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.





[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


[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


The Irish Times, Feminist Eejits, Pubic Hair and The Patriarchy!


When I logged onto my blog – this blog – this morning I noticed that I had four (4) referrers come from The Irish Times – I just checked and it is now up to eight (8).

Anyhoo, while I do read the Irish Times – online – from time to time, I cannot in all honesty say it is my favourite paper – and am being diplomatic. So, I clicked to see what on earth precipitated this attention from Irish Times readers.

It was a couple of comments on an article called “Growing up down there: me and my pubic hair – Why should young women feel ashamed of their perfectly natural ‘lady gardens’?”


Now, I didn’t actually read this article – though apparently from reading the comments it is about the social pressure on women to shave their pubic hair – also – and again – I didn’t actually read this article – nor will I be – it also appears that this might have something to do with – “the patriarchy

Can you see why I might prefer not to give myself a headache reading about this burning issue and just read the comments – growing more and more bemused as I scrolled down – wondering how in the name of God did I end up somehow being linked to an article about the patriarchal pressure exerted on women to shave their pubic hair!

NOT a subject I have EVER written about, commented on, or to blunt given any thought to in my entire life.

Finally I hit the mother lode. Phew! Because the discussion was getting rather strange – granted there are some intelligent and interesting comments on this article – but – having said that – women shaving their pubic hair!!! NOT on my personal top ten list of “burning issues of the day

I digress – back to the hunt for whatever the hell precipitated this blog being connected or linked to this “issue”

It was a comment exchange started by a poster called Linda Kelly – here it is below. The reason I’m addressing this in an article rather than responding to the actual comments themselves on this Irish Times article comment stream is because I have attempted to respond and this is the message I am getting up till now – which is 15.53 pm GMT

“There was a problem processing your request. Please try again in a moment”

That’s been the message for the last two to two and half hours!

The other reason is this, not because I give a flying rats arse what either the self-righteous Linda Kelly says or posts but to illustrate the mindset among Irish feminists and up to a point those who, while expressing their disagreement with feminism are rather under-informed about the true extent of how feminist “theory” has infected public policy thinking in this country – under the radar.

First the sanctimonious Linda Kelly.

Linda Kelly

The Irish Times is attracting a very unsavoury ‘group’ or one person from a Mens Rights group in Ireland who is aggressively attacking anyone who dares to hold a different opinion and regularly trolls articles to leave aggressive and poisonous comments particulary aimed at ‘dangerous’ feminists/people who believe in an equal society. Just saying.

5 hours ago


Yep – I know, every MRA/MHRA has immediately spotted the contradictions and downright stupidity displayed in this comment – but for the benefit of Ms. Kelly I will point them out – one by one.

I can almost imagine the pursed lips, and sneer on her face as she types the words “Men’s rights Groups” bearing in mind the juxtaposition of that lovely word “unsavoury

Men? RIGHTS?!!!! Cue snotty comment knee jerk reaction.

Almost immediately followed by her contention that these people leave “aggressive and poisonous” comments” at those who “dares to hold a different opinion

Let me translate – anyone who criticises feminism or feminists is “unsavoury” any criticism of feminism or feminists is “aggressive and poisonous” and anyone who is in any way shape or form advocating for Men’s Rights is also by implication “unsavoury

Her little jibes at me personally – “regularly trolls articles to leave aggressive and poisonous comments” now that made me laugh.

First, I have never actually commented on any online article on the Irish TimesNEVER – not once – I comment on articles on my own blog – this blog. I have commented on a few other sites – AVFM ( A Voice for Men) for example, in fact have had a few articles published there.


You should check it out Linda – you will positively overdose on “unsavoury” characters – in fact you might even swooooooooooooooooooooon – I would recommend though that you check out the articles of Diana Davison and a lady called Judgybitch – aka Janet Bloomfield – maybe you could advise them as well about “what feminism is really about”?

I know they would be just dying to hear what you have to say – hanging onto your every word I bet!  🙂

Second – do you have me under surveillance Ms. Kelly? Otherwise how on earth could you possibly know what articles I “troll” or for that matter read? Are you privy to my reading habits?

Now, onto Michael Edwards, who replies to Linda Kelly thus.

Michael Edwards

@Linda Kelly

I got jostled by that bull in a china shop myelf Linda. But how do we know that the poster/s is from a Mens Rights Group?”

First, I have no idea who Michael Edwards is – whether he has or hasn’t posted comments on this blog or not – so his contention that he “ got jostled by that bull in a china shop myelf Linda” is bizarre to say the least – perhaps you could elaborate as to the nature of this “jostling” Michael – because I have never heard of you.

The next bit is hilarious – “But how do we know that the poster/s is from a Mens Rights Group?” –well duh! You can either read it on this blog or on Men’s Rights Ireland or you could have just bloody asked.

Of course there’s always the article the Irish Daily Star published about Men’s Rights Ireland WITH a photo of me – or failing that – the radio interview I did on the Marc Coleman Show on Newstalk – and no – not posting links – go do your own bloody research.

Not very good at verifying information are the pair of you? Bit – well – dumb actually.

Linda Kelly

@Michael Edwards

Hi Michael he spouts all of the same ‘information’ as can be found here with the same ‘style’ of language so no matter how many ‘different’ identities he creates, it is a quite obviously a many clown headed circus of a beast.


This group ‘loathes feminism’ and is on a valiant mission to destroy such fictional threats as ‘The propagandising of a non-existent “rape culture” in Ireland, and across much of the developed world.’”

I love this comment for its absolute sheer inanity and stupidity – I cannot count the number of times I have said on this blog – I AM FEMALE – not to mention the article in the Irish Daily Star, the interview on the Marc Colman Show and another interview on Highland Radio – all relatively easily available sources to indicate my sex (gender is in my opinion a stupid word) FEMALE.

I suppose in order to test whether I have multiple identities – rather than just listening to the two radio interviews and maybe running some forensic tests – you could just have asked. Or done your bloody homework!

Am only guessing here – but whoever “he” is – this numbnut obviously believes “he” and I are the same person – sigh.


So, let me answer your unasked questions – I started this blog under a pseudonym Anja Eriud – a name suggested by Dean Esmay, managing editor of AVFM (A Voice for Men) when they published my first article on that site, up until then I was registered (if that’s the correct way of saying it) as Eriu – now am I going too fast for you pair of geniuses?

My first actual name is Anne, and Dean bless him suggested the Irish version of Anne which is Aine – but is pronounced Anya – he spelt it Anja – and I didn’t have the heart to tell him it was not quite right – sorry Dean – so the first part of my pseudonym became Anja (Anne)

The surname Eriu – d is my username on AVfM with the first letter of my actual surname added to the end “D” for Dempsey.

And all this information regarding my “secret identity” is not only ON this blog – but appears in the article on the Irish Daily Star.

Some sleuths you two eejits are.

Am not even going to address your stupid inane comment on “rape culture” everything I said in the article says it all.

Linda’s next comment is typical feminist hamster think (look it up – maybe S.E Honan will lend you his/her dictionary) ) – she makes a point of mentioning two articles out of the 103 articles I have posted on this blog so far – on the two subjects that feminists hold dear, in order to peddle their toxic agenda – lauding the mantra of “single motherhood” and “rape culture” two topics that allow feminists to get their knickers in a knot and work themselves up into a hysterical rage.

Linda Kellyl

There’s also a lovely section about single mothers or C.U.N.T.S as they are referred to, but wait, don’t anyone get offended. The author goes on to explain that ‘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?’

1 hour ago


Michael pops into the “discussion” again with this gem.

“Michael Edwards

@Linda Kelly

Interesting link Linda. I am all for a forum to discuss mens rights but that site is definitely not it.

But that would suggest that our Hydra is a 52 year old woman? Further proof if it be needed that we simply cannot trust online presences.

1 hour ago

1 Like”

I think I’ve already commented on the genius level detective powers of both these numbskulls – though again – thanks for the laugh regarding this “Further proof if it be needed that we simply cannot trust online presences.”

Ok – in light of the topic under discussion in the article these moronic comments appeared on – a very bad thought popped into head – regarding “further proof” a photo of………………………..but then – could I stop laughing long enough to actually do it – would I want to? Don’t be daft.

The irony of the part where this super sleuth says “we simply cannot trust online presences.” Oh you mean like YOURS and the up her own arse Linda’s? THOSE kinds of “online presences” tell me something ye pair of gobshoites – are there any photos of YOU in a national paper?

“S.E Honan

@Linda Kelly

Well done for looking behind that.

1 hour ago



Yeah S.E Honan – I agree – I’m recommending these two eejits are called in to help find Shergar! Then the Loch Ness Monster, then……………………………….

“John Tangney

@Linda Kelly

I take it you’re referring in part to me. I have nothing to do with ‘Thomas Delaney’ or with any men’s rights group, and I reject both of them as mirror images of the feminism they’re reacting against. Mine is clearly a minority opinion here, but I’ve expressed it under my own name, I don’t have any alter egos, and I’m speaking from extensive experience of actual feminist behaviour within institutions where I’ve worked, rather than employing a dictionary definition of what feminism means as you seem to be doing, Linda. My comments to you didn’t pull any punches but they stopped well short of the personal insults that another poster has been leaving on this thread, so please don’t conflate me with him.« less

44 minutes ago


Methinks this poster’s issue is with the idiot Linda – and seems to have his own perspective on feminism – which he is entitled to, and which I personally respect – so have no further comment to make on this one. But genius number three has.

“S.E Honan

@John Tangney I appreciate that clearly you have had a negative experience with certain ‘feminists’ but just like you ask not to be placed in the same box as Thomas Delaney or whatever his real name is, you should not heap all feminists into the same box. Personally, as a self-proclaimed feminist I aim to live by the dictionary definition and not harbor any prejudice against one group of individuals. Many feminists, including myself, are simply aiming to return to the dictionary definition and therefore dispel the negative connotations associated with the word.« less

36 minutes ago


S.E Honan is playing the N.A.F.A.L.T (look it up ye trio of idiots) card – sigh – and in light of the stupidity of this “Many feminists, including myself, are simply aiming to return to the dictionary definition and therefore dispel the negative connotations associated with the word.”

Hard to know where to begin with this inanity isn’t it?

Is it the statement that a person lives by the terms of how something is defined in a dictionary? Though that does takes stupidity to levels I have only seen once or twice before, or is it the sheer unadulterated breathtakingly obtuse statement that people have issues with a “word

Because no MRA/MHRA’s anywhere could possibly now post reams and reams and reams of EVIDENCE as to the toxic behaviour, actions, policies, laws, programmes and motives of FEMINISTS.


Agent Orange files anyone?

S.C.U.M Manifesto?

Andrea Dworkin?

Amanda Marcotte?


How many more could I list here? 10,000, 20,000, 100,0000 examples of what feminism REALLY IS?


I swear to God – if this stupidity starts a global movement of “pube walks” then I’m calling for a global movement of “Willie Walks

Am thinking these idiots deserve an award – 🙂


And here it is – The D.A.D.A – the Dumb And Dumber Award – presented to “Linda Kelly” and “Michael Edwards” with an honourabl mention going to S.E. Honan.



The Patriarchy Made Me Do it.


One of the touchstones of feminism is that it absolves all women from all accountability for their actions and can be summed up in the title of this essay – The Patriarchy made me do it” – from the relatively benign (nagging) to the most lethal (murder).

In any civilised society the murder of innocents should be met with universal approbation and universal condemnation, and there is none more innocent than a newborn infant is there? Herod is oft used as an example of the evil of men; he slaughtered thousands of innocent babes, in an effort to make sure just one died.  When one reads of tyrants and despots who have also killed the innocent, the word slaughter is the one invariably used – because it describes the sheer horror and loathing attached to this most evil of deeds.

The Slaughter of Innocents. The killing of babies.

What one will notice though, is that this most pejorative of terms is only used when men kill babies, when women kill babies, other words are used, words that place a distance between the act and the one who carried out this act. In fact, when women kill, the reluctance to focus blame or condemnation upon the heads of these women culminates in one overarching and all encompassing……..excuse.

The Patriarchy Made me Do it.

Since time immemorial, the patriarchy has been forcing women into committing heinous acts of barbarity, and so therefore when a female commits such an act – yes you’ve guessed it – it is the fault of this all powerful patriarchy. So it is that modern feminism has utilised this powerful coercive force as a catch all overarching alternative culprit for the acts of women that fly in the face of civilised behaviour.

Who are, or what is this all powerful patriarchy? Why it is men, all men, acting in concert, bound together with one overriding purpose – to enslave, to disempower, to oppress, to coerce ALL women into bending to the will of the all powerful patriarchy – the collective power of men over women.

Which is rather odd, when one considers, that with regard to that most abhorrent of all abhorrent acts, the slaughter of babies – newborn infants – that it was this all powerful patriarchy which introduced in 1922 (amended in 1938) in Great Britain, similarly in Canada and Australia and in 1949 in Ireland, these Infanticide Acts, which sought to absolve any woman who killed her newborn infant from full culpability for this act of murder, by making it NOT murder, not slaughter, not really her fault. From The Enactment of an Irish Infanticide Act  by Karen Brennan.

“In 1922, an infanticide statute was enacted in England and Wales. The Infanticide Act 1922 was later amended in 1938 to accommodate the killing of infants up to the age of 12 months, allowing a woman who wilfully killed her infant to be charged with/convicted of infanticide, an offence akin to manslaughter in terms of seriousness and punishment, notwithstanding that she would otherwise be guilty of murder, provided that at the time of killing the balance of her mind was disturbed by the effect of childbirth or lactation.1

The Irish Parliament followed suit in 1949. The Infanticide Act 1949 drew extensively on the English example, allowing a woman who murdered her infant to be tried for/convicted of infanticide where she “by any wilful act or omission caused the death of her child” aged under 12 months while “the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child”.2

Where a woman was sent for trial for or convicted of infanticide she would be tried and punished as if she had been charged with or convicted of manslaughter.3 Importantly, this meant she would be tried at the Circuit Criminal Court, a court of lower criminal jurisdiction, and would be subject to a flexible sentencing regime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Numerous other jurisdictions have adopted similar measures. (4)”

(4) For example Canada, Hong Kong, Fiji, New South Wales and Victoria have all enacted similar measures.

 One of the first things one should note are the years – we are talking about a period in time when according to feminism was the zenith of patriarchal oppression of women, a period of time that precedes that oft quoted period when women were apparently chained in kitchens, enslaved by men, and to all intents and purposes voiceless – the 1950’s. This oppression of course was ongoing, was a historical fact, the 1950’s being that period in time when women started to fight against these oppressive patriarchal chains.

But with regard to the killing of babies by their mothers, surely these acts were so rare that  legislation was unnecessary, surely in the rare instances that a woman killed her newborn the mechanisms for dealing with such acts was already incorporated into the statute books, after all, even a woman who killed her newborn infant was entitled to a defence?

Between the years 1927 – 1949 in Ireland a total of 1,158 babies died, of those, 167 were over I year old, 135 were under 1 year old, and 856 were classified as Concealment of Birth cases (COB) a lesser charge, but nonetheless these babies died. At the hands of their mothers.

Over a period of 22 years, a little over 52 babies died every year – at the hands of their mothers. Approximately one per week, every week, for 22 years.

Figures from Table A page 52 The Enactment of an Irish Infanticide Act.

In her paper Punishing Infanticide in the Irish Free State, Dr Karen Brennan examines how a sample (124) of these women were punished through:

“The impact of patriarchal ideologies and pragmatic considerations on sentencing practice in cases of infanticide is explored, particularly in regard to the use of religious institutions. One of the questions considered is whether the approach to sentencing women convicted of infanticide offences was a unique product of the patriarchal, conservative, catholic, and nationalist philosophies of the Irish Free State, or whether sentencing practice in these cases reflects wider trends in the response to female criminality which have been identified elsewhere.”

Throughout her paper Brennan focuses on not just the prevailing attitudes within Irish society that apparently led to these women killing their babies, but naturally enough presents us with a smokescreen of obfuscation, sleight of academic hand, and deliberate misdirection to emphasis:

“…..that in order to avoid a prison term many women had to abide by a particularly onerous condition which, among other things, involved a deprivation of liberty. Indeed, when convent disposals are taken into consideration, it can be said that 75% of infanticide-related convictions resulted in a form of detention.”

Page 17

In fact, further along in her paper, having expanded on her theme of focusing on the supposed main issues “sexual immorality” relating to the act of women killing their newborn infants, she wraps up with this in relation to these women being sent to convents and religious institutions to:

“…be “doubly oppressive” because their objective is to re-socialise the offender to conform to “traditional female roles”.140”

What she is talking about is that Irish judges were reluctant to send women to prison, in fact both Irish judges and juries, prosecutors were also almost all reluctant to charge women with murder at all. Incorporated into the Infanticide Act was a mechanism for a lesser charges of Manslaughter, Concealment of Birth and child abandonment/child cruelty and the general practice of sending these “offenders” to convents or religious institutions for a maximum of three years, as punishment, for killing their babies: Brennan explores this in her paper. One presumes that part of the re-socialisation process might include some focus on NOT killing your newborn infant?

“This article explores sentencing of women convicted of infanticide offences at the Central Criminal Court between 1922 and 1949. A sample of 124 cases involving women who had been convicted of manslaughter, concealment of birth, or child abandonment/child cruelty, after appearing at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of murdering their newly or recently born infant, is examined.

The sentences imposed in this sample mainly include short prison terms, suspended prison sentences, and conditional discharges/probation. It will be argued that the limited use of imprisonment, particularly in cases involving manslaughter convictions, indicates that Irish judges took a lenient approach to sentencing in cases of maternal infanticide. The court records show that a notable aspect of sentencing practice in these Irish infanticide cases is the use of non-penal religious institutions, mostly convents, as an alternative to traditional custody.”


But what does Brennan really focus on in her paper? What is it that exercises her mind, rather than of course the deaths of newborn infants at the hands of their mothers? or is that one of those “traditional female roles”?

“The focus on traditional standards and the perceived link between public morals and the security of the Irish nation had a particular impact on women.14 Ecclesiastical and political discourse constructed an idealised Irish woman, one who, by being pure, passive, self-sacrificing, and domestic, would support the state’s efforts to develop the fledgingnation and help defend it against the forces of modern influence.15 Particular importance was placed on the virtue of Irish women.

It seems that a view emerged which identified sexual immorality in females as posing a threat, not only to the family, but also to the stability of the new nation.16 One group of women attracted particular attention in the state’s drive towards national purity: the unmarried mother.

These women represented the antithesis of the idealised version of womanhood presented by state and church officials and were thought to pose a particular danger to the nation’s morality.17 Thus, although motherhood was idealised by politicians and church-men alike, “the female body and the maternal body, particularly in its unmarried condition, became a central focus of concern to the state and the Catholic Church”.18”

Page 3

She places a huge amount of emphasis on “increasing disquiet about sexual morality” comes back over and over again to:

“Strong cultural disapproval of illegitimacy and sexual immorality meant unmarried mothers potentially faced familial condemnation and alienation from the community, as well as unemployment and economic hardship. Double standards in sexual morality allowed men to avoid responsibility.19”

Eventually concluding Section II – Gender Ideology of the Irish Free State, with this summary, bearing in mind that the ostensible subject of her paper is Infanticide in Ireland. Without once mentioning the immorality of killing your newborn baby.

“In summary, as a result of cultural and ideological views, unmarried motherhood was largely unacceptable in the Irish Free State. From the state’s point of view, it appears that the solution to the issue of unmarried motherhood was to tacitly support institutionalisation of problematic women, for such periods as would ensure their reform and, in some cases, protect society against moral contagion.”

Indeed, the notion that these “problematic women” who killed their babies should be “institutionalised” is the patriarchy in all its evil action against innocent women.

What is clear though from a reading of both papers is this – the killing of babies at the hands of their mothers is in effect irrelevant, because women only kill because of external factors, and those external factors can be summed up in one word – Patriarchy.  The second thing which is abundantly clear is that the notion that women should be punished for killing their babies is anathema – and even when they are punished – by being sent to convents or religious institutions for a maximum of three years, this is “doubly oppressive” apparently because it results in a “loss of liberty” she also continues to refer to these women as “unmarried mothers” in an obvious attempt to distract the reader from one salient and pertinent fact – they are not, and were not “mothers” or has she forgotten – they killed their babies.

Ironically, while Brennan bewails the “patriarchial gender ideologies” of that period in time – she fails to either notice, or deliberately ignores, that these “patriarchal gender ideologies” are the very reasons why women who killed their babies not just had available to them a legislative device (Infanticide Acts) for avoiding punishment for murder, but a judicial and institutional mechanism for literally allowing them to get away with murder. The theme here in these papers is that women who kill their babies should NOT be punished, at all, it is “inhumane” it is “doubly oppressive” and anyway:

The Patriarchy Made me Do it – 1,158 times – one baby a week, every week for 22 years. Has anything changed at all in the last 70 years? Anything?

Ask the feminists.


© Anja Eriud


Going to The Chapel of Looooooooove…….


One of the favourite myths of feminism is that ALL women were oppressed everywhere by ALL men – and that the mechanism by which men oppressed women was marriage.

Ah yes, in secret patriarchy meetings all over the known world scheming men got together to lay their nefarious plans to trap and enslave these innocent and delicate flowers of womanhood into the bonds, the cruel and tortuous chains of matrimony.

But, of course a few brave souls resisted, they struggled against this demonic plot to entrap and enslave them, then of course they wrote books about their “struggle”

According to received “wisdom” and in the context of anything that emanates from the mouths or pens of feminists one does use the word wisdom with a large dose of irony, this nefarious plot has been going on for centuries, nay millennium.

For the purposes of this essay we shall confine ourselves to a quick but focused examination of some specific periods, because after all, if feminists are correct, then like blindly putting a pin in a map with your eyes closed, wherever we landed in the timeline of human history we would reveal examples of this ongoing and nefarious patriarchal plot to enslave poor helpless damsels in the chains of matrimony. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Let us begin with a gem of historical research that can be found at Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins, and a campaign to impose a Bachelor Tax on those patriarchal sods who…….well were refusing to do their patriarchal duty and enslave some poor maiden into the chains of matrimony.

One Mrs Charlotte Smith in 1896, was so riled up and so aghast at the numbers of men who were refusing to get married that she started a campaign to force men to marry, and called upon public servants and officials to “do something” about this calumny against women.

“Mr’s Smith’s malignment of bachelors began with attacks on public servants and officials, saying that bachelors have always been failures, and that bachelor politicians, especially, were “narrow minded, selfish, egotistical, and cowardly.” She further claimed that, “It’s about time to organize antibachelor clubs in this state. It should be the purpose of every young woman to look up the record of each and every man who is looking for votes and, should his moral character be such would make him unfit for office, then his shortcoming should be the point of attack by the antibachelor women of Massachusetts.

There are 47,000 girls between the ages of 20 and 29 years in this state who cannot find husbands… [and] the bachelor politicians, they do not dare discuss the social evil question.”3 She states:

“No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock” [Charlotte Smith]4”

Now wait just a minute – that can’t be right – men are roaming the land in hordes, gathering together in secret patriarchy meetings, laying plans on how best to trap and enslave these fair maidens into marriage! Feminists have said so.

In her paper entitled, Sisterhood and Slavery: Transatlantic Antislavery and Women’s Rights, Karen Offen, Institute for Research on Women & Gender, Stanford University, takes a jaunt through history to justify the use of the word or analogy “slavery” as comparable to the status of women, especially married women from circa the 1650’s to 1848:

“In this paper, I extend the timeframe back some two hundred years from 1848 to the 1650s, providing evidence of the slavery-marriage analogy in published literary and political works by women and men (who deploy it in support of what can only be termed, retrospectively, a feminist politics). I will raise questions about exactly how we might interpret the feminist use of the slavery analogy as well as about how scholars and theorists have heretofore approached the separate subjects of women’s rights and slavery. “

Which is indeed what she does, now it must be said that Ms. Offen’s grasp of “history” is somewhat shaky, and she does take the long way around, via of course the usual suspects of “revisionist” and selective feminist history. Olympe De Gouges, John Stuart Mills, Elizabeth Cady Stanton – etc – with some rather unusual choices – Napoleon and Jean Jacques Rousseau, thrown in at odd moments. But, basically what this paper seeks to do, is what all feminists seek to do, is correlate the status of women historically with the status of slaves – black slaves – ergo she concludes with:

“The power of the slavery analogy, for feminists, was its insistence that women, and particularly women who married, were individuals in their own right, that they possessed “human rights” and free will and could not be legally disposed of like chattel or forced, even for family reasons, to do things against their will. The slavery analogy applied to marriage struck at the heart of institutionalized male domination in the family, and it continued to haunt the Western consciousness and to inspire subsequent generations of feminist action, both by women and by men well into the twentieth century, when in most countries the legal institution of marriage was totally (however reluctantly) restructured. It continues to characterize campaigns against sexual slavery into the twenty-first century.”

This is very odd, because you see men were presumably having secret patriarchy meetings, but not about what feminists seem to believe, and have hoodwinked millions of “womens studies” graduates about – nope, men were having meetings about fighting for the right NOT to be coerced into marriage by harridans like Charlotte Smith demanding that unmarried men be punished for NOT getting married.

In case you haven’t noticed, Ms. Offen’s paper covers the period from the 1650’s to 1848, and yet less than 50 years later Mrs Charlotte Smith is getting her corsets in a kerfuffle over men NOT marrying, and how there are “47,000 girls between the ages of 20 and 29 years in this state who cannot find husbands” the state she is referring to is Massachusetts. But, I believe I may be correct if I assert that Mrs Smith was probably not the only busybody, in the only state in 1896 America squawking about all those lonely and bereft “ladies” pining away for……………slavery – emmmmm – marriage.

Lets fast forward a bit in history and the period just after the first World War – the Great War it is called – though how one can call a war that claimed the lives of an estimated 10 million men great?

What was one of the major issues that exercised the minds of the public after this “War to end all wars”?

“Condemned to be virgins: The two million women robbed by the war:

 They dreamt of love, marriage and children. But, as a new book reveals, the Great War robbed two million women of the men they would have married, leading many into relationships which could only be whispered about…”

The book referred to here is Singled Out: How Two Million Women Survived Without Men After The First World War by Virginia Nicholson (Viking, £20).

You will note of course that the emphasis is on the struggle of women to survive without men after the war, rather on the estimated 10 million MEN who didn’t actually SURVIVE the war.

“World War I was an extremely bloody war that engulfed Europe from 1914 to 1919, with huge losses of life and little ground lost or won. Fought mostly by soldiers in trenches, World War I saw an estimated 10 million military deaths and another 20 million wounded. While many hoped that World War I would be “the war to end all wars,” in actuality, the concluding peace treaty set the stage for World War II”

In fact the article cites some piteous and heartbreaking examples of the ”struggles” of these sad and lonely maidens and what they are prepared to do in order to enslave themselves:

“Many placed advertisements in the Press in their hope of finding any man – like the following heartfelt plea published during the war: “Lady, fiancè killed, will gladly marry officer totally blinded or otherwise incapacitated by the War.”

 By 1921 publications like the Matrimonial Times were carrying columns of advertisements placed by spinsters and widows.

They included:

MATRIMONY – Spinster, 38, loving disposition, fond of children, entertaining and country life, is anxious to correspond with a wounded officer of cultured tastes, with view to a matrimonial alliance; one with some means.

LADY, aged 49, spinster, cultured, bright temperament, small capital… would like to meet officer or civilian age 45-60… could be very happy with disabled officer needing a cheerful companion and pal.”

Couple of things to note here, while there were an estimated 10 million men killed in WWI, there were a further 20 million men injured, need I say that those 20 million injured men did not have the benefit of the kinds of medical technological marvels available to us today? So, being “injured” carried an extra dimension of horror and anguish for these men.

Now take a closer look at the extracts from the letters cited in the article, “…will gladly marry officer totally blinded or otherwise incapacitated by the War” – “….anxious to correspond with a wounded officer of cultured tastes, with view to a matrimonial alliance; one with some means” –  “…..could be very happy with disabled officer needing a cheerful companion and pal”

Even when women were prepared to “settle” in a desperate attempt to “get married” there were conditions – the ladies preferred their men –injured or not, disabled or not, to be of a certain status, to be the “right class” to be “Officers” – Hypergamy anyone? Gynocentrism?

This was such a burning issue that the government stepped in, to ease and attempt to resolve the plight of these “surplus women

“In 1919, the Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women was established and was provided with an annual grant. The Society’s panels included ones for areas – Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – and for work – for nursing, for training and for agriculture. All of this effort was in spite of the evidence collected by the Dominions Royal Commission of 1912-1917 which found that the casualties of men from the dominions during the war meant that marriage prospects in the Empire had also declined. Additionally, men were emigrating as well as women, perpetuating the imbalance in Britain. So in 1920, 125,000 women emigrated but 115,000 men also did. Between 1923 and 1927, fewer women than men emigrated as a result of the Empire Settlement Act (1922), through which the government provided financial assistance to emigrants.”

As you can see, it kind of backfired – but – hurrah for the attempt, to provide a means to give women what they wanted – enslavement in marriage.

So, here we are in the 21st century and has anything changed?

Well yes, and no – according to feminists men are still patriarchal bastards roaming the land trying to trap innocent virgins into the chains of matrimony – except:

“Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor’s degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.

Still, for these women, one key question won’t go away: Where have the good men gone?”

Perhaps this attitude to men might give all those lonely and pining away fair maidens, yearning to get shackled up an insight as to where all the good men have scarpered to?

“Single men have never been civilization’s most responsible actors; they continue to be more troubled and less successful than men who deliberately choose to become husbands and fathers. So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with “Star Wars” posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn’t be surprised.”

Because after all, as the redoubtable Mrs Charlotte Smith also claimed so vehemently all those years ago:

“No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock”

Like Ludwig Von Beethoven, Henry David Thoreau, Isaac Newton?  Those kinds of dishonorable and presumably irresponsible men who wasted their lives away without the civilising influence of women!

Oppression? Where?


You know as oppressive regimes go, the patriarchy is doing a pretty shit job of being……….well, oppressive.  In fact on a worldwide scale of oppressive regimes, the patriarchy is a big fat failure.

This failure is actually a two way street, both by the putative oppressors, and the putative oppressed, those in the western hemisphere that is, are just not really getting with the oppression programme, and DOING THEIR JOBS!

Let me explain, then maybe all you lads and lassies can start being oppressed and oppressing………properly. You know, put some effort into it.

Taking oppression to mean living in a place, a country, a state or territory where basic fundamental Human Rights, that we all generally agree on as being basic fundamental Human Rights, are suppressed, violated, suspended, ignored or simply don’t exist.  Where your life is literally NOT your own, and the fact of your existence is to be a disposable entity for the use of your oppressors.

For the sake of argument let’s just take these as two of the most important absolute basic fundamental Human Rights.

The Right to Freedom of Expression, Thought, Speech, Belief and Conscience.

I put this first because of all the basic fundamental Human Rights, being able to speak out, to think whatever you like, to believe exactly the opposite of what those in power do, and to know that you will be allowed to keep breathing is, in my opinion, true freedom. The suppression and silencing of those who would criticise, question and reject the prevailing ethos of an oppressive regime guarantees that the oppressed will live in constant fear and compliance.  To know that a stray thought, a random off the cuff remark, a mild query or question could lead to their death or worse torture, is the mark of a functioning and effective oppressive regime.

True despots such as Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ayatollah Khomeni, and so many more knew and  exercised  and in fact  continue  to exercise this tool of oppression to great effect in some parts of the world. Just not in the west.

So, how does the west stack up, how does the patriarchy, this ever present, all encompassing oppressive mechanism under which ALL women in the west apparently live, measure up?

Hmmm, not very well, if one is to judge by the thousands of blogs, sites, articles, books, talks, speeches, TV shows, films and random conversations going on all over the west, every minute of every day.

I have yet to hear of any woman, in the west, being hauled off in the dead of night with a hood over her head for exercising her right to “Free Speech” In fact to be blunt, the problem isn’t that women are being denied the right to speak, to express their “opinions” to hold some strange and outright bizarre views, nope, the problem is the reverse – getting them to SHUT UP!

The utilising of  the “Freedom of Speech” is being suppressed banner, by feminism and empty-headed vacuous women is an insult, an affront to all those who have, and are continuing to have their Freedom of Speech suppressed, sometimes violently.

The Right to an Education, at the very least primary education.

All Human Rights Instruments and Conventions, recognise that children are entitled to at the very least a primary/elementary education, and most states also extend this right to encompass secondary/high school education.

It has ever been the tool of oppressive regimes to deny their enslaved peoples an education, an ignorant and illiterate populace is a docile one. In regimes where “education” is offered, it is strictly controlled and regimented to reflect the ethos and ideology of the oppressive regimes tenets. There are many words that have been used to describe this kind of “education” this kind of societal “reprogramming”

In the Peoples Republic of China it was called “THE THREE REPRESENTS CAMPAIGN”, in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge it was called “The Four Year Plan” in the USSR it was a campaign to “promote a sense of Soviet identity

But one word covers all these methods of suppressing the kinds of Human Rights we are talking about here perfectly – Indoctrination.

So, what about the west? Well let’s see, not only are ALL children expected to go school, it is a legal requirement on the part of parents to SEND their children to school. Not only that, most states BUILD schools and PAY teachers from state resources (tax’s) to work in these schools.  In fact if one has enough money and a desire to do so, anybody can start a school. Anybody.

Ah but, it’s what is being taught in these schools that perpetuates this nasty oppressive regime of patriarchy, training young girls to be subservient and docile, and young boys to be dominant, brutal and……..emmm…..oppressive and patriarchal!

Really?  Is that so?

There has been one major influence that has surpassed all other influences bar none in the education systems of the west for nigh on fifty years now, it is called feminism, and feminism is and has always claimed to be, the voice of and for – WOMEN!

The impact of feminist inspired policies on education was felt almost immediately, and did start to raise concerns, in fact some feminists even went so far to conduct their own “studies” all the while being careful to make sure to keep in focus that feminism per se must NOT be blamed. It was subtle, but it was there.

As for what is taught in these academies of patriarchy? That girls are brilliant, multitalented, and utterly fantastic and destined to be the future leaders of the free world, and that boys are shit, boys are horrible, mean, nasty and stupid. In fact this programme of indoctrination is so successful, that both boys and girls leave these places BELIEVING this shit.

Because you see, what happens next is proof positive that girls leave these indoctrination camps in vast numbers to go onto the next stage of training to be the “leaders of the free world” and boys? Well, boys are left floundering, that is even if some of them manage to “get a place” in these so called “places of higher learning” they encounter the last and final stage of the “oppressive” system of education in the west. A system that is, and has been designed to hammer the final nail into the coffin of a boy’s life chances.

Gender Studies.

It is in these erroneously named “places of higher learning” that boys are “finished off” in the sense that they learn they are potential rapists, abusers, violent thugs, despicable human beings, if it is even acknowledged that they ARE human beings. It is in these places that boys learn once and for all that they are unwanted.

This is also the place where girls get to emerge from their chrysalis as fully fledged “empowered women” sweeping all before them, as they take their rightful places at the head of the queue for………………..EVERYTHING!

Ahem – one moment please. Are we not all forgetting something? First, girls going to university and college in higher and higher numbers, secondly, the numbers of boys going is falling?  But you see according to feminism this is ALL men’s own fault, yep, even though there is a definite crisis in boy’s education, it has nothing to do with the toxic influence of feminism. Boys are just not handling girls success to well.

Girls! This is not good enough, stop all this empowered business this instant and get back to being “oppressed” all these “slut walks” “take back the night” all this “learning” “blogging” voicing of your never ending opinions of everything and anything, all this “my body, my choice” crap. Get back into your homes and under the rule of your oppressive fathers.

Sorry what? Your mother kicked your father out of the house when you were just a child, and had hysterics if you even mentioned you wanted to see your Dad? Well then, under the rule of your brother then.

Pardon me?  What did you say?  Your brother took his own life after perhaps years of abuse from your mother? Perhaps after being the target for your mothers rage. Ah, ok.

Well then boys, step up to the patriarchy plate and get oppressing.  I’m sorry what did you say? You don’t know how? You’ve been told you’re a piece of shit since you were a small boy and now you believe it. No-one has ever shown you ”the ropes” so to speak, the patriarchy ropes, because your Dad was kicked out of the house as well. You don’t have the energy to be oppressive, because you’ve been on this medication for so long, since you were a small boy, that you don’t know who you are anymore.

Actually, you know, you are right, there is an oppressive regime in place in the west, it is pervasive, it is all enveloping, and it is toxic.

It is called feminism.