JAILS: Juries against Illegal laws..

Juries against Illegal laws
This is one fight we have to win. The law instigated by a male-hating feminist named Judy Jackson and the Labor party of Tasmania, passed a law that granted Police the power to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner whenever they got the "i don't "feel" safe", call from any female regardless of whether she is lying or not appears to be an irrelevance..
You would be arrested, jailed for the night, released the following morning and served with an order that would stop you from contacting your children or go anywhere near your house within 100 meters...

You will not be given any opportunity to defend yourself neither will you be allowed any time in court to demand justice..

That is the law that has to go..

This law would probably explain why Tasmania is now the suicide capitol of Australia and we have feminists to thank for it..

 The following article will be updated as they continue on their path to justice if that is possible these days, but check out the site for further information..

Ad. Note..
This law will affect everyone in the western world and will set precedence in all western countries that follow common law. Please donate something, even just ten dollars or better still a thousand, on the JAILS paypal link..
Even though the solicitor has volenteered his services the cost of court proceedings are horrendeous. JAILS will proceed to the Federal Court if need be to see this through and have been contacted by every State Attorney General and informed them that the outcome of this case will determine the legislation they will introduce in their own states..

Jails Logo

Juries Against Illegal Laws

Violence law faces challenge

GILL VOWLES

March 14, 2010 08:50am

A TASMANIAN group has filed a $200 million class action against Premier David Bartlett and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is believed to be the first Australian class action against a law.

JAIL (Juries Against Illegal Laws) filed papers with the Federal Court of Australia on February 4 claiming that the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tasmania) was invalid.

The group is claiming $200 million in damages under Section 46 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.

JAIL is also seeking an additional $200,000 in damages for unlawful assault, trespass, negligence, conspiracy to cause economic loss, intimidation and defamation.

The writ further seeks an order that the Tasmanian Government and DPP Tim Ellis cease to engage in arresting people without proper evidence or procedures, giving police judicial powers, denying people the right to a fair and proper hearing and usurping the proper role of the courts.

JAIL president Ray Escobar said that if the class action was successful the money would be given to all the Tasmanians who had suffered under the Family Violence Act.

JAIL, formed in early 2008, now has more than 200 members around Tasmania who have been, or are related to, victims of false applications for violence orders.

Mr Escobar said JAIL was being represented by one of the finest legal minds in Australia, Sir John Walsh of Brannagh, who lives on Norfolk Island.

Sir John said he agreed to represent JAIL because the case raised important and fundamental questions of human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and the separation of powers.

"The legislation, and the way it is enforced, is contrary to human rights and to international law as accepted by Australia," Sir John said.

"The legislation conflicts with the Constitution of Australia and with the fundamental rights of all Australians."

Sir John said he was confident a federal judge would apply the law of the Commonwealth and the fundamental principles of Australia's legal system.

JAIL's application has been set down for hearing in the Tasmanian registry of the of the Federal Court of Australia at 10am on Monday, April 12.

Feminists in India: A French Kiss is Rape?..

Feminist Accountabilty: Useless, jobless men – the social blight of our age..

A good article once again explaining the plight of Men and the total concentration of G'mint focusing solely on women..

But ofcourse there was and is a cost. The cost being a generation of neglected members of society that society cannot do without but explain that to the male-haters. As far as they are concerned they should be crowing loudly from every rooftop and patting themselves on the back for their "extra" effort in promoting just one half of the polpulation while totally neglecting and trying to destroy the other..

This article rings the truth like a bell and my favourite part which reflects this bloggers own opinion, aims and goals..

He believes that governments must start to focus on these men, and question the feminisation of education and the workplace. It is no solution, he says, to say that women don't need men or that men should become more female. Nor is it any good waiting for economic growth to dig them out of poverty. Those men need a chance, not a benefits system that undermines them.need men or that men should become more female.

Well,well,well...

It still makes my day whenever anyone points their finger decisively at feminists and hold them accountable as much as they would like to deny the damage they have caused..
(Akin to a child standing next to a broken clay pot with a hammer in it's hand and denying culpability.)
They have blood on their hands and it will never wash off..

Useless, jobless men – the social blight of our age
The benefits system has produced an emasculated generation who can find neither work nor a wife
Camilla Cavendish

Of all the government adverts that have swamped our radio stations these past few years (must be a quick saving there for the Treasury), one of the most irritating was the jolly woman asking us in a sing-song voice if we had remembered to report changes in our circumstances. Like hell. Every time I heard the ad it conjured up a vision of a lonely official waiting in vain at her desk for people to come in and sign away entitlements to which they feel, well, entitled.

This pathetic advert seemed to me to epitomise the politicians’ total loss of control over the monster that is our benefits system. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) presides over a system so complex that it has to issue 8,690 pages of guidance to help its staff to apply its 51 different benefits — the product of the ever more precise targeting of benefits to particular groups.

In the years of plenty, it was easier to placate and complicate than to simplify. Every new benefit and its separate computer system was just bolted on to the mainframe. But the result is that Britain has more than twice the number of sick people as France. The potential for playing the system, defrauding the system and falling foul of the system is enormous.

So in declaring war yesterday on both poverty and the benefits system, Iain Duncan Smith had it right. If the Government is going to make real inroads into the deficit it will have to tackle the nearly £200 billion welfare budget, which is a third of government spending. This week’s £6 billion of cuts was only Round 1: £6 billion is only 1 per cent of government expenditure, so this was a warm-up. Round 2 will need to take on the DWP leviathan.

But the argument for welfare reform is not just one of affordability. In too many cases, welfare has entrenched poverty. Mr Duncan Smith is one of the few politicians who really understand the poverty trap. Gordon Brown made life more bearable for many people on benefits, but he also made it harder to escape from them. Get a job tomorrow earning between £10,000 and £30,000 a year and you’ll take home only 30p out of every extra pound you earn after the first £10,000. Twenty pence will go in income tax, 11p in national insurance, and 39p in lost tax credits. Add in the loss of other allowances (housing benefit, council tax benefit) and you may find it simply doesn’t pay to work harder. Our poverty trap is deeper than that of most other European countries. That is a strange legacy for a government that wanted to make work pay.

The fear of losing benefits — of not being able to scramble back on to the lifeboat if you fall off — is a huge disincentive to change your circumstances, let alone report them. One in seven working-age households is dependent on benefits for more than half its income. More than half of all lone parents depend on the State for at least half their income. William Beveridge would be horrified to discover that the safety net he designed has become a trap, creating generations of worklessness and dwindling self-esteem. It is also creating a glut of unemployed, unwanted, unmarriageable men.

These men were overlooked during a decade of prosperity that did nothing to change their lives. At the beginning of that decade, 5.4 million working-age adults were claiming out-of-work benefits. The same number were still claiming just before the recession struck. Almost a fifth of 16 to 24-year-olds were not in education, employment or training in 1997. The number was identical in 2006. These people stayed put in the Welsh valleys, in Liverpool, in Glasgow, while Eastern Europeans travelled a thousand miles to pick up work on construction sites in London. Immigration reduced the opportunities available to white British men whose poor education made them less attractive candidates, while the benefits system undermined their motivation.

The problem affects the whole of society because of the striking correlation between male joblessness and single motherhood, particularly in the old industrial cities. In Liverpool, male unemployment rose from 12 per cent in 1971 to 30 per cent in 2001. In 1971 11 per cent of families were headed by a single parent; by 2001, 45 per cent were. Similar patterns can be seen in Birmingham, Strathclyde and Newcastle. The epidemic of male joblessness after the collapse of manufacturing industries coincided with an increase in female employment and welfare support to mothers who found that they could manage alone.

Overlooked by society, irrelevant to employers, unwanted by women who can raise families on benefits without their help, the man who has no work or a series of short-term jobs is a problem. Without steady work, he will struggle to acquire a family: unemployed men are less likely to marry or cohabit than employed ones. Without a stable relationship, he is less likely to grow into a good family man and raise good sons. The taxpayer has become the father: one in four mothers is single and more than half live on welfare. A lot of these women describe the real fathers of their children as “useless” or worse. The men have no role.

In the worst cases, the State has helped to create a class of jobless serial boyfriends who prey on single mothers on benefits. When two of these men moved into the flat that Haringey Council had generously provided for Tracey Connelly, Baby P’s mother, the little boy’s fate was sealed. They killed him. Other such men appear in bit parts in tragedies such as that of Shannon Matthews, abducted and drugged by her own “family”. The welfare system has helped to deprive these children of the most effective check on abuse — the family.

Robert Rowthorn, Professor of Economics at Cambridge, has shown that female and male worklessness have been going in opposite directions for 30 years, well before this latest “mancession”. His research suggests that half the rise in lone parenthood in the past 30 years may be due to male unemployment. He believes that governments must start to focus on these men, and question the feminisation of education and the workplace. It is no solution, he says, to say that women don't need men or that men should become more female. Nor is it any good waiting for economic growth to dig them out of poverty. Those men need a chance, not a benefits system that undermines them.need men or that men should become more female. Nor is it any good waiting for economic growth to dig them out of poverty. Those men need a chance, not a benefits system that undermines them.

Link.. 

Sounds like your machismo feels threatened..

I am always fascinated by comments submitted to this blog as I am fascinated by this particular one..

I am uncertain as to what the argument is exactly. Maybe some one else might offer an opinion. But I may do a quick decryption and see what falls out at the end..

Let me highlight some of these comical statements..

Sounds like your machismo feels threatened

If one was in doubt on whether or not this "anonymous" commenter is indeed a feminist, this opening comment does immediately place "it" in that doctrine or mentality.

Feminists enjoy nothing more than making irrelevant, irrational, inane opening comments or statements as it's intended to discourage any argument or discussion, it appears to be a prerequisite to accommodate their male-hating. I have already demonstrated on many occasions that feminists, without fail, deliver paper-thin rebukes/comments/criticisms/studies/arguments/accusations based on their own interpretation on what their irrational dogma and doctrines should be, surmising and adjusting it to include their own hysterical rantings and observations that is apart from their education in W.S..

The article "it" refers to is this one from Andrew Bolt of the Herald-Sun  (Melbourne, Australia) on the questionable efforts dedicated to promoting female law officers at any cost even though some or most are quite incapable of carrying their out their assigned duties; employed solely to pass the compulsory PC laws introduced some years ago in order to avoid legal proceedings against the Police Force by the erroneously named and biased Human Rights Commission. (Note.. this commission permitted the banning of Men from attending an female only club, but refuses to do the same for all or any Men's Clubs) ..

Victoria's thinning blue line

Andrew Bolt

May 04, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Herald-Sun

 Extract..

I make calls to confirm it's true: two-thirds of these newest recruits and constables are women -- and that's far from unusual now.

As it turns out, that's also fortunate, since Nixon has given the force until July to make sure 25 per cent of her officers aren't men.

Wait. The people in charge don't like the way I sniff these lists. This isn't affirmative action hiring, they insist. No, it's all merit based.

And perhaps, in a way, it is.

After all, under the Bracks Government -- so keen to seem progressive in a 1980s way -- the tests for police recruits have been changed in ways that help women a lot. Women, that is, who want to be police, rather than to call for them.

Here are four of those changes. Once recruits had six minutes to complete their physical test; now they get an extra 30 seconds.

Once they had to be able to climb a wall 1.8 metres high. Too hard, so the wall was lopped to just 1.6 metres.

Even that proved too high for the ladies, so now there's no wall-climbing test at all. Also gone is that dragging of a weighted bag at speed.

And bingo! Sure, our police are now more feeble, but see how many are now women!

So why would anyone take offense at anyone stating researched, verified facts as irrelevant, only a feminist..

Anyway, I will leave you to read it as I for one am at a loss as to what this comment is arguing or what it's purpose is. Excuse the spelling and the word "dychostic", as I as well as the dictionary have yet to recognise it..
By the way, it's also thrown in the totally incorrect and hysterical "equal pay" comment just to prove it's total ignorance as that argument has been dismissed as hysterical as well as incorrect and should be treated the same..

Sounds like your machismo feels threatened. what a load of pansy shit.. i dont know what's going on in Australia.. sorrry to heary your patriarchies are shaking by a bunch of incompetent girly "bitches". And how totally right you are. In new New York, all the female cops just bust caps into mens asses because they think ' Oh shit, he's a guy, he's gonna rape me, he's trying to mack it to me".. yadda yadda yadda. If women are impervious to the facts, you most definitely are NOT exempt. Mabe it's all part of some integral movement.. perhaps a new physics in law enforcement.. since women maintain a completely different or 'dychostic' function? Ahh.. it's never ceases to amaze me how much men overexaggerate the 'vengeance' of women over their 'aggressors'. Or perhaps you just subconsciously agree someone is seeking retribution .. for a reason. Either way... stop those bitches before they start getting equal pay too!!

Toy Boy Husband Increases (wife's) Woman's Chance of Early Death

Whoa !!!

Isn't life a bitch ?

We even have Courtney mimicking one like it's something natural. Well guess what girls ?

Wrong again..

Read and weep...



Cougars and toy boys 'a deadly match'

• Women with younger husbands die earlier
• But older men young wives live longer
• Study involved analysis of marriage, death records
  

HAVING a toy boy husband increases a woman's chances of an early death, according to a new study. And the younger her spouse is, the harder it is on a woman's health, research carried out in Germany says. However the trend is reversed when an older man opts for a younger woman. The more youthful his wife, the longer the husband is expected to live, Britain's Daily Mail reported.

The finding will come as a blow growing numbers of "cougars" - middle-aged women who shun older men in search of younger guys.

Celebrity cougars include US actress Demi Moore, 47, who is 15 years older than actor husband Ashton Kutcher, and Friends star Courteney Cox, who is married to actor David Arquette - seven years her junior.

A woman who bags a man seven to nine years younger than her is 20 per cent more likely to die at any given point than someone married to a man her own age. And when a cougar weds someone more than 15 years younger than her, the risk soars to more than 30 per cent.The trend was identified by an analysis of marriage and death records belonging to almost two million Danish men and women.

Sven Drefahl of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany, said: "The greater the age difference, the lower the wife's life expectancy. The best choice for a woman is to marry a man of exactly the same age."

A "sugar daddy" with a wife seven to nine years his junior is seven per cent less likely to die at any given time - probably because she's more likely to nurse him in old age.

By contrast, a younger man tends to be less inclined to look after his elderly wife. And cougars are more likely to be seen as predatory - making it less likely for them to maintain friends and dependents, another factor researchers suggested could explain their findings.

Link..

Dr. Pelle Billing: How Misguided Feminism Prevents Relationships..

I can hear the "RoaR" now, "HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE FEMINISM?". Apparently, if it was not for the freedom of the Web the silence would be even greater as the media avoids that like the plague. Sure we have had a few journalists (mostly female) condemn and deride feminism for the hate-movement it is but akin to the that golfer doing his thing yet the media failed to expose the abusive and violent actions of the wife, which was totally ignored..

And so it continues..

How Misguided Feminism Prevents Relationships
Thursday, May 6, 2010
By Pelle Billing

Do men avoid dating successful women? It certainly seems to be a common perception, and British writer Zoe Lewis is so sure of the phenomenon that she claims to understand why men won’t date successful women. According to Lewis, one of her former boyfriends explicitly broke up with her due to her intelligence and professional success:

He told me that he just didn’t want to go out with a woman who was clever and successful. He said it meant that I could never let any discussion go, or concede a flawed argument; I had to solve problems when they arose, and would argue political points with him.

Apparently Zoe Lewis cannot take a hint. The problem quite obviously was not her intelligence nor her success, but the fact that she would never let any discussion go or concede a flawed argument. That kind of behavior has nothing to do with being clever or successful, it is simply the behavior of an obnoxious person!

Let us have a look at another of Lewis’ examples of how men supposedly cannot handle a strong woman:

I invited my new boyfriend to see me perform my one-woman show on stage in London. Before he walked in to the play, we were tactile and it struck me that I had high hopes for the relationship.

An hour later, after watching me on stage and then networking with a group of high-powered theatre people at the aftershow party, he became distant.

Of course he became distant! You invited him to come with you and then you proceeded to ignore him. If you wanted to be able to network freely then it would have been better not to bring a date. Why are you blaming him for becoming distant when you are the one who ignored him first?

The problem here is not that she is a strong and intelligent person, the problem is that she tries too hard to be strong and independent. A relationship cannot be about independence only, if it is, then there is no actual relating going on. How can you form a relationship without vulnerability and connecting to your partner?

Surpringly, Lewis seems to have grasped some of these insights, in spite of her inability to correctly interpret why men pull away from her:

Modern women have learned to regard men as the competition, in order to get ahead professionally. And while men can accept this female aggression in the workplace, they evidently can’t in relationships.

Why would you want to be aggressive towards a man you’re dating? And why would you expect men to accept female aggression in a relationship? These expectations are absurd, and I’m happy that you’ve finally figured out what should have been self-evident.

These days I try to focus less on the flaws of feminism, and more on the potential in educating people about men’s issues. However, in this case I cannot help but blame feminism. Why else would a woman have these strange ideas about relationships? Common sense tells us that being cold, argumentative and aggressive is a lousy strategy for having a nurturing relationship, and yet this seems to be exactly what the writer has pursued in her dating life.

Towards the end of her article, the writer comes up with the most odd quote of them all:

Men love vulnerable women. We need to accept that, just because we’ve changed, we can’t expect them to. I don’t think they can.

So we cannot expect men to start liking cold, argumentative and aggressive women? Wow, that is a surprise. Do you as a woman like men who are cold, argumentative and aggressive? If not, then why do you expect men to like that kind of behavior in you?

Personally, I believe that men and women (on average) have some different preferences when looking for a relationship. Men place more importance on looks and softness, and women on status and confidence. But there are a lot of similarities too, especially when looking for a long term mate. Men and women alike appreciate a partner who is warm, relaxed and not overtly aggressive.

How can these common sense insights have been lost? The only answer I can come up with is that misguided feminism has taught a generation of women that men are opponents and not allies. This insight makes me tremendously sad.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.

Dr. Tara Palmatier: What Makes Your Control Freak Wife or Girlfriend Tick..

This is so rare that I could not resist cutting and pasting it. Good to see that at least some people will actually admit that women are just as much the culprit at destroying relationships (more so). Remind yourself of twho is the main divorce instigator(still topping 70% plus as far as I am aware) and it ain't my sex..

What Makes Your Control Freak Wife or Girlfriend Tick
Monday, May 10, 2010
By Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

Does your wife or girlfriend tell you what to do most or all of the time? Does she become enraged or sullen and withdrawn if she doesn’t get her way? Does she needle you endlessly until you capitulate? Controlling behaviors and attitudes are just another aspect of abusive women personality traits.

It’s natural to want to have control over your own life. However, most of us realize you can’t control everything, especially other people. You can make requests or try to influence others, but you can’t control them. Psychologist Dr Thomas Schumacher writes, “When you have to be in control of the people around you…when you literally can’t rest until you get your own way…you have a personality disorder.”

Here’s the rub: You can’t control others. Not really. When you spend your every waking moment worrying about what others are doing, compulsively trying to control them, you’re the one who ultimately becomes controlled by your desire to control. It’s a paradoxical effect. For those of you who are involved with an emotionally abusive, controlling woman, you probably recognize that maniacal, “out of control” look in her eyes when she’s trying to bend you to her will and you’re trying to resist.

Are control freaks and Narcissistic and/or Borderline women one and the same?

There’s a lot of overlap between the characteristics of “control freaks” and emotionally abusive NPD/BPD women. This isn’t a great leap since many men who are involved with these women describe them as “controlling.” If you think of this woman as a cubic zirconia, “control freak” is just another facet that flashes in the light like “bully,” “professional victim,” “pathological jealousy,” “hypercritical,” “entitled,” etc. Put another way, it’s another piece of the fragmented BPD/NPD woman jigsaw puzzle.

Control freaks and abusive women both:

* Have difficulty trusting others.
* Have a profound fear of having their flaws exposed.
* Cannot tolerate feeling vulnerable (and, therefore, can’t handle intimacy).
* Are riddled with anxiety, fear, insecurity and anger.

What’s really going on.

Why does she invest so much in trying to control you and your reality? Because she tries to manage her anxiety by trying to control you. Control is her anxiety management technique of choice. She doesn’t experience anxiety like a relatively healthy person does—an unpleasant sensation that will eventually pass. To this woman, anxiety is a painful reminder that something is wrong with her. To acknowledge this is akin to being lowered into a dark, bottomless pit with no way out. There is a way out, of course; facing her issues and feeling her feelings, but she’s not going to do that. Controlling and torturing you makes her feel better about herself.

Facing her fears and working through her issues would mean admitting she actually has issues, which would mean holding herself accountable and not blaming others. It makes much more sense (to her and remember, she’s the only one who matters) to deny and ignore her problems and push and poke at you because in her mind you’re the one with the problem, not her.

Her strategy is unconscious for the most part and goes something like this: If you’re both totally focused on and consumed by what a useless, screw-up jerk you are, she believes no one will notice her glaring flaws. Get it? I feel dizzy from typing that last piece of illogical reasoning, but that’s what goes on in the dark recesses of her brain.

She tries to stave off her deep-seated fear of having her true self exposed by controlling every aspect of her life and her relationship with you, including imposing her distorted version of reality upon you. She views her ability to control you as a matter of survival—her psychological survival, that is. “Being in control gives her the temporary illusion of a sense of calmness. When she feels she is prevailing, you can just about sense the tension oozing out of her” (Schumacher).

Think about it. When does she come close to being in a good mood or smile with pure pleasure? When she feels like she’s in the catbird seat because she’s gotten her way, pulled one over on you or pulled the rug out from underneath you. The size of her smile is in direct proportion to the number of times she twisted the proverbial knife.

Other Favorite Defense Mechanisms: Projection and projective identification.

Projection and projective identification play a part in her controlling behaviors. She maps her feelings onto you and controls you by inducing these feelings within you. Her controlling facade masks her true internal experience. Deep down she feels frightened, out of control, incompetent and helpless.

Les Parrot (The Control Freak) writes, “People who want to exert control over everything can make those around them feel inadequate, insecure, nervous, angry, anxious and physically sick. Their message is: I don’t trust you to be able to do it right; I don’t respect your judgment; I don’t think you are competent; I don’t value your insight.” Whether or not this woman is aware of it, this is how she feels about herself. Once you recognize the defense mechanisms at play, it becomes a little easier to take her hurtful behaviors less personally. She’d be like this with anyone.

In order for me to win, you must lose.

Because this is a matter of psychological survival to her, she has to steamroll you in order to avoid feeling helpless. “To relinquish control is tantamount to being victimized and overwhelmed” (Schumacher). Unfortunately, her fears also fuel her lack of empathy toward you and create the mindset: “Victimize or be victimized; dominate or be dominated.”

To the abusive woman, it’s not enough to merely control you. She only feels in control and good about herself if she makes you feel less than. Her mood becomes buoyant as she cuts you down. She has to make you feel useless, disoriented and helpless, so that she doesn’t feel this way.

This is evidence of a faulty belief system. She has a one-up/one-down mentality. She believes that in every interpersonal interaction there’s a winner and a loser and she will fight tooth and nail against being the “loser.” This is why it’s virtually impossible for this woman to compromise or make concessions. To her, compromise and concession are humiliating defeats. She’d rather blow the house up and everything in it than compromise or take personal responsibility.

Her need to control, however, will come back to bite her on the backside. Instead of feeling and appearing in control, this woman comes across as out of control when trying to exert control and the people who are under her tyranny eventually stage a revolt and/or bolt from the relationship.

Losing control.

Schumacher cites the rapid phases this kind of woman goes through when she’s not getting her way or feels she’s losing control. For example, when you challenge her or threaten to end the relationship, she probably exhibits the following emotional states in quick succession:

1. Angry and agitated. (You’re treated to a rage episode and/or nasty commentary, blame and accusations.)
2. Panicky and apprehensive. (She exposes fleeting vulnerability as she tries to “feel you out” in order to see how and if she can regain control. She may worry that she’s gone too far and is testing the waters before gearing up for another control maneuver.)
3. Agitated and threatening. (Because anxiety is ego dystonic—i.e., painfully uncomfortable—she quickly reverts to form and begins to bully you and issue ultimatums and threats of punishment.)
4. Depression and despair. (When all else fails, she becomes sullen and withdrawn and suffers a temporary identity crisis.)

Her unhealthy coping mechanism (control) becomes an unhealthy and rigid pattern. Because it’s impossible to control others, she’s locked in the endless loop of fighting off real and imagined threats to her control. Since she won’t look at her own issues and focuses solely on controlling you and her environment, she never gains mastery over the fears that plague her. Her attempts at mastery (control) over her emotions and fears instead become a replay of misery for herself and others. But remember, she’ll probably never be able to see herself as part of the problem, which means it’s highly unlikely she’ll ever change.

Fellow Psychologist, Dr Patricia A. Farrell, states: “They’re highly resistant to any therapy, and there is no medication for the personality disorder.” To seek help themselves, she says, “the control freak has to be convinced the price is too great not to, and that doesn’t happen very often.”

Yes, this woman is deeply troubled, but it is NOT your responsibility to tolerate, accept or change her. The only way to gain mastery over a relationship with this kind of woman is to end it. Otherwise, you’ll begin an endless replay loop of your own misery.

Next week I’ll post ways to manage an emotionally abusive “control freak,” so please check back.

by Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD

Originally posted at Shrink4Men on August 3, 2009.