Archive for the ‘divorce’ Category

‘He earned it, but you have half anyway.’
September 23, 2007


24 May 2007

“I’m a multi-millionaire…and I didn’t have to work for a penny of it!

‘Housewife’ keeps record £48m divorce payout


A woman awarded the biggest divorce payment in British legal history was today told that she is entitled to keep the £48 million settlement that her insurance chief husband labelled “grotesque and unfair”.

John Charman, 54, took the case to the Court of Appeal after contesting his wife Beverley’s share in his fortune. The head of the Axa Insurance group argued that his £20 million offer was more than adequate and a £70 million family trust should not have been taken into account when the total assets of the marriage were assessed at £131 million.

I’ve commented on this case before, it’s fucking sick. This cunt gets £48,000,000 (almost $100,000,000) just because she happened to be supported by a hard-working husband for 28-years.

Surely she should owe him money. Think of how much more cash her ex-husband would have if he hadn’t had to support her for 28-years. The guy would have been better off hiring a maid and calling for a high-class 18-year-old escort girl every night.

This goes for non-millionaires too. Think of an average guy who has been married for more than ten-years. Think of how much more money he would have saved away, or at least have to spend on himself (without having to ask for anyone’s permission to do so) had he not had some ungrateful fucking harpy sitting on his couch spending his money and creeching for more.

This goldigging cunt spent almost three-decades not having to work but living a life of leisure (I cannot imagine she did one ounce of housework once hubby reached his first million), and the courts have decided she is entitled to half the money that he earned!


More man-bashing in The Times – there’s been a lot of it recently
September 23, 2007


22 May 2007

Beware of the nanny


It is a strange fact of life that most women, no matter how high-achieving, beautiful or intelligent, have, at the back of their minds, a worm of anxiety about their nanny and her effect on their husband.

Or, to put it in another – more rational – way:

It is an obvious fact of life that most bitchy career women, no matter how fancy their job-title, how beautiful she thinks she is or how many worthless qualifications she has, have, at the back of their minds, a justified worm of anxiety about their attractive, pleasant and feminine nanny and her attracting effect on their husband.

This India Knight – arch-man-hater extraordinaire – is rambling and complaining about men in the usual manner, that just because of one or two recent cases, all us men are fiendish adulterers ready to elope with the nanny at a moment’s notice (how many fucking people have nannies anyway? It shows the tiny circles these pompous feminist columnists inhabit when they discuss having nannies in such a casual way, as if we all have them.)

One of the reasons a guy would probably fancy his nanny more than his wife is because (a) the nanny will probably be nice and young, (b) could be foreign, perhaps from one of the few counties in the world where women are not raised to compete with – and hate – men, and (c) in seeing a woman actually care for his children, a man may suddenly realise what a worthless, non-nurturing, unfeminine piece of shit his career-wife is, as seen as she ditched her kids with a stranger before they were even six-months old.

Most of the article is not worth reading, except for the last bit:

Men don’t fall in love with nannies but with the alternative world the nanny represents.

Perhaps. Or perhaps men just fall in love with the nanny’s really nice pert young arse.


Men = ATMs
September 23, 2007


16 May 2007

There’s talk of paternity leave in the UK for fathers, whereby a woman can give up some of her paid maternity leave to him. Not that that will work. How many women will go back to work earlier than they have to and be the primary breadwinner and support a man? Not many.

Amongst the comments at the Daily Telegraph (PDF) about the story is this, from some snotty bitch called Michelle:

Men’s contribution to the family is really nothing more than a few moments of pleasure 9 months before birth and then years of making the money it takes to finance the resulting kids. Men should keep to their traditional role, which is to be the family’s ATM machine, nothing more. Men have their careers, their work. Women have their kids. And this is why men don’t have many rights when it comes to divorce and subsequent custody/visitation arrangements. They just are not needed when it comes to taking care of children, right?

In saying that, though, I do think the whole “You are getting something that I don’t get” argument from those who remain childless is evidence of what is wrong with our society. To whine because you think that someone else is getting a benefit that you don’t get reflects a selfish attitude. If you feel so aggrieved, go home and be thankful that your life isn’t tainted by having to take care of a bunch of sick kids or some such thing.

I don’t think any of us enlightened men are surprised at this attitude, that us men are just a family’s ATM machine (family being the wife and her children), that us men are selfish for wanting a privilege women have, and that if us men feel aggrieved about anything we should, in her view, “go home” and contemplate how bad women have it.

This is how most modern women think with regards to relationships:

“You men work forty-to-seventy hours a week. Protect and provide. Us women drop the kids off at school in the morning, turn on dishwasher and washing machine, lunch with mates at Starbucks, go shopping, watch daytime TV, pick the kids up from school in the late afternoon, feed you and the kids a microwavable meal then spend all evening watching TV. You men don’t complain. You men shut the fuck up about your problems,and instead consider how bad us women have it. Otherwise we’ll fucking divorce you and take you for all you’re worth.”

Plus she justifies us men not getting any rights with regards to our children by the fact that we’re not needed…then moans that poor wikkle women have to look after children.

This personifies the official double-standard fembot attitude. They say that us men aren’t needed to raise children, and indeed are unsuited to do so…but also say that us men are bastards for leaving all the child-raising to women.

This Michelle is, clearly, a snot-nosed entitlement cunt.

Her hypocritical gobshite fucking attitude – that men are just ATM machines and not needed in families – is one of the main reasons why us men shouldn’t get married.

The other main reason is the fact that this same hypocritical gobshite fucking attitude is also held by family court judges and the divorce laws.

Stay single men. Don’t become an ATM machine for some bitch and her children.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:09 PM


The spiteful sex
September 21, 2007


02 May 2007

Wife put excrement in man’s curry


A disgruntled wife has admitted feeding her husband a curry containing dog excrement after their relationship broke down.


Depute Fiscal Margaret Dunnipace told the court that on 13 March, after placing the dinner in front of her husband Donald and watching him start to eat it, Martin had burst out laughing.

At first she claimed she had laced the dish with arsenic but then confessed she had added dog excrement instead.

Note how she’s labeled “disgruntled”, which implies she has some sort of reason to be pissed off and vengeful.

She claims she was subject to “mental abuse”, a vague allegation women usually make to justify all sorts of rotten fucking behaviour. She also claimed her husband dared to question her parental skills. Again, there’s no evidence he did, and even if he did, he probably had a good point. If she feeds shit to her husband fuck knows how she treats her child(ren).

Oh, and it seems she thought her husband was having an affair, but it turned out he wasn’t. Never you mind dear, you just act on impulse and do something rotten.

That’s the worst thing about marriage, it seems; your wife will imagine wrongs and their brains will start plotting what women are best at – being spiteful. Whether it’s feeding you dogshit, divorcing you and stealing your assets, aborting your baby, cutting your cock off, shooting you dead or whatever, they’ll feel justified in doing it, and a few claims of being “abused” or whatever will ensure little or no punishment comes your way.

I can just imagine all the bitches in the country e-mailing this story to each other and sniggering about it.

“Yeah, you go grrl, take that you stupid man!”

At least the guy has the house, but don’t expect that to last. He’ll be out of there come the divorce and she’ll be laughing with her fucking mates all the way to the bank.

(Incidentally, the fact that this cunt’s husband didn’t realise that there was dogshit in the curry he was eating until she actually told him sort of implies her cooking skills are not of a particularly high standard. “What do you mean, ‘does my dinner taste of excrement?’ Why yes, it does. Just like always.“)

I was wondering why the guy didn’t immediately smash the bitch’s face in, before realising that he would have ended up in prison, regardless of blatant provocation.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:20 PM


The youth of today
September 20, 2007


28 April 2007


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:56 AM


Parenting school
September 20, 2007


25 April 2007

‘Nanny state’ row over parent academy

Ministers have been accused of “nationalising the family” with plans for the first national college for parenting.

In a move designed to crackdown on yobbish behaviour, the Government has earmarked £30 million for the new academy to coach parents on how to control tearaway children.

It forms part of Tony Blair’s “respect agenda” to tackle persistent anti-social behaviour, problem families and young offenders.

Damn right it’s an attempt to nationalise the family. Labour, despite their fancy rebranding in the 1990s, are Socialist in nature, and Socialist governments want to wreck the family and then move in to what’s left of it.

Plus it’s another £30,000,000 of taxpayers money up for grabs for a punch of Civil Servant cocksuckers, most of who are not there to serve the British public but to simply line their pockets and force their own ideologies onto us.

The new academy – based at King’s College, London – will act as an “international and national hub” to promote the latest ideas on how to raise children and implement recent Government reforms, including new courses designed to improve the bond between fathers and their children and catch-up lessons for parents with literacy and numeracy problems.

Improving the bond between fathers and “their children”? That’s rich coming from a government who have done all they can to remove men from families, including their insistance that single women and lezzers can have IVF on the NHS (to be fair, they are only continuing an implimentation of Socialist/Feminist ideology that began long before they got into power.)

Plus, we all know what their lessons on the correct way to raise children will be like; and teach boys to respect girls unconditionally, play with dolls and don’t be competitive, and teach girls they are all important, boys are stupid and smelly, and that wanting to marry young and have children is a ridiculous concept.

Mrs Hughes said: “Parents increasingly seek help with bringing up their children and we want to be as supportive as we possibly can. The role a parent plays is integral to a child’s development and their future life chances, which is why we want to help parents get it right.”

Sorry, but any parent who needs to go to a government sponsored college to learn how to raise a child must be so grossly incompetent that they shouldn’t fucking have kids in the first place.

Couples used to have no problems raising children on their own, perhaps with a bit of help from the extended family. I wonder why they are increasingly seeking help? Oh yes, I remember; more and more kids are not raised by couples but by single mothers, and the extended family is all but demolished too.

This is the usual feminist/socialist methodology; fuck things up – whether it’s relationships, children, the workplace, communities – and then step in, survey the wreckage they themselves caused, and declare “We are here to help! Now do as we say.” Motherfuckers.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:14 PM


Minor blow to gold-digging cunts
September 20, 2007


14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements


The balance of power in divorces tilted away from wives yesterday as a judge warned that ex-husbands could not be expected to provide women with a share of future earnings for life.

Don’t get too excited chaps, this is hardly the swift kick to the cunt of divorce laws we demand.

All it means is that a woman may not be entitled to future earnings of her ex-husband providing she has received enough of a lump-sum divorce settlement.

The case before him concerned Mr and Mrs H who met at St John’s College, Oxford, in 1982 and married three years later. She gave up her job as a teacher to follow him to a posting with a bank in Tokyo, and took charge of caring for their four children, now aged 9 to 19. Mr H formed a new relationship in 2004 and left their £2.7 million marital home, which the wife will keep, after 20 years of marriage.

Mrs H, 46, has been awarded £13 million in cash and assets but told she could have nothing more.

See? She’s entitled to “nothing more” but for, ahem, “sacrificing” a career she no doubt didn’t want in the first place, she’s got a great big mansion and £13,000,000. Her ex-husband doesn’t have to pay her anymore? Well, that’s something I suppose (or nothing, from her point of view) but she’s still made a great big fucking fortune by simply being married to a hard-working rich guy. I dare say it was his future earning potential, and her boredom of having to hold down a job, that resulted in her being attracted to him. To be fair, she has borne and raised her husband’s four kids (at least we assume they’re his) and he did walk out on her, but surely the £2.7million home he gave up is enough for her. Let alone the thirteen-million quid. Yet she wanted more? How fucking greedy. Besides, married women “form new a new relationship” all the time and yet, not only do they not have to hand over any assets and/or continue cooking and cleaning for their ex-husband, they frequently get the house, savings, car, kids, husband’s future income, etc. Surely it is only equality – which, when it doesn’t go their way, women hate with a passion – for a man to ditch his wife and not have to give her anything?


September 20, 2007


11 April 2007

There was a report on the news tonight concerning the release of various statistics about British society:

One-in-four children are raised by single parents (nine-in-ten single parents are women.)

For every three marriages there are two divorces.

Marriage rates have never been lower.

7,000,000 people live alone (out of a population of 60,000,000.)

One-in-six men aged 45-64 live alone.

Being from the BBC it naturally gave a positive spin to the report of rising single mothers.

There was some skally single mother waffling thusly (spelt phonetically to capture the skalliness of the fat rotten old bitch):

“Me and uvva single muvvas are, like, strong and, like, independent! We’re just not gonna bovva puttin’ up wiv rubbish from men anymore and go it alone.”

Incidentally she packed the word ‘men’ with as much venom as possible, indicating clearly how much hatred she had towards the male sex (she had two young sons by the way; poor kids.)

Strong and independent! Hah! It didn’t go into details about her but I dare say she’s probably on benefits, or if working relies on taxpayer-subsidised childcare, and if ever married, relied on legal aid and the divorce courts to ensure she got ‘her’ house and the kids.

Incidentally the BBC reporter whined that “Women are left looking after the children whilst men live alone”, as if the poor women don’t fight for custody, initiate most divorces and increasingly choose to be single mothers.

Although the BBC tried to make it sound all positive, they did admit that there were ‘great challenges’ ahead, as the breakdown of family life was causing increasing isolation and rising mistrust. However, women living alone raising children, and men living alone with little or no contact with any child they may have is exactly what feminists wanted. And they made that fairly clear at the start; the removal of men from families. This is what they – and society, and obviously women – have got. For women to complain about this state of affairs is laughable. They got what they wanted. Now they can fucking deal with it. Without the help of us men, obviously.

There was one decent little bit whereby one of the many men living alone these days was interviewed. He was in his twenties and lived in a neat flat with his collection of guitars. He bragged that he loved living alone and being free and wouldn’t want to live any other way.

MGTOW in tha house!!!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:13 PM


Septic Septuagenarian Skank Spouts Off
September 19, 2007


22 March 2007


Still a burning issue

Marilyn French, the author of The Women’s Room, tells why she is still full of fury that the world remains a place messed up by men.

Short answer; she’s angry because she’s a Western Women, who are nearly always pissed off and moaning about fucking something, and she believes it is all men’s fault because she’s a Western Woman and a feminist to boot, and thus unable to accept any blame for her own misery.

The long answer…well, let’s read the article and sneer at the fucking bitch.

The girl at the Bobbi Brown make-up counter at Barneys wants to know what I’m doing in New York. I tell her that I’m interviewing Marilyn French, who wrote a book in the Seventies called The Women’s Room, bought by 20 million people and read by many more: dog-eared copies passed around neighbourhoods, hidden from husbands, read in secret at kitchen tables when the kids had gone to school. Hailed as the first feminist novel, it was devoured by desperate housewives around the world for its dramatisation of their feelings of rage and frustration, its offer of freedom through sisterhood and radical politics.

And now women have that wonderful freedom to be old and single and angry, not to mention slaving away at soul-crushing jobs. Brave girls.

“Wow!” breathes the girl, a blonde American beauty with flawless skin. “Yeah, wow!” says her colleague, who has a mane of dark hair and scarlet lips, “that’s so cool.” The blonde girl had done a semester of women’s studies at college and was getting married soon: she wanted to keep her career but also to have babies and make a nice home.

Typical dumb greedy bitch; she wants it all – to be a career woman, a housewife and a mother – but can’t comprehend the idea that she can’t. No-one can.


Feminism is succeeding in parting the sexes
September 18, 2007


16 March 2007


Bridget Jones generation will dominate UK by 2029


The number of people living alone is predicted to soar from 6,536,000 three years ago to 10,347,000 in 2029, creating a Bridget Jones generation.

Well, marriage is too risky for us men, there are few women worth marrying, and women are seemingly incapable of shaping up or proposing to men anyway. And the government, using taxpayer’s money, has taken of the role of Father for all those single mummies out there. Plus co-habitation will go the same way as marriage now that it’s been re-branded Marriage Lite. What did the government think would happen? Dumb motherfuckers.

Gotta hand it to feminists, they did a good job. I mean, credit where it’s due, they have succeeded in their aims at driving the sexes apart and ensuring more and more women will, like hardcore fembots themselves, grow up alone and single. Rather amusingly, on the other hand, us men seem to be coping quite fine with eternal bachelorhood.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:51 PM


Thief robbed!
September 17, 2007


11 March 2007

£48m divorcee tied up and robbed

A woman who was awarded £48m in what was thought to be the biggest divorce settlement in Britain’s legal history has been robbed at her Kent home.

Oh the irony!

I’m not laughing, honest.

(muffled snigger)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:51 PM


September 17, 2007


02 March 2007

A fine post by Richard Ford.

We think that the small things in our life are not important- we allow women to choose the colour scheme of our home and the furniture because we like to please them. In this way we gradually build the chains that bind us through our own labours, we create an abode that is only a home for the woman. We do this because we think it will buy us peace- but the opposite is the case. Gradually we find ourselves living in another persons home- we find ourselves unable to relax in quite the way we used to. The area of our lives that are exclusively our own business is gradually reduced to nothing. We find ourselves effectively homeless in our own homes.

From Carnival of Reaction.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 2:49 PM


Toxic Wives II
September 17, 2007


02 March 2007


Don’t fall for this deadly honey trap


You may not know one personally, but you will certainly have read about them. They are, increasingly these days, the figures who emerge triumphant from the divorce courts. They are the ones who get to keep the house (no mortgage), the cars (usually more than one), the staff (approaching double figures) and, more often than not, half the husband’s fortune, regardless of what she has done to contribute towards it. Toxic wives leave everything to their staff while they shop, lunch and luxuriate – and make their husbands’ lives a misery

I’m not talking about the ones who sacrificed careers at the altar of family life only to be cruelly abandoned when their useful days are done. I’m talking about the ones who knowingly take their husbands to the cleaners claiming, while they are at it, that they could do with £20 million or so to keep them in blow-drys. What kind of person actually needs £20 million for spending money? The Toxic Wife, that’s who.

Such was the furore earlier this year over my identification of Toxic Wife Syndrome in the pages of the Telegraph that it is clear I have hit a raw nerve. From the staggering response, from Japan to Iraq and America to Berkshire (where my article is now framed in the gentlemen’s loo of a Lambourn pub), there is little doubt about the course of action required: toxic wives must be weeded out.

Let me remind you what a toxic wife is – some of you got the wrong end of the stick when I first addressed this issue, thinking I was referring to all stay-at-home-mothers and housewives. Not a bit of it. I have every admiration for women who choose the selfless task of caring and nurturing the next generation. No, the toxic wife is a completely different species.


McCartney Vs Mills, round one
September 17, 2007


01 March 2007


McCartneys go face to face in bitter courtroom battle

It has been claimed – not verified by either party – that Ms Mills may have lost the first round in the divorce proceedings with many of her claims of his misbehaviour allegedly rejected by the judge.

Hopefully it’s true that the bitch is having her claims rejected. Lying fucking skank.

She’ll still get a fortune though. Even the offer of £25,000,000 is outrageously over-generous, she didn’t earn a penny of it nor contribute to the success Paul McCartney had long before he met her.

This case will hopefully wise men up to fraud marriage and divorce has become. Sure, most guys haven’t got £825million but nonetheless, they can still lose a substantial portion of their assets and future earnings, and whilst a multi-millionaire can still survive on 50% of their assets, an average guy often can’t.

It’s funny how Mills happily slung a load of obviously bullshit allegations last year that Paul attacked her and such shit and it backfired, with most people regarding her as a lying bitch. Paul McCartney is very well liked in Britain, and almost worshiped as a minor God in Liverpool, so Mills is a bit thick if she thinks she can get the public on her side by reverting to usual skanky tactics and casually flinging accusations that McCartney is some sort of demonic wife-beating psycho. Daft whore.

McCartney was still a fool to marry her though. What was he thinking?

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:06 PM


Divorce and “sacrifices”
September 16, 2007


27 February 2007

If you go through a modern divorce in the West, the sacrifices your wife made during the marriage is key to how much she’ll be given of your wealth, and with some blubbing, some twisting of facts, some feminist double-think and plenty of lies, the sacrifices she made will be blown out of all proportion.

Naturally, any sacrifices you make will be regarded as irrelevant. In fact they’ll be twisted round to be seen as benefits you obtained on the back of your wife. Earning £100,000 a year at the end of your marriage? That’s half thanks to your wife and she’s entitled to half of that from now on. Nevermind if you only earned that amount through slogging your guts out and half-dying of stress, or if you barely got to spend any of that without asking your wife’s permission, or if you only crawled your way up the career ladder to keep up with her ever inflating material demands. Doesn’t matter. Pay her £50,000 a year after the divorce until she marries some other sucker. Get a pay-raise? So does she. Pay up. Or else, motherfucker.

Take careers. Now a woman will talk about “sacrificing – sob – my career”, which is clearly bollocks, given that they marry to quit their hated jobs (why else do they never marry guys beneath them status-wise, and thus unable to support them?) Claiming they sacrifice their careers is just a way of establishing victim-status before the divorce courts.

However, even if we accept the laughable notion that a woman quitting working 40-hours a week in a dreary office to stay at home and be provided for by a man counts as a sacrifice, so what? Why should she be compensated in any way? The man has made a sacrifice by providing for both himself and her, and possibly kids too, in that he has given up the choice of working the minimum necessary to support only himself. He’s sacrificed a stress-free life of responsible for no-one but himself, and possibly plenty of weekends out with the lads that he now spends them doing overtime.

Yet this is irrelevant to many women and certainly to the divorce courts. A man doesn’t make “sacrifices”, he merely does his duty, and damn him if he doesn’t. No matter that a man has sacrificed anything, all that they take into account is what the woman has given up, and thus she ought to be compensated. Most ludicrous of all is the insane belief that working is actually fun, when in fact it’s rubbish and, for most men, a means to an end. The opposite notion is put forth in divorce courts. A wife who gave up her job has made a tremendous sacrifice and requires compensation. The husband who, after marriage and after his wife quit her job, had to go from working 35-hours a week to working twice that has somehow benefited! Having all that fun virtually living at the office whilst his poor wikkle wife drags herself to lunch at Starbucks with her fellow ladies of leisure. Therefore she should be compensated by being allowed to keep their her home and half of her husband’s future income to compensate her. What bollocks.


“I can’t wait until my husband dies.”
September 16, 2007


23 February 2007

Why marriage can be a chore for women


Single women who are desperate to shed their Bridget Jones status are warned today of a major pitfall of finding their man.

Research shows that getting married prompts a 50 per cent increase in housework.

I doubt it, most women don’t do housework and they have gadgets (invented by men) that take the load off. Even if this is true, they fail to mention marriage often means a 50% to 100% drop in proper work.

And what about men’s major increase in workload and massive drop in freedom and having money to spend on himself without asking for permission from ‘er indoors (not to mention a 50% to 100% drop in sex.)

Check out these comments from a couple of women:

I certainly agree with this report but I didn’t realise there was an upside to doing all the chores – next time I feel like moaning as I’m doing all the housework, I’ll just remember that I’m actually shortening his life and my golden years won’t have half as many chores!

– Claire, Dorset, UK

The solution is simple but there are two rules:

1) Marry a man who works away during the week, thus he can get his dry cleaning and meals dealt with

2) Make sure he has a mother who loves ironing his shirts. She will be offended if she can’t continue to do so.

Therefore your life has no extra domestic duties, you can go out on a Thursday night with friends and husband can come back to a stress free home on Friday (rugrats not included).

I did this.

Still divorced him three years later.

– Diane, Harrogate,

That, my brothers, is how fucking cold-hearted most modern women are; they hope for their husbands to kick the bucket (and are happy to know they’re helping him along the way by nagging him into slaving away at work) and will divorce a husband for the fun of it even if he’s done nothing wrong.

The above attitudes are honestly common amongst most women. Many are just good at hiding it.

And manginas and feminists, stupid fucks that they are, honestly wonder why so many men now have such a contemptuous attitude towards women. It’s called Karma. Deal with it cunts.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:26 PM


Did someone order a marriage strike? Part II
September 16, 2007


22 February 2007

There are plenty of comments regarding the story about the plummeting marriage rate here (PDF) and here (PDF). These are some of the best:

Why should any man marry? Nowadays men have to behave in a marriage whereas women can do much as they please! This government has made it far too easy for the woman to have the man ejected from the family home along with the compulsion to pay maintenance after a break up that he didn’t want and which may not have been his fault.

Is it any wonder marriage is on the decline after 10 years of ‘the most feminist government in history’. (Tessa Jowell’s words, not mine).

As a 33 year-old professional, heterosexual male who has never been married, I would not contemplate doing so under circumstances, given the current legal framework and political atmosphere.

Three decades of feminism and misandrous family law has turned marriage into what is in effect a vehicle for subordinating and victimising men. Biased family court judges, the CSA and ‘no fault’ divorces have created a situation whereby if a woman wants to divorce her husband for any reason, has has an almost guaranteed right to do so, taking with her any children, the family home, a large proportion of her husband’s assets and his pension. She then has the effective right to deny her husband access to his children, while at the same time forcing him to pay for their upkeep (in theory access orders against mothers can be made, but this happens very rarely and even then they are virtually never meaningfully enforced).

The wife will almost certainly get legal aid to persecute her ex-husband, but the husband will almost certainly not. Even if the husband behaves honourably and responsibly throughout the marriage while the wife has several affairs, neglects the children etc. etc., the husband will almost always be financially and emotionally punished by any divorce settlement.

If you think the above is an exaggeration, consider the Melissa Miller case, in which a woman who had only been married for a couple of years and did not have any children was still awarded a large proportion of her husband’s assets by the court.

One thing this morning’s coverage of the marriage statistics didn’t mention was that not only is the number of new marriages going down, but the number of existing marriages ending in divorce is going up. Simply looking at the current law and the statistics about family relationships, the only rational conclusion is that for a professional male, marriage is simply too dangerous. All my wife would have to do is decide that she was bored with me, or wanted to trade me in for a new model, or couldn’t be bothered to support me if I ran into problems (came down with a serious, chronic illness, for example), and she could walk out with at least half my assets, and probably more. I simply can’t risk that if I want to keep a roof over my head for the rest of my life.

I would consider cohabiting if I met the right person and it was on the basis of a cast iron, legally enforceable agreement which enshrined the principle that assets brought to the relationship were returned to their original partner in the event of separation, and that the circumstances which led to the breakdown played a major role in determining custody of any children (for example, if my partner was to leave me after having an affair with someone else, I wouldn’t want someone who feels that acceptable to play the principal role in bringing up my kids).

I was very disappointed with David Cameron’s piece in today’s Telegraph in which, like Blair, the only solution he can think of for the collapse of marriage and the nuclear family is to bash absent fathers even more. The Government, the BBC and The Guardian has been doing that for the last 10 years; and they still haven’t learnt that extracting money from absent parents won’t result in children being raised in stable family units. Just as important as getting tough on parents who refuse to discharge their responsibilities is to reject the Polly Toynbee dogma and create a legal and political framework in which men are encouraged to and supported in playing an equal role in the formation and development of nuclear families (as Iain Duncan-Smith has thankfully been trying to do). Until such a framework exists, I will regard remaining single as the lesser of two evils.

I am a British male and want to get married, however there is no fairness should divorce ensue. The children almost always stay with the mother, the house, etc. Child maintenance is fine, but maintenance to the ex-partner?

Scenario: man and woman get married. After 2 years he finds that she’s repeatedly cheated on him and files for divorce. She keeps the kids, the house, gets maintenance payments. He loses half his health, loses his home and his children. That’s fair isn’t it?

How can a man want to rush into marriage, when if a marriage breaks down, the man is often booted out of the house, the kids are left with the mother–even if she is delinquent, abusive, alcoholic, or promiscuous, and the woman is further entitled to gouge the ex for most of his money?

Anyone watching the news will see how women can turn the situation to their advantage with some hefty emotional clobbering–coming out of a two year marriage with millions of completely unearned income! Without access to superb lawyers, the average guy would be totally crushed by this sort of public trampling.

There are so many unbalanced people now, thanks to absentee parents, second generation wealth, etc, that anyone, especially a man, who rushes into this sort of one-sided trap needs their head examined.

The government has tried its version of a shotgun marriage by making the man pay and pay.

Married or not the man suffers on the womans whim and the government muscle.

What is the point of marriage in the UK?

It’s fair to say a hell of a lot of men have woken up in the UK, and clearly elsewhere in the West, given the decline in marriage all over places like the US, Australia, Canada, etc.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:14 PM


Sex education; single mother style
September 16, 2007


20 February 2007

Couple Charged With Having Intercourse In Front of 9-Year-Old Daughter to Teach Her About Sex

Even before reading the story it was easy to guess that it would not be the natural father involved.

A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman’s 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex “all the time” in front of the child and that “we don’t believe in hiding anything.”

The joys of single-motherhood; hooked up with a loser and fucking him in front of the children.

This is the epitome of ultra-liberalism and free-love; believing children are just little adults, to be treated as such. At least the kid is with her natural father now. One more reason why kids should be placed with their fathers by default during break-ups.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:05 PM


Feminism ruins society, men blamed
September 16, 2007


16 February 2007


Cameron blames fathers for ‘broken’ society (PDF)

Fathers should be compelled to look after their children in an effort to tackle the breakdown of family life and discipline in society David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said today.

Father’s children”? I didn’t realise fathers had children these days, they belong to women. Women can abort kids, get full custody, get pregnant via a sperm donor (willing or otherwise) with no intention of the father having any input at all…whatever they want.

Hang on a minute though, it looks like some blame has to be placed for children’s misery, and that means – ta-daah! – suddenly children belong to father’s again! What a shocking surprise.

He said the shooting of three teenage boys in south London in the last fortnight had shown that British society was “badly broken”.

Issues like teenage gun crime, Mr Cameron said, could not be dealt with by better policing or tighter gun controls alone when the problem – and the solution – lay within families and communities.

Indeed it does lie in families and communities. Not in more laws and government interference, which is usually proposed as a solution, as Cameron pretty much proceeds to do.

“Every working parent knows that you can’t have it all.

Not really. Plenty of women still labour under this assumption.

“There is a natural conflict between hours worked, money earned and the time you spend at home. I believe that businesses have an overriding corporate responsibility to help lessen this conflict, and make it easier for parents to find the proper balance for their lives,” he said.

No, businesses don’t have to make it easier for parents. Businesses are there to make money. All this forcing of businesses to ensure people (primarily women) get their work/life balance in order is fucking the economy up, not to mention causing increasing resentment.


The youth of today
September 13, 2007


14 February 2007


British youngsters get worst deal, says UN

Britain has been ranked bottom out of 21 countries in a United Nations assessment of children’s well-being.

The nation’s high number of single parents and step-families has contributed to the ranking.

Well duh!

Why the fuck is the United Nations wagging its finger at the UK for having disfunctional and broken families? This outdated prologue to a World Government piece of shit organisation is infested with feminists and all sorts of weirdo Women’s Groups. They’re the sort of big government twats who encourage broken families and single motherhood.

Lone parent organisations argue that there is no evidence that all children with one parent are bound to turn out worse off in adult life than children of traditional family units.

No evidence? Well of course they’ll say that. When has an organisation for single parents (i.e. single mothers) ever admitted children are better off with two parents? Not only do statistics show kids are better off with a father, common sense dictates this as well.

Ask anyone who disagrees with this to contemplate the following: if you were going to buy a house and you had a choice of two identical homes, both the same price, and one was in a neighbourhood whereby every household consists of a married couple and their children, and the other was in a neighbourhood whereby every household is a single mother and her kids by several different fathers – and maybe her latest boyfriend too – and anyone with any sense would pick the first home. That’ll be in the neighbourhood that is less likely to have gangs of feral youths hanging on street corners.

This is feminism’s greatest legacy; miserable children, broken families and poverty. Well fucking done you stupid cunts. Bra-fucking-vo. And you dumb fucking baby-boomer women who eagerly followed the hate-filled ideology of a bunch of mentally deranged lesbians, give yourselves a round of applause. Then fuck off.

Feminists; fucking things up since the sixties and refusing to apologise ever since. Cunts.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:36 PM


%d bloggers like this: