Feminism and The Flat Earth Society: Comrades in Stupidity.

 

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

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

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

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

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

For example – believing the earth is flat.

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

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

I have always believed the world is round;

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

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

I have always believed the world is flat;

Other/Not sure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okie dokie!

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

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

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

So, what’s the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT IS WHAT FEMINISM IS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom

Only 7 per cent of Britons consider themselves feminists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada

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

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

“Kat

@Knymz

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

8:31 PM – Dec 3, 2015”

Australia

Women against feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic of Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism is Cultural and Political Cancer.

 

Slainte

 

 

In The Best Interests of the Child: How The Courts Get it Wrong. Part 2.

 

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

Charles de Montesquieu January 18, 1689 – February 10, 1755 [1]

 

Ostensibly we have laws that purport to treat “…all persons equally before the law…” these laws are enshrined not just in the domestic legislation of common law jurisdictions [1] (Ireland, the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand to name but a few) but in international Human Rights Instruments [2] that are applicable in these individual States and Nations.

But, while it may appear that the protections of the law apply to all persons equally, the reality is different. Part of the underlying problem is, in my opinion, a reliance on assumptions, on myths, on what Dr. Linda Neilsen comprehensively rebutted in her study, (see Part 1). Further, that by default, International Rights Instruments explicitly state, to paraphrase, that children have the right to a meaningful PARENTAL relationship with both their parents, that both parents have “parental equality” by default, and Joint Physical and Legal Custody is the optimum way for parents to exercise those default equal parental rights  – yet,  sole physical custody continues to be granted to mothers, and even in cases where joint physical custody is granted, the parents are still categorized into “the primary carer” and the other or secondary parent with this secondary parents parental status characterised as “access” as “contact” as“visitation”

“My review of 54 studies on shared parenting finds that, independent of parental conflict and family income, children in shared physical custody families—with the exception of situations where children need protection from an abusive or negligent parent—have better outcomes across a variety of measures of well-being than do children in sole physical custody. Knowledge and understanding of these findings allow us to dismantle some of the myths surrounding shared parenting so we can better serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no longer living together.”

(emphasis added)

Presumptions, Assumptions and Cultural Language – v – Rights Language.

No doubt, as many fathers have found when participating in “legal proceedings” in particular Family Law proceedings there is a unique language and vernacular used – not only that, there is a distinct method by which decisions are reached – (Ratio Decidendi)[4] but, for many lay litigants (which is usually the case with fathers seeking “access” to their children) this “Ratio” is incomprehensible gobbledygook, legalese and goes completely over their heads.

Part of the reason for this is because (in my opinion) the judicial atmosphere is clouded by the use of presumptions, assumptions and cultural language skewed towards a distinctly female perspective and this dictates the parameters of the judicial decision making process – in other words – the language of Rights, both parental and children’s rights is obscured in favour of taking a cultural framework approach – and – without a doubt, that cultural framework, and its language is informed by a particular ideology that has no place in the decision making process that affects the long term wellbeing, safety, and welfare of children.

The rights of children get subsumed under an ideological toxic cloud of rhetoric and mythologies about “motherhood” that serves only the interests of the person manufacturing that toxic rhetorical cloud and usually her equally ill-informed and ideologically driven counsel. (say no more)

Children’s Rights

The most obvious question is of course – do children have rights?

It might seem and appear to be a ridiculous question, but, when it comes to Family Law proceedings in this jurisdiction in particular (Ireland) and in other common law jurisdictions the default paradigm through which judicial decisions are made is NOT that children have distinct rights as autonomous human beings, but that those rights are and can only be exercised with the consent of and co-operation of a litigious parent, whose very actions in making applications for sole custody and/or limited “access” to the other parent is a stance that quite clearly indicates that the child “in dispute” most certainly does not “have rights’ distinct and separate from that parent.

Giving sole custody to mothers who present as opposed to “access” who seek to limit the amount of real time “access” fathers get to spend with their children, who go to court demanding that the court endorse and sanction them with a “gate-keeping” role in the exercise of a full and meaningful parental relationship for fathers and their children should be immediately presumed as a violation of the fundamental principles of “equal parental rights” enshrined in CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 24 – The rights of the child

  1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

  2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

  3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.

 

Article 7 – UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child)

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or  her parents.

Article 9

1 States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

2 In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3 States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to   maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

(all emphasis added)

Mothers who persist in objecting to, obstructing, litigating against “access” should be immediately be viewed as suspect and in particular, being, not only in violation of the above mentioned provisions of law but if either “sole custody” is sought or a “gate-keeping” role in relation to “access” is sought, it should be presumed to be a deliberate intention to breach NOT JUST the parental rights of the other parent (the father) but the children’s rights under the provisions of the above mentioned Instruments.

Unfortunately, the Courts tend to only pay lip service to the concept of children’s rights, and while judges may make a passing reference to “the right of child to ………………., it gets lost under the blanket of toxic ideological fog generally created by the obstructionist, conflict generating, gate-keeping parent – in most cases – the mother.

The Illegitimacy of the Concepts of “Access to”, “Contact with” and “Visitation with” Your Children

Bearing in mind that it is the Right of the Child to “to know and be cared for by his or  her parents….” and the Right of the Child to have and “to  maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis,” I would argue that ANY application by any parent grounded on a curtailment of, reduction of, infringement of the full exercise of those rights BY THE CHILD, is ab initio unlawful, fundamentally flawed and in breach and violation of he provisions of Article 24.3 of CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, and is in breach and violation of Article 9.3 of the UNCRC.

I would also argue that any application to curtail, limit, disrupt and/or impose conditionality, or to award a “gate-keeping” parental authority to one parent over the other parent is also ab initio a fundamental breach and violation of, in this jurisdiction (Ireland) the provisions of:

Article 40

1 all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

Article 42a

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.

 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 prejudically 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.

The question is, what is the underlying cultural and societal fundamental hindrance to achieving a just outcome FOR CHILDREN, when their parents no longer live together?

Answer.

Myths about women – assumptions and presumptions presented as a de facto credible basis’ for skewing “custody” to women and “access’ to men.

Bit of an aside here. I took a little look see around the internet to see what the feminists were up to, what was pushing their buttons in the here and now.

Was like Deja vue all over again – same shoite different year.

Housework???? Still whining about housework. Wage gap???? Really? Notwithstanding that this particular myth has been comprehensively discredited. I Have no intention of addressing these issues – they have been more than adequately addressed by other writers and bloggers. Though the housework thing is beyond ridiculous.

I read a few studies – and nope, couldn’t be bothered giving a link – in a nutshell, the impression created was that wimmin were, to all intents and purposes working their fingers to the bone slaving over steaming tubs of water using washboards to do the laundry. Sigh.

Guess what. Two hours ago, I threw a wash into the machine, took me all of 30 seconds, 20 minutes ago, at grave physical risk and danger, I pulled the laundry out of the washing machine and fecked it into the dryer – can hear the dryer from where I’m sitting, at my laptop, writing this.  Though, the 30 seconds it also took to feck the laundry into the dryer has me only exhausted! I may need funding for a support group to be set up so I can “share my feelings” about how random men all over world “oppressed” me for a full minute!

Seriously though.

This language of “oppression” and martyred motherhood” needs to be unpicked, rebutted, discredited – in Court – and on a basic fundamental level.

Yep – I know it sounds nit-picky but think about it – “Primary Carer” being a case in point.

Childhood lasts approximately 18 years (legally speaking that is) – the first 4 – 6 years being what I suppose could be called labour intensive – that is before this putative child goes to school., with the first two years being the most labour intensive. By which stage most children are walking, eating grown up food, possibly starting to become toilet trained. By two years old, the vast majority of children are in a routine – i.e. they go to bed by 7ish pm and they sleep till 7ish am.

In other words, by the time they’re two their routines are predictable, manageable and equally able to be carried out by BOTH or either parent(s).

But, because of the promulgation of the myth of martyred motherhood, Courts continue to give credence to this discriminatory concept of “Primary Carer” based on the notion that there are some magical, extraordinary things that women can do that men are not only incapable of doing but are genetically handicapped (by being men) from ever being able to do.

The biological reality is this – there is only one thing, and one thing only that women can do and men can’t – breast-feed. And any reasonable person will tell you, that breast-feeding is unnecessary beyond maybe 8 – 10 months (babies have teeth at this point)

Conclusion

In order for States that are signatories to the ECFRF (European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and on individual domestic “equality” legislation to be IN COMPLIANCE with the provisions of these documents there MUST be a presumption of Joint Legal and Physical Custody of children.

There MUST be a presumption that the child is entitled to a full, meaningful and EQUAL relationship with BOTH parents, with NO CONDITIONALITY other than practical and logistical matters to make co-parenting work with the minimum of stress FOR THE CHILD.

Any parent who creates conflict around implementing a co-parenting arrangement, causes difficulties, creates obstacles should be the one sanctioned – including a loss of parenting time, and in extreme cases – loss of Joint custody, until to be blunt SHE cops onto herself, puts the child’s needs before her own selfish need to be “in control” to “set the rules” to “dictate the parameters of the other parents role” and yes I did use the word “she” deliberately – because it is nearly always “she” who causes, creates and manufactures the conflict.

Family Law judges have allowed themselves to be bullied, to be manipulated, to be hood-winked – and to be blunt – when presented with what is referred to as a “high-conflict” custody case to be emotionally blackmailed by the perpetrator – the mother, invariably.

In effect – absent mitigating factors (real credible and evidence based) Sole Custody Orders are, in my opinion – Unconstitutional, (Ireland) and in breach of the provisions of the ECHR and ECFRF.

TPAC (Toxic Parental Alienation Conflict) perpetrated by one parent against the other parent, the visible manifestation of which ARE these applications for sole custody, ARE applications for restricted “access” for the other parent, constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce parenting time, and in extreme cases loss of Joint Custody for the parent making these applications.

I draw your attention to the provisions of Section 63 of The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, [6] at ;

(i) where applicable, proposals made for the child’s custody, care, development and upbringing and for access to and contact with the child, having regard to the desirability of the parents or guardians of the child agreeing to such proposals and co-operating with each other in relation to them;

(j) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, and to maintain and foster relationships between the child and his or her relatives;

(k) the capacity of each person in respect of whom an application is made under this Act—

(i) to care for and meet the needs of the child,

(ii) to communicate and co-operate on issues relating to the child, and

(iii) to exercise the relevant powers, responsibilities and entitlements to which the application relates.

(emphasis added)

 

Part 3: In The Best Interests of the Child: Review of the Case Law.

 

References

[1] Charles de Montesquieu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Montesquieu/

[2] http://guides.law.sc.edu/c.php?g=315476&p=2108388

[3] European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

European Convention on Human Rights https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

UNCRC http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

Ireland and the UNCRC https://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/ireland_and_the_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf

[4] Ratio Decidendi http://lib.oup.com.au/he/Law/chew2e/chew2e_BLG2_chapter1.pdf

[5] Irish Constitution 1937 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/en.cons.pdf

[6] The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/section/63/enacted/en/html

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

 

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.

Previous Older Entries