Archive for the ‘divorce’ Category

Hitchens on politics
July 25, 2007


12 October 2006


The real problem with the British constitution

Peter Hitchin’s view of contemporary British politics.

His overall point is that the main two parties, Conservatives and Labour, are too alike, avoid any controversial debate and are thoroughly deserving of voter apathy. It may be of interest to US readers, as I’ve heard plenty of Americans complain in the same manner about Republicans and Democrats (or Republicrats for short), that they are largely identical, inert elitists.

If they [the Conservatives and Labour] were commercial outfits, they would not survive at all. It is as if forgotten grocery chains, such as International Stores or Fine Fare, still dominated the retail market even though their shops were dingy, their prices high, their merchandise old-fashioned and shabby. But the rules of commerce don’t apply in politics. Habit and unreasoning tribal loyalty sustain brands, which would otherwise be dead.


There are several other subjects which are also effectively banned. You may not question the great social and political mistakes of the 1960s and seventies.

Crime can be debated, but shallowly, never in the light of its true cause, the laying waste of family life by the official encouragement of divorce and fatherless families, and by the death of absolute morality.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:55 PM


More pics
July 25, 2007


11 October 2006

Another couple of great pics from Marc:



posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:42 PM


Stretching the definition of “sacrifice”
July 25, 2007


10 October 2006

In divorces, women frequently claim they “sacrificed” their career after marriage, despite the fact that most married for the sole purpose of quitting their career (why else would a career girl marry a wealthy guy, rather than an unemployed guy who’ll be a stay-at-home-hubby, if not to live off of him?) There are endless women at my workplace who moan about how much they’d love to marry a rich guy (or a “rich sucker” as one dreamily simpered the other week) to become a Lady of Leisure and quit their 40-hour-a-week office jobs. Working more than five-years after leaving education is for us men only, apparantly.

A man could argue in a divorce court that, when he married, he quit the job of doing the housework, which he loved so much, and (sob) throughout all those years of marriage, he (boo-hoo) missed out on perfecting the art of ironing and hoovering.

“But housework isn’t fun!” would be the natural comment of women and divorce “judges”.


Neither is working in an office or factory! As they damn well know. But to most modern women, life is for them to enjoy, but for men to endure.


July 24, 2007

08 October 2006


Borrowed (i.e. pinched) from Christian J’s blog What Men Think of Women.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 11:38 AM


Back to basics: divorce ruins men
July 23, 2007


05 October 2006

I found this neat summary of how badly men come out of divorces from a law firm’s website, a must-read for anyone still wondering why more and more men are on a marriage strike. It relates to British divorce law incidentally, but obviously it’s still worth non-Brits having a read as family law in most Western countries are similar in practice, and identical in principle.

There’s nothing here that most of us guys didn’t already know of course, but it’s worth directing any clueless men about to get married, who don’t think divorce is “that bad”, to read through it. Let them know that if they marry, their chances of being divorced are at least 30% and possible 80%, depending on where they live. In fact, the more a man will lose in a divorce depending on the local divorce laws, the higher the chance his wife will file for divorce on a whim.

The author, Terry Hall, is obviously selling his services as a solicitor to help men in the case of divorce, and what’s most notable is that he is so pessimistic! Even at the end he admits that the best a man can do in a divorce is to try not to “make a bad situation worse.” Bearing in mind Mr Hall is advertising himself and his legal skills to divorcing men here, it truly shows how terrible divorce laws are stacked against men if, even in his own self-marketing, a divorce lawyer can’t help but admit to us men that, in the event of a divorce, we’re fucked, and the best a lawyer can do is try to reduce how fucked we are to a tolerable level.


Marry or die!!!111
July 19, 2007


24 September 2006

Thanks to Darrell for pointing out this link:

Dream on, toxic bachelor, your days are numbered


There are a lot of them about: affluent men who just want to stay single and have fun. But hold on guys, you could be partying to an early grave, say Joseph Dunn and Helen McNutt

You probably know one. Or maybe you are one. A thirtysomething male with a good job, smart car, expensive tastes and, crucially, no wife or regular girlfriend. You are also a timebomb, destined to be miserable and die young.

Basically some woman (probably single and past 30 and not happy about it) and some mangina (probably married and unhappy that bachelors are having more fun than he is) is spreading out the muck of shaming language that women normally harp on about, accusing men who refuse to marry as being somehow accident and illness prone compared to married men.

It really is pathetic that women and manginas are resorting to telling us refugees from the Matriarchy and eternal bachelors that we’re going to die or get a cold or something just because we refuse to marry.


Eleven-years of prison for divorced man
July 18, 2007


17 September 2006

Man jailed 11 years in ‘scorched earth’ divorce case

Slight, scholarly and enigmatic, H. Beatty Chadwick is doing this day what he has done for the past 4,093: He is sitting in a county jail outside Philadelphia.

It is a place meant for run-of-the-mill crooks just passing through on their way to comparatively luxurious state prisons. Certainly not for anyone to stay 11 years — not for the central figure in one of the most bizarre divorce battles in American history.

It hinges on a charge of civil contempt designed to force Chadwick to turn over $2.5 million the courts say he hid overseas all those years ago. Except he won’t. Or can’t, depending on whom you believe.

In July 1994, the Delaware County courts ordered the $2.5 million sent back, into an court-controlled account, while the divorce played out.

Momjian showed the courts documentation that Chadwick’s money wound up in Gibraltar, with some of it briefly returning to accounts in the United States, and eventually to Luxembourg and Panama. But that was 10 years ago. Momjian says the cash could be anywhere by now.

Chadwick insisted he couldn’t pay up because the cash was no longer his. A county judge found him in contempt, and on November 2, 1994, he was ordered imprisoned. The deal from the courts: Give up the money and go free.

Only in the Matriarchy could a man be imprisoned for over a decade for not handing over money he earned to hand over to a woman he used to be married to. And, as is invariably the case, she was the one who divorced him.


No I haven’t got a wife/girlfriend, so what?!
July 18, 2007


13 September 2006

I was listening to a woman at work the other day mocking the head of her department (behind his back, naturally.) Just because this guy had bossed her about a bit and complained that her work wasn’t up to scratch, she launched into a bitchy tirade with the other women.

“I bet he hasn’t got a girlfriend,” was a sneering theory the woman made without any evidence, “He should get himself a girlfriend, if any woman would go out with him that is!” This comment was followed by a snorting skank-laugh.

I often hear women making this comment and its variations, sometimes even reading it in women’s opinion columns when they’re deriding some male politician or celebrity. “I bet he hasn’t got a girlfriend/no wonder he’s single/etc.”

What’s interesting to note is that the woman at work who was claiming the guy who dared to insult Her Royal Skankness was evidently lacking a girlfriend – and hence a failure in her view – is herself single and unattached; she hasn’t got a boyfriend and hasn’t had one in the year I’ve known her. From what I gather she hasn’t been in a relationship since she left University about five-years ago. Yet for some reason she views a man who is lacking a girlfriend (or, rather, who she believes is lacking a girlfriend) is obviously a loser. Most women seem to hold on to this view, one which is obviously stuck in the ridiculous mindset that a man’s worth is solely on whether he can attract and keep a woman, and if he can’t then he’s a loser, and if he chooses to pursue things other than women, then he’s obviously a loser and a womyn-hater.


Women interested primarily in money, gasp shock etc
July 17, 2007


01 September 2006

Women think a man’s a catch on £50,000 a year

Men need to earn about £50,000 a year before women consider them wealthy and successful, a survey has found.

One in ten women have even higher expectations, looking for a salary of more than £100,000 before they are really impressed.

(£50,000 is about US$92,000 or AUS$124,000)

The average salary in the UK is £21,000 although for guys under 35 like me will obviously have an average salary lower than that.

And us men are denounced as being cynical or unromantic! Women complain about having to live up to “impossible standards” to attract men, like being slim, even though it requires far less effort to just stay slim than it does to earn more than twice the national average salary. Not to mention the billion other things women want in a future husband, like being slim, and sensitive, and, above all else, utterly gullible.

“There are no good men” = “There are no rich men”

It’s all about the money with women. Far too many men have realised that women aren’t attracted to men with money, they’re attracted to the money that men with money have. The man himself they can take or leave, so long as they have the money, and with divorce laws allowing them to do just that, plenty are opting to leave him.

Fuck ’em. Stay single, don’t let women have any access to your earnings or savings, and don’t be afraid to be a slacker either. Live to impress yourself, not women.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:35 PM


July 16, 2007


01 September 2006

The terrible price I’m paying for teenage sex


Kim doesn’t know when, but at some point during her teenage years, she was infected with chlamydia, the most commonly diagnosed sexually transmitted disease in Britain.

It has left her infertile, a tragedy which has blighted her life since it was diagnosed in her early 20s.

This woman seems to believe she doesn’t deserve to have contracted an STD because she wasn’t “particularly promiscuous” just because she only had a “series” of relationships from the age of 16. That’s still pretty promiscuous, although I suppose it is right when it says that that’s just not particularly promiscuous “by today’s standards.”

Lots of IVF treatment failed and her husband John soon got tired of it all.


I guess Japan is ruled out as a place to escape the Matriarchy
July 16, 2007


30 August 2006

(Thanks to ZP for discovering this)

Wives get red light to go on warpath

Many husbands, Sunday Mainichi finds, have no idea how much their wives hate them. The great awakening is bound to come next April, when a legal amendment [in Japan] will entitle a wife to a share of her husband’s pension.

Fuck marriage.

Stay single.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:14 PM


Rewarding cheating harlots
July 16, 2007


21 August 2006

My job in banking isn’t exactly exciting, although the various women there provide amusing anecdotes for my blog.

The other day I did encounter something work-related that needs reporting. I got a file relating to an investment bond type thingie. It wasn’t meant for me so I flicked through it to figure out which Department I should send it too. Inside was a photocopy of a Divorce Certificate, complete with various information relating to the assets being split up; presumably it was there to prove the man who owned the policy had been assigned it during his recent divorce.

I had a nosy through it, growing more and more sickened as I did so.

At the start it related that the man had filed for divorce because his wife had committed adultery “with an unnamed man.” The wife admitted adultery and did not contest it.

Then came to dividing up the assets or, more accurately, giving the adulterous bitch just about fucking everything.


Mills locked out
July 12, 2007


08 August 2006


Police quiz humiliated Heather as Sir Paul locks her out of home

This is the moment Heather Mills suffered public humiliation when police were called after she tried to get into the London home she once shared with Sir Paul McCartney.

The bitterness between Sir Paul and his estranged wife appeared to plunge to new depths after the ex-model found she could not enter the building with her usual key.

After a week of increasingly terse exchanges, 64-year-old Sir Paul had changed the locks on the front door of the former marital home in North London.

Sir Paul may have been daft to have gotten hitched to this goldigging bint but at least he’s having the sense to do all he can to defend himself from a severe mugging in the divorce courts. It remains to be seen if it’ll be enough.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:19 PM


The terrible suffering of pampered brides
July 11, 2007


06 August 2006


Bridezillas fall to earth with the blues

The vogue for ever more expensive and elaborate ceremonies appears to be creating a generation of brides-in-therapy who never recover from the loss of attention that accompanied their wedding planning.

Oh dear, it seems the poor bedraggled Princesses of the West have found another thing to be depressed about; having to realise that not every day of their married lives will be packed full of the luxury and pampering of their wedding and honeymoon.

Or, to use it’s term, Post Wedding Depression. After all, there’s no point in women finding another reason to moan if they don’t have a nice official-sounding name for it to distinguish it from all the other things they moan about.

Thinking about it, if Post Natal Depression is so frequently used by women to justify killing babies, no doubt Post Wedding Depression will soon be used to justify killing a husband. Then again they rarely get locked up for that as it is anyway.


“She deserved more!”
July 11, 2007

04 August 2006

I overheard a couple of thirtysomething women at work today talking about the massive divorce settlment in the news yesterday. Naturally they were in favour of it. I didn’t hear much of the conversation, just something along the lines of:

“…she bloody well deserved half of the fortune! If anything she got less than she was entitled to.”

“That’s right. Because she married him, it meant he was free to work.”

“It’s a disgrace. I can’t believe she only got about a third. Half is what she deserved. That would be equality.”

Naturally I didn’t even bother butting in. These women, like most, clearly have no grasp of justice or logic. They simply think that a woman somehow contributes to a man’s fortune just by being married to him and sharing his wealth.

The arguments in favour of big divorce settlements generally claim that wives somehow help a man earn more, that they “free” him to work more.

This, of course, has been scientifically proven to be bollocks.


Divorce court robs businessman of £48,000,000
July 11, 2007


03 August 2006

Wife wins ‘biggest’ divorce award

An insurance magnate has been ordered by the High Court to pay his former wife £48m in what is thought to be the biggest divorce award in legal history.

Her generous husband offered her £20,000,000 plus their £6,000,000 home.

But no, that wasn’t enough. Western Women want as much as possible from men. More more more, gimme gimme gimme.

So the courts have given her £48,000,000 (which is almost US$100,000,000.)

Check out the goldigging whore’s lawyer at the end of the article saying how surprised he was that she was awarded so little! She got 37% of her husband’s fortune instead of a full 50% (which would have been £65.5m), which apparantly she “should” have received.

“There must be something exceptional about Mr Charman’s wealth to justify such a significant shift in his favour.”

No, nothing exceptional at all, except that it’s fucking his! He earned it, as is made clear in the article.


Another guy put through the divorce court mangle
July 10, 2007


24 July 2006

Divorce ‘costs 600-year-old home’

William Williams-Wynne’s family have occupied the Peniarth estate at Tywyn, north Wales since Henry V’s time.

But he says he will be homeless after judges dismissed his bid to appeal over his ex-wife Veronica’s settlement.

Let’s see what this guy has been forced to hand over in the divorce settlement:

£500,000 to his ex-wife, cash
£158,000 to buy her out of his family’s farming partnership
£250,000 from the Family Trust

On top of all that he’s had to cough up £125,000 to his ex-wife’s lawyers to cover her legal fees! This is even worse than having to fork out money to ex-wives, having to pay their filthy lawyers, actually having to pay to have some scumbags financially rape you.

Her ex-husband, Mr Williams-Wynne ends up with the house and some assets – including a light plane – that he’ll have to rent out or sell in order to survive. These will give him an annual income of up to £50,000. That’s quite a bit more than average, sure, but it’s not much compared to the wealth he and his ancestors had built up over twenty-generations. All that wiped out and stolen in one generation of the Matriarchy.


Extorting, threatening and imprisoning men for fun and profit
July 10, 2007


21 July 2006


THE DEADBEAT dad who slouched in front of Judge Leonard A. Ivanoski looked like a thousand others.

In shabby clothes and a hangdog expression, the man reeled off a list of reasons why he had failed to pay almost $16,000 he owed in child support.

But Ivanoski, a diminutive, silver-haired Common Pleas senior judge with deceptively friendly looks, wanted to hear no more.

“You’re just giving me a song and a dance,” he barked. “You had the ability to pay when you should have and could have. There’s willful, civil contempt here.”

Two months in prison, Ivanoski sternly decreed. A uniformed deputy slapped handcuffs on the flabbergasted father.

The Matriarchal system of the West and it’s multiple ways of wringing money out of men or, if they can’t afford to pay, stuffing them in prison.

With a pleased nod, prosecutor Maria McLaughlin stood, left the courtroom and chalked up another victory for Philadelphia Family Court and the Child Support Enforcement Unit, a branch of District Attorney Lynne Abraham’s office that McLaughlin supervises.

Yeah, I bet she was pleased. Another man stripped of his liberty and thrown in prison for not coughing up money he clearly doesn’t have to a woman. Best of all, in her view, her lapdog buddy on the bench did what any judge involved in a Matriarchy should do; ignore the defence of a man and refuse to even listen to him, just throw the poor sod in prison. Well done judge, pat on the head from your fembot overlords for you.


Guy blows up house lost in divorce court
July 9, 2007


11 July 2006


Terrorism-like NY building blast may be work of angry divorcee

An explosion demolished a four-storey building in Manhattan’s Upper East Side in New York on Monday, in an incident which police said might have been triggered by a suicidal doctor going through an acrimonious divorce.

Interesting plan. Blow the home up so the ex-wife can’t have it or the proceeds from its sale.

He recently wrote a 14-page angry e-mail, apparently addressing his ex-wife. “You always wanted me to sell the house. I always told you ‘I will leave the house only if I am dead.’ You ridiculed me. You should have taken it seriously,” he wrote in the e-mail.

Coupled with Darren Mack’s actions the other week, it seems the divorce courts have start crossing a line – ex-wives wasted, judges shot, buildings blown up. Goes to show that us men, when pushed far enough, will push back. Hard.

Update 16 July: Dr. Bartha dies in hospital. Poor bloke. Another casualty of the divorce courts.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:13 PM


Billie Piper promises not to take husband to cleaners
July 9, 2007


06 July 2006

At last! A woman who won’t bleed her ex dry

The news that Billie Piper doesn’t want a penny of Chris Evans’s £30million fortune – or his £540,000 salary from Radio Two – when their divorce is finalised in September should raise a massive cheer from every man unfortunate enough to have suffered a divorce in the past few years, as I have.

It is the first, tiny sign that, at last, some women are beginning to realise that the divorce laws are now so weighted against husbands when it comes to money that they are threatening the very institution of marriage.

Reasonably good article, but it does put a bit too much trust into this woman’s claim that she won’t want any money from her husband. Still, if she sticks to her promise, then fair play to her.

However, this is still a ridiculous state of affairs, whereby a woman has to actually be saluted and congratulated for not taking her husband to the cleaners. In any sane society women shouldn’t have the ability to anyway!


%d bloggers like this: