Domestic Violence Act 2018: Republic of Ireland.

 

On foot of a press release from the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ireland The Domestic Violence Act 2018 came into force (became law) on the 2nd January 2018, repealing the previous legislation on domestic violence

“Repeals

  1. The following are repealed:

(a) section 51 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 ;

(b) the Domestic Violence Act 1996 ;

(c) the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2002 .”

 

Link to Domestic Violence act 2018 is here:

From: Irish Statute Book: Domestic Violence act 2018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/6/enacted/en/print

 

Naturally enough the Minister made an “announcement” and as is the wont of politicians he made sure to curry favour with those whom he believed to be “experts” on “domestic violence” and took a stance which he believed would position himself as an advocate and supporter of those “experts”

From Department of Justice Press Release: Minister Flanagan brings landmark Domestic Violence Act into operation

http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR19000001

“I would like to acknowledge the work being done by organisations who support victims of domestic violence, and their contribution in strengthening the provisions of the Act.”

One of whom is Catriona Gleeson of Safe Ireland – one of many many “domestic violence services” for WOMEN and only women, where this prize idiot (aren’t they all?) pontificated in this article about one aspect of the new legislation – Coercive Control.

From: New offence of coercive control in domestic violence law

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0102/1019886-domestic-violence/

“Caitriona Gleeson, Programme and Communications Manager with Safe Ireland, said coercive control is effectively domestic violence.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland she said it is “where somebody in a relationship deliberately sets out to deliberately put in fear and control the other person’s life.”

“There certainly are aspects of the behaviour that will always be very difficult to prove, however there is lots of behaviour that is investigated properly and documented properly will result in convictions, and that’s what we’re hopeful for.”

Ms Gleeson said Ireland is the third country in the world to introduce this new offence. England introduced it a number of years ago and Scotland more recently.

She said there has been significant uptake in training among gardaí ahead of the introduction of the new law but feels more training is still needed.

Edit: As I was writing this I opened this article with a view to addressing Ms. Gleesons “crowing” over similiar legislation being introduced in the UK – I have just realised I forgot to add it.

Controlling girlfriend ‘first woman convicted’ of new domestic abuse offence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

And from the article:

“A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.”

Ryan Nugent in the Irish Independent quoted extensively from another “expert” on “domestic violence”

Director of women’s aid in Ireland Margaret Martin in this article

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychological-abuse-in-a-relationship-is-a-criminal-offence-under-new-law-37674223.html

“Another change is that a violent or sexual offence committed by a person against their spouse or person they are in an intimate relationship with will be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing. This was welcomed by director of Women’s Aid, Margaret Martin.

“We have long argued that when a perpetrator is a current or former intimate partner of the woman that this should be an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one when it comes to sentencing to acknowledge the unique position that the perpetrator is in, including the fact that they have intimate knowledge of and access to their victim and so brutally betrays that trust.”

And here:

“Ms Martin said that additional resources need to be included if the new act is to be a success.

This includes more resources for gardaí and courts as well as specialist support services.

“From January 1, 2019, women must feel change quickly. It must be positive, it must be practical and it must make them and their children safer from abuse,” Ms Martin said.

“What is promised on paper must be fully resourced to be effective in protecting those affected by domestic violence.

“We are concerned that an already overstretched system will see an increase in demand when the new provisions commence,” she warned.

Ms Martin also said that Women’s Aid supports the extension of eligibility for safety and barring orders for those in relationships but who are not cohabiting.

“This change will make a significant difference to the safety of younger women.

“We also welcome the move to prevent abusers to communicate electronically with their victims, a step in the right direction to address the digital abuse and online harassment of women by partners and exes.”

Out-of-hours sittings of the District Court will be held to provide orders in emergency situations.

“We hope that the Garda will use this provision to offer vulnerable women the chance to apply for immediate protection when it is needed and that this measure is adequately resourced, so that it will work in practice,” said Ms Martin.”

By the way – these “quotes” represent almost the full content of Mr. Nugent’s article – he simply handed over the “reporting” to this “expert” on domestic violence and threw in a few sentences linking together this “experts” quotes – great example of……..journalism Mr. Nugent.

In May this article was published by Men’s Voices Ireland

The paragraph that jumped out at me from: Men’s Voices Ireland

The Domestic Violence Act May 2018

https://www.mensvoicesireland.com/news/the-domestic-violence-act-may-2018/

was this one

“Hearings took place before the committee on Feb 19 and Feb 26 2014 at which 24 groups or individuals were called. Nobody presented any evidence on the rates of perpetration as between men and women, attempted to give a balanced nonpartisan view of DV, instance the principal features of DV including many surprising recent findings or to show the extent to which men are also victims. An enormous amount of evidence which challenges the official narrative was thereby omitted.”

I’m actually a bit surprised you were shocked and surprised at the way these committee hearings went guys?

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, bear with me, I have a copy of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 sitting right here on my desk beside me as I type this. I’ve been through it twice now – and while I am not purporting in any way shape or form to be giving a detailed analysis of this piece of legislation – at this time – one thing has quite clearly caught my eye – actually a couple of things – but lets just focus, for the moment on this one thing.

In every section empowering “someone” to make an application under this piece of legislation the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

Let me repeat that – the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

THE PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION for protection, for an order, for ANYTHING under the provisions of this legislation is consistently referred to as – THE APPLICANT.

There is no “presumption” contained in this Legislation that “The Applicant” is or can be automatically FEMALE.

The person, who in the context of court proceedings in relation to any provision against who an Order is being sought pursuant to the provisions of this piece of legislation is consistently referred to as THE RESPONDENT.

Again there is NO “presumption” that the “Respondent” is or can only be MALE.

There is no reference IN ANY SECTION to SHE – as in “SHE MAY”, are you following my logic?

So, notwithstanding any bullshit from women’s aid, from safe Ireland or any of the innumerable “charadees” sucking up the vast majority of “resources” to address the issue of “domestic violence” this legislation is EQUALLY applicable in its provisions to both MEN and women.

As I said previously – I am literally reading and studying this legislation as we speak – so when I have not only gone through this with a fine-tooth comb, and when I have reviewed what I presume will be a new procedure for making applications under this legislation I will publish a further article.

The reason for this is simple – all “Motions/Applications” have a format, a particular way of doing it – this format involves submitting certain forms and following certain “Orders of the Court”

Because ALL the previous legislation has been repealed – this will require NEW “Rules of the Court” and probably the current “Forms” will require amendment/change/re-formatting.

My apologies for getting a bit technical – but if you think that some slimey counsel, usually paid for by women’s aid or any of the other cesspits of feminist propaganda won’t try and trip you (any man) up, invariably going into court as a lay litigant because you (any man) used the “wrong form” didn’t do something “technical” think again.

There is one final point I would like to make here – and I refer to the section on “coercive control: Section 39 and strongly suggest you review the research and analysis with regard to parental alienation – and perhaps see if you can spot the commonalities in particular Section 39 (2) (a) and (b)

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person’s behaviour has a serious effect on a relevant person if the behaviour causes the relevant person—

(a) to fear that violence will be used against him or her, or

(b) serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities.

(emphasis added)

Finally.

If I achieve nothing else today by posting this, with the caveat, I have not had time to do a thorough analysis and/or a proper legal search (to link other provisions of law to this legislation i.e., the Constitution, The ECHR etc.) except this:

If you are a MAN and you are reading this, or have been reading any of the articles referenced above and have inculcated the message that The Domestic Violence Act 2018 is ONLY FOR WOMEN.

STOP THINKING THAT – NOW.

This legislation applies to YOU – as a man, as a human being, as an Irish Citizen

  • Every single provision of this Legislation can be used, invoked and applied BY YOU. AS A MAN.
  • You as A MAN are entitled to every single protection available under this Legislation AS A MAN.
  • You AS A MAN are entitled to under the provisions of this legislation to go into COURT on a Motion/Application exactly like any woman can.
  • And further – you as A MAN are entitled to be granted an Order (whatever form that Order takes) under ANY provision of this legislation AS A MAN, as a human being – and – as an Irish Citizen.

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

Feminist Crybabies – Men are Mean!

 

It is a truism I know to say that feminists are crazy, irrational, fact adverse, and without a doubt the most bald-faced liars on the planet.

It is also a truism to say that if a “study”  – and in the context of feminist studies I use that term extremely loosely (sitting around on cushions, swigging Lidl wine in a cat urine soaked bedsit talking shoite qualifies as a “study” in the black-hole that is the feminist psyche) flat out contradicts the feminist “perspective” then…….well ignore it and state THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what the study finds – just like here:

In an article published on the 3 August 2018 entitled; Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy by Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

And subtitled – “We can’t achieve freedom of expression without first addressing the toxic environment many women face on the internet”.

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news-Article.aspx?id=5623027c-d0bb-40de-a4d5-3eddebe936f6

This statement was made about halfway down the article and a link was provided to a supporting “study” – there is a link to “2014 study” referenced in this toxic little paragraph.

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts

Online threats can and do lead female journalists to leave the profession. They can also lead female journalists to remove themselves from social media to avoid trauma, or stay quiet about their experience with sexual harassment online for fear of repercussions for their career. This is having a devastating impact on freedom of expression.”

What made me laugh out loud – seriously – feminists say the funniest things – was the title of the “study” referenced to support these dimwits contention that…………..boo hoo, men are mean to women on the internet.

This is the title of the study:

Demos: Male celebrities receive more abuse on Twitter than women

Link here https://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/demos-male-celebrities-receive-more-abuse-on-twitter-than-women-2/

Not only that, this little gem also appears in the “study” cited by these feminist twats to support their boo hoo.

“The study included celebrities, politicians, journalists and musicians – specifically chosen to ensure an equal number – roughly one million – were aimed at each gender.

It found:

– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.

– Journalism is the only category where women received more abuse than men, with female journalists and TV news presenters receiving roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts.

– Men were much more likely to troll public figures via social media. Three-quarters of the abuse received by prominent men, and over 60% of abuse received by women, was tweeted by men.

– Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais and Katie Hopkins were three of the most likely celebrities to receive abuse.”

Hmmmmm, are you seeing what I’m seeing?

Ok – lets just see exactly what the feminist crybabies Jenny and Sinead (pronounced Shin – ayd) said about twitter:

“The non-profit group Working to Halt Online Abuse found that from 2000 to 2013, 70% of the 4,043 people who reported cyber harassment were female, while 25% were male and 5% were unknown.  British think tank Demos found in a 2014 study that on Twitter female journalists and TV presenters received roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts”

And then remind ourselves of what the study ACTUALLY reported – shall we?

“– 2.54% of the tweets containing the @ username of male public figures contained abuse, compared to only 0.95% of the tweets received by prominent women.

Over 1 in 20 (5.19%) of the tweets sent to male celebrities included abuse, compared with 1 in 70 (1.37%) aimed at female celebrities.”

No doubt you can see that Jennifer Adams and Sinead Carolan of Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media published a statement that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the statement in the “Study” they cited to support the absolute bare-faced lie they told.

No doubt many of you are familiar with the feminist propensity for taking data out of context, with conflating, twisting and misrepresenting “facts” in order to support whatever tedious, ridiculous, insane “theory” they wish to shove into your face.

But this! This is so blatant, so ridiculous, so in your face that it did actually make me LOL.

Now, why am I not addressing the content of Jenny and Sinead’s little screed?

Simples – it’s the usual feminist shoite.

For example:

“Attacks like these are both gendered and life-altering events. This is why we talk about online violence and the safety of women online, rather than the issue of their polite treatment. In fact, the chilling effect that online violence and cyber-misogyny has on female voices is a direct challenge to democracy.”

Ah, right the attacks!

The attacks that happen AGAINST males at three times the rate of these so-called attacks on females – those “attacks?”

Personally, I have received some very very bizarre comments – from some very very disturbed people – ALL feminists – as they usually gleefully inform me – before they threaten me personally, sigh.

I have a folder with the choicest ones saved – for posterity…..and my personal amusement 😉

The only part of the above statement that has even a grain of truth in it is the “gendered………” part – yep the nastiest comments ALL emanate from FEMALES – feminist FEMALES.

What about the LIFE-ALTERING EVENTS thingamajig?

Phooey!

“Life-altering events” my arse – unless of course you happen to be female and NOT A FEMINIST.

This delightful quote:

“These stories are, tragically, not the exception – online violence continues to raise the stakes for women speaking, blogging, writing and reporting in the public sphere every day. We run a project at the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media called #SOFJO, short for ‘Safety of Female Journalists Online’. We focus on the issues of equal representation and media pluralism by looking at the gendered component of online violence and the way it silences female voices and female stories in the media.”

Is without exception an illustration par excellence of feminist double speak – without any irony whatsoever these two dimwits peddle the “silences female voices and female stories…” crap.

The reason why I decided to address this pathetic little article is because I was doing a quick update on what various global bodies were up to with regard to “gender” issues. The OECD, the UN, the EU, the WHO – etc. – as in – popping onto their various sites and perusing the latest “gender” shoite.

ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN – ALL ABOUT WOMEN.

I won’t bore you with the latest crap emanating from these organisations – but one did catch my eye.

New women leaders institute to be chaired by former Oz PM, By Liz Heron on 20/04/2018

Link here https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/new-women-leaders-institute-to-be-chaired-by-former-oz-pm/

The former Australian prime minister has been appointed to the chair of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, soooooooooo I decided to have a little look see – and – it has a blog

Global Institute for Women’s Leadership – Blog

Link here https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/blog.aspx?page=1

First article on the blog is this: Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy – and here we are.

If I was to speculate – I would posit that the level and intensity of anti-feminist and non -feminist content on the internet – blogs, twitter etc. has increased significantly since the election of Donald Trump – and no, I have no opinion re President Trump – it is palpable – as is the level of public support for non-feminist ideas, opinions and commentary – and this more than anything is what is very scary for feminists – especially feminist media.

Shutting down debate, shutting down commentators who say and publish things that are in direct conflict with feminist ‘ideology’ or ‘perspectives’ has now reached ludicrous heights – but the words, horse and barn spring to mind.

People are sick to death of feminist crap, sick to death of the perpetual whining of feminists, sick to death of the never-ending parade of “victims” I know I am.

This is what scares feminists – not being able to control the flow of information, not being in charge of the discourse – hence the manufacturing of ever more ridiculous, and ever more hysterical claims like the title of this article “Violence against women online is a direct challenge to pluralism and democracy

Pluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeze – grow up and stop being such a pair of pathetic crybabies!

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

 

Old W[h]ines Fancy New Bottles – Part II

 

 Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article for AVfM, where she casts her eye over a new documentary film called The Mask You Live In – even the title makes me shudder.

Anyway – in her first two paragraph, Hoff Sommers indulges herself in a bit of hand-wringing and worrying, about how this film might, just might be misrepresenting boys. Then goes on to do just exactly that herself.

“ It argues that American boys are captive to a rigid and harmful social code of masculinity. From the earliest age, they are told to “Be a man!” “Don’t cry!” “Stop with the emotion!” and “Man up!” This “guy code” suppresses their humanity, excites their drive for dominance and renders many of them dangerous. The trailer features adolescent men describing their isolation, despair and thoughts of suicide, artfully interspersed with terrifying images of school shooters and mass murderers.”

Fair enough, though the fact that the filmmaker is described BY Hoff Sommers as  “filmmaker and feminist activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s” might be a great big bloody honking clue as to how Newsome might view boys and all male human beings!

In light of the fact that it was Hoff Sommers own book – “The War Against Boys”, in which SHE described this “war” as a “war” initiated, waged and perpetuated by BLOODY FEMINISTS “Against Boys.” The rest of her “article” is………..bizarre.

But, alas, one of the things that feminists are famous for is, backpeddling, indulging in a little linguistic sleight of hand, depending on which way the wind blows, and how uncomfortable that fence they’ve been sitting on is getting. Sommers apparently is no exception as this article illustrates.

“Christina Hoff Sommers, who played a starring role in the anti-feminist backlash of the 1990s, is back again with a new edition of her book The War Against Boys. Originally subtitled How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, it’s now relabeled How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men;”

Well now! Isn’t that intriguing? All of a sudden feminism is quietly swept under the carpet, and “policies” are now the big bad wolf creeping up on the hen house. Such a nice “let’s not point the finger at anybody or anything in particular” just some unattributed vague neutral “policies

Eh, yeah, right!

The article was published on Feb 14th 2013  – the author of this piece, Jim Naureckas, is very obviously not a fan of Sommers, and in this instance who can blame him.

I’m wondering, to myself, is this a chance to seize an opportunity to come in from cold? It can be a mite chilly being outside the sisterhood, especially when one yearns for “nice feminism” to come back into fashion. Naureckas helpfully supplies a link to another article, this time penned by Hoff Sommers herself.

Perhaps we’ll just let Hoff Sommers explain the little word substitution herself – I took a screen shot of the relevant paragraph, because for some reason I couldn’t copy and paste it, and am no good at figuring out what the problem is.

In her own words then. Click on the link above to go read the article yourself.

“For a revised version of the book, due out this summer, I’ve changed the subtitle – to “How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men” from “How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” – and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerence disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminilize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling.  As our schools have become more feelings-centred, risk-averse, collaboration-orientated and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities.  Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more that a decade later, there are major policy reasons – besides the stale “culture wars” of the 1990’s – to focus on boys schooling.”

Ah, well then, let’s all stopcriticising feminism” because obviously since from the first time Hoff Sommers published her ground-breaking book, it appears that  now, feminists have become so much nicer, so much more concerned about boys, it would be better if we all just learned to get along, and play nicely together. You read it from the horse’s mouth – feminism is OFF the hook.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T  – did I mention that this is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T?

Sommers does make a few friendly and nicesuggestions” as to how Newsome can improve her film, but decides to regale us first with some nice descriptive words about what men are, and what women are.

“A recent study on sex differences by researchers from the University of Turin, in Italy, and the University of Manchester, in England, confirms what most of us see with our eyes: with some exceptions, women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded, while men tend to be more utilitarian, objective, unsentimental and tough-minded. We do not yet fully understand the biological underpinnings of these universal tendencies, but that is no reason to deny they exist.”

 Where is the link to this “study please? I’d like to read it myself, and make my own mind up about what it found, if that’s all right with you Dr. Sommers?  Because what I’m seeing here is a pithy little analysis that functions to confirm and perpetuate STEROTYPES – what is “stereotypical female behaviour, and stereotypical male behaviour or if you prefer. Myths.

 What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and all things nice………..you all know the rest.

 I especially liked the words “sensitive” and “tender-minded” applied to women, I must have misinterpreted all those RED PILL stories from all those MEN on AVfM forum, where they described the horrors they endured at the hands of “sensitive” and “tender-minded” women – but the words she uses for men are classic gynocentrism wrapped up in nice feminist bullshit, my absolute favourite being “utilitarian” ah yes – men have always been “utilitarian” FOR the benefit of women.

 But it was Hoff Sommers suggestion No, 4 that made me literally drop my jaw in amazement – in one paragraph she chides Newsome for misrepresenting boy’s mental health, claims that most boys are basically as happy as Larry AND points out that “Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male.

 But the cherry on top of her “suggestion“ to Newsome is that in spite of all these happy go lucky boys that “Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable” BUT also that  “Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

“4. Make clear that most boys are psychologically sound and resilient

 The Mask You Live In gives the impression that the average adolescent boy is severely depressed. In fact, clinical depression is rare among boys. (National Institute of Mental Health data show that the prevalence of depression among among 13- to 17-year-old boys is 4.3%; among girls of the same age group, it is 12.4%.)

Newsom’s film reports that every day in the U.S. three or more boys take their own lives. Suicide is, indeed, primarily a male disease. Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male. In 2010, a total of 3,951 young men died by their own hands. Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable. Still, in a nation of nearly 33 million boys, that means that the percentage of boys who commit suicide is close to 0.01%. Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

 So, let me see if I have this right? Boys are NOT suffering from clinical depression, because MORE girls, almost three times as more get diagnosed with REAL clinical depression – yet MORE boys than girls actually take their own lives – but not because they are as depressed as girls?

What am I missing here? Oh yeah – when girls are depressed its REAL depression, but when boys are depressed it’s………? Because obviously with nearly “33 million boys” What difference does it make if 0.01% of them take their own lives, plenty more to spare. It’s the percentages that matter, NOT the actual real human beings – because after all, it’s just a FEW BOYS! I’ll be honest, that almost made me puke in disgust.

 Hoff Sommers next suggestion made me spray my coffee out all over my computer screen – she lauds the efforts in Australia to improve men’s “mental fitness” because of a report in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2006.

“Some of the most promising, innovative ideas are coming out of Australia. In 2006, a report in the Medical Journal of Australia argued for a paradigm shift in the nation’s mental-health system. Rather than blaming “masculinity” or trying to “re-educate” men away from their reluctance to seek help, the author asks, “Why not provide health services that better meet the needs of men?”

 I’m just going to leave the link to Janet Bloomfield’s (aka Judgybitch) brilliant article on the issue of Male Health Studies in Australia here and this link here, and say just one thing to Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers.

 What fucking planet, what parallel universe have you been living in since………being the poster girl for cool and trendy nice feminists, way back, when sitting on the fence was much more comfortable than it is now?

 You cite some report from 2006, from almost eight years ago, without actually providing a link to said report, yet seem oblivious to events of recent days regarding the FIRST attempt to offer a Male Studies course – that IS actually about Male Health in Australia?

 Here’s what I think – that Christina Hoff Sommers sees an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of feminism 4.0 via two avenues, first by re-issuing her book – with a new suitably sanitised tag line under the title, that takes the heat OFF feminism, and two, by offering a half baked apologia/endorsement/half fat approval, for this execrable toxic little film that is a vehicle for a repackaged, rebranded, renewed, boy friendly feminism.

 The message is the same – men and boys bad – girls and women good – it’s still FEMINISM – it just got itself a makeover, has quietly nudged the screechy ranty bad feminists back into the shadows, or up into the attic and is now doing the fluffy feminist two step.

 Bullshit.

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

NB. I wrote this article yesterday, but held off posting it last night, because as I read the comments on AVfM on this article – with almost no exceptions the comments were all rather gushing in praise of Hoff Sommers.  So I slept on it – thinking – am I just imaging this? That this article is a thinly disguised apologia FOR feminism? That this article is a sloppy, poorly researched, lazy, knocked it off in an hour piece of pro feminist bullshit?  That Hoff Sommers is skating by on past glories?

Now to be fair to Hoff Sommers, her book The War against Boys was groundbreaking and rightly deserves kudos, but that was then, this is now. What I did notice about the comments as well, was that with the exception of a few minor “issues” pointed out in the actual BODY of her article – no- one directly critiqued it. No-one took this article point by point and examined it very closely. There was a lot of tippy toeing around, a few vague references to a few vague, as I said “issues” but overall it was a love fest – Christina Hoff Sommers was so cool, was so brilliant and the MHRM was sooooooooo lucky to have her!

 

Added this Morning: What is written above is my honest to God opinion – I stand by every word of it – should anyone wish to “take me to task” for taking swipes at the untouchable Christina Hoff Sommers – go ahead – I won’t stand in your way – won’t close comments, censor you or bar you from commenting, obviously if you decide you post poisonous ranty illiterate diatribes I might use my discretion – it is MY blog after all – otherwise nope.

 What I will point out is that A Voice for Men has my full 100% support, now and always, without AVfM and Paul Elam’s vision and persistence the MHRM would probably still be in the doldrums, still languishing in dark corners of the internet, and feminism would have won – Men’s Human Rights would probably be fast becoming a distant memory.

 Anja