Nice Guy Meets Abusive Borderline Personality Disordered Woman, Parts I&II

By Dr. Tara J. Palmatier: It is day 22 of Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2014 for Men and Boys, the invisible victims of domestic violence. Today’s In His Own Words tells the tale of “Kyle,” a nice guy from an abusive family who fell for and married an abusive woman who likely has borderline personality disorder.

When I first met my second wife, D, I thought she was perfect. She was everything I thought I could want in a woman. She was funny and caring and into all of my hobbies with a smile that could melt your heart. A real dream come true. However, what I didn’t realize at the time was this was simply her mask.
I had come from an extremely abusive home, so I was definitely the kind of guy looking for a woman to validate my existence. I told myself that this wasn’t the case after having been through several bad relationships and a previous marriage to a personality-disordered woman before. So, I thought I had “learned” from my mistakes and was ready for the right person to love me in a way that no one else could.
In the beginning, there were very few red flags, or so I thought. Though, to be honest, at that point in my life, I was so ready to find my “one and only” that I was readily willing to ignore what Dr. T calls those “WTF moments.” I thought I was safe, as I had been friends with D for a year previous to us dating.
However, if I knew back then what I know now, I would have run given some of those early warning signs and never looked back. For example, about three weeks into dating D, she showed up at my doorstep with a bag full of laundry, giving the impression that she was: 1) hopeless in managing her own affairs, and 2) ready to move in. As bad as it was having someone whom you’ve only dated for a few weeks wanting to move in, it was worse. She had the expectation that I was responsible for her laundry.

The US Ebola Dictatorship?

"We're living in a B movie. ..."Ebola spiralling out of control." ...they know exactly what they are doing, they want to turn this country into a dictatorship. For with every crisis the government hijacks it to gain more control over the population." Brother Nathanael

'I Hate This Insidious Trend For Belittling Men' Honey Badger Melissa Kite

'I notice more and more that my girlfriends speak to their husbands and boyfriends in a derogatory manner, as if they are somehow inferior.'

• There is something dishonourable about portraying men as useless
• In Friends the male characters are well-meaning but ineffectual geeks
• The female characters are far more worldly and well-rounded 
• Gavin Henson was praised on Strictly for working his assets
• Such comments would be unacceptable if made about a woman 
• Jo Brand jokes about men that wouldn't be acceptable about women
• Last year, there were 40,000 more female applicants for university places
• Women outnumber men by three to two in many universities 

Warmonger George Soros Attacks Putin, Fear Hypes Russia as "Existential Threat" Demands $20 Billion From IMF In "Russia War Effort"

Submitted by Tyler Durden: If even 'George Soros' is getting 'concerned' and writing Op-Eds, then Putin must be truly winning.

Here are the highlights from what the Open Society founder has to say about the "existential" Russian threat in a just released Op-Ed:

Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008.

Getting warmer:

[Europe] fails to recognize that the Russian attack on Ukraine is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of governance. It ought to be evident that it is inappropriate for a country, or association of countries, at war to pursue a policy of fiscal austerity as the European Union continues to do.

Even warmer:

All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits

And hot, hot, hot:

The High Price of Free Money: Now US Banksters Fear Financial, Social, or Political ‘Instability’

By Wolf Richter:  Something is changing about the perception of the US Fed’s free-money policies. While we’ve lambasted them for their nefarious effects on the real economy and the inequality they produce, Wall Street, the prime beneficiary, has been bombastically gung-ho about them. And the mainstream media have praised the Fed’s “bold action,” as it’s called, at every twist and turn.

But now even Wall Street is getting cold feet. The official warning shot came from Fed Chair Janet Yellen, who admitted suddenly that “the extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me.”
Then bankers chimed in. FICO, which produces the infamous credit score, found in its latest survey of North American bank risk managers that 62% of them thought “the wealth gap poses a growing risk to the financial system.”
With the economy so dependent on consumer spending, “it makes sense that the concentration of wealth would raise flags among bank risk managers,” explained Andrew Jennings, FICO chief analytics officer. “This concern was echoed on a global scale by Credit Suisse in a recent report that found many indicators of wealth inequality are reaching levels that could result in social or political instability.”
This is a twist: Banksters, beneficiaries of the Fed’s policies that created much of the wealth gap, are fretting that that wealth gap poses a “risk to the financial system,” that it might take the banks through another death spiral. Turns out, in our consumer-based economy, most consumers no longer have the means to adequately support that economy;

Liberationis Reipublicae - What A Guy! Interview with Paul Elam

"Feminism eek! ...What the fuck are we doing here?" Talking with Paul Elam of A Voice for Men. Voluntary Virtues Network

Spain’s Divide And Unconquer Of Catalonia

The policy of the Spanish government has been to threaten Catalonia and sow seeds of discord in its fragile coalition government. Now it’s reaping the spoils.
By Don Quijones: There increasingly appears to be no way forward and no way out of the constitutional spat between Madrid and Catalonia. Rather then addressing the crisis in a proactive manner (i.e. by negotiating with the Catalan government on equal terms), all Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his coterie of ministers and advisors have done is to shoot off one threat after another about the dire consequences Catalonia would face if it were to call a referendum.
For the last two years, Madrid’s only proactive policy has been to sow seeds of discord in Catalonia’s fragile coalition government. In the last week it finally reaped the spoils of its campaign. Without consulting any of his coalition partners, the leader of Catalonia’s regional government, Artur Mas, announced the cancellation of Catalonia’s non-binding referendum on national independence, which had been scheduled for November 9th.
Instead, he said, the government would hold a “symbolic” consultation – one which will basically involve thousands of wholly impartial pro-independence supporters collecting votes on the streets of Catalonia. There will be no voting register, no legal supervision and no control as to who votes and how many times. With no means to prevent ballot-box stuffing, deceased voting or voting with somebody else’s ID, the proposed pseudo-poll can be assigned virtually no legitimacy whatsoever. It is a farce that would risk doing more harm than good to the aspiring nation’s international reputation.

The BBC Is Using Anti-Terror Surveillance For Tax Collection

By Michael Krieger: Many commentators, including myself, have been sounding the alarm for many years that only a short-sighted society filled with fearful imbeciles would ever grant government tyrannical powers in the name of fighting an overhyped, outside enemy. As has happened countless times in world history, once these powers are granted they are always eventually used against the domestic population. Sometimes it is used to crackdown on dissent, but sometimes it’s used just to earn money and shake down the domestic plebs. It appears the British Brainwashing Corporation (BBC) is now using it simply to collect tax.
The Daily Mail reports that:

The BBC is using laws designed to catch terrorists and organized crime networks to track down people who dodge the license fee, it emerged yesterday.

The publicly-funded corporation uses the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), designed by the last Labour government to fight terrorism, to catch those who evade paying the £145.50 fee.

Now, however, its ability to use sweeping surveillance powers could be stopped by a new review announced yesterday by culture secretary Sajid Javid.

£66,000 For Every UK Mum Lured Back Into Work: Huge Cost Of Childcare Subsidy

• £800m scheme has resulted in only 12,000 women moving into work

• Findings cast doubt on the claim that subsidies encouraged mothers to work

• Critics of subsidised childcare said money could be better spent elsewhere 

By Steve Doughty: A childcare subsidy aimed at persuading mothers of young children to return to work has cost taxpayers an astonishing £66,000 for every woman who has taken a job, a study revealed yesterday.

It said the price of extra free nursery places for three-year-olds under the part-time pre-school places scheme will be £800 million this year.

But the scheme has resulted in only 12,000 women moving into work, and the majority of them are in part-time jobs working fewer than 30 hours a week.

Researchers from the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies said their findings cast doubt on the claim that childcare subsidies encouraged mothers to work.

Mike Brewer, of the IFS, said the subsidy was ‘very expensive’ and added: ‘The case for extending free entitlement is not as clear as political rhetoric might suggest.’

The Right Kind Of Equality

By Ayami Tyndall: Over its recent life, the Men’s Human Rights Movement has been repeatedly slammed as misogynistic. There is a widely held belief that the MHRM is a regressive movement, that it wants to undo the advances in status and rights made for women over the past two centuries. On the surface, this is simple anti-men’s rights propaganda, characterizing the movement and its activists as backwards and dangerous. The problem runs deeper, however. Just as the MHRM is not a mere backlash against feminism, accusations of misogyny come from more than mere feminist defensiveness.
It is a common misconception that people’s rights amount to a zero-sum game. This was seen during the civil rights era and during the short-lived resistance to early feminism: people often assume that to give increased rights to one group means restricting the rights of another. The situation is slightly different with the MHRM, however. The blowback against men’s rights comes not only from fear of the more men’s rights = less women’s rights equation but also from the flat refutation of men’s rights as a valid issue.
When women suffer, it is a women’s rights issue. When people suffer, it is a human rights issue. When men suffer, it is patriarchal privilege.
Thus comes the label of misogyny: men have no lack of rights, so the only way to “improve” their relative social standing is to reduce women’s rights. Male reproductive rights? Restrict abortion or give men control over it. Improve education for men? Since they’re privileged already that must mean reducing female educational opportunity.

This Is What Anti-Feminism Looks Like - GW?'s Owning Your Shit

The purest testament to the forbearance of men and their love of women is that it has taken 150 years for them, as a collective, to get pissed off enough to return fire.

Email from a new viewer on girlwriteswhat's site

Hi there. 

I don't claim to have a particular political stance. I'm coming from a position of curiosity. I'm in the process of watching your YouTube videos after seeing you featured in VICE'S 'women of the men's rights movement'. I will mention I believe civil rights should be equal across the board. I don't know enough about any of the 'movements' to sympathize, however. What I'm curious about are your thoughts in light of Elliot Rodger and his manifesto. I have, since reading his manifesto, noticed a few men being able to relate to the sense of isolation, even at times entitlement to having a girlfriend. Understand, this was how the man I was speaking with chose to describe his personal feelings. I'm wondering if you feel as though what happened with Rodger could have been prevented? Where do you believe his inner dialogue departed from the men's rights movement? I understand that associations have been drawn between his rampage and men's right movement, I don't intend to imply they're the same thing. I just don't understand how this happened and I'd like to know your thoughts, I guess I figured you'd have an opinion on the subject. 

Okay, first thing is to familiarize you with the Men's [Human] Rights Movement and its goals. What our movement is after is two-pronged: 
1) Equality in the language of the law 
2) Equal application of the law

Men Civilize Women

'The idea that women civilize men is just another female-flattering myth. Why do women seem to require constant flattery and artificial elevation - wouldn't that be a more interesting question?' Johntheother