Archive for the ‘marriage’ Category

September 6, 2007


23 January 2007

Hot off the cyber-press:

Outcast Superstar

Includes this post, Fuckers And Suckers, which has proved somewhat popular amongst the rounds.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:53 PM


Zsa Zsa winks
September 6, 2007


20 January 2007


Some quotes from serial ex-wife, talk-show circuit regular, slapper of Californian highway patrol officers (hence the mugshot above), failed actress, and famous for being famous “socialite” Zsa Zsa Gabor:

I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back.

I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.

I want a man who’s kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?

I always said marriage should be fifty-fifty proposition. He should be at least fifty years old, and have at least fifty-million dollars.

To give her credit, at least she is honest about her attitude. She’s still a fucking gold-digger though. Unfortunately a very successful one. Her considerable fortune is almost entirely down to her many marriages and divorces (seven divorces so far, plus one annulment.) She’s been referred to as Hollywood’s most expensive whore. Given that her 90th birthday is seventeen-days away, I dare say business (if she still needs it) is a little slow.

Plus – possibly inadvertently – she did give us this gem of a quote, which I’ve seen in the sig of at least one MRA on a forum somewhere:

A man in love is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.

Damn right. Thanks for the warning bitch.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 2:42 PM


Paternity fraudster and adulterer has no remorse
September 6, 2007


19 January 2007


No tits, no arse and no morals

I seduced my future husband to hide my love child. But I have no regrets

To sum up this dreadful tale, this woman fell pregnant at 20 and because the father was a married man, she suckered another man into marrying her by telling him that the child was his. After the wedding she naturally continued fucking her adulterous lover. Her own marriage ended and her former husband has no idea that “his” daughter is not actually his, and the daughter, now 18, only learned the truth a few years ago.

And, naturally, being a Western Woman, she has no regrets.

No regrets at all that a man out there still wrongly thinks a girl is his.

No regrets that her daughter must have had a terrible shock a few years ago finding out her “dad” wasn’t actually her dad.

She says she’s “not proud” of all this, but she’s not remorseful either, and is not ashamed to admit she liked having an affair whilst married and loved all the danger of humping her lover in the back of his BMW. She even whines that her lover still hasn’t got round to ditching his own family to live with her.


Marital toxicity
September 6, 2007


16 January 2007

From trophy wife to toxic wife

An article from the Daily Telegraph that deserves to be quoted in full. I dare any feminist to read through it and still insist marriage is “slavery” for women.

Decadent stay-at-home wives who take their rich husbands for a ride have finally been rumbled, says Tara Winter Wilson

Once upon a time, there was a truth, universally acknowledged, that a man with a powerful job and a beautiful house must be in want of a wife – preferably of the trophy variety. Domesticated, docile yet dazzling, she was the perfect finishing touch.

Not any more. According to research to be published in the journal Labour Economics, the earnings gap between married couples is narrowing. While in the 1980s it was the case that the higher a professional man’s salary the fewer paid hours his wife would put in, men today are more likely to want a dynamic high-flier, an equal who wows him as much in the boardroom as in the bedroom.

‘It is like a perversion of the evolution theory: they have evolved into creatures whose function is simply to get the most for doing the least,’ says one husband.

A victory for feminism? Sadly not. The reason for this change, sisters, is nothing to be proud of.

Rich men, I believe, have finally cottoned on to the sinister side of the stay-at-home wife: unless you marry an equal who’s going to pay her own way, you will end up with a lazy, indulgent, over-pampered slug. For the transition from trophy wife to toxic wife is as fast as the end result is furious.

I should know: many men of my age and acquaintance have become deeply bitter and disappointed about how their wives have changed since they hung up their working wardrobes. I am talking about university-educated women (often Oxbridge graduates) who do a couple of years work in the City before harnessing themselves to a milch cow and “having it all”.

Apparently there’s a new take on “having it all” – and it’s not what the majority of us understood it to mean. Back in the 1970s, it meant effortlessly maintaining a beautiful home, entertaining in grand style, raising perfect children, keeping the husband sweet and having some sort of career in order to create financial independence.

“Superwoman” was the phrase coined for these energetic pioneers; “trophy wives” for the less energetic ones. Today it’s a whole new ball game.

“It is like a perversion of the evolution theory: they have evolved into creatures whose function is simply to get the most for doing the least,” whispered an exhausted husband to me recently. “I wouldn’t mind providing her with so much if she just did something for me occasionally. She’s never even once cooked me a meal.”

“She doesn’t know the definition of sacrifice,” said another angry husband. “Relationships are meant to be about compromise, but she is more about selfishness. I bend and adapt to her needs, yet all she gives me are ultimatums.”

“Can’t you just divorce?” I asked.

“Are you kidding?” he replied. “I’d lose everything I’ve worked for, including my children, and I’d be paying her an indecent amount of money for life.”

“There’s another reason these husbands don’t divorce,” added a sympathetic onlooker. “They don’t want to admit to failure – they don’t want to be ungallant. There’s an unspoken nobility or gentlemanly understanding that divorce is something they don’t do.”

Indeed, “something they don’t do” is a mantra that extends to practically every area of toxic wifedom. Once an intelligent, educated woman who could hold her own in any dinner-party conversation, the toxic wife will do nothing of the sort.

“They not only become utterly vacant, they never throw dinner parties or entertain anyone outside of their small, closeted circle of other vacant wives,” said irate husband number one.

“None of us can understand this: they become obsessed with perfection, grooming, with all aspects of their personal appearance… in a word, they become boring.”

“Vain, boring, indulgent and lazy,” adds yet another voice to the growing army of fed-up husbands. “I have to take the children out of the house every Sunday morning and wander around with them trying to find things to do because my wife must have a lie-in. I’m only allowed back in the house after 11am. Sunday is the nanny’s day off, you see.”

“My wife,” chipped in husband number two, “gives over the whole of the weekend to pursuing what she calls ‘me time’. She goes to retreats, yoga mini-breaks, a spa, a health farm, even art classes… all of which I pay for, of course. What do I get back in return? Nothing.”

So today’s concept of a wife “having it all”, simply put, means never doing anything personally if she can pay someone else to do it for her. And if she can’t find someone else, her husband must do it.

“To be frank,” said another unfortunate husband, “I was conned. And I’m by no means the only one. There’s a pattern of behaviour that these wives all adopt.”

There are five tell-tale signs, apparently. First, she gives up work, ostensibly to care for the brood, only to have the children packed off to either boarding school or intensive (ie, lots of extra-curricular activities) private day schools.

Secondly, she suddenly wants to move somewhere more rural/suburban that suits her idea of family life, yet location-wise is horrendous for her exhausted, ever-commuting husband.

Thirdly, she demands wall-to-wall help, which nearly always includes an abused Filipina who works 12-14 hours a day, six days a week.

Fourthly, she refuses to fulfil in any way the traditional contract of the non-working spouse in terms of doing anything for her husband (such as cooking), while, fifthly, she expects her husband to fulfil the traditional but anachronistic male role in the household (such as paying all the bills).

Here is a typical day outlined by one husband of a toxic wife.

5.30am: Husband leaves for London.
7.45am: Filipina brings wife tea in bed.
8am: Nanny takes children to school.
8.30am: Breakfast, suduko and the papers.
9.30am-4pm: God knows; possibly gym, spa, shopping, boozy lunch with friends, nap or massage.
4pm: Nanny collects children from school.
5.30pm: Nanny gives children tea and goes home.
7pm: Filipina gives children bath.
7.30pm: Wife disappears off to book group.
9pm: Husband returns and roots around for an M&S ready-meal.
10.30pm: Wife returns. Bed.
10.35pm: Sex? In your dreams.

If the above timetable seems hideously parasitic, it is, and so is the woman behind it. The other day I nervously accepted an invitation for lunch with an old school friend. I felt daunted because, several years ago, she married a rich banker and I’d been dumped from her circle.

“Sorry I’m late,” I said on arriving at her mansion. “Got stuck in traffic so bad it gave me road rage.”

“Road rage?” replied Olivia, her eyes swivelling down to my shoes and up to my hair in a split, judgmental second. “Well, I’m suffering from maid rage. I mean, come and look…”

She led me into her kitchen, three times the size of my flat, and slid open a drawer. “How shoddy is that?” She was holding up a fork.

“What’s wrong with it?” I asked, peering at it politely.

“Just look! It has a disgusting piece of encrusted mashed potato on it. I mean, it’s so shoddy! She can’t even unload a dishwasher. I’m really going to have to sack her. And guess what else I discovered this morning? When I opened the towel cupboard after my bath, I noticed that she’d stacked the pink towels amongst the white ones. Can you believe it?”

What made this conversation so scary was the fact that the terrified Filipina was in the room with us, hunched over a table slicing up bits of duck and foie gras for our lunch. “Juanita!” snapped Olivia. “This is your last chance. Do you understand me? You’ll be back in Manila within the week… I couldn’t possibly recommend you to anyone. Understand?”

“Yes Madam,” she sniffed with a tremulous sob.

“And stop dripping your revolting bodily fluids over our lunch. Throw that away and start again. ”

Horrified by her manner and the distressing scene, I asked her for a tour of her home. She had just moved into one of those massive houses in Chelsea Square. Rich folk tolerate people like me (ie, broke ones) only because we make them feel better about themselves.

“Would love to, darling,” she drawled, “but first how about a drinkie-poo? Juanita! Open the champagne chilling in the wine fridge and bring it upstairs to the south drawing-room.”

“Yes Madam,” replied the poor slave.

“I won’t have any, thanks,” I said. “I’m driving and have to pick my children up from school.”

“You mean you don’t have a nanny to do it?” Olivia’s eyes glared with horror. “I have the most delightful Norland one. Although the uniform is brown and ghastly, they are so well trained. She’s downstairs in the basement doing my ironing at the moment…”

This was now utterly surreal. I had no idea that real people lived like this. Yet, minute by agonising minute, it got worse. I tried a bit of light humour.

“Well, let’s hope she’s not weeping tears on to your party dresses, eh?”

“What?” snapped Olivia.

“Well, then you’d ask her to redo the whole lot again, wouldn’t you?”

“Possibly,” she replied. “But a little moisture is no bad thing when ironing out the creases…”

Was she exhibiting a dry wit? I didn’t know. In her pre-toxic wife days, she was amusing and droll. Now we were different beings living in parallel universes. She showed me lavish room after lavish room, and at one point I heard some strange shuffling coming from one of her closets. Maybe her life is not so perfect after all, I thought; maybe she has rats.

As we sat down to lunch in the “informal” dining-room adjacent to the kitchen in an open-plan L-shape, I noticed that Juanita was eating a rather more humble repast slightly around the corner; although I couldn’t see all of her, I could detect an elbow jutting out from time to time.

“She won’t be joining us then?”

“Are you mad?” cried Olivia. “Why would I want to even see my servants?”

As if on cue, a wizened little Filipino man appeared, bowing and scraping. “Madam, I have finished all the shoes. I will go now, thank you madam.” He hurried out.

“See you on Thursday as normal, Pedro,” she replied, barely glancing at him.

“Where did he spring from?” I asked. After all, I’d just endured an exhaustive survey of her house, and there had been no sign of Pedro.

“Oh, he’s our shoe polisher. He comes twice a week. He works in a cupboard – probably why you didn’t notice him.” No rats after all.

Here was an educated woman who spent her days rotting her brain with alcohol, and bossing an army of staff.

“Olivia,” I said, “don’t you miss your old job, your financial independence? Isn’t all this a bit decadent?”

“Forget the work ethic,” she laughed. “Why on earth would I want to struggle, feel tired and look old before my time?”

I left, more agitated than when I arrived. Forget road rage; I was suffering from toxic-wife rage. Driving to collect my children, the outside world felt like a haven of normality and peace. How I pitied these rich and successful men who had naively hoped for a domestic goddess, only to end up with a diva.

Wake up, toxic wives, the game is over. Your milch cows have seen the light of day. You are toxic, you are trouble and you are about to become extinct.


Baby blues
September 5, 2007


12 January 2007

A young woman at work the other day inspired surreptitious sniggering from me as she bragged that she wanted to have four children but did not want to have any until she was “at least thirty.”

Oh boy.

Women seem to be endlessly narcissistic these days, with their endless infatuation with themselves individually and as a sex. Yet they have a startling lack of knowledge about biology. Their most fertile years are between 16 and 21, and the biological clock starts ticking down by the late 20s. By the thirties not only are women less fertile – possibly as barren as the Sahara by 35 – but the risk of birth defects and miscarriages rises too.

According to Wikipedia:

Birth defects, especially those involving chromosome number and arrangement, also increase with the age of the mother. According to the March of Dimes, “At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.”[3]

Multiplying the conception rate times the miscarriage rate times the birth defect rates should yield a rough likelihood of a healthy birth:

30-year-olds: .91 x .85 x .999 = 77%
35-year-olds: .84 x .80 x .9975 = 67%
40-year-olds: .64 x .55 x .99 = 35%

So even at 30, there’s almost a one-in-four chance the woman will miscarry or have a spaz baby. By 40 it’s a two-in-three chance. Sure, no pregnancy is risk-free for either the mother or baby, but clearly you’re far better off trying to have children with a woman under 30; ideally under 25. Obviously us men know this instinctively, hence our tendency to go for young women instead of old flappy-titted career bints, although women – especially old flappy-titted career bints – tend to assume this is some sort of vast sexist conspiracy and go friggin’ mental.


Michael Jordan could lose up to 90% of wealth in divorce
September 5, 2007


08 January 2007

Jordan vs. Jordan: In Defense of Michael Jordan

After 12 years of marriage, [Michael] Jordan’s wife Juanita filed for divorce earlier this month and is seeking permanent custody of the couple’s three children, their 25,000-square-foot home, and her share of the couple’s property. Under Illinois law she may be awarded up to 90% of their assets.

Marriage: Just Say No. Multi-millionaire basketball player or humble office worker, just avoid it brothers.

90%…holy shit.

According to Forbes a few years ago, Jordan’s net worth was $398,000,000. You don’t even need to work out 90% of that to realise that this bitch is going to be sorted for life on the hard-work of a man. Okay, it may only be “up to 90%” but it’ll surely be at least 50%. In fact, even if she only got a mere teeny tiny little 0.9% of his assets she’ll still be far wealthier than she would have been had she not married him.

Michael Jordan and Paul McCartney going though divorces and losing so much of their assets at the same time on opposite sides of the Atlantic this year will, hopefully, wake up more men to the total bum-raping in the family courts men get during divorces, whereby a woman can file for divorce and plunder a husband for money he earned.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:37 PM


Women2Win want Money4Women
September 5, 2007


07 January 2007

Costs ‘deter would-be women MPs’

Women are being deterred from trying to become Parliamentary candidates because of the high costs involved, Tory pressure group Women2Win says.



Why should I give a shit?

They were reluctant to “spend their family’s money” on travel, childcare and other costs associated with finding a seat, said spokesman Katie Perrior.


Yeah, women hate the idea of spending their husband’s family’s money aren’t they? They feel soooo guilty about it.

FFS, check out any shopping mall during weekday afternoons and you’ll see countless women – clearly housewifes, or more accurately “ladies of leisure” – not in work but shopping away, invariably with the “family’s” money. Yeah, they look so guilty as they buy another pair of shoes. They look wracked with remorse as they reluctantly leave a clothes store with a dozen bags whilst hubby is in some office working away.


An extra five-minutes of sex for just an extra £500 or so
September 4, 2007


01 January 2007


Pearl ones are much cheaper

Whilst briefly channel-hopping in a desperate and ultimately futile hunt for something vaguely worth watching a while ago, I caught an advert for some jewelers.

It features a couple getting ready to go out. They’re all dressed up but the woman is feeling that there’s something missing to go with her dress. At that point her husband comes up and presents her with a sparkling diamond necklace.

Naturally she’s charmed. He’s just shown her how romantic he is by presenting her with an over-priced and quiet frankly pointless transparent crystal of tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms. On a fucking chain.

The taxi arrives outside. Time to go to whatever place hubby is taking his wife to, no doubt so he can prove his love once more by probably forking out for an ultra-expensive bankruptcy-inducing meal somewhere posh.


Rise of the single mothers, fall of decent society
August 28, 2007


11 December 2006

We all know family breakdown is destroying us. Don’t talk, fix it

Not only do we have the objective evidence to show, beyond any possibility of rational doubt, that the decline of marriage has had disastrous consequences for the community, but we can demonstrate that successive governments have effectively bribed mothers to remain single and keep their children fatherless.


Marriage provides the best conditions for raising children – OK? It is better than lone parenting because two people can cope much more effectively with the staggeringly difficult business of raising children properly – OK? Marriage is better for children than cohabitation because it is more likely to be stable and long lasting: one in two cohabiting couples split up before their child’s fifth birthday, compared with only one in 12 married couples – OK? Seventy per cent of young offenders come from lone-parent families; children from broken homes are 70 per cent more likely to become drug addicts. OK, OK, OK. We know all this. We have heard it over and over and over again.

Labour are not just bribing women to become single mothers they’re fully encouraging it.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:20 PM


Us poor men, destroyed by feminism apparantly.
August 28, 2007


08 December 2006

Feminism was going to liberate both sexes, but instead it destroyed a generation of men

This is one of a number of articles that regularly crops up, triumphing the successes women have supposedly made over the last few decades (but forever failing to mention the big helping hand from Daddy Government that they needed) but bemoaning about how it has harmed men.

Naturally, the whole underlying complaint in these sorts of articles is that, far from being concerned about how this all effects men, they only care about how this will, in turn, effect women.

Plus there are all sorts of laughable claims of how brilliant and independent women are when, clearly, they’re not.


“Me and my partner’s six-month anniversary”
August 27, 2007


05 December 2006

It strikes me as amusing the way a lot of women seem to try and disguise their lack of a husband, this primarily being women between 25 and 35 who are old enough to want to land a hubby, but young enough to be caught up in the Marriage Strike.

For starters, many refer to boyfriends as “partners”. Even if they don’t live together, a boyfriend is a “partner”.

To me, a partner is a business partner, or a dance partner. Or, of course, it’s also what gay people refer to their boyfriend/girlfriend. When I first heard a woman refer regularly to “my partner and I”, I honestly thought she was a lesbian talking about her girlfriend. Turned out it was just her boyfriend.

Few men refer to girlfriends as partners. Some might do, but they’re weirdoes. Married women don’t refer to their husbands as partners, they proudly refer to them as husbands.

So really, it’s only single women, finding it difficult to menace and nag that boyfriend into proposing (heaven forbid they consider proposing to him themselves!) who use the term “partner” to try and disguise the fact that they’re another casualty of the marriage strike.


A merry sing-a-long
August 27, 2007


02 December 2006


I was listening to some old Marilyn Manson album earlier, one I’d not listened to for a few years, and one song, Para Noir, contains a woman lewdly whispering lots of reasons why she’d fuck a guy.

The way these words are plainly uttered with determined ambition by the woman makes me imagine that this is pretty much what goes through most modern skank’s heads when they are trying to attract a man’s attention in the hope of fucking him, in more ways than one.

Or, to put it another way, this is what a woman would say whilst you tried to chat her up if she had taken some sort of pill that forced her, for fucking once, to actually be truthful about her motives and ambitions when she decided to grab her coat and hop into a taxi with you.

I’d fuck you for your money
I’d fuck you to control you
I’d fuck you so someday I can have half of everything you own
I’d fuck you to fuck you over
I’d fuck you until I find someone better
Then fuck you in secret
I’d fuck you because I can’t remember if I’d already fucked you before
I’d fuck you out of boredom
I’d fuck you because I can’t feel anything anyways
I’d fuck you to make the pain go away

I’d fuck you so I could feel something instead of nothing at all
I’d fuck you because you are beautiful
I’d fuck you because you are my nigger
I’d fuck you because I am your whore
I’d fuck you because you are a whore
I’d fuck you for fun
I’d fuck you for fun
I’d fuck you because I can
I’d fuck you so I have a place to stay
I’d fuck you so you will protect me

(The preceeding lyrics contained strong language and should not have been read by miners.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 3:25 PM


Do as I say, not as I do
August 27, 2007


01 December 2006

‘Don’t have children as late as I did’, says Minister

Women should avoid having children in their late thirties and early forties if they want help from active grandmothers who “leap about”, Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, said yesterday.

Harman – a feminist, like all other female Labour MPs – may appear to be showing signs of regretting the dumb feminist theory of leaving children until late in life, if at all.

But no. She’s motivated solely by selfishness, like all feminists:

She said that if her daughter left it, as she did, to have a daughter at 37, she would be 74 when she got to be a granny: “Far from being an active ‘leaping about’ granny, I might need my daughter to do a bit of shopping for me.

In other words, it was fine for her to have a child at 37, but there’s no way she wants her daughter to leave it that late lest she, Harman, be too old and inactive to enjoy being a grandmother.


Single mothers better off
August 26, 2007


27 November 2006

Single mothers get £100 more in tax credits a week than working couple

Single parents on the poverty line are getting over £100 a week more in state benefits than couples facing the same difficulties, a new report says.

The huge difference in the treatment of single parents and married couples is plunging millions of children into poverty and encouraging couples to live apart or break up, it said.


The report, produced by the family charity CARE, comes at a time of growing concern about the built-in bias towards single mothers in the benefits system.

Lone mothers qualify for special rights to get housing, extra payments in benefits like Income Support, and are targeted by schemes like Sure Start that provide help, advice and childcare

The government has blatantly been encouraging divorce and out-of-wedlock births. They know that a family headed by a man is independent, unlike a “family” consisting of a woman and her kids, which is invariably dependent on the government and thus easy to push around. Plus, of course, feminism’s primary aim was to push men out of families (but to ensure they are still financially responsible – whether directly through Child Support or indirectly through taxes – for women and children) and they have certainly succeeded.


From the Comments IV; Revenge of the Nice Guy
August 8, 2007


18 November 2006


A good comment this time, one made by Anonymous on a recent post.

A rebuke of women who followed feminism in their youth but wish to return to the age of old now that they have reached old age, this rant deserves to be put forth here for all to see.

Women have the right to neglect and let nice hardworking men rot all alone while they are in their late teens and early 20’s while they get to squander their prime year to the thugs and exciting bad boys.

In return once men get financially stable (mid 20’s-early 30’s) we’ve got every fucking right to rebuke these western skanks for the worthless piece of shit they are. If women are in their 30’s crying that they can’t have children or can’t find a good man, that is their fucking problem not mine! They should thought about this when they were around 20 rather than in their mid 30’s. When they are 20 they could pick what ever guy they want.

However, once we all hit 30, men like me will be the ones who will run the show not them! Since they threw away their prime years at bad boys and thugs, I for one will gladly let them feel the pain I went through in my late teens and early 20’s and will glady rebuke them and let them feel what it is like being alone without any one showing them any affection.

Amen Brother.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:24 PM


How dare you retire after providing for me for decades?!
August 6, 2007


14 November 2006

Retired husband syndrome

In Japan it is estimated that 60% of older women have a common problem – their husbands. Having spent years “married to their jobs”, retired men are having an extraordinary effect on the health of their partners.

Yet more victimhood, this time from the land of the Rising Sun. Or the Whining Daughters, as it is becoming, catching up with the West. These women are pissed off because hubby dare relax at home after retiring, having spent his life working hard.

It now seems that being an ungrateful fucking bitch is now a Syndrome! The poor wikkle women.

Women brought up during the 50s and 60s – the baby-boomer generation – are sometimes seen as a commodity by their husbands, someone to do the housework and look after the children.

And men bought up at all times are considered a commodity by their wives, someone to work hard and provide, to pay the mortgage and bills.

“When I thought about my husband being at home, I developed rashes on my body and had stomach ache,” admits Mrs Terakawa. “On occasions I would throw up after I had eaten.

“Sometimes just being in the same room as him made me physically sick.”

Look love, that isn’t a “syndrome”, that, once again, is simply being an ungrateful and hysterical bitch.

“If the husband doesn’t try to understand, the illness becomes incurable,” he says.

Fuck off Dr. Mangina. It’s not an illness.

In the West, of course, when relations have sunk to such a low, divorce would be a way out.

Rather; in the west, when a woman is this spiteful and ungrateful, she ditches her husband and takes him for all he is worth.

But in Japan, particularly among this generation, it is far less culturally acceptable.

Not only that, but a divorced wife has no rights to her husband’s pension and would usually be unable to survive financially should they decide to part ways.

As it fucking should be (although the law is changing I’ve heard, to give women access to hubby’s pension, and everything else he earned.)


Being a crap mother and a drunk = more empowerment!
August 2, 2007


12 November 2006


Martini Moms toast a rebellion against parental correctness

WHEN Laura Hunter welcomes up to half a dozen fellow mothers to her suburban New Jersey home for an afternoon children’s play hour, she follows a strict routine. The children are ushered into the playroom or garden and given cups filled with apple or orange juice. Then Hunter gets out her real glasses and pours margaritas for the mums.

They have become known as the Mommies Who Drink, after the title of a new book by Brett Paesel, a California writer who urges mothers not to sacrifice their lives to child-rearing. Their cocktail of choice is the “momtini” — a potent Martini designed to make mothers feel better about the hours they are obliged to spend responsibly sober.

Wow, well done girls, you can all get drunk and feel proud about it.

Although I don’t think mothers should refrain from ever relaxing or drinking, it’s absurd and pathetic the way they all seem to think they’re so empowered and rebellious “because, giggle, we have a drink! Squeal!” Plus they don’t even wait until their kids are being looked after by someone else or in bed before breaking out the booze. Just thrust them into the garden then get pissed with all the other skanks.


From the comments II
August 2, 2007


11 November 2006

nicole said…

Our babies, our choice. We will murder as many baby boys as we want so that they don’t grow up into patriarchal bastards like you.


I grudgingly salute you for at least using the correct term of “murder” rather than the old feminist euphemisms of “abortion” or “reproductive assistance”.

Now go away and feed your pussy. Thankyoujellymuch.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:07 AM


From the comments
August 2, 2007


10 November 2006

This rant landed in the comments section of a recent post of mine, from someone called “Willie“:

You probably won’t post this. Who really cares. But this site is ridiculous. Any man knows that men still enjoy privledge. It seems you are just upset cuz you can’t go out and club a woman over her head, drag her back to your apartment and then rape her just for a quick thrill and to spread your pathetic seed. Get over yourself.

Rather than indulge in mud-slinging and insults, I think it’s worth politely pointing out and expanding my viewpoint to this chap, for what it’s worth.

For starters, if he thinks the idea of thuggish men beating women, dragging them off to rape them and impregnating them is bad, then alarmingly we actually have something in common. I have no such desire to do such a thing or to leave women open to such treatment either.

However, ironically, it is a post-feminist society that removes the restraints on women that makes this scenario more likely.

Before feminism, women were looked down upon for getting knocked up by thugs and losers, and not having the right to an abortion meant they had to be careful and only hook up with nice-guys. Divorce was frowned upon too, so women better make sure they’re hooked up with a decent chap, not some “exciting” but obnoxious criminal. Plus girls grew up with a father-figure to represent the strong-but-considerate male figure they should seek when selecting a mate. A father would also protect his daughter.


Something lighthearted
July 30, 2007


25 October 2006

Courtesy of The Onion

DNA Evidence Frees Man After 15 Years Of Marriage

JACKSONVILLE, FL—Henry “Hank” Doswell, 42, was released from his marriage Wednesday, after DNA tests conclusively proved his innocence in the July 1991 fathering of Spencer Doswell, the solitary charge that has kept him committed for 15 years.

Visibly moved to tears as his divorce lawyer read the test results, Doswell, who had been confined to a suburban housing facility after being wrongly wedded after allegedly impregnating then-girlfriend Karen Sanders, told reporters he was relieved to finally set his matrimonial record straight.

You can obviously tell it’s a spoof; in real-life men are forced to pay Child Support even if it’s proven that their wife’s kid is actually some other guy’s!

“I’ve made some choices I’m not proud of,” said the newly liberated Doswell. “When you’re in wedlock, you have to do things you never thought you would, make friends with people you would have never made friends with on the outside, shop at a Pottery Barn. But after wasting almost half my life on baptisms and birthday parties meant for some other man, I’m not about to take my single life for granted anymore.”

“I can’t believe I’m actually free,” he added.


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:16 PM


%d bloggers like this: