There Is a Disturbance In The Force…….

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link here http://gynocentrism.com/

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

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

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

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

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

Put rather simplistically – who controls the flow of information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much more could you possible want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of those factors impact upon both men and women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Stolen childhoods and blighted lives – child abuse in industrial schools

We have an ignoble history, generations of Irish boys and girls endured the horrors of a devils pact bewteen Church and State – there are those in our country who are still living with the horror of what was done do them.
As a nation – there are many conversations we still need to have – painful conversations – we need to face our past, honestly, truthfully and without flinching, otherwise our future will be forever blighted in more ways than one.

Survivor's Who Stand Together

Stolen childhoods and blighted lives – child abuse in industrial schools

The abuse detailed in the report by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was described by Enda Kenny as 'torture, pure and simple'.
The abuse detailed in the report by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was described by Enda Kenny as ‘torture, pure and simple’.

In the course of compiling her book, ‘Stolen Lives’, Bette Brown has come to believe that the abuse of children in industrial schools was one of the darkest chapters in Ireland’s history.

TOWER BRIDGE stands majestically in the morning sunlight above the Saturday strollers. Among them, Mary Collins is admiring the scene in the city of London that she now calls home but her peace is fleeting.

Fear suddenly seizes her like a physical grip on the back of her head and she is a little girl again, running with her mother through…

View original post 1,518 more words

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

 

THE FAMILY

 

ARTICLE 41

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

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

 

Text here of 2012 version of Bunreacht na hEireann.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1

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

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

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

Page 8

One of the most significant cases was this one:

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

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

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

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

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

vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

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

A literal translation of the Irish text reads as follows:

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

Page 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 20

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

Articles 41.2.1o and 41.2.2o read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Catherine Lawless

Director/Academic Co-ordinator

 

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

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

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

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

And who is or rather was Professor Diana Leonard?

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

But – that is changing and will change.

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

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

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

 

All extracts from:

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

Ó Government of Ireland 1999

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014