Archive for the ‘marriage’ Category

Libby Purves article
September 23, 2007


31 May 2007

Oh, the garden looks lovely, darling


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


22 May 2007

Beware of the nanny


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


The spiteful sex
September 21, 2007


02 May 2007

Wife put excrement in man’s curry


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:20 PM


September 17, 2007


02 March 2007

A fine post by Richard Ford.

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

From Carnival of Reaction.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 2:49 PM


Toxic Wives II
September 17, 2007


02 March 2007


Don’t fall for this deadly honey trap


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

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

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

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


Divorce and “sacrifices”
September 16, 2007


27 February 2007

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

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

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

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

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


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


23 February 2007

Why marriage can be a chore for women


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

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

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

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

Check out these comments from a couple of women:

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

– Claire, Dorset, UK

The solution is simple but there are two rules:

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

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

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

I did this.

Still divorced him three years later.

– Diane, Harrogate,

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:26 PM


Father of four? Not really.
September 16, 2007


22 February 2007

The mother of all betrayals


A DOTING dad told yesterday how he brought up four kids as his own — only to find they were all fathered by his wife’s secret LOVER.

Cheated Charles Bostock, 69, spent years thinking the three cherished girls and a boy were his children.

He only discovered the shock news when his 49-year-old wife Sarah fell pregnant with a FIFTH child by married love rival Richard Mills.

What a shitty depressing story. It shows you cannot trust women. This is more common than you think. If you ever have kids, get a DNA test to ensure they’re yours. Otherwise you’re relying primarily on the word of a woman, something only a fuckwit would do. Most women would lie about what they had for breakfast if they stood to gain something.

My advice to this guy is simple, and it involves a sawn-off shotgun and a trip to his ex-wife’s house and then her lover’s.


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:26 PM


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


22 February 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the point of marriage in the UK?

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:14 PM


Feminism ruins society, men blamed
September 16, 2007


16 February 2007


Cameron blames fathers for ‘broken’ society (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Psycho divorcee imprisoned kids for seven-years
September 13, 2007


12 February 2007

Daughters Struggling After Mom Locked Them Away for 7 Years

Three girls who were imprisoned by their mother in a house of indescribable filth for seven years may never recover from the ordeal, experts said last night.

The girls were shut away from the outside world, existing in almost complete darkness, playing only with mice and communicating in their own language.

When they were discovered, their home in a smart, upper middle-class suburb had no running water and was filled with waste and excrement a meter high. The floor was corroded by mice urine.

What a bitch.

The girls’ ordeal was apparently sparked by their parents’ divorce, after which their mother, a 53-year-old lawyer, suffered a breakdown. But she won custody of the girls — then aged 7, 11 and 13 — and withdrew them from school, claiming that she would give them private tuition at home.

Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times.

Welcome to the West; Mangina Central. The bitch suffered a mental breakdown but she still won custody of the kids and her husband’s demands to see his children completely ignored.

The mother is now being held in a special remand prison branch for the mentally unstable. She will appear in court in a few weeks on charges of grievous bodily harm and torture, and is facing between five months and five years in prison.

Ah yes, off to a special cozy psychiatric branch of a prison because she simply must be mentally ill or have a personality disorder like any woman who gone and done bad.

And the most she’ll get is five-years? Possibly less than half-a-year? Her daughters spent seven-years locked up.

I think, oh let’s say, seventy-years would be a more appropriate punishment. Or good old fashioned burning at the stake.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:00 PM


Education and the nanny state in the UK
September 12, 2007


07 February 2007

An education crisis is looming, unless parents do their homework

By Simon Heffer.

My suspicions were roused, and are regularly compounded, by Gordon Brown’s fiscal and economic policies. Marriage, except when deeply unhappy or abusive, is always the best context in which to raise children. Mr Brown has, however, neutralised the tax regime as it relates to marriage. Worse, he has gone to enormous lengths to encourage the creation of what has been called “the redundant male”.

State childcare facilities of which the old Soviet bloc would have been proud are being developed and funded to ensure that single women can have children and carry on some sort of career without having to worry about whether a man is there to assist with these awesome tasks, or to provide any financial support for them.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:16 PM


Another insurance-motivated murder
September 12, 2007


06 February 2007

Wife convicted of plotting plumber’s murder for life insurance payout, faces death penalty

Jurors have convicted a Florida woman of conspiring to murder her plumber husband so she could collect $500,000 in life insurance.

This is the second case in a week of a woman convicted of spousal murder for money.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:17 AM


A trio of articles
September 12, 2007


05 February 2007

I put “divorce” and “men” into Google’s news search engine and found a trio of articles:

Marriage: The decision of women alone? (PDF)

The opinions of normal men were excluded entirely. Thus, we learn nothing about marital relationships as they are symbiotic in nature. The truth can never be known regarding marriage if one only analyzes the opinions of one sex.

Finally, an article pointing out how absurd it is the way women are the only ones consulted about the declining marriage rate, and questioning the obviously ridiculous claim that women are somehow overjoyed that more and more of them are hitting middle-age single and childless.

This article, on a similar subject, namely women’s increasing singlehood, was clearly written by a complete mangina given that he implores us men to improve or we’ll remain bachelors. Oh no, mercy, not bachelorhood, a man’s worst nightmare! Snigger.

These words are for men only (PDF)

If I may humbly suggest, guys, we need to proceed in a businesslike way. We have a very good product to sell – adorable, cute-as-buttons men – and all we need to do is to market our gender more successfully. It’s no good just indulging in a spiteful show of flatulence and snorting noises while wondering how in the world women would not find men irresistible.

Shove it up your arse. Women are the ones who have to sell themselves to us; us men don’t need them. We can defend ourselves, support ourselves and do our own ironing too. By delaying marriage until their looks have gone, by whelping illegitimate bastards, by slutting around, by being so obnoxious and self-centered, not to mention successfully demanded outrageous anti-male bias in the divorce courts, women are the ones who have chased men away from marriage. If women really are happy being old, single, childless and slaving away at their “careers”, then fine, but if not – and I doubt many are – they’ve got a lot of work to do before us men find them in anyway tolerable, let alone irresistible.


New blog
September 12, 2007


04 February 2007

The Inferno

For those of you guys out there thinking that Cupcake won’t screw you over in divorce court or cry domestic violence when you put your foot down on her lifelong shopping spree, I urge you to pay attention to the small things. Those small things should be clues to you. The average privilege princess is trying not to screw up until she has you trapped in marriage.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:26 AM


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


Rocking in Rio
September 12, 2007


02 February 2007

Rio rages against accused ‘gold digging’ widow

Ms Almeida, 29, was the girlfriend of Mr Senna, a former subsistence farmer and butcher before he became rich. Mr Senna, who had part of both legs amputated because of diabetes, got around town in a motorised cart.

In July 2005, Mr Senna was the sole winner of a national lottery worth the equivalent of about $A30 million.

He bought a sprawling ranch in Rio Bonito, a rural town 75 kilometres north-east of Rio, and married Ms Almeida.

Mr Senna’s family accused Ms Almeida of pressuring Mr Senna to change his will, removing 11 brothers and sisters as potential beneficiaries. Mr Senna wrote a new will leaving the money only to Ms Almeida and a daughter, Renata.

Some local news media reported that Ms Almeida had said her husband doubted whether he was Renata’s real father and planned DNA testing to confirm his paternity. He never got the chance.

Thanks to a reader, Seb, for e-mailing me the link to this.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:01 PM


Bloody diamonds
September 6, 2007


28 January 2007


There’s some new film out called Blood Diamond. Whilst I wouldn’t bother going to see it – most movies are shit these days, plus it stars Leonard Di-bloody-Caprio – it does seem fairly interesting in a way.

It concerns the diamond trade in Sierra Leone, a turbulent African country torn apart by civil war. This film addresses the many allegations that conflict and atrocities in the country are partly related and indeed caused by the lucrative diamond trade, with diamond merchants and large companies like De Beers indifferent to the suffering of many civilians caught up in the battle over the precious stones. There has been talk of a reduced demand for diamonds in the light of this film, and it certainly offers a get-out clause if a girlfriend starts pestering you for a diamond ring, whether it’s for an engagement or just because she thinks she deserves it for having tits that she lets you touch occasionally. Just point out how buying diamonds helps fuel conflict and suffering in Africa, and as such you could not possibly buy one as it would mean you would have the blood of children on your hands.


%d bloggers like this: