Domestic Violence Act 2018: Republic of Ireland.

 

On foot of a press release from the Department of Justice of the Republic of Ireland The Domestic Violence Act 2018 came into force (became law) on the 2nd January 2018, repealing the previous legislation on domestic violence

“Repeals

  1. The following are repealed:

(a) section 51 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 ;

(b) the Domestic Violence Act 1996 ;

(c) the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2002 .”

 

Link to Domestic Violence act 2018 is here:

From: Irish Statute Book: Domestic Violence act 2018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/6/enacted/en/print

 

Naturally enough the Minister made an “announcement” and as is the wont of politicians he made sure to curry favour with those whom he believed to be “experts” on “domestic violence” and took a stance which he believed would position himself as an advocate and supporter of those “experts”

From Department of Justice Press Release: Minister Flanagan brings landmark Domestic Violence Act into operation

http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR19000001

“I would like to acknowledge the work being done by organisations who support victims of domestic violence, and their contribution in strengthening the provisions of the Act.”

One of whom is Catriona Gleeson of Safe Ireland – one of many many “domestic violence services” for WOMEN and only women, where this prize idiot (aren’t they all?) pontificated in this article about one aspect of the new legislation – Coercive Control.

From: New offence of coercive control in domestic violence law

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0102/1019886-domestic-violence/

“Caitriona Gleeson, Programme and Communications Manager with Safe Ireland, said coercive control is effectively domestic violence.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland she said it is “where somebody in a relationship deliberately sets out to deliberately put in fear and control the other person’s life.”

“There certainly are aspects of the behaviour that will always be very difficult to prove, however there is lots of behaviour that is investigated properly and documented properly will result in convictions, and that’s what we’re hopeful for.”

Ms Gleeson said Ireland is the third country in the world to introduce this new offence. England introduced it a number of years ago and Scotland more recently.

She said there has been significant uptake in training among gardaí ahead of the introduction of the new law but feels more training is still needed.

Edit: As I was writing this I opened this article with a view to addressing Ms. Gleesons “crowing” over similiar legislation being introduced in the UK – I have just realised I forgot to add it.

Controlling girlfriend ‘first woman convicted’ of new domestic abuse offence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

And from the article:

“A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

Jordan Worth, 22, banned her partner from their bed, decided what clothes he could wear, isolated him from friends and family and even took over his Facebook account.

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.”

Ryan Nugent in the Irish Independent quoted extensively from another “expert” on “domestic violence”

Director of women’s aid in Ireland Margaret Martin in this article

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychological-abuse-in-a-relationship-is-a-criminal-offence-under-new-law-37674223.html

“Another change is that a violent or sexual offence committed by a person against their spouse or person they are in an intimate relationship with will be considered as an aggravating factor during sentencing. This was welcomed by director of Women’s Aid, Margaret Martin.

“We have long argued that when a perpetrator is a current or former intimate partner of the woman that this should be an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one when it comes to sentencing to acknowledge the unique position that the perpetrator is in, including the fact that they have intimate knowledge of and access to their victim and so brutally betrays that trust.”

And here:

“Ms Martin said that additional resources need to be included if the new act is to be a success.

This includes more resources for gardaí and courts as well as specialist support services.

“From January 1, 2019, women must feel change quickly. It must be positive, it must be practical and it must make them and their children safer from abuse,” Ms Martin said.

“What is promised on paper must be fully resourced to be effective in protecting those affected by domestic violence.

“We are concerned that an already overstretched system will see an increase in demand when the new provisions commence,” she warned.

Ms Martin also said that Women’s Aid supports the extension of eligibility for safety and barring orders for those in relationships but who are not cohabiting.

“This change will make a significant difference to the safety of younger women.

“We also welcome the move to prevent abusers to communicate electronically with their victims, a step in the right direction to address the digital abuse and online harassment of women by partners and exes.”

Out-of-hours sittings of the District Court will be held to provide orders in emergency situations.

“We hope that the Garda will use this provision to offer vulnerable women the chance to apply for immediate protection when it is needed and that this measure is adequately resourced, so that it will work in practice,” said Ms Martin.”

By the way – these “quotes” represent almost the full content of Mr. Nugent’s article – he simply handed over the “reporting” to this “expert” on domestic violence and threw in a few sentences linking together this “experts” quotes – great example of……..journalism Mr. Nugent.

In May this article was published by Men’s Voices Ireland

The paragraph that jumped out at me from: Men’s Voices Ireland

The Domestic Violence Act May 2018

https://www.mensvoicesireland.com/news/the-domestic-violence-act-may-2018/

was this one

“Hearings took place before the committee on Feb 19 and Feb 26 2014 at which 24 groups or individuals were called. Nobody presented any evidence on the rates of perpetration as between men and women, attempted to give a balanced nonpartisan view of DV, instance the principal features of DV including many surprising recent findings or to show the extent to which men are also victims. An enormous amount of evidence which challenges the official narrative was thereby omitted.”

I’m actually a bit surprised you were shocked and surprised at the way these committee hearings went guys?

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, bear with me, I have a copy of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 sitting right here on my desk beside me as I type this. I’ve been through it twice now – and while I am not purporting in any way shape or form to be giving a detailed analysis of this piece of legislation – at this time – one thing has quite clearly caught my eye – actually a couple of things – but lets just focus, for the moment on this one thing.

In every section empowering “someone” to make an application under this piece of legislation the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

Let me repeat that – the language is GENDER NUETRAL.

THE PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION for protection, for an order, for ANYTHING under the provisions of this legislation is consistently referred to as – THE APPLICANT.

There is no “presumption” contained in this Legislation that “The Applicant” is or can be automatically FEMALE.

The person, who in the context of court proceedings in relation to any provision against who an Order is being sought pursuant to the provisions of this piece of legislation is consistently referred to as THE RESPONDENT.

Again there is NO “presumption” that the “Respondent” is or can only be MALE.

There is no reference IN ANY SECTION to SHE – as in “SHE MAY”, are you following my logic?

So, notwithstanding any bullshit from women’s aid, from safe Ireland or any of the innumerable “charadees” sucking up the vast majority of “resources” to address the issue of “domestic violence” this legislation is EQUALLY applicable in its provisions to both MEN and women.

As I said previously – I am literally reading and studying this legislation as we speak – so when I have not only gone through this with a fine-tooth comb, and when I have reviewed what I presume will be a new procedure for making applications under this legislation I will publish a further article.

The reason for this is simple – all “Motions/Applications” have a format, a particular way of doing it – this format involves submitting certain forms and following certain “Orders of the Court”

Because ALL the previous legislation has been repealed – this will require NEW “Rules of the Court” and probably the current “Forms” will require amendment/change/re-formatting.

My apologies for getting a bit technical – but if you think that some slimey counsel, usually paid for by women’s aid or any of the other cesspits of feminist propaganda won’t try and trip you (any man) up, invariably going into court as a lay litigant because you (any man) used the “wrong form” didn’t do something “technical” think again.

There is one final point I would like to make here – and I refer to the section on “coercive control: Section 39 and strongly suggest you review the research and analysis with regard to parental alienation – and perhaps see if you can spot the commonalities in particular Section 39 (2) (a) and (b)

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person’s behaviour has a serious effect on a relevant person if the behaviour causes the relevant person—

(a) to fear that violence will be used against him or her, or

(b) serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse impact on his or her usual day-to-day activities.

(emphasis added)

Finally.

If I achieve nothing else today by posting this, with the caveat, I have not had time to do a thorough analysis and/or a proper legal search (to link other provisions of law to this legislation i.e., the Constitution, The ECHR etc.) except this:

If you are a MAN and you are reading this, or have been reading any of the articles referenced above and have inculcated the message that The Domestic Violence Act 2018 is ONLY FOR WOMEN.

STOP THINKING THAT – NOW.

This legislation applies to YOU – as a man, as a human being, as an Irish Citizen

  • Every single provision of this Legislation can be used, invoked and applied BY YOU. AS A MAN.
  • You as A MAN are entitled to every single protection available under this Legislation AS A MAN.
  • You AS A MAN are entitled to under the provisions of this legislation to go into COURT on a Motion/Application exactly like any woman can.
  • And further – you as A MAN are entitled to be granted an Order (whatever form that Order takes) under ANY provision of this legislation AS A MAN, as a human being – and – as an Irish Citizen.

 

Slainte.

 

 

 

 

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

MGTOW and Female “Disapproval…”

Yes I know, what would I, a female, know about the myriad factors that go into a male decision to GHOW, or a male orientating his life to minimise or lessen, if not outright avoid any engagement with women.  It’s a fair point and the answer is, I don’t know, I can respect that decision and acknowledge that this man has the right to live his life anyway he chooses, but I really cannot get inside his head and feel what he feels or has felt.

Ok, having said that, this is not what this is about, this is about shining a bit of a spotlight on why some women, sometimes feminists, sometimes not, seem to have this visceral negative reaction to MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), why some females take it upon themselves to pour scorn and vitriol on the heads of these men.

Actually the clue is in the acronym – MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY – now whether or not women will admit it, the fact is for a lot of women there is no male “way” men live by the grace and favour of women.  Without that grace and favour men will be made feel the full force of female disapproval, which manifests itself in many ways, from the relatively benign – ever seen a women convey her disapproval of a male action by a slight pursing of her lips, a slight stiffening of her body? Am betting every man and boy has, and has noticed an immediate change in the behaviour of that man or boy? Of course female disapproval can and does manifest itself in much more direct, abusive and violent ways – the point is though, women reserve the right to themselves to arbitrate and exercise approval of male actions, male behaviour, in fact male autonomy.

Our modern society is now exclusively orientated towards achieving, obtaining and accommodating this female approval. MGTOW comprehensively rejects and delegitimizes any necessity for female approval or sanction, MGTOW is men thumbing their noses, giving the finger to the notion that men live by the grace and favour of women. It literally pulls the rug out from under the feet of women who whether consciously or not have internalised the idea that men are a resource FOR women, that men live and die to serve women’s needs, wants and whims, that men have no other function but to be at the beck and call of women, if and when a woman decides SHE had some need that a man is obliged to answer and/or fill,

MGTOW quite clearly asserts that there IS a male “way” that the default female “MY way or the highway” cultural norm is now being rejected, dismissed and basically a mirage, an illusion,

The universal pedestal that the vast majority of women believe they stand upon is crumbling beneath their feet, the illusion that they occupy some rarefied higher plane of existence in relation to men is shattered, and the self absorbed selfish and egotisical belief that men live for and In Service to women is……………….a joke.

MGTOW is literally a slap in the face for women, it is saying to women in clear unequivocal terms – You are Not really all That!

Of course there is another deeper and more subtle message that MGTOW conveys that is precipitating the current spewings from female voices, feminist or otherwise – MGTOW is a manifestation of MALE DISSAPROVAL of female behaviour, actions etc – it is saying – we’ve seen what you have to offer, we’ve watched the way you present your “goods” and……………….nope, not buying!

Oh dear Lord, men rejecting females, men giving women the once over and not snapping up one of these delightful creatures! Heaven forfend! – all this female spluttering in rage, hurling of epitaphs, heaping of scorn, is the female equivalent of a spoilt obnoxious brat throwing the mother of all tantrums at not being picked to play the princess in the school play – because – well because I AM a Princess!

The notion that men choose to reject women – is simply not to be borne!

There is yet another underlying subtle message that women who have an “issue” with the whole MGTOW phenomenon tend to raise – men left to their own devices will turn into, if they haven’t already, uncouth violent barbarians without the “civilising” influence and monitoring no doubt of women. Wonder how that stacks up in the face of numerous YT videos of females (usually drunk) causing mayhem in city centres on weekends – here in Ireland in Dublin we get a lot of “hen parties” around the Temple Bar area – the behaviour of these females is jaw-droppingly loud, violent, abusive and not to put too fine a point on it – disgusting – urinating and vomiting in the street being a big problem. Hmmm, I simply cannot fathom why men would be “turned off” by that!

Really! Boys, lads – what ails ye at all? Don’t ye know that there are wimmin out there ready and willing to rip your heart out, itching to use, abuse and reject YOU? Literally foaming at the mouth to squeeze every last penny out of you, give birth to your children then taunt you for 18 years by holding those children hostage, to ransom?

Lads, MGTOW is just mean, it’s not playing the game – sorry – what did you say?  The game is rigged? Nooooooooooooo! Really? Ah, well then, off ya go, have fun, and for goodness sakes lads – mind yerselves – them wimmin are very very sneaky.

© Anja Eriud 2013

First posted on A Voice For Men as Eriu at:

10-27-2013, 12:07 AM: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=7122

Aside