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!

Got the Whole World in my Hands…..


Of the oft and interminably repeated complaints from feminists, two stand out, the first being that women are and have been denied access to positions of power and influence both at the present time and in the past.  In fact the constant whine from feminists is that women have NO POWER, because men are hogging it all? On a Global scale.  Hmmmm.

The second is that no-one cares about women, never did, never have and presumably never will. Not only that, but now it seems feminism has finally turned its attention to women in faraway places and decried the lack of “resources” for these women.  Not only that, apparently women from these faraway places are even more “oppressed” than women in the West, if that’s even possible!

So, this is a Global issue is it? Women are being kept out of positions that wield global influence and no-one is listening to women?

Shall we take a look at some heavy hitting Global Organisations and see the patriarchy in action.  Let’s start with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) because, well because this organisation wields enormous power and influence on governments, on states, in fact the IMF could make or break a nation.

The current head of the IMF – is Christine Legarde (France) – Managing Director

Now Ms. Legarde was apparently a bit naughty in May of this year, with lots and lots of other people’s money, but managed to dodge that bullet and retain her position of enormous power and enormous influence.

 Another female Ms. Nemat Shafik a native of Egypt is a Deputy Managing Director, of the IMF, Egypt being one of those faraway places feminists like to point to as hotbeds of female oppression. Ms. Shafik obviously forgot to be oppressed.

Then we have Ms. Antoinette Monsio Sayeh  from the tiny African country of Liberia who is the Director, African Department, of the IMF, Liberia is a tiny African country, with tiny African countries being high on the feminist list of places where women are oppressed. By the way, the current “President and head of government in Liberia is President Ellen JOHNSON SIRLEAF (since 16 January 2006); Vice President Joseph BOAKAI (since 16 January 2006) note – the president is both the chief of state and head of government.”

 President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is female and has been head of government in Liberia for 6 years.

But of course, according to feminism the world turns its back on the suffering of women, the health of women, and demands that women be given a voice, an end to the silencing of women’s voices.

 How about that Global Organisation which is the voice of World Health “issues”? Just who is “in charge” at the WHO – World Health Organisation? Why look it is;

 Dr Margaret Chan – Director General

Dr Margaret Chan is the Director-General of WHO, appointed by the World Health Assembly on 9 November 2006. The Assembly appointed Dr Chan for a second five-year term at its sixty-fifth session in May 2012. Dr Chan’s new term will begin on 1 July 2012 and continue until 30 June 2017.”

 Appointed to a second five year term in 2012, having already been “in charge” of World Health “issues” since 2006.

Dr. Chan’s complete Bio is  here. What are worth noting are the dates, she started her career in 1978 and was appointed as Director of Health in Hong Kong in 1994, obviously the Government of Hong Kong didn’t get the patriarchy memo about “not allowing women into positions of influence and power”

 It’s an anomaly, I hear all you feminists scream in frustration, eemmm, nope it isn’t, out of seven Assistant Director Generals at the WHO two are female.

 Flavia Bustreo – Assistant Director-General – Family, Women’s and Children’s Health

Marie-Paule Kieny – Assistant Director-General – Health Systems and Innovation

 Not only that, there are six Regional Directors; two of whom are also female:

 Dr Carissa Etienne – WHO Regional Director for the Americas, the Americas being a ginormous place to be “in charge of”

 Ms Zsuzsanna Jakab – WHO Regional Director for Europe, again, EUROPE! All of Europe. No power or influence there!

Not looking really good is it for the feminists, all these women in positions of power and influence, maybe we’ll have better luck finding some oppression at the UN ?(United Nations)

 Let’s take a look at:

 United Nations – General Assembly of The United Nations: The Team.

 The President of this “Team” is Ambassador John W. Ashe and his second in command, directly under him is Ambassador Paulette BethelChef de Cabinet.  Ok then, the head honcho IS MALE.

What about the rest of the “Team”?

 Well there are 24 members and of those fourteen of them are female:

  1. Ambassador Janine Coye-Felson – Special Advisor – Legal Matters
  2. Ms. Tala Dowlatshahi – Director of Communications
  3. Ms. Afaf Konja – Spokesperson
  4. Ms. Abigail SommaSpeechwriter
  5. Ms. Frances Fuller – Special Assistant to the President
  6. Ms. Aqeelah AkbarAdviser – Third Committee
  7. Ms. Allison BookerAdviser – Third Committee
  8. Ms. Marie-Elena John – Adviser – Gender Issues
  9. Ms. Alina Padeanu – Adviser – Rule of Law / Human Rights and Civil Society Engagement
  10. Ms. Dornella SethAdviser – ICPD+20
  11. Ms. Maia Shanidze – Adviser – Fifth Committee
  12. Ms. Anya Thomas – Adviser – Sustainable Development Matters
  13. Ms. Fanny Langella – Deputy Speechwriter / Deputy Spokesperson
  14. Ms. Alice Farhat – Administrative Assistant to the President

There are six “Main Committees” of the UN with several other committees and subsidiary bodies.

The Third Committee that Ms. Akbar and Ms. Booker are advisors to, concerns itself with: Social, Humanitarian & Cultural issues:

“The General Assembly allocates to its Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee, commonly referred to as the “Third Committee”, agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs and human rights issues that affect people all over the world……

“…..The Committee also discusses the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the right to self- determination. The Committee also addresses important social development questions such as issues related to youth, family, ageing, persons with disabilities, crime prevention, criminal justice, and international drug control…..”

Please note, there is NO Committee that even bothers discussing the “advancement of men” in fact there are NO committees at all about men.

 What about the  Fifth Committee  that Ms. Shanidze is advisor to?  That is the Administrative and Budgetary Committee of the UN and is currently in its 68th session. Fifth Committee Resolutions & Decisions of the 67th session can be found here.

Hmmm, Ms. Shandze is the advisor to the committee that basically decides where the MONEY goes? Zero power or influence there!  Really?

You might have looked down the list and found yourself wondering, What the heck is ICPD + 20?

 Well, it is INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT one of the first of which was held in Cairo, Egypt 5-13 September 1994.  See here. Though there were two previous ones.

“World Population Conference in Bucharest in 1974 and the International Conference on Population at Mexico City in 1984.” 

The Cairo one was notable for this:

“The 1994 Conference was explicitly given a broader mandate on development issues than previous population conferences, reflecting the growing awareness that population, poverty, patterns of production and consumption and other threats to the environment are so closely interconnected that none of them can be considered in isolation.”

And this:

“The Conference outcomes will be closely related to those of the upcoming World Summit for Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, as well as the elaboration of the UN’s Agenda for Development and the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.”

And finally this:

“The Programme of Action recommends important population and development objectives, including a set of mutually supportive qualitative and quantitative goals. Among these objectives and goals are: sustained economic growth in the context of sustainable development; education, especially for girls; gender equity and equality; infant, child and maternal mortality reduction; and the provision of universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning.”

 So, it would seem that not only are and have women been holders of enormous power and influence in and of Global Issues, but are most definitely NOT voiceless, never have been, and I very much doubt WILL ever be “voiceless” (chance would be a fine thing)

 As for women and “women’s issues” not being on the world agenda, women and “women’s issues” ARE the worlds agendas. Always have been. There has never been a time when women, have not had a platform. NEVER.

 But, I’ll tell you hasn’t had a platform, who haven’t even made the shortlist of “Global Issues worth talking about”?


Feminists say the “funniest” things…Introduction.


I used to just skip over the comments sections in articles, especially if there were tons of comments.  Then I realised, if there are that many comments something sparked off the rush. Something in the article either resonated with, or grated with a lot of people.

Lately I’ve noticed that when an article appears by an avowed feminist, parroting some previously accepted bullshit, the comments show that people are not prepared to just shrug and let it pass unchallenged anymore. Nosireebob. Best part? The negative comments, the downvotes for feminist bullshit is growing, stuff that 10 even 5 years ago wouldn’t have raised a whisper of protest now gets challenged and challenged vigorously.

My own personal belief is that this is being caused by a combination of factors.

The spreading disenchantment with feminism overall, it’s like after 60 years of whining and bitching and complaining about “how bad women have it” compared with men in spite of the evidence in front of peoples own eyes, that this just simply isn’t true people are now reaching that “will you just SHUT UP!” point.

 It is now as simple as the click of a mouse to go check to see if what some feminist has said is true, 9 times out of 10 it isn’t, yet feminists keep saying this stupid provably WRONG stuff!  Almost like they think people are stupid, people will swallow any old rubbish, because…………duh! “I say so”

The hate, the bile, the bitterness, it just never stops, all directed at men being bastards and women being delicate fragile innocent snowflakes all the time. There are two things about this attitude that just pisses people off.  First, women who read this stuff are thinking, that’s my father, my brother, my son, my friend that bitch is dissing, and it’s (whatever crap the feminist is spouting) bullshit. Men are thinking – what complete and utter bollox.

Secondly, both men and women have eyes, have ears and again, not stupid, they can see the way some women behave, they can hear the crap that some women spout, and they can figure out for themselves that whatever it is – its UNNACCEPTABLE, its nasty, it’s horrible, women behaving like sluts, like skanky ho’s, women whining about stupid crap, women being total bitches and making life hell for the estranged fathers of their children?

 Then there are the feminists themselves, the ones who pontificate and blather on about “how bad life is for women” funny thing is, this lot are usually middle class, middle aged, white women who have never suffered (except in their own minds) one single day, one single minute of deprivation.  They take meaningless pathetic examples of “oppression” and – talk about making mountains out of molehills, making a song and dance about petty shit, about taking some minor thing and magnifying it out of all proportion.  Yep, that’s feminists for ya.

Now, some of them are copping on to this, the pettiness, the hysteria, and casting their beady eyes further afield, to see how they can extend the range of their influence as the oppression queens of humanity – to women in Africa, women in muslim countries, anywhere there are women who have real life problems that they can hi-jack and use as fodder for the feminist agenda. 

The fact that they didn’t gave a rats arse about these before is just……..details. the fact that the biggest item on the feminist agenda was……….I dunno, forcing people to say womyn instead of women, not important, the fact that at no time do they give a rats arse about the suffering of men and boys in these places – simply not relevant. The fact that they believe they have the right to speak from their ivory towers, for and behalf of these women – well duh, feminists are the spokepersons for all of humanity.  Did you not get the memo?

Anyhoo – this section is dedicated to those commentators on various articles etc who have said something in reaction to some feminist spouting claptrap and called – BULLSHIT!

Those people, you know, the ones that feminists condescend to, patronise and dismiss. Sometimes men, sometimes women, sometimes both.  The people that feminists assume THEY speak for, they represent. Those feminists who sit in their ivory towers and issue edicts, make pronouncements for and on behalf of everyone, who dictate how other people should live their lives!

Some Recent Examples.

Edit: I temporarily took this post off because I realised I hadn’t actually put any “examples” duh!

But, am now reinstating it because I’d like to invite anyone who wants to, to post the dumbest things you’ve seen a “feminist” post, ever!


Anja Eriud.


MRA’s are just Big Meanie’s

Yep, those among us who stand with the Men’s [Human] Rights Movement, an umbrella term that covers a multitude of online sites, bloggers, Men and Boys Rights organisations, MGTOW sites, in fact anyone either online or in real life who makes any statement that in way asserts that:

 Men have Rights – Human Rights.

 Are just big ole meanie’s who hate women, want women to “suffer” and believe that women should be, I guess, seen and not heard, the more vociferous, malign, and vituperative of those who object to the notion that Men Have Rights, will support their contention with outrageous statements that contrarily assert that men, all men, are bastards, rapists, inherently violent, want to dominate and oppress women, are evil, untrustworthy and in some cases a vile subhuman subset of the species Homo Sapiens who need to be culled.

But absent these obviously disturbed, seriously dysfunctional creatures, the general consensus seems to be, that the notion men have rights equable to women, is an affront, an insult, and just………..mean.

Because you see, ALL conversations, discussions and debates, whether in private conversations between individuals, or in the public domain, about Rights, about Human Rights abuses mean, that these conversations, discussions and debates and more importantly, attention and resources are, and should be about WOMENS ISSUES. Just take a look at the Directory of UN Resources on Gender and Women’s Issues.

If you put “mens issues” into the search box on the home page below is what you get:

A Blank Page

Go on, click on it and see for yourself.

Even if you click on their “suggested” search term this is what you get:

“Your search – “men”s issues” – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing “”men”s issues””. Suggestions:

  • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

  • Try different keywords.

  • Try more general keywords. “

If one insists on shifting the emphasis to Men’s Rights, it means you are ignoring, sidelining, rendering unimportant, and devaluing women’s rights, in fact you are just being plain old rude, a horrible person, and MEAN!

Now, to be fair, as long as the main thrust of these exchanges is about, women’s rights, one is allowed to mention, in passing, the notion that men might have rights, that there might be some value in acknowledging that men and boys could have rights. In fact some daring souls have gotten away with suggesting that men and boys rights might be violated, ignored or abused they have either not been listened to or, in the case of the second example I use, Christina Hoff Sommers, cling onto a self-identification of themselves as feminist, for reasons that escape me, though I do have to say Sommers is one of the few voices raised in defence of boys, in particular.

But, to have a conversation, discussion or debate about Men’s Rights as a stand alone topic, as a subject apart from and separate from the topic of women’s rights? Big fat NO! NADA, Niet,

The reason? The people who are in charge of these discussions and debates on Human Rights, the people who have set the parameters, have dictated the agenda, and who have laid out the rules for discussing Human Rights? Women! Not just women full stop, feminists. Just go take a look at the UN site again. Because, if you look at the title it says”…….Gender and Women Issues” we all know what “women” means, so what does “gender” mean?

Not men, because there ARE no resources for men, so “gender” must mean “women” as well!

So, MRA’s are just big ole Meanie’s because they won’t follow the rules, they won’t stick to the agenda, and they DON’T want to talk about women’s rights. At all. And, perhaps because men are talking about Human Rights, and the Human Rights of only men, without getting permission from………women! Sometimes, they don’t even mention women at all, well, except to be mean and horrible about them.

MRA’s talking, discussing and debating men’s rights is just all, me, me, me, me, me, me!

So, Men suffer  and get shafted in family courts and lose their homes, their children, everything?  Ppppft.

Men have pain, anguish and feel isolated, depressed even suicidal? Ppppft.

Boys struggle in school and are discriminated against just for being boys? Ppppft.

 Men are beaten, are abused  and  are traumatised in relationships? Ppppft.

 Men and boys are raped, and boys used as cannon fodder and as child soldiers in ethnic conflicts all around the world? Ppppft.

You know what the usual response is to these issues, whether directly or indirectly, but mostly indifferently?

SO WHAT? What about the womeeeeeeeeeeeeeen? Women suffer sooooooooooo much more, we need to get back to “talking about the women”!

So, if you talk about, discuss or raise “men’s issues” you are just a big ole MRA meanie, and that’s ALL you are!

 I’m hoping that if you are reading this, if you are not preparing to pen a scathing and polemic diatribe to launch a counter attack to “put me in my place * you will at least give what I’ve written some thought, think about it at least, are men’s rights now being attacked, being ignored, becoming a distant cultural memory?

I hope that you at least clicked on some of the links, yes I know, there are quite a lot of them, but take your time.  In case you are thinking that what appears to be, superficially a rather light-hearted general rant on acknowledging and giving a platform to the discussion of Men’s Rights, it is and it isn’t.

The issue of Men’s Human Rights abuses is an urgent and necessary topic, that WE as a Human species need to start having. Not in the context of an addendum to women’s rights, not as an “add on” to the Human Rights agenda under “any other business” but up front and centre.

To continue to frame the Human Rights Agenda in the context of women’s rights, and women’s rights only is in and of itself, an abuse of Human Rights.

To continue to dismiss, diminish, render unimportant or even, irritating, annoying and rude, and yes, as mean the issue of Men’s Human Rights, is scandalous, is abhorrent, and is INHUMANE.

If you, for whatever reason believe or subscribe to the view, that talking about Men’s Human Rights, addressing Men’s Human Rights abuses will somehow cause the Human Rights of women to disappear overnight, to become obsolete, to be wiped from the statute books and canons of law in whatever country you happen to be in, then you are either a fool, an ignoramus, or blind to the reality around you, and if you self-identify as a feminist and are peddling this cant, this drivel, this outrageous calumny. Then:

You are a liar, a vindictive spiteful reprehensible liar and you need to shut up! NOW.

So that decent human beings can have these conversations, can address these issues.  So that policy makers, law makers and Human Rights organisations can start undoing the damage that feminism has done, and will continue to do to the Human Race.

You are either FOR or against Human Rights for ALL Human Beings.  Pick a side.

*For anyone who might read this, and I’m only hoping that someone will, not expecting, and it triggers a feminist, of which there are many varieties, from the relatively benign but misguided, to the all out rabid invective hurling, foaming at the mouth type, who decides to “respond” fine. Likewise anyone who stands in the “I’m not a feminist but……..” camp.

Go ahead, post, comment, review, misrepresent, misunderstand and/or totally and utterly miss the point, do that, after all, you also are entitled to hold whatever opinion or view you wish. But bear this mind, just like me, your opinion,  your view, is open to be challenged, to be shown as flawed, as misguided, and as just plain WRONG.

I won’t censor, block or prevent you from “expressing your opinion” subject to my commenting policy as outlined in Housekeeping. But, you better have some damn good evidence that Men’s Rights are not Human Rights – of the “tablets brought down from the mountain top by Moses” variety!


© Anja Eriud 2013

The Peculiarity of Irish Feminism. An Introduction.

Irish feminism was and is peculiar, it followed a different path than either US or UK feminisms and now EU feminism as influenced by the “Swedish Model”,  in fact I would go so far as to say that not only has, and did Irish feminism follow a different path but it was born from different soil. In fact it is incorrect to call the movement for women’s rights in Ireland feminism at all.

Alas, it now appears that Irish feminism is converging with the above named feminisms, and betraying its own historical roots. This might sound strange but Irish feminism was to all intents and purposes a women’s rights movement and as such had legitimate aims, and was grounded in legitimate causes.

To understand the women’s rights movement in Ireland one has to take into account more than simply a battle for women’s rights, but acknowledge that this is embedded in a wider framework of republicanism, suffocating religious tyranny and an underlying class struggle.  See here, here and here.

Now,  the Irish women’s rights movement is and has allowed itself to be corrupted by the insane and badly informed agenda of US/UK and EU feminism, it has made itself a joke, a caricature.  Rather than being a legitimate platform from which to address inequalities imposed on Irish women by traditional beliefs about “a woman’s place” or women’s legal status or cultural norms about how women should or shouldn’t behave it is now simply an extension of the ideology of hate that US/UK/ and EU feminism is grounded on. Grounded on misandry and fuelled by bigotry, lies and fraud.

The Irish women’s rights movement lost its way when it embraced “gender” feminism rather than holding to its position as a women’s rights movement. THAT was a legitimate platform in the context of Irish laws, Irish cultural norms and Irish society. Around circa 1980 it became redundant, it had won all the rights battles it set out win, and has succeeded in its aims to address legally enshrined inequalities against Irish women. Now “feminism” has taken over, grafted itself onto a legitimate cause and corrupted it, as feminism always does corrupt everything it touches.

Two things contributed to the disenfranchisement of Irish women, to the imposition of a cultural and legal framework that necessitated the emergence, or rather a re-emergence of a women’s rights movement in Ireland in the late 1960’s, early 1970’s, Catholicism and colonisation.  We both inherited, and had imposed upon us two external forces and influences that changed the nature of Irish society and culture, and led us down a path far from our ancient roots.

This is not to say that these influences were not embraced, not deliberately and consciously incorporated into our culture, because they were. Enthusiastically and with determination, when Irish Independence was at last gained after several hundred years or so of colonisation, rather than rejecting the legal and cultural tyranny of our conquerors and rejecting the tyranny of Catholicism, and returning to our ancient roots, we gleefully continued to utilise these cultural, legal and religious weapons against our own people. Especially against our women and in particular against the poor in our society.

Before we were finally conquered over a long period of time and subdued with the passing of “In 1800, following the Irish Rebellion of 1798, the British and the Irish parliaments enacted the Acts of Union. The merger created a new political entity called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with effect from 1 January 1801” Éire [Ireland] had an ancient system of laws and a culture stretching back some 2,000 years that was remarkably egalitarian and in no significant way treated women as less equal than men. See here, here, here and here.

So, rather than celebrating Independence, rather than congratulating ourselves on finally throwing off the yoke of colonisation, we should hang our heads in shame at taking over and imposing a worse system of tyranny on our own people. We in fact became our own conquerors, we simply continued to impose the same rigid rules, laws and cultural norms, and in fact refined those cultural norms into a more repressive and oppressive regime, with Irish women singled out for “special” attention.

What needs to be said here is, that Irish women themselves colluded in this repressive regime, they endorsed it and refined it, and gave it its legitimacy.  For every Irish man who contributed to the continuation of repressive Catholicism and legal tyranny, there was an Irish woman standing beside him fully sanctioning this, equally accountable for its existence. Equally complicit in the perpetuation of a system of repression and oppression.

So called icons of feminism like Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Kate Millet et al make me laugh with their talk of “women’s oppression” from their nice middle class well protected lives, modern day writers such as Amanda Marcotte,  really make me laugh, pontificating from their cosy ivory towers about being “oppressed” because men “treat them like sex objects” by staring at them in the street.

Try this on for size, Magdalen Laundries, Goldenbridge, not to forget how young Irish boys were abused and maltreated in places like Artane and Letterfrack, see here. THAT’S oppression, THAT’S living under a regime which denies you not just basic human rights, but denies you any recognition AS a human being.

With regard to the Magdalen Laundries, these were run by women, by nuns yes, but nuns are female.

None of these places could have existed, could have continued to operate without the collusion of Irish people as a whole, men and women.

While I do admire to a certain extent the first women’s rights activists who highlighted the legal and cultural inequalities perpetrated against Irish women, my admiration is qualified because they failed to address subtle, less obvious perhaps, or simply preferred not to see, atrocities committed against Irish men and boys, case in point, Ireland had the highest level of admittance to “Lunatic Asylums” of men. Especially unmarried men, the unwanted, inconvenient bachelor brothers standing in the way of acquiring family land. From pages 5 – 6 of this Dissertation. It’s a hefty read at 277 pages and is confines itself to the years 1817 – 1920, but does establish a unique pattern in Irish society which persisted into the early 20th century.

One of the most comprehensive arguments along these lines comes from Elizabeth Malcolm in a study of western asylums in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.12 Although women were slightly more numerous in the general population in western districts (counties Sligo, Leitrim, Galway, Roscommon, and Mayo), men were significantly more numerous in the asylum.

 Malcolm’s analysis of committal warrants and physicians’ case notes from western asylums suggests that there was a robust relationship between the high levels of emigration from the post-Famine west and the preponderance of single thirty- and forty-something men in the asylums there.

In an era of land consolidation, a shift to primogeniture, and reduced rates of marriage, emigration was a safety valve for a young, single, landless, but predominantly female cohort. Unmarried men, who for whatever reason were unable to escape the constraints of the households of their birth and resultant family strife through emigration, therefore ended up committed to the asylum in disproportionate numbers.13

Shunted out of the way into these places for greed, for avarice. Another peculiarity of Irish society, the obsessive need to own land – but a discussion for another time. In the same report at page 192.

Mark Finnane and Elizabeth Malcolm have argued, for example, that economic factors like emigration, a shift to primogeniture, and consolidation of land created “surplus” adult children. In a society increasingly bereft of family resources, both emotional and financial, they argue that the oddities of these adult children could be overstated to allow for committal to a lunatic asylum, thus relieving remaining family members of a significant burden.13

See notes at the end of post.

 I will be addressing this issue in a separate post, Irish Men on the Margins: A Historical Perspective.

 To continue:

I read accounts of how feminism operates in the US and the UK, and am carefully observing as the EU spreads the toxic message of feminism throughout the Union, but in particular how feminism has literally corrupted the very foundations of democracy in the US and am appalled, horrified and fearful as I see its influence seeping more and more into Irish society.

In many ways I am grateful that Ireland resisted the external influences of the wider western cultural norms and maintained a benign xenophobia, while also admittedly perpetuating its own internal toxic cultural norms. For two reasons, first we have to a certain extent escaped the influence of the worst of radical feminism (a situation that is now being reversed) and secondly, the emergence of radical feminist “thought” is counterbalanced by the emergence of the men’s [human] rights movement, providing an alternative voice and voices, that just were not allowed or permitted in either the US or the UK as radical feminism gained its foothold in the early 1960’s and 1970’s.

It is a small but significant plus, let us hope it is enough to build on to resist the influence of the EU as it seeks to impose the so called “Swedish Model” of feminism on us. See here, here and here.

 To Irish feminists lured by the polished and toxic rhetoric of “third wave feminism” I say this – STOP – you are being hoodwinked, lied to, manipulated, brain-washed and ultimately being used as pawns in a game with deeper and more insidious motives than “women’s rights” or “equality” take a moment to stop and think – is there anything that I as a woman am legally prohibited from doing? Is there anything that I as a woman, apart from my own limitations or ambitions simply cannot do or that only Irish men are “allowed” to do?

The answer to both those questions is a resounding NO. In fact, if you are honest and open-minded you will in fact discover that reverse is true, it is Irish men, and all men who are being discriminated against, in education, in family law, in employment, it is men who are being disenfranchised, your fathers, brothers, sons, nephews and friends. So, what are you going to do about it?

 Notes On.

POLITICS, PROFESSIONALIZATION, AND POVERTY: LUNATIC ASYLUMS FOR THE POOR IN IRELAND, 1817-1920; A Dissertation; Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Melinda D. Grimsley-Smith: Christopher Hamlin, Director Graduate Program in History Notre Dame, Indiana, December 2011

Pages 5 – 6

12 Elizabeth Malcolm, “‘The House of Strident Shadows’: The Asylum, the Family and Emigration in Post-Famine Rural Ireland,” in Medicine, Disease and the State in Ireland, 1650-1940, ed. Greta Jones and Elizabeth Malcolm, 177-194 (Cork: Cork University Press, 1999).

13 Elizabeth Malcolm, “‘Ireland’s Crowded Madhouses’: the Institutional Confinement of the Insane in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Ireland,” in The Confinement of the Insane: International Perspectives, 1800-1965, ed. Roy Porter and David Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 183-186.

Pages 192 – 193

13 See for example Mark Finnane, Insanity and the Insane in Post-Famine Ireland (London: Croom Helm, 1981), Elizabeth Malcolm, “‘Ireland’s Crowded Madhouses’: the Institutional Confinement of the Insane in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Ireland’ in The Confinement of the Insane: International Perspectives, 1800-1965, ed. Roy Porter and David Wright, 315-333 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), Áine McCarthy, “Hearths, Bodies, and Minds: Gender Ideology and the Committal of Women to Enniscorthy Lunatic Asylum 1916-1925,” in Irish Women’s History, ed. Alan Hayes and Diane Urquhart, 115-136 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2004).



Stop Calling Yourselves Feminists…Sheesh!

I have a “laissez-faire” attitude to “nice feminists” or equity feminists, or whatever they wish to call themselves. Fine. After all, you are entitled to self- identify as anything that best fits your own leanings.

But, just yesterday I read a thread on A Voice for Men, by AnCap called “An Interview with Wendy McElroy on feminism in America 10-07-2013, 10:22 PM, who referenced an interview with Wendy McElroy.

In the interview Ms McElroy stated:

Gender feminism has lost the debate. Various and irresistible backlashes against it are in motion and the PC straight jacket will be cast off. The backlash forces include equity and individualist feminism, the men’s and the father’s movements, libertarianism and conservatism… The imminent death of gender feminism may not be apparent because the ideology managed to institutionalize itself, especially within academia and within the political structure.” [1]

Fair enough, I kind of like Ms McElroy, and I have quite a lot of respect for Christina Hoff Sommers, but it is of course qualified – why for the love of all that is holy are ye both still calling yourselves feminists?

In the interview, Ms McElroy was directly asked this question, and after she had clearly stated that “gender feminism has lost the debate”.

Ms. McElroy’s answer bugged me, it irritated me, it stuck like a splinter trapped just out of reach, she said and I quote:

I persist in the label for a few reasons. First, I want the roots of American feminism to be recognized and acknowledged; those roots were profoundly individualist and grounded in the early 19th century abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement. Happily, this is happening. Individualist feminism was unheard of in academia when I started to write but it is now generally recognized. I hope I have contributed to this evolution. Second, I like being part of a tradition that dates back to the classical liberalism of Mary Wollstonecraft. Third, I’m stubborn. [2]

Mary Wollstonecraft [3]

Now of all the stupid reasons to hold onto a label that you yourself have derided, nicely, but derided all the same – stubbornness has to be the stupidest.  It is childish and immature, as a teenager I embraced all sorts of “causes” as you do, but as maturity and knowledge and a more critical way of thinking developed I changed my opinion, I cannot now imagine stubbornly holding onto the position that the Bay City Rollers are THE best band in the whole entire universe and anyone that says otherwise is just plain mad!

Ms McElroy of course justifies this rather bizarre reason for “stubbornly” holding onto the label “feminist” by citing Mary Wollstonecraft 27 April 1759 – 10 September 1797, as her exemplar. There is just one huge glaring problem with this.

Wollstonecraft was not a feminist, neither she nor anyone at that time would have called her a feminist, the word itself did not come into being or use till circa 1837, in spite of the feverish attempts by modern feminists to create an unending link that stretches back through the mists of time to any number of women, Wollstonecraft being one of their favourites.

“The term “feminism” originated from the French word feminism, first used in 1837 by the French philosopher Charles Fourier. Fourier wanted to improve the status of women in society, but he did not advocate equality between the sexes. The first English definition of “feminism” appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1895: “advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes).” [4]

Mary Wollstonecraft was, if she could be labelled anything a Women’s Rights Advocate/Activist, a WRA or a WHRA. In fact her most famous work is called, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)

From a historical perspective I have no problem with Mary Wollstonecraft, females were denied the opportunity to receive an education, which was her main focus. Fair enough. All children, whether male or female should have the right to an education. [5]

So, back to Ms. McElroy, she stated that “gender feminism” had lost the debate as a device to distance herself from I suppose “bad” feminism, the thing is ALL feminism IS gendered, the clue my dear is in the name. Feminine – ism.

If you believe that in some instances the basic human rights of women are being violated, as they are no doubt in some places, then does it not make more sense to call yourself a Woman’s Rights Activist?

Perhaps some inspiration might come from the Men’s [Human] Rights Movement, so named because it is Men’s Human Rights that are under attack.

The issue of Human Rights is not contingent on the sex of an individual, but on the deprivation of those rights of a specific class of persons – in this instance MEN. While I concede that the human rights of females in some places, places that feminism now has its beady eye on, are being violated, it must also be noted that MALE human rights are also being violated, in possibly different ways.  In that case it would be more appropriate to campaign/lobby as a Human Rights Activist, would it not?

With one very obvious caveat – drop the ethnocentricity, the faulty and arrogant imposition of one’s own cultural perspective onto cultures and/or societies you claim you wish to “save” to “enlighten” to “rescue” show some bloody respect for other peoples history and culture.

In the western hemisphere, comprising the US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the EU, and anyone I have inadvertently left out, there is, and I can state this categorically, there is absolutely NO LAW, extant that deprives, minimises or violates ANY basic human right of women. NONE. Zilch. Zero. Quite the opposite in fact.

Therefore, not only has “gender feminism” lost the debate, but ALL feminism is redundant, unnecessary, flogging a dead horse, in fact feminism isn’t about “women’s rights” that battle is long over, it is about depriving MEN of the exact same rights, till men are comprehensively the most oppressed class of persons that have ever existed. In the western hemisphere that is.

So, call yourselves women’s rights activists, or human rights activists, even better, and campaign FOR Human Rights, for all human beings in those places where such activism is needed.

People like Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers infuriate me, and invoke pity in me in almost equal proportions.  They have this bizarre belief that feminism can somehow be rehabilitated, if only it would go back to its historical roots. Hmmmm.

Why can they not see, or perhaps they can, and just cannot admit it, there is no “going back” there is nothing to go back too.

It’s a bit like a courtroom drama, where your witness has just dropped a big stinker and sunk your case, at the last minute an intrepid investigator rushes into court in a flurry, waving THE crucial piece of hitherto hidden “evidence” that saves the day!

Wendy, Christina, and all you other “nice feminists” wistfully gazing back through the mists of time at your heroines of “feminism” for goodness sake – ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

There is no new “evidence” there will be no rehabilitation, EVER. It. Is. Over.

Feminism is on life support now, a carcase being kept alive by artificial means, with the requisite greedy and avaricious relatives hovering over the body for the spoils. It time to pronounce ladies, pull the plug and bury it.  Forever.

By the way – feminism will die “intestate” so you all can spend the rest of your useless lives fighting over its “legacy”

Hint:  The legacy will turn out to be the biggest pile of…………………………….you ever saw! 🙂


[1] Interview with Wendy McElroy on feminism in America Wendy McElroy · February 21,


[2] Interview with Wendy McElroy on feminism in America Wendy McElroy · February 21,


[3]Mary Wollstonecraft (/ˈwʊlstən.krɑːft/; 27 April 1759 – 10 September 1797) was an eighteenth-century British writer, philosopher, and advocate of women’s rights. During her brief career, she wrote novels, treatises, a travel narrative, a history of the French Revolution, a conduct book, and a children’s book. Wollstonecraft is best known for A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), in which she argues that women are not naturally inferior to men, but appear to be only because they lack education. She suggests that both men and women should be treated as rational beings and imagines a social order founded on reason.”


[4] Our favorite “f-word”: The misconceptions of feminism in Uni and mainstream culture.


[5] It should be noted that Wollstonecraft was no philanthropist:

“Wollstonecraft addresses her text to the middle-class, which she describes as the “most natural state”, and in many ways the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world.[97] It encourages modesty and industry in its readers and attacks the uselessness of the aristocracy. But Wollstonecraft is not necessarily a friend to the poor; for example, in her national plan for education, she suggests that, after the age of nine, the poor, except for those who are brilliant, should be separated from the rich and taught in another school.[98]”


© Anja Eriud 2013