Warning! Cuckoo in Your Nest!

IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”

This is a quote from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice oft quoted in joking fashion to urge men to enter into the bonds of matrimony.

Though the next part generally gets left out.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.”

Let us just rework that aphorism for the 21st century, shall we?

“It is a truth universally believed by women that a man in possession of a property not in negative equity will relinquish said property if his “live-in” girlfriend wants it, and will continue to pay the mortgage on said property even if no longer in possession of it

Anja Eriud – just today 🙂

There was a time, when the only legally recognised “relationship” between men and women was a properly conducted marriage, when I say properly conducted; I mean a ceremony performed by a person licensed to perform such ceremonies by the state thereby making it a legally recognised marriage.

Marriage has undergone some significant changes since the 18th century, legally speaking, from recognising the rights of women within marriage, to extending the remit of marriage beyond the bounds of religious ceremonies alone, into the civil/family law arena so that marriage became a “legal and social” contract as well as a religious or spiritual or even practical “bond

This was and is a good thing, not everybody is religious, for a lot of people “being married” was a public statement of their commitment, being married recognised the bond that existed between these two people and gave this bond legal force and a certain amount of legal protection.

Ok, I realise it is a lot more complicated than that, but for the purposes of this essay, let us just agree that “being married” has or had more legal, social and cultural legitimacy than “living in sin” as it used to be called, had. Ok?

Then, along came feminism, and apparently marriage became a prison, a form of “enslavement” for women, so that once more, laws were changed to ensure that women were no longer “enslaved” but did in fact become overseers, became the sole arbitrators of not just the parameters of marriage, but could dissolve this union on a whim, even better could seize every “asset” accrued during the term of this legal bond, including any children,  and render their “oppressive master” homeless, penniless, childless and in fiscal servitude to this poor “enslaved” women for life.

Cronan, Sheila (writer, member of the radical feminist group The Redstockings)

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 219)”

Aha!  Men started to cop on to this, men started to say, sod this, and began declining to enter into this legal bond, in greater and greater numbers. This is a now a worldwide phenomenon.

Hmmmm, this did, and does cause some consternation to women, after all, women are a prize to be won, the ultimate symbol of male achievement, to have some woman graciously bestow her favour on a supplicant man by allowing him to “walk her down the aisle” with the hapless groom on an invisible and metaphorical chain so to speak.

Not to worry, feminists got on the case, yes you guessed it, we need new laws they declared, more new laws and even more new laws, so that even if some “man” declines to submit himself to the chains of marriage and just wants to “live in sin” with a poor, helpless women there must be laws to ensure that this fragile creature still has the power to seize all assets, again including children, and evict this unworthy creature known as man from his home peremptorily……not forgetting of course that he must continue to finance this poor delicate fragile woman as she sits on her fat arse in the house he bought and paid for, he must be enslaved (oopps I mean obliged, legally “obliged”) and continue to “service the needs” of this cuckoo.

Cuckoo? Yes, cuckoo, for that is what these wretched women are, except rather than simply hijacking a nest, laying an egg and buggering off, leaving some innocent birdie to raise their voracious, fratricidal offspring, these cuckoo’s stay, these cuckoo’s settle into the nest, make the nest their own, lay the eggs, then when good and settled, it is the poor unfortunate host birdie that gets his ass kicked out.

Thing is, the evicted birdie still has to supply this cuckoo with nice juicy worms, in rain, hail or storm, and for these metaphors feel free to substitute, redundancy, unemployment, homelessness, ill-health, depression and poverty, all the while in servitude to this fat-arsed, lazy, greedy, vindictive and spiteful cuckoo. Tragically in some cases our birdie, our man finds this all too much to bear and commits suicide.

This all leads us to this:

Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. (CP Act 2010)

This piece of relatively new legislation is designed to “plug the loophole” that allowed men in so called “defacto” or “common law marriages” (which was a myth by the way) to walk away or rather, divest themselves of the cuckoo’s in their nests without being obliged (forced legally) to hand over possession of said nest, and to continue to supply the worms to this cuckoo.

Not any more, nope, nosireebob, to put it rather crudely, if you, a man even look sideways at some wretch you may just be opening up a whole can of worms for yourself, or rather for her.

Already in other jurisdictions legislative changes have been made at the insistence of course of those perennial “defenders of women’s rights” feminists. Please note the sarcasm.

Now, since 2010 Ireland has joined the party, thrown its hat into the ring, and embraced the concept of giving pseudo marriage rights to cuckoo’s – oops, my bad – I meant “poor helpless vulnerable wimmin”.

Odd, isn’t it, how all this “equality” so beloved of feminists never seems to benefit men in any way, shape or form, strange how all this “equality” is applied only to women? Maybe it’s just me? Maybe I just don’t understand the REAL meaning of “equality

Now for the good news! Or rather, the slightly better than completely bad news.

In their wisdom, Irish legislators have included one small ray of hope into this ridiculous legislation, an “opt-out” clause. But, and this needs your careful attention, you (if you are a man) need to lose some unrealistic beliefs. You, (if you are a man) need to listen up, pay attention and COP ON to yourself!

There is a caveat, to the best of my knowledge, this provision has not been “tested” in Irish Courts. Yet. We do after all live in a gynocentric culture.

First and foremost – living together is now not just you and your current girlfriend shacking up together to see if you can stand the sight of one another for longer than 24 hours. Living together, especially in a house YOU bought and paid for, or maybe inherited, is no longer a private ah-hoc arrangement between you and your current love bunny. IT NOW HAS A LEGAL ELEMENT.

Have you got that? The state can now poke it pointy nose into your business, and your love bunny, your snookums, if she has a mind to, can turn rabid on you and……… USE THE POWER OF THE STATE AGAINST YOU TO FORCE YOU OUT OF YOUR PROPERTY!

Yes indeed, snookums can, and believe me will, make your life hell, make you homeless, drive you into penury, hold any child of yours hostage, if you are dumb, yes DUMB enough to reproduce with this wretch! Because once a child enters this rosy picture – all bets are off – any slim legal protection of your assets had? GONE! You are, and will be……………………SCREWED!

And no, you won’t be lying there afterwards with a daft grin on your face, having a smoke and feeling gooooooooooooooooooooooooood!

You’ll be sitting with your head in your hands, in total and utter shock and devastation, in the corridors of Family Court having just lost practically everything, and snookums?

She’ll be the cold-hearted sneering contemptuous bitch looking down her nose at you in triumph as she sweeps from the courthouse with her conniving lawyer in a waft of really expensive perfume that it is now your responsibility to keep her supplied with. Got it? Good.

So, let’s get into the gory details.

Are you aware the Civil Partnership Act affects heterosexual couples too?

If you live together, that is if a human male and a human female COHABIT – for a minimum of five (5) years, all your assets may become to all intents and purposes – JOINT assets. This means the property you are living in, possibly even if this is your family home and you inherited after your parents passed away, and she had no hand or part in financing.

If this property is one that you bought, raised the mortgage on, and were paying, and continue to pay from your own earnings, it won’t matter, after five years, the provisions of the CP Act 2010 kick in, she could now claim an interest (a legal interest) in that property, and boy will she be interested. If during the course of your relationship, you earn more, or have more assets than her, she will be considered the defacto “injured party” and eligible to sue you for REDRESS! Got it?

The Act also establishes a redress scheme to give protection to a financially dependent person at the end of a long-term cohabiting relationship. This provides a legal safety net for people in long-term relationships who may otherwise be very vulnerable financially at the end of a relationship, whether through break-up or through bereavement.

The redress scheme may only be activated at the end of a relationship of at least five years duration, whether by break-up or death, and allows a financially dependent cohabitant to apply to court for certain remedies, including maintenance, pension or property adjustment orders, or provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant.”

In the event that you and your snookums have a wee baby, two years from the date that child is born is all that is needed for the provisions of the CP Act 2010, to kick in, think about this for a minute, there you are all snuggly and cosy in your love nest and “ooops” a few months in, she tells you that you will soon be hearing the pitter patter of little feet. We now have a situation where rather than having to “put up” with you for five loooooooong years, she can almost cut that time in half, just by “accidently” getting herself “with child

The Act defines “qualified cohabitants” as those residing together as an unmarried couple in an intimate relationship for a period of five years, or two years where there is a child or children of the relationship.

In determining case the economic dependency of the claiming partner is the key factor, although other criteria must also be taken into account including the duration of the relationship and the contributions made by each cohabitant, whether financial or otherwise.”

Having said that, the fact that you are not actually legally married when this little urchin arrives, creates its own particular legal problemsFOR YOU. (We’ll talk about this in another post)

So, guys, I really do urge you to think this all through, and to show some foresight, some common sense. And yeah I know, it’s “not romantic” to be discussing such practical things – as you might hear her say, even while she her  beady eye on your two up, two down.

Hang on a minute here, how romantic is it for you to be in actual danger of losing your property and possibly paying through the nose to support some wench that you moved into your house then realised that this wasn’t going to work? Then, rather than asking her politely to leave and have her GO! You end up in court, and she walks out with the keys to your home?

Being practical, taking steps to protect your property, your assets, and putting in place an agreement that allows you both (to be fair) to make a clean break from relationships that don’t work out is sensible, is reasonable.

If she kicks up a stink about your reasonable and sensible request to enter into a Cohabitation Agreement for living together, then it ain’t romance that’s driving her it’s…………………………..an eye on the main chance, it’s greed, it’s avarice, it’s downright sneaky!

© Anja Eriud 2013


Even though the general thrust of this essay is directed at events that might take place in the Irish jurisdiction, you may have noticed I used sources from the Canadian, Australian and US jurisdictions. There is a good reason for this, Irish courts DO refer to other “common law” court decsions and precedents in their rulings, not so much US though. Regardless, the influence of feminism is Global, and manifests itself in ALL jurisdictions, including in decsions of the ECJ (European Court of Justice)

Till Death us Do Part.

I take the admittedly unscientific view that the more loudly and viciously and irrationally feminists protest about something, then that “something” is worth a closer look. No, not because I believe the “issue “ has any validity, but because feminists make a song and dance, create, or attempt to create a smokescreen of wailing to HIDE something less savoury. Like I said – unscientific.

The second thing, again not terribly scientific, is that if that “something” is being exclusively blamed on some negative trait inherent to men then there is something about women that feminists are seeking to obscure, seeking to camouflage.

Lastly, the object of the whining, complaining and attention is always something that benefits women at the expense of men or in some way advantages women and by default advantages the continuing funding of, and entrenchment of feminist ideologues in positions of power.

So, having taken the long way round, what am I talking about?

The notion of “commitment” the idea that “men are afraid to commit” to marriages, to relationships, to children, to adulthood (bearing in mind that adulthood definitions are the sole prerogative of women and feminists)

Bear with me for a moment – we all know that the rate of marriage is declining [1] – at a faster and faster pace, we all know that the phenomenon of MGTOW is spreading and becoming part of mainstream culture. Men are disengaging from, and declining to follow the “norms” of society, with marriage and 2.4 children and a lifetime of servitude to maintaining this “norm”

Of course the fault of all this disengagement is placed squarely at the feet of men. Yet, it is men who are ejected from their homes and families, women who initiate the majority of divorces [2] and perhaps more tellingly, men who doggedly, in the face of abuse, both physical and psychological stay committed to toxic marriages.

I’ve been reading the accounts from men posted as part of domestic violence month  presented by Dr. Palmatier on A Voice Form Men  [3] and the stories of men who stayed, in the face of abuse, both physical and emotional, who remained committed. This is a pattern consistently repeated, men stay, and men honour that initial commitment. For better or worse acquires a terrible poignancy, a terrible reality for those men who endure the “worse” and rarely enjoy the “better”.

So, what does this all mean, brushing aside the fog of whiny rhetoric from those females who ask “where have all the good men gone?” [4]  and ignoring the raucous chorus from feminists about how “men are afraid of commitment”  what are we left with?

Women are either incapable or unwilling to honour the most basic commitments, women seem prepared to abandon a commitment on a whim, while a man’s word is his bond, a woman’s word isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

The whining, the sneering, the vitriol around this, serves (in the eyes of feminists) as an attempt to maintain the fiction that women are the commitment queens of the human species, alas for them, that illusion has been shattered. It always was an illusion, a mirage created out of whole cloth to obscure the base nature embedded in quite a number of females. Feminism needs to maintain this illusion to justify its own existence as the “defenders of women” as the guardians of “women’s rights” – of course, for this one must substitute rights for privileges. Note, there is usually no mention of responsibilities on women’s part.

To be honest, I’m actually astonished that men still voluntarily enter into this toxic commitment, still willingly sign their lives away, still take on trust the word of any female that she will honour her part of this commitment.

Am I saying that ALL women cannot be trusted? Not necessarily, but, the legal, social and cultural framework within which modern marriages must be embedded and conducted, is designed and has been engineered by feminism as a cage, a prison, a deliberate mechanism to strip men of their autonomy, their dignity, their humanity and their value as human beings. Conversely it has been engineered to endorse, enhance and consolidate female privilege, female supremacy and female avarice.

To continue, in one way women and feminists are actually correct men are afraid “to commit” – but out of self-preservation, because what they are being shamed into committing to is toxic.  The females who must necessarily also be part of this commitment are……………….invariably vile, selfish, self-absorbed, untrustworthy and mercenary creatures with No Honour.

I realise that Honour is a rather old-fashioned concept, but without honour, how can one enter into and be trusted to fulfil the obligations of a commitment to “love, honour and cherish” (using the traditional terminology here) to stay the course “for better or worse” or “for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health”?

At the first hint of “boredom” at the first sign that a marriage requires some effort, at the first hurdle, obstacle or difficulty……………the vast majority of women bail out of their commitment, eject their men, make a grab for all the accumulated assets, and worst of all, hold their mutual children hostage for the ransom of “child support”. [5]

I’m not opposed to marriage per se, after all people are entitled to participate in either religious rituals or civil rituals which give them……….whatever they need them to give them.

But, women and to some extent feminists are to put it mildly obsessed with “marriage” the current rising attention being given to the falling rates of marriage attests to this. The problem is of course, that men are increasingly no longer willing to “fall into line” and do their duty (as prescribed by the current regime).

Historically marriage was instituted to protect property rights and succession rights and to some extent protect women. Women were quick to see the benefits that marriage offered them, and also quick to see that there were obligations attached. Problem is, women find fulfilling obligations…………………not really to their liking. So began the campaign to re-position women’s participation in marriage as “involuntary servitude”, turning the benefits into burdens, and the obligations into coercions. [6] Neat trick, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps they should focus their minds on the real meaning of commitment instead?

It is perhaps pointless to suggest that women take a long cold hard look at themselves as well, and ask Themselves this question.

All things being equal would I commit to me?  Would I honestly have no problem trusting this person? Unfortunately this would require a level of self-reflection and truthfulness about one’s less positive traits that females are not particularly noted for.

On a final note, I wonder if it will ever occur to women and feminists, that men’s refusal to “commit” to marry you lovely delectable creatures says more about you and what you have to offer than it does about them? Nope. Didn’t think so.

Things you might want to take a closer look at.

[1] Some articles on declining marriage rates.

May 29, 2013, 3:23 PM: Are Women’s Higher Earnings Holding Back Marriage Rate? By Kathleen Madigan  http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/05/29/are-womens-higher-earnings-holding-back-marriage-rate/

The Marriage Crisis: How marriage has changed in the last 50 years and why it continues to decline: by Aja Gabel: http://uvamagazine.org/features/article/the_marriage_crisis

The Decline of Marriage in the West: Posted on August 19, 2013 by TedD, on Just Four guys: http://www.justfourguys.com/the-decline-of-marriage-in-the-west/

The End of Marriage: by Charles Martel on January 8, 2010: The Spearhead:


[2] Who initiates most divorces?

Most of the time, wife initiates divorce: By Judith Kleinfeld: Anchorage Daily News: Published: June 24, 2012.


Debunking 10 Divorce Myths: By David Popenoe: http://health.howstuffworks.com/relationships/marriage/debunking-divorce-myths.html

Marriage and Divorce: A Rigged Game for Men, But Also Ultimately Bad for Women and Children: Written by Dr Tara J. Palmatier on September 28, 2011:


[3] A look inside marriage and relationships from men’s perspective.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month: The Invisible Victims, Written by Dr Tara J. Palmatier on September 30, 2013:


There are 32 articles, all the voices of men describing their experiences.

[4] Where have all the good men gone?

Where Have the Good Men Gone? Or, Here We Go Again: http://www.artofmanliness.com/trunk/750/where-have-the-good-men-gone-or-here-we-go-again/

Where Have All the Good Men Gone? By Jill on February 21, 2011: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/02/21/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/

*Trigger warning: this is a feminist site so guaranteed the writer is missing the point and misrepresenting the reasons – just so you know.

[5] Tales from the Dark side of Divorce.

Fathers Rights and DadsDivorce.com: http://www.dadsdivorce.com/fathers-rights

Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome Home Page: http://www.parentalalienation.org/

[6] Some feminists on marriage.

All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Catherine MacKinnon”

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.” — Andrea Dworkin.

From: Quotes from Radical Feminism http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread557984/pg1

What feminists have said about women.

Instead of getting hard ourselves and trying to compete, women should try and give their best qualities to men – bring them softness, teach them how to cry. ~Joan Baez, “Sexism Seen but not Heard,Los Angeles Times, 1974”

The implication being here of course that women are “soft” and men one presumes “hard”

Advertisers in general bear a large part of the responsibility for the deep feelings of inadequacy that drive women to psychiatrists, pills, or the bottle”. ~Marya Mannes, But Will It Sell?, 1964”

Oh dear, poor addled headed women – no minds of their own.

“The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces”. ~Maureen Murphy


Tut tut – bitchy bitchy bitcy.

© Anja Eriud 2013