Knowledge – v – Information

 

 

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

Let me try to explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look around you – what do you see?

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

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

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

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

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

Today? Hmmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But – as someone once said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Slainte

 

Advertisements

There Is a Disturbance In The Force…….

 

Yeah, yeah I know, more sci-fi (ish) metaphors – what can I say, am a sucker for sci-fi (ish) films. As a reflection of, and metaphor for societal mores and “norms” films act as a sort of filter through which those mores and “norms” become embedded in the zeitgeist – doncha think?

Someone mentioned the Joss Whedon film Serenity a few weeks ago on a comment stream – for the life of me I cannot remember where I read it – anyhoo – one of my personal favourites as well, especially the theme of an all powerful authoritarian system literally with the power to invade your mind.

Classic scene where River (as a child) is being lectured by a sanctimonious teacher about how the “outer planets” refused to accept the social conditioning of the all powerful alliance – for their own good – now where have we heard that justification before.

In other words those who reject this social conditioning are nothing but savages and barbarians – or words to that effect.

The title of this piece though, pertains to something related but parallel, the undermining of the prevailing ethos within and through the societal glue that holds that society together.

An unchallenged (till now) allegiance to a femalecentric worldview controlled and disseminated by the official spokespersons of modern gynocentrism – feminists.

No-one can now dispute that ALL “theories” emanating from feminists and various acolytes of academic feminism are complete and utter bullshit, fraudulent, phoney, lies and deception.

These are facts, and they are not in dispute by anyone with half a brain.

The question to be asked though is this – the underlying driving force behind modern feminism and all manifestations of a female centric worldview is and has been gynocentrism. Whither to now for feminism?

Aha! Whither to indeed? Why back to the drawing board – to the source – for inspiration, for a new and shiner template upon which to write the outline for the next manifestation of gynocentrism. A caring sharing warm cuddly gynocentrism, a nice gynocentrism – with a large dollop of………………….”it’s for your own good” as seasoning.

Because who could argue with a sincerely expressed motive that all you are offering is a template to follow that will be “for your own good” hmmmmm

I came across these two words juxtaposed next to one another some months ago – and decided to wait to see how this latest salvo would be received.

Freedom feminism.

I shall never need to hunt for another example of a perfect oxymoron than these two words placed together to form a whole.

Main driver behind this new and improved and shiny feminism is Christina Hoff Sommers. Have always been in two minds about Hoff Sommers, she has done some good work in the area of men’s and boy’s rights – and to be fair, has taken some quite accurate pot-shots at “gender feminism” but – there was a point about a year ago when it was time to “chose a side” or rather, to shit or get off the pot.

She chose to attempt to repackage feminism, airbrush away its toxic roots, sidestep its inherently flawed premise and inexplicably try to rewrite history – or what passes for history – feminist style.

It’s what my mother would describe as “wanting jam on both sides of your bread

Hoff Sommers is relying on something to give this new shiny improved feminism purchase into the zeitgeist – a willingness on the part of societies at large to continue to endorse a gynocentric world view of…………………everything, in effect the theory goes – if it’s good for women, then it’s good for men, ergo the emphasis should always be on what’s good for women, and making men become what’s good for women – again. Just not in that nasty, shreiky, gender feminist, all men are patriarchial bastards kind of way. Nosireebob – in a nice, “it’s for your own good” kind of way. Sigh.

Hence the title of this piece – there is indeed a disturbance in the force – a singular lack of willingness on the parts of a great many people, both male and female to subscribe to, endorse or give tacit or implicit approval to a continuing female centric world view.

Without that willingness, gynocentrism withers and dies, without gynocentrism any manifestation of feminism will fail – will become subject to the derision and disdain that all crackpot ideas or “theories” deserve. Freedom feminism is one of those – hence why I couldn’t actually be bothered giving it any more attention. Bit like spotting some roadkill at the side of the road as you drive past – depends on the state of it, if you go – eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuw as you glance at it.

I was asked recently “just how old is gynocentrism? And was it always a bad thing?”

Actually – gynocentrism is very old – and was not necessarily always a bad thing – it developed out of a need to protect and provide for one’s “mate” during our human history when life was an exercise in survival. Though one couldn’t actually call this form of human interaction true gynocentrism.

To illustrate just how old this particular way of seeing male/female relationships is, the quote below is from an ancient Egyptian text called The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep.

“……..Instruction of Ptah-hotep in its entirety, divided into sections by red writing, as aforesaid.[7] In this, also, we get a definite date, for we learn in the opening lines that its author (or compiler) lived in the reign of King Isôsi. Now Isôsi was the last ruler but one of the Fifth Dynasty, and ruled forty-four years, from about 3580 to 3536 B.C. Thus we may take about 3550 as the period of Ptah-hotep.

(emphasis added)

What this quote below also illustrates is something very important – how women were viewed in ancient Egypt – as persons to be treasured and cherished – not a hint of oppression to be found. Damn!

“21. If thou wouldest be wise, provide for thine house, and love thy wife that is in thine arms. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; oil is the remedy of her limbs. Gladden her heart during thy lifetime, for she is an estate profitable unto its lord. Be not harsh, for gentleness mastereth her more than strength. Give (?) to her that for which she sigheth and that toward which her {51} eye looketh; so shalt thou keep her in thine house…. “

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

As an Irish person I can trace back some of my “traditions” to the Iron age – so it does amuse me when I read either positive or negative commentary from feminists/gynocentrists regarding “traditional” practices – usually referred to as “traditional gender roles” with “traditional” marriage practices being either lauded or denigrated.

The period of “history” generally used to illustrate the “historical oppression of women” by the dumbest of the dumbest feminists are the 1950’s – because apparently the 1950’s was a really really really long time ago!

Did you know that the phrase “tying the knot” actually originates from one form of marriage practiced in Ireland called “hand-fasting” – this form of marriage (yes, we had several different forms of marriage) – was only designed to last for a year and a day – after that time expired, one could renew it or not – if not, both parties went their separate ways with no-one owing anybody anything. It was very civilised – it was a contract – between equals – as were most forms of marriage in ancient Hibernia (Ireland)

Pure Gynocentrism evolved in feudal societies and had its roots in a warped form of chivalry – the place to go for a thorough grounding in this is Peter Wrights site Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

Link here http://gynocentrism.com/

This form of a warped chivalry (gynocentrism) lies at the heart of all manifestations of feminism. A demand for special status to be afforded to women because they are women. There is a complex interplay between echoes of an ancient urge to protect and provide, that early gynocentrists harnessed and various “waves” of feminists hijacked – till it eventually evolved into the toxic ideology we have today.

The paradox is that feminism demands “equality” by invoking that ancient “oppressive” urge to protect and provide for women because they are “vulnerable fragile creatures who need special treatment” institutionalised toxic chivalry (gynocentrism) masquerading as “equality”

Now don’t get me wrong – feminism is deeply embedded into the political and intuitional structures of almost all frameworks of our societies and cultures and they (feminists) will fight tooth and nail to resist being excised from there. In fact that battle is already ongoing.

But this is the 21st century – the rules of engagement have changed utterly – whereas previously, during times of social and cultural shifts, the mores and norms of a society or culture were imposed from the top down. Now?

Ah yes – now – the power to influence society and culture at large now rests……………….within society and culture.

Put rather simplistically – who controls the flow of information?

Answer – Nobody. Everybody. Actually the only way to regain control of the flow of information now would be to shut down the internet – permanently. Would be to erase from the billions of individual personal computers spread all over the world every single piece of information that has been disseminated from the time when one individual sent another individual………..anything.

That’s an awful lot of free-flowing information to track down and destroy – wouldn’t you say?

There are also two other things that you would need to unravel and suppress – the much trumpeted dedication to “democracy” and “Human Rights” that ALL western governments take enormous pains to claim as their raison de etre.

Over the last 6 decades or so, there has been an almost comical pissing contest among western nations to outdo one another in the “most democratic” and “best Human Rights record” contest.

Again granted – the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there are visible and concrete examples abounding of the lack of democracy, the pathetic Human Rights records of very many western states.

But – the fact is – those Human Rights instruments EXIST – those claims are on record – and there are very few people with access to the internet who cannot with a click of a mouse sit and read in the comfort of their own homes, a concise and detailed account of their personal – HUMAN RIGHTS.

100 years ago – the average person wouldn’t have had a clue what rights they did or didn’t have – wouldn’t perhaps even believe that they had rights.

Today? Please – I hear it all the time – it gets monotonous – “I know my rights

Generally this is a rather self-absorbed declaration because it rarely takes into account this – “do you know everybody else has the exact same rights?”

Feminists and gynocentrists are typical of the first example – they “know their rights” as they should – they clawed out most of those extra rights by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs. Nearly. By playing the poor fragile wittle woman card.

But – the fact of the matter is this – even the most ignorant twat or arsehole has a very definite belief that they “have rights”

One does not have to be a genius to discern from even the most juvenile and poorly written feminist screed that the over-riding theme is a direct assault on the notion that men and boys have rights.

Feminism is a rights stripping narrative wrapped up in hysterical rhetoric about…..all kinds of trivial bullshit that has “upset” or “pissed off” or “offended” some whiney irrational and petulant female.

Acknowledging that men and boys have rights would dissipate and render null and void the idea that all attention and focus should be on – women’s rights. It would literally deprive women of that thing they crave above all other things – being the absolute centre of attention by…………………….everybody.

Like I said – everybody knows or believes that they “have rights” everybody is aware that the last 6 decades or so have been the era of “rights” so when insane feminists keep shrieking about “women’s rights” and claiming that women don’t have rights to this that or the other – even the most ignorant of persons is going to look at these claims and think “what the fuck is that fool talking about”

How much more could you possible want?

Here is where it gets just a tad complicated – the belief is/was that “everybody has rights” even among men – until they come to test that premise – then they discover something.

Those rights they believed they had – they get violated, trampled on, brushed aside – in favour of enhancing the extra rights of some female.

The knowledge that this has been happening over and over again in all these self-congratulatory “democracies” at the behest of feminists is now saturating the zeitgeist through the power of the internet to disseminate information directly to millions of people – without interference from anybody.

As Mr. Universe in the film Serenity says “you can’t stop the signal”

Hence why there is a disturbance in the force – the force being the power of feminism to dictate the narrative, to set the terms of what is or isn’t true – about anything. To control the flow of information.

There is a terrible sickness in a government that lauds and congratulates itself on its Human Rights record while actively endorsing, encouraging and supporting blatant abuses of Human Rights – against men and boys.

That blindly and with wilful ignorance gives credence to the bigoted, biased and fraudulent “research” being shoved at it by vicious malign and toxic feminists designed to strip rights from men and boys. Designed to prevent even the conversation taking place about Human Rights abuses being perpetrated against men and boys. Hence why the shrieking, caterwauling and hysterics are growing in volume and intensity from feminists – all in an effort to drown out the voices of men and boys.

The question for these governments is – has it ever occurred to you to take the societal temperature – to take your heads out of your over-fed arses and listen to what is being said outside your golden privileged elite circle? To ignore the nutcase feminists, the screams of outrage, the tantrums and hysterics and listen to men.

Take IPV/IPA – Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Partner Abuse.

I’m NOT a feminist so I have no problem saying this – approx 20% – 23% of all relationships have aspects of IPV/IPA.

Within that relatively small cohort of relationships – approx 40% of “violence/abuse” is mutual – meaning both parties are as bad as one another.

The rest of the violence/abuse is more or less evenly distributed between male and female perpetrators – meaning that approx half those violent abusive arseholes are male and approx half are female. Which means that approx half the victims of uni-directional violence are male and approx half are female.

The causes of that violence are myriad and complex – and have sod all to do with patriarchy or any other stupid and ridiculous feminist non “theory” but everything to do with, socio-economic factors, drug/alcohol abuse, mental health issues, childhood experiences of family violence etc to name but a few of the more prevalent “causes”.

All of those factors impact upon both men and women.

There is no such thing as “gender based violence” and to continue to believe and endorse this rubbish is to fail to actually address the causes and TOTAL victims of IPV/IPA.

Have I deliberately and callously ignored female victims of IPV/IPA? No – I bloody haven’t – I have quite clearly acknowledged that approx half of victims are female.

Because – I’m NOT a feminist – ergo – I have no need to lie or dissemble or fraudulently try to airbrush ANY victim OF ANYTHING out of the picture in order to advocate for excessive amounts of funding to line the pockets of poisonous malign ideologues.

To those in power – you seem to believe that unless you endorse these lies peddled to you by feminists that “society” will follow suit and go into hysterics at being told NO.

Newsflash – society will applaud – society will be right behind you – society is WAITING – is begging you to tell these malign bitches to – bugger off!

There is a disturbance in the force – a change in the zeitgeist – NO-ONE – other than insane toxic feminists believes or wants that crap anymore – READ the damn comment section of any article – including the ones peddled by feminists.

You are basing your policy decisions on blackmail from a small toxic network of vicious ideologues – you are making political decisions based on lies, on fraud, on bigotry.

There is a delicate balance that holds most societies and cultures together – more importantly – an even more delicate balance that holds an economy together.

Citizens and the state must interact with one another is a myriad number of ways in order to maintain those balances.

Feminism has and is putting enormous uneven pressure on one side of that societal, cultural and economic scale – the tipping point is drawing closer and closer – that tipping point is the gathering critical mass of a shift in the zeitgeist – a shift in mores and norms that the majority of peoples within those societies and cultures endorse.

There is also nothing more important within healthy functioning societies than the quality and depth of the relationships and kinship groups that individuals are part of.

Feminism has consistently attacked and set out to destroy the delicate strands that hold those relationships together – the relationships that are the glue that keeps societies functioning.

The toxic effects of these attacks are becoming more and more visible – more and more apparent – and people are finally waking up and really seeing the devastation caused by feminism. Ultimately feminism is the ideology of elitists – a superior “class” dictating to the “peasants” and it is fuelled by malice.

“19. If thou desire that thine actions may be good, save thyself from all malice, and beware of the quality of covetousness, which is a grievous inner (?) malady. Let it not chance that thou fall thereinto. It setteth at variance fathers-in-law and the kinsmen of the daughter-in-law; it sundereth the wife and the husband. It gathereth unto itself all evils; it is the girdle of all wickedness.[11] But the man that is just flourisheth; truth goeth in his footsteps, and he maketh habitations therein, not in the dwelling of covetousness.”

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke’Gemni, by Battiscombe G. Gunn

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30508/30508-h/30508-h.htm

No-one needs feminism to point out or interpret anything for you – all you need, is to be a fully aware Human Being with a conscience. All you need is to recognise that male or female you share this planet with other Human Beings.

All Human Beings suffer – why would anybody need a vicious malign ideologue who hates one half of humanity to tell you that?

Feminism is the belief that human beings not yet born are guilty of crimes not yet committed and are only waiting for these human beings to be born so the punishment can begin.

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

 

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

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

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

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

BULLSHIT!

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

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

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

See this study and this  research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 41 

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

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

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann 1937.

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

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

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

Children – Article 42A – to be inserted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this one repealed.

Education – Article 42.5 – to be repealed

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

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

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

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

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

See here as well.

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

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

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

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

“SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 126.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total number of participants in survey – 316,800

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The primary victims of feminism are CHILDREN.

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

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

What are children damaged by? Parental Alienation.

Who are the primary perpetrators of Parental Alienation? Mothers.

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

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

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

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

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

And – Men’s Rights are Human Rights.

 

 

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

 

THE FAMILY

 

ARTICLE 41

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

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

 

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1

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

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

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

Page 8

One of the most significant cases was this one:

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

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

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

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

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

vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

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

A literal translation of the Irish text reads as follows:

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

Page 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 20

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

Articles 41.2.1o and 41.2.2o read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Catherine Lawless

Director/Academic Co-ordinator

 

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

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

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

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

And who is or rather was Professor Diana Leonard?

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

But – that is changing and will change.

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

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

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

 

All extracts from:

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

Ó Government of Ireland 1999

 

“Keeping It in The Family”

 

“níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin”

 

Translation here.

 

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

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

Daddy State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The History of The Reformation. Vol 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“About 74,000 years ago

Near-extinction!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“About the One-Parent Family Payment

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

98% of recipients of OPF are women (2010)

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None more so than Irish men and boys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And caught in the middle? Children.

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

A complex interconnected mesh of factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between the periods

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

An average increase per year of 12,925.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminist doctrine HARMS children.

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

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

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

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

 

References

[1] Divorce in Ireland 1996

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

[2] Divorce in Ireland 1986

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

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

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

[5] Celtic Tiger Starts to Stir:

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

[6] Christine Buckley;

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

[7] Private Households in Ireland;

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

[8] Household composition by marital status 1996

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

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

[10] 2006 Census Household Composition.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Time for you to Get Back in Harness Guys – Suzanne Venker Says So!

 

Suzanne Venker’s articleIt’s time to end the gender war” on the Daily Caller while well meaning misses the point, and the barn, and doesn’t even hit anywhere near the barn, by a country mile or several hundred.

The first error she makes is the title. By characterizing  the current social, cultural and legal climate that exists, as the result of a “Gender War” she fails to take into account this:

War is to all intents and purposes a battle for supremacy between two factions or possibly more, with each protagonist engaging the enemy or enemies – that is not what has happened here.

This has been an invasion, an occupation, a takeover – a coup. Most definitely not a bloodless coup. Men did not, and could not fight back – but they are fighting back now – and THIS is the war that women don’t want. Women are afraid that if men don’t stop fighting back, then the war that never was, will end up with them being the losers.

Venker almost immediately nails her colours to the mast, as to what it is that women fear losing the most – the prospect of a marriage.  Because it is starting to become self evident that men and “marriage” are no longer simpatico. That men are saying – in droves – thanks but no thanks.

Venker hails her model of marriage as natural, as something that men and women are almost designed for, and implies that this is some wonderful “tradition”  and that this alleged “battle of the sexes” has thrown a spanner into the works of!

“Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to be a lifetime merger of masculine and feminine beings. Imperfect or not, it’s Mother Nature’s plan. But today it’s faced with a new threat, and it’s not same-sex marriage. The real problem is America’s gender war: the decades-long battle that has almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes.”

Actually NO, it is not, it wasn’t, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Further, this ideal template of what this version of marriage is rests on myth, fables and a fairly shaky grasp of history, and from my perspective, OTHER cultures – cultures that did not, and do not view marriage through the rather grubby rose coloured spectacles of Hollywood Rom Coms and/or looooooooooooooooove stories, nor through the prism of execrable chick lit, or the fevered fantasies of overexcited and hormonal teenagers. never mind mentioning that when this “model” was created, you were lucky and considered old if you made it to your 40th birthday.

Venker is pulling this “tradition” card, alluding to some mythical period in history when marriage was just this perfect union, this long-standing “tradition” that is now being sullied by modern influences.

Well now Ms, Venker, I will see your couple of hundred years of manufactured history and tradition and raise you a couple of thousand years of actual history and really really REALLY ancient tradition. Because the word that describes this attitude is ethnocentricity – the cure is pulling your head out of your backside.

“Lawyers writing in Irish divide first and principal marriages into three categories:

(1) lánamnas comthinchuir, ‘marriage of common contribution’,marriage in which, apparently, both parties contribute equally to the common pool of marital property;

(2) lánamnas for ferthinchur, ‘marriage on man-contribution’,an arrangement by which the bulk of the marriage goods are contributed by the man; and

(3) lánamnas for bantinchur, ‘marriage on woman contribution’,marriage to which the woman brings the preponderance of the property.

All three main types of marriage are considered by the lawyers as special contractual relationships between the spouses in regard to property, which are similar in some important respects to that of a lord and his vassal, a father and his daughter, a student and his teacher, an abbot and his lay-tenant—other pairs that hold property in common and, on occasion at least, run a common household.

What each of the pair may have given the other, consumed, or spent in good faith cannot give rise to a legal action; what has been taken without permission must be replaced if a complaint is made about it; and legal penalties are involved only when the complaint (and the appropriate legal procedure which must follow it) is ignored or when property is removed by theft or by violence.” (my note – by either party)

And yes, any of the three main types of marriage one could enter into in Ireland – right up to the 17th Century, did NOT absolve either party to that marriage from being subject to the law (Brehon Law) if they committed an act which was contrary to the law. ALL persons were held, once they had reached the age of accountability – generally about 12 years old – fully accountable for their actions, no matter what their status OR sex.

If whatever type of marriage one entered into was of persons of the same social status then:

“It was a dignified state for the wife in question: if it was a marriage ‘with land and stock and household equipment and if the wife was of the same class and status as her husband, she was known as abé cuitchernsa, literally ‘a woman of joint dominion, a woman of equal lordship’—a term which seems to be rendered domina in the canon law tracts.

Neither of the spouses could make a valid contract at law without the consent of the other. The lawyers list exceptions to this rule but, apart from the specification that these must be dealings which advance their common economy, they are mere run-of the-mill matters in the ordinary business of farming—agreements for co-operative ploughing with kinsmen, hiring land (presumably for grazing), getting together the food and drink to meet the duty of entertaining one’s lord or to celebrate church feasts, acquiring necessary tools or equipment and the like—and one would expect either spouse to make such arrangements without necessarily consulting the other.”

Naturally enough, as a marriage was a contract, breaching the terms of that contract had penalties, and could be exercised by either party.

“Besides, the grounds for unilateral divorce (with or without penalties being incurred by the guilty party) are specified in very considerable detail.

A woman could divorce her husband for many reasons: sterility, impotence, being a churchman (whether in holy orders or not), blabbing about the marriage bed, calumniation, wife-beating, repudiation (including taking a secondary wife), homosexuality, failure of maintenance.

A man could divorce his wife for abortion, infanticide, flagrant infidelity, infertility, and bad management. Insanity, chronic illness, a wound that was incurable in the opinion of a judge, leech or lord, retirement into a monastery or going abroad on pilgrimage were adequate grounds for terminating a marriage.[40]

I might add, that some of these things would have been also unlawful, and not only would the guilty party be divorced but he/she would be punished.  Needless to say the taking of a life would have incurred a greater punishment than the beating of a wife.

And before you all start boo hooing over “wife beating” unless the wife was of the Warrior class, and yes we had female warriors, then she was not TRAINED in combat skills, ergo not able or deemed capable of defending herself.  It is anecdotal to say this, but wife beating would have a rare thing in ancient Celtic culture, Irish women are not known for being passive, nor would Irish men have considered beating up a smaller person an honourable thing to do.

This extract that I took these quotes from, talks of a time circa 700 AD when Irish culture was being influenced by the spread of Christianity and by other external influences, but these “traditions” these Laws go back to the bronze age.

It was in the 17th century that finally our Laws, our traditions and our culture were irrevocably changed.

So, this “tradition” that Venker is pining to return to is a mix of gynocentric bullshit, hypergamy gone wild and a culture that allowed itself to be hoodwinked, conned and bamboozled by the machinations, ploys and feminine wiles of females who wouldn’t know how to be autonomous human beings if their lives depended on it.  Which by the way, they DO now.

Your “traditional” marriage is not the union of equals, the coming together to form a household in common, but a grown person being allowed to remain a dependant, a child, a burden, a person who contributes very little but expects to be crowned Rián for that.

What betimes makes me narrow my eyes at the arrogance of feminists and certain types of women, is the sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude they adopt when they talk about “other cultures” and how western culture is the savior of and the model for “other cultures” how your “traditions” are superior, more highly evolved and developed than those inferior and unenlightened “other cultures”

From my perspective – again – YOUR culture is savage, barbarian, unenlightened, inferior, and a plague on humanity. Your culture has been corrupted by feminism and feminists and the toxic gynocentric poison that has informed the agenda of YOUR culture and “traditions” it is superficial, shallow, tawdry and vile.

I sound angry, don’t I? that would be because I am, because YOUR rotten culture, your rotten “traditions” are now part of my culture – part of my everyday life – have infected and corrupted my culture.

The saddest part of all? My people have embraced and now revel in this toxic cultural template.

I focused on marriage, because that is the focus of Venker’s article, to be honest the rest of her article is a gosh golly darn it, why don’t you men get back into your “real men” strait jackets, so that we women can get back to destroying the planet, corrupting the legal system, emotionally abusing your children, go on murderous rampages, and find the time to sit around on our fat arse’s whining about how hard it is to be a woman.

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

Previous Older Entries