Archive for the ‘misandry’ 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


September 24, 2007


13 June 2007

Woman jailed for testicle attack


A woman who ripped off her ex-boyfriend’s testicle with her bare hands has been sent to prison.

Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage when Geoffrey Jones, 37, rejected her advances at the end of a house party, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

She pulled off his left testicle and tried to swallow it, before spitting it out.

What a vicious cunt. Lets hope the got a lengthy prison term.

Monti admitted wounding and was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

How silly of me to have though she’d get an appropriate sentence. I wonder what a man would have been given if he’d ripped the tits off of a woman who rejected his advances? Probably a wee bit longer I think. I note this story was from early 2005, so she’ll be a free woman now. I also note that this is one of the top e-mailed stories on the BBC news site, no doubt thanks to women giggling and sending it to each other.

In a letter to the court, Monti said she was sorry for what she had done.

She said: “It was never my intention to cause harm to Geoff and the fact that I have caused him injury will live with me forever. I am in no way a violent person.”

The letter added: “I have challenged myself to explain what has happened but still I just cannot remember. This has caused much anguish to me and will do for the rest of my life.

Is there any greater illustration of modern women’s selfishness, amorality and eternal victimhood than that last statement? She’s moaning about the anguish it caused her!

Come to think about it; have you ever met a woman who suffered any genuine remorse for any bad things she’s done? Or actually admitted that she’s ever done anything wrong or harmful to another person?

Hopefully, in the spirit of karma, this Amanda Monti bitch will get ovarian cancer or something.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:25 PM


The Hunt & Humiliate Broke Men Agency
September 24, 2007


06 June 2007

Mothers to name and shame absent fathers


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


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


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.


Woman have fucked the BBC up, says Patrick Moore
September 23, 2007


08 May 2007

The BBC is being ruined by women, says Patrick Moore

Sir Patrick, 84, was asked by the Radio Times if television had got better or worse during a career spanning the medium’s life. The answer was worse – “much worse”.

He said: “The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn’t have had that in the golden days.”

They have even destroyed sci-fi, Sir Patrick’s personal passion. He said: “I used to watch Doctor Who and Star Trek, but they went PC – making women commanders, that kind of thing. I stopped watching.”

Several other guys at the BBC have made the same comments, Rik Mayall being another. It’s good to see there are some guys who do not bow down to political correctness and will happily have a go at women and feminists.

The BBC’s output is truly shit. Brainless soap-operas and makeover programmes. It’s not worth the licence fee. In fact, because the BBC is non-commercial, and thus don’t have the need to pander to advertisers – who prefer female audiences because women are more materialistic and more suggestible to advertising – they don’t have the excuse of having to aim to attract women to ensure an income.

Their worthless output and sickeningly bias news output is solely down to the feminist/socialist scum in charge of the place.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:56 PM


September 20, 2007


28 April 2007


“Women’s town” to put men in their place

Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction — the world’s first “women’s town,” where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday.

The motto of the new town would be “women never make mistakes, and men can never refuse women’s requests,” Chinese media have reported.

When tour groups enter the town, female tourists would play the dominant role when shopping or choosing a place to stay, and a disobedient man would be punished by “kneeling on an uneven board” or washing dishes in restaurant, media reports said.

Why bother with such a gimmick?

It sounds a lot like what Western Society – or what’s left of it – has become, but just on a smaller scale.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:44 AM


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


Dead men don’t matter
September 20, 2007


06 April 2007

Sick Iraqi taunt as two women die

One would think from that headline that there had been an attack on British soldiers that had left two female soldiers dead.

Technically that is true.

More accurately though, there was an attack that left four British soldiers dead. Two female and two male.

But to the media, only the female ones are worth mentioning. The two men don’t even warrant an acknowledgment in the headline.

No wonder so many men – like me, obviously – are rather hostile and nihilistic towards this shitty society when our politicians and the media go out of the way to make it clear that only women matter, whilst us men are expendable.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 3:08 PM


Septic Septuagenarian Skank Spouts Off
September 19, 2007


22 March 2007


Still a burning issue

Marilyn French, the author of The Women’s Room, tells why she is still full of fury that the world remains a place messed up by men.

Short answer; she’s angry because she’s a Western Women, who are nearly always pissed off and moaning about fucking something, and she believes it is all men’s fault because she’s a Western Woman and a feminist to boot, and thus unable to accept any blame for her own misery.

The long answer…well, let’s read the article and sneer at the fucking bitch.

The girl at the Bobbi Brown make-up counter at Barneys wants to know what I’m doing in New York. I tell her that I’m interviewing Marilyn French, who wrote a book in the Seventies called The Women’s Room, bought by 20 million people and read by many more: dog-eared copies passed around neighbourhoods, hidden from husbands, read in secret at kitchen tables when the kids had gone to school. Hailed as the first feminist novel, it was devoured by desperate housewives around the world for its dramatisation of their feelings of rage and frustration, its offer of freedom through sisterhood and radical politics.

And now women have that wonderful freedom to be old and single and angry, not to mention slaving away at soul-crushing jobs. Brave girls.

“Wow!” breathes the girl, a blonde American beauty with flawless skin. “Yeah, wow!” says her colleague, who has a mane of dark hair and scarlet lips, “that’s so cool.” The blonde girl had done a semester of women’s studies at college and was getting married soon: she wanted to keep her career but also to have babies and make a nice home.

Typical dumb greedy bitch; she wants it all – to be a career woman, a housewife and a mother – but can’t comprehend the idea that she can’t. No-one can.


Mangina Services Network praises women again
September 17, 2007


08 March 2007

Why women wear the money trousers

A staggeringly moronic “article” by a monumentally obtuse spazzed-out fuck-brained nutjob that doesn’t really deserve any comment, except for derisive sniggering and hoots of laughter.

Women have achieved financial independence and are better at saving indeed. Pffft!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:38 PM


Women better at being friends than us men, claims twat
September 17, 2007


07 March 2007


This never, ever happens apparently.

Women ‘better at friendships’


Women form deep and lasting friendships while men make fickle friends over a pint, according to research published today.

Snigger, chuckle.

Females make “deeper and more moral” pals than their male counterparts, who are “calculating” in who they choose to call their mates, according to a new study by the University of Manchester.


The four-year investigation concluded that friendships between men are “fickle” and based on what what “they can get out of it”.

Giggle, guffaw!

Dr Gindo Tampubolon, from the university’s Research Centre for Socio-Cultural Change, said men based their friendships on boozing in the pub.

He said: “Friendship between women seems to be fundamentally different to friendship between men.

“It’s much deeper and more moral: it’s about the relationship itself rather than what they can get out of it.

“Women tend to keep their friends through thick and thin across geography and social mobility.


Holy shit, what planet are these fuck-witted arse biscuits on?


Mine blast
September 12, 2007


04 February 2007

Colombia mine gas blast kills 18

A gas explosion at a coal mine in north-eastern Colombia has killed at least 18 miners.

Although it is not explicitly stated, it is clear that all the miners who died were men. As is the case with all the other mine blasts, such as many recent ones in China, including one that left more than a hundred dead.

No, you wouldn’t catch women doing such dangerous (not to mention dirty) jobs like that. They’re too busy sitting in air-conditioned offices, with health and safety rules strictly enforced, and even laws that enable them to file a harassment lawsuit should any man say something they feel uncomfortable with, even if it’s something as lame as “Hey, nice blouse Suzie.” And as they sit there, filing their nails, they bitch and moan about how oppressed they are.

I say it’s time men stopped doing dangerous jobs like mining and construction. Let women try and do them. If they don’t bother – which they won’t – then laugh and watch as nothing gets mined or built and society stagnates and crumbles. Har har!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 4:44 PM


Get back to Uni you dumb men!
September 11, 2007


31 January 2007


Job prospects fear as boys shun university


Of course boys are shunning University; these places are feminist and PC-thug infested shit-holes these days.

I think this is a good thing anyway. Let women storm triumphantly into Universities, get themselves loaded with major debts to get pissy worthless degrees in Media Studies and Women’s Studies. Guys will either pick up a trade and/or experience in the workplace early or, better yet, do an easy job and only take care of themselves financially. Let women work themselves into an early grave at their graduate jobs.

Not that there are many graduate jobs around anyway. Most graduates end up working in call-centres or such shit. I went to Uni, but dropped out, and consequently I’m one of the few people in my department at work who doesn’t have a degree. Does it make any difference? Of course not. I’m at the same level as several women who have degrees in things like History or English, which have no influence on their job skills at all. In fact, apart from the hard sciences and engineering, most degrees are increasingly worthless because so many people have them.


Dead man’s consent not necessary for sperm donation
September 6, 2007


19 January 2007

Victory in dead Israeli sperm row

The lawyer of an Israeli couple who won the right to use their dead son’s sperm to inseminate a woman he never met says the case is a boost for family rights.

I don’t see why this is a boost for family rights. It’s taken more rights from men away, at least in Israel (although there was a similar case in the UK a while ago whereby a widow, Diane Blood, was able to given permission to conceive two children using pre-fertilized embryos her and her late husband had had frozen.)

Irit Rosenblum told the BBC the landmark ruling meant family lines could continue even without the written consent of the male prior to death.

Fucking hell. So even in death, it seems, us men are fair game to be harvested for sperm then?

I can understand the guy’s parents wanting grandchildren, but I think it’s still wrong. Do they not consider the feelings of the child that will result from this? Fancy not only being raised without a father, but being born five-years after he died, not to mention knowing your mum and dad never even met. Or that your dad never gave express consent for you to be created.

That kid will probably spend a lot of their adolescence on a psychiatrist’s couch.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:56 PM


Women prefer pussy to men, apparantly.
September 3, 2007


25 December 2006


The purr-fect companion

Men versus cats – have they ever stood a chance? Men, I mean.


I’m not sure whether I’m drawn to ‘free-spirited feline mysticism’ (is that a branch of Kabbalah?), but I am a lifelong cat fan.


It could even be argued, with a cat-food industry valued at £700m, that cats are fast becoming a feminist issue. Maybe, then, it’s only right that women and cats have their very own £1m advert celebrating their love for each other. Saying that, let’s not get over-excited. Any sane woman who loves cats would be highly unlikely to view them as ‘furry placebos’ for the real stuff of life and relationships. Men just spread that around, possibly because they can’t stand the competition.

To summarize the article:

Blah-blah, men are useless, yadda-yadda, who needs men, yak-yak, fucking stupid fat stupid men, waffle-waffle, cats are brilliant, menopause-menopause, etc.

This seems all jolly defensive, doesn’t it?


“Damn, not enough men are being imprisoned!”
August 27, 2007


07 December 2006

Juries reluctant to convict men of rape if woman was drunk

Juries are reluctant to convict men of rape if the woman who brings the allegation was drunk, research has found.


The findings are compelling fresh evidence that juries composed of ordinary people are unwilling to comply with Government demands to deliver more convictions for rape.

Ministers say there are too few convictions and have been altering the rape laws in order to try to get more men jailed after rape trials. Barely five per cent of allegations end in conviction

The government, as mentioned in this article, has been “altering” rape laws – and the definition of rape – in order to put more men in prison on the word of a woman, and earlier this year promised to bring in “experts” (i.e. feminists with degrees in Wimmin’s Studies) to give “evidence” at trials to gloss over any doubts juries may have, such as explaining why some women took ages to come forward and bring an allegation against a man. It mentions this later in the article:

He announced plans to allow “expert” witnesses to explain to juries the damaging impact of rape, and video evidence showing distraught women in police stations within hours of alleged rapes.

Trials should be about objectivity; facts, evidence and impartial rules. Here we have fembots trying to cast that aside and twitter on about how “distraught” some woman was, and trying to urge juries to bring a guilty verdict based on how upset a woman looked (bear in mind women often get flustered and upset about anything these days, whenever their Entitlement Princess mentality encounters an obstacle, like Real Life. Or they can just fake it and turn the waterworks on like a switch.)


“Criticising feminism? You obviously have a small penis.”
August 7, 2007


15 November 2006

At The Times, there’s some “agony aunt” called Mrs Mills (I doubt it’s the one currently trying to financially arse-raped Paul McCartney mind, although she’s just as fucking annoying.) She supposedly solves people’s problems or such rubbish.

A few weeks ago some guy wrote in:

What to stand for:
I seldom use the London Underground — actually, I try to avoid it at all costs. Please could you clarify the protocol of offering your seat to women during rush hour. I noticed that it seemed male policy to either read a book or feign sleep, and miraculously awaken at their chosen stop, avoiding eye contact with the fairer sex as they alight. Clearly, if the lady in question is pregnant, you stand up, but I noticed that many women try to trick men by feigning pregnancy. I’ m a healthy thirtysomething male.
HM, Wandsworth

Seems like a fair question.

But let’s see Mrs Mill’s oh-so-unwitty response:

You fail to mention the most important criterion: age. People still do, more or less universally, give up their seats for the elderly. Now, most men and women agree that a young woman is just as capable of standing up as a young man, so (and here’s the tricky bit) at what point does a woman count as infirm enough for a man to get up and offer her his seat? Many women take the offer as a mortal insult. I have heard one outraged fortysomething yell, “I’ll have you know I’m in my sexual prime, you little tick!” Given the cowardly disposition of most men, no wonder they feign sleep.

I don’t really know what her point is – I have difficulty following women’s points and, ahem, “reasoning”; it’s like following a bee on acid against a stripy yellow-and-black background whilst drunk – but note her final sentence. Ah yes, a good old bit of male-bashing when all the guy wanted to do is know whether it was polite or insulting to give up a seat for women.


No drugs for you men
July 31, 2007


03 November 2006

Patients ‘denied prostate drug’

A charity for men with prostate cancer says many face a “titanic” struggle to be prescribed an approved drug.

Taxotere can improve the quality of life of patients in the later stages of the cancer, and prolong their lives.

It was approved in June by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for use in the NHS in England and Wales.

But each course costs about £7,000 and the Prostate Cancer Charity says some men are denied it on cost grounds.


Professor Nick James, of the University of Birmingham, said primary care trusts would not dare to treat women with breast cancer in the same way that they treated men with prostate cancer for fear of attracting negative media headlines.

“Essentially men with prostate cancer get a very raw deal. The people who make these funding decisions make them with one eye on how it is going to play in the media.”

Unlike the case of breast cancer, which in addition to getting vastly more funding than prostate cancer research, also has drugs that are freely available regardless of cost to women:

More than 5,000 women in the UK with early stage HER2 positive breast cancer will now be suitable to use Herceptin at an estimated cost to the NHS of £100m a year. “NICE have proved its cost effective which is what I’ve been saying from the start,” she said.

Then again, we’re just men; to the government and women we’re beneath females, children and animals. Until it comes to harvesting taxes or finding some cannon fodder.

Incidentally, I never give money to breast cancer charities. A load of women at work went on a sponsored run for breast cancer last year, and although they pointed out men could not take part, they insisted we could “do our bit” and pledge some money. I didn’t. Though I couldn’t be arsed explaining why, I just flat out refused to. It may sound harsh, but fuck it, when do any women give a shit about men’s health? They get enough taxpayers money anyway.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:30 PM


July 24, 2007


07 October 2006


Family violence is a hidden problem within Australian society. Nearly 1 in 4 women experience family violence in a marriage or marriage-like relationship.

This twittering pile of man-hating shit – funded by the taxes of Australians – tries so desperately to find further reasons to demonize men and portray women as constant victims. It presents a list of ways to identify yourself as a (chorus of angels singing) VICTIM:

Physical: punching, hitting, shoving, kicking or injuring with weapons.

Okay, that’s rather abusive, I can handle that. Obviously women are as likely as to indulge in that as men, but Heaven forbid us from pointing that out to the general population. Fembots don’t want their funding cut off, do they?

Sexual: forcing or demanding sex or sexual acts which a person does not wish to perform.

Look, woman, if you marry a guy and expect him to provide for you until you die, the least you can do is put out for him.

Verbal: harassment, put downs, insults, comments intended to humiliate, and name calling.

Women indulge in this far more than men. Women excel in verbal abuse, insults and shaming, even on men they’re not in a relationship with.

Social: not allowing a person in your family to have friends, isolating them from other family members, denying them access to the car or telephone and making public insults.

Yes, yes, I know this is made out to conjure up the image of some nasty man preventing a woman from going out, but that doesn’t really happen, does it? Instead, what you’re likely to encounter when organizing a Lad’s Night Out is poor old married guy muttering “I can’t go out, Her Indoors went mental the last time I went out and came home at midnight.”

Financial: expecting a person in your family to cope with inadequate money and not sharing the family resources fairly.

Transalation employing my Feminist/Human – Human/Feminist Dictionary:

Working every waking hour but not able to afford all the useless shit your fucking materialistic cunt of a wife demands because you dare waste the family (i.e. yours) resources on useless shit like paying the mortgage or feeding the kids.


%d bloggers like this: