The 7:15 to Waterloo, stopping at Clapham Junction, Battersea and Lying Cunt Central September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

14 June 2007

It’s not just false rape claims us men have to be wary of.

To summarize a recent court case; a woman in her twenties – anonymous to the public, naturally – claimed a judge flashed at her on a train in London. The judge was arrested, charged and tried on her word alone, but was acquitted yesterday on account of the prosecution case clearly being a load of vague crap dreamed up by the accuser. The judge is probably lucky to have escaped with nothing more than a bit of public humiliation and no doubt a few friends and colleagues whispering suspiciously behind his back.

This piece (PDF) by Stephen Glover points out the absurdity and injustice of women being able to anonymously make all sorts of claims against men – rape, flashing, sexual harassment, etc – and for her word to be taken as some sort of proof by the police, and her anonymity to be respected even when shown to be a fraudulent and malicious liar, even though the man’s identity is made available to the public, the female half of the public usually being frothing at the mouth and baying for his blood.

If we accept, as we surely must, that Sir Stephen was wholly innocent of the charge, it is not difficult to imagine the terrible experience he has endured.

Think, if you are a man, of how you would feel if you were falsely accused of “flashing” on a train.

..

Is it not extraordinary, given that there was not a single piece of evidence to substantiate her story, that charges should have been be brought?

In effect, the British Transport Police preferred to take the word of a young woman against that of a senior judge. According to Judge Workman, they did not even bother to investigate the case promptly or thoroughly. They were ready to ruin a man’s reputation without doing their homework.

..

According to feminist orthodoxy, which seems to have been liberally imbibed down at the British Transport nick, Sir Stephen was a sexual predator, an uncivilised beast lurking beneath a thin veneer of respectability. Send him down!

There is another troubling aspect to this case – which is that we do not know the identity of Sir Stephen’s accuser.

..

It cannot be right that someone should be able to make an accusation of this magnitude without having to run the risk of public censure if it turns out to be wrong or, worse still (though I am sure it does not apply in this instance), malicious.

But what really worries me is that this case should ever have been brought.

Presumably British Transport Police have some real crimes to investigate, but perhaps they are too intractable. How much easier to go against a middle-class, middle-aged judge.

We won’t respect his office, or take his word. We won’t even bother to prepare a proper case. What a depressing vignette this is of modern Britain.

Modern Britain sucks balls.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:22 PM

The rise of single mothers is no accident September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

14 June 2007

Family misfortunes

PDF

The figures are stark and astonishing: because of the huge bias in favour of single parenthood that prevails in the tax credit system, a single mother with two children under the age of 11 who works 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, receives, largely thanks to tax credits, an income of £487.

A two-parent family, on the other hand, also with two children under 11, in which either one or both partners works for the minimum wage, would have to put in a total of 116 hours a week to take home the same income.

..

In effect, unmarried women with children are being bribed to remain single, while existing two-parent families are penalised.

The above article from The Telegraph is simple, to the point, and correct, as is this reply from a commenter:

Labour, being infected with old, Marxist, collective dogma, hates the family. Ultimately people will always be more loyal to families than the State. The first thing any totalitarian state does is to nationalise children by conscripting them into the ‘Pioneers’, the ‘Hitler Youth’ etc. Mr [Gordon] Brown wants to make us all vassals of the state.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:05 PM

The state of what’s left of the nation September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

10 June 2007

Why England is rotting

PDF

This superb article from a Canadian news site, lamenting the state of England, covers a broad spectrum of things, but although it doesn’t mention the ‘f’ word, it specifically points out the damage caused by feminism’s results (and objectives) of family breakdown. The various statistics relating to the welfare state, the bloated civil service (900,000 new civil service jobs since Labour came to power), more and more laws and regulations, and the state becoming a surrogate parent to children makes it clear that, despite Blair and Brown’s fancy ‘Trendy Cool-Britannia New Labour’ hype, we’re living in a Socialist state.

A good read, albeit rather depressing. Know wonder tens of thousands of people are emigrating from the UK.

It’s a fairly long article so here’s a few highlights:

The welfare bill is becoming unmanageable. In 1971, only eight per cent of the working population was on benefits. Today the figure is 18 per cent, and some economic think tanks estimate that one-third of British households rely on benefits for at least half their income.

…

The central government’s policies, extending to the ballooning public sector and expanding welfare provision, have rendered large parts of the populace reliant on redistributionist state largesse. Added to this is the government’s fondness for legislation and intervention in many aspects of its citizens’ affairs.

For instance, the Home Office, which handles crime, immigration and security, has put no less than 3,000 new offences on the statute book since 1997 — on issues from detention without trial to the correct use of cellphones in cars. Myriads of new laws affecting personal liberty have been introduced, from religious hatred legislation to a national identity card scheme. Bible tracts are seized as evidence of hate literature at homosexual rights rallies, Catholic childrens’ agencies are required to place foster children with gay couples, and protests are banned in the vicinity of Parliament.

…

A few weeks ago, for instance, a mother, a grandmother and two aunts of a pair of toddlers were spared jail for filming a fight between the children in which they were goaded to viciously assault each other. On the same day, a man was sent to jail for four months for dogfighting. Similar inconsistencies are everywhere increasingly apparent. Tony Blair recently announced a plan to provide pregnant problem mothers with state “super-nannies” to teach them good child-rearing practices. At the same time, local government authorities employ nurses to provide underage girls with morning-after contraception services — the most notorious example of this was when a nurse met a girl at a McDonald’s and administered the dose in the restroom. Another girl of 14 had an abortion after counselling from school health workers. In both cases, parents were not informed because of the child’s right to privacy.

…

Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits, social and economic, of marriage to society, Gordon Brown in one of his first acts as chancellor abolished the married couples allowance, which gave tax breaks to a husband and wife who stayed together.

A Conservative party policy paper last year revealed that three-quarters of family breakdowns affecting young children now involve unmarried parents, and that cohabiting parents were more than twice as likely to break up than married couples. Government figures show that by 2031 there will be four million cohabiting couples. Over the past 20 years the proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from 12 per cent to 42 per cent.

Labour’s highly complicated tax credit system, born partly from a need to reduce child poverty, made welfare benefits for lone parents far more generous and, perversely, rendered a poor family headed by a single parent better off than a poor family headed by a couple. An out-of-work couple with children would thus be better off by between 27 and 35 per cent if they broke up, and a couple earning minimum wage with children would see their income rise by 12 per cent if the father moved out.

…

Britain leads Europe — and most of the world — in terms of single-mother households. Commentators and politicians are increasingly linking this to the fact that the country offers the most generous benefits in Europe to those same households.

…

The message [from Gordon Brown] is clear: wealth cannot stay with the earner, who, arguably, is better able to make decisions about their personal financial circumstances. Wealth instead belongs first to the state, which sets itself up as the sole axis and arbiter of redistribution.

…

In Britain, poor families crumble, male role models are encouraged to depart, and children of broken unions soon lapse into delinquency and social ostracization.

Government is doing everything it can to keep growing numbers of Britain’s youth from becoming feckless. It has plans to force young people not in training to stay in school until they are 18, but for many, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Conservatives say it is the decline of the family unit, the fiscal and practical challenges to good parenting, poor education and the nanny state, that is the root of so many of Britain’s social and cultural problems.

Gordon Brown is possibly even more of an arch-Socialist than Tony Blair, and in case you weren’t aware, Brown will be the Prime Minister of Britain on June 27th when Blair leaves office.

Shit.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:56 PM

Female child abusers September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

09 June 2007

Monsters and Men is a book published by the BBC about child sexual abuse, and accompanied a 2002 television series. As the title suggests it is primarily focused on male abusers, but there was, astonishingly enough (bearing in mind this is from the leftie feminist-infested BBC) references to female paedophiles. There are even references to how female abuser’s activities are hidden behind the media’s lace curtain, and how they often get away with it – or merely receive a slap on the wrist – because their male victims are regarded as somehow being ‘lucky’ to be abused.

There are a few statistics quoted regarding female child abusers:

In terms of what academic research has discovered, it has been found that adult females abuse in 6% – 17% of cases with female victims and in 1% – 24% with males. Female offenders abuse more girls than boys, and it has been speculated that females commit between 3% and 13% of all sexual abuse.

Regardless of where the real figures lie within these somewhat vague speculations, there is no doubt that the feminist’s insistence that men have a monopoly on sexual abuse of children is total rubbish (just like everything else that that hateful ideology insists.)

A police chief is quoted at length in explaining why (in 2002) there were only nine women in the British prison system convicted of sexually abusing children when it was clear that there should be far more if women are responsible for as many as 13% of all child sexual abuse cases. Primarily it is because people assume women never abuse children – and indeed the BBC guy who wrote the book states that he assumed women ‘just didn’t do it’ – and this, of course, is thanks to feminism and its all-pervasive ideology that women are never ever perpetrators of wrongdoing.

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

——————————————————-

09 June 2007

Boo-fucking-hoo.

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

PDF

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

The Hunt & Humiliate Broke Men Agency September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

06 June 2007

Mothers to name and shame absent fathers

PDF

Single mothers will be invited to name and shame fathers who fail to support their children.

Mothers invited to name and shame absent fathers

Letters are going out to around 100 parents – almost all of them mothers – asking if they want their former partner’s name to be included on an online list of people who have dodged maintenance payments.

More complete anti-male shit from a corrupt government. All the Child Support industry is there to do is to keep the flow of money going from hard-working men to spend-happy women.

Why the fuck should us men have to pay for women’s children? After all, children do, in fact, belong to women in this society.

Women get to choose whether to abort the baby. They virtually get automatic custody. Fathers are not required officially, as single women can get IVF treatment. A ‘family’ is now a mother and her children, with a father as optional.

So, John Hutton, you odious tit, shut the fuck up about demanding men pay for ‘their’ children; they are not theirs!

It cannot be said often enough; children belong to women now. That’s the primary principle in defining a Matriarchy, which the UK now is. Hence women can damn well support ‘their’ children, not the dad – who is only referred to as such when it comes to taking responsibility – and not us taxpayers.

At the very least a man should only have any obligations to support a child if the child was born when the man was married to the kid’s mother, and the child still has his surname. Otherwise it’s mummy’s little darling and mummy’s little responsibility.

One last thing; if parents are to be named and shamed for not supporting their children, surely that would mean any and all women who apply for Child Support should be named and shamed. After all, if they’re applying for Child Support they are clearly unable or unwilling to support their child themselves and, if the same definition of a ‘deadbeat parent’ is applied to them as it is to men, then such mothers are deadbeats.

It’s a dumb scheme anyway, it won’t work. Few men with any dignity will give a shit about being ‘shamed’ by spiteful ex-wives or ex-girlfriends, or by the fucking dipshit government. After all, you can only be shamed by people whose opinion you respect, and more and more men just don’t respect women or the government’s opinions one iota.

I’d imagine the sort of thugs who many single mothers have breeded with will most certainly not care anyway. In fact they’ll probably regard it as a rather funny badge of pride. “Hey look at the CSA website guys, it’s me! I’m on teh internet! WOOOH!”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:31 PM

Old article September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

05 June 2007

The Man Shortage

(From Spinbusters.)

I’ve linked to this superb four-part article before but I’ll put it up here again anyway just in case anyone hasn’t read it yet.

Where, asked these Baby Boom women, were all the men? I could have told them, of course, where the men were and are, but being already in possession of all correct wisdom — not to mention Incarnated Goddesses — no female ever bothered to ask me. To date, not one has. What could I know? I am, after all, only a male.

The men – what’s left of them — are in hiding, of course. That’s what any refugee population does when war is made on it, and its homeland is laid to Waste. Sister, understand: only the weakest of males serve the totalitarianism of gynocracy. No real man, confronting his betrayal by American culture and femininity, will teach in your schools, for the lessons are false, and he knows he is conditioning more kids – especially more boys – into further betrayals. No real man will drone in your corporations, corrupt collectivities hiding behind the stained skirts of “market forces.” Go to any indigenous town on the planet. The market is the locus of women, their interests and their power. As for the coercive “forces” of the market — well, modern American men know all about social coercion.

Man shortage? Fuckin’ A there’s a man shortage.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:39 PM

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.

Libby Purves article September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

31 May 2007

Oh, the garden looks lovely, darling

PDF

This article from Libby Purves (one of the few female columnists in the UK who doesn’t hate men) concerns marriage, and how being nice to each other is a good way for spouses to remain together. In fact she rightly spends a lot of the article denouncing modern women for their often spiteful and ungrateful attitudes towards their husbands – and men in general – and entitlement complexes.

[W]ho could argue when Ebbutt says that there is an art in being married, and that you should not “exhaust your artistic power in getting married” but put some effort into staying that way.

This view has faded a little in the age of modern companionate marriage and rising female expectations. It sometimes seems, reading and observing, as if the notion of deploying effort, cleverness, and determined goodwill inside marriage (or prolonged partnership) has atrophied as women got more confident and physical sexuality took centre stage. In advice, fiction and TV there is polarisation between those who advocate frilly, vampish absurdities to “keep passion alive” and those who think that equality means perpetual competition, and a tedious sexual politics that jealously counts who does every household chore and celebrates women who bitch about the deficiencies of the male. I lose count of the chick-lit novels celebrating the shallowest aspects of female nature – shoe addiction, silliness, shopaholic Gaye Gambol profligacy – while excoriating men for being irrational about football, or cars, or reluctance to “commit” (frankly, until the prenup becomes law I would be nervous of committing my lifetime’s earning power to a lot of the self-obsessed fictional airheads we women are supposed to love).

Even older-women’s fiction – and journalism – often wilfully ignores the emotional rights of the male. One new novel is about a woman so neurotic about being 50 – for God’s sake! – that she is vile to her long-suffering husband, splashes out on flash underwear, sleeps with a stranger and pays scant attention to her offspring. And we are supposed to identify with the silly cow! Other frequent discourse tackles the “problem” of a man retired or redundant, suddenly being at home all day under his wife’s feet in “her” domain. Never mind that he paid for most of the damn house, sweating in a boring office and commuting for 30 years. Never mind keeping passion alive; how about keeping simple friendliness alive?

The new commonplace of the higher-earning woman also needs a bit of work. Men need to learn that it is childish to flounce around claiming to be emasculated by earning less, and then run off with some woman lower down the earning chain just in order to be worshipped again. But women, frankly, often need lessons in being graceful and tactful about being main breadwinners. They are not always so. I am still haunted by a letter in The Guardian some years ago from a woman who was supporting her redundant husband while he wrote a book, and said that she felt aggrieved and didn’t like him expressing opinions at dinner parties because her earnings had paid for the newspapers that enabled him to have the opinions in the first place. I am sorry to say that the reply to this was not “Curl up in shame, you unloving materialist bitch!”, which would probably have been my approach.

This may be why I am not an agony aunt.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:17 PM

‘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

PDF

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

PDF

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.

Blogger’s Choice Awards September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

18 May 2007

The Best Political Blog Awards at the Blogger’s Choice Awards has Angry Harry amongst the nominations.

At the moment, Sir Harry has 16 votes, one of them being mine.

If you could – and, of course, if you agree his blog is better than all the others there (such as feministing; the real one, not the parody) – it’d be great if you guys could vote for Angry Harry’s site. I don’t know how much publicity or sway this ‘awards’ has, but it’d still be great if an anti-feminist blog got a good score. Angry Harry is one of the veteran anti-feminists out there; certainly, his was one of the first anti-feminist sites/blogs I encountered.

Unfortunately you do have to have an account with the Blogger’s Choice Awards which does require e-mail verification. That does mean either giving them your e-mail address – and potentially leaving yourself open to spam, although I’ve no idea if they’d sell your address to spammers – or, being safe rather than sorry, creating a new temporary e-mail address for the sole purposes of signing up (which is what I did.)

It will, annoyingly, take a good few minutes to sign up just to cast your vote, but like I said, I think it’ll be worth it to have Angry Harry up there towards the top, ideally on the front page. It will mean not only more people visiting Angry Harry but also more people discovering the anti-feminist blog/circuit, of which AH is a major hub (he links to most anti-feminists, including moi.)

If you need further inspiration to make the effort to sign up and vote, the fuckwitted fembots of Feministing are currently at No. 1 with over 300 votes. It’d be funny to have the most prestigious of anti-feminist sites snapping at their hairy heels.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:32 PM

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

——————————————————-

18 May 2007

Men wary of paying women compliments

PDF

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

Dad’s not needed, says British government September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

New fertility laws say dads not needed to make babies

PDF

A major relaxation of IVF rules was announced by ministers today.

The changes will make it easier for single people and lesbians to receive fertility treatment on the NHS.

Well, it’s official guys, we’re now officially redundant. We’re not needed now.

Apart from, of course, working the dangerous jobs women don’t want to do, being cannon-fodder in times of war, paying the bulk of taxes to fund single mothers and the taxpayer-funded IVF treatment for them, being extorted for Child Support, building the air-conditioned offices for women to sit around in filing their nails, policing the streets to keep women free from violent criminals…anything unpleasant basically.

But having a stake in society, a role in children’s lives, a position – at the head of it or otherwise – in the family?

Forget about it.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:42 PM

Pook’s Mill September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

Looks like Pook’s Mill is being updated again. Good stuff, it’s a great blog.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:33 PM

Funny stuff September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

My recent entry, “Feminists angry because mother who abandoned baby is judged and criticised“, appears to annoyed quite a few fembots.

Check out this wonderful selection of shaming language and insults from the comments:

You sick fuck, Duncan. What ever happened to you to make you such a sad little women-hating psycho? Did the girls at school make fun of you because of how you look? Did your mummy run off with the milkman? Whatever it was do yourself a favour and get some therapy..quick. You need help.

It’s interesting how feminists and mangina automatically assume anyone who is critical of feminists must have had a traumatic background or a terrible mother. The stupid femibumwipes can’t comprehend or even consider the fact that I actually had a jolly nice childhood and a wonderful mother, because to do so would mean these raving lunatics may have to face the fact that – like so many men of my mindset (and there are many) – I actually came to be so pissed off at feminists simply through exposure to them.

Feminists themselves inspire the well deserved hatred they are getting from more and more men.

You and this blog is without doubt just for little knob tools!

And you’re all wasteing oxygen.

Gee, a small-dick accusation, I didn’t see that coming. Try and be original.

And I don’t waste oxygen, I recycle it and turn it into lovely, healthy carbon dioxide. Which trees eat.

It is pointless to write any serious comments in response to your hate-filled diatribe.

I will say this though… what the HELL happened to you to make you into such a disturbed individual.

In fact, your blog is SO ridiculous that I can’t help but think it is perhaps satire…

What the hell happened to me? I was exposed to feminism. See above.

It’s sickening to see this kind of vicious tripe being published.

Please believe me when I say that plenty of women do understand that the presence and involvement of the father is important to the children.

It’s sickening for me to see hate-filled rants from feminists published too, but at least my stuff is only on a blog; feminist crap gets into national newspapers and on college curriculums.

Funny these feminists and manginas will always accuse anti-feminists like me of being full of hate, even though these are the same mental little lot who proceed to scurry away and write hate-filled diatribes about men.

I probably shouldn’t give these arse-biscuits the attention, but on the other hand, I know how we all like to laugh at the predictable and unimaginative accusations from these angry men-hating hairy fembots.

In fact, I think I’m getting close to getting Fembot Bingo!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:18 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

Feminists angry because mother who abandoned baby is judged and criticised September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

16 May 2007

A few choice words from a harmful and sexist angle

PDF

This ridiculous article is by Melanie La’Brooy, a fembot fuckwit who writes for The Age, invariably whining about how hard poor wikkle women’s lives are.

In this torrent of blithering, she is whining about some newspaper – gasp – daring to actually condemn a (currently anonymous) mother who abandoned her baby.

Sydney has always had a shock-jock tabloid culture that Melbourne has never wholeheartedly embraced. For example, the Telegraph’s sister paper, The Herald Sun, ran the same photo [of the abandoned infant] but chose the caption “Where’s my Mum?”, which was simultaneously more sensitive and grammatical.

It would have been easy to write off the offensive headline as just another crudity from the same media culture that generated Alan Jones, but then our Prime Minister, sensing an opportunity to play his favourite game of Battler Empathy, came out with the following extraordinary defence of the newspaper. “I feel for the mother, I feel for the baby, I feel for the woman’s family, but fair go to the Tele. After all, that is the natural reaction. You go out in the street and talk to ordinary people — that’s what they would say, ‘How could you abandon a little baby?’ “

It seems that Melanie La-La-Land’Brooy think it’s horribly cruel, shocking and crude to judge and condemn a woman for abandoning a baby.

So why didn’t the headline read “How Could They?”. Because not once have I heard anyone mention the father.

Leaving aside IVF and allegations involving Boris Becker and a turkey baster, most pregnancies begin with a male and a female having sex. Yet nine months later, when a baby is left at a hospital, barely do we hear the word “parents” in the media. Instead it’s the mother who cops it.

Do you want to know why that is? It’s because fathers rarely abandon babies in ditches, hospitals or on people’s doorsteps (and if they did they would – rightly – be condemned as bastards. Women who do the same, however, are inexplicably poor victims.)

The spy who came in from the cold…to make the school-run September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

14 May 2007

MI6 woos ‘Jane Bonds’ with offers of family-friendly employment

James Bond would surely raise an eyebrow. MI6 has decided that, if it wants to recruit more female spies, it must move with the times.

..

MI6, like its domestic counterpart MI5, is desperate for more women officers so part-time spying, childcare vouchers and “generous maternity pay” are on offer.

And women who are single when they join up are promised they will not have to leave should they marry, and have children.

“Part-time spying”?

Oh, fucking great, now we’re really up shit-creek.

So we’re going to have female spies and agents carrying out surveillance on a suspected terrorist cell, or deep undercover at Finsbury Mosque, except they go home at three, don’t work weekends and take a year off occasionally for maternity leave? Yeah, that’ll work.

And “childcare vouchers”? Hey, Miss Jane Bonds, how about letting hubby stay at home and take care of the children instead of insisting on dumping them on strangers? At taxpayer’s expense.

Why do we need more female spies anyway? It says 38% of applicants are female. It’s not as if that’s a teeny tiny minority. And if the only way to get more female recruits is to just offer them whopping amounts of (paid) time off for maternity leave and the choice of working part-time, then what’s the point? In any case, like soldiers, many female agents would only get knocked up if they sense they are about to be posted somewhere dangerous.

Then again, women would make fairly good undercover agents I suppose; they’re experts at faking attributes and even entire personalities to get what they want.

Oh well, the James Bond movies have long since turned into a pile of politically correct mangina hogwash, the real MI6 might as well go the same way. Life imitating art and all that.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:27 PM