Sticky: Want to comment?

I have moved my blog over to Wordpress just like I said I would in this post. Comments are disabled, so if you found this blog and would like to comment on a recent post, click on to http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com/

This post is a sticky, so it'll remain on top of all the other posts.

Help! My ex-girlfriend wants my house and my money!

Found this on another forum I frequent... this happens in Australia, but it could happen anywhere, since (for once) it is not misandric laws doing the shafting, but a member of the Royal Sex using her god-given powers to twist everything to her benefit.

 

Yesterday I received a letter from a solicitor regarding my ex-girlfriend. Before I get to what she wants, I'll try to briefly explain the situation. We're both in Australia, and we lived together for just over 10 years. We never had kids, and never got married. During this time, like most relationships, she got unhappy as we didn't talk much anymore, and our interests kinda drifted apart.

About 4 years ago I thought if we got an affordable house out in a regional part of NSW, it might save the relationship. As my business at the time was doing well, I put down roughly 80k of my money on the mortgage as a deposit, and her mother put about 20k towards it as well (which wasn't needed, but it was her way of contributing). The thing I regret most, is there was no reason for her name to even be on the mortgage (I was certainly making enough money), but thinking it might save us, I put both our names on it. About 2 and a half years ago, she decides she wanted to leave (which was a shock), and to avoid any conflict, I told her she could take whatever she wanted when she leaving. She ended up taking a bunch of stuff, including the crappy car I had paid for (but put in her name), and my TV/XBOX/DVDs/CDs/etc. She had no interest in the house, and said there was nothing to worry about... she would never demand that I sell it. Not being in a financial position to remortgage the house in my name, I left both our names on it, and hoped for the best.

When she left, we stayed as friends, and I had verbally agreed to gradually pay back around 30k, which was to be the money her mother gave us, plus a little more on top. The problem of course is one person doesn't have a great deal of spending money once the mortgage payments are made, and I couldn't afford to do make her payments anymore. I let her know, and she was ok with it. I have randomly given her money when she needed it, so it's not like I completely stopped sending her money.

About 6 months ago, she went for a bank loan for 55 grand so she could buy an established business. She had asked (although it was more of a demand) that I go guarantor, and to keep the peace, I agreed (with the house being at stake if she failed to make her repayments).

So, fast forward to the present, and I receive a letter that essentially says I have to give her over 80k, or I have to sell the house. There is a lot of info I'm leaving out, but basically in the time she lived here, she put a total of about $700 towards the mortgage repayments (which is one payment), never contributed to any of the household repair costs, and hardly ever paid bills. In the 8 years before we bought the house, she never paid rent, and again, never really contributed to the bills. I'm kinda shocked she has done this, but to be honest, it's my own fault for not expecting her to do it.

The real problem I think is her sister. She is always in her ear about getting what she deserves, and she has been pushing her to basically make me sell the house. I've so far probably put in about 150 grand towards this house, and there's still 220k to go. If the house is to be sold in the condition it is in (which is a damn site better than when she left), it'll probably sell for maybe 300k. There is no way in hell she can expect 80k, as I don't have that kinda of money (I have $200 in the bank), and if the house is sold, I'll be pretty much ruined (and she still won't have 80k after the taxes/solicitor costs). I'm aware it's probably the solicitor trying to scare me.

Any Aussies with legal experience in such matters have any idea what I should do in this situation? The other problem is I'm living week to week (I make $2000 a month, and the mortgage repayments are about $1800 a month), so I certainly don't have the funds to see a lawyer at the moment. I thought maybe some goon help might make my options a little clearer before I freak out too much. My main concern is if I do come to some sort of agreement with her, and take out another loan to pay her back, she'll probably be back later demanding more money. I've tried to call/email her, but I assume the solicitor has told her to ignore my requests to contact her.

I'm willing to bet that if he was living with a mate or mates, he wouldn't have let them stay rent-free for EIGHT YEARS - and that's before he bought the house. So basically, he was letting his girlfriend stay rent-free. Why? Because that's what men do, silly! What good is a man's earning power if it doesn't benefit a woman?

As a side note, I pay $500 to share a crappy 2-bedroom apartment in sunny California. Eight years of that is $48,000.

$48,000. Just think about that for a minute. Prostitution anyone? I wonder what she spent her rent money on.

And then he puts her on the mortgage, even though he knows that she has never made a rent payment - why? How could someone be so stupid as to risk his entire financial life because of a woman?

Because he thinks that he can buy his way into her pussy and into eternal bliss in the arms of a member of the Royal Sex.

It just gets better and better. He wants to pay her alimony for the time spent with him. "I have randomly given her money when she needed it, so it's not like I completely stopped sending her money."

This could happen anywhere, no palimony laws needed, just a pussy and a pussy.

Also, newsflash - relationships don't "drift apart" so much when you're with a traditional girl who loves you and doesn't see you as an object. Unfortunately, that pretty much disqualifies Western women right off the bat.

Trusssst usssss...

Marrying a Western woman knowing the odds of being divorced and taken for all you’re worth, having your children held hostage from you for money, and having your children’s mind poisoned against you so that they see you as a monster… is like plunging your hand into a basket full of vipers and expecting to pull out a dove.

The Women's Center

Two things overheard about the women's center in the last two days...

#1: "Yeah, we get a load of lost and found stuff in here. Even some expensive things like cellphones, iPods and other stuff. Most of the time, its picked up within the first two days, and if it isn't, we hold on to it for some time then donate it to the women's shelter."

#2: "Oh, we have to pull this (limo) driver off the assignment because its for the women's shelter, and they're hiring the limo to take their patients to the hospital and they sometimes have breast cancer patients or other female illnesses, so they always want a female driver. Let me see if we can find a female driver to replace him." After much difficulty, a female driver was found, because 95% of limo and taxi drivers are male.

A day as a housewife

Check out this article... One day as a perfect 1950's wife. A woman decides to act like a 1950's wife for a few hours, and obviously write about the torture and abuse in The Sunday Times. The comments are great too. I love the one by that Australian woman who implies that her entire life until her husband died was torture. Simply lovely, aren't these dearies.

After 14 years of matrimony it is beginning to dawn on me that I’m a bad wife. I’ve done the childbirth thing – very enthusiastically, four times – and I think I’m okay at mothering. I don’t shrink at getting up in the night to sort out a wet bed, I can knock out a Little Woolly Lamb fancy-dress outfit with five minutes’ notice and I can do a mean school project on whatever subject necessary.

I’m a passable adult, too: a lovely dinner party guest, a loyal friend, daughter, sister. But as far as doting wife goes, I think I lack form.

Indeed, only this morning I shouted a bit at Mr Millard before selfishly going for a run, only to return an hour later and shout at him again for not taking the dog out. I think I even called him an idiot.

Of course, I love Mr Millard but do I dote on him? Do I look after him? Do I nurture him when he is ill? I’m not at all sure that I do. Our set-up is based on equality, you see. We were married in the 1990s, not the 1890s. He’s a better cook than I am and has a much better bedside manner.

But does all this equality make him happy? When I murmur to him at 6am that he can probably find the paracetamol himself and could he, by the way, make me some tea, I am doubtless enhancing the female cause of parity in matrimony. But am I enhancing his life?

I was a little shell-shocked at this point. I mean, I must admit that I haven't grown up with a feminist mother and my parents are still together, yada yada et cetera, but seriously, I was a little disoriented at this point. I realized how lucky I am to have a girlfriend totally unlike this tired old hag. At the risk of sounding like a braggart, my girlfriend:

- Prepares dinner and dresses nice for me when I come home from work if she gets home before me. I simply love this. I suspect she is going overboard because it is a novel experience, but she has stated on many occasions that she loves to take care of me and is happiest when I burp and complain about having a full stomach after a lovingly home-cooked meal.

- Never shouts or nags at me. This is partly my doing, because I made it clear early on that I'm not the type of man that responds well to that.

- Does not demean me in any way, because she respects me. Imagine that, a woman respecting a man. Someone call the VAWA!

- Looks after me, nurtures me when I'm ill, cooks chicken soup (from the can, admittedly) when I have a cold, and all that jazz. Is genuinely worried when I'm sick, not just in a sense of "Oh deary me, what will happen if the farm mule kicks the bucket, how will I feed my children?"

You know, most of this stuff is common courtesy. I know that this hag has been married for 14 years and some of the magic must have worn off, but I think back to my own mother and she behaves pretty much the same as my girlfriend for my father. Heck, my girlfriend acts like a proper daughter when around my parents, including helping mom in the cooking and cleaning!

Equality means caring for your spouse when he or she is ill, not leaving them to rot. For crying out loud! Heck, my father cares as much as he can for my mother when she is ill, and its not because he calls himself a feminist, its because he loves her.

I have to say that any man who marries a Western woman is pretty much a fool beyond hope at this point. This is a 14 year old marriage, that's almost one generation ago. Imagine how the women who are getting married today are? But then, men have been conditioned over time to accept this as the truth and integrate it into their reality. They just don't know that women can care and love, and they think that foreign women are inferior because of their brown skin and their "subservient" attitude, no doubt thanks to conditioning by Western women who are petrified of losing their stranglehold in the face of cheap airfares and smiling, happy brown women who know the true meaning of equality, not the feminist definition of it.

How women invest in men - an analogy

I saw this excellent post by kingcobra23 and I must give it more publicity because it is a fine piece of writing and deserves a big audience. It makes perfect sense if you have a handle on investing.

Here's a new bit of terminology that I thought up. Investors can "long" (bet on) and "short" (bet against) a stock. Women "long" and "short" men. Women are currency, men are stocks, babies are bonds, divorce is selling a stock, marriage is buying a stock and dividends refer to money spent on the woman.
They "short" men by having sex quickly, partying with them, bleeding them for money early in the relationship and showing their terrible attitude. Great fun for them in the short term.
The guys that are "shorted" are the type that don't appreciate with time. They lower their value with a criminal record, drinking, drug abuse, gambling, violence, abuse and cheating. Emotionally dysfunctional women "long" these men and end up in a terrible relationship. Why do they stay? Because they bought a stock at 50 and it dropped to 40. They are hoping the stock will go back up. Irrational women are just like irrational investors, they throw good money after bad.
Smart women realize that "nice guys" (as in investment) are like a profitable company. At 30, their value is low, while the man's value is high and rising. What does an investor do? They go long on the investment. They demand chivalry, act like a "good girl", act perfect to bait the man and then get the payoff (expensive ring, wedding, house, retirement plan, baby...).
Of course when a stock has stagnant earnings and doesn't appreciate in value (probably because of the insanely high dividend payments the investor requires such as a woman's request to shop, not work and live above her means) a smart investor dumps that stock and cashes out (divorce). It doesn't matter that the high dividend payments kept the company from re-investing the money to earn more. Plus the investor still gets dividends even though they aren't even invested in the company anymore (alimony). Imagine if a stockholder demanded more than they invested when selling the stock and then demanded dividends after selling?
It also explains single moms. A child is like a convertible bond (a bond that can become stock). The set payments are just like owning a bond. If she can use the child to guilt the man into marriage, she just converted her investment to a stock due to the fact that she is now a 50% equity holder in the man's wealth. Also, just like a bond, when (child support) payments are not made (probably because it was an unreliable man/company that she should have "shorted"), as a creditor the woman looks to recover. Just like a distressed company, the creditor takes value (wage garnishment). The company is also forced to sell assets at a lower price due to distress, thus reducing the company's value. This happens when the child support systems brands people as "deadbeat dads", revokes professional licenses, suspends driver licenses, destroys credit ratings and throws the man in jail. Still, when a company goes under, the bond holders may not receive full payment (some guys just don't have the money for these outrageous child support payments). The company is weighed by the debt just like the man's ability to earn is hurt if he gets behind on child support payments. Unlike regular bonds, if the guy finds out that the wrong company name is on the bond (paternity fraud), it doesn't matter.
So dating is an investment game to women. If she spends too much time "shorting" men, then she won't have the funds (looks & youth) at 35 to purchase a good long term stock. Their chance to go "long" on a man has passed. If they go "long" early with a man, they have to wait for the young man to earn and produce dividends. Unlike with stocks, patience and waiting for an investment to grow is not advisable. Buying into an established man/company is the way to go.
So their ideal strategy is to "short" men until they find the best possible one to go "long" on. Luckily, they can borrow against that stock and "short" other men (by cheating). If they lose money by "shorting" men (getting caught), then a sale (divorce) will follow and the woman still gets her dividends.
Once the investor has gone "long" and then sold, their options open up. They can "short" different men, live off the proceeds from the sale and the dividends. They can also "long" another man by getting married again.
Since going "long" is the smart long-term strategy (just like with stocks), women press for marriage. Their "long" investment is likely to appreciate and pay dividends. Women are like paper currency, they have a steady depreciation due to inflation. So over time, as the price to "long" the stock goes up, her currency depreciates. Thus, each time she "shorts" a man, she is spending some currency (wear & tear, number of men who have scored) and her currency is always depreciating, even if she does nothing.
Like most investors, women understand the nuisances about how the market works. The are like the investors looking for the next Southwest or Starbucks. They try to time the market and when they do it wrong, they end up as spinsters. Also, like a smart investor, they fear foreign capital. If foreign woman are allowed on the market, demand for stock will rise sharply. Foreign currency (just like in real life), has higher value and the American currency will have little purchasing power. So the AW is left with "penny stocks" (undesirable guys), "junk bonds" (a thug's bastard children) and men that should be "shorted" because that is all she can afford. She will demonize foreign investors and companies who accept foreign currency in an attempt to monopolize the market.
For men, the advice is simple. Don't seek outside sources of funding/validation. Build equity, "short" all the women around you (short the US currency) and don't issue any bonds.
I hope this analogy wasn't too complicated. I like thinking of marriage as a woman "going long" on a man. I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

Feminists not concerned with truth, sun rises in East

I picked this up on SYG just now. We all know "MRA", the swell dude who sets up displays, protests and has the awesome truck signs in Los Angeles, CA.

Now, this is about child abuse - thanks to feminists, it is a gender issue. Feminists who are more interested in portraying men as devils and women are martyrs than in protecting children from abuse.

No, children apparently don't count in the domestic violence industry's recognition.  At the 2007 IVAT conference in San Diego there were red cut outs to emphasize, men, women, dogs and cats killed by intimate partner violence, but there were no red cut outs of kids anywhere.  It was the same last year.

The clothesline project, at this same conference, hung kids clothes in the exact opposite proportion of the HHS stats, which show mothers killing about twice as many kids as fathers.  The clothesline project showed dads killing kids at twice the rate of mothers.

We were so fed up with this distortion of the facts that we made our own display this year.  We graphically pointed out the HHS stats and who was killing  kids through abuse and neglect.  Most people didn't say much or acknowledged what we were saying, but one woman said she didn't believe HHS's statistics.

A few people said this was because mothers got custody more than fathers to which I replied, "So are you saying that should be an excuse for domestic violence?"

At the historic Sacramento conference one woman argued that the HHS stats, "Did not control the variables."  I pointed out that these stats are crime stats so they are what they are."  She argued again, "...but they do not control the variable."  Well, quite honestly to control the variable you'd have to award joint legal and physical custody to the father as much as to the mother.

Again, just take a look at the sentiments expressed by our dear lovable AW... don't believe official statistics, but would rather believe ideology, and that child abuse is OK because mothers are doing it because they get custody. Yep, they're F-U-B-A-R.

Ownership of the marriage strike

What is the marriage strike? In your eyes, what do you picture when you hear the words "Marriage Strike"?

You picture masses of men walking off the battlefield that relationships in the Western world have become, you see the men who have been taken time and again and you see the men who have learned from others' mistakes. You imagine 30+ year old women running around, clucking that "men are afraid of commitment" and more generally "men are pigs who are only after one thing."

You picture men saying, "Enough is enough. Slut around in your youth and you won't get a ring from me." Or, "Why would I choose to buy you a gun and bullets and show you how to pull the trigger when you're only going to shoot me?"

One thing you don't picture is women saying that they are choosing not to marry. Talk about a reframing of the debate!

Yup, its true. Check out the article: Women choosing single life as marriage rate hits record low.

Modern women are turning their backs on marriage in droves, with single women now outnumbering their wedded sisters for the first time in 85 years.

However, the article is not the point of my post. Such articles have been printed before. The point is something Irlandes and Rob Case said on the DGM board, and which struck me as absolutely spot on.

Irlandes:

We must admire feminists for chutzpah, if nothing else. The marriage strike starts creating havoc; simply announce that it is women who are avoiding marriage to worthless, scummy men.
Will it work? Probably. They have succeeded at their propaganda for over 40 years. In a year or two, all the women who can't find husbands will be proudly announcing they are on strike against marriage, and will even believe it.

Rob Case:

And the government, alarmed at the plummeting drop in marriage rates (and the attendant effect on all the industries that feed off it), will feel compelled to do something about it.

In countries with declining birth rates, such as Australia and Singapore, governments pay women to have children. It's no stretch to imagine that they will eventually pay women to marry - seeing as how it's such a sacrifice for them, and against their better judgement and all.

Have we forgotten - again - how the women's lobby works?

They manufacture a grievance, take it to the state, then get money for its redress. They do it over and over and over again.

Whoever 'owns' the marriage strike stands to benefit substantially by it. As of now, we do. But we also used to own our houses, own our labour and own the right to defend ourselves.

Currently, our ownership of the marriage strike could be used as leverage for reform of marriage, child support and matrimonial property law. Lose that ownership, and it's all for nothing. More gravy for the Feminist train.

Perhaps this is why not a word of a male-initiated marriage strike gets past the mainstream media. It's too valuable an asset to let men keep. As usual, men are doing the work, but someone else will get paid.

Unless we shout out our ownership while we still can.

This is very real. While giving incentives to women won't do a damn thing for the marriage strike, since when was the government concerned with the ultimate outcome when it comes to feminist issues? The bigwigs are not concerned about the ultimate outcome when they can buy women's votes and pump up the economy artificially by transferring wealth to women, who spend it at a dizzying rate.