Archive for the ‘relationships’ Category

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


Libby Purves article
September 23, 2007


31 May 2007

Oh, the garden looks lovely, darling


This article from Libby Purves (one of the few female columnists in the UK who doesn’t hate men) concerns marriage, and how being nice to each other is a good way for spouses to remain together. In fact she rightly spends a lot of the article denouncing modern women for their often spiteful and ungrateful attitudes towards their husbands – and men in general – and entitlement complexes.

[W]ho could argue when Ebbutt says that there is an art in being married, and that you should not “exhaust your artistic power in getting married” but put some effort into staying that way.

This view has faded a little in the age of modern companionate marriage and rising female expectations. It sometimes seems, reading and observing, as if the notion of deploying effort, cleverness, and determined goodwill inside marriage (or prolonged partnership) has atrophied as women got more confident and physical sexuality took centre stage. In advice, fiction and TV there is polarisation between those who advocate frilly, vampish absurdities to “keep passion alive” and those who think that equality means perpetual competition, and a tedious sexual politics that jealously counts who does every household chore and celebrates women who bitch about the deficiencies of the male. I lose count of the chick-lit novels celebrating the shallowest aspects of female nature – shoe addiction, silliness, shopaholic Gaye Gambol profligacy – while excoriating men for being irrational about football, or cars, or reluctance to “commit” (frankly, until the prenup becomes law I would be nervous of committing my lifetime’s earning power to a lot of the self-obsessed fictional airheads we women are supposed to love).

Even older-women’s fiction – and journalism – often wilfully ignores the emotional rights of the male. One new novel is about a woman so neurotic about being 50 – for God’s sake! – that she is vile to her long-suffering husband, splashes out on flash underwear, sleeps with a stranger and pays scant attention to her offspring. And we are supposed to identify with the silly cow! Other frequent discourse tackles the “problem” of a man retired or redundant, suddenly being at home all day under his wife’s feet in “her” domain. Never mind that he paid for most of the damn house, sweating in a boring office and commuting for 30 years. Never mind keeping passion alive; how about keeping simple friendliness alive?

The new commonplace of the higher-earning woman also needs a bit of work. Men need to learn that it is childish to flounce around claiming to be emasculated by earning less, and then run off with some woman lower down the earning chain just in order to be worshipped again. But women, frankly, often need lessons in being graceful and tactful about being main breadwinners. They are not always so. I am still haunted by a letter in The Guardian some years ago from a woman who was supporting her redundant husband while he wrote a book, and said that she felt aggrieved and didn’t like him expressing opinions at dinner parties because her earnings had paid for the newspapers that enabled him to have the opinions in the first place. I am sorry to say that the reply to this was not “Curl up in shame, you unloving materialist bitch!”, which would probably have been my approach.

This may be why I am not an agony aunt.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:17 PM


‘He earned it, but you have half anyway.’
September 23, 2007


24 May 2007

“I’m a multi-millionaire…and I didn’t have to work for a penny of it!

‘Housewife’ keeps record £48m divorce payout


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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.)


Oedipus Schmoedipus
September 23, 2007


11 May 2007

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

This, of course, is a load of bollocks.

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

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

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


Hags Mags
September 23, 2007


09 May 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s right; Women’s Studies

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:39 PM


Skanky sis
September 23, 2007


04 May 2007

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


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.


The spiteful sex
September 21, 2007


02 May 2007

Wife put excrement in man’s curry


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:20 PM


The youth of today
September 20, 2007


28 April 2007


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:56 AM


Worn out wannabe brides
September 20, 2007


20 April 2007


Before feminism, females would generally marry young, often before turning 20. Thus they gave most of their prime and fertile years (16 – 24) to a husband who – assuming he was a good husband, and most were – would be loyal to her and give to her the best and most productive of his years by providing for her.

Now, of course, most women want to marry later, often past 25 or even 30. There is talk of the ‘eleven-year party gap’ in some women’s articles, whereby women sleep around for a decade after leaving University then marry at 32. Once they’re all used up. That’s the plan anyway, none of the articles along these lines seem to mention post-31 women who went along this route and managed to find a devoted hubby, they just talk to the deluded party-girls in their twenties who insist everything will all go to plan.

I hear plenty of young women at work talk of putting off marriage, one even getting worried when she thought (incorrectly, as it turned out) that her boyfriend was planning on proposing to her.

“No way am I getting married now,” the 22-year-old said, “I won’t marry until I’m at least 26. After all, what if someone better comes along in that time?”

Another young woman insisted – in all seriousness – that “40 is a good age for a woman to marry.”

Not all women use these youthful years to sleep around wantonly, but plenty do. One 24-year-old woman at work is apparantly on her third boyfriend of the year already and it’s only April (she is talking of wanting to get married soon, but that’s probably because she had an illegitimate kid by some thug a couple of years ago, and she no doubt wants a stepfather for the bastard.) The article I posted about a few weeks ago, about the ‘eleven-year party gap’, quoted one woman of 23 who bragged of sleeping with 40 men.

One woman I dated a few years ago (and ditched after just the one date) happily told me over dinner an anecdote of getting yelled at and grounded by her parents when she was 13 ‘because I was always sneakin’ out and getting drunk with these older guys from school who I hung out with and who bought me and me mates booze.’

Yeah, I can figure what ‘hung out with’ means. She and her drunken mates were getting some of the old in-out from these older guys. This woman was 27, so she’d evidently been humping away for fourteen-years. Eew! Swiftly-nexted. Pronto.


Think of the children!
September 20, 2007


19 April 2007

We are constantly told that women are the ‘fairer’ sex, especially with regards to children, that women are caring and nurturing towards little ‘uns whilst us men are cruel and harsh with them.

Amongst many examples is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) which, in all its adverts, invariably implies children being beaten by their fathers. This is despite the fact that, whilst men may be responsible for the majority of sexual abuse of children, it is women who are responsible for the majority of physical abuse of children (and boys are more likely to be physically abused.)

Whenever you hear a child screaming and being smacked in public, it’s nearly always the kids mother belting the shit out of him/her (usually it’s a him.)

Plus women are far more likely to kill their babies than men are.

Then there’s abortion. 190,000 abortions are carried out in the UK each year, and it is estimated 1-in-3 women will have had an abortion by the age of 40. Some may be for genuine health reasons, or the rapes resulting in pregnancy, but most commonly it is because the woman just can’t be fucking arsed to have and raise a child. More than half of all women agree with abortion-on-demand. A couple of recent debates online that I’ve seen have involved mostly men disgusted at abortion, many women – usually bragging of having had an abortion, and that it was usually just because “I wasn’t ready to have kids.” – all telling men to basically shut up and fuck off, that we have no right to even have an opinion on abortion (though they never see the hypocrisy of saying men should be forced to take responsibility for their kids and pay Child Support whilst women should never have to take responsibility for their kids and actually not kill them.)


Times article
September 20, 2007


16 April 2007

In search of the good wife


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

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


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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:50 PM


Minor blow to gold-digging cunts
September 20, 2007


14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements


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

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

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

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

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

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


Hate (fe)mail
September 20, 2007


11 April 2007

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

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

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

Its true, i am a woman…

Snigger. I’d never have guessed.

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

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

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

Dear god…

Yes, my child, I am listening.

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

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

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


Mmmmm…teen sluts

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

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


The Marriage Strike Strikes
September 20, 2007


10 April 2007


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

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


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

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

Keep it up my brothers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:22 PM


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


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.


Woman sued for paternity fraud, claims remorse
September 19, 2007


29 March 2007


Woman ‘deeply sorry’ for duping lover over paternity of his ‘son’


A woman accused of deceiving her former lover into believing he was the father of her son broke down in tears as she told a court that she felt ‘deeply sorry’ about the distress caused when he discovered the child was not his.

Giving evidence at the High Court in London, where she is contesting his claim against her for around £100,000, the woman said that what had happened was a ‘great scar on my life and on all of us’.

Yeah, she’s sorry now because she’s being held accountable for her actions. Women are never sorry for the shit they pull on men unless they are caught.

Wipe those crocodile tears away bitch.

Good on this guy for suing her though. If he’s successful it’ll be a significant step against paternity fraudster whores, although ideally a guy should not have to go through private channels to get justice, paternity fraud should be a criminal matter.

It is the mother’s case that she had no reason to believe A was not the father, and had not deliberately pulled the wool over his eyes.

How the fuck can she expect anyone to believe that she had “no reason” to doubt the guy was the father.

Is she honestly trying to say she couldn’t recall having unprotected sex with another person around that time? No doubt this bitch just named the man as the father because he was the wealthiest one of the men she fucked that year. Whore.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:03 PM


Blog whores
September 19, 2007


17 March 2007

Laptop ladies discuss when it’s all right to kiss and blog


A bizarrely flattering article about a load of sluts who sleep around and blog about their antics, even one woman who does so despite having a 13-year-old daughter (and was surprised when some people implied she was a bad mother.)

It’s rather interesting that one woman seems to be on a crusade to ‘expose’ men who cheat on girlfriends. How does she do this? She shags the guys and then exposes them. Hmmmm. That’s like asking someone to punch you in the face and, if they do, denouncing them as being a violent thug who goes around punching people in the face.

This is the most revealing quote:

“If I decide he’s the guy I am going to marry, I don’t want him to read that [blog]. It spoils your dating strategies.”

For starters it shows the arrogance of this woman who, like a lot of women, assume that if they want to marry a guy, then they’ll end up getting married. No concern over whether he may want to marry her, unlikely given that she’s a slut who humps her way through guys and enjoys gossiping about it with other women online. Furthermore, I can’t imagine her proposing to him. Women will decide they want to marry a guy but will wait for him to get down on one knee and give her a big lump of over-priced carbon and ask for the honour of being chained to her for life. Or until the divorce.

Most significant is the way she keeps her blog a secret from a guy she intends on marrying. “It spoils your dating strategies.” Yeah, it spoils the chances of him wanting to marry her if he finds out she’s a gossipy used-up tart. It may ruin her chances of snagging the sucker if her mask of respectability slips.

Feminists bang on about men being predators on the hunt for sex, but women are the predators in that (usually once worn out and aging) they seek out a sucker to marry them, filtering out guys not rich enough for their liking, and then putting on the pretense of being chaste and pleasant until he’s signed the dotted line. Then the guy is caught and done for.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 11:43 AM


Feminism is succeeding in parting the sexes
September 18, 2007


16 March 2007


Bridget Jones generation will dominate UK by 2029


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


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?


%d bloggers like this: