Archive for the ‘marriage strike’ Category

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

(more…)

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

(more…)

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

(more…)

‘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…)

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.

(more…)

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

(more…)

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

(more…)

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

(more…)

Oedipus Schmoedipus
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

11 May 2007

One thing we often hear burbling from the incessently flapping gobs of women is that us men want a wife who’ll basically be like our mothers, that us “silly stupid little men” just want a mummy rather than a wife. That old hag, whatsername, Maureen Dowd, specifically said as much during one of the regular anti-male tirades she indulges in to push all the blame for her own spinsterhood onto us men.

This, of course, is a load of bollocks.

If us men wanted to marry a woman who would basically replace our mother, who would essentially be more of a mum than a wife, then surely we would be going after middle-aged women. But we don’t. We go after young women. Perky 16-22-year-old women. Always have, always will.

Perhaps emasculated young men seek a mother-figure in a wife/girlfriend, but proper normal men – certainly those raised by a healthy father and not just a single mother – want a young woman who’ll be a wife/girlfriend.

Admittedly, when seeking a wife, us men will look out for maternal skills and characteristics – such as a caring nature and fondness and patience towards children – but that’s not for our benefit, that’s for our future children’s benefit. After all, us men don’t want an uncaring ball-busting harpy being the mother of our kids…nor, indeed, do we want to put up with such a woman as a wife.

(more…)

Hags Mags
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

09 May 2007

At my local newsagent the women’s magazines are, inexplicably, laid out on the counter; Women’s Own, Bella, She, Elle, Chat, Heat, Stupid Cunt (okay, I made that last one up, but it would do as the title of them all.)

Whilst queueing up I usually scan the covers and headlines and snicker at the brainless articles of celebrity gossip and ‘True Story’ tales that these tomes of glossy stupidity contain.

It’s amazing how much women seem to love tragedy, going by these magazines. There seem to be plenty of articles advertised on the front along the lines of Raped by my step-dad! and Face to face with my sister’s killer! It’s as if, even when heart-wrenchingly real, tragedy is just another bit of gossip for women to ingest at lunchtime and then vomit forth over other women at the water cooler when they should be working that afternoon. Then again, it says a lot that the women at the centre of these stories seem to be quite capable of selling their stories to some dumb magazine that averages fifty-pictures and fifty-words per-article.

What I notice the most about these magazines is who is on the cover; women.

Women, women, women and more women. That’s all there is on magazines for women.

Men’s magazine covers feature trains, planets, aeroplanes, computer game characters, naked women (in the case of porn mags), naked men (in the case of gay mags), half-naked women (photography mags), rock stars, computers, DVD players, guitars, sailing boats, motorboats, motorbikes, cars, guns, model train-sets…and so on.

Obviously the cover of magazines depicts what is of interest to the publication’s readers.

Scan the covers of magazines for men; they depict a whole vast spectrum of things.

Scan the magazines for women, and they all depict are women. Women, women, women, cunting fucking women!

Whilst men are fascinated by a whole range of stuff, all women are interested in, it seems, is women. If they show a passing interest in anything else (like men) it’s only in how they relate to women.

To quote, once again, from Richard Ford; men look out on the world through a window, whilst women gaze endlessly into a mirror.

Finally, what is the most visible achievement of feminism in academic circles?

That’s right; Women’s Studies

They fucking study themselves. Then they study themselves studying themselves!

And women dare to wonder why they are under-represented in the invention and scientific discovery stakes. How can they invent or discover anything when all their sex indulges in is dolorous naval gazing?

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:39 PM

(more…)

A quickie
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

04 May 2007

Women worry about the future until they get married.

Men don’t worry about the future until they get married.

(I read that somewhere ages ago – I can’t remember where – and those two sentences perfectly encapsulate the reason more and more of us men are on the marriage strike, and why the marriage strike is clearly annoying a lot of women and causing them to bring out the barrage of shaming language to try and get us to end it. It won’t work bitches. Save your breath. The marriage rate is plummeting and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Co-habiting will go the same way soon as well.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:38 PM

(more…)

The youth of today
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

28 April 2007

littlebitch.jpg

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:56 AM

(more…)

Worn out wannabe brides
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

20 April 2007

enjoy_cock.jpg

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.

(more…)

Times article
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

16 April 2007

In search of the good wife

PDF

This is a rather rambling article featuring lots of nattering from self-professed female experts about relationships, but it is worth a look because this article in a major mainstream newspaper (I’m assuming it is in the print addition too) mentions long-standing anti-feminist website nomarriage.com.

Note how the writer condemns the site as “hysterical” and misogynistic. Women who endlessly berate, denounce, condemn and insult men as useless pigs are just being empowered, and are just not settling for anything but the best in a relationship, but when us men throw our hands in the air at such feminist bitches and decide not to marry them, we’re being hysterical women-haters.

Whatever.

The comments are rather amusing, and predictable; a load of women bitching on about how men should be told how to be perfect husbands. Us men are constantly told we should be perfect, rich, handsome, sensitive, strong and loyal husbands – and we are legally forced to provide for wives, and even ex-wives – yet as soon as someone implies that perhaps women should try to be nice towards their husbands, they go ape-shit and start getting all defensive, as if someone is demanding they become doormats and slaves.

I mean, Heaven forbid a woman ever do anything nice for a man.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:50 PM

(more…)

Minor blow to gold-digging cunts
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more…)

Whatevva!
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

11 April 2007

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

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

For every three marriages there are two divorces.

Marriage rates have never been lower.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MGTOW in tha house!!!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:13 PM

(more…)

Hate (fe)mail
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

11 April 2007

There was an amusing comment posted today at some very old post of mine. It’s hard to make out what the point is amidst the general rambling and abuse but it seems to be yet another woman incapable of grasping the fact that men may voluntarily spurn the idea of marriage and long-term relationships with women.

Well welcome all and one of the same to men who have obviously only ever had there own hand for company.

Fucking hell this is a grammatical nightmare, although I did at least spot the first evidence of shaming language there: “You are teh virgins and wankerz!!!1”

Its true, i am a woman…

Snigger. I’d never have guessed.

Why do women always do that? Point out “I am a woman!” That’s why you can spot women pretending to be men on blogs/forums so quickly; they point out “I am a man” within the first couple of sentences, something actual men do not find it necessary to do do.

…and I too know we whine and moan. But you “bachelors” are bein the exact same by having this blog.

Ah, so only women may complain then eh? Maybe us men should all STFU and let you women hog the airwaves with your endless (and invariably imaginary) complaints.

Dear god…

Yes, my child, I am listening.

…find yourself one of your “oh so many” slags and get over your sad life.

I do not have slags, just the occasional one that pops by my blog.

What are the chances that if you dislike hearing about horrid teen slutty stories..you should stop hanging out with them.

homer-drool.gif

Mmmmm…teen sluts

The day women have children without men will be the day you die in arse buddie.

Die in arse? That sounds a strange way to go.

(more…)

The Marriage Strike Strikes
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

10 April 2007

bj.jpg

Under British law, all articles about single women must
have a picture of this fucking woman

One us three women is still single at the age of 35

PDF

One in three women is unmarried at 35, official figures show. In 2000, only a quarter were not married. And in 1990, just one in ten was in this position.

Marriage began to experience a decline in the 1980s, but in the last decade its popularity has fallen more sharply.

Keep it up my brothers.

The marriage strike is biting, and we all know the usual claims that women don’t need men and are happy to enter middle-age single and without a man are a load of bollocks.

With regards to the comments, there are the usual women insisting that they don’t want to marry as it means having to cook, clean, iron, etc, forgetting that for men, marriage means breadwinning, protecting the family, DIY, etc. Most women forget that in traditional marriages, both partners have obligations to take care of the other – and the kids – but they forget the traditional obligations of us men and whine about their own. Besides, how many women can cook and run a home anyway these days? A far less proportion than the number of us men who are able to still protect and provide (were there any incentive to do so anyway.)

One woman even comments that “I may be 34, but I’m sure my time will come.” She’s 34? And she reckons an eligible man will come to marry her in the future? Now that’s blind optimism!

I’ll leave you with a couple of comments from two guys that sum up things rather well:

It does not surprise me at all. If you want to spend your life with an idle, self centred harridan who professes to hate men, then get married. If you want companionship, loyalty and someone who doesn’t empty your bank accounts, get a dog. This may be a sweeping statement but I have experienced it all and have watched good friends go through much worse. A man does not need to get married.

Well, part of the reason might be that, as a man, it’s not quite as great being married to women as women seem think it is!

Women can be total spoil sports, very emotionally self-centred, overly expectant and demanding and pretty boring to boot! Top tip: never watch soap operas in front of a man if you want to bag a future husband.

I’ve been divorced for 9 years and am happily single. I enjoy all my freedoms – I go out when I like, get home when I like, have my own friends, lovers and no responsibility to anyone else. I love to be in love but when you see how many women sap the individuality and fun from a man its no surprise we’d rather go it alone. Right, I’m off for a pint!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:22 PM

(more…)

T-shirts; a leading cause of rape
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

04 April 2007

asdatshirt_228x318.jpg

Asda axe T-shirt in ‘rape’ row

ASDA has withdrawn from sale a T-shirt designed by women after complaints it was offensive to females.

Campaigners said the £4 T-shirt — with the slogan “If at first you don’t succeed, buy her another beer” — was an incitement to rape.

Sounds like an incitement to buying women drinks. Then again, I forgot; if you have consensual sex with a woman who is even just slightly tipsy, then it’s rape.

Only a paranoid nutjob would complain that such T-shirts are going to encourage rape.

And there are plenty of them about.

The supermarket giant apologised after it received “a number of complaints” when Rape Crisis launched a letter-writing campaign on internet chatrooms.

So…it wasn’t really a lot of people just complaining, just a handful of whining ratbags encouraged to do so by a bunch of femhags.

Louise Robertson, of West Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid, welcomed the Asda move last night.

Yeah, I bet you’re delighted, nothing like bulling and nagging people into your fucking way of thinking you humourless fucking twat.

“Asda should make payment to Women’s Aid or a similar organisation.”

Hmmm. And which women’s aid organization would you like them to give money to dear? Let’s see now. Maybe, at a guess, West Dunbartonshire Women’s Aid perhaps?

“Money money money, give give give, I’m offended, give me money.”

Strange how there seems to be no pressure for places to stop selling T-shirts women wear that say shit like Bitch and proud or I have the pussy so I make the rules.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:11 PM

(more…)

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

PDF

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.

(more…)

%d bloggers like this: