“Keeping It in The Family”

 

“níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin”

 

Translation here.

 

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

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

Daddy State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The History of The Reformation. Vol 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“About 74,000 years ago

Near-extinction!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“About the One-Parent Family Payment

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

98% of recipients of OPF are women (2010)

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None more so than Irish men and boys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And caught in the middle? Children.

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

A complex interconnected mesh of factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between the periods

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

An average increase per year of 12,925.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminist doctrine HARMS children.

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

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

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

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

 

References

[1] Divorce in Ireland 1996

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

[2] Divorce in Ireland 1986

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

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

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

[5] Celtic Tiger Starts to Stir:

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

[6] Christine Buckley;

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

[7] Private Households in Ireland;

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

[8] Household composition by marital status 1996

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

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

[10] 2006 Census Household Composition.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

“I Wonder………..”

 

For some odd reason I recalled a conversation I had with a lovely and very charming young woman some time a couple of years ago, she had apparently heard me give one of my impromptu “speeches” about “the evils of feminism” in the middle of the day to some bewildered students.

Anyhoo, outside the arts building she approached me and asked “what kind of woman should I be?”

She also elaborated a bit, she had a brother who had died tragically the year before and she mourned him deeply, he was “her best friend” and she couldn’t correlate the things she was hearing in her lectures with either her beloved brother, her father or any male person she knew, or had ever known – she was a first year, and without even asking I knew what she was studying.

But of course I did ask – Sociology, Anthropology and History – sigh, (not the History, obviously)  the next question I asked of course was,  “What do you want to do, what area do you see yourself working in?

“Teaching or social work?  She said.

Which of course means, after first year she would probably drop history, and take the modules leading to the Social Science/Work Degree.

But my answer was that she stop thinking about what kind of woman she should, or could be, and simply embrace  her humanity, and that focusing on “being a woman” would suffocate and eventually extinguish her ability to do this – her current study path was one sure fire way to do exactly that, diminish her ability to exercise her humanity. Well, I know what they teach in these lectures, you all know what they teach, and we all know it is total and utter crap – which is why I said to her  –

“Forget about “being a woman” forget about your darling brother as “being a man” – and concentrate on being a human being, and remembering what a wonderful human being your brother was”

Being “a woman” or “being a man” is incidental to being a human being, because if you focus on that, you will realise that this opens up a whole world of wider and higher principles to aspire to, it allows you to transcend petty issues of “gender” of alleged differences in treatment, of manufactured “inequalities” and superficial social and cultural conventions.

It will allow you to shake off and reject the script written by small minded, spiteful, vindictive and malicious female human beings who call themselves feminists and have hijacked the conversation, the discourse, the very language of and about human interaction, of humanity, and what it means to be a human being.

Even our language has been warped and twisted, words have become vested with nasty meanings meant to deride and vilify one half of humanity.

Words like, courage, valour, strength, integrity and honour – and while you probably won’t find them in the library, the tales of valour, of courage and strength that epitomises the endeavours of the men who explored, challenged, strived and struggled to create the civilisation of comfort, safety and convenience you probably take for granted around you –  are worth reading.

There is one other word that should be added to that list – inventiveness.

Try and imagine for one moment if men such as Johannes GutenbergThe Printing Press (though there is some dispute about whether he invented it, or as a result of tinkering, developed a workable and viable model) Thomas EdisonOver a thousand inventions, Alexander FlemingPenicillin, had all decided – “sod it, couldn’t be bothered” and no other man could have been bothered either.

Try and imagine for one moment that no man ever looked at the world around him and began thinking; –

 “I wonder……..”

Because that is what feminism not just seeks to persuade you, to pressure you, to tell you, but to demand, to coerce, to insist and to make unlawful for you and any other human person to do; –

To wonder, to question, to examine, to be curious, to explore possibilities and follow the trail that leads from “I wonder………” to wherever it ends up.

Feminism seeks to trap and ensnare you in a cage, in a shell of being, in a rigid uncompromising and limiting entity called “being a woman” and if you think THAT cage is restrictive, you have no idea of the cage that they assign men to.

The shackles and chains, the bonds and ropes that men must – they insist, they demand, wear inside THEIR cages. These cages that they constructed to contain, to control, to destroy, what they have named “toxic masculinity”

These cages that have been constructed of lies and myths, of false and manufactured data and statistics, of the hysterical and poisonous rantings, writings and incomprehensible garbage of dysfunctional, hate filled, spiteful and malicious females.

It kind of sounds like I hate women, doesn’t it?

Actually I don’t, neither as a class, nor with rare exceptions as individuals – derision, contempt and scorn, these are the words that best describe my “feelings” towards women as a class, and as women on an individual basis, to varying degrees, as and when I encounter them. They are directed at what women say, what they do, how they behave, what they have become – not at them as female human beings or as autonomous entities. The reason is simple, they are autonomous sentient human beings, ergo they CHOOSE to act, to believe, and to be the way they are. To be this limited, superficial and vacuous creature called “woman”

I hold them, and will continue to hold them, and myself of course, accountable – because that is what defines and marks human beings out from every other species on this planet. The unique ability to be self – aware, and to CHOOSE, every single, without exception – action.  Absent of course human beings who have an intellectual, psychological or physiological disability which robs them, or deprives them of this ability.

It also sounds like I am doing what feminists claim the mystical patriarchy has done to women throughout the ages – written women out of history.

Again, nope, but until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, women were constrained, were limited, with very few exceptions, by not just their own physical limitations, but by what they were designed to do –  I suppose by Mother Nature/evolution,  and what they COULD do.

Therefore, when it came to sometimes being able, by the very nature of the limited range of occupations available for both men and women, to do significant things, things that impacted upon the course of human history it was simply that men worked in areas that positioned them in a place where they could wonder, could reflect on what they had to do and say; –

“I wonder………”

Some of those early inventions, the prototypes that generated and precipitated a succession of improved versions, of a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, that led to the myriad range of devices and objects we don’t even notice any more. Never mind wondering where did the original idea come from, and from whom?

To the development of the improved and constantly improving physical structure of our societies and cultures, that came about as the result of tinkering and striving to create a better tool, a better way of “doing something” of performing some essential task, that generally benefitted and improved the lives of those for whom the vast majority of men worked FOR.

Their wives and children.

A rather simple example, I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s, if I wanted to talk to someone about something, I had two choices, I could physically go and knock on their front door and say “Hi, can I talk you about something?” or I could write a letter, walk to the post office, buy a stamp and post said letter, then wait – and depending on how far away they lived, that wait could be anything up to a week, for an answer.

Of course, we had access to telephones, but we, my family that is didn’t have a telephone till about 1980 (ish) In an emergency, we could ask a slightly more affluent neighbour, but it would have to BE an emergency.

I’ve had real time conversations with people in the UK, in the USA, in Canada and in various other far flung places in the world in the last few months – I rarely give it a thought now – I text friends with random questions or just say “Hi, how you doing” and get a reply back almost instantly. So, who do we have to thank for this?

Step up Martin Cooper. If you click on the link, the size of the first “mobile” phone will make you laugh, if you were born after say 1983.

In the 1600’s and 1700’s and definitely before this would have been considered magic, in the 1970’s and 1980’s it WAS considered science fiction – look at the communication devices in the original Star Trek series – can you see how that might have been the inspiration for mobile/cell phones?

Because somewhere, some man found himself thinking “I wonder………”

 Our physical lives have improved in ways that would have stunned and rendered speechless our ancestors and previous generations, including my own generation and my parents, but with an enormous sadness that I sometimes find quite difficult to articulate, as human beings, as sentient autonomous beings with access to the writings, the thoughts and the inspirational thinking of too many great men to list, and to be fair, a few great women – we have floundered, we have de-evolved, we have become base creatures, driven by the most crude and unenlightened impulses.

For 50 years and more our cultures and societies have been subjected to a mode of thinking, a set of beliefs, an ideological influence that is as coarse, as primitive, as corrupt and as vile as the worst of all vile ideologies.

It is savage and barbaric, it is as corrosive and toxic as harnessing the worst aspects of humanity could make it.

It IS what feminism is.

All the worst things that human beings could, and can be, peddled as the “truth” as the template for human progress, for what human beings are supposed to be.

So, to the lovely and charming Shauna*, don’t worry, don’t think about “being a woman” strive to be the best human being you can be. Always.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Not this charming young woman’s name. I met her strangely enough last year – she had as she said “started again” she had decided what she wanted to do, really wanted to be – was a veterinarian. Wonders will never cease. 🙂

 

All My Heroes are Men, most of the people I despise are Women.

 

I know an odd title for an essay, but to give you an idea of what precipitated it, pop over to emma the emo’s blog for a read of this – Women Have no Honour.

“To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.

 This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.”

I’ve been doing a lot of research lately, and as I mentioned in the essay about those fruitcakes over at Holy Hormones, and nope, not linking to it again, it was reading random articles about the exploits of men, through the ages that restored my sanity, didn’t prevent me from getting a headache, but made having a headache bearable.

With regard to the title as well, when I think of men, words like nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency spring to mind, as for women – and being the most likely to make it onto the list of people I despise the most – the feeling is mutual – at this point in my life – it only amuses me – to be honest it never actually bothered me – that women in general tend to dislike me – intensely.  In that extra special “way” that women have of manifesting their “disapproval” fortunately for most of my life, any of the things that women value and attempt to punish you for, by withdrawing or sabotaging, are things that I have never actually valued.

Chief amongst them being admittance to the “girl club” or being “one of the girls” I cannot think of anything that would induce a greater feeling of horror in me that either of those things.

To be fair, I do have, and have had lifelong friends, female friends, who without exception have been women “not like that” I could tell you stories!

So, it has been almost a revelation to me over the last year or so to encounter women like Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat), Janet Bloomfield (Judgybitch), Diana Davison (realityisabitch) and astonishingly, a growing number of other females who are not total and utter wretches. Who think, who can string a sentence together, who can objectively and with great intelligence and humour explore an idea, express a concept that does not begin and end with their bloody vaginas and/or uterus’s

The reason – because those qualities that I mentioned that spring to mind when I think of men, spring to my mind when I think of these women – which can only lead to one conclusion.

These are not male qualities per se, they are human qualities of the highest order, ANY human being can CHOOSE to ascribe, to develop, to enact and to display them.

Nobility, honour, courage, integrity and decency are human qualities that women en masse have CHOSEN to reject, to fail to develop, to strive for – in favour of selfishness, self-absorption, pettiness, spitefulness, vindictiveness, vanity and egotism.

By the way, this is not a NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like that) thing – this is a WHY are most women “like that” – thing, and WHY do they not STOP being “like that”

Much is made of the so-called higher order of female qualities, such as caring and nurturing and compassion, of the sacrifices women apparently make for their children, for their “men” of all the tasks that they perform for and on behalf of others.

In fact, I don’t believe it would be an exaggeration to say that women en masse will, and do beat that drum persistently, continuously and ad nauseum about how caring, nurturing, and compassionate they are. What is derisory is that these things – the caring, the nurturing of children in particular – are what one would expect as a natural pattern of behaviour – normal, having children by default assumes that one DOES these things, not as some extra special effort on your part but because – THATS WHAT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DO!  If you are a decent human being, that is.

There is one woman I want add to the three female human beings who I’ve mentioned as worthy of admiration and respect and to be counted among honourable human beings – my mother.

Two of my mother’s oft repeated phrases, whenever she felt someone was getting “a bit above themselves” were these:

“self praise is no praise”

and

“empty vessels make the most noise”

From her perspective, praise for doing or achieving something was a gift, a gift from others, an acknowledgment that you had done or achieved something worthwhile – demanding it, or expecting it, or reciting your supposed achievements to garner it, invalidated and negated the value of your supposed achievement, or in this instance – quality.

Because, the other thing she was adamant about was this – if the only reason you do something is to GET praise – then doing it is a gesture, an empty shallow gesture meant to benefit ONLY you.

Back to My Heroes.

One of the things that marks out these particular men below, both real and fictional, as worthy heroes and role models, not just for boys but for girls too, is that invariably they were flawed human beings, they were not as women like to portray themselves “visions of perfection” they strove and failed, they were beset by doubts and fears, and they did not consider themselves to BE heroes, they were doing what they believed was the right thing to do – and without exception, for and behalf of others with no expectation of “praise” of “personal gain” or even of sometimes surviving their endeavours.

Janet Bloomfield (aka Judgybitch) wrote an excellent piece on one of my modern day heroes – a fictional character – John McClane – of the Die Hard series of films – I have to say the original is my favourite, and will admit to a secret “admiration” for Bruce Willis – but that’s just between me and thee – ok?

John is everyman, he does what does because he cannot in all conscience do otherwise and live with himself – and no-one else will step up – Janet’s article nails it to a tee, much better than I could.

William Wilberforce the nobility, the courage and the relentless persistence of this man in the face of personal struggles, of mockery, of the disdain of his peers is admirably captured in the film Amazing Grace slavery was, until feminism came along, one of the most egregious stains on the history of humanity – slavery is to dehumanise a human being, to reduce a human being to an object, a piece of property. In William Wilberforce’s time – this was “normal” and here we are in the 21st century, and yet again we have a culture where it is “normal” to view human beings as objects of utility, as property, as less than human.

Aragorn (Strider) – One of my all time favourite books, “The Lord of The Rings” – first read it when I was 16, and read it every year for a long long time – then the  films came out and regrettably I haven’t read it since then.  Aragorn displays that other quality that men have and exercise on behalf of, and for others – leadership – leadership in the face of ,and in spite of their own fears and doubts about themselves, about their leadership abilities – he leads because someone must lead – someone must take responsibility – someone must put the mission first, and their own fears and doubts aside – Aragorn is that man, and is every man who has ever walked towards danger, towards the source of their greatest fear, and towards that which would “chill the heart of me” for others, for a cause, for a mission, for others.

Firefighters, rescue workers, soldiers, almost all men, almost all faced with constant danger, constant threat and always walking towards it, facing it, protecting others from it. Protecting women from it.

“If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. ” Aragorn.

― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Ghenghis Khan – now you all think I’ve completely lost the plot. Read this book – Bones of the Hills by Conn Iggulden published in 2009 by Harper – website www.conniggulden.com for more information.

Ghenghis Khan forged a civilisation, a Nation, a nomadic nation out of innumerable warring tribes – never a builder of roads, of monuments, Ghenghis Khan was a unique and exceptional individual, his exploits by our standards were bloodthirsty, but he was a man in, and of his time.

“In the seventeenth century the Muslim chronicler Abu’l Ghazi wrote:

Under the reign of Ghenghis Khan, all the country between Iran and the land of the Turks enjoyed such a peace that a man might have journeyed from sunrise to sunset with a golden platter on his head without suffering the least violence from anyone.”

From: Bones of The Hills by Conn Iggulden; Historical Note – page 542 (own copy – emphasis added)

Feminism and feminists have corrupted and have poisoned our cultures and our nations, have harnessed the ephemeral grip on honour that women have always had, and to be fair were expected to have, unlike the true hard won honour that men have always strived, struggled and fought for  – has diminished to nothingness that load upon women, till to all intents and purposes women now believe they have no need for honour, or integrity or decency.

Sadly, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, we worship things, we live in and on the most superficial plane of existence, the banal, the trite, and the asinine have become our touchstones, our standard. The keepers of these things are feminists, they insist, they demand, they blackmail and they coerce so that our cultures remain – dishonourable – superficial – tawdry.

 “A nation lives forever through its concepts, honour, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation’s historical honour, of the nation’s eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honour at all costs.”

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

So, when I say that I despise women, with very few rare exceptions, it is not only because they have no honour, but they CHOSE deliberately to have no honour – because – it IS a choice.

The last word goes to my mother:

“You may chose any course of action you wish, good bad or indifferent, what you don’t get to chose are the consequences”

We are living with the consequences of a culture infected with the poison of dishonourable, corrupt and toxic feminism.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

What’s in a Name?

We like to give things names, labels that we assign to objects, ideas, ways of thinking so that we have a handy reference word that allows us to recognise some “thing” without having to go into huge detail. Like a game of charades, where the object is to bring to the mind of the players a certain “thing” without naming that “thing” if you have ever played charades, it is not as easy as it sounds.

Because giving a “thing” a name vests multiple layers of meaning, complex and interconnected shades of meaning to that “named thing”

If I said the word “Tree” for example, the innumerable mental pictures this would conjure up is due to the complexity of meanings that this word implies. I might immediately think of a mighty oak, standing tall and immovable over centuries, it might then evoke images of ancient battles fought under its shade, or perhaps the signing of The Magna Carta.  Another might think “cherry blossom in a Japanese Garden”, this might evoke visions of perhaps the movie The Last Samurai, and yet another might think “Christmas” and the memories of childhood excitement and anticipation.  Words don’t just describe, they trigger, they evoke, the take us on an inner journey down many paths.

There is a word that has been carefully crafted, assiduously imbued with certain meanings, meanings that vest this word with positive socially and culturally accepted meanings to such an extent that very few go beyond or beneath this carefully cultivated meaning and explore under this shiny surface.

That word is feminism.

Just like I don’t have to search my mind for a word to describe such diverse “things” as Christmas tree, cherry blossom or mighty oak, for many phrases such as,  “women’s rights” “equality” “male oppression” “rape” and “male privilege”  will evoke one word – feminism.

The question though is this, the label “feminism” has gathered to itself all sorts of meanings, all kinds of complex and multilayered connotations, and has done so deliberately, carefully, and with feverish intent to invest “feminism” with qualities it does not possess, and never has. These carefully cultivated ancillary meanings have been coupled with this word to mask its true meaning, its true purpose.  For beneath these complex issues made simple, made part of the underlying well of meanings that lie beneath the word “feminism” is a cold calculated and malign purpose.

To make hatred of men “normal” to immediately evoke a negative and disapproving feeling, state of mind, stance, or attitude of distrust, wariness, contempt or disdain towards all men, in varying degrees.

Because words in and of themselves provoke not just meanings, but an emotional, intellectual and psychological response, we take our cue from the emotional, intellectual and psychological triggers that a word evokes in us. In other words (no pun intended) how we conduct our conversations, how we position ourselves along a spectrum of possible stances, and how we respond either consciously or unconsciously to “opinions” or “points of view” is determined by the meaning we vest in certain words. But, also we react and respond not just to the individual “word” the label attached to name something, but to all the “words” all the other “labels” all the other multi layered “meanings” that this “word” implies.

Over some 50 years or so, feminism has consumed, has subsumed, has like a giant verbal and linguistic vacuum drawn into itself many many words, with many many meanings, has commandeered and claimed as its own, the right to assign meanings to words, to “things” has positioned itself as the arbiter and court of final appeal on all conversations, all discussions, all exchanges between, about, or on, men and women.

Because of all the words to describe some “thing” these two words; MEN and WOMEN are the jewels in the crown of feminism’s campaign to own the language, to own the meanings, to own the words we use.

Without thinking too hard about it, if I said “MEN” what would spring to your mind?

Would it be, great painters, scientific genius’s, loving fathers, rambunctious and happy go lucky boys, honour, loyalty, sacrifice, love, kindness, fun, civilisation?

Would these be some of the words that immediately leapt to YOUR mind, or would other darker, nastier, cruel words tumble into your consciousness.

Words like, rape, violence, oppression, dominance, war, death, pain?

Now, ask yourselves. Do THESE words spring to your mind when you think of your fathers, brothers, sons, nephews and friends?

What if I said the word WOMEN.

Let me guess, you might have thought, victim, poor, discrimination, battered, helpless, rights, abuse, divorce, poverty.

Do THESE words really apply to you, to ALL the women you know, your mothers, daughters, sisters, friends and co-workers.  ALL these words? To ALL the women you know?

It is indeed true that in this world there are many cruel and awful people, that we are a world in turmoil, millions are in poverty, millions are abused, are hurt, and are in pain.  Many people lack even the barest shred of humanity.  What is equally true is that some of those people are male and some of those people are female.

Cruelty, callousness, lack of compassion, lack of humanity is NOT “gendered” is NOT a manifestation of one’s biological sex, all these things know no “gender” boundaries. There have ever been examples throughout history, and at this present time of those who have abandoned all semblance of humanity.

But, feminism, in its dishonesty, its foetid campaign of hatred, lies and deception has sought to mask the cruelty, the inhumanity that some female human beings have displayed, and magnify out of all proportion the cruelties and inhumanities of some male human beings, to such an extent, and with such success that even those who do not take upon themselves the label “feminist” believe that ALL cruelty, ALL inhumanity IN THIS WORLD emanates from and only from MEN.

It is a lie.

It is a lie built on a foundation of lies, and fed upon a diet of lies. The word “lie” in the context I am using it here has ONLY one essential meaning. NOT true.

 

 

 

 

 

Next Newer Entries