Knowledge – v – Information

 

 

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

Let me try to explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look around you – what do you see?

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

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

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

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

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

Today? Hmmmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But – as someone once said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Slainte

 

Advertisements

What Are The Toxic Roots of Feminism?

 

Andrew DiKaiomata asked an interesting question as the title of an article over on A Voice For MenIs Feminism a Movement? Link Here.

Before I even read this article or the usually equally enlightening comments my gut reaction was – NO – feminism is the visible political and public policy face of a distorted and malign state of mind – it is the sly whisperings of an agent provocateur seeking to influence and corrupt the very roots of societies and cultures.

It does this through the workings and machinations of its advocates by misrepresenting facts and reality, and by exerting duress – political, societal, cultural and psychological upon that society and culture. In the key areas of influence within that society – education, media and public policy.

It also does this by infiltrating existing “movements” and moulding them, steering them in the direction that serves feminism’s needs. Feminism’s ultimate end game – which is:

Female supremacy – achieved by proxy – that is – men who are willing to dismantle all legal and political safeguards against tyranny and actual real oppression (against men and boys)…..in order to disenfranchise all men by stealth, while maintaining an appearance of “democracy” or “justice” or “fairness” or the piece de resistance – the unattainable and spurious goal of “equality”

Feminists themselves will claim that there are many feminisms, that feminism is not some monolithic entity with a central command – superficially they are correct – superficially it would appear that there are multiple strains of “feminism” but – this is merely a device to deflect the potency of any opposition – if there is no “common enemy” then that opposition can be diffused – or so the thinking appears to be.

What binds ALL feminisms and ALL feminists together is one single thing – their femaleness – and yes I know, I know – there are male feminists – and these poor saps seem to believe that they are “equal” to female feminists – is there any point in pointing out the bleeding obvious? Nope – didn’t think so.

No matter what political or ideological stance any particular feminist takes – it is her femaleness that binds her and her fellow coven members together – that underpins the rhetoric (bullshit) that emanates from ALL feminists. Including the “nice feminists”

Being female is the common denominator, ergo, it is femaleness that informs and feeds feminism(s) – but, not just any old femaleness – a particular toxic form of femaleness – a virulent bitter and corrupted femaleness – feminism (whatever its manifestation) has always emphasised the FEMALENESS of its acolytes – above and beyond anything else.

The vast majority of women are not feminists, an even larger cohort of men are not feminists – but – they don’t need to be – they only need to have had their view of reality distorted enough, corrupted enough to fail to question the validity of what they have been told, what they hear, what they see and what they believe.

They also must have been corrupted enough, just enough – to believe the lies about themselves that they have been told. By feminism. In whatever manifestation it has assumed through the ages.

They must see themselves reflected in the distorted mirror of feminist “theory” and incorporate that distorted image into their subconscious deeply enough and over a long enough period of time to replicate the visible manifestation of this distorted “image” – they must also, through their own actions within their own lives, pass on that distorted and corrupt “way of being” to their children.

Feminism has been described as a psychological disorder, a form of mental illness – I concur – with a caveat – the original pioneers of feminism – through all its so called waves have without doubt been, to use a less than scientific phrase – completely off their trollies.  There is something else that a lot of them share(d) – perfectly described Here – what these nutcases also did, was draw to this movement/cause persons who also were a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic in various degrees – though some of them were and are quite capable, as Val McDermid’s character Dr. Tony Hill, in her brilliant books calls, “passing for human

The most illuminating comments on the article came from:

Lana Voreskova> xpxpxp •2 days ago

I am not suggesting that feminists understand Marxist theory, which had very much to do with social as well as economic ambitions.

Feminists generally understand very little of anything at all. They have that in common with Marx. Feminists simply sherry-picked rhetoric that sounded good to them and interpret to mean whatever they want it to mean.

They do share a lot of ideals with Marx though whether they actually understand that or not. Many of the earlier ones did understand that and openly identified as Marxists for that reason. You simply cannot get away from the fact that much of feminist theory, was based on watered down Marxist theory.

Lets face it; you could hardly expect feminists to come up with original ideas all by themselves.”

(emphasis added)

And from:

Mateusz82

Feminists will latch onto movements in order to use them, co-opting what they can, and using the window dressing to attract followers. Feminism is just as happy using capitalism, through women in business organizations. They use atheism, through atheist +, and are more than happy using Christianity, or Judaism when they can. They’ll use animal rights, or hunter’s rights. If feminism resembles any movement, it resembles the Borg (assuming the Borg was a movement).”

(emphasis added)

The mistake I believe, that most of those make when arguing about the political aspect or focus or roots of feminism is this – feminism isn’t political in the sense that say Liberalism or Socialism is – political systems are merely the vehicles through which feminists operate – they are political passengers – or if you prefer political opportunists – the personal is indeed the political when it comes to feminism – and it is ALL personal.

Think about it – broadly speaking mass social movements such as the civil rights movement in the US are composed of a specific cohort of people bound together by a common cause – generally a deprivation of specific rights on the basis of a clear and visible commonality they all share – in this instance we are talking about black people – ALL black people – men women and children.

I realise it is rather simplistic to say this, but within the black community in the US there were no classes per se – one did not have upper or middle class black people oppressing their working class black brothers and sisters.

They were ALL oppressed.

Now – look at the feminist “movement” – look at its pioneers – without fail – all middle and upper class white women.

Oppression is a deprivation of basic Human Rights accompanied by a regime of terror and abuse and a dehumanising programme that reduces that Human Being to an object, a chattel, a non human utility.

One could hardly describe any of these pioneers of feminism in those terms – whiny petulant entitled avaricious white women with chips on their shoulders – yep – selfish self-absorbed over-indulged twats – absolutely. But – oppressed? Give me a break.

As always Peter Wright of Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins hits the nail right on the head. Link to the site is on the blogroll.

Peter Wright Mod> Dagda Mór •5 days ago

“Nope” is not a historical argument.

 Unless you can bring detail showing that gynocentrism did not come in waves, and was not an ideology before Marxism/communism, then your historical argument is, well, not historical. Think of all the gynocentric writers from before Marxism/communism – Pizan, Pozzo, Marinella, Wollstonecraft (and hundreds of other protofeminists, male and female).

Without a knowledge of history it’s easy to make the mistake that feminism came out of Marxism…. but it aint true.”

(emphasis added)

Feminism isn’t about politics, per se – politics are simply a means to an end – feminism is about female power and control – the mechanism through which that power and control is exercised is actually rather irrelevant – the purpose is that it is exercised and only by feminists.

In order to really see the evolution of a female centric worldview one must step back and take in the long sweeping panorama of history – what we have today, modern feminism – is but the latest in a series of incremental historical steps – pre the Industrial Revolution rampant gynocentrism – except amongst the middle and upper classes was constrained by the practicalities of simply surviving – post Industrial Revolution that began to change – gradually.

Alongside the Industrial Revolution was another kind of revolution a social and political one – “the masses” began to exert some influence on “policy” not that societies and cultures had reached the stage that “the masses” would be included or consulted on matters of public policy but their needs began to be factored into the equation. Again – not for altruistic reasons – but for economic ones, for political ones.

Feminism’s claims that women are and were excluded from the political system deliberately by men is a camouflage – it is merely a ruse to hide the real agenda – female supremacy so deeply embedded into all the institutional, social and cultural frameworks of societies that “politics” or the political system if you will is a front – a useful distraction for the masses – does anyone actually believe that political decisions are made in parliaments?

That elected representatives are acting autonomously? That when votes are taken on various political programmes or public policy initiatives that these emanate from “government”?

How many examples would you like of actual non partisan, non ideological, non feminist policies torpedoed BY feminist agitators, organisations and advocates, because they have wandered away from the path of total focus on FEMALE “issues”?

Now – THAT’S real power.

The contradiction if you will, is that for feminists – even those who aspire to actual visible political power – is a preference for exercising that power and control by proxy – at a remove – from the sidelines – in the shadows – in order to maintain the illusion of powerlessness necessary in order to perpetuate the never ending “struggle” for a power that already rests in the hands of those allegedly seeking it.

Convoluted – isn’t it?

The answer to that though is glaringly simple – with power and the exercise of that power comes responsibility and accountability – and – THAT is the last thing that feminists or the vast majority of gynocentic females want.

The seething bitter core of ALL feminism and ALL feminists – be they Marxist, Liberal, Socialist – whatever – is that being female automatically ascribes VICTIM status TO YOU as an individual and as part of a class of victims.

Hence why Patricia Arquette felt justified in having something of a whine about some perceived disadvantage – why well-heeled, affluent middle class harpies can whinge about being “oppressed” while ignoring the thousands of homeless men and boys, while dismissing contemptuously the suffering of ANY male person, in any circumstance, as being totally incomparable – on the suffering scale- to being – stared at in the street!

Feminism is only “political” by default – those original pioneers of feminism merely harnessed their innate gynocentrism, modified it, tweaked it and wrapped it up political rhetoric in order to exert control over the political process and to spread the influence of gynocentrism outwards and upwards.

Again – think about it – does it really matter when it comes to influencing policy, whether the feminist(s) exerting that influence – or more correctly duress – is a marxist, a socialist, a liberal or a conservative? Does it?

Of course it doesn’t – what matters is that this is A FEMINIST – a female – or a gang of females – and the political wrapping paper is irrelevant.

What matters is that the social conditioning which had and has its roots is gynocentrism, now completely out of control – kicks in – women = victim = feminism = the voice of all victims.

I do actually find myself taken aback sometimes – not by feminists – nothing a feminist says or does would surprise me – but by men who still almost automatically fall for the women= fragile victim of………everything bad – thing.

For what it’s worth – I personally reject any “political” labels for myself – I belong to no political party or subscribe to any particular ideology – as someone did comment on this particular article that on some issues he could be described as “left-leaning” and on others as “right-leaning” – so could I – it depends entirely on the particular issue. The only statement I make that could be described as political is this:

I am NOT a feminist.

The only “ideological” stance I take is an over-riding belief in the sanctity of Human Rights for ALL Human Beings – and no – I really do not give a shit what kind of Human Being you happen to be – up to and including if you are a complete twat or arsehole.

What is worth noting – from a historical perspective that is, is this – the coalescing of the concept of Human Rights as a universal touchstone if you will, took a long long time coming to fruition – from the first declaration that human beings had rights (albeit limited) to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948 almost parallels the rise of “modern” feminism – and an outright if hidden declaration of war on the Human Rights of men and boys. A war that has over the last six decades intensified and expanded.

“In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Ironic isn’t it, that as soon as a global awareness of Human Rights as a concrete concept, began to enter the zeitgeist – feminism began to marshal its forces and harness the power of gynocentrism to fracture that unified concept into prioritising FEMALE Human Rights.

“In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

 The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations.

(emphasis added)

Source: A Brief History of Human Rights. Link Here.

There was and still is no greater threat to the fulfilment of feminism’s end goal of global female supremacy than a world which embraces the concept of Universal Human Rights without regard to class, sex, political or personal orientation or status.

Which is perhaps why feminism itself is in a bit of a dilemma right now – particularly in the western hemisphere.

Hard to find much actual real “oppression” in the affluent west is there? Except of men and boys, that is – a hundred years ago one could point a well manicured middle class finger at various carefully selected examples – being sure to airbrush out any inconvenient facts of course – and claim that “as a woman” you share in this universal “oppression” of your “sisters” hmmmmm.

Oh where to find any real “oppression” now?

To a certain limited extent I agree with Andrew DiKaiomata’s comparison of modern feminism and Marxism and to the various commenter’s who pointed to the authoritarian nature of feminism, but – and it’s a big but – a political ideology, whatever it may be, is and always has been only a useful vehicle to carry the seeds of gynocentrism forward – generationally and historically – feminism is a parasite – a political parasite – whatever the “political” mask it wears, the core of all manifestations of “feminism” from “suffragettes” to “women’s libbers” to “feminists” has been and always will be gynocentrism – female supremacy.

In many respects feminists are correct – the personal is the political – feminism has taken the absolute worst aspects of female nature and politicised it.

Of all the “achievements” of feminism – and yes – the scare quotes are pertinent – several generations of women have modelled themselves and their behaviour (which yes you do have a choice about) on some of the most twisted, disturbed, irrational and dysfunctional creatures this planet has ever produced – you have internalised a belief system, a “way of being” that manifests itself, and celebrates that manifestation – in the most selfish, self-absorbed, malicious and vindictive behaviours.

Feminisms “gift” to women was to strip them of their humanity and to revel in it – celebrate it – preen themselves over it.

All the while congratulating themselves on how “special” they were!

There Is No Spoon………….

 

Fans of the Matrix films starring Keanu Reeves (Neo), Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus) and Carrie Anne Moss (Trinity) will understand the title of this essay, as will many M(H)RA’s

The Matrix (1999) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/

On Neo’s first visit to The Oracle he observes some children performing amazing “tricks” one of these children, a young boy is bending a spoon with what appears to be his mind.

Neo is intrigued and wants to know – how?

The young boys answer is “to not to try to bend the spoon but to realise that – there is no spoon”. I’m paraphrasing slightly.

This essay is about perception and reality, about viewing something, anything, through the prism of your subjective experience of it, and the factual reality of it – whatever “it” happens to be.

It is about applying energy, resources and time, not only trying to forcing the spoon to bend, but wishing that spoon into objective reality, rather than realising that…………”there is no spoon”

In other words, this young boy is exerting force – an invisible powerful force to alter something, to bend something into a shape that is not its natural shape. The trick is, he is doing this to something that doesn’t actually exist – there is no spoon – just the illusion of a spoon.

Feminism is like that force, and the spoon represents the object, the thing that this force is wishing into existence, that thing or object being the sum of all evil, the fount of all badness – the big bad patriarchy.

Just like in the film, the only object that actually exists is the boy – the thing he has created is the illusion of a spoon – the trick is not that he can bend this imaginary spoon – the trick, if you will, it is that he can make you believe in that spoons existence.

So. Feminism is – the ability to make you see something that is not there – and to manipulate and bend that thing into any shape.

I can tell you that factually, objectively that in 2004, 6 female persons were unlawfully killed in the Republic of Ireland – those 6 female persons represent a miniscule percentage of the entire female population of The Republic of Ireland in 2004.

What feminists will tell you is the complete opposite of objective factual reality – they will expend much energy, time and effort trying to convince you that not only is objective reality wrong, but that their subjective irrational and erroneous perception of that unreality is correct.

In effect, attempt to convince you that there is a spoon where none exists, and that we need to bend that spoon – or else – calamity.

Feminism isn’t about reality, it is about perception, subjective interpretation, and altering a non existent spoon.

Naturally there are other ways to describe this – making mountains out of molehills, creating problems out of thin air, over-reacting excessively to every single “bad thing” that happens to women. All accurate descriptors of what feminism does.

The thing is – as a result of wishing that spoon into existence (creating a thing called the patriarchy) they have actually managed to create another spoon – a different spoon – that represents a chasm between men and women – a gulf, a poisonous barrier, a wall of distrust, suspicion and anger – lots and lots anger.

This anger feeds and renews and perpetuates the existence of this gulf.

The spoon that feminism claimed to exist never did, but because of the insistence on the existence of that spoon emerged what we now have – a massive almost unbreachable wall between the two halves of humanity. Two halves of humanity so out of tune with one another, so distrustful of one another and so immersed in the distorted reality created by feminism that vast numbers of men and women see one another and themselves in ways that are so unreal as to be unbelievable. Yet – many many believe in these distorted perceptions and refuse to see the reality.

The problem isn’t that anything bad happens to either men or women, because to be blunt bad shit happens, all the time, to everybody – the problem IS accepting the subjective, distorted and misperception of anything bad that happens TO women, BY feminism.

Feminists are telling you that there is this massive horrible thing, this awful spoon of malignancy and evil and badness, that only the force of feminism can bend into whatever shape makes the badness go away – the reality is – feminism IS the badness.

6 females persons were unlawfully killed in The Republic of Ireland in 2004, there have never been more than 22 (approx) female persons unlawfully killed in this State – NEVER – in any year.

These are bad things – no doubt about it – but – these are bad things in isolation from the actual lived reality of the 99.9% or thereabouts of the rest of the female population of The Republic of Ireland – or ever will be the reality.

Any hysteria surrounding these deaths is a manifestation of the flawed, distorted and corrupt perception of feminists and feminism and the toxic cloud of anger, hatred, bitterness and malice that lies at the very core of that perception of subjective experience that feeds that thing called feminism. That feeds it and fuels its existence.

Everything – and I mean everything that feminists say, think, believe and claim – is a spoon – and the reality is.

There is no spoon – there never was a spoon.

Feminism maintains that all bad things are male and all good thing things are female – I personally am becoming concerned that the MHRM is coalescing around yet another erroneous perception, that all bad things are female and all good things are male.

Both perceptions are equally wrong – and that is the only place where I will concede the concept of “equality”

Bad things – are neither male nor female – there is no inherent badness in being either male or female – but – both females and males do bad things – to one another.

There are human beings who are bad – evil – vicious – malicious – corrupt – violent – nasty – cruel. Some of those human beings are female, some of them are male.

The numbers of males and the numbers of females that bad things happen to – is irrelevant. It proves nothing about men, and it proves nothing about women – either in general or in particular.

Yes – you can make certain rough generalisations about men and about women – a fairly broad spectrum of leanings, tendencies, general interests etc – but just because lots of women want to do one thing and lots of men like doing something else – again, it proves nothing about either men or women – nor should it. Nor does it imply or even state that one sex is somehow being disadvantaged by the other.

Feminism takes these broad general commonalities that either women share or men share to a greater or lesser degree and make assumptions – negatively about men and oddly enough negatively about women – and BOTH sexes somewhere along the way decided to accept these distorted assumptions – to give credence to these rather warped and completely subjective perceptions.

It is worth noting at this point – that the vast majority of feminists who peddled these distorted perceptions, these warped subjective “realities” were using their own dysfunctional experiences as the basis for what became feminism – an entire “reality” created out of the personally dysfunctional lives and experiences of a relatively small number of – nutcases.

Not only did these “pioneers” have the mothers of all twisted spoons – they managed to convince not just other women but a huge number of men as well that their personal distorted “reality” was in fact – reality.

Millions of women’s patterned and re-patterned their own experiences, their own realities on the twisted perceptions of these lunatics. Re-interpreted their own realities to fit the illusion.

Now vast numbers of women convince themselves that they are being constantly disadvantaged – even when they have chosen to do whatever it is that allegedly puts them in that disadvantaged position!

I often wonder what the hell kind of fairground mirrors do these stupid women look into to see these distorted images of themselves?

So. In effect – the loons of feminism not only created the spoon, they poured all their malice, all their bitterness, all their rage and hatred for men into that creation.

Feminism is that malice, that bitterness, that rage and hatred, polished and moulded, layered and then re-layered with “credibility” with “academic cachet” with “plausibility”

Where we are now is like the aftermath of a massive bust up between two close friends – instigated by a conniving and sly third party. Feminism is the third party – the Iago dripping poison into the ear of Othello about Desdemona.

Where we are at now is the point where the third party has been revealed – but – things were said – nasty things – things were done – really nasty things – and both sides are understandably bitter.

To all intents and purposes vast numbers of men and women “took sides” and now – well now – we need to ask ourselves – do we keep the feud going, for another generation, and another, and another – knowing the truth – or are we going to stop and realise?

There. Is. No. Spoon.

There never was a spoon – there never was a massive global patriarchal conspiracy – never.

 

Did bad things happen? Yep – did people do bad things? Yep. Some of those people were female and some were male.

Were there some really ridiculous attitudes and beliefs about men and women? Yep. Mostly out of ignorance, stupidity and misinformation.

Did women suffer from discrimination in some areas? Yep – they did – but then – so did men – different kinds and in different ways.

Feminism would have you believe that ALL women experience their realities through a uniquely female prism – and that this distorted prism can only be interpreted, explained, defined and changed through the power of feminist ideology – oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

I’m female – I can count on the fingers of one hand minus my thumb and little finger the number of times I’ve ever actually thought about being female. I was in the middle of giving birth at the time – and it was accompanied by some choice language.

Feminism will also tell you that only feminists can and have the authority to interpret male reality – also through the prism of feminism.

Again – pluuuuuuuuuuzeeee!

What is feminism? It is the distorted and twisted dysfunctional and irrational perceptions of some seriously disturbed hags made manifest and actual, labelled and named, and brought into being from a toxic cloud of bitterness, hatred and a thirst for revenge on the perceived wrongs done to these individual nutcases and projected outwards onto the entire male population of this planet, both past present and future.

It is an irrational response to an imaginary “threat” an illusion, a chimera, brought into being by malice and bile and vitriol.

THERE. IS. NO. SPOON.

So, if there is and never was this global patriarchal threat to the wellbeing of ALL women, everywhere – what is left?

Malice, bile and vitriol, hated and bitterness.

Here’s the thing – there is nothing bad that exclusively happens ONLY to women – or ONLY to men – both men and women get ill, have accidents, are unfortunate enough to be assaulted, robbed and/or killed.

Both men and women suffer any and all of the possible bad things that can happen to a human being.

To put it bluntly – when shit rains down – men don’t have magic umbrellas that protect them automatically – it rains on everybody – doncha know. Feminism will tell you that rain wets women more than men.

But, for me, what truly encapsulates the sheer depth and breadth of the malice and spite that fuels feminism and feminists is patting yourself on the back for creating something called

The International Day of the Girl Child.

To a certain extent, while I loathe with a passion the whole concept of International Women’s Day, we are actually talking about adult women here – if they want to have a day and talk shoite about “the achievements of women” – whatever – zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

But to deliberately and consciously exclude CHILDREN – to viciously and smugly discard and marginalise CHILDREN as not worth – having a day or being included in a day – on the sole basis that these CHILDREN are boys – to me this is the quintessential essence of what feminism is all about.

Children who have no power, no influence, no voice – children who depend on adults for their safety and well-being – and feminists happily, smugly and with utter contempt exclude the most powerless of all – because they are boy children.

If nothing will ever convince you, persuade you, or cause you to stop and question what feminism is, what its purpose is, what fuels it, what drives it, what its toxic distorted roots are – THIS should.

The reality is – there is no spoon – there was never a spoon – there was never a global patriarchal conspiracy against women – but there sure as fuck is a global matriarchal conspiracy against men and boys – how else can you explain or justify ignoring CHILDREN – because they happen to be boy children?

F.A.I.R Game…………..and other Feminist Fronts.

 

Let me preface this by saying – feminists are soooooooooooooooooo predictable, any hint that someone has dared to criticise/correct/debunk/discredit the spewings of usually “academic feminists” and they metaphorically circle the wagons.

I can almost imagine the squinty-eyed scowl, the pursed thin lips and flushed cheeks that indicate rising blood pressure! A moment – while I relish that image.

Annnnnnnd we’re back.

Yesterday I posted a critique of an article by Ian Hughes in The Journal.ie an online Irish newspaper Irish Feminism Has Found its Super Mangina – Ian Hughes….. and I was very mean about his two feminist sources – nooooooooo, I hear you say – it’s true, I was – in fact I poured scorn upon these sources. It goes without saying, that any feminist source is by default – tainted.

Anyhoo – Ian Hughes is male, and though he doesn’t come right out and say it – he is, to all intents and purposes a male feminist – perhaps one of the saddest creatures on the planet – a male feminist – that is.

None of them ever seem to get – that they are mere pawns, useful idiots, cannon fodder in the quest for feminist supremacy of………..well………….everything.

Ergo, I made two statements – one that his article was going to be shit – it was, and the second wondering which feminazi was pulling his strings – because – see above – pawn, useful idiot, cannon fodder.

Today, logged onto the blog and noticed a curious thing – one of the “referrers” to the blog was this

The ‘Stolen Feminism’ Hoax, Anti-Feminist Attack Based on Error-Filled Anecdotes, By Laura Flanders, posted on Sept 1 1994 – that would be 20 years ago!

It’s a blisteringly negative “review” of Christina Hoff Sommers book Who Stole Feminism. How very odd – I never mentioned Hoff Sommers at all in yesterday’s article, or her book, but I did, as I said pour scorn on two feminists – Rebecca Solnit and Nikki Van Der Gaag, and their spewings.

Sooooooo, why out of the clear blue sky does this organisation have a sudden interest in a little blog from The Republic of Ireland?

The organisation in question is called F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) and Laura Flanders is one of its founding members – and a feminist – which makes this organisation an oxymoron.

“She was founding director of the women’s desk at the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and for a decade produced and hosted CounterSpin, FAIR’s syndicated radio program. In January 1993, she appeared on the ABCGood Morning America” program as a spokesperson for FAIR to discuss how domestic violence increases during the annual Super Bowl.”

 

Fairness and accuracy in reporting anything, not being a feature of feminism or feminists, hence the oxymoron.

Let me give you a taste of what Laura Flanders is about – she writes for The Nation and this is an extract from one of her “contributions” entitled Demanding Women; After the 2012 elections, women in Washington have a long to-do list—and it doesn’t stop at reproductive rights. Laura Flanders | January 30, 2013

Link Here.

She starts off by going on a bit about how basically it was women who voted Barack Obama into power and therefore “he owes ‘em…….big time.

Though in the print version of her article this little editorial note appears at the end:

“Editor’s Note: This piece originally stated, “Fifty-five percent of women (including 96 percent of African-American women and 67 percent of single women) voted for President Barack Obama this past November.” These statistics refer to women voters, not women in the general population. We have corrected the text to reflect that.”

Sooooooooo, her original article wasn’t quite…….accurate!

Moving on, she has a good ole rant about “reproductive rights” which is femspeak for abortion on demand. Paid for by the State.

“Studies by Ibis Reproductive Health, a research group, show that even those women on Medicaid who are legally entitled to an abortion can rarely get their insurance to cover it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, one out of every four women enrolled in Medicaid who would otherwise choose abortion has to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she can’t get Medicaid to pay and can’t cover the out-of-pocket cost herself. At least 200,000 women every year, according to the National Network of Abortion Funds, seek financial help paying for “choice.

Around the states, while national polls show that most Americans support birth control and oppose the criminalization of abortion, the last two years have seen a historic spike in restrictions on abortion services. As The Nation’s editors recently noted, “87 percent of US counties lack an abortion provider, and several states have only a clinic or two staffed by a doctor who flies in from another state.” After the Republicans’ Tea Party–fueled victories in the 2010 midterms, state legislatures introduced more bills with reproduction-related provisions in 2011 than ever before: a total of 1,100 provisions, of which 135 were passed by the end of that year.”

(emphasis added)

Ibis Reproduction Health is not just “a research group” it focuses exclusively on women’s health – ergo not unbiased. Its list of funders throws up some interesting names – see here. She also mentions the Guttmacher Institute.

Typically for a feminist Laura Flanders is highly selective about not just the information she disseminates but the manner in which she disseminates it. She refers to the Guttmacher Institute as the source – in a roundabout way – for her contentions about abortion. In particular assuming the default “outraged” tone when she spouts the factoid that “87 percent of US counties lack an abortion provider,……” one will note that she has quotation marks around this statement – which means she got it from somewhere.

I may have mentioned this a time or several but, if a feminist told me the sky was blue I would actually go outside and physically check for myself – ergo – I tracked down the source of Mizz Flanders quote, on the basis that she is a feminist and therefore dropping a one sentence quote into the middle of an “I am outraged” piece is always suspicious – when a feminist does it – there’s always more, and it is usually something that puts quite a different spin on things than feminists generally like.

So here is what Flanders is alluding to. It comes from this Report. Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2011, By Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman

From the summary:

CONTEXT: Following a long-term decline, abortion incidence stabilized between 2005 and 2008. Given the proliferation of state-level abortion restrictions, it is critical to assess abortion incidence and access to services since that time.

METHODS: In 2012–2013, all facilities known or expected to have provided abortion services in 2010 and 2011 were surveyed. Data on the number of abortions were combined with population data to estimate national and state-level abortion rates. Incidence of abortions was assessed by provider type and caseload. Information on state abortion regulations implemented between 2008 and 2011 was collected, and possible relationships with abortion rates and provider numbers were considered.

RESULTS: In 2011, an estimated 1.1 million abortions were performed in the United States; the abortion rate was 16.9 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, representing a drop of 13% since 2008. The number of abortion providers declined 4%; the number of clinics dropped 1%. In 2011, 89% of counties had no clinics, and 38% of women of reproductive age lived in those counties. Early medication abortions accounted for a greater proportion of nonhospital abortions in 2011 (23%) than in 2008 (17%). Of the 106 new abortion restrictions implemented during the study period, few or none appeared to be related to state-level patterns in abortion rates or number of providers.

CONCLUSIONS: The national abortion rate has resumed its decline, and no evidence was found that the overall drop in abortion incidence was related to the decrease in providers or to restrictions implemented between 2008 and 2011.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2014, 46(1):xx–xx, doi: 10.1363/46e0414”

(emphasis added)

It would appear that the “women’s desk” director of F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a bit of a fast and loose attitude to “accuracy” in fact, it seems she has a rather inaccurate way of representing “facts” – but – are we surprised?

Hell no – she’s a bloody feminist after all!

She also goes on a bit about poverty – and yes – only poverty that affects women.

“According to the National Women’s Law Center in its study of the 2010 Census, the poverty rate among women climbed from 13.9 percent in 2009 to 14.5 percent in 2010—the highest in seventeen years. The extreme poverty rate among women climbed to 6.3 percent, the highest rate ever recorded (with extreme poverty meaning an income below half the federal poverty line of approximately $22,000 for a family of four). The few studies ever done in this area show that lesbian couples and their families are much more likely to be poor than their heterosexual counterparts. Overall, in 2010, 17 million women lived in poverty, including more than 7.5 million in extreme poverty. The number of women younger than 65 without healthcare coverage increased to 19 million, or 19.7 percent, the highest in more than a decade.”

 

Feminists do love their percentages, don’t they – you can do all sorts of things with percentages – for example, if I told you that 85% was the “official” percentage of say black faced sheep in a flock of sheep – you might think “wow – that’s a lot of black faced sheep!”

Actually – it’s not – because there is a flock of sheep grazing on a field not far from where I live – there’s about 100 sheep there and about 85 of them are black-faced sheep – hard to count the little sods, they kept jumping all over the place – but still – 85% sounds and looks like a massive number – much bigger than if I just said “85”

That’s the thing about percentages – it all depends on the number of “objects” – be it sheep or people – that you derive that percentage from.

So it is with poverty percentages – and how one interprets and presents them – when it comes to feminists, you can be absolutely guaranteed that they will “massage” and “fudge” and in most cases downright ignore/delete/eliminate any reference to male numbers of anything. Just like Laura Flanders has done.

Let’s take a closer look at the fellow feminist(s) coven she cited, the National Women’s Law Center

Well first of all the “rate” of female poverty (across all cohorts) went from 15.6 to 16.2 from 2009 – 2010 (a rise of 0.6) NOT 13.9 to 14.5 (also a rise of 0.6) it’s a small point, but we are talking about the director of the women’s desk at F.A.I.R (Fairness and ACCURRACY In Reporting)

What about the actual numbers? (numbers in thousands)

Out of a total male population of 150413 – 21012 (14%) were living in poverty in 2010.

Out of a total female population of 155275 – 25167 (16.2%) were living in poverty in 2010.

Out of a total male population of 149237 – 19475 (13%) were living in poverty in 2009.

Out of a total female population of 154582 – 24094 (15.6%) were living in poverty in 2009.

So 40487 males and 49261 females in the years 2009 – 2010 were living in poverty.

In total 89748 HUMAN BEINGS.

Only the kind of sick twisted inhumane arsehole, that most feminists are, would quibble over the sex of a HUMAN BEING living in poverty.

Data extracted from: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

For example neither she nor any other feminist will ever mention that the highest actual numbers of those in poverty – historically – from 1966 – 2011 in The United States has always been males under 18 yrs old. Always.

Let’s take the years 2006 – 2011 – poverty numbers and rates for persons under 18 years old. Numbers are in thousands.

In 2010 – 21012 (22.2%) of males under 18 living in poverty
1n 2010 – 7947 (21.8%) of females under 18 living in poverty
13065 more males.

 

In 2009 – 19475 (20.4%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2009 – 7682 (21%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
11793 more males.

 

In 2008 – 17698 (18.8%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2008 – 6941 (19.2%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
10757 more males.

 

In 2007 – 16302 (17.9%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2007 6550 (18.1%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
9752 more males.

 

In 2006 – 16000 (17.2%) of males under 18 living in poverty.
In 2006 – 6335 (17.6%) of females under 18 living in poverty.
9665 more males.

 

Data extracted from : https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

Now, isn’t that odd – even though the actual numbers of males under 18 years old in poverty is greater than the actual numbers of females under 18 years in poverty – the percentages appear to suggest that it is females under 18 years old who comprise the largest cohort.

How can that be?

Elementary – the larger the number you extrapolate your percentage from, the larger that percentage will be – and that’s how feminists like to shimmy and roll – duck and dive – misrepresent data and, if that fails – simply ignore ALL figures for males – for anything – and of course shriek like banshees on speed about the female “percentages” as a smokescreen to prevent anyone even bothering to look at those male figures.

This historical table covers the years from 1966 – 2011, and the pattern holds throughout this period.

Here’s the thing – I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that yes, numerically speaking absent the under 18 cohort – more females are in poverty than males.

But – people like Laura Flanders and her ilk make me want to puke – we are talking about hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS – both male and female – living in poverty – what does it matter that out of a larger female population, a greater number of those HUMAN BEINGS happen to be female?

What bloody difference does it make?

Oh wait – I forgot – men and boys are not human beings – or not special enough human beings – even when they are living in extremis.

Hundreds of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS are living in poverty in The United States – some of those human beings are male and some are female – but they are ALL human beings.

So while Laura Flanders and her ilk are spewing out percentages (one set of percentages mind) and shrieking about “rates” and how x percentage of women are this, that and the other – they are deliberately, consciously and with malice aforethought, not just dehumanising the invisible male sufferers – they are in actual fact dehumanising the female sufferers as well – because they don’t actually give a shit about women, never mind about men – these women are simply propaganda tools – useful rhetorical devices to vomit out more feminist garbage – the kind of garbage that keeps the gravy train of academic and institutional feminism chugging along – and slick operators like Laura Flanders and her fellow harpies in jobs.

Perched aloft their ivory towers gazing disdainfully down on “the poor” and crawling their way to the tops of their useless “careers” on the backs of the very poor they use to do so.

Anyhoo – thanks for stopping by, I do so hope it was………illuminating…………..and good luck with that whole F.A.I.R (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) thing Laura.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

“Submitted on 2015/01/01 at 12:42 am

 Misogyny is a problem in Canada.

A female school administrator of the Toronto District School Board

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

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

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

 

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

stopmisogynyincanada@yahoo.ca

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

 

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

Finally – the caption;

“Published on Dec 25, 2014

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

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

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

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

How does this school protect children?

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

We have policies and procedures” – repetitively

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

How does this school protect the children in that school?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking Up is Hard to Do……..

 

Every so often Ì go trawling on the internet to check out what the harpies (ooops I mean feminists) are up too. The reason why I leave a relatively long gap between each journey into fembot land is because…well…because after generally reading the first paragraph of any feminist diatribe I start to lose the will to live, my eyes glaze over, and I get that headache that starts just behind your left eyeball – you know the one – the headache that just sends out little spikes of pain that penetrates your brain…..anyhoo – you know what I mean.

Soooooooooooo, rather than type in any particular name into google, I simply typed in “antifeminist” and the reason is simple. When I first started to delve into the online world (about five years ago now) to search out information that wasn’t feminist, that’s what I typed in – antifeminist – and got what amounted to a blanket dismissal of “anti-feminism” as some kind of aberration, as a blip on the settled order of things.

Today? Whole other kettle of fish.

The journey begins with this articleIs this what an anti-feminist movement looks like?” By Bethonie Butler July 30”

Have never heard of Bethonie Butler, but she takes a particular stance, it involves being rather scornful and condescending of the womenagainstfeminism phenomenon, in a rather “let’s not mock those silly women” kind of way, a “they’re more to be pitied than anything else” kind of thing.

She cites several other writers to back up her benign and tolerant stance of these traitors to the sisterhood, such as Jessica Valenti – a paragon of tolerance, objectivity and……..ok I think that’s enough.

The impression created is that the “anti-feminist” movement” as she calls it, is nothing but a storm in a teacup or a b cup if you prefer. She neatly sidesteps any closer examination of the reasons why, even as she parodies it, even that there is an “anti-feminist movement” at all.

But she does provide a link to another article in the Daily Beast called “You Don’t Hate Feminism. You Just Don’t Understand It.” By Emily Shire 07.12.14

Her stance is pretty similar to Ms. Butlers, though she does unsheathe her feminist claws – just a tad – by waving the feminists to the rescue flag.

 

“It’s never a dull week for feminists, and now Women Against Feminism is the most recent ire du jour. The Tumblr photo collection of women holding signs explaining why they “don’t need feminism” is more annoying than frightening. We’ve got bigger fish to fry, like securing equal pay and ensuring women across the world can attend school without being kidnapped.

But Women Against Feminism is certainly getting plenty of attention. The Tumblr started in the summer of 2013. The Facebook group, which was created in January 2014, has 12,000 likes, suggesting it appeals to a not insignificant group of people.

Women Against Feminism is easy—too easy—to lambaste. Many of the reasons these women claim for not needing feminism are embarrassingly bad. One post that has made the rounds is “I don’t need feminism because I love masculine men like Christian Grey :-P.” Oy.”

 

Note the classic “equal pay” totem (resoundingly debunked over and over and over and over again) and the vague reference to saving random women worldwide from being kidnapped on the way to school. I wonder does she ride shotgun herself or does she “have people” to do that for her – either way – she caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares.

But, the overall impression is that this anti-feminist “movement” is just a bunch of silly women who should be benignly tolerated while the big girls “take care of all the worlds problems”

Neither one of them of course mentions the Men’s (Human) Rights Movement or even men – this is a “sisterhood” problem – with the womenagainstfeminism being just very very naughty. Therein lies the rub for feminists like Butler and Shire – these are WOMEN!

Not just any women – women AGAINST feminist – not a knuckle dragging, basement living, Neanderthal with a tiny penis who can’t get laid in sight – these are WOMEN. AGAINST. FEMINISM.

Shire does mention in passing something, in fact she almost displays a nonchalant disregard for the significance of what she links too – another article called “Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes” but makes more of “reaching out” as she calls it to the womenagainstfeminism” women and being rebuffed by a lady called Mel, hence the increasing level of cattiness. Meow!

 

“There is no question that Women Against Feminism is utterly and completely misguided in its understanding of what feminism is. But they aren’t only the ones. Feminism gets a bad rap, and people perceive the movement as meaning something very narrow and specific—and negative.

An April 2013 poll found just 16 percent of men and 23 percent of women in America identify as feminists. The women behind Women Against Feminism aren’t exactly a minority. However, that same poll found 82 percent of all Americans agree with the statement “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” That’s the simplest and most accurate definition of feminism, but the movement has come to be seen as anti-men, liberal, radical, pro-choice, and many other things that it is not.”

(emphasis added)

Before we go on to discuss the implications of the poll she links to – let’s just pause here for a moment and contemplate the sheer stupidity, crassness, blindness and unbelievable depths of hubris displayed by these feminists.

The clue is, as it always is, in the title of Ms. Shire’s piece – an apparently large group is gathering momentum and numbers – this large group are women who have publically REJECTED feminism – for their various different reasons – I have no doubt that for some people those reasons might seem a bit silly – but hey – each to their own.

But, out of her own mouth Shire acknowledges that feminists are a MINORITY and that non feminist women are to all intents and purposes a MAJORITY. Yet in her feministic hubris doesn’t get it – feminists do NOT represent the views of the majority of women, never mind men, yet continues to assume the mantle of selfappointed spokesperson for ALL women. Even when huge numbers of women reject them and their ideology. Publically.

Alas – for feminists, rejecting feminism can ever only be for one reason – you don’t understand what feminism is! There in a nutshell is what feminists think of women – women are morons who don’t know their own minds.

Feminism is the ideological equivalent of an ex/stalker who you have to take a Restraining Order out against – like the stalker ex – s/he just won’t be dumped – in their delusion and insanity, they weave fantasies about your lifelong commitment to one another – its completely insane, totally deluded, obsessive and about as attractive as the stuff I have growing on my shower curtain – but –they are your “one true love” or else! Yikes!

That’s what feminists don’t get – nobody rejects feminism because they “don’t understand it” they reject feminism because they DO!

So, about this poll – it is referenced in this articlePoll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes”by Emily Swanson. 04/16/2013

She continues;

“Only one-fifth of Americans identify as feminists, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word.

According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans — including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men — consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither……..

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.”

(emphasis added)

In between these two statements is an appeal to the dictionary definition of feminism, which the author cites as some kind of proof that yet again “people just don’t understand what feminism is” except, this author is claiming that this poll merely reflects a “branding problem” for feminism!

Yep – because after nigh on five decades of spouting vile bigoted lies, of shrieking like banshees about “the patriarchy” and how all men are bastards – after revealing yourselves to be insane, irrational, unhinged, liars, frauds, con artists, inhumane arseholes – people are rejecting feminism because of a misunderstanding of what the message of feminism is!

Yep. Right. Did I mention deluded?

It would appear as well that feminism is also suffering from the same “branding problem” on netmums as well – coincidence? I think not. In another article, “What does feminism mean to modern women?” referencing another poll, this time in the UK, the results were eerily similar, if not actually worse, with only 14% of the women surveyed self-identifying as feminist.

 

“What does feminism mean to modern women?

■Only 1 in 7 women still call themselves a ‘Feminist’ – with younger women least likely to.

■Two in five want to ‘celebrate difference’ rather than be equal to men.

■The biggest battle for modern women is to reinstate the value of motherhood, with 69% making it top priority.

■36 per cent of youngsters cannot imagine a time when men and women were not equal.

■New movement dubbed ‘FeMEmism’ to reflect women’s personal choice.

“Are you a ‘Feminist’?”   14% replied YES

■Just one in seven of the 1,300 women who took part in this study still describe themselves as a ‘Feminist’.

■Younger women are least likely to embrace the term. 25% of women aged 45 to 50 described themselves as a ‘Feminist’. But just 9% of those aged 25 to 29 identified with it and only 8% of women aged 20 to 24.

(emphasis added)

Ok – let’s go back to that dictionary definition appeal so beloved of feminists whenever someone rejects feminism – we’ll use the bog standard one that they all use – though in this case Ms. Swanson paraphrases.

 

“However, that same poll found 82 percent of all Americans agree with the statement “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals.” That’s the simplest and most accurate definition of feminism, but the movement has come to be seen as anti-men, liberal, radical, pro-choice, and many other things that it is not.”

As a component of this tiresome appeal to dictionary definition, feminists also tend to bewail the continuing “inequalities” being perpetrated against women – ergo the need for feminism to be as the lone voice(s) in the wilderness championing the cause of “equality”– sigh.

“For example, one woman posted “I don’t need ‘feminism’ because I believe that men and women are EQUAL, not that women should belittle men.” Those posts hurt a bit more because they reveal how deeply misinterpreted feminism is.”

Oh how noble. Except.

Those results and the results of previous polls which consistently show an average of 28% and falling, of women who identify as feminists, indicate that feminists are a MINORITY – and further do NOT represent the views of a majority of women. At all. So, who exactly are these noble gender warriors speaking for, or on behalf of?

I’m female, NOT a feminist, and do not give my permission for any feminist to claim to speak for, or on my behalf.

In a global survey conducted by IPSOS –three things stood out.

 

  1. The MAJORITY of respondents already believe that equality has been achieved to all intents and purposes.
  2. The MAJORITY of people believe that men and women should be treated equally.
  3. Even when a question is skewed to link feminism with “equal rights for women” as this question is, in this survey – the top three countries show percentages who identify as feminists thus – Canada – 55%, the UK – 55% and the US – 51%.

 

Which, in relation to the results of point number three above when compared to the results of the question asked of only women is bizarre to say the least. – these are the percentages who AGREED with this statement.

 

Women: “I have full equality with men and the freedom to reach my full dreams and aspirations

Canada – 78%

United States – 70%

Great Britain – 69%

Argentina – 66%

Poland – 65%

Australia – 63%

Sweden            – 62%

Germany – 58%

Hungary – 53%

Belgium – 47%

Italy – 45%

South Korea – 43%

France – 42%

Japan – 36%

Spain – 30%

 

I bet you noticed what I noticed – that the top three with massive percentages of women who AGREED that they had to all intents and purposes achieved “equality” are the very countries with the loudest, most obnoxious and insane feminists – Canada, The United States and The UK. Though it must be noted the higher percentage of positive answers fell into the “agree somewhat” category.

Another thing to note is this – with regard to those top three – the percentage who didn’t agree that “equality” has to all intents and purposes been achieved more or less reflects the percentage of those women who self-identify as feminists – in poll after poll – in other words the MAJORITY are more or less satisfied that “equality” has been reached.

It begs the question then – if in countries such as the top seven, the vast majority of people believe that “equality” has been to all intents and purposes achieved – what is the bloody point of feminism? Especially in light of the fact that feminists are a MINORITY of the general populations (female) in those countries with the most raucous feminist “spokespersons”?

Apart from this IPSOS poll – the percentages of women who self-identify as feminists when simply just asked a straightforward question – Are you a feminist?” has NEVER risen above 30%.

For the hard of thinking (feminists) that means that 70% and over of women are NOT feminists – yet feminists like Shire above would have you believe that 70% and above of women who reject feminism – of their own free will “just don’t understand feminism

You know what it’s called when a minority tries to dictate to the majority? Tyranny. Women are “breaking up” with feminism – in droves – but like that ex/stalker who will not accept – “you got dumped” feminists are having a hard time “letting go” as illustrated by “You Don’t Hate Feminism. You Just Don’t Understand It.” By Emily Shire.

In one way she is right – for many women (the majority) they don’t “hate feminism” they simply cannot see the point of it – they are indifferent, it is irrelevant – has nothing useful or important to say – to them.

So, rather than being a “branding problem” as one of our feminists above spluttered in barely concealed contempt lamely asserted – it is a “you are way past your sell by date” and a “your message is toxic” kind of problem.

Personally I’ve never been much drawn to “isms” or “ideologies” and while I personally can understand why vast numbers of women are rejecting and have rejected feminism as the default prism through which they choose to interpret their life experiences, and to understand the social and cultural ecology in which they must live, I can also appreciate that this might leave, for want of a better phrase, a philosophical vacuum.

There is a deeply embedded need on the part of people to feel and be part of something – part of a larger community – I have a suggestion as to what community you should join.

Join the Human Race.

All political, philosophical or ideological conversations should begin and end with one simple belief – I am a Human Being first – every other sentient entity who shares this planet with me is a Human Being first – not female, not male – Human.

Acknowledge that you are no more “special” than any other Human Being because you happen to be a particular kind of Human Being – that you have no entitlement to extra or “special” rights over and above the same basic Human Rights as every other Human Being on the planet – then and only then can you consider yourself have reached an understanding of your place in this world – standing alongside your brothers and sisters as part of one “race” – the Human Race.

No “ism” or “ideologue” can tell you, or dictate to you what kind of Human Being you ought or should be – those like Butler, Shire, Valenti et al have assumed the right to dictate to you what you should believe, have assumed the right to belittle and deride choices you make about yourself – that is the tyranny of feminism – the tyranny of the minority – the tyranny of selfappointed unelected, unrepresentative “spokespersons” who presume to set the parameters of what YOU can believe, what choices you should make.

Join the Human Race – begin and end all conversations with “I am a Human Being first….”

 

 

NBI personally do not subscribe to the concept of “equal rights” orequality” per se – because it implies that there are separate sets of rights specific to one group/person or another – based on some individual feature or characteristic of particular human beings – to me this is a nonsense.

What I subscribe to is the concept of equity – where the law is applied regardless of what kind of human being you are – though for the purposes of this article, I understand what is meant – in particular with the IPSOS poll – I have more of a problem with the concept of “equal rights” than with the much more elastic concept of “equality”

Just wanted to clarify that 🙂

Happy Fathers’ Day “Da”

 

Yesterday was Fathers’ Day here in Ireland, as it was in many other countries – I didn’t know that, my own father died when I 16 years, I am now 52 years old.

I don’t actually recall ever “celebrating” Fathers Day, but I do remember my father, I remember how he taught me to play chess, how he taught me to think, to question, to challenge ideas and assumptions.

I remember he was always there, I remember his love of books and reading and I remember many other things. Were there conflicts? Oh yes – if there was one thing I definitely inherited from my father it was a determination to “stand my ground” to fight for what I believed in, to refuse to be swayed by “popular” opinion.

THATS what I inherited from father – and for that I will always be grateful, always honour his memory and always remember that I am who I am because of my parents, both my mother and my father.

I know who I am because I knew and had my parents in my life, both of them, my father for such a short time. To this very day I know without a shadow of a doubt that my father would be 100% standing beside me in this path I have taken, I know he would be enraged and incensed at the injustices and the calumnies visited upon many many fathers today.

I am one of the lucky ones, I had my father in my life, and at a time when the vile ideology of feminism was struggling to take root here in Ireland.

This also I know – he had no time for “women’s libbers” as they were called way back when, nor did my mother for that matter. That would have been the general consensus of opinion when I was growing up, these women we saw on the news, ranting and raving and talking shoite were middle class, privileged fools with nothing better to do with their time than make fools of themselves, talking out their arses.

I did ask him once “what does women’s lib mean”? I was about 11 or 12 years old.

His answer – “you don’t need to be liberated, you are already free”

In fact, at the time I grew up, in the 1960’s and 1970’s all those men like my father, my uncles, my friends fathers would have been according to feminist ideology part of “the patriarchy” that vast global conspiracy of all men oppressing all women – everywhere.

These men, all these men worked, some like my father worked themselves to death FOR their families, morning, noon and night, for shit wages, in shit conditions, barely surviving from one week to another. They worked because they had no choice, they worked because they had responsibilities, they worked because THAT was what you did. If you were a man in Ireland, in the 1960’s and 1970’s. You worked or you starved, and your family starved, your children starved.

My father also did something else, he became involved in politics, he started to fight back against the real oppression, the real issues, the real injustices – and he didn’t do it because he wanted power – he did it because he couldn’t do anything else, because all around him he saw that injustice, he saw that oppression and it was visited upon everybody.

So, when I hear ignorant, ill-informed and snivelling feminists whine about “the patriarchy” about “oppression” and all the other shoite that spews out of the mouths and keyboards of these morons – I know – you are all talking out of your arses – that’s my father you’re talking about, my uncles, my friends fathers, and you are full of shit.

So, it was that I came to read this article, “Lack of justice for fathers one of biggest scandals of our time” by Lorraine Courtney Published 16/06/2014 [1]

I was pointed to it by Joe Egan of:

Fathers Rights Ireland [2]

Platform for European Fathers (PEF) [3]

See also facebook. [4]

While I welcome the main thrust of the article, several things made me grit my teeth in frustration, and I was almost tempted to decline Joe’s request to reblog or repost it. But then I realised – baby, bathwater.

Ms. Courtney makes some valid points, most notably in her opening paragraph.

“Friday Fathers’ Rights Ireland held a public stunt outside the Four Courts where they used a medieval pillory to symbolise the legal torture dads can be put through when relationships with their children’s mother turn sour. Here in Ireland, a father needs to be married in order to get automatic guardianship of his children. When a couple isn’t married, the mother remains the sole legal guardian until the father looks for guardianship.”

Torture is a good word to use, because that is what happens, legalised torture – of men – of fathers – what she fails to mention here is the toxic influence of feminism that has deliberately and purposely created both the circumstances and the attitudes that allow this torture to prevail. I object completely to the use of the word “stunt” a legitimate protest is NOT a “stunt”

“However, if the mother objects to this, the father must apply to his local district court to be made a guardian.It’s an all too common scenario now since 33pc of all children born in Ireland are to unmarried parents.Married men are entitled to guardianship of their kids but this can all change horribly when marriages fall apart.A father might believe he has rights but then can find that he’s expendable and faced with a horrendous and expensive legal battle on separation. A father has to fight bitterly to get what is automatically awarded to mothers.”

Her next paragraph touches on something pertinent – she says “A father might believe he has rights but then can find that he’s expendable and faced with a horrendous and expensive legal battle on separation

Actually a father does have rights – a married father that is – that is not the issue – the issue is that those rights are almost casually ignored, brushed aside, swept away – what is happening is that men and fathers rights have now been relegated to barely second place – if even that – this is not a case of not having rights, this is a system that has evolved, that functions to deny to violate and to abuse those rights. If you are a father and you do not happen to have been married to the mother of your child or children then yes – rights – are not something you can invoke.

Because this is a system that has been infected by a poisonous doctrine, an ideology based in hatred of men, founded on hatred of men, fed by hatred of men, and in particular by men who are fathers.

“And if he doesn’t have the cash, he doesn’t get to see his children. But even fathers who can afford it are stripped of their assets by costly legal battles and then might be told that they can’t have their child to stay overnight because their humble bedsit isn’t suitable.

In more unpleasant separations, a man might be falsely accused of all kinds of physical or sexual violence so that the court case drags on unnecessarily while this is investigated.Just take a look at the many fathers’ rights websites and you’ll soon see that men today tend to be victims of an unjust system that benefits the mum as opposed to the dad when it comes to children.

In fact, judging by messages left on the websites, false allegations are rampant and our court system separates too many innocent fathers from children”

She now touches on something here that is not only rampant, but is actively encouraged – Parental Alienation – even when the mothers – and it is mostly women who perpetrate this vile behaviour are not feminists – just nasty toxic individuals – it is feminism that has allowed these kinds of disgusting behaviour to proliferate – who have actively and deliberately engineered ancillary services to foster the breeding grounds that feed this toxic behaviour, in particular the infestation of feminists into social work.

In fact the American organisation NOW (National Organisation of Women) [5] the largest and loudest feminist organisation in the world and one of the first established after the so called second wave of feminism got going in the late 1960’s early 1970’s recently issued a statement [6] calling for Parental Alienation Disorder (as it is called here) to not be recognised.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, SEE.

[7] The Impact of Parental Alienation on Children; Every child has a fundamental need for love and protection. Published on April 25, 2013 by Edward Kruk, Ph.D. in Co-Parenting After Divorce

[8] Parental Alienation: Southern England Psychological Services

[9] Karen Woodall

[10] Parental Alienation page.

Feminists would rather allow children to suffer than to admit that women are just as capable, and in some cases more so of being total and utter arseholes just as some men are – to do so would undermine every single tenet of feminism, every single one, including the very basis upon which all feminist “theory” rests – men bad – women good.

“Family law researcher Roisin O’Shea observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in 2010 which are ordinarily held in private.She didn’t find a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse and had only seen the courts order joint custody in two cases.

Tina Rayburn, co-author of ‘I Want to See My Kids! A Guide for Dads Who Want Contact with Their Children After Separation’, writes: “Until people acknowledge the current system is flawed and has an overriding female bias, it will be difficult to see anything changing.

There are two core problems. I don’t think the courts recognise a child can live happily in two homes and they are loath to take a child away from its mother. There is still a perception that these guys have done something wrong and they don’t deserve to see their children.

“It seems that both women and men are more comfortable aligning themselves with campaigns to help the sisterhood, whereas nobody wants to be seen siding with the brotherhood”

The two bolded parts are the pertinent points – the system is flawed and the cause is ignorance, misinformation and a blind allegiance to myths peddled by toxic ideologues. The second point is about attitudes – social and cultural attitudes – again fostered and promulgated by toxic ideologues – and it must be said embraced with alacrity by some women, who while they themselves may not identify as feminists – this toxic paradigm gives them permission to manifest without any consequences the vilest, most reprehensible behaviour imaginable.

“Over the past few decades we have quite rightly been tackling issues like making sure that women have an adequate income after separation and patriarchal abuses like domestic violence. But doesn’t it seem like the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction?”

And this is where I gritted my teeth – the second point first – DV is NOT, has never been a manifestation of “patriarchal abuses” bearing in mind that DV is almost equally perpetrated by women and men – and up to 50% if not more is mutual. In fact in instances where DV or IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) is unidirectional (perpetrated by one person upon another) it is MORE likely that the abuser is female.

See the PASK (Partner Abuse State of Knowledge) [11] and see [12] for an analysis.

“To be clear, what PASK reveals is that the claims of the domestic violence establishment are wrong and have been from the start. That establishment that receives such largess from governments and private sources has been revealed once and for all to be intellectually bankrupt.”

“Section Two: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration. The authors studying data in this area analyzed 111 separate data sets comprising about 250,000 subjects. They found that about 25% of those subjects reported perpetrating physical violence against a current partner or one in their last relationship. That represented 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men who perpetrated violence against an intimate partner. Subjects came from across the industrialized, English-speaking world.”

“Section Three: Rates of Bi-Directional and Uni-Directional IPV. In this area, 50 separate studies that recorded rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional violence were analyzed. Researchers found that, in the largest samples studied, among couples reporting domestic violence, 57.9% reported reciprocal or bi-directional violence with the remainder, 42.1% reporting uni-directional violence. In the uni-directional group, women were over twice as likely (28.3%) to perpetrate violence as were men (13.8%).”

“Smaller samples revealed similar rates of bi-directional violence but community surveys showed 22.9% of women versus 17.5% of men perpetrating uni-directional violence. Among subjects in high school and college, 31.9% of women perpetrated uni-directional violence versus 16.2% of men.”

“Only in the sample of U.S. military personnel and “at-risk” males did men’s (43.4%) uni-directional violence rates outstrip those of women (17.3%).” [12]

Similiar results were found by Kieron McKeown and Phillipa Kidd in 2002 in Ireland – [13]

Men and Domestic Violence: What Research Tells Us by Kieran McKeown & Philippa Kidd

Kieran McKeown Limited, Social & Economic Research Consultants, Report to the Department of Health & Children March 2002

“With the exception of sexual violence which is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women, the results of these studies are fairly consistent in showing that, in approximately half of all intimate relationships where domestic violence occurred in the last year, both partners were mutually violent, with the remainder divided fairly equally between male -only violence and female-only violence.

As a result, the self-reported prevalence of domestic violence among men and women, both as victims and as perpetrators, is broadly similar for physical and psychological violence, both minor and severe. In addition, both men and women are about equally likely to initiate domestic violence and seem to give broadly similar reasons for doing so.” [13]

NB – A caveat regarding the McKeown/Kidd Report – while I agree in substance with the overall results of this report I do not agree with all the conclusions and interpretations that are contained within this report – in particular with the opening sentence of this paragraph and with this concluding section of the same paragraph.

“However it needs to be emphasised that the outcomes of domestic violence in terms of physical and psychological injuries tend to be considerably more negative for women victims than for men victims.”

This is simply wrong – and is once more a manifestation of the “men don’t really suffer” paradigm – this is wrong – it de-humanises men, it fails to recognise that men are human beings and human beings, whatever sex they are – suffer.

“These findings indicate that the existing consensus on this issue does not fully reflect the reality of violence between men and women in intimate relationships. The converse of these findings also needs to be emphasised: the vast majority of men and women are not violent to each other in intimate relationships. A key implication of these findings is that domestic violence is not a women’s issue or a men’s issue but a relationships issue.”

What is also worth emphasising is that domestic violence and abuse has sod all to do with a mythical patriarchy.

The first point is so beyond ridiculous that I sincerely doubt that Ms. Courtney even realises what she just wrote – and I am only conceding that point because in the main her article is a pretty good one.

Here’s the problem – why pray tell is it only important that “women have an adequate income after separation”? let me guess – men have no need for shelter, for food, for clothing, for medical care, men have no need for heat, for transport, for any of the necessities of life?

Would that be because they can call upon this vast global patriarchal conspiracy? Except there is NO patriarchy – there is NO conspiracy – it is a lie.

It is a lie told by feminists – because men are deemed NOT human beings – NOT even worth considering where they will l.ive, how they will live or even that they deserve to live – after all – men are not human beings – are they? Ms Courtney continues.

“Meanwhile, the father’s rights movement continues to be politically marginalised. But women aren’t the only “natural” caregivers and men can and should play an equal role in raising their children. The horrible injustices suffered by many dads and their children go by without as much as a whisper.The lack of justice for fathers is one of the biggest social scandals of our time.We have a legal system that is utterly out of touch with the way we live now in a world where dads change nappies, push buggies and spend hours cuddling their children in exactly the same way that good mothers do

She is right and wrong here – the fathers rights movement and the men’s rights movement may be as she says “politically marginalisednow – but that is changing – and will change – because after 40 + years of this shit – many many men have had enough – had enough of listening to feminists and women whining, shrieking and demanding more and more resources, more and more on the sole basis that they are female.

Alongside those men are other women – like me – who are not willing to stand by and allow these wretches, these toxic vile creatures to claim they speak for or on behalf of ALL women.

Wrong because she has made the rather lame point that this is somehow to do with changing nappies (diapers), pushing buggies (strollers) and “spending hours cuddling their children in exactly the same way that good mothers do

This is about the Human Rights of both fathers AND children – my father didn’t change nappies, and I doubt he ever (though I could be wrong) pushed a buggy – but he showed his love in the only way he could have – he showed his children every day how much he cared – he worked, he worked himself to death.

When I was about ten – I decided I wanted to be a writer and I was going to write plays – I told my “Da” know what he did?

He built me a tiny little “theatre” in the back garden – with a stage – and my mother made the curtains – took him two weekends, after working all week, he even made the benches for the “audience”(God help them) to sit on, and he sat on those benches cheering and clapping when my first “play” was performed.

I couldn’t tell you what this “play” was about – probably pirates – I had a big dream of being a pirate – but what I do remember is handing him nails, bits of scrap wood, of him explaining why this bit of wood went here and that bit went there – and I remember he did it – his child had made a wish – and he made it come true.

THAT’S what a father does.

 

 

References

 

[1] Lack of justice for fathers one of biggest scandals of our time http://www.independent.ie/opinion/lack-of-justice-for-fathers-one-of-biggest-scandals-of-our-time-30356806.html

[2] Fathers Rights Ireland http://www.slideshare.net/joseph-a-egan

[3] Platform for European Fathers (PEF) http://europeanfathers.wordpress.com/

[4] https://www.facebook.com/JosephAEganAthlone

[5] NOW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women

[6] http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/pad.html

[7] The Impact of Parental Alienation on Children; Every child has a fundamental need for love and protection. Published on April 25, 2013 by Edward Kruk, Ph.D. in Co-Parenting After Divorce

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/co-parenting-after-divorce/201304/the-impact-parental-alienation-children

[8] Parental Alienation: Southern England Psychological Services – http://www.parental-alienation.info/

[9] Karen Woodall – http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/

[10] Parental Alienation page. – http://homepages.iol.ie/~pe/pe02000.htm

[11] PASK http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/

[12] https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20971-partner-abuse-state-of-knowledge-project-the-gold-standard-of-domestic-violence-information

[13] Men and Domestic Violence: What Research Tells Us by Kieran McKeown & Philippa Kid – Kieran McKeown Limited, Social & Economic Research Consultants, Report to the Department of Health & Children March 2002 – http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/mdv2.pdf

 

Previous Older Entries