C.U.N.T’s

 

NB. Now before anyone gets up a head of steam, the title is an ACRONYM it stands for Crazy. Uneducated. Nasty. Tramps. That’s much better, isn’t it?

There is a class of persons – in most western States – single mothers by choice, those females whose career of choice, the one that generates an income for them, is having babies that the State then steps in to support.

In Ireland we call them “scangers” in the UK I believe the term is “Chav’s” in the US it is “Trailer Trash” – I believe. I’m not sure what the vernacular is in Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

What is worth noting is, the fact that there is a generally recognised vernacular word to describe this class of persons suggests that the phenomenon is prevalent enough, visible enough, and a recognised part of the culture to acquire a descriptive vernacular word.

Had you asked me, or anyone I know 30 – 40 years ago what a “scanger” or a “chav” or  “trailer trash” was, neither they or I would have had a clue as to what you were talking about.

But now? Being a single mother is a badge of honour, an achievement, in fact ALL single mothers are heroic and brave and invariably victims of some external circumstances over which they had or have no control.  At all.

My mother was widowed at a relatively young age,  but had a simple philosophy – you want something? Work for it. There’s something you wish you had? Earn it.

What has all this to do with C.U.N.T’s?  Everything.

Now, apparently the act of giving birth to a child means you DESERVE all sorts of goodies, by right, you don’t have to work for anything, you don’t have to earn anything, you simply have to get yourself pregnant by any random guy who happens to be handy, give birth and viola – you are “special” and therefore the world OWES you.

No need to go to school, no need to ever get a job, no need to learn any manners – yes I know – an old-fashioned concept – no need to even consider for one solitary second the responsibility, the duty, that having that child imposes upon you – nope – none of that.  That’s for saps, for idiots, for fools.

I want a house, I want money coming in every month from the state fairy godmother, I want, I want, I want……..if I have a problem – someone else better solve it for me, or else.  My kid(s) has/have a problem? NOT my fault, someone else better take care of it for me, or else.  My kid (s) want to see their Daddy (s)? THAT bastard! No way – anyways – I’m not sure who that is.

What do you mean – I’m supposed to teach my kid (s) about responsibility, about how they should behave, treat other people?  Fuck off – that’s not my job – it’s the school, the social worker, it’s anybody else’s job, BUT mine.

So what if they don’t go school, big deal, school is for saps, for idiots, anyway, I never went to school – and I turned out alright. Didn’t I?

When the Unmarried Mothers Allowance (now called Lone Parent Payment) was introduced in Ireland in the late 1970’s early 1980’a, an Irish politician by the name of Alice Glenn caused uproar when she said something to the effect that a lot of girls will just get themselves pregnant to get a free house.

I recall the storm of protest this caused, though for the life of me I cannot find a reference source for it. To be clear, I wouldn’t be in agreement with a lot of Alice Glenn’s views, but on this, yeah she nailed it.

What my mother said was “it’ll end in tears – children’s and fathers tears”  how right she was.  Our current Minister for Social Protection has embarked on a programme of cutting back on payments to “Lone Parents” on tightening up the regulations, and rolling back the trajectory of the State goodie train – and it has been met with outrage, and sorrowful hand-wringing, – there’s a lot of talk about “making sure the most vulnerable in our society are not penalised by the current economic crisis”

The 1 million unemployed men are NOT the most vulnerable, the thousands of homeless men are NOT the most vulnerable, neither are the thousands of fathers who have been excised from their children’s lives, from their homes – oh yes, even  if you were married, but then kicked Daddy out of the house to go God knows where – you automatically become a “Lone parent” ergo – vulnerable.

Kieran McKeown wrote a paper, Families and Single Fathers in Ireland* in 2000, which focused on how vulnerable unmarried fathers are and were in Ireland, though, it must said, on reading this paper one will find the constant repetition that single/lone mothers are just as vulnerable gets a bit grating after a while.

“In making the case for single fathers, I wish to declare my intention at the outset to avoid any divisiveness or any suggestion that single mothers are receiving too much support or that any improvement in the lot of single fathers should be at the expense of single mothers.

There is nothing to be gained from creating competition between the needs of parents; if there is any hint of this it is certainly not my intention.

I wish only to create a space where the needs of single fathers can be seen in a similarly compassionate light to the needs of single mothers so that appropriate responses can be developed to meet the family needs of both and of their children.”

* This paper was delivered at a conference organised by Cherish: An Association of Single Parent Families, on the theme of The Changing Family in the New Millennium and held in the Conrad Hotel, Dublin on 4 May 2000. My thanks to John Sweeney and Peadar Kirby for helpful comments.

While this is a laudable effort on the part of Kieran McKeown to highlight the injustices perpetrated against single fathers, in fact a huge numbers of fathers in Ireland, I have to say this – my compassion for single mothers is………..practically non existent.  Harsh, perhaps even uncharitable but I don’t see any single mothers campaigning for the Rights of the fathers of their children. Do you? Anybody?

What I see in reaction to any attempt to cut back on State support for all these vulnerable single mothers is all the social justice warriors, waving their “studies”, and climbing up on their soapboxes and lamenting, and declare sorrowfully, that the MOST vulnerable in our society, are –  the C.U.N.T’S.

Do I really need to say who wrote these studies? Who put together these “statistics”?

The feminist “revolution” began to take root in Ireland around the 1970’s, and as with all feminists, they claimed to speak on behalf of ALL women, in fact a lot of women in Ireland opposed this new feminist takeover of the public discourse – but we all know that this has never deterred feminists – from taking over that is.

“The Galway Advertiser article was accompanied by the sub-title ‘be prepared to cringe’.  Certainly, the restrictions listed are unthinkable in 2013, and women are suitably appalled.  But it is a misconception to think that women were equally outraged in the 1970s.  Rather, there was a strong conservatism in Irish society, and this extended beyond moral values. 

There are enough letters in newspapers of the time from women opposing equal pay to indicate that, as a collective gender, women were not appalled.  Furthermore, it is important to consider the restrictions in the context of the 1970s.  The National Coalition may have baulked at the idea of introducing equal pay, but this attitude was largely influenced by the strained economic climate

After all, that same government introduced unmarried mothers allowance (as it was called at the time) and reversed the policy of withdrawing deserted wives allowance if the husband secured a divorce abroad.”

 What should be noted is that when feminism reached our shores in the 1970’s it swept all before it, feminists never actually ASK other women what they want. Never actually consider for one solitary second that anyone would NOT agree with their “interpretation” of anything – ergo – what feminism wants, feminism gets – and now we are all paying the price for not standing up against these harpies – to be fair, feminists were always very clever at hijacking legitimate civil rights movements and distorting them to serve the aims of feminism.

The legacy of this is a West awash with C.U.N.T’s, and broken hearted children and fathers.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Toxic Mothers.

 

Mike Buchanan over at J4MB posted a link to this article in the Daily Mail online, the headline is an attention grabber.

 Mums who cut fathers out after separation: One in three say Dad should not have say in their child’s upbringing

” Study found 32% mothers feel they can better handle problems alone.  Comes as deepening concern millions of children don’t have male role model.  85% of fathers would prefer to make decisions as a unit, research finds

 “One in three separated mothers think their children’s fathers should have no say in their upbringing, according to a report yesterday.

It found that 32 per cent of separated mothers thought that they alone had the right to make decisions about their children’s future.

 The high proportion found by a survey implies that more than one in 10 of all the families in the country include mothers who do not want the fathers of their children to have a say over the future of their children.”

The original YouGov survey that RELATE based theirs on is here.

What is revealing though are the comments, and for this article there were, at the last count when I checked, 124 comments. The ensuing discussion about the results of this survey generated some interesting comments, on two levels.

First, the overwhelming support for equal parenting, from both male and female posters, or at least as far as I can tell with regard to sex – and secondly, the distinct lack of support for that deeply held entrenched belief that women own their children, and that fathers should be relegated to visitors, or barely tolerated back-up babysitters to the primary parent – the mother.

There were a few dyed in the wool “mother knows best” types and a few who trotted out the lame – “but of course fathers should have an equal say except in the case of abuse or violence”

Let’s just knock that one on the head straight away – it is overwhelmingly MOTHERS who abuse their children, neglect their children, and in the context of relationships, violence is a two way street.

If we are going to have “conditions” then those conditions apply EQUALLY to mothers and fathers, with absolutely no assumption that mothers are the “primary care givers”

Further, if there are issues of violence in parental relationships then it is the perpetrator – male or female who gets the sanctions and the OTHER parent who “gets the kids” as in the recent judgement by Mrs Justice Parker ruled – the FATHER was awarded primary custody of the children and the violent abusive mother got supervised access.

 Having said that, concepts of custody and access or contact have no legitimate place in the realm of parenting, the idea that one parent allows the other parent to BE a parent is vile, it is mendacious and it needs to GO.

The same with this concept of child support – where one parent pays the other parent – if we are talking about two adults, then they are responsible for supporting themselves in their own separate homes, if that is what they want.  Child specific expenses are also a separate issue – and depend on what works out best for the parties involved and the child expenses should be borne equally by both parents.

In the case of a family home – by agreement – if whoever wants to live in it then YOU pay the mortgage – if you can’t afford it then you sell it, pay off the mortgage and divide any excess equally between you.

Alternatively, if selling is not an option then, try this on for size.

One of the things I think might work is that in order to prevent children from being moved around, that the children remain in the house, their family home, and the parents take turns staying with them, in the family home – you rent a small place, or whatever you can afford between you, for when it is the others parents turn with the children.

Now, before all you delicate fragile women get your knickers in a knot – why not? So what if it’s “inconvenient” for YOU – this is about what is best for your mutual children – not YOU.

You’re ADULTS – work it out!

How about this?

Monday to Wednesday  – Mother stays in house with children.

Thursday to Saturday – Father stays in house with children.

Sunday – family day – grit your bloody teeth – paste a smile on your face – this is about what is best FOR YOUR CHILDREN.

Oh and by the way – as the primary reason for this arrangement is for YOUR children – you DON’T GET TO MOVE YOUR LATEST BOYFRIEND or girlfriend in – that’s what your one bed flat is for – grown up time.

Anyhoo – on to the comments on this article, lets start with the top rated ones. The first is this one.

Catherine, Edinburgh, 9 hours ago

I presume that this 30% of mothers will on principle refuse maintenance from their ex husbands too?

807 positive – 61 negative”

This was the highest rated comment and it looks like it was by a female person – a woman – I like Catherine’s style, it’s short, sweet and to the point and it got 807 positives to 61 negatives, I believe we can rightly describe that as an overwhelming amount of support?

Now Catherine got a few replies, the first one, also by a female, missed the point by a country mile and got a majority of negative responses, because SilverLady here assumes that mothers are the “primary” parents – bit of a fail there SilverLady.

SilverLady, SilverCity, 7 hours ago

Financial contribution to one’s child’s upbringing is an obligation to the child, not to the mother!

82 negative – 51 positive”

The next reply to Catherine’s comment was this one.

of course, theothersideofnowhere, Australia, 6 hours ago

no but if the father refuses to contribute how about he doesn’t get a say in how the children get brought up (NOT that he doesn’t get to see them, that’s not relevant to whether he contributes financially or not) but if he’s not supporting them financially why should he get a say in the decisions on how the money is spent? its a lose lose situation unfortunately

14 negative – 43 positive

This is a bit confused and hard to really get what this commentator is saying – he/she seems to be making the point that financial contributions to child upkeep should have nothing to do with whether a father “gets to see” his children or not and if he isn’t then, the rest of the comment is rather incomprehensible?

But the point is valid with regard to tying payment with being allowed to see your own children!

The highest negatively rated comments were equally interesting, though this first one I find personally less of a problem than some of the more outright – “women own their children” ones. Here it is.

Just call me queen., Over the hill and far away, Monaco, 7 hours ago

I’m in a tricky situation at the moment. I have a toddler son with a man who lives thousands of miles away from me. He loves us very much, but I’m not sure about my feelings anymore for him. I love him , but no longer romantically. I want to make sure that my son and his father remain in close contact ,but does that mean sacrificing my own happiness? I am sure that separation would mean hotels costs. He would be happy to pay for plane tickets still, but could not afford the added hotel costs, and neither can I . So I’m stuck right now 😦

38 negative – 7 positive”

What I see here is innate selfishness and more than a touch of self absorption – “but does that mean sacrificing my own happiness?” Duh!  Well yes it does – you waived your right to put YOUR “needs” first when you had that child – my impulse is to say to silly twat – grow up!

This next wretch literally screams Parental Alienation.

Martha, Allotment, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago

Children aren’t stupid, our young teenage son often tells his dad what we do is no concern of his anymore. More grown up then his dad.

32 negative – 21 positive”

As does this one – because we all know what women do to “gain custody”

janet c, London, 6 hours ago

the decisions should be made by whichever parent gains custody as they have to manage the child’s upbringing.

31 negative – 14 positive”

Even in this brief comment you can see exactly the way this wretch thinks – MY children, I will WIN, this is battle for possession.

One the things that emerges from the article is that RELATE seem surprised at the percentage of women who outright admitted that in a nutshell – the fathers of their children were unnecessary – for their children.

“Chief Executive Ruth Sutherland said: ‘The one thing everyone can be sure of is that it’s the wellbeing of children which is of paramount importance here – so finding ways to work together as parents in the best interests of our children is vital.’”

Ah yes, let’s just all sit down and have a nice cup of tea and chat about what to do about this “silly old separation business”!

What planet have these people been living on for the last 60 years? Seriously?

They’re are in the “relationship” business and THIS is a bit of a surprise to them? Toxic, vicious alienating mothers?  Fathers being excised from the lives of their children? Or do only nice people go to RELATE to separate in a nice civilised manner?

What is clear from the comments is that rising from the general public – if Daily Mail commentators can BE called the general public – is a backlash against  these toxic, vicious alienating mothers and their era is finally, hopefully starting to draw to a close.

Will they give up without a fight? Doubt it.  There will always be bitches and wretches, there will always be gyncentrism embedded in some women, but the Men’s Human Rights Movement exists to dismantle every last legal, social and political support that gives these women permission to vent their gynocentrism without sanction.

We cannot of course forget about the feminists, but feminism is now such a toxic brand in its own right – that every time one of these twats opens her, and in some cases his mouth – it is usually just to change feet.

Long may that continue.

 

 

Mommy Dearest

 

There is a mythology surrounding motherhood, it is deeply embedded into our cultural psyche, it affects every aspect of our society from law to politics to entertainment and it anchors nearly all conversations, both public and private regarding women and women’s rights, because almost automatically, particularly in public discourse about women it is always “women and children” as two inseparable and interwoven entities, almost one entity.

And this dual entity is spoken of with reverence, with indulgence, with almost religious zeal.  Strangely feminists have a conflicted history with motherhood, they claim to be the voice of women and for women, yet motherhood is an intrinsic part of being female, they claim to be for a woman’s right “to choose” anything,  yet have vilified and sought to dismantle both marriage and family as the building blocks of stable societies. They idealise single mothers as brave heroines overcoming all obstacles to emerge as the epitome of “good parenting” in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Underpinning all this overt and covert social engineering to remake society into the image of a feminist utopia lies a raging virulent hatred of all things male. The radical feminist founders of modern feminism were determined to wipe men off the face of the planet, if not totally then in sufficient numbers to allow these hapless remaining male souls to service this feminist utopia.

Which brings me to this:

Arizona couple ‘held three daughters captive’ in home; 28 November 2013.

Police in Arizona say three sisters were held captive in filthy conditions for up to two years by their mother and stepfather in the city of Tucson.

Investigators say two of the girls, aged 12 and 13, escaped and alerted a neighbour after their stepfather tried to attack them with a knife.

Officers then found a 17-year-old locked in her bedroom.

The girls were malnourished and dirty and told the police they had not taken a bath in up to six months.

“They were kept in filthy living conditions separately and told patrol officers that they had not seen each other in almost two years,” Tucson police captain Mike Gilooly told reporters.

This is becoming depressingly commonplace, reports of children being abused, neglected and in some cases murdered by their mothers, sometimes in conjunction with live-in boyfriends and sometimes with the fathers of their children.  What all these cases of child abuse and neglect tend to have in common is a single mother.

From: The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children; Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford. Year Published: 2006

 “Federal data derived from CPS reports in 2003 indicate that in 18.8 percent of the substantiated cases, fathers were the sole perpetrators of maltreatment; in 16.9 percent of the cases, the fathers and the mothers were perpetrators; and in 1.1 percent of the cases, the father acted with someone else to abuse or neglect his child. Mothers were the sole perpetrators in 40.8 percent of the cases and acted with someone besides the father in 6.3 percent of the cases.31 This means that fathers were involved in 36.8 percent of child maltreatment cases and that mothers were involved in 64 percent of child maltreatment cases….

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority.33 Perpetrator patterns differ, however, by type of maltreatment. Mothers are not more likely to be the perpetrator when it comes to sexual abuse; fathers are more likely to be reported for this crime.34”

I left out a part between these two paragraphs, because it illustrates something pertinent, the almost kneejerk reaction to excuse, explain or justify the maltreatment of children by their mothers, here it is now:

Additionally, more than one-half of the male perpetrators were biological fathers, and, although recidivism rates were low, biological fathers were more likely to be perpetrators of maltreatment again than were most other male perpetrators. This may be due in part to the lack of permanence between a mother and her boyfriend or that the perpetrator may be excluded from the household before recidivism can occur.32

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers. Mothers are more likely to abuse or neglect their children than fathers because they bear a larger share of parenting responsibilities in two-parent families and because a large percentage of families today are headed by mothers. In some communities, they are the majority.33 Perpetrator patterns differ, however, by type of maltreatment.

I find it slightly nauseating to see the words “parental responsibility” and “more likely to abuse or neglect their children” in the same sentence. In fact it is this attitude, this unwillingness to call a spade a spade and say in black and white – single mothers make lousy parents.

Single mothers make lousy choices in “boyfriends” single mothers are the single greatest danger to the welfare of children bar none. The fact that they ARE single mothers is invariably down to their own CHOICES.

Alright, before all sorts of wailing and self righteous indignation starts coming my way, are ALL single mothers lousy parents? Not necessarily, are ALL single mothers the greatest danger to the welfare of their children, again, not necessarily. But, statistically the overwhelming majority of those women who “choose” to bear and parent children alone are selfish, self-serving social parasites.

The feminist utopia that those original nutjobs of feminism 20th century style dreamed of? The mission to destroy marriage, destroy families and impose this feminist ideal upon the world has come to pass. Except for one little detail.  This utopia is a society in chaos, a society in disarray, a society that has seen the rise of suicide in young men, the rise of children being abused and neglected, the rise of dysfunctional “families” headed by dysfunctional single mothers.

The question I asked myself some time ago was why? Why would these bitter twisted harpies have set in motion the events that led to this chaos?  The answer rather strangely came from an unusual source, not one I would have normally given much credence to.

One path which leads to Radical Feminism begins with the grandmother. The grandmother of a radical feminist is frequently married to a man who is an inadequate father. The grandmother may have had a positive relationship with her father and tolerate a certain level of misbehavior from her husband. She fails, however, to see the effect her example has on her daughter…….

……This daughter of a damaged daughter has been betrayed by both parents. Her father, who might — had he had a strong wife who had been able to motivate him and draw out his potential virtue — been an adequate father, betrays the daughter through abuse, but the mother also betrays the daughter by not protecting her and by fueling her resentment toward her father.

As the daughter of a damaged daughter grows up, at some point she rejects her mother as a model and mother’s passive/aggressive behavior, and decides to become aggressive, but she holds on to the deep seated bitterness and resentment. Voila! We have a Radical Feminist.

 From: Radical feminism as a psychological disorder…by Dale O’Leary

 Now I did check out Dale O’Leary and she is decidedly odd, a fervent catholic and most definitely with some strange views, but has some interesting things to say about feminism.

Her contention that radical feminists are the products of dysfunctional families resonates, when one considers the histories of some of the leading radical voices that shaped and informed the direction of modern feminism.

Take Robin Morgan for example, the product of an affair between her mother and a married man, who when she finally learns the truth and seeks him out, rejects her.  Or Shulamith Firestone, another product of a family headed by an overbearing father, Kate Millet, Betty Friedan, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich and so many more, all have something in common. They are products of some dysfunctional families, but more importantly had hostile and perhaps adversarial relationships with their fathers and in some cases their mothers.

All of them are bound together by one overriding theme, hatred of and for men, even when it appears they had some positive experiences with men. Regardless of whatever political and cultural issues they allegedly sought to address, their actions were all fuelled by barely disguised hatred.  No other “political” movement(s) other than nazism, communism and fascism has as a core belief, a hatred of “the other” in the case of feminism “the other” is men. All men.

  What these women did was harness their rage, fine tune their own personal issues and reframe them into a poisonous ideology that they disseminated and presented as insights into the human condition. They gave a platform for other dysfunctional wretches to hijack the cultural and sociological narrative and impose their vindictive worldview into the zeitgeist.  Petty spiteful resentments became “issues” traditional family values became “oppressive” unintentional but well meaning protective behaviours became “patriarchy” and feminism 20th century was born, or rather was created from the fevered and over active imaginations of some seriously disturbed and dysfunctional harpies.

We now have reached the point where like a grain of sand in an oyster acquiring layers and layers of covering, feminism has acquired layers and layers of pseudo scholarship, academic gobbledegook and a positive forest of “writings” “studies” and feminist “research” designed to obscure the original poisonous seed planted into the consciousness of the western world like a grain of sand invades an oyster.  But unlike an oyster, the end result is not a pearl, not a precious and valuable jewel, it is a carbuncle, a festering boil comprised of hatred, vindictiveness, spite, lies, calumny and poison. It needs to be lanced.

What has all this to do with motherhood? Everything and nothing, the news story I linked to is but one example of the product of 50 years of feminist poison, the goal of feminism has been to infect women with this poison, and women are the ones who not only give birth to the next generation but invariably act as the major primary influence on young children. The counterbalancing of fathers, the steadying and valuable influence of fathers in the lives of their children has been rejected, has been deliberately removed over the last 50 years by the toxic influence of feminism on governments, in education, in every area of our culture.

Because rather than getting some bloody therapy for their “issues” those original founding harpies of modern feminism decided to spew their poison out into the world. The saddest and most heartbreaking aspect of all this? The world listened, men listened, women listened, politicians listened to this crap, and now here we are.  Look around you, look at the legacy of feminism.  It stinks.

I will leave you with an article written by the daughter of an “iconic” feminist Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple. Her daughter Rebecca Walker had this to say:

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them – as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters – a happy family.

From: How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart By Rebecca Walker.