It’s A Boy! – Damn…………….Better Luck Next Time.

 

Horrible title isn’t it? Yet, is it any more horrible or inhumane or just downright sick that this one?

 

International Day of the Girl Child

 

Link Here

Imagine being so deluded, so tunnel-visioned, so lacking in any compassion or empathy for the suffering of one half of the world’s children that you actually believe only focusing on half of the world’s many many children who suffer terrible calamities, poverty, torture and disadvantage – IS A GOOD THING!

Naturally, there is no International Day of The Boy Child. One of the – in my opinion – sick twisted individuals behind this abhorrence is none other than Nikki Van Der Gaag, one of the sources for Ian Hughes excrable article in The Journal.ie.

Nikki van der Gaag has been writing about development issues for more than 20 years. After leaving Oxford, she went to work in India for Time Out magazine. Since then she has held editorial and communications positions in the charity and not-for-profit sector, including Oxfam, Oxford-based New Internationalist magazine and the Panos Institute, which work with journalists all over the world.

For the past 10 years she has been an independent consultant and writer, focusing in particular on gender, especially girls and young women, and more recently on men and masculinities around the world.

Nikki is on the International Advisory Board of Young Lives, a 15-year study of child poverty in four different countries based here at Oxford, an Advisory Trustee of New Internationalist and until recently a trustee at Asylum Welcome, a local refugee organization.

Books and reports include five of the seven State of the World’s Girls reports, published by Plan International, the most recent being In Double Jeopardy: Adolescent girls and disasters; Changing Lives in a Changing World, Young Lives (2012), Speaking Out: Case studies on how poor people influence decision-making Oxfam/Practical Action 2009; The No-Nonsense Guide to Women’s Rights New Internationalist 2008 and How the World Came to Oxford: refugees past and present. Oxford Literary Festival, March 2007. Nikki is currently working on a book for Zed Press on men and feminism.”

(emphasis added)

Link Here

Plan International is where this International Day of The Girl Child originated, and Nikki Van Der Gaag is one of the people behind it – as you can see, she is in a unique position to influence where, when and how resources, aid and development funding goes. For children.

There are no State of the Worlds Boys reports either, by the way. Not on the bloody UN website, or the WHO website or any other international global NGO. None. Not one. Nada. Zilch.

Oh wait – in 2011 boys got a mention, from Plan International: the Report is called – Because I am a Girl: So, what about boys?

This is what Plan International has to say about boys.

‘Because I am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls 2011 – So, what about boys?’ is the fifth in a series of annual reports published by Plan examining the rights of girls throughout their childhood, adolescence and as young women.

The report shows that far from being an issue just for women and girls, gender is also about boys and men, and that this needs to be better understood if we are going to have a positive impact on societies and economies.

Drawing on research and case studies, the report argues that working for equality must involve men and boys both as holders of power and as a group that is also suffering the consequences of negative gender stereotypes.

It also makes recommendations for action, showing policy makers and planners what can make a real difference to girls’ lives all over the world.

(emphasis added)

Aaaaawww, that’s nice, boys get mentioned – boys living in abject poverty, in terrible disadvantage and distress are described as “holders of power”

What doesn’t get mentioned is that that boys have rights – “…….throughout their childhood, adolescence and as young ..men”.

From the summary of the Report

Because I am a Girl: THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S GIRLS 2 011: YOUTH SUMMARY: So, what about boys?

This is how boys are viewed, will be viewed and no doubt will always be viewed as long as people like Nikki van Der Gaag have anything to do with children.

“So, why are we talking about boys?

The ‘Because I am a Girl’ report is still primarily a report about girls, and will continue to be about girls, but this year we are looking at why it is so important for men and boys to be a part of the solution in achieving gender equality. In many places support for equal opportunities for boys and girls does not exist. Men and boys are still the main decision makers in relationships, families, communities, businesses and governments. If projects and programmes throughout the world only work with women and girls we will struggle to make a difference.”

(emphasis added)

First, the fact that these people believe asking that question “So, why are we talking about boys?” is legitimate says everything you need to know about their ethos – the more legitimate question is this:

Why aren’t you talking about boys?

As unique human beings in their own right – with their own unique perspectives, thoughts, feelings, needs and wishes? Why are you not treating boys as equally valuable and worthwhile human beings, as INDIVIDUALS – not as some ever present problem FOR girls?

Why?

I typed International Day of The Boy Child into the UN search box – and I got 1,352 results – this is a list of the top twenty. On the UN Womens site http://www.unwomen.org/en – on the basis that – women – mothers – children – boys are children?

The Top Twenty Results

  1. International Day of the Girl Child 2012 – Date :February 7, 2013
  2. International Day of the Girl Child — “Innovating for Girls’ Education” – Date :January 13, 2013
  3. Joint Statement: International Day of the Girl Child 2012 – Date :October 10, 2012
  4. International Women’s Day 2013 – Date :May 9, 2013
  5. International Women’s Day 2013 – Date :May 9, 2013
  6. International Women’s Day 2014 – Date :May 9, 2013
  7. International Women’s Day 2015 – Date :May 9, 2013
  8. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  9. International Women’s Day 2012
  10. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  11. International Women’s Day 2012 – Date :February 8, 2013
  12. International Day of Older Persons – Date :October 1, 2012
  13. International Widows’ Day 2013 – Date :June 21, 2013
  14. International Day of Peace – Date :September 20, 2012
  15. International Day of the World’s Indigenous (women)Peoples – Date :August 8, 2013
  16. International Widows’ Day – 23 June 2011 – Date :June 23, 2011
  17. International Widows’ Day Conference at the House of Lords – Date :June 24, 2013
  18. International Women’s Day Celebration in Egypt – Date :March 8, 2012
  19. Media Advisory: International Widows’ Day Conference Date : June 22, 2011
  20. International Women’s Day Observances and Events Date : March 13, 2012

If you type the same search term into the main UN search box, the results are even more dispiriting see here.

 

The keyword that gets highlighted the majority of the time is the word “the” followed by “child” and “international” the word “BOY” simply does not register. At all. In the United Nations.

Because you see – ALL these organisations have been infested by feminist ideology and feminists – like Nikki Van Der Gaag.

As a feminist – you can be sure that NONE (or a miniscule amount) of funding/aid goes to little boys or young men – not in any significant amounts that is.

That’s what feminists do, have done, and will keep doing unless they are stopped, unless the vile ideology of feminism is rooted out from every single level of government and civil society.

Now, apparently Van Der Gaag is an expert on “men and masculinities” never mind she isn’t actually male, has zero experience of being male – she is an expert.

And eejits like Ian Hughes are so pathetically emasculated that he and his ilk (male feminists) parrot the unutterable crap that is spewed out from the likes of Van Der Gaag – writing articles entitled Why are men more violent than women?

Citing this wretch as a plausible “reference”

It sounds like I have a huge problem with resources, aid and funding being channelled to girls, doesn’t it?

I don’t – millions of girls in the world suffer all forms of abuse, disadvantage and distress – millions of them – SO DO MILLIONS OF BOYS! But you won’t hear a word about those little boys from Nikki Van Der Gaag.

You see – I’m NOT a feminist, so I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that millions of wee little lassies suffer unimaginable horrors, terrible disadvantage, poverty and trauma, as do millions of wee little laddies.

Because I’m NOT a feminist – I don’t see a “boy child” or a “girl child” and calculate a value or worth for that little creature based on their genitalia – I SEE A CHILD.

A child in need, a child who is suffering, a child who needs help.

From Nikki Van Der Gaag’s piece entitled Why involve men in work on gender equality? Link here.

“………there is suspicion from feminists, and from some women and women’s groups about working with men. (Not to mention the scepticism from some women and men about the value of gender work at all in our ‘post-feminist’ era). They question men’s motives. And they feel that the debate is hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women. They are right.”

There in a nutshell you have it – feminism’s greatest fear “hijacking the focus and the resources from work with women.”

Their second greatest fear is losing control of the discourse, of losing control of the narrative. But above and beyond all this, is that absolute dread, fear and terror that anyone in a position of power will start listening to the VOICES OF MEN!

The wrong sort of men – men who don’t give a shit about feminism, men who have listened to the “message of feminism” and declared it to be what it is.

Complete unutterable shoite. Poisonous, vile, malicious. Fraudulent CRAP!

To Ian Hughes and any other poor sap like him who thinks or believes that feminists like Nikki Van Der Gaag “has a point” here’s what she really thinks of you – as a man.

You are a penis wielding barbarian, your very sexuality is toxic, you are a perpetual threat and a danger to the safety and wellbeing of every single female who comes anywhere near to you. You are not to be trusted around children, especially female children and your very core being dictates that you dominate/enslave all women, everywhere.

Given half the chance you will beat the living shit of any woman who dares to oppose/defy/question you or your “male authority” which incidentally is bestowed upon you at the moment of your birth – even if you are born in a hovel in the worst hellhole on this planet – your tiny little baby penis has magic powers!

Speaking of your penis – it isn’t just a part of your body, part of the whole person that you are – it is a weapon, a device whose sole purpose is to harm, to punish, and to inflict violence – on women – all women. Whenever the opportunity arises – and – as a man – you are always on the lookout for that opportunity.

THAT’S what feminists absolutely believe you are – as a man – from the moment of your birth.

You made two mistakes when you penned your dire article Ian Hughes – first you swallowed without question the hypothesis that being male was inherently a bad thing – in effect you took upon yourself the belief that as a man – you were a flawed human being. YOU. As a man.

Secondly – you regurgitated the poisonous “theories” of not just one feminist but two without DOING YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

It took me less than two hours * to put together enough actual verifiable evidence to debunk, discredit and demolish your primary contention.

* To be fair, I had already downloaded Dr. Enda Dooley’s’ studies and the data from The Crime Council and The CSO – Central Statistics Office so, I’ll concede that it would have taken you more than two hours to gather the same evidence – except you didn’t bother

“Worldwide, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined. Why is this?”

And I went for a bloody walk halfway through!

I can already tell you that each and every one of the “five of the seven State of the World’s Girls reports” put together by Nikki Van Der Gaag will be full of inaccuracies, misinterpretations of data/statistics, deliberate fallacies and probably outright fraudulent assertions, and I haven’t read any of them yet – but I will – every single one. I can make this claim because Nikki Van der Gaag is a feminist – and feminist is just another way of saying – lying snivelling weasel.

 

 

 

 

Finally.

Question: How can you tell when a feminist is lying?

 

Answer: Her lips are moving!

 

To Boldly go………Absolutely NOWHERE good!

 

According to this next generation of baby feminists – you know the one’s I’m talking about –  the ones who write asinine little pieces and articles in online publications and blogs – the ones who took “women’s/gender studies classes in college and came out clutching their parchments in one sweaty hand while striding forward to take their place as the leaders and shakers of the world. During the last 10 to 15 years, they are the new fourth wave of 21st century feminism

Those baby feminists, those social justice warriors, those social and cultural “commentators” are here to take up the banner of feminism and achieve what previous “waves” of feminism have apparently failed to do, after over nearly 100 years or so of activity – equality. For women. (that’s some effective campaign you got going on there, if you haven’t achieved your goal after 100 years!)

Yep – according to them, feminism is about achieving equality – for WOMEN. That’s it, equality per se is never actually defined, a cogent analysis of where, what and how supposed “inequality” manifests itself is never offered – it just happens – so there! Not talking about bullshit “issues” like the “male gaze” or being “objectified” or a mythical “rape culture” which is simply a product of the fevered and over active imaginations of over sexualised sluts, and a device to keep feminists in lucrative jobs.

I have a few insights for them – first one being – they’re not really feminists – seriously – you’re not – oh you’ve got the jargon down pat, you may even have read a few tedious examples of feminist “literature” and some feminist “studies” but in general, you went into college with one huge disadvantage, and came out with a useless piece of paper and an attitude. A particularly nasty, unlikeable, and rather immature attitude. What you didn’t come out as was – educated.

What? I’m admitting that girls go into and come out of college with a disadvantage? Yep, I am, but before all my fellow MHRA’s get ready to take me to task – let me explain.

BOTH boys and girls leave school with an enormous disadvantage, which manifests itself differently in boys than it does in girls.

The problem for both boys and girls is the very nature of both primary/elementary and secondary school/high school – boys get discouraged from learning because how they like to learn is deemed to be “wrong” and girls get over encouraged, because how THEY like to learn is deemed “right”.

Neither approach achieves the things that school is meant to achieve – develop the ability or desire to continue learning, or to give students the learning tools they need to progress to next level – self-directed learning. –

The other problem of course is what and how girls are “taught” – girls are praised for being mediocre, for showing up, for producing sub-standard “work” for merely parroting what they are indoctrinated with. In effect, girls come out of secondary school with the intellectual and emotional maturity of 12 year olds, spoilt, obnoxious, shallow 12 year olds, and as tantrum throwing brats and total pains in the arse.

Over the last 20 years or so, colleges and universities have not just recognised, encouraged and facilitated this, but have tailored their “courses” the ones that the vast majority of girls take, to accommodate this lack of cognitive ability, lack of critical thinking ability and complete lack of ability to form either a coherent thought or express it in anything other than the most immature, superficial and to be blunt dumbest way.

While boys are more seriously disadvantaged by this less than adequate primary and secondary educational “experience” they have one singular advantage over girls – generally boys chose different areas of interest, they have different capabilities which are not dependant on their “feelings” and boys are capable to a greater extent than girls of self-directed learning, not just from an early age, but inherently.

Girls need to be coddled, encouraged, constantly praised for every little thing they do, girls want ongoing approval and gold stars – boys?  Boys will take apart a computer, a toaster, a car – just to see how it works – and more importantly WHY it works.

I realise I am making some rather grand sweeping assumptions here, and that there are exceptions, but this is not a academic essay outlining empirical conclusions – just a general overview of the phenomenon of the complete dumbing down of education, primary, secondary and college education – and a hypothesis that posits – the dumbing down starts on the first day of school. Boys can and do overcome it, girls chose not to.

Back to my original assertion – that our current crop of baby feminists are not really feminists. They couldn’t possibly be, for one simple reason, they are completely incapable of evaluating, comprehending or analysing anything but the most basic concepts. They come to college educated on a diet of soundbites, of superficial feelings based “opinions” and with an egocentric worldview that filters everything through the prism of HOW it makes them feel. The onus being on, if something makes them feel bad, it is bad. They are feminists in name only.

Now, while most of the “writings” of those pioneers of second and third wave feminism (the ones that find themselves onto college reading lists) are turgid incomprehensible academic gobbledygook, even this shoite is beyond the comprehension ability of our latest generation of baby feminists, oh yes they’ve probably “read” it, maybe even written assignments citing it, but in possession of an ability to critically assess or analysis it? Nope. Bit like eating corn, it goes in and comes out the other end looking more or less the same. (Sorry – gross image, but effective?)

Nothing makes an intellectual pygmy feel more “bad” than feeling like an intellectual pygmy. Struggling to understand concepts, being confused and unable to process complex or convoluted “philosophical” ideas – all this makes someone who has been indoctrinated to believe she is super special, super smart and super brilliant feel really REALLY bad, ergo – it is bad – and if it is bad – it is wrong. End of discussion. Unless it is feminist “thinking” then even though they haven’t really got a clue what the hell the “author” is on about – its feminism, its about WOMEN – ergo – it MUST be good! Duh!

Shall I pause while all those baby feminists finish spluttering in rage, get all that “how dare you tell me I’m not a feminist” ranting out of the way? Guuuuuuurls, here’s how it works, you don’t get to tell ANYONE what feminism is or isn’t – it’s an idea, a set of opinions, a mish mash of “concepts” put out there into the public domain – ergo – it is whatever those who evaluate it say it is. Get over it.

 Moving on.

Historically,  “women’s rights” advocates, and unlike feminists, and I DO draw a clear distinction between advocates for “women’s rights” and feminists – regardless of feminists efforts to not just rewrite history, but to assimilate into feminism some of those who would have been horrified to be associated with “feminism”  – anyway, they wrote some stuff – quite intellectual “stuff” the kind of “stuff” that would go completely over the heads of these baby feminists – and when I say “women’s rights” advocates, I don’t mean female suffragettes/ists either.

I’m using the word “stuff” so as not to scare all the baby feminists, or make them feel bad about themselves – also, I’m not talking about frustrated housewives (Betty Friedan) sociopaths (Valerie Solanas), self-promoting attention seeking hippies (Germaine Greer) seriously disturbed man-hating lesbians (Andrea Dworkin/Shulamith Firestone/Kate Millet) or even more seriously disturbed bitter and twisted legal experts (Catherine MacKinnon)

Nope – hard though this may be to believe – the world of intellectual, philosophical thinking DIDN’T begin on the 1st January 1959.  Perhaps even harder for you all to believe, women contributed very little to the canon of philosophical thinking and literature – which is probably why you’ve never actually been exposed to these great thinkers – the emphasis being on the word “thinkers”

What all you baby feminists are is Gynocentrists – you are all simply whining and wailing for a world where being female means being endowed with special privileges, with unearned adoration for being born, with an unlimited and ever expanding freedom to be as obnoxious, as vicious, as criminal, as abusive, as nasty, as vile, as inhumane, as toxic, as stupid, as murderous, as avaricious, as greedy, as unethical, as egotistical and narcissistic as you like – and to be allowed to get away with it.

You could give a rat’s arse about “rights” – Human Rights – what you care about is maintaining and expanding female privilege.

Misguided, deluded and disturbed as most of those second and third wave pioneer feminists I mentioned above are and were, they did superficially “care” about “women’s rights” – granted they were completely wrong, and indulged themselves in major histrionic meltdowns about MINOR issues that were and would have been resolved in a reasonable and intelligent way – but – to be fair – now and again – they made some MINOR valid points, about societal attitudes prevalent at that time – but one does not and cannot legislate for “attitudes” for cultural mores – nor does one campaign for “rights” that can only be achieved by depriving others (men and boys) of theirs.

So, they launched a campaign of whining, of political nagging, of tantrum throwing, of petty vicious and nasty social, cultural and legal aggression. They bullied, coerced, blackmailed and LIED.

Feminism was and is a campaign for INEQUALITY if it is anything. From a legislative perspective, there are no rights that men have that women DON’T HAVE – in fact the reverse is true – it is Men’s Human Rights that have been systematically stripped from them over the last 50 or so years.

So, to all you baby feminists, not only are you not feminists but Gynocentrists, you are all, without exception as dumb as a bag of hammers. Read a goddamn book now and again – would you? Take a look in a mirror at yourselves, try to imagine for one instant when you’re being YOU what other people see.

In fact, rather than dismissing what the MHRM says about females like you – consider this – it isn’t them – it IS you – you are everything and more we say you are – even on your best day – most of you are barely tolerable human beings. You are enveloped in an invisible cloud of nastiness, vanity, shallowness, egotism and narcissism that completely blinds you to what you really are. Not super special, NOT super smart, NOT super brilliant, and with the intellectual depth of a puddle, but more than this, you are invariably:

Exceptionally nasty human beings.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014