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!

 

Creating “Misogyny” out of Thin Air – in Canada – and Putting Children at Risk.

 

Woke up this morning – Happy New Year by the way to one and all – logged on and lo and behold a comment from Canada – not just from Canada but from a Canadian feminist. Sigh.

For some strange reason I appear to be some kind of magnet for Canadian feminists – every so often I get a comment from one of them – most are so bizarre or just downright moronic I scan them and hit delete. Once or twice I’ve either approved the comment or used it to illustrate the sheer depths of insanity that Canadian feminists swim in – again – sigh.

I’ve never been to Canada – have only actually known one Canadian personally, a feminist twat, so am at a bit of a loss as to why these particular feminists find their way here.

Anyhoo – this morning’s “Canadian” comment was waiting to be approved – on the surface it’s relatively benign – for a Canadian feminist – and it came with a link to a youtube video. Here is the text of the comment.

 

“Submitted on 2015/01/01 at 12:42 am

 Misogyny is a problem in Canada.

A female school administrator of the Toronto District School Board

was verbally harassed on the phone by one of the misogynist men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPQT66cNhds

Women should not be oppressed by such chauvinst men. Men must learn to respect women.”

 

Why this one caught my eye rather than any other one is down to two reasons – first the email address – Lisa Goldsberry

stopmisogynyincanada@yahoo.ca

NB – for the benefit of feminists and in particular Canadian feminists – you have no expectation of privacy on this blog – so any caterwauling about me publishing your email addresses is – tough. Why are they always invariably called Lisa I wonder? Hmmmmm.

 

Second – I listened to the youtube video – it only contains sound – no images.

Finally – the caption;

“Published on Dec 25, 2014

A crazy misogynist dude called a school principal in the Toronto District School Board. The crazy misogynist made awful remarks to the principal. The crazy dude raised his tone of voice later in the video.”

What I heard, and what any sane rational person would hear is a man attempting to get a clear answer to a straightforward question.

What procedures are in place in this particular school to protect children from teachers who behave or act inappropriately towards those children. I’m paraphrasing.

Not only did this man identify himself several times but he remained calm, rational and focused on the question(s) he wanted answered – by anybody’s standards – especially parents – an extremely important question.

How does this school protect children?

I’ll be honest – halfway through listening, the hairs on the back of my neck were standing up and a growing feeling of disquiet took over. The principal used this phrase;

We have policies and procedures” – repetitively

Yet, refused to actually outline these “policies and procedures” in fact, kept referring this man to the school superintendent – valiantly he pointed out that, as the principal, she was responsible for the safety of the children under her care – in essence – the buck stops here – and she ducked and dived, evaded and deflected, dodged and slithered away from the core issue.

How does this school protect the children in that school?

The coup de grace came at the end – When he asked if she was hiding something she said “I don’t know what you’re talking about and at this point I’m going to end the conversation” then she obviously hung up.

You will note that I have not referred to this latest “Lisa’s” comment so far – but now – let’s take a closer look.

Her intent is plain – use this recording as a tool to whip up some feminist hysteria and create a shitstorm in Canada about “misogyny” alas Lisa – like all feminists and it would seem Canadian feminists in particular – thinking things through is a skill none of you possess – if you had another brain cell my dear you would still only be a plant – perhaps a shrub.

Allow me to give you some advice Lisa – its good advice – “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”.

You see here’s the thing – unless you are 100% per cent sure of the consequences of opening a particular Pandora’s box – ie – what will emerge – you do so at not only your own risk – but at the risk of your “case” and more importantly your client.

Your client is feminism – your object was to “prove” the existence of “misogyny” and therefore the “innocence” of feminism – alas Lisa – you have failed miserably.

What has emerged from this particular Pandora’s Box you opened are legitimate concerns about the safety of the children in this school and the competence of this school principal to ensure that safety.

You referred to this man “Ethan” as “A crazy misogynist dude……” and his legitimate questions about the safety of children in that school as “The crazy misogynist made awful remarks to the principal.”

So, in your toxic little world, a person (such as this principal) who is tasked with ensuring the safety of children being asked to outline what exactly she does to do exactly that – ensure the safety of children – is a “crazy misogynist”??

Behold the true face of feminism – sacrifice children on the altar of a toxic ideology.

But – there is another facet to this that bears scrutiny.

So far I’ve taken this comment and the accompanying recording at face value – a leap of faith when it comes to feminists as we all know – except the very fact of this recording raises some questions in and of itself.

This is allegedly a recording of a telephone conversation between a school principal and a male caller to that school principal – querying the existence or lack thereof of a written Child Safety Policy in existence in that school.

Is it normal procedure for these conversations to be recorded? By school principals in Canada?

How did the moronic “Lisa” get hold of this recording?

The purpose of this recording – whether it is/was staged or not is patently clear – create another feminist shitstorm of hysteria around “misogyny” the mechanism – to portray a male caller as ”harassing” a female school principal on school policy.

Using Child Safety Issues in schools as the backdrop to this mendacious and vile “plan” has to be the dumbest, most moronic and cynical tactic I’ve seen in quite some time.

But then – it would require a level of self awareness, sentience and basic fundamental humanity that feminists are incapable of achieving as long as they are feminists to realise that.

Using the safety of children in schools to “make a feminist point” is about as low as you can get and still remain technically “human”

I also have a suggestion for the puppet mistresses of feminism – yep – you read that correctly – because the one thing that this “Lisa” shares with all the other “Lisa’s” who have contacted this blog is this – they are as thick as two short planks – you couldn’t get any dumber than these numbskulls – ergo this “plan” is literally beyond their limited capabilities – flawed and moronic as it is – so – someone is pulling her strings.

My guess is the coven of feminist harpies at the University of Toronto – that haven of Free Speech, civic responsibility and…………

The tide is turning against feminism – in all its manifestations – the comment from “Lisa” was posted to the Breaking Up is Hard to Do” article – my own little elegy to feminism 😉

There is not one single tenet of feminism that has not been discredited, debunked or exposed as a fraud – not one – and where does this nest of vipers lay its poisonous eggs?

In the education system – in the school system – incubating little baby feminists and demoralising little boys – take away that power and you starve feminism of its cannon fodder.

Expose feminist indoctrinated teachers as the vipers they are and…………………watch the toxic edifice crumble.

Anyhoo – that’s my own theory – but then I have a very suspicious mind when it comes to anything to do with feminism – especially the really dumb ones. 🙂

The First Step Towards Parental Equality? Perhaps

From today’s Irish Times

 

Court says children should be factor in father’s rent allowance

Fiona Gartland

Last Updated: Friday, October 31, 2014, 00:48

A High Court ruling that the Department of Social Protection must reconsider a decision to grant only single person’s rent allowance to a separated father of four could have significant implications for parents in similar situations. (emphasis added)

In a ruling delivered yesterday, Ms Justice Marie Baker found the department’s decision-making process when assessing the man’s application was flawed.

Its deciding officer applied the wrong legal test by assessing only the father’s accommodation needs without having any regard to the complexity of his family relationships,“the accommodation needs of the children when they are visiting their father” and the “intrinsic interconnectedness” of those needs with those of their father.”

(emphasis added)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-says-children-should-be-factor-in-father-s-rent-allowance-1.1982594

 

Let me back track a little here, before we get into talking about the implications of this decision for Irish fathers. I wrote about this case back in May 2014. The short version is this. This man and his wife are separated, he has four children. He left the family home to relocate to Dublin in search of work. While he was unemployed he made his application for Rent Supplement, a state subsidy that allows people to pay for accommodation when they unable to do so out of their own resources. He also applied to his local housing authority, and was subsequently assessed and put on what is called the housing list.

Bear with me.

We now have two separate state bodies involved, the local authority deemed this man eligible for housing and assessed his housing need as being that of a parent with four children, which is what he is.

The Department of Social Protection on the other hand refused to acknowledge this and declared him to be a single person and therefore deemed him to be only eligible for a very much reduced rate of Rent Supplement – the rate of Rent Supplement for a single person in Dublin will allow you to rent a shed in somebody’s back garden, if you’re lucky.

While the local housing authority had deemed this man eligible for housing suitable for a parent with four children, the fact is that there is no local authority housing either available or being built, therefore he has no other option but to apply for Rent Supplement in order to provide suitable accommodation for himself and his four children.

The article I wrote back in May was based on this article in the Irish Independant by Tim Healy.

Mr. Heeley’s article echoes with almost unconscious contempt at the notion that this man should be accommodated on the State’s dime and referred to his children “visiting him” and this is reflected in the original decision by the Department of Social Protection’s dismissal of this man as a parent, and hinges on one factor and one factor only.

He was and is a father, and as such is deemed to be of less worth – as a parent.

Granted this is also a money saving exercise, after all, we are in the middle of a recession and who cares anyway if fathers who are unable to afford accommodation from their own resources are denied this State subsidy?

Fathers aren’t real parents – are they?

How do I know that Mr. Healy can barely disguise his contempt for this man? Look at the title of the article he wrote – look at how he characterises this man’s relationship to his children. His children “visit him”

In effect he is echoing the same disregard and dismissal for this man’s status as a parent that the Department of Social Protection did when they dismissed his application for Rent Supplement as a parent of four children, and insisted on him being categorised as “single”

“Single” is a particular way of describing someone – as in – not married – yet – the vast majority of “single” parents availing themselves of the One Parent Allowance are female and unmarried – Single – but are without question accepted as parents, and eligible for any and all State supports.

The default narrative of parenting that has been assiduously manufactured and nurtured by feminism, has been embraced by huge numbers of women, and has embedded itself into the cultural consciousness of most western states is that, fathers are irrelevant if not downright suspect, unnecessary to a child’s wellbeing and can be easily brushed aside and dismissed in favour of the real parents – mothers.

Ms Justice Marie Baker has now just thrown a spanner into the works; she has acknowledged the importance of fathers, as parents, to their children:

 

“Its deciding officer applied the wrong legal test by assessing only the father’s accommodation needs without having any regard to the complexity of his family relationships,“the accommodation needs of the children when they are visiting their father” and the “intrinsic interconnectedness” of those needs with those of their father.” (emphasis added)

 

But more tellingly she has punctured a concept that has bedevilled and exerted a punitive and malign influence on fathers who have found themselves caught up in family courts – that concept? The “primary carer’ one – where, to put it crudely, possession is nine tenths of the law, and the value of parenting is measured in first, the sex of the parent, and secondly in the hours/days/months that a child is in the “custody” of or if you prefer possession of that “primary carer”:

 

“She found given the joint custody arrangements the children could not be viewed as living primarily with one parent, or having one “primary” carer, as the department’s deciding officer had found. The needs of the children were more complex, had been assessed by their parents as involving joint custody, and could not be met in one location only, she said.” (emphasis added)

 

The judgement itself is not available yet, but before fathers rights activists get carried away, one point should be made. This judgement speaks to this man’s legal status, in effect it acknowledges his status as a parent but does not direct the Department of Social Protection to award this man Rent Supplement in any particular amount. The decision is much more subtle. What this decision does is reject the underlying assumptions about who is or isn’t a parent, and what criteria  are used to make that decision.

Those criteria are informed by even more underlying cultural artefacts, the most significant one being that fathers are only relevant in a subsidiary and secondary category, and cease to become parents officially unless there is a no “primary carer’ (a mother). What is significant also is that in applying the “best interests of the child” criteria in this way involves an acknowledgement that having their father in their lives is in the best interests of these children.

Rejecting the “primary carer” concept is a significant legal point. It is something to build on, a starting point, if you will, to reframe the parameters through which decisions are reached in custody disputes. Once you reject this notion that there is a primary or superior parent and a secondary or subsidiary parent, and embrace the concept that both parents are equally necessary and equally important in the lives of their children, then the emphasis shifts (hopefully) onto accommodating those children’s needs, rather than being swayed by an emphasis on the needs of one parent over another. Let us hope so.

Perhaps one of the most important aspect of this particular decision, not just for this father, but hopefully for all fathers in a wider context is that:

He is a parent in his own right. Legally. That is what this decision directs a state body to acknowledge, officially.

His solicitor Moya de Paor made these comments:

“This has been very distressing for him and for his children, who have also been denied their right to the care and support of their father,” she said.

“The judgment raises significant issues in relation to fathers’ rights as custodians of their children and, in particular, children’s rights to the care and support of their father.”

 

So, what could the wider implications be?

Well, try this on for size, the justification used for the payment of “maintenance” or child support from one parent (usually the father) to the other parent (usually the mother) is invariably the concept of the parent receiving that payment as the “primary carer”

If, one is lucky enough to be within a joint custody arrangement, then this judgement quite clearly rejects that concept and levels the playing field, so to speak, ergo – what justification is there now for awarding excessive unvouched payments, not related to specific child care/raising costs, when both parents have been deemed to be of equal status? Parentally speaking, that is.

 

Just a thought. 🙂

I will post the text of the judgement, if and when it becomes available.

 

Having said that because this case involves the Department of Social Protection and how it applies its criteria for payments two other issues arise.

In order to qualify for One Parent Family Payment one must:

have the main care and charge of at least one child who is residing with them

for person applying for One-Parent Family Payment after 1 January 2009, the person applying for One-Parent Family Payment must be a ‘qualified parent’. A ‘qualified parent’ means a widow, a widower, surviving civil partner, a separated spouse, a separated civil partner, an unmarried person, or a person whose spouse/civil partner has been committed in custody to a prison or place of detention for not less than 6 months, who is a parent, step-parent, adoptive parent or legal guardian of at least 1 qualified child, who normally resides with that person. (Section 13 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 refers.”

 

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/One-Parent-Family-Payment.aspx

This is the “primary carer” condition that Ms Justice Marie Baker just shot out of the water by rejecting this concept.

The second issue is this:

Separated/Divorced

For a person to qualify as a separated or divorced person or a person whose civil partnership has been dissolved s/he must:

have been living apart from his/her spouse/civil partner for at least 3 months

have made and continue to make appropriate efforts to get maintenance from his/her spouse/civil partner where civil partner is the parent of the child/ren

(See Appendix 1 for what constitutes “efforts”)

See ” Liability to Maintain Family” guideline for more general information.

 

Unmarried

A person who is unmarried will be required to make efforts to seek maintenance in respect of the child/ren from the other parent of the child/ren. These efforts need not be made at the initial claim stage but continued entitlement to One-Parent Family Payment is conditional on efforts being made to seek maintenance from the other parent of the child/ren. This requirement is applicable to new claims received in the Department on or after 1 May 1997.

(See Appendix 2 for what constitutes “efforts”)

Maintenance

A person who claims One-Parent Family Payment is required to seek maintenance from her/his spouse /civil partner where civil partner is the parent of the child/ren or the other parent of the child. Maintenance payments are assessed as means. Vouched housing costs of up to €95.23 per week (rent or mortgage) may be offset against maintenance payments with half the balance of maintenance being assessed as means in establishing the rate of One-Parent Family Payment due.

 

This could become a huge problem, and it all hinges around this issue of being the “primary carer” particularly if the parents have been or are still legally married to one another. This judgement has in effect nullified the concept that one parent is the primary parent and ergo is entitled to be paid by the other parent for “taking care of” their children. Put rather simplistically, if both parents are deemed to have equal legal standing – then who claims maintenance from whom?

If you cannot claim maintenance, then you cannot qualify for OPFP, if you, like this man can prove that you are equally parenting your child/ren then you cannot fulfil the “primary carer” condition, and again under the current rules, cannot qualify for OPFP.

 

Complicated – isn’t it? Yet at the same time incredible simple.

 

What this judgement has the potential to do is rip to useless shreds the notion that women own their children by default automatically, and men pay.

Having said that, this particular case has no custody issues attaching to it, by all accounts, both the parents here are supportive of one another, but what it has done is expose a weakness in how parenting is seen officially, having relied on that “primary carer” concept to marginalise fathers and make them merely those who pay, or are pursued through the courts for payments to be made to the “primary carer”

 

Ms Justice Baker has rejected the concept of “primary carer” in a non family law case, concentrating solely on the legal status of this man as an equal parent, and more importantly directed this judgement at a State body – the Department of Social Protection – which insists on one parent pursuing the other parent for “maintenance” and insists on an archaic and discriminatory concept “primary carer” in order that a person can qualify for a particular State payment.But, it also impacts on how other State payments are administered, in particular OPFP.

 

This is going to be interesting – and already I can hear feminists and “womens rights” advocates gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out while they try to untangle this and come up with a counter argument that maintains the status quo.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

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

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

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

BULLSHIT!

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

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

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

See this study and this  research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 41 

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

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

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937.

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

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

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

Children – Article 42A – to be inserted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this one repealed.

Education – Article 42.5 – to be repealed

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

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

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

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

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

See here as well.

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

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

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

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

“SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 126.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total number of participants in survey – 316,800

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

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

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

What are children damaged by? Parental Alienation.

Who are the primary perpetrators of Parental Alienation? Mothers.

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

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

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

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

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

And – Men’s Rights are Human Rights.

 

 

Who Owns Ya?

 

It’s a particularly Irish expression – and it relates to children. Usually said if a child has been caught “up to no good” and sure what child hasn’t been?

But, when an adult did, or in some case still does, catch one of these little rascals  in the act – the first thing they want to know is “who owns ya” generally followed by “ya lttle skelp”” because parents are ultimately responsible for what their children get up too.

Now, the concept of “ownership” in relation to children in this instance isn’t the same as ownership of inanimate property, or wasn’t, but as I said above, a concept whereby parents were responsible for what their children got up too, when out and about, or out of sight of their parents beady eyes.

All that has changed – because of feminism – in the 21st century women OWN their children – exclusively, with men in some instances being reduced to being merely unwitting sperm donors.  Though of course, the cost of maintaining this “property” rests solely on the shoulders of these unfortunate, and as I said, possibly deceived men – on the shoulders exclusively of Fathers. And The State.

Because now, the word Father, rather being something that evokes honourable men, working to support, parent and care for their children out of love for them – has, through the machinations of feminists become a dirty word, a word spoken with contempt and derision, a word that evokes only one thought – “how much can I make him pay?

Through the malign influence of feminism, women whether feminists or not, have manufactured the most ridiculous myths and fables, created and spewed the most exaggerated and hyperbolic rhetoric about “the miracle of childbirth” and the “Myth of Motherhood

Have made an normal and natural biological event that almost every single mammal on this planet does, into some kind of iconic action invested with magical properties, has made being the female parent of a human child, some kind of mystical and cosmically significant activity, all the while reducing the male parent of a human child to an insignificant donor of some “genetic material”

All so that women could do the exact opposite of what they usually claim are their motives for their sometimes vicious campaigns of Parental Alienation against the Father (s) of these children.

“I’m doing it for the children” or “it’s for their own good” or “he doesn’t deserve MY children”

See, here, here, here and here  and go here.

Really? Is that so? Actually to all you women who use any of the above, or any variation of the above, BULLSHIT – you’re doing what you are doing because you are a 24 carat, Grade A Bitch, a malicious, nasty, disgusting and miserable example of a human being.

You are being a total and utter C**T!

Anyone who reads this and knows some female like this, or who is doing this, you are enabling, endorsing and giving your approval to a total and utter C**T – and no – I don’t care if she’s your sister, your friend, your aunt or any female that you include in your family or social circle.

She is a C**T and you are collaborating with this C**T

Further, if you know the father of these children and in your opinion he’s a bit of arsehole – SO WHAT? What does YOUR opinion matter? NOT ONE LITTLE BIT – because I’ll tell whose opinion matters here.

HIS CHILDREN’S – not yours, not hers, not your families, not your friends – nobodies but those children’s.

And no, not what SHE says the children “really feel” – because she has manipulated, intimidated, pressured and emotionally blackmailed those children into rejecting their Father’s – because she is a C**T.

End of.

You know what this is about? Not about mothers rights or to some extent Fathers Rights – but a child’s RIGHT – as an autonomous little human being to the care, companionship and love of BOTH his/her PARENTS – not as a concession granted by one reluctant parent to another, NOT access, NOT contact, NOT as a battle to be fought in a Family Court infested and infected with the slimy and fraudulent evil whisperings and lies of feminists.

Any woman who deprives the child or children she created WITH the man, or in some cases men, of that child or children’s RIGHT to be parented by BOTH his/her parents EQUALLY

IS A C**T

May you rot in hell you evil, nasty, vicious bitches, may you not know a single day of real happiness or contentment, and may those children you abused – yes abused – learn of what you did – and hate your guts – leave you to fester in malignant old age, alone and muttering to yourself:

“I did it for the children”

For those who KNOW this is going on – who KNOW one of these C**T’s and again I repeat, so what if she is your sister, your friend – whatever – YOU are collaborating with a C**T  who is abusing those children.

Endorsing, giving approval to, giving the nod to, turning a blind to, and pretending you don’t see – children being abused!

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

SPEAK UP!

To all those women smugly making the lives of the father (s) a living hell on earth – no matter how young that child or children is or are, they will remember, they are recording and storing in their memories, everything you did, every lie you told, every vicious act you perpetrated, they might not be able to process it yet, they might not even understand what is going on – but they WILL – one day – and they WILL judge you – and there is no harsher judge of a parent than a child who learns the truth about that parent.

Even if they don’t, even if you manage to totally brainwash them, you are and always will be nothing but a total and utter C**T.

Till the day you die.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

“The Pursuit of Happyness”

 

No, it isn’t a typo or a misspelling – it is the title of a book, and a film based on the book, The Pursuit of Happyness by Chris Gardner.  But yes, it also a concept, and one that is enshrined in the Constitution of The United States of America.

Pursuing, and having the Right to pursue happiness.

With an apology to my American readers, I have always found this a bit problematic, making the pursuit of something that defies definition a Right – because as we all know – what makes someone happy is a particularly unique and individual thing.

“One’s man’s feast is another’s man’s famine.”

An example, when it is not raining or cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, I like to sit on my back door step, and watch the sun go down, I live in the country, and I am surrounded by fields and trees, this particular spot gives me a view of nothing but trees with the setting sun shimmering through the leaves. It is a great place to sit and think.  For me this is sheer contentment, peace and stillness – it is happiness.

For others, it would be incomprehensible, just sitting there, doing nothing, looking at trees! Boooooooooooring!  

From my perspective, I’m not doing nothing, I am doing something, thinking, being still, watching the sun go down on another day.  In fact, if I have spent the day “doing something” or a whole lot of “something’s” – sitting on that step and “doing nothing” is what I look forward to doing. In essence my pursuit of happiness leads to a doorstep.

The story of Chris Gardner is the story of a man, his son, and how he overcame what where significant challenges, troubles and a lot of pain to get to a place where he could be happy. On one level it is the story of pursuing happiness, but it is also the story of a man whose pursuit of happiness caused him pain, was difficult, challenged him and plunged him into the depths of despair. It is also the story of a father and his son.

For Chris, happiness was having a job, having a home for himself and his son, feeling safe, being safe, keeping his son safe. It is a remarkable story, a story of a man who set his goal, then worked to reach that goal. Will Smith who portrays Chris in the film, and with his own son Jaden playing the part of Chris’s son,  called Christopher (an adorable and engaging little boy – the type of child what we here in Ireland would say about – “I could just run away with that child”) does an incredible job of acting.

The iconic scene is when after working as an intern in Dean, Witter, Reynolds in San Francisco, for no salary for six months he is called into the boardroom and told, in an especially charming way that out of 20 potential candidates for just the one job on offer, he has got it.

He is told to “wear a shirt tomorrow” as rather than this being his last day, tomorrow will be his first day.

If you do watch the film, pay attention to how Will Smith portrays receiving the news, on the surface he says all the right things, he thanks them, he acts with incredible dignity, but in his eyes, on his face, one see’s the emotion, the gratitude, the joy and happiness and relief of a man who has struggled, who has persevered, who has suffered pain. Did I get a lump in my throat?  Of course I did.

Oddly, even though I knew that Chris Gardner reached his goal, watching his struggles, I found myself wishing, hoping and praying – please let him get the job – please let him get the job – daft, I know.

By the way, I do realise that the film presents this story in a particular way, that poetic licence is taken with some aspects of the actual events that transpired.  Having said that, the story is grounded IN actual events, in one man’s reality – as a story or as a film presentation of a story it is a remarkable and inspiring one.

Which brings us to this – theHappiness Survey.

To summarise, women in general are miserable, unhappy, discontented – which is odd when you consider that women in general (and yes I know I’m generalising) have very few “things” that they have to struggle to achieve, to get, to obtain – they are given preferential treatment in school, in applying to college and in gaining  employment.

In one scene of the film, Chris tries to get a place to sleep for himself and his son in a shelter, but is told that they only “take women” ironically he is told they will “take his son in” but not him. So, even when women, in general, find themselves in dire straits – and being homeless with a child is probably the direst of all dire straits – they (women) find refuge, are offered help and assistance – a place to sleep.

Still, women all over the western world are unhappy, and are apparently pissed off about it, because “being happy” has been embedded in the consciousness of women as a Right – they are entitled to be happy – not being happy is an infringement of their “Rights

Chris makes a point about this – this Right to be happy – but rather than taking it a Right to BE happy – he gets the nuance – it is the Right to PURSUE happiness – to be free to achieve happiness by your own efforts. What he defines as “happyness” what will allow him to reach a place of being happy – is centred around being able to provide for himself and his son – a roof over their heads, being safe, being together.

What he never does, is whine, is demand, is expect any of this to be handed to him on a plate – he expects to have to work for it, he knows that it will be down to his efforts, his determination to not give up, his struggle, and he does have to struggle.

The film does not sugar coat this remarkable journey, nor does it shrink from showing that Chris is human, he despairs, he rails against the situation he finds himself in, he loses his temper, with his son, but then almost immediately apologises to the child, and says something to the boy that resonates.

“don’t ever let anyone tell you what you can’t do, not even me!”

Contained in this message, this lesson to his son is another message, another lesson – that what you want to do requires that YOU do it – you work for it – YOU decide how to achieve it. Considering that every step of the way of Chris Snr’s journey, Christopher Jr is alongside, this boy, this child had seen, and was seeing, firsthand how his father struggled, how his father overcame and worked his way to where he wanted to go – it was not just words, it was a message, a lesson that they were living, that this little boy was learning alongside his father.

Almost all writings by women on how women can and should be happy take it from this position – what do women want? What do women need to be happy? What needs to change for women to be happy?

I have never seen a single piece of writing, nor have I ever heard a woman articulate this.  But am willing to be corrected on this – but bear in mind – I read – I read A LOT.

What do I need to DO, what steps to I need to take, how can I WORK towards, by my own efforts a state of happiness?

Happiness is deemed to be something that is bestowed upon one – as a Right – it is an entitlement – it is something that emanates from outside oneself – it is an external “thing” that is given to one. But most of all, it is something that you own, you should own, and it is something that should benefit ONLY you.

Back to the Doorstep.

When I sit on that doorstep, I am content, at peace – not all the time – it is a feeling of stillness, of being alone with my thoughts and of watching the sun go down. Of putting myself into context with the wider world – I am one lone human being in a world of human beings living on a planet – watching the sun go down reminds me that I am not the world, never mind the universe. What I do when I’m not sitting on that doorstep dictates whether or not the next time I sit there and watch the sun go down I will or won’t be in a state of happiness, or contentment or a bit stressed, tired, irritated, sad, angry – whatever.

Only what I do or don’t do will determine whether my “Pursuit of Happyness” ends in reaching that goal or not – so, for all those women bewailing not “being happy” what are you DOING to achieve that state of happiness you want, but more importantly what are YOU doing that has you stuck in that state of unhappiness?

To conclude, Chris Gardner achieved what can only be called the very heights of success, material success, it would be understandable if he “rested on his laurels” and enjoyed the easy and privileged life he had managed by his own efforts to obtain – so what happened next?

“As a single parent for 25 years, Gardner has demonstrated his concern for the well-being of children through his work with and on behalf of organizations such as the National Fatherhood Initiative, the National Education Association Foundation and the International Rescue Committee. Gardner is still very committed to Glide Memorial Church in San Francisco; where he and his son received assistance in the early 1980’s”

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

Note: I was a bit concerned about The Fatherhood Initiative programme that Chris Gardner was cited as a board member of, so I tried to access its webpage, to no avail. Wikipedia was the path I had to take, from here, I was led to here and finally to here.

Was it disappointing? Yes, it was, the emphasis appears to be on re-engaging “absent fathers” with their children, but does not address the core issues that lead to fathers being absent, or rather being forced to be absent from their children’s lives. Does it change my admiration for the remarkable achievement of Chris Gardner? Not at all, but it has confirmed that even though organisations like this one Fatherhood.org  might believe they are doing something positive and worthwhile for and on behalf of fathers, they have only half the story, they are operating on the basis of false information. It is incumbent upon all of us who consider ourselves to be Men’s Human Rights Activists to correct those errors, in knowledge, in attitude, in belief.

To that end, I will go through every resource listed on this site, and when done I will write to them and lay out those errors. I invite anyone who believes that this is an important and necessary task to do likewise.

Will it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But we must try, we must at least offer them and other such organisations an alternative perspective.

Anja.

 

 

C.U.N.T’s

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Previous Older Entries