I skipped a “wave” the first wave –

First-wave feminism arose in the context of industrial society and liberal politics but is connected to both the liberal women’s rights movement and early socialist feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States and Europe. Concerned with access and equal opportunities for women, the first wave continued to influence feminism in both Western and Eastern societies throughout the 20th century.” See here.

and

“The first wave of feminism took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emerging out of an environment of urban industrialism and liberal, socialist politics. The goal of this wave was to open up opportunities for women, with a focus on suffrage. The wave formally began at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 when 300 men and women rallied to the cause of equality for women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton (d.1902) drafted the Seneca Falls Declaration outlining the new movement’s ideology and political strategies.” See here.

What is certain is that each generation, its mores, its thinking and its perspective impacts on the following generation. With each succeeding generation taking up the torch, so to speak, and running on ahead with it, making it their own.

It would be disingenuous to not acknowledge that with the birth of the information age, feminism has taken on a new energy, a more pervasive presence. Aligned to that is the rise of anti-feminism, of a growing counter/anti feminism known collectively as the Men’s Rights Movement.

We are now engaged in not just a battle to roll back and eliminate the insidious influence of feminism in our culture, but in a battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation. Unfortunately feminism has a bit of a head start on the Men’s Rights Movement and has, over the last two generations entrenched itself into positions of power and influence in politics, in education and in the judicial system. Particularly in education.

Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? actually yes and no, before the dawn of the information age, most people got their knowledge about feminism from very limited sources, now, at the click of a mouse anyone can literally go back in time and see just exactly what those early feminists really said, just exactly how feminism has managed to insinuate itself into those positions of power and influence.  More importantly anyone can track and plot how feminism has corrupted, has poisoned and has lied its way down the generations and brought us to the point we are at now. 

If you believed that feminism was about “equal rights” or if you believe that feminism is a benign influence in our culture that just wants boys and girls to have the same life chances and to stand shoulder to shoulder and side by side as equals, you are sadly mistaken. So, let’s just take a look at the end result of what three generations of feminism has achieved, in particular in education.  Because, apart from parental influences the second most powerful influence on young boys and girls comes when they go to school. Because it will provide an answer to the question “What Will I Be? If that question is asked by a boy.  Therefore:

Let’s talk about “The Boy Crisis”

“For more than three decades Congress has answered, “How high?” to the feminist command to jump, and provided millions in funding for the Women’s Educational Equity Act (WEEA). If legislation passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee in July 2006 was any sign, this year will be no exception despite the fact that the only inequity girls experience is being superior to boys on nearly every indicator of academic excellence.”

Boys are in trouble. Yet despite glaring inequities, the tired myth of the short changed girl remains strong enough to seize another $2.9 million from taxpayers last year for an outdated federal program. Even more unfortunate is how the myth of inequity is wielded to oppose real reforms that help boys and girls.”  See here.

Who is to blame for this “boy crisis? Well this is what Christina Hoff Sommers believes.*

“The American thinker Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, wrote that “the idea that schools and society grind girls down has given rise to an array of laws and policies intended to curtail the advantage boys have and to redress the harm done to girls.”

To Continue, Sommers in a scathing criticism lays the blame squarely at the feet of…….one particular feminist.

“Sommers traces it back to the work of one academic feminist, Carol Gilligan, a pioneer of “gender studies” at Harvard University. Gilligan’s speculations launched a veritable industry of feminist writers, citing little or no reviewable data, lamenting the plight of girls “drowning or disappearing” in the “sea of Western culture”

 “Most of Gilligan’s published research, however,” Sommers points out, “consists of anecdotes based on a small number of interviews.

“Sommers has identified the work of Gilligan and her followers as “politics dressed up as science” and points out that she has never released any of the data supporting her main theses. Nevertheless, the idea that girls are lagging behind boys continues to lead the discussion at nearly every level of public policy on education, and not only in the U.S.”

 “The global reach of American left-wing feminism has led to similar changes, and similar outcomes, in nearly every Western nation.” See here.

*Sommers is a feminist, or at least self-identifies as one, which I personally find a bit strange.

The answer for your son is that he will be:

Four times more likely to take his own life if suffering from depression.

”Although girls are more prone to depression, the suicide rate among teenage boys is four times higher. One theory as to why is that girls generally have more intimate friendships than boys do. In times of stress, girls can often lean on one another for emotional support, whereas boys tend to internalize their feelings” See here.

In extreme cases his rage and pain will explode.

Suicide is decreasing for our daughters as we increase our daughters’ ways of succeeding; it is increasing for our sons as we increase our sons’ ways of failing. Our schools are focused on raising the self-esteem of girls, on special programs for girls in math and science, on scholarships for females only. But it is our sons who are more likely to have ADHD, be loners, anti-social, and have run-ins with the law, like Robert Hawkins… Any parent knows that if we pay attention to one child and ignore the other, there is no question that the ignored child will act out; the only questions are how and when.” See here.

Your son is more likely to drop out, be medicalised/drugged, fall behind, and fail to get into college. 

“The statistics tell an alarming tale: According to the National Center for Educational Statistics:

Boys are 30 percent more likely than girls to flunk or drop out of school;

When it comes to grades and homework, girls outperform boys in elementary, secondary, high school, college, and even graduate school;

Boys are four to five times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD);  

Women outnumber men in higher education with 56 percent of bachelor’s degrees and 55 percent of graduate degrees going to women.

According to the U.S. Department of Education:

Boys make up two-thirds of the students in special education and are five times more likely to be classified as hyperactive.

Parents of boys — stay calm! While the statistics are disturbing, they don’t describe every boy — or necessarily your boy — but they do raise concerns about many boys’ school experience. “The odds are that if you come from a family that values education, your boy will be successful in school and will go on to college. Most boys do. However, the average American boy is struggling in school,” advises Michael” Thompson.” See here.

In a side bar on the site that I took the above quote from is a question.

“Is It the Boy — Or is It the School?”

Joseph Tobin PH.D Professor of Early Childhood Education answered that question so:

“The culture of schools, especially for young children, is much more feminine than masculine. There are almost no male early childhood educators. Many teachers of young children find boys’ interests in violence, gross things, and bodily functions to be boring or stupid. We need to recognize that many of us have ‘internal prejudices’ against these interests. Just as we used to ask ourselves in the ’70s, ‘In what ways am I being sexist in my treatment of girls?’ we now have to ask, ‘In what ways are we disapproving of boys’ interests in our classrooms?’

Joseph Tobin, Ph.D.  Professor of Early Childhood Education, Arizona State University. Author, Good Guys Don’t Wear Hats” http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/school.html

Perhaps the question for your son, instead of What Will I Be?” should be “What Will I Be Allowed to BE?”

But more important is to do something now to change the toxic atmosphere that boys have to navigate in school and not accept  – Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) You could start with your own son. or godson, or nephew. Because…….it’s just a song and the future IS ours, maybe not to see, but at least to steer it away from making it unbearable for our sons, and all boys just setting on their future?