Time for you to Get Back in Harness Guys – Suzanne Venker Says So!

 

Suzanne Venker’s articleIt’s time to end the gender war” on the Daily Caller while well meaning misses the point, and the barn, and doesn’t even hit anywhere near the barn, by a country mile or several hundred.

The first error she makes is the title. By characterizing  the current social, cultural and legal climate that exists, as the result of a “Gender War” she fails to take into account this:

War is to all intents and purposes a battle for supremacy between two factions or possibly more, with each protagonist engaging the enemy or enemies – that is not what has happened here.

This has been an invasion, an occupation, a takeover – a coup. Most definitely not a bloodless coup. Men did not, and could not fight back – but they are fighting back now – and THIS is the war that women don’t want. Women are afraid that if men don’t stop fighting back, then the war that never was, will end up with them being the losers.

Venker almost immediately nails her colours to the mast, as to what it is that women fear losing the most – the prospect of a marriage.  Because it is starting to become self evident that men and “marriage” are no longer simpatico. That men are saying – in droves – thanks but no thanks.

Venker hails her model of marriage as natural, as something that men and women are almost designed for, and implies that this is some wonderful “tradition”  and that this alleged “battle of the sexes” has thrown a spanner into the works of!

“Marriage between a man and a woman is designed to be a lifetime merger of masculine and feminine beings. Imperfect or not, it’s Mother Nature’s plan. But today it’s faced with a new threat, and it’s not same-sex marriage. The real problem is America’s gender war: the decades-long battle that has almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes.”

Actually NO, it is not, it wasn’t, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Further, this ideal template of what this version of marriage is rests on myth, fables and a fairly shaky grasp of history, and from my perspective, OTHER cultures – cultures that did not, and do not view marriage through the rather grubby rose coloured spectacles of Hollywood Rom Coms and/or looooooooooooooooove stories, nor through the prism of execrable chick lit, or the fevered fantasies of overexcited and hormonal teenagers. never mind mentioning that when this “model” was created, you were lucky and considered old if you made it to your 40th birthday.

Venker is pulling this “tradition” card, alluding to some mythical period in history when marriage was just this perfect union, this long-standing “tradition” that is now being sullied by modern influences.

Well now Ms, Venker, I will see your couple of hundred years of manufactured history and tradition and raise you a couple of thousand years of actual history and really really REALLY ancient tradition. Because the word that describes this attitude is ethnocentricity – the cure is pulling your head out of your backside.

“Lawyers writing in Irish divide first and principal marriages into three categories:

(1) lánamnas comthinchuir, ‘marriage of common contribution’,marriage in which, apparently, both parties contribute equally to the common pool of marital property;

(2) lánamnas for ferthinchur, ‘marriage on man-contribution’,an arrangement by which the bulk of the marriage goods are contributed by the man; and

(3) lánamnas for bantinchur, ‘marriage on woman contribution’,marriage to which the woman brings the preponderance of the property.

All three main types of marriage are considered by the lawyers as special contractual relationships between the spouses in regard to property, which are similar in some important respects to that of a lord and his vassal, a father and his daughter, a student and his teacher, an abbot and his lay-tenant—other pairs that hold property in common and, on occasion at least, run a common household.

What each of the pair may have given the other, consumed, or spent in good faith cannot give rise to a legal action; what has been taken without permission must be replaced if a complaint is made about it; and legal penalties are involved only when the complaint (and the appropriate legal procedure which must follow it) is ignored or when property is removed by theft or by violence.” (my note – by either party)

And yes, any of the three main types of marriage one could enter into in Ireland – right up to the 17th Century, did NOT absolve either party to that marriage from being subject to the law (Brehon Law) if they committed an act which was contrary to the law. ALL persons were held, once they had reached the age of accountability – generally about 12 years old – fully accountable for their actions, no matter what their status OR sex.

If whatever type of marriage one entered into was of persons of the same social status then:

“It was a dignified state for the wife in question: if it was a marriage ‘with land and stock and household equipment and if the wife was of the same class and status as her husband, she was known as abé cuitchernsa, literally ‘a woman of joint dominion, a woman of equal lordship’—a term which seems to be rendered domina in the canon law tracts.

Neither of the spouses could make a valid contract at law without the consent of the other. The lawyers list exceptions to this rule but, apart from the specification that these must be dealings which advance their common economy, they are mere run-of the-mill matters in the ordinary business of farming—agreements for co-operative ploughing with kinsmen, hiring land (presumably for grazing), getting together the food and drink to meet the duty of entertaining one’s lord or to celebrate church feasts, acquiring necessary tools or equipment and the like—and one would expect either spouse to make such arrangements without necessarily consulting the other.”

Naturally enough, as a marriage was a contract, breaching the terms of that contract had penalties, and could be exercised by either party.

“Besides, the grounds for unilateral divorce (with or without penalties being incurred by the guilty party) are specified in very considerable detail.

A woman could divorce her husband for many reasons: sterility, impotence, being a churchman (whether in holy orders or not), blabbing about the marriage bed, calumniation, wife-beating, repudiation (including taking a secondary wife), homosexuality, failure of maintenance.

A man could divorce his wife for abortion, infanticide, flagrant infidelity, infertility, and bad management. Insanity, chronic illness, a wound that was incurable in the opinion of a judge, leech or lord, retirement into a monastery or going abroad on pilgrimage were adequate grounds for terminating a marriage.[40]

I might add, that some of these things would have been also unlawful, and not only would the guilty party be divorced but he/she would be punished.  Needless to say the taking of a life would have incurred a greater punishment than the beating of a wife.

And before you all start boo hooing over “wife beating” unless the wife was of the Warrior class, and yes we had female warriors, then she was not TRAINED in combat skills, ergo not able or deemed capable of defending herself.  It is anecdotal to say this, but wife beating would have a rare thing in ancient Celtic culture, Irish women are not known for being passive, nor would Irish men have considered beating up a smaller person an honourable thing to do.

This extract that I took these quotes from, talks of a time circa 700 AD when Irish culture was being influenced by the spread of Christianity and by other external influences, but these “traditions” these Laws go back to the bronze age.

It was in the 17th century that finally our Laws, our traditions and our culture were irrevocably changed.

So, this “tradition” that Venker is pining to return to is a mix of gynocentric bullshit, hypergamy gone wild and a culture that allowed itself to be hoodwinked, conned and bamboozled by the machinations, ploys and feminine wiles of females who wouldn’t know how to be autonomous human beings if their lives depended on it.  Which by the way, they DO now.

Your “traditional” marriage is not the union of equals, the coming together to form a household in common, but a grown person being allowed to remain a dependant, a child, a burden, a person who contributes very little but expects to be crowned Rián for that.

What betimes makes me narrow my eyes at the arrogance of feminists and certain types of women, is the sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude they adopt when they talk about “other cultures” and how western culture is the savior of and the model for “other cultures” how your “traditions” are superior, more highly evolved and developed than those inferior and unenlightened “other cultures”

From my perspective – again – YOUR culture is savage, barbarian, unenlightened, inferior, and a plague on humanity. Your culture has been corrupted by feminism and feminists and the toxic gynocentric poison that has informed the agenda of YOUR culture and “traditions” it is superficial, shallow, tawdry and vile.

I sound angry, don’t I? that would be because I am, because YOUR rotten culture, your rotten “traditions” are now part of my culture – part of my everyday life – have infected and corrupted my culture.

The saddest part of all? My people have embraced and now revel in this toxic cultural template.

I focused on marriage, because that is the focus of Venker’s article, to be honest the rest of her article is a gosh golly darn it, why don’t you men get back into your “real men” strait jackets, so that we women can get back to destroying the planet, corrupting the legal system, emotionally abusing your children, go on murderous rampages, and find the time to sit around on our fat arse’s whining about how hard it is to be a woman.

 

Then go shopping for shoes.  Pppft!

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

The “M” Word

 

Women are crap at marriage, the “M” word” even when they yearn, they cry into their pillows at night for marriage, even when they think they believe they know what marriage is – they are still mostly crap at it.

The reason is actually quite simple, the marriage they dream of, they expect to have, they pine for, and in some instances pour scorn on (hello feminists) is a creation, a fantasy, an illusion that they created themselves, to get out of responsibility for being adults, grownups.

Lastly, but not, by any stretch of the imagination least, the western worlds model of marriage was created and cultivated for women, as a device for women to play act their way through their lives, to play at “being married”

Problem is, the illusion they created had a very short shelf life, historically speaking, the conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created “to serve” no longer exist – let me repeat that.

The conditions and circumstances under which the original model of marriage was created to serve, no longer exist – except in the minds and imaginations, and to be blunt unrealistic fantasies of women.

If ever there was a “thing” that should be consigned to the – “seemed like a good idea at the time” – category, marriage is it.

Even then, way back when the kiss of death for marriage began to take over – (that would be romance by the way) – it was a pretty shit idea. For a while it served its purpose, and depending on the maturity and intelligence of the parties involved, a lot of marriages were successful, workable, managed to stay standing, or at least did, till the kids were old enough to leave home and forge their own lives.

And our two lovebirds could stop pretending that they could stand the sight of one another.

I mentioned that the kiss of death for “marriage” is romance? It is, and right now every woman who has ever dreamed of “walking down the aisle” in some ridiculous clown outfit called “the perfect wedding dress” has fallen to the floor in a swoon. Oh please! Grow up – get up – and shut up – don’t even think about commenting or emailing me with some tearful (and probably pages long) diatribe about love, and showing your love, and how I don’t understand what romance is.

Bite me.

I know exactly what romance is and I also know, that it to love, to friendship, to loyalty, to honour, what feminism is to truth, to human rights, to sanity. And feminism is the vilest, most corrupt and corrosive set of twisted beliefs that ever found their way onto a page or into the mouths and minds of any person. I repeat.

Bite me.

The ironic thing of all, to me at least, is that women allowed feminism and feminists to destroy, to corrupt, to make unbearable (for men) the very thing that generations of women, whether they admit it or not want, yearn for, spend their lives trying to enter into – the unholy state of matrimony.

As our cultures and societies developed and progressed, many women began to feel a bit discontented, a bit unhappy, not “fulfilled”(sigh) in their marriages – enter the nutcase lesbian harridans and self promoting hippy sluts of feminism, to give these discontented and bored “housewives” a “get out of jail free” card, an excuse, a nicely exaggerated, completely and utterly false set of reasons and explanations for their “boredom”

Something is wrong with “marriage”? It can’t be me, therefore it must be you! With the “you” being men – as we all know, it doesn’t take much for women to completely lose all sense of proportion, or reality for that matter – therefore marriage must change – the legal and social framework within which marriages must be conducted in western societies must change so that women can “be happy” again.

Because, women still wanted their fantasy, their romance, their illusion – alas – of all the tinkering, all the changes, all the remodelling of marriage that feminism, feminists and women insisted needed to be done so that marriage was something that suited women – the ONLY change that could have made marriage at the bare minimum workable was not done, was never even considered, and to this day would induce rage, hysterics and poisonous articles from women and feminists with the intellectual capacity of a tree frog.

There is, and was ONLY one “thing” that needs and needed to be changed – WOMEN!

This is where I’m going to say, what for a lot of women will sound if not odd at the very least, then once again consign me, to that sphere of outer darkness that women reserve for those who “betray the sisterhood” boo bloody hoo. I LIKE it out here guuuuuurls  🙂

I like men.

I like the way they think, I like the way they talk and express themselves, and I like, with a few exceptions their sense of humour. Men are great fun, they are kind and generous (and no, I don’t mean that in a monetary way) they are loyal and trustworthy. You can depend on a man to keep his word, you can be sure that if a man says he will or won’t do something that it will or won’t be done. And yes, of course I am aware that some men can be just as big arseholes as women – but there is a vindictiveness, a spitefulness and nastiness within women that you don’t find in many men.

Most women don’t LIKE men – just the way they are – men are projects – blank slates upon which women get to write instructions upon. Women don’t SEE men as autonomous separate entities to themselves – men are an extension, a reflection, an appendage to a woman – a man is only as good as the woman in his life can either force him to be, or make him be, and that fits in with whatever bloody Disney fantasy they’ve had running in their heads since they wore their first “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” tee-shirt.

For women, men are bit players, not even co-stars, but bit players in the drama, the fantasy, the illusion that is, the life and times of ME!

Of course the other ridiculous and asinine thing that women bleat and wail about and demand that men do is to “work on our marriage”?

Excuse me?  Do what?

Like the various bits of random engines and whatever they were, my brothers used to “work on”? Like an inanimate object that you were creating, be it a piece of sculpture, a painting or a piece of furniture? Like that?

There is only one “thing” that one could possibly “work on” that would make any difference to whether or not you are in a positive, enriching, worthwhile and workable union (I’m getting fed up writing the word marriage – and I think I might be breaking out in a rash!)

YOU!

You read that right, and by the way, I AM specifically addressing women – if you have a problem in your union – then that is YOUR problem.

But, but, but, but………….he does this, he doesn’t do that, he won’t do this, he won’t do that…..boo hoo!

Answer: So?

Are you suggesting, demanding and expecting that an autonomous human being accedes to your command, your order because YOU demand it?

Personal example: I cannot explain this, I have no idea why, but whistling drives me mad, seriously, it sets my teeth on edge, my late partner didn’t whistle – much – and only did it unconsciously – so, the first time – I explained, more or less as I just did above – then I ASKED – politely, civilly. His response, sorry darling, I’ll stop,  just let me know if I do it without thinking. End of conversation.

I hear women moan and whine about “what an arsehole” their husbands or partners are – and two things – arseholery is in the eye of the beholder – and like it or lump it people have the right to BE arseholes if they want to be.  If you don’t want to be around an arsehole – LEAVE, and leave the kids behind, you’re the one with the problem, not them.

I’ll admit, I am constantly shocked at how women speak to and treat their partners, I know I shouldn’t be, but I am, and when I say things like;

“If you spoke to, or treated me in that manner, I would probably find the biggest bucket of pig swill I could find, and dump it over your head”

I am equally shocked at how shocked THEY are, at being criticised!

If she was in my house, I would throw her out, and invite him to remain, and no, I’m not kidding – women seem to believe that the normal rules for civil behaviour, for how one treats other human beings are suspended, no longer apply, magically disappear in the context of a union or partnership.

THEY DO NOT!

The problem with modern marriage, and modern relationships, partnerships, unions, whatever floats your particular boat is WOMEN – and the problem with women is that women believe and expect that getting married means at the ceremony, or whatever, a marriage fairy flies in and sprinkles magic marriage dust on you.

That the recitation of some words, the physical act of standing there in THAT absurd dress alchemically changes you – and him – and even worse should.

What you bring to a union is YOU – warts and all – and wedding ceremonies are not some kind of supernatural Compound W* that makes all YOUR warts disappear, for women actually, it does seem to cause a major outbreak of warts – big massive hairy ones.

So – women are crap at marriage, because women designed and created marriage in their own image, and need I say it – in general, with a few rare exceptions, most women are a pain in the arse.

Ladies, the wheels fell off your trolley a long long time ago – you all better start learning to walk.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

*Compound W is a liquid you paint onto a wart to make it disappear, sometimes it works, sometimes not, try rubbing half a potato on your wart – seriously – try it. 🙂

 

 

 

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!

Form an Orderly Queue Gentlemen!

 

The selection process is about to begin, please have ready to be inspected, the following items:

1. Minimum of three years financial statements, (no hiding assets now boys) 

2. Letters of recommendation from, your mother, your college lecturers, the police, a member of jezebel, every female who has ever met you that states, you have completed and PASSED your training as per the parameters of the human socialisation project known as feminism and are now deemed to be, a “good” (ish) enough man.

3. A sworn and signed waiver relinquishing possession of every asset both present and future, both real and corporeal to whichever superior, celestial being, formerly known as “a female”, deigns to select you as the recipient of her beneficence – i.e. allows you to marry her.

 NB.  Please be advised that there WILL be a physical examination of the breeding stock, sorry, slip of the tongue, I meant, potential candidates, therefore be prepared to “drop ‘em and cough”

 Ok, have I gone completely off the reservation, am I now floating out to sea on an iceberg, madly tapping away at my keyboard? Broadband reception is shit in the Antarctic by the way.

 Nope, but I have been casting an eye over some of the more inane witterings from the feminist camp, to whit, I give you Careering into a Good Husband a post from the blog called the Vagenda, set up by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and her bestie  from “Uni” Holly Baxter.

When my friend Holly Baxter and I set up a satirical blog called the Vagenda two years ago, along with a group of our university friends, we never saw ourselves as part of the feminist movement. The blog took a tongue-in-cheek look at women’s magazines, was written in a slangy, easily comprehensible style, and didn’t take itself all that seriously. In ridiculing the way women were portrayed in the media, the entire ethos of the blog could be said to be feminist, but I didn’t really know anything about the modern feminist movement, what it entailed, and where my place in it might be; we just got on with it.  

Indeed, one of the great things about this new wave of female activism is that young women no longer feel they have to subscribe to a whole checklist of rigid ideas before becoming involved; they focus on what’s closest to their hearts, whether that’s Page 3 or everyday sexism or violence against women, and try and do the best they can, just as many women out there in their communities have been doing for generations, some without ever feeling a need to use the term “feminist“.

Being the possessor of an uuuummm “vagenda” myself, I thought I’d put her girlish and fun fun fun blog on my “to do” list – as in, do a quick survey, see if there’s anything worth a second look and then get on with my life.

 Lo and behold, Rhiannon and Holly have outdone themselves, now before you think, “I’ll go click on the link and take a look at this little fun palace” I have to warn you about something.

 It’s pink. I don’t mean a nice delicate shade of rose with subtle shades, IT’S PINK, pepto bismol PINK.  Bubblegum PINK. Ok, you’ve got that?  It’s PINK!

 Anyway, moving on, the post I linked to is a reaction to a couple of other articles, (sigh, bloody feminists, writing responses to responses to other posts from other bloody feminists – I can hear the sound of hens clucking and flapping about as I write)

And yep, I’m a year late to this party, as the articles linked above are from 2012, but never mind, the starting point, for me, was this article from Rhiannon “I’m a half-arsed, accidental feminist – like many other young women” by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett The Guardian, Monday 25 November 2013.

Aside: I’m actually waiting for one of the “grande dames” of British feminism to build up enough of a head of steam to write a “response” to Rhiannon’s article and slap this uppity, “how dare she have fuuuuuuuuunnn” pseudo feminist down, but good. 🙂

Now, it’s not that Rhiannon and/or Holly are being all bitchy and snarky about these articles, nope, not these gals, but they are being………………………as dumb as a bag of hammers.  It isn’t even that Rhiannon/Holly are in agreement with the articles they are commenting on. Because to be fair, they are not. The problem is that they are missing the point. They are completely and utterly blissfully unaware of a couple of tiny little details.

 The unholy state of matrimony is rapidly losing its appeal FOR MEN! All this talk of marriage, of when and how and under what circumstances women will or won’t “get married” and no-one mentions, no one even hints at the big fat hairy elephant(s) in the room.  Escalating divorce rates and plummeting marriage rates. It’s not all wedding cake and Vera Wang girlies.

 So, they write from a distinctly female possibly “fun feminist” (I know, I’m having a bit of a problem getting my head around it myself) perspective. And this is what exactly? I hear you ask. Though, Rhiannon/Holly have a rather strange notion of relationships! 

Although I personally believe that I won’t marry someone unless I feel like I want to clone them, barricade them in my bedroom for all eternity, and then wear their clone’s skin as a onesie (i.e. the insane-making kind of adoration), I can see the point of also making sure that they’re an all right bloke and they don’t want to raise their future children on a fruitarian diet in the Forest of Dean.

Teaching women and men alike what functional, healthy relationships look like seems like one hell of a good idea. But approaching young girls with the idea that their husbands might hold them back seems a bit like, well, scare-mongering. And it also seems like potentially encouraging a colossal shift in responsibility.”

 I’m glad you asked about this “fun feminist” perspective because you see this is the perspective where the entire universe and all it planets, moons, asteroids and random comets revolves around WOMEN, women’s “choices” women’s “needs” what makes women “happy”, what women “deserve”, are “entitled” to and just, gosh, golly and gadzooks must have. Not that different from “regular” feminism is it? It’s just pinker!

 One of those “must have” items is…………………………….a hubby, and noooooooooooooo, not just any old hubby, not just a “fixer-upper” a bit “rough around the edges” nor even a hubby that “shows potential” nope – apparently, the gals, (and yes there are way too many of these bloody articles to post links to) have, after clucking and twittering, and thinking deeply (if one thinks of a puddle as “deep”) and of giving this “issue” serious thought, (the same kind of thought that went into creating a blog that would make a block of stone vomit that is), have decided.

 Women deserve a certain type of hubby, a high-quality, high earning, endlessly supportive, slavishly devoted to THEM hubby, an ever ready at the slightest hint of a passing whim to comply with said passing whim, hubby.

 The “great minds” of modern, fun and girly, pink and fluffy, feminism have spoken, hence gentlemen, let me draw your attention once more to the opening paragraph. THIS is your future, that is how these lovely ladies are beginning to think and plan and plot, with giggles and fabulous shoes on, with coy looks and gosh, a jolly good old finger wagging in your direction.

 

Yikes, my iceberg is melting! 🙂

 

© Anja Eriud 2013

On The Shelf

 

Ah yes, this used to be the fate that every woman feared, if not openly, then in the long dark watches of lonely nights. Being left on the shelf implied that one had been examined, a careful eye had been cast over one and that eye, and many more, had passed on to select another.

Just as children feel the sting of rejection, the pain of “not being picked” this is the fate of many women who if they were honest with themselves are beginning to feel.

Pair bonding, mate selection, these are the behaviours common to all species, including Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  It is deeply embedded into our hardwiring to find, bond and reproduce with a mate. For all our technological sophistication, all our amazing intellectual and cultural achievements this is what keeps some of us awake at night.

It is what is keeping many many women awake at night, though they would deny it. It is what haunts their secret dreams and lies like a shadow across their minds, even as they present themselves to the world as carefree, glittering butterflies, as devil may care hedonistic bon vivants, as “strong independent women” taking on the world and winning.

Hmmm.

I wonder, I ponder and I reflect as I observe the behaviour, the corrupted mating behaviour of young and not so young females, and it is mating behaviour that drives this behaviour and actions of so many women. Why are you bothering?  Why are you making such a display, exhibiting yourselves in such a manner, dressing, speaking and unconsciously demanding  – look at me, pick me, when it is clearly a ploy, a false display, when it is clearly just an exhibition, clearly just a demand for attention, clearly just a corrupted form of mating behaviour with no obvious purpose.

I hear the excuses, I hear the justifications, “I dress to please myselforI make myself available for sex with random strangers to prove how free I am” or just because I display myself in a manner that leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, doesn’t make me a sex object

Really? You dress to please yourself? You adorn yourself, paint yourself, primp and preen so that you can gaze upon your reflection and have “yourself” gaze back in admiration?

Really? You have multiple sexual encounters, multiple sexual partners because this proves how free you are?  Free to be what?  Free to do what? Have “yourself” viewed as a mere object of sexual gratification?  Free to couple with near strangers, and then, to take the long walk home alone? (I wonder why I’ve heard it described as “the walk of shame”)

So dressing in a manner that displays and enhances your “sex appeal” that emphasis the very parts of yourself that evinces a sexual response in the male of the species doesn’t make you a sex object? Exhibiting exaggerated mating behaviour does not scream “available for sex”?

Who are you kidding?

Ah, yes of course, yourselves. This is who you all seek to convince, all this mating behaviour, all these exaggerated displays of mating behaviour, are what YOU say they are, what YOU have been fooled into believing.

Let us go back, to the beginning, to the purpose of mating behaviour, to the reason why unconsciously or consciously almost all species engage in mating behaviour, shall we?

To bond, to find a mate, to reproduce.

Human beings are no different, yes indeed Homo Sapiens Sapiens have evolved, have become the premier species on the planet, but still, human beings ARE mammals, are driven at a subliminal level to do what almost all mammals do, to bond, to find a mate and to reproduce.

Yeah? So? I hear you say, what’s the big deal?

Good question, what is the big deal? The big deal my dears is biology. The big deal is that human beings, in particular female human beings are tied to their biology, bound to a timetable, limited to a relatively small window of opportunity. Reproductive opportunity. Tick tock.

Ppppft, you say, we have all this technology, all this amazing science, and I can just avail myself of all this scientific magic and voila – fulfil my reproductive destiny. Snap my beautifully manicured fingers, turn on the “mating behaviour” that served me so well in my twenties and………………………

Yeeeeeeeeees? And what? Have hordes of virile eager mates lining up? Have at your command a mate that will comply, that will bond with you, that is willing to reproduce with you?

Tsk tsk, you silly overindulged hedonistic females, such arrogance, such self regard, such self delusion. You forget my dears, while you do indeed have a biological urge deeply embedded in your psyche to reproduce, so too do the males of this species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  They also have a need to bond, to mate, to reproduce, and it is with the young, the fertile, the loyal and true. For a man, the woman who bears his children must actually BE bearing HIS children.  She must BE someone he can be sure of, know that she is faithful, she is healthy, she is a person of value, of worth. How does this man know this?

Well, he will look to her previous mating behaviour of course, he will look to her character, he will look upon her and he WILL evaluate HER potential as a mate, as a companion, as a person whom he can trust, he can feel secure with.

So, now, my dears, adorn yourselves, primp and preen, display your wares, indulge yourselves in redundant mating behaviour and waste away your most fertile and short years in mating with all and sundry, then ask yourselves this.

If I was a man, would I MARRY her? Would I bind myself to this shallow creature? Would I allow this slut to bear and raise MY children? Will I, as a man, given the choice between a young fertile and loyal companion, who keeps herself only for me and I for her, and a used up, approaching infertility, selfish hedonistic shrew choose the shrew, the slut, the one who wasted her fertility.

What do YOU think?

Which now leads us on to the rituals, the ceremonies, the external “rules” that human society has enacted to provide a framework within which human beings bond, mate and reproduce. The laws, which human society has developed to manage, to regulate the pair bonding of human beings.

For men, marriage has become a Venus Flytrap, on the surface, alluring, superficially appealing, but beneath, hidden behind the superficial appeal and allure? Designed to entrap and to devour. But who would do such a thing? Who would take this most natural, this most positive, and this most fulfilling of human relationships and corrupt it in such a manner?

Who indeed? Ladies, I invite you once more to gaze upon yourselves in your mirror, to stand and look upon the architects of this corruption. YOU did, you all did, your mothers and in some cases your grandmothers took this socially and culturally positive act of human relationships and dismantled it, remade it into something else. Something corrupt, something dangerous, something that was to only benefit the female of the species.

Yet, once again, in your selfishness, your vanity, your self-indulgence you forgot that men also are free to enter or not into pair bonds, men must voluntarily bind themselves into these “bonds” with females.

Have you looked at the figures ladies? Have you seen the downward spiral of marriage rates, of birth rates?  All over the world, human beings are NOT finding mates, not binding themselves into this most fundamental of human relationships. Is it women who are driving this trend?

Partly, it is women who are delaying having children, and when they do it is one, possibly two.  But it is men who are driving the declining marriage rates, men who are saying NO.

Why else would there now be such a wailing, such a cacophony of voices raised in a chorus of

Where have all the good men gone?” andWhy won’t he marry me

The answer ladies lie in your mirror.  All the good men are engaged in a futile search for a good woman, and he won’t marry YOU because………………………….look in the mirror my dear.

I suggest that you make that shelf as comfortable as possible; you will be there for a long long long time.

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

Note

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)

I Own Your Ass…..

Have you ever noticed that when it comes to some couples who are either married or living together it always the female (and yes I am just talking about male/female relationships) who is “in charge”

In charge of deciding the decor, the fixtures and fittings, the level of tidiness or untidiness she will tolerate. In fact, as soon as a woman, in the case of those couples who decide to live together, moves into a male’s house, she takes over. Even if she has not paid a penny towards the purchase of said house.

Ok, I get that for some men, they have zero interest in decor, zero interest in whether the carpets match the curtains, or whether the sofa looks better in one place or the other, so quite happily just let their female partner just get on with it. Fair enough. But, and this is purely from observation, I have seen women tell men in their own homes to, get your feet off the coffee table” ordon’t put those dishes in THAT cupboardor get those papers/books/bits of some project, off the table and out into the garage

I have seen men tippy toeing around their own house, afraid to even leave a cup or a plate unwashed and left in the sink and women practically lose their minds and scream “you’re turning MY house into a tip

It gets worse, some women will give their male partners the once over and decide he needs a makeover, from his haircut to his choice of shoes, they will literally remake this poor man into their image of what he should be. The funny thing is, and again this is just from observation, a lot of men put up with this shit. They put up with being treated like unwelcome visitors in their own homes, with their female partners practically accusing them of “making the place look untidy” by simply being in it! They will tolerate with barely a whimper of protest being dressed, groomed and made over as if they were children being gussied up by their mothers before being deemed suitably attired for public viewing.

This “caretaking” even goes so far as to dictate what this poor unfortunate male will be allowed to eat, his diet will be scrutinised and evaluated and if found to be not to her liking, will be changed, foods will be banned, portions will be minimised if she has decided he needs to “lose weight” and if she decides he is “out of shape” he will be nagged to join a gym, get some exercise.  Though funnily enough, if the man in question actually does play some kind of sport, unless it is one sanctioned by or approved of by this termagant then the nagging to give it up will go into hyperdrive.

How does one spot this type of female, how does one recognise the signs, if you are male and want to avoid burdening yourself with this nag?

Well, if you are intending to marry this wretch, the months leading up to the wedding are a good gauge of how she behaves and will behave in the future with regard to you having a say, being allowed to make choices about something that affects you.  If it becomes obvious that you, a male, are a bit player in your own wedding, if it is made abundantly clear that this is her day, then you my dear have massive problems looming in your future. Huge. Especially if in the course of the wedding preparations, her mother, her sisters and her friends all join forces with her to sideline you, to treat you as irrelevant to the proceedings then, not only can you be sure that this is not just wedding hype that has gotten hold of her but is a deeply ingrained, deeply embedded typical behaviour because everyone around her doesn’t bat an eyelid, and accepts this behaviour as normal!

What about if you are just either preparing to live together or have her move in with you?

Ah, same shite, different circumstances basically, if she gives your place the once over and decides that “we” need to make some changes – you’re in trouble.

I recall the scene in the movie When Harry Met Sally, and the character played by Carrie Fisher was moving in with Bruno Kirby’s character. The wheel coffee table –  Carrie Fisher’s character decided that it was ugly and therefore it was getting dumped, this coffee table symbolises, for me, anyways, the complete lack of respect and consideration for the feelings, tastes and personal choices of men that a lot of women, not just display, but expect to be endorsed. The way a lot of women assume ownership of men, put themselves “in charge” without even the slightest hesitation. They just expect and demand to be the last word on every single thing in their relationships with men.

Men become props, accessories, a backdrop to her “lifestyle” men are to be tolerated, endured, put up with. These women are sooooooooooo not worth it lads, really, come on, when you entered adulthood, grew up, got a job, got your own little castle, did you really expect that a normal relationships involved you turning back into a naughty boy being nagged by his mother to pick up your socks/clothes/crap”  ortidy your room”  orNo, you can’t go to that football match/concert/out with your friends!” Really? Is that what you thought was supposed to happen?

Guys, if you spot the signs that your girlfriend/fiancée or SO really believes she is “in charge” of even the tiniest little detail of YOUR life – run – I mean it – run – dump her ass – throw her out of your house. Because all those cute little “ways” that she has now, all those little caring gestures designed to “help you” to “improve you” NOT for your benefit, nope, she is remaking you, she is moulding you into HER image of what you SHOULD be, and no, you won’t get a say in this process!

Because if you do go ahead and allow this scold into your life, into your home, and you piss her off, YOU will end up sleeping on the sofa she chose, which you secretly hate, in the living room she decorated, which you are not allowed to “mess up” by being in it, dressed in itchy, uncomfortable underwear she bought you and you have to wear, while she sleeps like a baby in the bed she picked and chose the bedding for, that you are reluctantly allowed to share – if SHE’S in the mood!

One last thing guys, if the reason you did end up on that sofa, in that bizarrely decorated living room is because of some minor disagreement that escalated out of all proportion, then I can almost guarantee you that she engineered that “argument” for the sole purpose of making sure you DID end up on that rotten sofa. Starting fights over something minor and insignificant is usually camouflage to manoeuvre you out of the way, or in a position of weakness so she can get something she wants that she calculates you might object to. Giving it to her will be the apology she manipulated you into position to have to give her.

Yep, women ARE that sneaky.

© Anja Eriud 2013

Previous Older Entries