Archive for the ‘entitlement’ Category

Lock up your daughters. Even the rich slutty ones.
September 24, 2007


09 June 2007


America tunes in to see Paris [Hilton] sent back to jail, kicking and screaming


The celebrity heiress was dragged from a courtroom screaming and crying after a judge ordered her to go back to jail. She was whisked off to the medical centre at Los Angeles’s Twin Towers jail less than 36 hours after the local sheriff’s department had told her that she could serve out her sentence at her luxury home in the Hollywood hills.

“Mom! Mom! Mom!” she shouted as a female deputy escorted her from the courtroom. “It’s not fair. It’s not right!”

Much as I hate to give yet more attention to this tedious brat, it is funny to see her get what she deserves. A lot of people have been saying that she only got out after three days because she was rich. Maybe so, but being female no doubt played a big part in it.

Sadly enough, her behavior is only remarkable for being so public; this hysterical whining about being held responsible for her actions is common amongst most women, even non-rich ones.

What’s worse is the fact that, in the UK, the idea of women not having to be punished for their actions could become an official reality. A serious suggestion in the UK to all but abolish prison for female criminals and give them community service sentences by default was made in the UK earlier this year. Oh, and the report suggested the empty former women’s prisons could be filled by – you guessed it – men. All this because some women in prison have committed suicide (like male prisoners don’t? A boy of just fourteen did so recently. In 2002, there were 94 suicides in UK prisons, and outrage because – oh no! – nine of them were women. More shock in 2004 when a whole thirteen of 95 prison suicides were women. Nevermind the men I suppose.)

Paris Hilton, at least, won’t be getting off as easy as she’d liked.

Judge Michael Sauer declared that she should serve the entirety of her 45-day sentence for breaching probation on a reckless driving offence. Before her early release on Thursday morning, she had expected her sentence to be cut in half.

Good. Nice to see there’s a judge somewhere in the West who refuses to accept the Pussy Pass. Off to jail you wench!

Incidentally, if you haven’t seen it, check out the South Park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Play Set:

Wendy: Who’s Paris Hilton?
Red: “Who’s Paris Hilton?”
Annie: You don’t know?
Announcer: [someone takes a picture as he approaches the mic.] Hello, everyone! [drumroll] The Guess Clothing Company is pleased to have as its new spokesperson model, a woman all you young ones can look up to, Ms. Paris Hilton. [she appears and flashbulbs go off amid squeals from females in the crowd. She then lifts her bra and shows off her breasts]
Bebe: Wow, that’s really her! Paris! Over here!
Wendy: I don’t get it. What does she do?
Annie: She’s super-rich!
Wendy: …but what does she do?
Red: She’s totally spoiled and savvy.
Wendy: [annoyed] What does she do?!
Man: [walks by and overhears] She’s a whore. [takes his camera and snaps a few pictures]
Paris: [her left eyelid hangs heavy] Hey everyone. Sorry if I’m a little spent. I did a whole lot of partying last night with a LOT of different guys.

Great stuff.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:33 AM


Rant from a single mother by choice
September 23, 2007


05 June 2007

This article is about a 37-year-old career woman who has decided she doesn’t want kids and is fine with this decision. Fair enough, it’s her life. Good for her I say.

She quite refreshingly insists that she believes clearly need a father and thus would never have kids before marriage.

Unfortunately this is not the case with an increasing number of single-mothers-by-choice, such as this man-hating bitch who left a comment at the article, someone called ‘Ekaterina’ from London.

Very sad! I am one of those who decided to be a mom without a man – IVF and all that. What really makes me angry is that the society blames women (as always) for not having kids early. Give me a break! I always wanted to have kids but I met very similar men as the author – some wanted to have more money first and then kids, others did not earn a penny and I was not sure if I wanted to feed a man and a child etc. Men are always fertile so they do what they want. We have to pay a high price! So, I decided that I send all men to hell and have my own family. Some women are not ready or not brave or don’t have the means – but it is MEN to blame for that and not women!

Amazing. In one paragraph we have nearly every damn double-standard and example of man-hatred, broken down thusly:

What really makes me angry is that the society blames women (as always) for not having kids early.

Well, more and more women are putting off having children early by their own choice. I guess it makes Ekaterina very very angry that women are being blamed for their own choices. And what does mean ‘as always’? Society hardly ever blames women. For anything.

I always wanted to have kids but I met very similar men as the author – some wanted to have more money first and then kids…

She didn’t want to have a child with a man who wanted to make more money so he could be a better provider because although such a man’s attitude was surely very sensible and responsible, it didn’t fit in with her impatient demands for a child now!! Basically she wanted a ready-made-millionaire. How awful of society to not be replete with millionaires lining up to marry horrible hags like her.

others did not earn a penny and I was not sure if I wanted to feed a man and a child etc.

Here we get yet another example of how women do not want equality, ever! Only when it suits them. She didn’t want to support a man and a child, she wanted a man to support her and her child. Nevermind that us men have supported women and children for generations (and were told that this was oppressive by feminists. Go figure!)

So, I decided that I send all men to hell and have my own family.

This is what women call ‘liberation’ I guess; damning all men to hell as useless just because one fitting her astonishingly high demands didn’t scoop her off her feet when she wanted. Also, she’s wrong in thinking she has her own ‘family’. She doesn’t. She has an illegitimate bastard whose father is some anonymous guy who wanked into a jar for some beer money. That’s not a family.


‘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!


Us nasty men aren’t complimenting women enough, it seems
September 23, 2007


18 May 2007

Men wary of paying women compliments


Men have become too worried about political correctness to pay women simple compliments, according to a new survey.

We’re not worried about political correctness; it’s the sexual harassment laws that political correctness bought about that worries us, not to mention the fact that a woman can retort with an abusive insult that you can’t respond back to without either getting sacked, arrested or beaten up by a passing Captain Save-a-Ho.

There have been several reports of this today – slow news day I guess – and all invariably have comments or quotes from women saying how they love compliments and want to receive them.

Aw, poor girlies. They’re not getting enough attention, or being told how pretty they are. Maybe they shouldn’t have followed their ‘liberation’ movement that demonised and even criminalised male sexuality.

It’s like a report from California last year about how career gals were getting all upset because men in the workplace often didn’t talk to them or invite them out for after-work drinks because the guys were worried about sexual harassment charges. Back then – like now – there is no talk of relaxing these rules or perhaps changing women’s attitudes (like not being man-hating entitlement princesses.)

Fewer than one in five women questioned (16%) received the “recommended” five compliments a day, and 12% said no one had paid them a compliment in the past three months.

What’s this about the ‘recommended’ five compliments a day? Do women fall into a coma if they don’t get them?

Another important reason why women aren’t receiving as many compliments these days is because many don’t deserve them. That seems to have been overlooked by all these news reports on the story.

If women want more compliments, how about acting and dressing as if they deserve them? It’s rather hard to find anything about most modern women to compliment (let alone an incentive to do so) when many act and dress like either sluts, or like some bizarre, warped, confused wannabe-man.

Complimenting modern Western Women
A beginner’s guide

“Nice slag-stamp. Makes you look like a right slag, as well as
drawing attention away from the vastness of your enormous arse.”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:09 PM


Women in/out the workplace
September 23, 2007


17 May 2007

We hear a lot about “getting women into the workplace”, about new schemes or ideas to ensure more women (or subcategories thereof, such as mothers, single-mothers, female ex-convicts, women with AIDs, etc) are in the workplace. Or in a specific workplace (e.g. company directors, I.T., film directors, journalism, politics, etc. But never – strangely enough – construction, sewer maintenance, front-line soldiers, pest-controllers, etc.)

All these schemes and plans always seem to talk of offering:

* Paid maternity leave
* Flexi-time
* Job-Sharing schemes
* Part-time position
* Career breaks
* Paid leave when a child is ill
* No harm done to promotion prospects for taking an X-years-long career break
* Opportunities to work from home

Every damn time there is talk of getting more women into work, or a certain industry, the above items are touted as ways to accomplish this.

Forgive me if I’m being silly, but are all those things actually orchestrated to ensure the woman in question is actually out of the workplace? Either whilst she has kids, whilst she raises them, whilst the kid is ill, or even just to fuck off at three o’clock every day to make the school run?

There’s always a bit of the old positive discrimination/affirmative action thrown in too of course; nothing like boosting the numbers of women in a job by forcing companies to recruit them under threat of fines or closure. But otherwise, it seems the best way to get woman into a certain job is to provide her with plenty of opportunities to be paid without having to be there all the time, or indeed at all for considerable periods of time (working full-time for ever and ever and ever is, it seems, only us men have to do.)

Whilst, of course, she keeps her fancy job title – for her grrl-power ego-boost – and, most importantly of all, the full salary too.

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:38 PM


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


September 23, 2007


08 May 2007

A mildly amusing incident on Monday.

Whilst taking a short-cut through a park on my way to purchase some beer, I spied a woman sitting on a bench. She was about twenty-five, wearing a tight top and jeans, and was yakking loudly on a mobile phone. She seemed somewhat annoyed at whoever she was talking to, with some dispute as to plans for a night out that evening.

What I immediately noticed was a boy, aged about ten, standing behind her with his hand over his mouth, trying to muffle his giggling. Something about the rear of this woman was causing much mirth. He silently beckoned over a girl, who was a bit younger than him and probably his little sister, who came over and joined him in giggling and pointing at the woman’s rear.

The woman was too busy on the phone to notice the kids, and she continued yapping away. When she ran her free hand through her hair, the children seemed to think she was about to turn around and scurried away, still giggling.

On the return journey about five-minutes later, carrying several cans of lovely beer, I saw the woman was still there sitting on the bench (although the children had gone.) I decided to walk behind the woman to see what the kids were sniggering at.

It turned out to be what I thought they’d been sniggering at; the woman’s jeans were rather low-slung and, sitting there slightly hunched forward, giving an earful to the person on the other end of her phone, a fair portion of her arse was visible, and the top of her thong was riding high; pink, lacy and proud.

The incident rather amused me. The kids had been giggling in a rather derisive manner, which is understandable; here’s a woman – a grown-up – sitting there with her arse hanging out of her jeans and her underwear on display, like it was normal behaviour, like it didn’t in anyway detract from the authority she was trying to display towards whoever she was yelling at on the phone.

Stupid slut.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:56 PM


The youth of today
September 20, 2007


28 April 2007


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:56 AM


Worn out wannabe brides
September 20, 2007


20 April 2007


Before feminism, females would generally marry young, often before turning 20. Thus they gave most of their prime and fertile years (16 – 24) to a husband who – assuming he was a good husband, and most were – would be loyal to her and give to her the best and most productive of his years by providing for her.

Now, of course, most women want to marry later, often past 25 or even 30. There is talk of the ‘eleven-year party gap’ in some women’s articles, whereby women sleep around for a decade after leaving University then marry at 32. Once they’re all used up. That’s the plan anyway, none of the articles along these lines seem to mention post-31 women who went along this route and managed to find a devoted hubby, they just talk to the deluded party-girls in their twenties who insist everything will all go to plan.

I hear plenty of young women at work talk of putting off marriage, one even getting worried when she thought (incorrectly, as it turned out) that her boyfriend was planning on proposing to her.

“No way am I getting married now,” the 22-year-old said, “I won’t marry until I’m at least 26. After all, what if someone better comes along in that time?”

Another young woman insisted – in all seriousness – that “40 is a good age for a woman to marry.”

Not all women use these youthful years to sleep around wantonly, but plenty do. One 24-year-old woman at work is apparantly on her third boyfriend of the year already and it’s only April (she is talking of wanting to get married soon, but that’s probably because she had an illegitimate kid by some thug a couple of years ago, and she no doubt wants a stepfather for the bastard.) The article I posted about a few weeks ago, about the ‘eleven-year party gap’, quoted one woman of 23 who bragged of sleeping with 40 men.

One woman I dated a few years ago (and ditched after just the one date) happily told me over dinner an anecdote of getting yelled at and grounded by her parents when she was 13 ‘because I was always sneakin’ out and getting drunk with these older guys from school who I hung out with and who bought me and me mates booze.’

Yeah, I can figure what ‘hung out with’ means. She and her drunken mates were getting some of the old in-out from these older guys. This woman was 27, so she’d evidently been humping away for fourteen-years. Eew! Swiftly-nexted. Pronto.


Selfish woman wants sympathy for leaving motherhood far too late
September 20, 2007


05 April 2007

Why two miscarriages and a termination has not deterred a wannabe mum

After three pregnancies, one reluctant termination and two miscarriages, Louise Janson has just embarked on her fifth cycle of IVF at the age of 41.

Louise, a writer from North London, is single. Having always longed to be a mother, she made the difficult decision to try for a baby on her own four years ago.

Why the fuck are women who choose to become Single Mothers By Choice always thought of as ‘brave’ or applauded for making a ‘difficult decision’? They’re selfish fucking bitches making selfish decisions. I hate them. Single Mothers By Choice are repulsive child abusers.

I’m undergoing medical treatment as a direct result of a social problem: I’m single. Four years ago, aged 38, I made the agonising decision – after years of reflection, research and discussion – to try to become a mother on my own.

I had six months of inseminations with donor sperm, but decided the method was so unreliable, I would have full IVF treatment, which meant registering with a fertility clinic.

I never wanted to be a ‘single mother’ and I’m sure I could describe for you in painstaking detail the shock, panic, depression and bewilderment that overwhelmed me in the years leading up to that decision – and those immediately after.

But quite frankly, there aren’t enough variations on ‘despair’ in my Thesaurus, there isn’t enough space on this page, and there’s not enough time in your lives or mine to do it justice.

And there are not enough variations on ‘selfish’ to do your actions justice.


Thanks to feminism, there are not enough rich men to go round. Boo-fucking-hoo!
September 19, 2007


02 April 2007

Post-Bridget, it’s looking even worse for the girls


It is a truth universally acknowledged that an alpha female requires an even more alpha male as a mate. But a recent report suggests today’s successful woman with her high standards and picky notions will have nobody to marry: women now make up 57% of university graduates and outnumber men in every subject in higher education (though not engineering or maths, yet).

For the post-Bridget Jones and Sex and the City generation, it’s bad news. The sobering truth is that demographics being what they are, more and more educated, eligible women are facing a choice: downgrade your notions of Mr Right, or face up to life alone.

I love articles like this, that reveal how badly women have shot themselves in the foot.

“Oh boo-hoo, we stormed into the universities and workplace, shoving men out of the way in the process, and now we’re finding we’ve inadvertantly hampered our chances of marrying Mr Right Sucker who’ll let us retire in our 30s.”

Stupid cunts.

Women are getting better degrees — more 2:1s and firsts in every subject — and two-thirds of medical students are now women, compared with 29% in the 1960s. So not much point in hoping that a handsome consultant will come along, whose Harley Street earnings will pay for the school fees and the 4×4.

Damn right you can throw those hopes away bitches. You left the home in the 1950s and demanded us men iron our own clothes and cook our own tea. Fine. We will do. Now we’re dropping out of universities and the workplace and telling women to pay their own mortgages and support themselves.


Crazy woman
September 19, 2007


27 March 2007


If you fancy a laugh, have a read of this deranged rambling I found amongst the comments at The Times interview with fembot Marylin French a few posts ago.

I am a woman and I have cleaned many a drain and run a farm etc.Why categorise work as being suitable for men or women.The only task men cannot do is have children.
Women on the other hand can do all.
Men run out of energy after sex. Women are full of energy, if with a giving partner of course.
Men, bless them have been fooled by the leaders to take and rape women. Women are conditioned to give to everyone until they drop. But, if men were told the secret is to give to women FIRST, then wait and see what she gives back.
Thenn, dear boys, your would grow into men and worship your goddess at her feet for your reward. Ahhhh, see they kept the secret to themselves and left you out. Because they want control over both men and women.
Both sexes got brainwashed along the way and true human nature is not expressed.
Soon, it will all come to light.
What joy awaits both men and women.


Shaming language (“you would grow into men”) – CHECK

Supreme arrogance (“worship your goddess at her feet”) – CHECK

Bizarre belief that women are anything other than outrageously selfish (“women are conditioned to give to everyone until they drop”) – CHECK

Total lack of logic (the whole damn comment!) – CHECK

It’s hard to see any real point to her comment amongst the paranoia and inexplicable bragging that she’s cleaned lots of drains, except, I believe, that she seems to think that us men are encouraged to ‘take and rape’ women by our leaders (for our leaders’ benefit, so she claims) when, in fact, us men should worship women ‘for our reward’.

So it seems she wants us men to all become manginas and worship women as Goddesses in return for a shag. Or something like that.

I think.

Whatever she’s on about it doesn’t seem to relate to the article. Fucking crazy.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:20 PM


Women are great, yadda yadda
September 18, 2007


12 March 2007

We’ve never had it so good


They outperform boys at school, university, and work. They’re the twentysomething Generation Y women – educated, ambitious, successful. But is life really as good as it looks? Louise Carpenter reports

Indeed, another pile of triumphant nonsense about how women are so brilliant and outperforming men, the sort that regularly crops up from feminists, often lying side-by-side with articles that, paradoxically, bang on about how women are held back by the Patriarchy, under-represented on boards of directors, and glass-ceiling this, wage-gape that, blah-buggering-blah.

Still, to be fair, the writer does acknowledge her study isn’t scientific (well duh, like we couldn’t work that out for herself) and she also points out (but without condemnation) the shocking sense of entitlement of young women.

At the end of each day of interviews with the girls, I’d emerge from my study punch-drunk from their undiluted self-confidence; the absolute cast-iron belief in the power of their own will.

Really? After a day with them, I’d have come out disgusted by the infinite arrogance, stupidity and narcissism shown by these entitlement princesses. I’d have probably punched them too.

Amongst the things that stand out are these:

All of them bore out the theory that girls are easier to educate than boys. Many grew up being told by parents and teachers they were the best, certainly better than boys – which, for some, had caused its own problems.

Indeed, girls are easier to educate. Did I say educate? I mean indoctrinate. They sit still, shut up and do anything to please, and tell them something will empower them – like working in a soul-crushing office job for 45-years – and they’ll often do it. Boys will think for themselves and rebel against things that aren’t in their own interest; unless, of course, they have been successfully emasculated by feminist teachers and therapists and their truck-loads of Ritalin.


“It’s time for us women to start complaining!”
September 17, 2007


05 March 2007


Haggard sisters, let’s end our silence. It’s time to bitch


This piece of wretched whining is from Caitlin Moran, a whining harpy who, last year, wrote an article supporting abortion for sex-selection reasons because most people would abort baby girls, meaning that females would become rare and, in turn, would apparantly mean females would be worth more and men would fight over them more (in other words, she thinks encouraging women to kill their daughters in the womb is a great idea because it should apparantly help young women get a fucking husband. How sick is that?)

Today the blithering self-important sack of arrogance is urging women to start complaining.

Start complaining?

They haven’t stopped! Since 1960!

All this stoic ‘I can handle it. I can have a job and look after the kids and run the house’ business will not change anything.

Hah! Stoic? When have young modern women ever been stoic? Does she even know the meaning of the word?

Maybe in the past, when they had loads of kids, got on with things and didn’t shriek and whine constantly, women were stoic. But these days? Shit, most women are about as stoic as a guest on Jerry Springer.

Feminism, it turns out, has been completely wasted on young women. Chicks of all ages spent the first half of the 20th century piling into marches against sexism, pornography, political disenfranchisement and pro-life legislation, and yet the young, single, modern woman who followed appears to have frittered the whole lot away in exchange for a “Trainee Porn Star” T-shirt and Heat magazine.

This is merely the natural result of feminism. The Patriarchy encouraged women to remain virtuous, keep their legs shut until marriage and introduced the concept of only children being born in wedlock as ‘legitimate’. Feminism urged women to become liberated by tossing aside virtue and chastity, encouraged them to sleep around, and declared that marriage was bullshit and illegitimate bastards were ‘legitimate’. Hence the progression to slut-culture. Feminism encouraged women to flood society with easily accessible female sexuality – no more tying the knot to get your leg-over – so of course women have become sex-objects. They have to blatantly offer sex because they have no other talents to offer, and they have objectify themselves further to compete against other sluts.

Feminism wasn’t wasted on young women, feminism just wasted young women.


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.


“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


Vagina Worship Day
September 13, 2007


14 February 2007

Ah, t’is Valentines Day.

I love Valentines Day. Being single and male, it means I don’t have to pay for over-priced cards, pointless flowers, repugnantly cute Teddy Bears or outrageous trips to Paris for some screeching entitlement princess.

Best of all, I get to snicker at the growing ranks of aging single career gals at work, simmering with resentment as bouquets of flowers arrive for the younger women, knowing that they made a big mistake in shunning commitment when they were eligible and deciding to put off marriage until they were old and past it.

Today, one aging man-hating hag was bitching about another colleague, a woman who came in with the flowers her boyfriend gave her that morning and placing them proudly on her desk.

“Look at her, showing off,” grumbled the arch man-hater to another spinster as they hung around the photocopier like grazing wilderbeast.

Never fear you crones, I felt like telling them, for the young women drowning in flowers and cards will soon be old, they’ll soon be deserted by the guys they fucked their way through in their twenties, and they, too, will soon be thirty-something and lonely.

In fact, one woman was saying she was glad her boyfriend didn’t propose to her this morning because “I’m too young for marriage.” She’s 24. She went on to say that 30 was a good age to get married. Yeah, when she’s getting on a bit, when her biological clock is ticking down and her boobs are sagging. I’m sure she’ll be inundated with proposals then. Snigger. That’s what the 30+ hags at the photocopier probably thought when they were young, pretty and perky.

And just out of interest, I took the time to enquire of a couple of women what they got their boyfriends for Valentines Day.

“Nothing,” one replied, triumphantly, as if loving the fact that her boyfriend got her a diamond necklace (what a twat!) and yet she is under no obligation to give him anything in return.

“Nothing,” the other replied, actually sounding rather disgusted, as if the idea of buying anything for her boyfriend was repulsive and stupid. Well, it’s not as if she loves him or anything I suppose.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:44 PM


Working girl
September 13, 2007


11 February 2007

At my workplace, a large and terribly unexciting bank, a vacancy arose reasonably high up on the career ladder. Naturally yours truly didn’t bother applying despite being invited to do so. I’m not working longer hours and taking on more responsibility just so I can pay more taxes. Fuck that.

Two people, male and female, did apply, in addition to outside candidates. The woman – aged 25, outrageous entitlement princess, constantly goes on about how much better women are than men, thinks she’s brilliant because, like nearly every other woman in the office, she has worthless soft-degree – is in my department. She applied early and was really pissed off that this other guy applied.

She took it really personally, and I heard her saying she was sure he had only applied “to spite me.” For fucks sake he doesn’t even know her, he works on the other side of the building. She was convinced that she deserved the job more because the guy is only 23.

I know the guy a little bit, I usually encounter him in the lift. He’s a decent bloke and very confident for his age.

He went for his interview first. I saw him not long afterwards and asked him how it went. He was quite cool, saying he thought it went well but figured that his lack of experience might count against him.

Then the woman went for her interview. As soon as it was over she went to the ladies for half-a-fucking-hour, and several other women were popping in to check on her. Turned out she felt the interview went badly and she was blubbering in there. This was all on work time by the way. Bear in mind this isn’t the first time she’s gone of bawling because of some shit like this or work pressure, and bear in mind she’s often harping on about how women are so great and that’s why they are beginning to dominate workplaces.


Equal Opportunities Commission backtracks a bit
September 13, 2007


09 February 2007

Back-to-work pressure DOES hit family life

The social revolution that encourages more women to go to work is putting intolerable strain on family life, the Government’s sex equality advisers admitted.

The warning, from the Equal Opportunities Commission, results from a poll that showed more than eight out of ten people think it is hard for parents to manage both work and raising children.

It also said that seven out of ten think it is going to get harder.

The findings follow years of pressure from ministers, urged on by the EOC, for mothers to leave young children in day care and return to work.

Strange how the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) published this poll, given that it largely contradicts their own ideology of demanding women enter the workforce, demanding men move aside to make way, and demanding mothers stick kids in daycare.

Well done EOC and fembots, try and rewire human nature and fulfill the socialist dreams of having everyone in the workforce and children in grotty daycare centres, and it fucks everything up.

The EOC chief, who lives with human rights activist and former Liberty pressure group chief Andrew Puddephatt, has no children of her own.

Typical. As well as being deranged and incredibly bitter, most feminists are childless and often lesbians too, yet they unashamedly dictate what’s best for other (possibly more normal) women and other people’s children.


Single and smiling
September 12, 2007


02 February 2007

Happiness: Living The Life Of A Bachelor

I’ll never get married. There are few incentives today to do so. The institution of marriage is pointless and without merit. The divorce rate, coupled with an unhealthy society, are more than enough reasons to avoid it like a bad neighborhood. As for relationships? I’ve never been happy in one, so what’s the point?

A truly superb and honest article by NG forum regular Ronald Lewis. In fact, Ronald has just started a new website, Male Reform. It’s evidently under construction, but looks promising.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:21 PM


%d bloggers like this: