Archive for the ‘matriarchy’ Category

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

——————————————————-

14 June 2007

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

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

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

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

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

..

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

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

..

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

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

..

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

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

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

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

Modern Britain sucks balls.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:22 PM

(more…)

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

——————————————————-

14 June 2007

Family misfortunes

PDF

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

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

..

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:05 PM

(more…)

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…)

The Hunt & Humiliate Broke Men Agency
September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

06 June 2007

Mothers to name and shame absent fathers

PDF

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

Mothers invited to name and shame absent fathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:31 PM

(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…)

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…)

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

——————————————————-

16 May 2007

A few choice words from a harmful and sexist angle

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more…)

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

——————————————————-

14 May 2007

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

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

..

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

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

“Part-time spying”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:27 PM

(more…)

Skanky sis
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

04 May 2007

‘If my sister’s kidney fails I won’t donate one of mine’

PDF

This is the case of a woman refusing to donate her kidney to her sister – should she need it – on the understandable basis that her sister is a drunken slut.

Here’s the healthy non-kidney-donating woman describing her sister’s life:

At first, [my sister’s] career went well; she was promoted to the company director’s PA by the time she was 19.

She was earning good money, while I was struggling to get by on a student grant; generous to a fault, she bought me expensive presents and always paid for dinner when we met up.

But then it all started to go wrong for her. She started a doomed affair with a married man who took advantage of her youth and naivety.

He treated her very badly and broke her heart, and I think many of the things that went wrong for her later in life can be traced to this man.

Ah right, so it’s all this man’s fault then is it? He “took advantage of her”? It’s always the same; when something goes wrong in a relationship the woman was taken advantage of. As opposed to accepting that she deliberately got involved with a married man who only wanted her for sex.

And as for her “youth and naivety”…she was over 19, she was an adult. Aren’t women meant to mature quicker than guys?

Anyway, back to the biography of this charming woman:

Not long after he ended their relationship, [my sister] suddenly announced her engagement to a young man she’d known only a few weeks.

It was clearly a rebound relationship, but within months, they were married.

We all knew it was going to be a disaster, so no one was very much surprised when they split up less than two years later.

Perhaps she could have put it down to experience and moved on with her life – but then she found out she was pregnant.

Her ex-husband demanded a paternity test, which duly proved the baby wasn’t his, and when she was just three months pregnant, she moved in with a new boyfriend. He was initially very supportive, but when the baby was born, he started to resent him.

So she split up with her hubby, fucked another guy then got pregnant by him, then was soon shacked up with another guy. What a slag.

(more…)

Comments
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

13 April 2007

I got a couple of comments posted today at the Telegraph and The London Times, managing to hopefully tweak the noses of some dumb fembots and manginas.

This first one is by Caitlin Moron, a child-murdering man-hating fembot cunt I despise with a passion:

Why I believe abortion is part of being a good mother

Yes, Mizz Moron has managed to conclude that having your baby hacked to bits and flung in a bin because you couldn’t be arsed to raise it is a sign of a woman being a good mum.

Amidst a few other women bragging of killing their kids, I managed to get this published:

It shows how damaged and messed up you are Caitlin if you honestly think that the fact that you have murdered one of your own children, and would be prepared to do so again, is an act of “good mothering.”

Any woman who has had an abortion is a child-killer. Accept it you vile murderers.

Posted by: Duncan | 13 Apr 2007 09:59:04

Then there was this:

Are men becoming obsolete?

It is significant that women so regularly ask “What are men for then?” It shows women’s selfish and spoiled ways, namely that they automatically assume everyone and everything else in the Universe is for their benefit. Women are thrown into confusion if they attempt to grasp the idea of there being anything or anyone that isn’t there solely to serve their whims.

Incidentally, if you want to see a world without men, just pop along to the nearest crime-ridden poverty-reeking inner-city single-mother populated ghetto. Such charming places are pretty much pure Matriarchies with just women and “their” children.

Posted by Duncan on April 13, 2007 9:51 AM

Incidentally, hunt for David Llewellyn around the Telegraph’s comments. Now that’s a fucking woman-firster mangina if I ever saw one.

Otherwise, though, it is good to see so many other guys posting on topics like this and happily slagging off feminists and getting more and more fucking angry at women. It’s also funny to see the occasional woman bemoaning that a “battle of the sexes” is pointless, and you usually know it’s probably some man-hating ex-fembot who is beginning to get a taste of all that animosity she and her sex have flung at ours coming back with a vengeance.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:06 PM

(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…)

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…)

Pregnant women don’t have a good time at work. Aww!
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

29 March 2007

‘Pregnant workers badly treated’

Most bosses fail to properly manage pregnant staff and many mums feel badly treated at work after maternity leave, a report claims.

So? Why should I, as a man, give a fuck?

This is the simple retort us men should adopt whenever presented with some real or imagined complaint women have; Why should I give a fuck? How does this effect me? If it doesn’t effect me, I don’t care.

After all, women moan about anything and everything.

If pregnant women and new mums can’t cut it in the workforce, even in cushy offices, they can stop moaning, resign and fuck off. There are plenty of men who are willing to work properly without demanding their employer cater to their every need.

EOC chairwoman Jenny Watson said: “Women are now nearly half the workforce. There’s no turning back from this major social change…”

Snigger! Want a bet?

Actually, thinking about it, maybe women will soon make up 99% of the workforce as more men drop out and refuse to slave away for the Matriarchy (and, of course, we’ll be hearing endless whining from the EOC that women are burdened with having to do all the work, boo-fucking-hoo!)

…so it’s vital that workplaces are equipped to make pregnancy at work a good experience.”

What the fuck? It’s not a workplace’s responsibility to ensure women have a fucking ‘good experience’, pregnant or otherwise. They, the women, are there to do what the men are there to do; fucking work!

(more…)

Fifteen people held captive, including – oh no! – a member of the non-expendable sex
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

27 March 2007

The mother captured by Iran

Iran kidnaps: Let mummy go

A total of fifteen British sailors and Royal Marines have been captured by Iran but this is all we seem to hear; this one single female amongst them.

Sorry, this mother, as they all seem to emphasise.

What about the fourteen men? What about mentioning that some of them, no doubt, are fathers?

It’s as if women should be kept completely out of harm’s way, especially if they have children (but still allowed in the military to ensure equality of course), but men – fathers included – are not really a big deal. They’re more expendible it seems.

Take this headline, or this one, talking of the captured woman’s family being ‘distressed’. I’m sure they are. I’m sure the families of the fourteen men are a bit distressed too, but no reporters seem to flock to their doors to see how they feel.

Naturally I hope she gets home safely, but I hope all the men do too, unlike the media, which once again only really gives a shit about women.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:01 PM

(more…)

Mothers who can’t be arsed to raise their baby can dump it in a hatch
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

26 March 2007

‘Dump your children here’ drive to stop mothers killing their babies

Desperate mothers are being urged to drop their unwanted babies through hatches at hospitals in an effort to halt a spate of infanticides that has shocked Germany.

At least 23 babies have been killed so far this year, many of them beaten to death or strangled by their mothers before being dumped on wasteland and in dustbins.

Fucking hell, is this what the West has come to, whereby babies can be dumped into hatches? There was a similar scheme started in Italy a while back.

Incredible. To stop women from killing their babies, the government let them just dump them? How about actually fucking punishing the murderous cunts for once? If a woman kills her baby, try charging them with murder and banging them up for life, rather than with the bullshit charge of infanticide and giving them a suspended sentence or community service. Hold women responsible for fucking once.

But no, instead they’ll just let women dump their babies. No mention of what a child’s father might think (assuming the sort of mothers who would dump an unwanted baby in a hatch would actually know who the father is) about all this. Then again, men will have the same say in whether their baby is dumped as they do in whether their baby is hacked up and flung in a bin behind an abortion clinic; absolutely fuck all.

If men won’t – or even can’t – pay Child Support, they are damned as Deadbeat Dads and hounded, investigated and imprisoned, told to be responsible for their children. Yet women can abandon them, assuming they didn’t get round to having it aborted. “Never mind loves, you don’t want to have to take responsibility for your children. Only men do. Come and dump your kids anonymously, no worries.”

(more…)

Another mining disaster
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

20 March 2007

Russian mine explosion kills 75

At least 75 miners are dead, a number that could rise, and at least 43 are missing after a methane gas explosion Monday at a coal mine in southwestern Siberia, the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations said.

My deepest sympathies for the men and women who have died in this disast…

Sorry. I mean, my deepester sympathies for the MEN who have died in this disaster.

The sex of the deceased is not noted but I doubt very much if 50% of them are women. I would be surprised if one fucking cunt was amongst the dead.

And I doubt very much if the ‘non-equal-outcome gender-specific quota’ of the death-toll of this tragedy is going to spur some fembots into a big push to shove some more token-women into mining.

After all, despite women’s collective demands for “equality in the workplace”, they don’t seem want to do dirty and dangerous jobs.

Such jobs, apparently, are too good for them.

Dirty jobs, dangerous jobs, harsh jobs are, in the eyes of women, the responsibility of the expendable and worthless half of humanity.

Us men, basically.

Yes, us men, us men who are somehow expected to form an endless queue of volunteers who will happily risk life and limb on oil-rigs or down mineshafts to ensure cunts the world over have enough fuel to drive to their Wimmin’s Studies Class to bitch about how victimised they are, or enough electricity to power the televisions through which some Talk-Show Host informs them they are the most oppressed demographic in history, to which lazy do-nothing “housewife” Western Cunts bark and shriek in multiple-chin-wobbling approval like clapping seals, in between scoffing down yet another tube of Thug-Spunk Flavoured Pringles.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 11:01 PM

(more…)

Parents almost officially redundant in UK
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

16 March 2007

babyike.gif

Is your baby playing with its toes yet? If not the government wants to know why

Babies will be assessed on their gurgling, babbling and toe-playing abilities when they are a few months old under a legally enforced national curriculum for children from birth to five published by the government yesterday.

Every nursery, childminder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children’s progress towards a set of 69 government-set “early learning goals”, recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go.

Nothing smacks of a Socialist tyranny more than a government’s obsessive interest in its people’s children.

First off – thanks to Socialism and it’s angry big sister, Feminism – young children spend more and more time in daycare centres as women go off to the ‘fulfilling’ 9-to-5 jobs feminism promised them. Then these daycare centre’s staff are issued clip-boards and told to assess the babies.

Throw in a vast Social Worker industry with the power to take children from parents based on any old criteria, and you’re not far off the Marxist ideal of men and women as identical drones working away whilst their babies are raised by the government.

(more…)

Feminism is succeeding in parting the sexes
September 18, 2007

——————————————————-

16 March 2007

bridgetjones.jpg

Bridget Jones generation will dominate UK by 2029

PDF

The number of people living alone is predicted to soar from 6,536,000 three years ago to 10,347,000 in 2029, creating a Bridget Jones generation.

Well, marriage is too risky for us men, there are few women worth marrying, and women are seemingly incapable of shaping up or proposing to men anyway. And the government, using taxpayer’s money, has taken of the role of Father for all those single mummies out there. Plus co-habitation will go the same way as marriage now that it’s been re-branded Marriage Lite. What did the government think would happen? Dumb motherfuckers.

Gotta hand it to feminists, they did a good job. I mean, credit where it’s due, they have succeeded in their aims at driving the sexes apart and ensuring more and more women will, like hardcore fembots themselves, grow up alone and single. Rather amusingly, on the other hand, us men seem to be coping quite fine with eternal bachelorhood.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:51 PM

(more…)

%d bloggers like this: