Irish Politics: Dumb, Deranged Feminist Award Goes To……………………………

 

Alison O’Connor of the Irish Examiner for this pathetic little screed, entitled “Same old Territory for the election of women

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/alison-oconnor/alison-oconnor-same-old-territory-for-the-election-of-women-980979.html

Sigh.

No doubt it would be futile to explain to this asinine womyn and her ilk a simple fact – the operative word in her title is the word ELECTION.

Now, I know femtards struggle with language, with the actual meaning of words – after all a word is whatever any random aggrieved deranged psychologically dysfunctional femtard decides it means, depending on their mood, the tides, messages from the great vagina in the sky, how effective their medication is etc. – but in the context of politics, the word ELECTION has one, and only one meaning.

TO CHOOSE – to ‘elect” to decide, based on several options, WHO the elector wishes to give their vote to!

See Alison – not complicated.

Unlike Ms. O’Connor’s screed – which is very complicated – full of percentages, numbers, ratios, woven around a tiresome whiny petulant Nancy Pelosi type tantrum – you know the one – I twied and twied to get my own way and I didn’t, so am going to have a global hissy fit to show how “classy” how gwacious I am…………….NOT.

Would someone please put that bloody womyn (Nancy Pelosi) in a quiet room somewhere, take away all her toys until she learns how to play with grown-ups.

Anyhoo – back to Alison – I have a question – did you look at any of the polls done before the election to see what were the issues that dominated the concerns of the Irish ELECTORATE?

I mean, even a quick glance perhaps – allow me to remind you, from your own paper!

What issues will dominate the 2020 General Election campaign?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/what-issues-will-dominate-the-2020-general-election-campaign-975429.html

“As the start of the 2020 General Election campaign gets under way, two major issues are expected to dominate political battle.

Fine Gael will have to defend their stance and performance on the state of the health service and the worst-ever housing crisis to hit Ireland.

Did you not see that Alison – HOUSING AND HEALTH.

Please feel free to do your own research Alison – oh wait….feminists don’t do research – feminists do tantrums, whines, hissy fits, and of course, if you don’t pick me its because you’re a…………………..fill in the blanks yourselves – how about this for a reason why the Irish Electorate didn’t VOTE based on what a candidate had in their knickers – because they didn’t CHOOSE TO, based on policies, performance, past political record, and a myriad other reasons why a reasonably intelligent ADULT evaluates a candidate, and then exercises their Constitutional Right to vote for whoever they bloody want to vote for.

Sometimes, people don’t vote for a candidate because they simply don’t like them – i.e. they are not likable.

Whatever the reason – if your “preferred” candidates (female) didn’t “get picked” for team vagina – here’s my advice – shut up, suck it up – and perhaps go rip up some paper till you calm down.

I’ll make it easy for you Alison – I’m a woman (biologically female) have been since the day I was conceived – many many years ago I lived in Roisin Shortall’s constituency – have met Ms. Shortall, liked her, intelligent, articulate and very likable – didn’t vote for her – because I didn’t support her particular political stance.

By the way – congratulations Ms. Shortall, well done, while I personally have never voted for you, I have always admired your sincerity, your commitment to your constituents and your obvious intelligence and sound political instincts. Well done.

Congratulations also to Ms. Mary Lou McDonald, again, never would vote for you, but have to say you are also an intelligent articulate and committed person – don’t agree with a single word you say – but congratulations.

Have met quite a few politicians in my time, both male and female, and do know what Alison, I’ve never voted for a female politician, NEVER, I’ve also never voted for an equal number of male politicians, in other words you dumb airhead, what they had, or in this day and age, what they claim to have in their knickers is irrelevant to me – I vote based on their POLICIES, or at least their stated policies, I vote based on their record and as above on a myriad other factors.

I vote because I have the right to exercise  CHOICE – neither you or any other brain dead femtard twat gets to whine, lecture or disdain ANY Irish Citizen who does not vote in compliance with some “gender” agenda dictated to them from a great height by a brain dead femtard who also doesn’t understand another word

DEMOCRACY.

Heres’ an interesting quote from this fool’s article:

“Then you have the Social Democrats with their joint female co-leaders Catherine Murphy and Róisín Shortall. That party had a 57% female election candidate slate.

They steadily and thoroughly went about the business of the campaign and managed to get themselves re-elected, as well as the aforementioned Holly Cairns in Cork South West, Garry Gannon in Dublin Central, and likely Cian O’Callaghan in Dublin Bay North and Jennifer Whitmore in Wicklow.

So, in that instance, you would have the highly unusual scenario of an Irish political party — albeit a small one — dominated by women.”

It would appear that Alison is cool with a political party “dominated by women” but not so cool with one dominated by men!

Hmmmmm, cognitive dissonance anyone?

Finally – throughout this pathetic excuse for an article – did Alison focus on any the above-mentioned female politician’s policies, ideological stance (whatever it may be) perhaps their past record, or even their parties Agendas for governing this State?

Did she?

Of course, she bloody didn’t – the one and only thing that defines these particular politicians is that they all (allegedly) have a vagina. That’s it.

You know, if I was Roisin Shortall or Mary Lou McDonald – I’d be insulted that some brain dead twat disregarded my intelligence, my hard work, my commitment to a particular political stance, the time I’ve taken to develop and hone said political stance and reduced me down to a bag of flesh attached to a vagina.

Or is it just that feminists believe that the site of reason, logic, intelligence and sentience is located between their legs? That the first thing reasonable people want to know about a prospective candidate is “oh my God, does it have a vagina?”

Shut up Alison – you stupid stupid ridiculous womyn.

 

Slainte

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well Done Great Britain. Happy Brexit Day.

 

To the people of Great Britain, congratulations and well done for standing up to the undemocratic EU, for showing the world, including my own nation Ireland, that it is possible to stand up to, face down, and win against political bullies, unelected “elites” and neo-liberal idiots, for being strong and steadfast in the face of overwhelming scorn, intimidation, disdain and attempted silencing of your deeply held and sincere beliefs and convictions.

 

Well done, you have my admiration and respect, as an Irish citizen for standing up for your country, for re-claiming your right to decide your own destiny, for re-asserting your right to be a sovereign Nation, and to be governed by people you elect to make laws, not have laws/regulations/directives imposed upon you by unelected bureaucrats.

As Nations, we have had our difficulties, our problems and our clashes, but, no Nation, no peoples are perfect and the record shows that Great Britain has given more to the world than it ever took away.

 

I would like to recommend this interview as possibly one of the clearest, most intelligent discussion of the whole Brexit saga.

 

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

 

 

Sláinte agus ádh mór

(Good health and good luck)

Stop Talking About Fathers Rights – Start Talking About Children’s Rights.

 

I’ve been keeping an eye on a “Fathers Rights” facebook page (Fathers Rights Ireland) for about six months now, and reading some of the posts of the person who appears to be “in charge” of this page I have come to the conclusion that this person is not only ill-informed, but is definitely NOT someone to whom a father in the distressing situation of being alienated from his child(ren) should be listening to, taking “advice” from or supporting. At all. This person if I may use the vernacular is a lunatic – an ill-informed, hysterical, ranting lunatic.

Having said that – he (I presume the person of charge of this facebook page is a he) does post links to relevant newspaper articles etc. – his problem is simple though – he reacts emotionally and subjectively to practically every item and lacks the ability or the will to analyse OBJECTIVELY and calmly the CONTENTS of these “links” with a view to furthering, in any meaningful way, the recognition and APPLICATION of the CURRENT law in any case, or use any “judgement” as supportive of an application in ANOTHER case – i.e. YOUR case.

Therein lies the problem with these kinds of groups – they are so blinded by their rage and self-referential “hurt” that they have a tendency to just fling accusations of “conspiracy” and “fraud” and malfeasance against…..well everybody and anybody – most especially judges, solicitors, state agencies – in particular – TUSLA. (What I am saying here is that these are unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and that they are counter-productive and irrelevant and will not HELP you in any meaningful way when YOU are the one standing in Court in front of a judge pleading YOUR case, unless you have actual EVIDENCE to support these allegations specific to YOUR case)

I might add, if you do go into Court ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” in a random and unhinged manner (and yes, I have seen this) you will come across as unhinged. Let me be blunt – if the object in “going to Court” is to do with access/custody of your children – first familiarise yourself with the law regarding children, second INVOKE your Children’s Rights – third – make a rational, intelligent, INFORMED argument – supported by case law – and make it all about YOUR CHILDREN. What actually pisses me off about a lot of these so-called Fathers Rights Groups is this – there is always a “leader” a loud-mouthed arrogant egotistical arsehole who is so enraged at what he perceives as how hard done by he is that EVERYTHING is about his ego-driven agenda – and yes I know – I’ve heard all the bullshit that “it’s all about the kids” – it isn’t – that he then manages to gather a group around him and they follow like sheep – sometimes, genuinely distressed fathers – genuine fathers who are floundering as to what to do about the awful situation they find themselves in, and end up listening to and reading the utter tripe these idiots spout out.

Guys – just because YOU don’t know what to do, just because you’ve found this loud mouthed arsehole pontificating about “Fathers Rights” just because, in a million years you never thought you’d find yourself in this position – it doesn’t mean that first loud-mouthed arsehole you come across, on the internet or at a “Fathers Rights” meeting has all the answers or ANY of the answers.

The clue is this – if you have to go to Court to try and get access/custody of your children – then what you need to inform and arm yourself with IS THE BLOODY LAW. From the source – not from some idiot on the internet, or some loudmouth running “Fathers Rights” meetings.

If you actually believe that some loud-mouthed arsehole on the internet ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” to a bunch of sheep-like “followers” on a facebook page is going to have ANY impact at all when YOU are the one standing in front of a Judge in a Court then you are sadly mis-informed.

To put it bluntly – you don’t get to choose the battleground (The Court) you don’t get to dictate how the Court operates – its been operating for several hundred years – what YOU get to do is choose which weapons you bring onto the battleground – those weapons are THE LAW – both legislation and case law – both of which you are free to use in your presentation – and present the Court with an interpretation of either or both (preferably both) that supports YOUR APPLICATION.  You have an array of legislation, of Human Rights Instruments and CASE LAW to choose from – it is up to you to ARGUE your case and persuade the Court that your argument is SOUND.

Now – before I go any further with this – let me make my position clear.

I am absolutely totally and adamantly NOT a feminist – I loathe feminism, in all its putrid, toxic manifestations with a passion – I absolutely endorse without equivocation the presumption IN LAW that parents are jointly endowed with EQUAL responsibilities to their child (ren)

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse the presumption IN LAW that children are entitled to maintain without interference, conditionality or “ranking” a parent/child relationship (with all that this entails) with BOTH parents.

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse that it is CHILDREN who are endowed with RIGHTS and parents who are endowed with RESPONSIBILITIES – to the children.*

*I will post the skeleton argument that “Joint Legal Custody” of Children is already presumed in Law – in a day or two – with supporting case law.

The legal nuance here is this – the parental “Rights” that are being violated are the “Rights” of parents to be allowed to fulfill THEIR obligations and duties AS A PARENT to their child.

Ergo – to speak of “Fathers Rights” or for that matter “Mothers Rights” is to ignore a fundamental basic fact – you CANNOT “be” a parent unless you have a child – your “Rights” as a “parent” are absolutely and solely dependent on the existence OF A LIVING CHILD.

Ergo your “Rights” are secondary and subservient to the innate and inherent “Rights” of the child as a vulnerable person entitled to the full and absolute protection of THEIR human rights – one of which is to have the protection, guidance and benefit of A PARENT taking full responsibility for the health, welfare, safety and well-being of that child.

Your “Rights” as “a parent” or “Legal Guardian” are that YOU be allowed to fulfil and exercise YOUR obligations and duties in ensuring the health, welfare, safety and well-being of THAT CHILD.

If – you are prevented from fulfilling your obligations and duties to your child – it is NOT “Your Rights” as an individual human being that are being violated – IT IS YOUR CHILDS HUMAN RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED.

So please – shut up about “your rights” shut up about “Fathers Rights” SHUT UP about how hard done by you are, SHUT UP ranting and raving about “conspiracies” and “fraud” and whatever other ridiculous nonsensical and IRRELEVANT matter that appears to ignite and trigger innumerable badly written, ill-informed and hysterical “posts” on various different facebook page and blogs.

It might sound obvious, though I sincerely doubt it – but the area of LAW all you so-called “Fathers Rights” groups and coalitions are enmeshed in is FAMILY LAW, and while for these purposes The Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 primarily addresses the LEGAL issue of dissolving a lawfully constituted MARRIAGE in Ireland – one can be married without having children. The Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989 addresses issues when two legally married people wish to dissolve and divest themselves of any legal obligations to the other spouse.

The canon of “Family Law” that addresses issues with regard to CHILDREN only, are primarily contained in other legislation, (Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964) in effect the only substantive legal issue directly impacting upon ADULTS in the context of “Family Law” is simple – dissolving a marriage/ending a marriage BETWEEN ADULTS. And yes, children and issues around children are contained in these two pieces of legislation – the point I am making here is this – draw a distinct line between issues that ONLY effect ADULTS and issues that affect CHILDREN.

No longer being married to the other parent of a child should only impact ON THE ADULTS – not the children – no longer living with the other parent of a child should only impact on the ADULTS – not the children – in other words – your “living arrangements” should absolutely NOT impact on the parental relationship between a child and BOTH his/her parents – at all. Ever. Any person who uses a change in their living arrangements with the other parent as an excuse to interfere with the child’s relationship with that other parent is violating THE CHILDS RIGHTS.

And no – I’m not getting into a discussion about spousal support, division of assets, etc. – again – WITHOUT children IN the mix – those are legal issues BETWEEN ADULTS, and yes involve a separate but connected area of the toxic culture engendered by an endorsement of the “feminist” perspective on how “strong and independent” and “you go girl” wimmin are. Sigh.

Though I have often thought that “wimmin” of a certain type (which is most of them) should really be treated as having the same lack of mental/legal capacity as children – and dealt with accordingly – a discussion for another time.

Moving on.

What triggered this response? First, though I rarely respond or comment on other people’s blogs, or posts on facebook (never) in particular blogs or posts by Fathers Rights activists I have, to be blunt, a low opinion of most of the content – in particular content that bangs on and on about “the law” or erroneous “judgements” yet do not link or reference the law or judgement they are – banging on about with one notable exception – ExInjuria https://exinjuria.wordpress.com/about/ Nick Langford writes and analyses with clarity and precision any issue of law he addresses. I highly recommend a visit to his site.

So, the first “post” that irritated me was posted on the 25th December 2018 and contained a link to this article Abducted by a parent: Heartbreaking cases of the Hague Convention Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 02:00

Colm Keena

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abducted-by-a-parent-heartbreaking-cases-of-the-hague-convention-1.3740959?fbclid=IwAR3FgzFr6u-IL07kQSG-aSnp2W1x3_05uCaPaZfnR6uFKj0MI6BfrQbAozw

Before I get into dissecting this article – this is what irritates me – if you are purporting to “advise” people about a specific topic, or equally are purporting to be “helping” other people – in particular with regard to a legal issue, and ever more particularly with regard to a family law issue – and you actually want to help the people you are purporting to help – here’s a bit of useful ADVICE.

Reference the goddam Law – post a link to the bloody JUDGEMENT(S) – so that people can read for themselves – so that people can download the judgement or the piece of legislation and DO THEIR OWN BLOODY ANALYSES.

But to pontificate and spew out ill-informed rubbish about what you think it means or even worse simply regurgitate what another ill-informed idiot on the internet has concluded this or that ruling/judgement/determination means is beyond arrogant, beyond vanity, beyond egotistical bullshit – it is venal and self-aggrandizing in the extreme.

So, lets take this article and see is there anything in it that could possibly be useful for a person in that situation to know?  Is there anything there that could direct or guide a person in that situation in the preparation of their case?

Several things.

First the name of the Judge tasked with dealing with “Hague Convention” cases is Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh – at this juncture I would point out that at various times different judges are assigned different areas of law. In this instance – to repeat – Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh was assigned “Hague Convention” cases – abduction cases – that is children abducted FROM this jurisdiction to another jurisdiction by one parent.

The next thing I would point out is this – the vast majority of Family Law hearings are in camera – i.e. the public is excluded from the court with a few exceptions – which we will get into another time.

But – the JUDGEMENTS- in particular those that may have a public interest element – are PUBLISHED with all identifying information anonymized. On the court’s website – www.courts.ie

So, this constant bleating about “secret courts” is nonsense – it is the IDENTITY of the parties that is “hidden” NOT either the nature and facts of a particular case or the issues of LAW being determined.

Are all judgements published? Nope – not all – but most.

Try this – google www.courts.ie

On the right-hand side underneath “online” the third option down is “Judgements and Determinations” click on it.

Across the top on the first menu line you will find three options:

1. Judgements by Year, 2. Judgements by Court and 3. Judgements by Judge.

Underneath you will find three more menu options – the first is “Determinations” these are rulings of the Supreme Court – the next two are “Judgements Help” and “Disclaimer and Copyright”

Click on “Judgements by Judge” and scroll down and search for Ni Raifeartaigh J.

What you should notice is that EVERY judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is listed – all you have to do is click on the little blue triangle beside each judge’s name and a FULL list of their published judgements comes up.

Try it – click on any judge’s name – and then scroll through the list of judgements – on the right-hand side of this list you will see WHICH Court any particular judgement was given in – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court – what you should also notice is that ALL judgements to do with ANY aspect of Family Law or to do with children is listed with INITIALS ONLY.

E.g.:  if you right click on the DATE 11/21/2018 R.B. -v- D.K OF THIS LISTING and click “open in a new tab”. (the reason for doing this is to keep the list OPEN.

What comes up is this: the judgement is the case of R.B – v – D.K neutral citation [2018] IEHC 728:

The “Title” with ALL identifiers anonymized is:

“THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL

ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND

IN THE MATTER OF N. B., A CHILD

BETWEEN:

R.B.

Applicant

-AND-

D.K.

Respondent

Judgment of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 21st day of November 2018

Nature of case

  1. This is a case in which the applicant (the father of a child) seeks the return of the child to England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”) and EU Council Regulation 2201/2003. The child, N, who is three years old, is currently living in Ireland with his mother, the respondent in these proceedings. The date upon which they came to live in Ireland is the core matter in dispute in the case. Counsel on both sides of the case agreed that there was a single net issue in the case, namely as to where the child had its habitual residence at the relevant time, and that the Court was required to resolve a conflict of fact in this regard.”

What follows is the judgement – in full – in detail. Study it.

I will confine myself to just posting the Conclusion here paras 34 – 36

“34.     In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the child N has been the subject of a wrongful retention in Ireland because the applicant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the child’s habitual residence had not changed as of the end of April/beginning of May 2018 when his mother refused to return him to England. For completeness, I also find that, insofar as the respondent relies upon the defence of consent, she has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the father gave his consent either to a permanent removal or retention of the child in Ireland. I will therefore make an order for the return of the child to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  1. In order to allow for an appeal, I will place a stay upon the execution of this order pending the expiry of the time limit for an appeal, with time of course running from the date of the perfection of the relevant order for the child’s return.

 

  1. I would like to refer this judgment to the Irish immigration authorities for further investigation, having regard to some of the evidence in the case. However, as this is an in camera matter, such a move needs to be approached with caution and I will not take any step in that direction without alerting the parties in the first instance and giving them an opportunity to address me on any relevant law. This should not prevent the perfection of the order and the progress of any appeal with regard to the Hague Convention issues.”

(emphasis added)

As you can see Her Honour Judge Ni Raifeartaigh ordered the child abducted from the UK by his mother, who re-located in Ireland RETURNED to the UK.

I strongly suggest to study this judgement and some of Ni Raifeartaighs other judgements in detail to get a clear grasp of the legal principles that are applied in these kinds of cases.

Moving on. If you look up to the top of the page – the one with the judgement on it – you will see another menu bar: above the dark blue line that says Judgements and Determinations: Homepage – just above that you will see a button that says “Printable Version

So, whatever judgement you have decided to look at – you then think to yourself – “I’d like to have a printed copy of that”

Ok so – click on “Printable Version” and voila – a small print box opens and all you have to do is decide, for example, how many copies of this judgement do I want? Do I want it in black or white or in colour – then click print.

One thing to watch out for – if you click on “Printable Version” and the print preview just shows blank pages – this means the judgement hasn’t downloaded properly – close the print box and click the “Printable Version” button again until you see the message “loading preview” what happens – as far as I know – I have a tendency to leave all the little “print boxes” open and the thing seems to get stuck – as soon as I close those open boxes it seems to “unstick it”

I would suggest that you take your time and explore the courts service website – EVERYTHING you need to know about how the courts function in this jurisdiction is literally there at your fingertips – Rules of the Court – Court Forms – Practice Directions* – EVERYTHING.

*HC051 – This is Practice Direction 051 – the HC stands for High Court – click on the blue link on this page and a word version of this Practice Direction – FOR FAMILY LAW IN THE HIGH COURT – will download for you.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/bec9deb0b6dae2a980258121003f3720?OpenDocument

If you click on “Home” on the left-hand side of the Courts website, you will see a list – the list is headed in bold “For Court Users” click on the links and they bring you to different areas. Court Rules, Court Forms, etc. THAT’S where you can find everything you need to know about how the Courts works, what the rules are, and what “Forms” you need to use for different kinds of Applications/Motions – not from some twat on the internet or on facebook.

You really don’t need some idiot on the internet pontificating and blustering and talking shoite about “how the courts work” or giving you his “version” of how to go about doing something in court – it’s all there – and yes I appreciate that for a lay litigant it can be very difficult to get your head around some of the “Rules” or figure out how to use the various “Templates” for different kinds of applications – but – if you just take your time – any reasonably intelligent person can – with a little hard work figure it out, least anyone opines that I am just another idiot pontificating – you might note that I am directing you to independent OFFICIAL sources where you can find out for yourself what the law is, what the Rules of the Court are and where they can be found, and where to find judgements.

For EVERYTHING to do with “going to Court” there is a Law or a provision of Law, there is a “Rule” and there is a Form, on top of all that, there are ways of doing something, and that is contained in the Practice Directions – they all function together.

Let me give you some unsolicited “advice” advice I was given in law school – every judgement has some discussion about how this or that rule or law works or is applied – EVERY judgement – it is in effect a practical demonstration of how the law operates or in some instances doesn’t operate – read them – read them thoroughly and LEARN how the inert words of the written law come to life in a practical way by studying how those “words” are brought to life and applied in real life situations.

READ the judgements – and read them again – until – hopefully a light bulb goes off in your head and you have a “eureka” moment.

Whatever you do – do not base your case on the ill-informed rantings of some idiot on the internet or most definitely not on the idiots “interpretation” of a “judgment” or commentary on an article about a “judgement” find and read the judgement YOURSELF – make up your own mind – apply the facts of the case (in the judgement you are reading) to your situation and see if there is something in there that is applicable IN YOUR CASE. And no, the facts in the case do not have to be exactly the same as in your case – you are looking for areas of general commonality – not an exact replica – similar NOT the same.

THAT’S how you ‘Do law”

Because here a fundamental basic fact.

If you are embroiled in a Family Law case in this jurisdiction – Ireland – you will end up in an IRISH Court – and you can bitch and moan and rant and rave all you like but – it is the Law as it stands NOW – it will be the Rules of the Court as they stand NOW that will be applied – NOT what some idiot on the internet “thinks” the law should be, or believes it to be or claims is ought to be – it is the law as contained in Acts of the Oireachtas, Statutory Instruments, ALL available to you at www.irishstatutebook.ie at the click of a mouse.

Your “argument” or your “pleadings” should be grounded on how the current law is being applied – and if it is being applied or “enforced” arbitrarily, prejudicially or unfairly then MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

Finally – if you want to “talk about rights” then I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the text of these documents – and again, not on some idiot on the internet rantings about “rights”

European Convention on Human Rights*

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

*Transposed into Irish Domestic Law with; The European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 – found at www.irishstatutebook.ie

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

UN Convention on The Rights of The Child

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

To start with.

Then do some study on these:

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015, Family Law Act, 1995, Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989.

I’m not giving you a link to these – you can easily find them and ALL amendments to any provision of these Acts at www.irishstatutebook.ie it will be good practice – if you are serious about addressing YOUR legal ISSUES in a clear, INFORMED and intelligent way.

If you do decide to “look up the law” then read the whole Act – yes – all of it – no piece of legislation exists in a vacuum – you might read in section 6 (a) (i) something that applies directly to your case – BUT – if you see the phrase “subject to the provisions of section 14, then there is a proviso – i.e. this section ONLY applies if the provisions of the other section are fulfilled AS WELL.

Having said all that – I am perfectly aware that in provincial circuits – in particular the Midland Circuit – which is the one I am most familiar with – the law is NOT applied either with fairness or without prejudice – to fathers in particular.

I am also perfectly aware that most if not all Family Law proceedings begin in either the District Court or the Circuit Court – and the Orders made in some instances are…………………. staggeringly bad law.

Again, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court with regard to two distinct legal process’s – An Appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court (bearing in mind if the Order in dispute was originally granted in the District Court you will have to Appeal to the Circuit first) and the Rules governing Judicial Review.

Please note: There are THREE sets of Rules of the Court – Rules of The Superior Court and Rules of The Circuit Court and Rules of The District Court

See here: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/webpages/bb9a582b582f736880256d2b003f6633?OpenDocument&l=en&p=042

Before “moving” on any matter – in other words before making an application/motion etc. or launching an “Appeal” from the Circuit Court to the High Court – READ THIS.

ORDER 61

Rules of the Superior Courts Order: 61; Appeals from the Circuit Court

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/d5629e64d4c7cae680256d2b0046b3ae?OpenDocument

Pay particular attention to the emboldened parts:

  1. In this Order:

“the Act” means the Courts of Justice Act, 1936:

“County Registrar” includes any deputy County Registrar and any person appointed to act as such Registrar or deputy and also where the context permits, any person appointed to act as Registrar to the High Court on Circuit.

  1. Every appeal under Part IV of the Act shall be by notice of appeal which shall be served on every party directly affected by the appeal within ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced in open court. The notice shall state whether the whole or part only of such judgement or order is appealed from and in the latter case shall specify such part. The notice shall, in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin, be for the first opportunity after the expiration of ten days from the date of service, and, in the case of appeals to the High Court on Circuit, be for the next sitting of the High Court on Circuit after the expiration of the said ten days. Such notice of appeal shall be either in the Form No. 1 or the Form No. 2 (as the case may be) in Appendix I.

 

  1. The appellant shall, within the said period of ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced,

(a)        in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin lodge two copies of the notice of appeal,”

NOW – Print out (printable version – look up) and study Order 61 – including the links above the body of this Order – they contain amendments made to the Order.

Click on EVERY link in the body of the text of this Order and study ALL of it. The above is ONLY an EXTRACT from Order 61 – of – The Rules of The Superior Courts.

The second procedure I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with is Judicial Review.

Order 84 – Judicial review and orders affecting personal liberty

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument

Last but not least – if you are claiming that the “other side” has failed to adhere to a provision of any Rule of The Court – this is how you might state it:

Example of how to phrase and cite a provision of an “Order of The Court – in this instance Order 61, Rule 2.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Order 61, Rule 2, The (Applicant/Respondent] delete whichever one is not applicable – i.e. if you’re “The Applicant” delete the brackets, the forward slash and the word “Applicant” ) Respondent failed to serve a Notice of Appeal within ten days of the pronouncement of the Order granted on the………day of……….20…..granting Joint Legal Custody of the two minor children [……] and […..] to me, their Father and Legal Guardian. Her attempt to now Appeal said Order is out of time, being 18 months since the Order of the……. day of……….20….. was granted.”

(This an example of how you could cite a Rule of the Court – do it your own way – as long as you correctly cite whichever “Rule” of whichever “Order” you are invoking/relying on)

Before you all go mad and rush out to lodge Appeals or Applications for Judicial Review of a lower courts decision that affects you – READ THE RULES FIRST then READ THE BLOODY CASE LAW.

You are NOT automatically “entitled” to succeed on an Appeal or an Application for Leave to file a Judicial Review just because you are aggrieved by a decision of a lower Court – YOU MUST HAVE STATEABLE GROUNDS.

You must have an “arguable case” and that “argument” MUST be grounded in law – supported by previous CASE LAW – so again – read the bloody case law – read the law – familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court.

The second time this group/person really pissed me off and irritated me, triggering this response was a post on the 26th January 2019 linking to this article.

Mum loses custody of three children after coaching them to badmouth her ex husband; Nic Brunetti; Thursday 24 Jan 2019 1:54 pm

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/24/mum-loses-custody-of-three-children-after-coaching-them-to-badmouth-her-ex-husband-8385971/?fbclid=IwAR2xxTV-1L70EtThWW61CZQsVAVbnb2x5qJMQKML2gBLqasGzQqUvW5KkZc

The “comments” to this posting of this “article” are inane in the extreme – what surprised was no-one asked for a link to the judgement itself! Nor I might add this the “leader” of this group Fathers Rights Ireland supply a link to the judgement!

Perhaps this idiot thought he or his sheep-like followers could just stroll into Court with a copy of the Metro article clutched in their hot sweaty hands and they could just wave it around in front of the judge and he/she would be overcome with the brilliance of their “presentations” hmmmmm.

At that point I knew this guy was a pure gobshoite, a self-serving egotistical arsehole with zero real interest in “helping fathers” a ridiculous fool ranting and raving from behind his keyboard to massage his own inflated ego.

Here is the link to the judgement https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.html&query=(ZE17C00740)

Here is the printable PDF version  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.pdf

It is Case No: ZE17C00740 in the Family Court at Croydon on Wednesday the 22nd August 2018.

It is an extraordinary judgement for its clarity, for the depth of analysis of the substantive issues by His Honour Judge Charles Atkins and for his grasp of the fundamental damage done to children by “Parental Alienation”

What this judgement also is – is something YOU can use in an Irish Court to lend weight and AUTHORITY to YOUR case.

Download this judgement – study it – and study it again. Now you have something of substance to get your teeth into – and stop listening to or reading bullshit from gobshoites.

With regard to ‘Hague Convention” cases – download this judgement – study it – and study it again.

G.T and K.A.O and The Attorney General [2007] IEHC 326

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/e77d90ebb1cd0ca88025739900341ef8?OpenDocument

When I get a bit more time, I will post a list of cases that address different issues in “Family Law” cases both Irish, UK and other common law jurisdictions.

DISCLAIMER: Just in case some petulant arsehole gets the hump and decides that I am “unlawfully” giving “legal advice” here’s my disclaimer.

  1. Bite me
  2. I am NOT purporting to give anyone legal advice – I am pointing you to legitimate and accredited SOURCES of information that if you chose to access, will assist you greatly in applying the law to whatever “Case” or legal difficulty you might have.
  3. You are perfectly free to chose to click on any link I have posted here – what you do with it after that is entirely up to you – if you then go ahead and use any of the information I have linked to here and it goes pear-shaped for you – your problem, not mine.

Now – if the person or persons I have “had a go at” decides to get all “internetty” and post shit about me or engages in the usual…what do feminists call it……. whatever it is that feminists are always whining about……amounts to saying mean things about them on the internet.

My response? Bite me.

But – if you do step over the bounds of normal rational or acceptable behavior and it impacts me personally and out here in the real world – I will come after you – I will drag your sorry arse into Court – and I WILL personally rip you a new one – in Court.

Just so you know – as far as I am concerned – you do NOT represent the vast majority of fathers who are being put through the ringer in Family Courts in this jurisdiction, you are NOT a spokesman for any of them – you are NOT evolved enough, competent enough, informed enough, intelligent enough or decent enough to speak for anyone – especially NOT fathers.

You are an ignorant ill-informed arsehole who just wants a platform who spew out his self-serving bullshit, bullshit and mis-information that will actively sabotage, de-rail and damage the case of a DECENT father struggling with the toxic effects of being alienated from his children. So.  SHUT UP you idiot.

Slainte

Does Jackie Jones Have Tourettes? Part 1

 

“Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics. The disorder is named for Dr. Georges Gilles de la Tourette, the pioneering French neurologist who in 1885 first described the condition in an 86-year-old French noblewoman.” [1]

 

It goes without saying, or it should, that whenever one of the Irish Times female “columnists” writes anything about so called “women’s issues” you are in for a screed of unadulterated rubbish, a toxic, biased, prejudiced and misrepresentative picture of……………..well…everything, but especially about men.

Not only that, but it’s usually interspersed with outright lies, deliberate fraud, and selectively dodgy “facts” and in Jones’ case an inability to articulate one thought at a time or write a sentence that makes any sense. It’s the “I’ll just throw out a bunch of random and disconnected whines then…..”

And no-one is more adept at this that Jacky Jones – in fact Jones is distinguished among her fellow female columnists because not only is she an idiot, she is obviously delusional and possibly suffering from some form of Tourettes. But it is the manner in which she literally vomits out random “issues” and perceived calumnies perpetrated against wimmin that makes me ask the question – Does Jackie Jones have Tourettes?

Second Opinion: Inequality, abuse and the cost of childcare preserve the marriage bar – Jacky Jones – link here.

The title of her piece says it all.

She uses three undifferentiated “issues” “Inequality” “Abuse” and “The Cost of Childcare” to protest against something that doesn’t exist – in Ireland – in the present day. It did – up till 1973, 41 years ago, and was a product of the times, but, let me repeat – that was 41 years ago. The “Marriage Bar” as it was known was introduced in 1932, and applied to married women employed by the State.

It was abandoned in 1973, so was in force for 41 years – years which included the period 1939 – 1945 – WWII. Years which also included the depression, recession, massive unemployment and massive emigration of the 1950’s and early 1960’s.

That’s the short version – the long version requires a look at Irish history – and when I say Irish history I mean our actual history – as a culture, not the pseudo history cited by feminists and usually wrapped up in some vague reference to “traditional gender roles” alluding to some equally vague period of history in some undefined place where “women were traditionally oppressed” but we’ll get to that in a moment.

With regard to Jones’ article – pppfft – it garnered four comments, two each from two male posters, succinct and spot on, in rightly dismissing the entire article as a piece of rubbish. I’ll take her article apart separately, but first I want to put a bit of historical fact on the table, and put some things into context so to speak.

Yes I know, I know, feminists are allergic to facts, they break out in rashes and have an uncontrollable urge to scream like banshees when facts rear their ugly heads – but – bummer.

Like all “women’s rights” windbags (like Jackie Jones) and/or Irish feminists they use things like the “Marriage Bar” as some kind of all encompassing justification upon which to shriek about “inequality” and other really really important “wimmins stuff” – Jones naturally enough fails to put that (the marriage bar) or anything else into historical or cultural context – particularly in relation to Ireland – which is rather unique among the nations of Europe for so many reasons.

But from her rather limited perspective, it’s a handy little device upon which to manufacture some suitably artificial outrage and beat the feminist drum with, or the “wimmins’s rights” drum or just have a whine about……………

“I’m unhappy about something, I’m a woman, therefore ALL women are unhappy about… whatever it is…..and its men’s fault. I know fuck all about anything, but as long as I throw in the words, abuse, inequality, violence, blah blah blah, then I’m right, because I’m a woman, and all men are bastards”

I think that about sums up the basic premise upon which all feminists and “women’s rights” windbags ground their “arguments” on.

Anyhoo – I have no qualms about stating that – yep – the Marriage Bar existed, on its face it was discriminatory towards married women – but – it had sod all to do with patriarchy or some patriarchal conspiracy against women – and more to do with the actual economic. social and cultural realities of the times.

Let’s start with the history – and in relation to Ireland where it all started to go wrong.

“The 1922 Free State Constitution granted women over the age of twenty one the parliamentary franchise and so gave Irish women the same rights of political citizenship as men, the right to vote. All citizens were guaranteed equal religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities, regardless of their gender.[11] Under the terms of the new Constitution the future for women in the Irish state looked bright.

The parliamentary franchise had been extended to women on equal terms with men, six years before women in Britain could claim such a victory.[12] The Constitution also guaranteed the equal rights of men and women “without distinction of sex” which, it was hoped, would prevent further discrimination against women. It is not surprising, therefore, that feminist activists were optimistic about the future of Irishwomen. Esther Roper, in a letter to Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, expressed her hopes for women in the Irish Free State.

My noteup until that point Ireland was not an independant sovereign nation and had not been for several hundred years (a discussion for another time)

She wrote that “never had there been such a firm foundation of justice and freedom guaranteed by any country of its women citizens”.[13]Within a few short years, however, the promise of equal citizenship for women in the Irish Free State had been dashed. The first government of the Irish Free State, Cumann na nGaedheal, led by William Cosgrave, introduced a number of measures during the 1920s which were to have serious repercussions on the right of women to equal citizenship. These policy decisions reflected the growing influence of Catholic teaching on Irish social legislation. As early as 1925, the influence of the Church on Irish legislators was becoming clear.” [2]

What is worth pointing out here are two things – the largest numbers of advocates and supporters of distinctly Catholic inspired social policies were and still are women.

Secondly, at that time, and even right up until the present day Ireland has never been an industrialised country. This is important to bear in mind when discussing “employment” in Ireland and in particular female employment. The industrial revolution passed us by more or less in the sense that we had, and have no major heavy industry, this had and has had a major influence on the structure of Irish society.

“Ireland has changed from being a predominantly rural country to a more urbanised one during the course of the last 50 years. The 1946 population could be characterised as mainly rural with over 60% of persons living either in the countryside or in smaller towns and villages with a population of less than 1,500 persons.

In contrast, over 58% of the population lived in urban areas in 1996, as revealed by the most recent census. In the 50-year period 1946 to 1996, Leinster’s population has grown from 1.3 million to over 1.9 million. The increase in population in the Munster area was far less pronounced (from 900,000 to just over 1 million).” [3]

But, up till 1996, 42% of the population lived in rural areas – compared to the rest of the western urbanised world that’s rather unique.

It has been said that what we excel at producing and exporting is our own people.

Let’s put that into context – Jones attempts to imply that married women or women in general are or were kept out of the workforce, though, with how she has conflated all sorts of disparate “issues” and bounced around like a jack rabbit on speed from one “issue” to another it’s like trying to nail jelly to a wall – but from her title she has used the “marriage bar” as some kind of symbol to infer that………married women are especially discriminated today just as they always have been? Or something like that.

“Society should be structured in such a way that women can easily combine children and a career. The egg-freezing stunt shows that their right to have children and a full-time job is just not taken seriously.” [4]

Right. Is there some part of Ireland has been a predominately rural country with little industrialisation for most of its history, that people like Jones don’t get? The vast majority of people lived on small family farms, and any jobs available that were not related to farming or to the small mining industries were in the Civil Service or in State paid occupations, like teaching or nursing?

The other thing worth noting is our falling population – it reached its lowest point in 1961 – we’ll get to that later.

While not the smallest country in the world or the least densely populated there are less people in the entire country than they are in some cities – so where the ever loving fuck are all these high-powered “career women” supposed to work? Doing what? Teaching pilates to sheep?

People didn’t have “careers” they had jobs – they worked – if they could – to earn money to live on – to feed their families.

Until the 1990’s we had neither the funds or the inclination to “make up jobs”, or “create jobs” so that women could have “careers” – people were employed when there was actually something for them to do, when there was an actual need to employ someone to do…………………….whatever.

What is worth noting here is that the biggest employer of women in this State – is the State.

Ok – let’s have a look at more recent data in relation to male/female employment in Ireland, shall we?

“Occupations: There were 851,300 women and 970,000 men employed in Ireland in 2011. Nearly a quarter of women (23.7%) in employment were in professional occupations and just over a fifth (20.9%) in administrative and secretarial occupations. Nearly a quarter of men (24.7%) in employment in 2011 were in skilled trades occupations while 15% were employed in professional occupations (Table 2.7).

Economic sectors: The Education and Health sectors employed the highest proportions of women in 2010 with women accounting for more than 4 out of 5 people at work in the Health sector and nearly three quarters of those in Education.

The sectors with the highest proportions of men in 2010 were Construction, Agriculture and Transport. In primary education, 85% of teachers are women. And in second-level education, 63% of teachers are women. Despite this, women are not well represented at senior level positions: only 36% of medical and dental consultants are women, 53% of primary school managers, and 41% of second-level school managers (Tables 2.8, 4.6, 4.8 and 5.14).” – [5]

Apart from the reference to women not being well represented at senior level positions can you see what I see? The vast majority of women are employed in cushy pensionable State jobs – and the vast majority of men are employed in exactly the kinds of occupations that are vulnerable in times of economic recession.

As for the “only 36% of medical and dental consultants are women” nobody says it better than angryharry [6] – except to add that becoming a consultant requires 100% dedication and commitment and this extract– from an article in the Irish Medical Journal press release, whining about discrimination against female doctors says it all.

“They propose a possible solution “The majority of interviewees saw that more job sharing and part time work as the mechanism to retain women and some noted that flexible work practices would benefit both genders in medicine.” All of the childless and single women interviewed were satisfied with their work life balance.

The majority of mothers (17/21) were dissatisfied and felt expectations of them were unrealistic and colleagues assumed they should just make the necessary commitments. Sacrifices were made by all mothers to deliver at work and their children were considered to have suffered. Older mothers expressed bitter regrets and three had dissuaded their daughters from pursuing a career in hospital medicine.” [7]

Ah well – part-time consultants? That’s what we need to inspire patient confidence – someone in whose hands we are being asked to put our health and in some cases lives into, showing up – part-time. Being totally focused and committed on the job apparently is characterised as “expectations of them were unrealistic and colleagues assumed they should just make the necessary commitments”

As for the other percentages – need I point out that higher level managerial positions require increased responsibilities and accountability – and women especially are not noted for either being willing to assume extra responsibilities or more particularly, being accountable – for anything they do. The percentages are just fine – in fact in one instance they are 53% female primary school managers – ergo more women than men – but no-one is screaming about men being discriminated against – are they?

I wasn’t even going to bother with the “gender pay gap” rubbish except for this:

Employment: The employment rate for men in Ireland stood at about 75% over recent years, but in 2009 it plummeted to 67.3%, decreased sharply in 2010 to 64.5% and dropped again to 63.3% in 2011.

The EU target rate for women in employment is 60% by 2010, a target that was met by Ireland in 2007 and 2008, but not in 2009, 2010 or 2011, when the rate had fallen to 56%. In 2011 46.7% of those in employment were women.

Men worked an average of 39.4 hours a week in 2011 compared with 30.6 for women and married men worked longer hours than married women, with nearly half (44.5%) of married men working for 40 hours or more a week compared with only 14.7% of married women (Tables 2.1, 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10).” [8]

Sooooooooooo, men work on average 8.8 hours more per week than women.

44.4% of married men work 40 or more hours per week compared to

14.7% of married women.

And yet according to Jones’ one of the burning issues apparently is this.

“Women still do five hours of unpaid work every day compared with men’s two hours.” [9]

Maybe because they’re at bloody work, if they’re lucky enough to have a job – and if they’re really lucky, a job paid for by the State?

“The long-term unemployment rate (unemployed for one year or more) for Irish men was stable between 2001 and 2008, at about 2% or just below, but increased in 2009 to 3.6%, rose sharply in 2010 to 8.1% and increased again to 10.4% in 2011.

The long-term unemployment rate for Irish women was less than 1% between 2001 and 2008 before rising over the last three years to stand at 4.5% in 2011.” [10]

I don’t know, is it just me or do those figures look pretty shit for Irish men? What with more than twice as many men consistently unemployed as women.

Having said that, let’s just take a moment to reflect on what the core message of feminism is – that historically for millennia; “all women have been oppressed by all men”. There’s a lot of hoo hah about “traditional gender roles” spouted by present day Irish feminists without actually pointing out the historical basis for these presumably oppressive “traditions” or where they came from.

I read it all the time on feminist articles/blogs etc and it’s all grounded in a particular cultural paradigm – chivalry – dashing white knights and fair maidens – where men were lords and masters of all they surveyed and women were……………….supposed to be grateful. Lots of other tosh about women being chattels and to all intents and purposes enslaved by nasty patriarchal men.

I cannot recommend highly enough Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins http://gynocentrism.com/ for a thorough and comprehensive analysis of not just the historical reality of women’s lives but for how feminism is merely an offshoot of cultural gynocentrism.

All very well and good you might say – but what has that got to do Ireland and in particular the legitimacy of Irish feminism – bearing in mind that Irish feminists are singing  the same “all women are and were oppressed by all men for millennia” tune?.

Everything.

Irish feminists are grounding their claims in an alleged history of oppression that didn’t exist – in Ireland – in fact has never existed anywhere – but in particular not in Ireland.

But they’re like those wind up toys – ever since the first hairy arm pitted lesbian man-hating nutjob with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, started screaming about oppression, one hint that women might be inconvenienced and they’re off – “oppression, oppression, discrimination, abuse, violence, wah wah wah wah” they made up this “history” – literally invented history and started screeching – only one tiny flaw in all of it though – it’s all bullshit.

You see our history, our culture, is starkly different from the European history that informed and was transplanted via colonialism to the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and any other place that can trace its history back to the one common source – England.

All that lords and ladies, chivalry, knights in shining armour stuff? All that trapped in the kitchen in the 1950’s crap. Nope – didn’t happen in Ireland – our culture was unique, distinct, and has no comparison to any other civilisation or culture in the western world. We lived under a system of laws called the Brehon law – which was egalitarian and based on the concept of equality of men and women – traced back to around the Iron Age and managed to stay as the law of the land till around the 17th century.

“The laws are significant because they shed light on the complex sophisticated society of early Ireland that the laws reflect,” she says.

“The laws reveal a culture in which modern concepts such as equity, social mobility, negligence, unbiased witnesses and fair and open process of law and women’s rights were developed.”

 Brehon Law was generally operational in Gaelic areas until the completion of the English conquest of Ireland in the early 17th century. They were first set down on parchment in the seventh century and were named after wanderings lawyers the Brehons.
By the time of Elizabeth I, the Brehon Laws were considered to be old, lewd, and unreasonable. They were banned and English common law was introduced. [11]

So, there you have it – whatever historical oppression that feminists are talking about in some vague ill-defined time and place – that time and place wasn’t Ireland.

Our history from the 17th century to the early 20th century is well known – no need to go into it here. We emerged from that in 1922 as The Irish Free State – and enacted our first Constitution 1922 [12] – the one referred to in the first extract.

It was replaced 15 years later by our current Constitution 1937 [13] Bunreacht na hEireann 1937 – and we became The Republic of Ireland in 1948.

So that’s grand – except – our society had changed – apart the ongoing misery and deprivation, we were now Holy Catholic Ireland – and again – that history is well known. Between the 17th Century and the early 20th century the Catholic Church had tightened its hold on Irish Society.

The reality of people’s lives was harsh.

“During World War II (or The Emergency as the war was called in Ireland), ordinary life was severely affected. There was widespread rationing, covering butter, margarine, bread, tea, flour, clothes, coal, firewood, gas and matches.
There was a shortage of fuel for cooking and heating. As the war wore on, private motoring ceased to exist and horse-drawn vehicles were brought back into service. The hardship continued for some years after the war. In 1949, life began to return to normal and most rationing ceased. But normal life in 1949 was very different from what it is today.

 
The risk of death from tuberculosis and other infectious diseases was high. Very few people had telephones or cars. The radio was widespread, though the television had yet to be seen. Society was, by current standards, very conservative.

Censorship was severe—George Orwell’s 1984 was banned in 1949. There was little cohabitation, and births outside marriage were rare. Women, when they married, usually ceased working outside the home. We were a still a mainly rural society: only two-fifths of the population lived in towns of over 1,500.” [14]

From the extracts above you can see that between 1926 and 1946 we are talking about a society that was mostly rural, one where marriage was not always on the cards, and where women who worked in the tiny State bureaucracy were expected to stand aside in favour of either single women, or married men.

Irish society was centred around family, and part of the reason for this marriage bar was economic – to protect male employment and ensure a family income. The notion that a married woman would continue to work if she was married to a man who was working, and be in receipt of two wages was considered selfish, in a society were jobs were hard to come by, life was harsh, and generally shit. State jobs were good jobs, pensionable jobs, highly sought after.

“Under the Fianna Fail administration, the right of women to work outside the home was once again under threat. A public service marriage bar was introduced in 1932 which prevented women teachers, and later female civil servants, working after marriage. Mary Kettle, chairman of the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, was outspoken in her opposition to the marriage bar. She claimed that women in the civil service “from their entry until they reach the ages of 45 or 50 are looked on as if they are loitering with intent to commit a felony – the felony in this case being marriage”.[57]

Despite the objections raised by organisations such as the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social Workers, it was not until 1972 that the public service marriage bar was finally removed. The 1936 Conditions of Employment Act was the most serious attack on the right of women citizens to work outside the home. Section 16 of the Act gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce the power to control and restrict the number of women working in any given industry. In an effort to alleviate male unemployment, the government was willing to restrict the employment opportunities of women. The Irish Women’s Workers Union[58] campaigned against the new legislation but failed to have the offending clause removed.[59]

 
Opinions regarding the employment of women were mixed within the Trade Union Movement. Women working in industry faced long hours and low rates of pay. As a result, the employment of women was thought to jeopardize not only men’s jobs but the family wage traditionally earned by men. Even Louie Bennett, President of the Irish Women Workers’ Union, had her doubts about the recruitment of women into the workforce. She suggested in 1932 that the employment of women in industry had “not raised their status as workers nor their wage standards … it is a menace to family life in so far as it has blocked the employment of men”.[60]” – [15]

What this does not make clear is that the marriage bar applied to State jobs, Civil Service jobs – not private sector jobs.

Let’s take a pause here and consider that concept – family wage – Ireland is a distinctly family orientated culture – both for men and women – people, when they did get married – got married with a view to starting families – for most of our history since independence the economy has been shaky to say the least – but – people still wanted to get married and start families.

Rightly or wrongly the marriage bar was an attempt to ensure that there was at least a fair distribution of what were relatively scarce resources – such as jobs – jobs that could provide a decent income for as many people as possible. The kinds of jobs available were limited – farming, teaching, nursing, a bit of tourism, a bit of mining, some light industry. Up until the late 1980’s early 1990’s “careers” were some ridiculous concept that had no basis in reality for the vast majority of people. You got a job, you worked to put bread on the table. End of.

 

“Fifty years ago, statisticians did not have computers at their disposal. Graphs* such as these, which appeared in The Trend of Employment and Unemployment in 1951, were drawn by hand. They portrayed the likely future experience of 1,000 males and females aged 14 in 1946, up to the age of 50, using the latest data then available on emigration, marriage, mortality and the labour force. In a sense, this was a precursor to the CSO’s subsequent population and labour force projections.

There were earlier forecasts. In 1935, R C Geary (who was to become the first Director of the CSO in 1949) predicted, in a paper entitled The Future Population of Saorstát Éireann and Some Observations on Population Statistics (in the Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol. XV, 1934-1935) that the population of Ireland was “unlikely to exceed 3,700,000 during the next 80 years”.

His prediction for the total figure held true for the following 63 years, and only in 1998 did the population increase to over 3.7 million. The graphs in the 1951 Trend illustrated how things would turn out over the next 36 years if current patterns continued. So, what story did these graphs tell? How well did the forecasts turn out?

The graphs reflected some harsh realities of the times. Mortality was higher (and life expectancy shorter) in the 1950s.

Only 90% of the imaginary cohort were expected to live beyond the age of 50, whereas today about 95% of boys and 97% of girls aged 14 can expect to reach at least their 50th birthday. Life expectancy for children born in 1996, at around 73 years for boys and almost 79 years for girls, was a considerable improvement on the 1950s. Indeed, with the continuing advances in medical science, today’s young people can look forward on average to even greater longevity.

 

As many as 30% of males and 40% of females were expected to emigrate, most before the age of 30. The men and women who remained would have very different lifetime experience of the labour force. The majority of men were expected to be gainfully occupied. However, a much lower percentage of women would remain in the labour force after their early 30s. The career options available to women were fewer and, in general, women left their jobs when they married. The label “not gainfully occupied”, which applied to those women who married and became homemakers, looks quaint today!” [16]

 

What we are talking about here is a period of some 92 years, from 1922 to the present day – the first 50 years of our Independence were dire – poverty, recession, high unemployment, massive immigration, stagnant economy, high mortality rates, a totally repressed, insular and depressing place – it was shit – and it was shit for everybody – men women and children.

 

“To gain a fuller appreciation of recent population trends, it is necessary to view them over a longer period. As the graph shows, the population of the area comprising the Republic of Ireland was over 6.5 million in 1841. The deaths caused by the famine of 1846/47 as well as the large-scale emigration that followed in its wake and which continued through the second half of the 19th century resulted in a halving of the population by 1901.

 

Further declines, albeit more modest compared with earlier periods, followed between 1901 and 1926. The population then stabilised at around 2.9 million for the next quarter of a century, before falling to a historical low point of 2.8 million in 1961. Apart from the slight decline experienced between 1986 and 1991, the direction of population change has since been firmly upward. The change in population between two periods is due to changes in the number of births and deaths as well as the difference between inward and outward migration.

The table shows each of these components of population change on an annual average basis for each of the intercensal periods since 1946. In the earlier part of the period, net outward migration exceeded the natural increase in the population (births less deaths), resulting in the population declining to its 1961 low point. The main factor causing this fall was the high emigration that occurred during the 1950s. [16]

 

Again – let me put that into context – in the year 1841 the population of Ireland was 6.5 million – 120 years later it reached its lowest point in 1961 of 2.8 million – and it’s not like we weren’t having babies – we were – for export – millions of people emigrated. Left. Vamoosed. Skedaddled.

“Births began to increase in the 1970s to reach a peak of 74,000 in 1980. During the same period migration turned from outward to inward with the result that the population grew by 465,000 in the ten-year period from 1971 to 1981. Net outward migration strengthened during the eighties and this resulted in a slight decline in overall population levels between 1986 and 1991. However, since then the fall in outward migration has given rise once more to population growth.” [17]

What’s the point of all this? Well, the population of Ireland has only risen very slowly since the high point of 1841 – when it was 6.5 million – 170 years have passed since then – and the population has still not reached that high point of 6.5 million. In 1950 the number of births were 63,565, 56 years later in 2006 it was 65,425. [18] The increase of the last 10 years can be attributed to a combination of inward migration and low immigration – but those trends are being reversed – emigration is once more a feature of Irish life and many of those who immigrated into Ireland are leaving or have left.

We are once more economically up shit creek without a paddle, we have a housing crisis, we have a health service in shambles, we have people living in poverty on the streets, we have an epidemic of male suicide, we have children on years long waiting lists for surgery and treatment, we have every bloody social ill you can name – and we have people like Jackie Jones whining like this.

“Society should be structured in such a way that women can easily combine children and a career. The egg-freezing stunt shows that their right to have children and a full-time job is just not taken seriously.” [19]

Women’s “……right to have children and a full-time job is just not taken seriously” yep – you read that right – not just a job – a full-time job – and not even a full-time job – a career – because you see, even though there was grumbling about the marriage bar at the time – people were much less selfish and self-absorbed then – people didn’t demand “careers” useless made up pointless occupations to make them feel important or massage their over-developed egos, most people were grateful to have a bloody job – to be able to earn enough money to feed their families – or to be able to stay in their country and not have leave.
She also has a whine about;

“Full-time childcare for two children costs about the same as a medium-sized mortgage, or about €1,200 every month. Women in Ireland will never be equal until we have affordable childcare funded by the taxpayer.” [20]

 

By taxpayers I presume she doesn’t mean the thousands of people who leave and have left this country since the foundation of this State? Just the poor sods who are left.

€1,200 every month – paid for by Irish taxpayers – that’s €14,400 per year – do you know what the rate of payment is for a single man on Jobseekers Allowance? [21]

Its €188.00 per week, that’s €9,776.00 per year, or to make the comparison €814.66 per month – that’s to live on – to buy food, clothes, pay for heat – everything – out of that, even if you are granted Rent Supplement you still have to pay €30.00 per week for rent – that takes approx €130.00 out of your monthly payment of €814.66, leaving you with a massive €684.66 per month to live on.

From approx Oct to the end of March you get an extra €20.00 per week payment called Fuel allowance – works out at about an extra €500.00 per year – bringing your yearly total up to €10,276.00 or €856.33 per month.

So, according to Jackie Jones – women are entitled – ENTITLED – to have up to €1,200.00 in childcare costs paid by the taxpayers of this State so they can have the “careers” that they are ENTITLED to.

There would of course be those with hearts of gold who might suggest condescendingly that men should just get off their arses and get a job. Ever heard a phrase called “the working poor”?

“Poverty: The proportion of men at risk of poverty in 2010, after pensions and social transfers, was 15%, just above the rate of 14% for women. At risk of poverty rates were considerably lower for those in employment, at 10% for men and 5% for women (Table 3.6).” [22]

You might find yourself wondering why is the risk of poverty twice as high for men in employment than for women? It’s odd isn’t it?

Ah, but you see, here’s something that Jackie and her fellow harpies won’t mention;

 
298,000 men in employment are separated/divorce in comparison to 473,000 women separated/divorced and you can bet your bottom dollar that a large number of those separated/divorced women are not only claiming OPFP (One Parent Family Payment – which they can do even if they have jobs, and are also demanding and receiving maintenance/child support from a large number of those 298,000 separated/divorced men.

 

Makes sense now, doesn’t it? Why a man with a job would be at twice much risk of poverty as a woman with a job – I would posit that the woman with a job at risk of poverty has no poor bastard of a man to leech off – but – having said that – I can also guarantee that the 5% of women at risk of poverty will evince all sorts of hand wringing and outrage – while the 10% of men will be…………………….ignored.

 
Over the lifetime of this State – poverty, economic instability, unemployment, and vulnerability to unemployment have almost all been borne by Irish men – the burden of providing for and being responsible for women and children has also rested on Irish men – this was a responsibility that men themselves accepted for themselves and women expected them to shoulder – not hoped that they would but EXPECTED them to.

While this little trip down memory lane has been relatively brief, what it has shown is that albeit there was some grumbling about the marriage bar – there was a reluctance to “push it” because of the dire economic circumstances that prevailed, the cultural and societal norms that existed at that time – a society of families – a predominately rural culture – with the only guaranteed jobs being State jobs – everyone else was on their own.

 
Fast forward 80 some years – and the gloves are off – once again we are up shit creek without a paddle – and Jackie Jones believes that women are ENTITLED to a payment of €1,200 per month – a sum that is €344.00 MORE than a single unemployed person – the vast majority of whom are men – is granted to live on – paid by Irish taxpayers – so that women can pursue the “careers” they “have a right to”

You know – I can actually see the point of that marriage bar – and am quite impressed that some of the women’s groups at the time could see and acknowledge the big picture – the economic and cultural realities – and yeah – the attitude to women was patronising and condescending and would probably get on my nerves as well – but – as the Report says in its title.

 

That was then, this is now.

 

References

[1] Tourette Syndrome Fact Sheet
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tourette/detail_tourette.htm
[2] Women, Citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish Free State, 1922-1948; CAITRIONA BEAUMONT; University of Glasgow, United Kingdom pp – 535
http://www.academia.edu/964139/Women_Citizenship_and_Catholicism_in_the_Irish_Free_State_1922-1948
[3] That was then, This is now; Change in Ireland, 1949-1999 – Changing Population Structure; Aidan Punch, Catherine Finneran pp 14 – 15
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/thatwasthenthisisnow.pdf
[4] Second Opinion: Inequality, abuse and the cost of childcare preserve the marriage bar – Jacky Jones – http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/second-opinion-inequality-abuse-and-the-cost-of-childcare-preserve-the-marriage-bar-1.1989270?page=1
[5] From: Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 11
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/2011/Women%20and%20Men%20in%20Ireland%202011.pdf
[6] angryharry http://www.angryharry.com/Women-Doctors-Causing-Problems.htm?note
[7] Irish Medical Journal Press Release
http://www.imo.ie/news-media/news-press-releases/2013/women-underrepresented-at/
[8] From: Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 10
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/2011/Women%20and%20Men%20in%20Ireland%202011.pdf
[9] Second Opinion: Inequality, abuse and the cost of childcare preserve the marriage bar – Jacky Jones – http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/second-opinion-inequality-abuse-and-the-cost-of-childcare-preserve-the-marriage-bar-1.1989270?page=1
[10] Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 24
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/2011/Women%20and%20Men%20in%20Ireland%202011.pdf
[11] http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/the-brehon-laws-the-lost-laws-of-ireland-show-complex-sophisticated-society-215429421-238244221.html
[12] Constitution of the Irish Free State 1922 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1922/en/act/pub/0001/print.html
[13] Constitution of the Republic of Ireland https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf
[14] That was then, This is now; Change in Ireland, 1949-1999; Introduction – pp – 5 http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/thatwasthenthisisnow.pdf
[15] Women, Citizenship and Catholicism in the Irish Free State, 1922-1948; CAITRIONA BEAUMONT; University of Glasgow, United Kingdom pp – 573
http://www.academia.edu/964139/Women_Citizenship_and_Catholicism_in_the_Irish_Free_State_1922-1948
[16] That was then, This is now; Change in Ireland, 1949-1999;
Changing Population Structure; Aidan Punch, Catherine Finneran pp – 13
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/

documents/otherreleases/thatwasthenthisisnow.pdf
[17] ibid
[18] http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna13
[19] http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/second-opinion-inequality-abuse-and-the-cost-of-childcare-preserve-the-marriage-bar-1.1989270?page=1
[20] ibid
[21] JSA – Rates of Payment http://www.welfare.ie/en/pages/employment-supports.aspx
[22] Women and Men in Ireland – 2011 – pp 11
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/2011/Women%20and%20Men%20in%20Ireland%202011.pdf

Happy Fathers’ Day “Da”

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was pointed to it by Joe Egan of:

Fathers Rights Ireland [2]

Platform for European Fathers (PEF) [3]

See also facebook. [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] Parental Alienation: Southern England Psychological Services

[9] Karen Woodall

[10] Parental Alienation page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT’S what a father does.

 

 

References

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Manifesto for the Right to Housing – Launch 12 June 2014

 

The housing crisis in Ireland is reaching epidemic porportions – there is nothing more debilitating to a human being that to be homeless or in a perpetual state of housing insecurity.

Your life is stalled, you cannot function as a member of society, you cannot interact in any meaningful way with state bodies.
From the Manifesto by Housing Action.

 

“HOUSING FOR ALL
We did not create this housing crisis. We did not vote to increase homelessness.
We did not ratify a treaty that allowed private investors and speculators to push us out of our homes.

We did not give our consent to evictions. We did not choose to throw families out onto the streets.

We did not make a collective call to be ruled by debt. We made no rallying cry to introduce chaos and fear into our housing market.
We participated in no movement that sought to repress the accommodation rights of oppressed minorities.
We did none of this. And yet we are being pushed out of our homes; we are being pushed out of our cities and we are being pushed out of our country. And this makes us ask: does this country belong to speculators and developers whose only concern is their pockets?

Does this country belong to an apathetic government who refuse to protect the unprotected majority, but instead chooses to protect those who profit off our fear? Or does this country belong to the public?
The answer is clear and the solutions are clear-cut. The time for change is now.
We want housing for all.”

Ireland after NAMA

Got us home

Back in March, Taoiseach Enda Kenny made the claim that “If you had 30,000 three- bedroom detached houses in Dublin you’d sell them all in a week. That’s the pent-up demand that’s there”. This has been part of a discourse that seeks to once again talk up the property market; to encourage the construction and sale of houses as a means to both stimulate the economy and to provide housing through the mechanisms of the private market.
The casual slippage back into the development logic of the Celtic Tiger era seeks to ignore both the remaining material evidence of the property crash – in the form of the persistent problems of mortgage arrears, negative equity, and unfinished developments – and the burgeoning housing crisis in the Dublin region.
In short, this strategy seeks to resurrect the property market to the detriment of addressing the housing crisis.
To tackle these…

View original post 158 more words

Out On The Streets in Ireland

 

That’s how people see homelessness in Ireland isn’t it?

The Homeless – they live on the streets, have drug and alcohol issues and possibly mental health issues, they clutter up the nice streets, they smell, they commit petty street crime and – they’re a bloody nuisance.

But thank God there’s only a few of them – throw them a few coppers and your conscience is salved, and sure won’t all those charities take care of them, The Simon [1] The Vincent De Paul [2] anyway there’s loads of hostels they could go to, loads of “services” because moving beneath the surface of the superficial conscience salving few coppers that you threw them – is another thought – it’s their own fault.

“Those who were least well off before the economic crisis remain so, and their difficulties have been worsened due to cutbacks to the supports and services on which they rely. Those who have lost jobs, had business failures, seen significant falls in their income or are affected by over-indebtedness require supports in the short, medium and longer term to ensure that they are prevented from falling into long term unemployment and poverty. [3]

Niamh Randall, National Spokesperson for the Simon Communities, said that more and more people are turning to the Simon Communities across the country for support.

“There are now over 90,000 people on the social housing waiting lists; rents are rapidly increasing all around the country at the same time as the numbers of properties available to rent are decreasing. People on low incomes are effectively being priced out of the market. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure people in need have access to housing so they do not become homeless in the first place and so they can move out of homelessness, when it does happen, as quickly as possible.” (emphasis added) [3]

On Thursday 5th June a protest was held – a Sleep Out – outside the offices of Dun Laoghaire – Rathdown Council Offices – I was there.

Richard Boyd Barrett TD of People Before Profit was at the forefront of this protest – the issue was Social Housing, or rather the lack of Social Housing.

“Richard Boyd Barrett TD said: “In 2011 the government abandoned the direct provision of social housing and farmed out housing to private landlords. Now that landlords can get higher rents on the open market they are pulling out of these deals and families are being forced into homelessness. Rents are rocketing and with no investment in social housing the crisis is spiralling out of control.”

I don’t believe there is anyone either in Ireland or in the western world who doesn’t know that we had a “housing crisis” though more correctly a “housing crash” here in Ireland – a recession of epic proportions that literally brought this tiny inconsequential country on the periphery of Europe to the brink of economic destruction – but we were “saved” by the EU and the IMF – they came charging into the rescue and bailed us out. Then we voted for those who made promises that they had no intention of keeping.

 

Labour said: “The fiscal strategy set out in the EU-IMF deal . . . involves excessive austerity, which will put growth at risk”. That was the strategy they implemented and they take pride in that! Where was the mandate

There was no mandate for taking in taxation from the poorest 10 per cent of the population the same proportion of their income as being taken from the richest 10 per cent – this was achieved via the VAT increase in the 2012 budget, even though the USC was removed from incomes between €4,004 and €10,036.

There was no mandate for the cuts in child benefit for the third and subsequent children and Labour was adamant there would be no cuts in child benefit at all. There was no mandate for cutting the disability allowance. No mandate for cuts to rent supplements. No mandate for the changes in PRSI that impact most on the working poor. No mandate for a property tax that is imposed irrespective of income. No mandate for the increase in prescription drug charges. And so much else.” [4] (emphasis added)

We made a pact with the devil – or rather our political leaders at that time on our behalf made a pact with the devil. Then we kicked them out of office and………….same shoite, different day – or different devils.

As it turned out – it wasn’t us – The People – that our political elite decided needed our arses pulled out of the fire, it was the very ones who had caused and precipitated this crisis – the bankers, the developers, politicians, financiers, and then our own “rescuers” decided to make the deal with the devil work.

“National pension fund plundered

The Irish population is paying for the repeated saving of the financial sector through brutal austerity. Ireland had to co-finance its own “rescue” by €17.5 billion, €10 billion of which were taken from the public pension fund NPRF, originally set up to secure Irish pensions in the future. The fund’s money was used for direct bank recapitalization (7). In late 2013, the government decided to entirely transform it into an investment fund, safeguarding future pensions is no longer a priority (8). Furthermore, the population was hit hard by six (?) years of austerity measures: The VAT was increased to 23 percent, child benefits were lowered, unemployment allowances for young people cut in half (9) and tuition fees tripled to 2,500 Euros (10). Altogether, over €28 billion have been squeezed out of Irish society since 2008 (11).” [5] (emphasis added)

They got the rescue – we got the bill.

A bill we are still paying, and will be expected to continue paying until every last man, woman and child for the next two generations of Irish people has been squeezed dry.

“Ending the bailout is “not the end of the road”. Ireland has already announced a new round of spending cuts and tax rises for next year, in the 2014 budget announced recently. Noonan was clear that further cuts lie ahead if Ireland is to lower its deficit to 3% by 2015.”

“This isn’t the end of the road. This is a very significant milestone on the road…But we must continue with the same types of policies.” (emphasis added) [6]

Till we are a people so demoralised, so disenfranchised, so browbeaten into submission that we are no longer a people, no longer free citizens of a free Republic – we are merely pawns, utilities, economic units valued only for our usefulness as dupes, as a means to an end – to ensure that the gravy train keeps rolling, that those who have continue to have – and those who have not – never ever get to have – anything – including a roof over their heads – the dignity that every human being is entitled to – a place to call home.

“Housing: a new philosophy

A series of publications by the economist Professor PJ Drudy of Trinity College have offered an interesting new approach to how Irish society views housing. In his paper at a 2005 Social Policy Conference, in a co-authored book with Michael Punch -entitled Out of Reach (2005) – and in a chapter in the Social Policy in Ireland book (Drudy, 2006) he has outlined these views.

The essence of Professor Drudy’s proposal is to view housing as a home rather than as a market commodity. In his conference paper Professor Drudy stated that we should “place the emphasis on housing as a home – shelter, a place to stay, to feel secure, to build a base, find an identity and participate in a community and society”.

Therefore he continued: “housing thus becomes a central feature of ‘development’ – a process not simply comprising increases in economic growth, but containing positive actions to improve the quality of life and wellbeing for all” (2005: 44).

In concluding his paper, Drudy suggested that Irish society now needs to address “a fundamental philosophical question: is it the purpose of a housing system to provide investment, speculative or capital gains for those with the necessary resources or should the critical aim be to provide a home as a right for all citizens?” (2004: 46).

In his view it is time now for Ireland to move away from seeing housing as a commodity to be traded on the market like any other tradable commodity; and to accept the latter opinion that views housing as a social requirement like health services or education.” [7]

I started off by saying that “The Homeless ” brings to mind a certain type – a certain image – a myth that we can call up to salve our consciences with – as being – a small problem that affects only a very small very particular section of our society – with that underlying thread weaving its way through the narrative – “it’s really their own fault”.

Here are the facts.

“About Homelessness

Homelessness can mean sleeping rough, staying in emergency hostels or shelters, staying in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation or staying with friends and relatives when there is nowhere else to go. Homelessness is all of these things. For people experiencing homelessness it is about a lack of security, a lack of belonging and often about being cold, sick and isolated.The current economic climate means more people are at risk of homelessness than ever before with further cut backs in health, education, welfare services and training more people will become homeless and turn to the Simon Communities for support.” [8] (emphasis added)

According to the Simon Community in 2011 these were the figures for “Homelessnes” or in “Housing Need” – figures for 2005 in brackets. [9]

Household Homelessness – 2,348 (2,399)

Living in Unfit Accommodation – 1,708 (1,725)

Living in Overcrowded Accommodation – 4,594 (4,122) – increase of 475

Involuntarily Sharing – 8,834 (3,375) – increase of 5,459 – almost 62% (5,477)

Not reasonably able to meet the cost of Accommodation – 65,643 (25,045) – an increase of 40,598 – almost a 62% increase. (40,698)

Are they on the streets? No – not all of them – what they are is caught in a trap – they are “unable to provide accommodation from their own means” which is how one qualifies for either Social Housing [10] or if none is available (which it isn’t) for Rent Supplement [11] in order to pay for private accommodation while waiting for your turn, your number to come up to the top of the list – and that list would be the Housing List – and every Local Authority, City and County Council has its own “List”

Here they are – a breakdown of every single city and county council’s numbers. These figures are from 2011 – but I seriously doubt if those numbers have gone down appreciably in the last three years.

“Housing Needs Assessment 2011 – Background

In February 2011 housing authorities were directed by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government1 to carry out an assessment of need existing at 31st March, 2011. Detailed guidance was issued by the Department to assist authorities in carrying out the assessment and in order to insure as much consistency as possible across authorities. This was to be a ‘snap-shot’ assessment based on an extract of data from each housing authority in respect of each household that has been approved for social housing support at 31st March, 2011.

The Housing [Miscellaneous Provisions] Act, 2009 provides for a new process of housing assessment with effect from 1st April, 2011. This Assessment of Housing Need gives a national picture of the level of housing need across the country as these new regulations come into effect.”

For the vast majority of Irish people on these “Housing Lists” they are out of options, though there are those in this country who would take the attitude “well get a job and buy your own house

“Net Housing Need

The net housing need figure at present shows that 98,318 households were in need of social housing support at 31st March 2011. Table 1 shows that the largest category of need by far was those unable to meet the cost of accommodation – accounting for about two-thirds (66.8%) of households, with the next biggest category of need, medical and compassion reasons, accounting for one-tenth of households (9.7%) and this was followed by those involuntary sharing (8.7%). Older persons and homeless households respectively account for just over 2 per cent of need, while Traveller families, unfit accommodation and people with a disability each accounted for less than 2% of the country’s net housing need.” (emphasis added)

I look forward to the release of the Report for 2014 – after all – it is now three years since that last one.

In order to buy a home of your own – you need a job – and a job that pays enough, not only to service a mortgage, but with enough left over each month to feed, clothe and take care of yourself and your family, pay your bills, heat that house, pay a doctor if one of your kids gets sick, pay the Household Charge/Property Tax on that new home of yours, in fact, being able to insert the key into the front door of your own home and walk in, is only the beginning – because even if you manage by some miracle to “get a mortgage” every state support (what little there is) gets withdrawn – you may finally have a roof over your head – but that roof is both a blessing and a curse.

There is a phenomenon called the working poor [12] – there are those for whom working is actually more of a trap than not working, for whom the only jobs, of the few that are available are so badly paid, so precarious and so demoralising that working actually causes and creates more stress, more anxiety – if that was even possible.

You would have to find yourself a permanent well paid and secure job in order to be able to breathe out.

The chances of getting that dream permanent job – the one that will get you that magic mortgage and last long enough – 20 – 25 years – to keep paying that mortgage are slim to none, though I wouldn’t count on being able to afford little luxuries – like food – while you are paying that mortgage.

You are now – truly on your own – and the hawks are ever circling – the spectre of unemployment waits brooding in the wings – the government churns out ever more “charges” ever more “penalties” ever more “cuts” and each one is designed to squeeze you, to wring every last cent out of you they can, as they work tirelessly and feverishly to – rescue those who need the least amount of rescuing – the ones who caused all this in first place.

The Irish People are being held to ransom by bankers, by politicians, the EU – we are paying for the privilege of being disenfranchised, kept in penury, and kept in a prison of poverty, of housing insecurity, of ongoing and never-ending worry, stress and anxiety.

They also live in fear – of saying the wrong thing to “officials” of one of these “officials” some petty little civil servant not liking the look of us – not liking our “attitude” deliberately making any interaction with “officialdom” as stressful, as tortuous as possibly – of having your “application” dealt with at the whim, the mood, of whoever you are unfortunate enough to encounter. This was something that came up over and over again from the people sleeping on the street outside Dun Laoighre- Rathdown Council offices – fear.

Within all these government departments are petty little tyrants, bullies and sneering “civil servants” who treat their fellow citizens with contempt, derision and hostility. This I know from personal experience – a story for another time.

All this, so that our political elite can go to Europe and kiss EU ass and assure them that the ones who robbed and are robbing this country blind can keep doing just that.

Our politicians have assured the EU that Ireland will pay its “Debt” – except – this is not our debt – and this “debt” is being paid on the backs of the Irish people – this “debt” is being paid in devastated lives, hungry children, sick and frail elderly people, homeless men women and children, and in some cases the actual life blood of Irish men – for some – the combined pressures of unemployment, housing insecurity, the anxiety of feeling useless, powerless and trapped leads so many to take their own lives. [13]

“3.4 Suicide and economic adversity

Economic adversity and recession specifically has been shown to result in an increase in suicide rates59. Studies have also shown that factors in the current economic crisis, such as falling stock prices, increased bankruptcies and housing insecurity (including evictions and the anticipated loss of a home), and higher interest rates are all associated with increased suicide risk60,61. People who are unemployed are two-three times more likely to die by suicide than people in employment62.

A recent Irish study has shown that during the boom years of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ male and female rates of suicide and undetermined death were stable during 1996-2006, while suicide among unemployed men increased. Unemployment was associated with a 2-3 fold risk of suicide in men and a 4-6 fold increased risk in women63.”

Of all these factors – a roof over your head – place to call your own – for you and your family gives you an anchor, a safe haven, a sense of security from which you can direct the course of your own life – shelter from the storms raging outside, protect your family and weather those storms – because at least you can say – “well at least we have a roof over our heads” we can get through anything as long as we have that.

Except – there are no roofs to be had – there is no shelter from the raging storms – there are no safe harbours, no shelter to be had – and no way to get any of those things.

Because we now live in a country where “The People” don’t matter – where “The People” are now subsidiary to policy – and the current policy?

Paying a debt incurred by the greedy avaricious and venal to maintain a system that ensures that who have and have always had, continue to do so – and in order to do that – take it from those who have nothing.

The very thing that caused this crisis in the first place – the housing bubble? The movers and shakers are starting to inflate it again. Rents are going up – house prices are going up – and Rent Supplement is going down – and the criteria for becoming eligible is getting more and more stringent – less and less flexible and has absolutely nothing to do with the actually lived reality of most people’s lives.

A case in point is the father who was refused Rent Supplement as a parent and classified as “single” by the Department of Social Protection even though he has four children, and has nowhere not only for himself to live, but is being deliberately prevented from being able to parent his own children including providing accommodation for them when they are with him.

See – “Money Makes the World Go Round………Not Ideology….Feminism is Just Along for the Ride”

Our current government is actually encouraging this – by doing exactly what the last government did – standing by and sanctioning the same corrupt and discredited policies, by taking the same cynical and laissez faire attitude to the practices of the bankers, the gombeens, the chancers, the corrupt and the venal so that once more they can proliferate.

The crisis ripped away the safety net for the Irish people – but at least it was there – provisionally – there is no safety net now – it is gone – yet here we are – getting back up on the trapeze – or being forced back up onto that trapeze.

It is time to end this circus – time to rip down the big top – time to say enough. It is time for this circus to leave town.

The night before, on Wednesday 4th June 2014 I attended a People Before Profit meeting in Wynne’s Hotel in Dublin city centre – it was by way of being a celebration of the electoral success achieved by PBP in the recent council elections. What is clear is that there is a growing sense of anger, of a people who have had enough, the results indicate that the coming election in 2016 may change the face of Irish politics forever.

I started this article by saying that there is a perception of what it is to be homeless, that “being homeless” inspires certain images, brings to mind certain pictures of “the homeless”

Nothing could be further from the truth – yes there are those who literally have no place to go, and yes the vast majority of those who fit that profile of the homeless are men.

“Over 60 per cent of the persons enumerated as part of the homeless count were in the Dublin region on Census Night. Of the 2,375 people enumerated in Dublin, just over two thirds or 1,590 were male. The next largest region was the South East. Of the 403 homeless persons enumerated in this region, 216 were male.”

“Among the 3,351 homeless persons aged 15 and over, two thirds were single compared with 42 per cent for the general population. Some 189 homeless persons were either married or re-married, representing just under 6 per cent of the group. In contrast, almost 48 per cent of the general population was married. Almost 17 per cent of the homeless population aged 15 and over was either separated or divorced, significantly higher than the general population for which the equivalent figure was 6 per cent. Just over 8 per cent of homeless women were married compared with 5 per cent of men, while 19 per cent of homeless men were separated or divorced compared with 13 per cent of women.” [14]

Men women and children – Irish men women and children – the effects of homelessness and housing insecurity are myriad and debilitating – and personal – the causes are political, structural, institutional and economic. That’s who I met – Irish men women and children – families – ordinary people.

“Cllr Melisa Halpin added: “We are sleeping outside the council tonight with families and individuals on the housing list to highlight the severity of the housing crisis. The new council meets tomorrow and we want to ensure that housing becomes the number one issue for the new council.”

There are currently 4000 families on the housing list in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and the plan is to build 19 houses in 2014! This situation cannot continue. We want a radically different council – one that starts telling the government what we want and what the people who elected us want rather than just taking orders from Leinster House.” [15]

The mechanisms through which these causes are visited upon Irish people are government policy – THIS governments policies.

The reasons?

Political expediency – elitism – a cynical disregard for the effects of government policy on people – on real live human beings.

This is not politics – this is not democracy – this is apartheid – this is an oligarchy – this is wrong – and this needs to stop.

 

I am not personally a member of People Before Profit or of any political party for that matter, what I am is a Human Rights Advocate – and a roof over your head is a basic fundamental Human Right.

Someone made the point during a very very long night that if we (Ireland) had suffered a natural disaster like a tsunami or a hurricane and thousands of people had been made homeless, money would pour in from all over world in order to assist those people, in fact our own government would probably send aid to any other disaster struck country – yet here we are – with our own housing crisis – where there are thousands of Irish people, men women and children – who do not have a roof of their own over their heads and this government…………….this government through one of our Local Authorities, just spent 36 million euro’s on a library, according to Marie Baker a Fine Gael councillor in Dun Laoghaire – Rathdown [16]

 

I wonder how many Social Housing units they could have built for that 36 million euro’s? Well – at €100,000.00 a pop – 360 – reducing the current housing list of approx 4,000 to 3,640 – it would be a start.

What else has Dun Laoghaire – Rathdown County council earmarked millions of euro’s for? What about all the other Local Authorities, City and County Councils? Because it isn’t housing.

 

 

 

References

[1] The Simon Communityhttp://www.simon.ie/home.aspx

[2] Society of St. Vincent De Paulhttps://www.svp.ie/Home.aspx

[3] European Commission is not listening to the peoplehttps://www.svp.ie/News/Press-Releases/European-Commission-is-not-listening-to-the-people.aspx

SIMON COMMUNITIES CALL FOR FULL CABINET SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ON THE STATE’S RESPONSE TO HOMELESSNESS

http://www.simon.ie/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/TabId/206/ArtMID/851/ArticleID/50/SIMON-COMMUNITIES-CALL-FOR-FULL-CABINET-SUPPORT-FOR-THE-IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN-ON-THE-STATE%e2%80%99S-RESPONSE-TO-HOMELESSNESS–.aspx

[4]Irish people did not sign up for what was done to them in the bailout – Vincent Browne

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-people-did-not-sign-up-for-what-was-done-to-them-in-the-bailout-1.1631046

[5]27.12.2013, Irish „rescue”: 67.5 bn of bail-out loans, 89.5 bn to banks – Attac investigation shows: cash flows from Ireland to the financial sector significantly exceed bail-out loans / EU crisis management policy bleeds out people and economy to funnel billions to the banking system

http://www.attac.at/news/detailansicht/datum/2013/12/27/irish-rescue-675-bn-of-bail-out-loans-895-bn-to-banks.html

[6]Ireland prepares to exit bailout after ‘biggest crisis since the Famine’ – as it happened.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/13/ireland-prepares-to-exit-bailout-business-live#block-52aaee51e4b008af53c5c3bb

[7] CORE POLICY OBJECTIVE: HOUSING & ACCOMMODATION

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/file/SER%202010/2010%20-%20SER%20-%207%20-%20Chapter%203%205%20-%20Housing%20and%20Accommodation.pdf

[8]What is Homelessness – Simon Community.

http://www.simon.ie/sci/Homelessness/Homelessness.aspx

[9] How many people are Homeless?

http://www.simon.ie/Portals/0/Docs/How%20many%20people%20are%20homeless%20in%20Ireland%20-%20Sept%202012.pdf

[10] Qualifying for Social Housing in Ireland

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/

local_authority_and_social_housing/applying_for_local_authority_housing.html

[11] Qualifying for Rent Supplement in Ireland.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/

social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html

[12] http://www.cori.ie/Justice/545-cori-justice-claims-the-working-poor-are-among-irelands-most-vulnerable-and-should-be-protected

[13] The Human Cost – An overview of the evidence on economic adversity and mental health and recommendations for action – Mental Health Commission – September 2011

http://www.mhcirl.ie/file/hcpaper.pdf

[14] CSO Special Report on Homelessness

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/homelesspersonsinireland

/Homeless,persons,in,Ireland,A,special,Census,report.pdf

[15] http://richardboydbarrett.ie/2014/06/05/sleep-out-will-commence-at-7pm-this-evening-td-and-cllrs-sleep-out-overnight-with-homeless-families-to-protest-housing-crisis-prior-to-new-council-agm-in-dun-laoghaire/#more-327647

[16]Dun Laoighre’s New Library

http://mariebaker.net/2014/dun-laoghaires-new-library/

 

 

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.

Survivors 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

Money Makes the World Go Round………Not Ideology….Feminism is Just Along for the Ride

 

An odd title for an essay isn’t it? But bear with me – no-one can be in any doubt that feminism is a toxic ideology founded on hatred, prejudice and vitriol – well apart from feminists that is – but even the most supposedly academic feminists are morons – well, you would have to be some class of moron to believe even a tenth of the unutterable crap that feminists spew out and have spewed out.

But – here’s a thought – what if – feminism is merely a cover for something deeper, something less obvious – something that operates in the shadows – but in parallel with feminism?

What if – feminism is just the public face of something else?

 

This article appeared in Irish Independant yesterday.

Separated dad wants State to pay for house big enough for visiting children

Tim Healy– Updated 27 May 2014 10:40 PM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/separated-dad-wants-state-to-pay-for-house-big-enough-for-visiting-children-30309135.html

I didn’t comment on it or immediately decide to sit down a write a critique because I wanted to wait to see if anyone commented – last time I checked and no – not one single comment.

The issues in this case – and it is the subject of an ongoing High Court case speak to Men’s Rights, men’s Human Rights – but there are deeper issues within which this case is embedded and which inform the underlying causes of why in this instance Men’s Human Rights are believed to be of such irrelevance that ignoring them is government policy to do so, that this government is impelled to implement policies that are blatantly and very obviously an infringement of this man’s Human Rights?

Those issues are cultural, political and economic – what this case is not about is feminism per se, this case is first and foremost about Human Rights – and the human being whose rights are being violated is male – and a parent, and to uphold his Human Rights would cost this government – money – and ultimately lots of money it simply is not willing or able to spend.

It is also about how the concept of family has become skewed – and this is where feminism comes in – this is the point where the influence of feminism intersects with politics and public policy, with societal and cultural attitudes – and most significantly with economic considerations.

Please read the article now and bear these things in mind – the issue is Human Rights – and the broader issue’s are about the cultural and political narrative and language used with regard to how Irish Society views not just men – but men as fathers – as parents. But it is also about economic policy. This is not necessarily simply because of feminism alone, though feminist influence has contributed to this – but also to how men and women see themselves – as parents, and how that paradigm has been always been assiduously cultivated.

Underpinning all this is the “Housing Crash” – and the devastating results of a housing bubble that when it burst here in Ireland almost brought this country to the brink of economic collapse – we are still living with the consequences of this – and will be living with those consequences for many many years to come.

Was this precipitated by feminism? If only. This was precipitated by greed, by political cute hoorism, by the machinations of venal and corrupt bankers, developers, and financiers.

So, let’s take a look at this article.

The first thing to note is the title of this article – in particular the implication that this man’s children “visit” him – that as a “separated dad” his role in his children’s lives is peripheral and that his connection to his children is not that of a parent with all the rights and responsibilities that this entails but of a single person who happens to have fathered some children.

The constant reference to access, to “visits” from his children is to my mind grating – and it gives me no pleasure to say this – but it isn’t just those in “authority” or sneery journalists who view fathers through this prism of fatherhood being viewed as a secondary type of parenting, as subsidiary to “motherhood” but some men do this as well.

Ok – having said that, granted the current legislative framework enshrines this perspective and operates it institutionally through mechanisms like concepts of “custody” of “access/contact/visitation” and of course “maintenance/child support”

My personal belief is that we need to move away from this narrative – which is inspired by and influenced by feminism – reject these concepts and embrace the over-arching concept of default equal parenting.

I am not suggesting that mothers and fathers are interchangeable – not at all – because they are not – but that within the context of parenting – mothers and fathers each bring unique and valuable things to the parenting of children.

This attitude is very clearly illustrated in the very title of this article, the attitude that fathers are secondary parents. The barely concealed contempt in the title of this article towards this man having the nerve to believe the state should pay his rent for a “bigger house” so his children could “visit” is palpable.

Though there would be no default perception that a mother seeking to avail of either Social Housing provision or Rent Supplement is somehow “not entitled” to do so.

In the body of the article reference is made to the amount of €900.00 – as if this amount would enable this man to live in the lap of luxury in a 6 bedroom mansion.

The reality is this.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rents-continue-to-rise-especially-in-dublin-258278.html

Average rents in Dublin have been rising, and we are not talking about mansions here – just bog standard 2 or 3 bed houses or apartments

“Rents in Dublin City soared by more than 11% last year and average rents across the country climbed by 7% in the same period, according to a new report. 

The average advertised rent nationally is now €865, while in Dublin it is €1,210up 11.2% year on year.  

The quarterly Daft.ie rental report covering the last three months of 2013 signalled a warning that such increases in rent levels could adversely affect the country’s competitiveness.

Such was the increase in rental rates in Dublin that it is the fastest rate of inflation in the rental sector since the middle of 2007.

Rents are still 15% below the peak of the Celtic Tiger period in mid-2007, while around the country rental rates now are still more than 20% below those of mid-2007.”

The next thing is this.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/pdf/Revised%20rent%20limits%20June%202013.pdf

There are specific limits set on Rent Supplement – if a person is unable to provide housing from their own means – in Ireland there are two choices – make an application to one’s Local Authority for Social Housing – which this man has done and already been “deemed eligible” for.

“While he and his children have been deemed eligible for social housing, he has been told he will be on a waiting list for five years.”

 

Or try to find privately rented accommodation and apply for Rent Supplement – where, based on ones circumstances a sliding scale operates as to the amount that one can receive as a Rent Supplement.

If the same criteria was applied to his application for Rent Supplement as was applied in order to qualify him as a parent of four children for Social Housing he would be deemed eligible for a maximum amount of Rent Supplement of between €950.00 and €1,000.00 – depending on which area of Dublin he found accommodation in. For himself and his four children.

The last and final thing to note is this – there are NO Social Housing units available for the numbers in actualneed of this safety net, in fact the numbers on the Social Housing waiting lists has almost trebled since 2007.

 

“The social housing waiting list figures produced recently by the Housing Agency, showing almost 90,000 households in need, represent a 30 per cent increase since the start of the global financial crisis in 2007.

Since 2011, using updated methodology, housing need reduced by 9 per cent. However, if it had not been for vacancies that arose in the private landlord sector diluting the downturn, the demand for social housing might have been much higher, particularly in the capital and other cities and towns.”

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-housing-waiting-lists-indicate-that-new-phase-of-construction-is-now-needed-1.1648604

That 30% increase represents many different types of persons in need of Social Housing, top of the list would be “families” and family is now a much broader concept than it once was, with the majority of “families” being two parents and children, the next largest group of “families” would be single parents, or those who are parenting separately – as is clear from this man’s qualification of eligible for Social Housing – he is considered a “family” granted he is now on a housing list along with 89,999 other “households”.

So, why isn’t he considered a “family” from the perspective of the Department of the ironically named Social Protection?

MONEY!

The number of separated/divorced persons in Ireland according to the last Census in 2011 was, 203,964 in total – both male and female. I believe we can posit with some degree of accuracy that in quite a significant number of those cases it was the female half who retained possession of the “Family Home” and it was the male half who must find or secure “alternative accommodation” – being unable to do so can be a factor in decisions relating to custody/access, apart from any other factors – this man’s story is illustrative of that – even though it is quite clear from this article that there are NO issues relating to “access” or having “contact” with his children.

The issues in this case are political, economic and structural – though this article does have an underlying bias in its “tone” in particular, by characterising his need for housing because he wants somewhere for his children to “visit” him.

Back to the Census figures.

The total number of divorced/separated men in Ireland in 2011 was 88,918

Of that total – 38,412 are in rented accommodation and 50,497 (including not stated) are not.

 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

 

The total number of divorced/separated women in Ireland in 2011 was 115,046

Of that total – 46,071 are in rented accommodation and 68, 975 are not.

 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

These figures are for private rented accommodation.

The percentage of men in rented accommodation is just under 43% and the percentage of women in rented accommodation is a little over 40%

In essence almost parity – so one could posit that equal numbers of men and women are in the same boat, except for women there is a lifeboat, for men it is a leaky and capsizing rowboat.

Therein lies the problem – it is the “women and children first” into the lifeboats – and the men can die in the freezing cold waters of the Atlantic paradigm.

In relation to this particular set of circumstances there is an obvious paradox – between how two state bodies view this – on the one hand the Local Housing Authority deems this man is qualified for Social Housing – as a distinct “family” but on the other the Department of Social Protection (even typing that makes me grimace) is adamant that this man is “single” though legally he is not.

Consider this – if both parents were in need of Social Housing and if the “Family Home” is either already rented from a Local Authority or was privately rented whileavailing of Rent Supplement there is now a duplication of housing need – the Local Authority obviously has no problem incorporating this paradigm into its calculations and will now consider that both parents are equally eligible for Social Housing – granted the parent who leaves must now wait his/her turn on the housing list – which in this man’s case has been estimated at approx five years – but is prepared to accept that what was once, one “Family” or “Household” is now two – with the children being equally accepted as being part of each of those “Households”.

To reiterate, there is NO Social Housing available to accommodate the sheer numbers and this is a matter of economics, politics and as I stated above – the factors that went into causing the economic crash in the first place.

This is about money – this is about penny pinching, this is about putting economics before people – and finally this is about finding easy targets to implement these economic policies upon.

Separated fathers are easy targets – because of the default presumptions so clearly outlined and insinuated at in this article – fathers are visitors in their children’s lives – fathers are irrelevant to their children.

The Department of Social Protection rejected this man’s claim on the basis he was only entitled to the rate for a single person – if you look at the article you will see that this man separated in 2011 – even with stretching mathematical probability to its absolute limits – that he separated from his wife on the 1st January 2011 – neither he or his wife are eligible to apply for a divorce till the 2nd January 2015 – there is a 4 year qualifying period here in Ireland before you can apply – so – he is not legally “single” he is still legally “married” though separated.

Granted this is legal semantics and while a pertinent legal point – is not the crux of this matter.

The crux is how fathers are viewed – and in particular how separated fathers are viewed – as secondary parents – as persons who are “visited” by their children – from the Department of Social Protection’s perspective – the bottom line is money – saving money – eliminating as many people as possible from qualifying for any number of state supports or payments – separated fathers are easy targets.

It is that cynical.

Because even with the overlay of the influence of feminism on the perceptions and presumptions relating to parenting – and the role of both parents as being essential to the well-being of children – in a case like one – where there are clearly no issues of two parents being locked in a battle over the ownership of their mutual children – the state is actively and cynically creating a situation for economic reasons that imposes an additional handicap on separated fathers.

The ability to provide not just suitable accommodation for themselves – but for their children as well, and handing a potent weapon to those women who would gleefully and gladly use just such a weapon given half the chance.

This policy will actually reinforce and entrench the already difficult and painful experiences of fathers and will ultimately harm the children caught in the middle.

What or who could be in more need of “Social Protection” than children?

I did an ad hoc calculation on the figures and made a guess out of the numbers of men in rented accommodation that about a quarter of them would be in need of either Social Housing or Rent Supplement. Please bear in mind this is just a guess for illustrative purposes.

So we are looking at a figure of 9,603 separated or divorced men.

I calculated on the basis of these men having two children and that they were in the Dublin area.

Each one would qualify for a Rent Supplement of between €900.00 – €975.00 per month – an average of €937.50.

For a year this works out at €11,250.00 each.

In total for these 9,603 fathers it would cost €108,033,750.00 per year to pay them this Rent Supplement – so it does represent a hefty saving – on the surface.

How about this – at €100,000.00 a pop you could build 1080 houses in this country for that money – reducing the numbers to 8523, and the payout by €12,150,000.00 for the next year to €95,883,750.00

By the next year to €83,733,750.00 and the next to €71,583,750.00 – you get the picture.

Ok – let me just put all this into perspective – this state is paying 111 former ministers a total of €9.6 million a year in pensions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/965m-annual-pensions-bill-for-former-ministers-213448.html

“As pay levels of top-earning bankers come under intense scrutiny, updated figures show taxpayers are also footing an annual €9.65m pensions bill for 111 former ministers.

 Figures supplied by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform reveal that 35 former senior politicians are paid combined ministerial and TD pensions worth over €100,000 gross each year.

 They include over a dozen members of Fianna Fáil-led governments during the past decade, governments which sanctioned large increases to politicians’ pay and pensions during their terms in office.

 A further 68 former office holders receive pensions worth in excess of €50,000. All former ministers will receive the combined pension for the rest of their lives.”

 

If those pension were reduced by 50% to €50,000.0 that would be €4.82 million and would fund Rent Supplement for approx 428 of those fathers.

But this will really concentrate your mind on how our political class views Irish people.

 

“The highest earners are two former taoisigh, Brian Cowen and Bertie Ahern, who are largely blamed for overseeing policies which led to the collapse of the economy. They are each entitled to a combined annual pension of €164,526 before tax. After deductions for the pension levy, the two former Fianna Fáil leaders will receive annual payments of €150,163. Both men are paying an effective public service pension levy rate of 9%.”

 

What about those bankers (spelt with a capital “W”)

 

Well last year some of those bankers were caught on tape laughing about how not only did they know about the impending crisis but also that they would never have to pay a single penny back – have a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2013/06/28/the-anglo-tapes-the-guarantee-and-irelands-economic-crisis/

 http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/29/bank-j29.html

We are talking about a sum of €7 Billion by the way.

Which brings me to my final point – remember I said that for the cost of paying out Rent Supplement for a year you could build 1080 houses at €100,000.00 a pop.

I know one way to fund the building of 5000 houses – straight away, at the same cost – for a total of €500,000,000.00 – or rather I know who should be forced to pay for this.

The ones who caused this crisis – every last one of them – like I said – bankers spelt with a capital “W” and politicians who shouldn’t have been allowed to run a stall never mind a country.

I began this essay by saying that money makes this world go round, not ideology – so to conclude – with regard to feminism – the motivating force behind feminism is to extract resources – to facilitate wealth transfers from men to women.

There is a purpose other than the obvious to this – women shop – women buy useless crap – in comparison to men – women literally do “shop till they drop” women are the main drivers behind consumerism.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say this – feminism is a handy distraction from the underlying institutional and structural problems that are besetting almost all western states. It is still a toxic vile hate movement? Yes it is. Absolutely.

But if you look at some of the crap that mainstream feminists whine about – such as sexism – sorry, but who really gives a shit – it makes good TV for some idiot to go on a rant bout – will focus people’s attention on what are in essence trivial matters – and create a smokescreen of carefully hyped and manufactured hysteria over……………..nothing.

It is mass hysteria for the masses, for the hard of thinking.

Is it really the burning issue of the day that needs answering, that women are being “disrespected” are having their feelings hurt by not being taken seriously? Really? This is an issue worth addressing – on TV?

This planet is being driven to the brink of self-destruction – almost all western states are literally teetering on the brink of economic collapse – are men being systematically stripped of their Human Rights at the behest of feminists? Yep – they sure are.

The question is why? Cui Bono? Who benefits? Who are the ultimate beneficiaries of this? Women?

The answers are a damn sight more complex than “women’s rights” or “men’s rights” even – right now the west is almost stripped bare of resources – how does one destabilise a culture or a society in order to have a free hand to go in and like a plague of locusts strip that culture or society of its resources?

One destabilises the very foundations upon which all societies and cultures are based – the family, and kinship groups – one pits men and women against one another – creates a toxic social environment that will, to all intents and purposes create carefully controlled social unrest – and yep – even fund “services” exclusively for women – and engineer a neutered male population, and a disenfranchised male population is a docile male population.

Because here is the other thing – women vote – and in greater numbers than men – and women vote for stupid reasons – you flatter the average female enough – appeal to her sense of inherent entitlement and pander to her need to see herself as “special” and that dumb bint would vote for Atilla the Hun.

And if you can also convince enough men that this is actually a good thing – then you are laughing – all the way to the bank.

Feminism’s purpose is and was to implement a programme of male neutering – to implement a programme where men were literally stripped of the right to organise, to co-operate, to form cohesive groups and to embroil them is a positive shitstorm of social exclusion, social and cultural demonization and render them ineffective as a potential threat to the implementation of economic warfare.

 

This story is about this one man’s battle to have his Human Rights vindicated but it is also a symptom – yes it is a story of men’s rights – of father’s rights – and it must be said of children’s rights – but it also gives us a peek at the dark murky waters that flow beneath – at the underlying structural causes.

The Department of Social Protection in Ireland has a programme of welfare cuts to implement – it has to reduce the Social Welfare bill – this is not one of those “will we or wont we” things – this is one of those “do it or else things.

The reasons for this austerity programme are well documented and speak to not just economic policy failures but political failures.

But – the bottom line is this – cuts must be made and made they will be – now – who can we pick on? Who does nobody give a shit about? Who are the easy targets?

How did men find themselves in the position of being those easy targets – and more importantly why?

 

Cui bono? Who benefits?

 

We Just Want World Peace and to Save the Planet…….and……..to help old ladies across the road!!

 

I’m going to write about eco-feminism, but am going to preface it with – I know sod all about eco-feminism – or at least I didn’t until now – and what little I know now, is giving me a headache.

As soon as I see the words “goddess” and “women” and “nurturing” and “patriarchy” together I switch off, and if the words “crystals” or “healing” or “spirituality” are thrown into the mix – then I find something to watch or read that restores my sanity – Bill Burr is good for that.

Bearing in mind the sheer volume of feminist shit I’ve read in the last several months I actually believed there was nothing that could surprise me regarding the depths of stupidity, irrationality or insanity that feminists inhabit.

I was wrong.

I give you first an article in the Irish times by one Joe Humphreys called:

Tired of capitalism? Try ecofeminism; Economies undervalue ‘women’s work’ – but are men to blame?

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tired-of-capitalism-try-ecofeminism-1.1772914

And an “explanation” of what eco-feminism is here. Apparently;

http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm

“There is no single definition of ecofeminism, and ecofeminists may well disagree with at least some of explanations I give in this section, but there are core principles. Ecofeminists agree that the domination of women and the domination of nature are fundamentally connected and that environmental efforts are therefore integral with work to overcome the oppression of women.

 The primary aims of ecofeminism are not the same as those typically associated with liberal feminism. Ecofeminists do not seek equality with men as such, but aim for a liberation of women as women. Central to this liberation is a recognition of the value of the activities traditionally associated with women; childbirth, nurturing and the whole domestic arena. Some feminists have criticized ecofeminism for reinforcing oppressive stereotypes and for its tendency toward essentialism.”

 

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that trees are probably all oppressive and patriarchal while shrubs are probably not 🙂

Though – while I sympathise with these greenfems and their inability to find a suitable single definition for this “branch” of feminism – a suggestion for a single definition – it begins with bull and ends with shit. You’re welcome 🙂
Ok – there is a story behind how I found myself reading this garbage – have been pondering on what feminists will do now that the writing is starting to appear on the wall for, in your face man hating toxic gender feminists.

Feminism is nothing if not chameleon like – or perhaps snakelike would be a better description – shed one skin and emerge with a brand new outer casing.

The other thing is this – we’ve just had some elections here in Ireland, both local and European, and the Greens who were literally wiped out in the last general election are having a bit of a new lease of life – and the final thing – lot of talk in Ireland about creating a “sustainable economy” and embracing the green environmentally friendly new wave of selling useless overpriced shit to people. But that’s environmentally friendly.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/elections/resurgent-greens-tweet-warning-to-labour-1.1808372

This is what caught my eye;

“Despite their demolition as a parliamentary force in the Republic, the Greens have connections in an international movement. Swedish and German Greens have rebuilt at various points after electoral setbacks. The electoral fate that befall the Irish Greens in 2011, although traumatic for its members, was not unusual. The electorate can be forgiving.”

Why do the hairs on the back of my neck always stand up when I see the word Swedish or Sweden connected to anything?

Young people are also more into “the environment” and “saving the planet” than more mature folks, and last but not least, all the pioneers of third wave feminism are getting old, crotchety, even more insane than they were when they started out, and the oppression message is just getting old.

Feminism needs new blood – with a better way to sell the message.

The new wave of online feminism is populated by complete morons and idiots or nasty arseholes like Amanda Marcotte and the jezzies – feminism needs a new hook – and what better one than saving the planet…….from patriarchal trees or some such shoite.

Does this mean that feminism will be taking a new direction? Hell no – the toxic message is the same – but the packaging, the skin is getting frayed around the edges – the wrinkles are starting to show.

What could be more plausible than blaming the patriarchy for the all the environmental woes of the planet?

It is no coincidence that these greemfems and various other loony tunes dancing round naked by the light of the moon, refer to the planet as Gaia – Mother Earth, or that menstruation is somehow viewed as a cosmic lunar link to the rhythms of all life – sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology)

So, what about this article in the Irish Times? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeelll, there’s this;

“As Mary Mellor, emeritus professor in sociology at Northumbria University, explains, ecofeminism has been around since the 1970s. There is a recent revival of interest, and Mellor – who was in Dublin this week delivering the annual guest lecture of the UCD School of Social Justice – has injected her own critique of the “gender-based economy” and its figurehead, “Economic Man”.

 What is needed, she says, is for women’s work to be properly accounted for, but also to be remunerated through a “public money” system that is managed by the state rather than by the banks. Mellor’s idea is summarised thus: “Economic Man claims a false transcendence of ‘his’ existence in nature.”

 

Then, there is this;

 

“What is ecofeminism?
 
Mary Mellor: “It’s the idea that there is a link between women and nature. But this can be construed in several different ways. Some people think of women as nurturing earth mothers with a kind of sympathetic awareness of nature that men don’t have. That’s not my position, but I can understand where people are coming from. A lot of the early ecofeminists were poets and theologians. They were already in that sort of romantic and spiritual field.

 “I see it in much more material terms, and the way in which there is no economic accounting either for the damage to the natural world or for what I call ‘women’s work’ – work around the body and in the community that sustains us in our lives.

 “The concept of ‘economic man’, this kind of rational agent, couldn’t exist – and, of course, doesn’t exist, because it’s a construct – without all the work that is done under the title ‘women’s work’, and the work of the environment in sustaining and dealing with the damage that our human activities do.”

 

Oh holy shit!

 

That was my reaction – in a nutshell – anything that has “feminism” in any part of its title is bad news – anything – and this piece of drivel was in the paper of record here in Ireland – and to be blunt – the vast majority of women are waking up to what a less than positive label feminist is – it just doesn’t get them what they want. Needless to say, Joe Humphreys is socialist/marxist/idiot – pick one, and this Mary Mellor is…….well if you read her contributions you’ll see what she is.

Even the “I’m not a feminist but…….” types are running out of road with the whole equal rights for women crap.

But – saving the planet? Now there’s a message you can get behind, manipulate, twist, mould and use to act as a cover for your toxic agenda. Who doesn’t realise that we have some major environmental issues looming if not already upon us – and who wouldn’t get onboard with saving the planet?

Granted – for the really hardcore gender feminists – the man hating rancid harpy’s, nothing will change – the agenda is always going to be female supremacy – but – they have to package and sell that shit to the masses – they have to peddle their snake oil in fancy bottles to disguise the taste.

Undoing the deeply embedded toxic agenda of feminism from the intuitional framework of states is going to be hard enough, reversing the cultural and social paradigms that inform and give license to dysfunctional if not downright criminal behaviour and actions on the part of women is another – but – keeping an eye on the shapeshifting and reworking of the vehicles through which feminism operates is also worth doing – in my opinion.

What next? Vegetarian feminism? Carrots are symbols of patriarchal oppression!

Now, for all those eco feminists smugly preening themselves about how in tune with nature and the environment they are – here are a few insights for you.

 

Water Pollution Caused by Birth Control Poses Dilemma – Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer   May 23, 2012 02:00pm ET

http://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

 

What was that you were saying about women being close to nature – in tune with nature? Hmmm.

Previous Older Entries