Aug 09, 2022, 01:00 AM
Stand Your Ground
Stand Your Ground Forums
Mike Murphy appeal
Mike Murphy appeal
Started by outdoors, May 10, 2009, 07:30 PM
May 10, 2009, 07:30 PM
A very brave Irish Journalist, Kevin Meyers, who wrote the two columns below and has coined the term "Lifeboat Feminists" may be subjected to a negative email campaign by feminists who oppose his writing style. He has requested letters to his editor to provide him support
I think all of you could understand a man writing this would be subject to a great deal of hate mail. As Barbara Kay, a Canadian female journalist, who writes about similar subjects, points out not many editors would allow their male columnists to continue dealing with these topics under the circumstances. I am asking the MRA's so inclined to write a letter to his editor as shown in his email and mine already completed, to provide solace and encouragement to Kevin. We are not likely see this kind of writing by a man, in North America very often. If at all. Links to his articles with respect to feminists are here and in the columns.
Of note Una Hardester's mother now has a blogspot blog with a statement to the press on the circumstances surrounding the false allegations. It is here.
Kevin Meyers writes"
2009/5/7 Kevin Myers
Sorry to add to your burdens, and I am extremely grateful for your support, but I have just learnt that a major e-mail campaign against me is being organised on this issue
If you wish, I would be grateful if you would contact your like-minded friends - and their like-minded friends, and theirs also, and so on - and ask them to publicly agree with me at
Your choice, naturally
Mike Murphy's Letter:
From: Mike Murphy <
Subject: Column ~'Feminists demand equality, but women and children come first'
Dear Editor and Kevin:
has started to be circulated in the North American Men's Rights movement and having just read it wanted to say thank you. Your descriptions involving "Life Boat Feminism" are as good a comparison as I've ever seen.
Your more recent column on "Blasphemy" and the Politically Correct (PC) implications at
is getting to be a world wide phenomenon of over the top political correctness. Those of us who have watched the UK cow tow to these religious zealots are making sure our politicians are staying away from this nonsense as best we can. We already have a hate crime law that is enshrined as a component of Human Rights legislation and some journalists have been persecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for being too direct when talking about Islam. Thank goodness Ezra Levant won the case but at great personal cost. Google "Ezra Levant CHRC" to see what can happen with this nonsense and his subsequent book called "Shakedown."
Another journalist and the magazine his article was published in called MacLeans were also in trouble by the Islamists and the Human Rights Commission. These experiences may portend what is in store for journalists in Ireland if the "do gooder" politician passes this bill. Google "Mark Steyn Macleans" for info on their saga. They also won but at a cost. Mark, in the article referred to Europe's transformation into "Eurabia." The original article is here.
Your future as a journalist writing on the Islamist Totalitarian Dogma has already been wrung through the ringer of PC in Canada.
Continue your fight against this law. It is a regressive step toward the further decline of our mutual Celtic ancestors and our cultural heritage. Read Mark's article particularly the focus on the European declining birth rate and demographics.
The feminist sirens remained quiet. For the victim is a man
By Kevin Myers
Tuesday May 05 2009
There seems to be no empathy, no regard, no compassion for male victims.
And the case of Michael Hannon is particularly shocking.
I looked, and of course, I looked in vain, for some sign of compassion for Michael Feichin Hannon, from our state-supported feminist quangos. I shouldn't have been surprised about their silence over the grave injustice done to him: yet some small stupid part of me had retained the na´ve hope that there might be some sign of ordinary human decency from our professional gender-industry.
Gender self-pity is now so deeply ingrained in the political psyche of the institutions of this State that it is apparently quite invisible to those who run them. We have lived in a political regime with a one-way rage for two decades now; and like the vegetation on a wind-blasted island, the landscape of our public morality has been utterly distorted by it. We have created a state-subsidised chorus of feminist sirens which only howls when it sees the cases that confirm that women alone are the victims of endless oppression. Naturally, the sirens -- and their colleagues in the media -- resolutely ignore those cases which provide contradictory evidence.
Now, a few weeks ago I was confident that the various state-subsidised feminist quangos -- from the Rape Crisis Centres, to the National Council of Women, to the Equality Authority -- would say nothing about the preposterously light sentence of seven years for the serial rape of a 14-year-old boy by his mother, and I was right. The fact that the judge was a woman was no doubt a factor in their silence. Her explanation for the light sentence -- that the Edwardian law was more heavily biased against paternal incest was both tendentious and spurious: for the charge of sexual assault alone carries a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment.
It's possible that I missed some condemnation of the sentence by the vast army of feminist-commentators and feminist quangos: but if I did, it wasn't for want of trying. But imagine the outcry -- and very properly -- if a man who had raped and sexually abused his 14-year-old daughter was sentenced to just seven years' imprisonment by a male judge.
What troubles me most about these feminist institutions, and the feminists who run them -- not all of them women by any means -- is the double standards which are now a norm. There seems to be no empathy, no regard, no compassion for male victims. So the case of Michael Hannon is particularly shocking, not merely because it could so easily happen again, but because of the lack of outcry resulting from it. Twelve years ago this innocent young man was framed by a malicious 10-year-old girl, Una Hardester, and duly found guilty of assault and sexual assault. His life could have been ruined. That it wasn't was because his family believed in his innocence.
That same year, three young Irish soldiers on holiday in Cyprus were similarly accused by an Irish girl. Only 15 hours later, after the men had been arrested on charges of rape, and under questioning from a detective who doubted her allegations, did the accuser break down and admit that her claims were baseless. She was sentenced to four months imprisonment.
Cue, outcry from Irish feminists, not over the attempt by a young Irishwoman to use the proper loathing for the crime of rape to ruin the lives of three innocent men, but because she was imprisoned at all. Condemning the jail sentence, Olive Braiden of the Rape Crisis Centre, said it would deter rape victims from reporting cases, and anyway, there was more to this case "than met the eye": whatever that cheap slur might mean. Anne O'Donnell, formerly of the Rape Crisis Centre, similarly dismissed the seriousness of the false allegations of rape, and, briefly appointing herself as both judge and jury in some hypothetical Cypriot court, declared that the woman's word alone would never have been enough to have secured a rape conviction. Ah. So that's all right then.
Fast forward to the Hannon case. Racked with guilt, Una Hardester returned from the US nearly three years ago to admit to her false allegations. Her sworn statement was known to An Garda Siochana and the office of the Director Public Prosecutions. But, quite scandalously, it was never passed to Michael Hannon's solicitor. Michael only discovered its existence purely by chance, after his sister encountered Hardester at a petrol station. Thus, no petrol, no justice. And it gets worse. For this state then flatly refused to declare that a miscarriage had been done. Michael Hannon, having once been the victim of the law, was then obliged to return to the courts to fight for a certificate of miscarriage of justice, which the Court of Appeal issued last week.
Now, we can be quite certain if a woman had been so gravely wronged by the State in some matter relating to sexual crime, that the feminist sirens, media and quangos alike, would have been howling in anger, and demanding enquiries and heads. But in the aftermath of this case, nothing: the sirens remained as quiet as a mountain lake. For the victim is a man, so really, the injustice done to him really doesn't count. Not in 1997, not today, and no doubt, not in 2019 either.
'Feminists demand equality, but women and children come first'
By Kevin Myers
Tuesday April 07 2009
'Protect women and children in next week's Budget', declared the headline in a press release from the National Women's Council last Friday. The statement added a couple of paragraphs later: "Women and children are at the greatest risk of poverty and all payments supporting women and children should be protected. Women are already facing serious consequences from the recession with unemployment figures showing the sectors of retail and services have been severely hit."
So, 36 years after the foundation of the NWCI, we see what the official, government-sponsored version of Irish feminism has mutated into: the cry of the officers on the deck of the foundering Titanic -- "Women and Children First". But at least in those days there was a coherent moral order behind that command. Children were children, and women were seen to be weaker and inferior and thus voteless; gentlemen of all classes would naturally stand back and give them places in the lifeboats first.
If there is a coherent moral order to the present thoughts of the National Women's Council, it is that words no longer mean what they used to. In the Council's prospectus for the year 2009, the word "equality" is used 38 times. Yet clearly, in the sisters' deviant vocabulary, "equality" does not mean equality of pain, or hardship or suffering or poverty. No: it means the opposite of equality. It means a protection from these conditions, regardless of what men are enduring. In other words, lifeboat-feminism, surely the most ignoble and unprincipled of all the many liberal political creeds which dominate our ethos today.
Only a lifeboat-feminism could spout the gibberish "Women and children are at greatest risk from poverty . . . Women are already facing serious consequences from the recession", the very day after the unemployment figures were released. These showed that of the 19,600 jobs lost in March, 13,600 were those of men, and 6,000 were those of women. That is to say, job losses amongst women were just 44pc of the rate endured by men. Moreover, the area in which job losses are not going to occur, the public service, is heavily dominated by female employees. Only an organisation driven by a demented sense of counter-factual, gender self-pity could promote the fiction of female victimhood at such a time.
And no, the NCWI press release doesn't mean "mothers", it makes no mention of mothers, not even once. Though interestingly enough, it refers to "women and children" four times, and to "women" just three times. Psychologically, this is simply placing women at the protected level of children, just as was done on the Titanic: quite an achievement for a state-subsidised feminist body in 2009, if a largely unsurprising one.
Naturally, the National Women's Council is a quango, of which there is (equally naturally) no male equivalent. Over 70pc of its budget comes from the Department of Justice and, wait for it, Equality and Law Reform. Now, you just know that those terms "equality" and "law reform" are never intended to apply to improve the lives or the legal position of men, don't you? Other state-providers of funds to the NWC are Combat Poverty and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. So, we have two government departments and one meaningless quango subsidising yet another quango, which is simply telling untruths, and making totally unrealistic demands of the Government which is paying for it.
This wouldn't matter if the shrill and unprincipled emanations of lifeboat-feminism were ignored. They are not. They are treated with a deferential respect by the Government and media alike. More than that, they have created a systemic imbalance in which women are consistently treated by less exacting standards than are men. The most grievous example of this of recent times concerned an Army officer who one night deserted her post as barracks-orderly, and left the armoury unprotected. She falsified the log to make it seem as if she had conducted perimeter patrols, which had never occurred, and she later lied to her commanding officer when questioned about her suspected absence from her post.
In other words, she had betrayed the greatest single institution in Irish life, and let down her fellow soldiers in a manner for which there could be no other proper outcome: a court martial, with an ignominious dismissal from the service. Instead, she was merely fined, and allowed to retain her commission. (Dear God in heaven, what would the great Bull Callaghan or Mickie Joe Costello have made of that?)
If the Army, the embodiment of the very qualities of steadfastness, stoicism and duty that we, as a society, most require in the maelstrom into which we are now sailing, can find itself applying the exceptionalist dogmas of lifeboat-feminism, what hope for the rest of us?
The blades of fiscal prudence will cut hard and low over the coming months, but you can be reasonably sure that, standing no less tall at the end than they were at the beginning, will be the state-sponsored feminist institutions of Irish life. And as the suffering deepens, their cry will doubtless ring over the ice-covered decks of Irish life: "Equality For All! Women And Children First!"
Stand Your Ground
Stand Your Ground Forums
Mike Murphy appeal
Terms and Rules
Go Up ▲
SMF 2.1 Beta 1 © 2014