Archive for the ‘single mothers’ Category

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


14 June 2007

Family misfortunes


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


The state of what’s left of the nation
September 24, 2007


10 June 2007

Why England is rotting


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.


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:56 PM


Female child abusers
September 24, 2007


09 June 2007

Monsters and Men is a book published by the BBC about child sexual abuse, and accompanied a 2002 television series. As the title suggests it is primarily focused on male abusers, but there was, astonishingly enough (bearing in mind this is from the leftie feminist-infested BBC) references to female paedophiles. There are even references to how female abuser’s activities are hidden behind the media’s lace curtain, and how they often get away with it – or merely receive a slap on the wrist – because their male victims are regarded as somehow being ‘lucky’ to be abused.

There are a few statistics quoted regarding female child abusers:

In terms of what academic research has discovered, it has been found that adult females abuse in 6% – 17% of cases with female victims and in 1% – 24% with males. Female offenders abuse more girls than boys, and it has been speculated that females commit between 3% and 13% of all sexual abuse.

Regardless of where the real figures lie within these somewhat vague speculations, there is no doubt that the feminist’s insistence that men have a monopoly on sexual abuse of children is total rubbish (just like everything else that that hateful ideology insists.)

A police chief is quoted at length in explaining why (in 2002) there were only nine women in the British prison system convicted of sexually abusing children when it was clear that there should be far more if women are responsible for as many as 13% of all child sexual abuse cases. Primarily it is because people assume women never abuse children – and indeed the BBC guy who wrote the book states that he assumed women ‘just didn’t do it’ – and this, of course, is thanks to feminism and its all-pervasive ideology that women are never ever perpetrators of wrongdoing.


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


Rant from a single mother by choice
September 23, 2007


05 June 2007

This article is about a 37-year-old career woman who has decided she doesn’t want kids and is fine with this decision. Fair enough, it’s her life. Good for her I say.

She quite refreshingly insists that she believes clearly need a father and thus would never have kids before marriage.

Unfortunately this is not the case with an increasing number of single-mothers-by-choice, such as this man-hating bitch who left a comment at the article, someone called ‘Ekaterina’ from London.

Very sad! I am one of those who decided to be a mom without a man – IVF and all that. What really makes me angry is that the society blames women (as always) for not having kids early. Give me a break! I always wanted to have kids but I met very similar men as the author – some wanted to have more money first and then kids, others did not earn a penny and I was not sure if I wanted to feed a man and a child etc. Men are always fertile so they do what they want. We have to pay a high price! So, I decided that I send all men to hell and have my own family. Some women are not ready or not brave or don’t have the means – but it is MEN to blame for that and not women!

Amazing. In one paragraph we have nearly every damn double-standard and example of man-hatred, broken down thusly:

What really makes me angry is that the society blames women (as always) for not having kids early.

Well, more and more women are putting off having children early by their own choice. I guess it makes Ekaterina very very angry that women are being blamed for their own choices. And what does mean ‘as always’? Society hardly ever blames women. For anything.

I always wanted to have kids but I met very similar men as the author – some wanted to have more money first and then kids…

She didn’t want to have a child with a man who wanted to make more money so he could be a better provider because although such a man’s attitude was surely very sensible and responsible, it didn’t fit in with her impatient demands for a child now!! Basically she wanted a ready-made-millionaire. How awful of society to not be replete with millionaires lining up to marry horrible hags like her.

others did not earn a penny and I was not sure if I wanted to feed a man and a child etc.

Here we get yet another example of how women do not want equality, ever! Only when it suits them. She didn’t want to support a man and a child, she wanted a man to support her and her child. Nevermind that us men have supported women and children for generations (and were told that this was oppressive by feminists. Go figure!)

So, I decided that I send all men to hell and have my own family.

This is what women call ‘liberation’ I guess; damning all men to hell as useless just because one fitting her astonishingly high demands didn’t scoop her off her feet when she wanted. Also, she’s wrong in thinking she has her own ‘family’. She doesn’t. She has an illegitimate bastard whose father is some anonymous guy who wanked into a jar for some beer money. That’s not a family.


Dad’s not needed, says British government
September 23, 2007


17 May 2007

New fertility laws say dads not needed to make babies


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


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.


Benefit-scrounging, child-abusing, shameless, no-good fucking skank
September 20, 2007


30 April 2007


Mother who forced toddlers to fight can’t see what the fuss is about

The most infuriating this about this article is not that the (unfortunately surnamed) Zara Care doesn’t know why anyone is bothered that she enjoyed making her toddlers fight and filming them, or that she even wanted to work in Child Care, it’s this bit:

Care and her family live in Plymouth and receive an estimated £40,000 in benefits a year between them.


She and her family all live in council or housing association properties and pay little or no rent. They receive income support and – apart from Care – child tax credit.

I read elsewhere that Zara and her two sisters – all unmarried – have ten kids between them. This is what the UK is like; the more illegitimate kids a single mother slag has, the more money she gets. This cunt is even going off on holiday to Spain soon, she says. I work full-time and I haven’t had a foreign holiday in two-years thanks to the ever-rising taxes – income tax, council tax, etc – I have to pay to help fund these fucking scum. And she’s swanning off to Spain? I hope she gets gored by a stray bull.

Yet this is what feminism is all about; it set out at the start to ensure single mothers are as affluent as two-parent families, with high taxes for hardworking married couples and childless singles being the only way to bring this about. Now, after a few decades, we’re fleeced remorselessly by the government and drowning in single mother whores like this.

It cannot be said often enough; feminism is very bad for a society’s health.

£40,000 a year just for one family. Jeez. No wonder so many people are fleeing this country. They’re sick to death of working just to support scum like this.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:22 PM


Parenting school
September 20, 2007


25 April 2007

‘Nanny state’ row over parent academy

Ministers have been accused of “nationalising the family” with plans for the first national college for parenting.

In a move designed to crackdown on yobbish behaviour, the Government has earmarked £30 million for the new academy to coach parents on how to control tearaway children.

It forms part of Tony Blair’s “respect agenda” to tackle persistent anti-social behaviour, problem families and young offenders.

Damn right it’s an attempt to nationalise the family. Labour, despite their fancy rebranding in the 1990s, are Socialist in nature, and Socialist governments want to wreck the family and then move in to what’s left of it.

Plus it’s another £30,000,000 of taxpayers money up for grabs for a punch of Civil Servant cocksuckers, most of who are not there to serve the British public but to simply line their pockets and force their own ideologies onto us.

The new academy – based at King’s College, London – will act as an “international and national hub” to promote the latest ideas on how to raise children and implement recent Government reforms, including new courses designed to improve the bond between fathers and their children and catch-up lessons for parents with literacy and numeracy problems.

Improving the bond between fathers and “their children”? That’s rich coming from a government who have done all they can to remove men from families, including their insistance that single women and lezzers can have IVF on the NHS (to be fair, they are only continuing an implimentation of Socialist/Feminist ideology that began long before they got into power.)

Plus, we all know what their lessons on the correct way to raise children will be like; and teach boys to respect girls unconditionally, play with dolls and don’t be competitive, and teach girls they are all important, boys are stupid and smelly, and that wanting to marry young and have children is a ridiculous concept.

Mrs Hughes said: “Parents increasingly seek help with bringing up their children and we want to be as supportive as we possibly can. The role a parent plays is integral to a child’s development and their future life chances, which is why we want to help parents get it right.”

Sorry, but any parent who needs to go to a government sponsored college to learn how to raise a child must be so grossly incompetent that they shouldn’t fucking have kids in the first place.

Couples used to have no problems raising children on their own, perhaps with a bit of help from the extended family. I wonder why they are increasingly seeking help? Oh yes, I remember; more and more kids are not raised by couples but by single mothers, and the extended family is all but demolished too.

This is the usual feminist/socialist methodology; fuck things up – whether it’s relationships, children, the workplace, communities – and then step in, survey the wreckage they themselves caused, and declare “We are here to help! Now do as we say.” Motherfuckers.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:14 PM


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.)


Fembots have fucked up our society
September 20, 2007


15 April 2007

Failure has no father


Seventy per cent of young offenders are from single-parent families. Being raised by your mother on her own is not the strongest predictor of ending up as a criminal: having a father who is himself a criminal is the top of that list. But not far behind is being raised without a father at all.


The Government provides incentives to bring up children without both parents. So much so that, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, there are 200,000 more people claiming the benefits and tax credits that are due to lone parents than there are actually lone parents in the UK. The consequences of making single-parenthood ever-more economically viable are completely predictable.

It is uplifting to see that feminist/socialist policies are increasingly denounced in the mainstream press, but it is somewhat depressing that the fucking cunts in charge of what is left of Britain never seem to share – or, indeed, listen – to such criticisms and plough on relentlessly with their fucked up ideology.

The last few words of the article are the most important:

…they certainly haven’t asked the rest of us.


No-one asked our country to be put through the destructive grinder of feminism and socialism. Governments just put us through it and wants us to shut up now that more and more of us are complaining.

I dare say this article will bring strong rebukes from various feminist scum in the coming days, just like a couple of years ago when a judge pointed out that most of the offenders he imprisoned were raised by single mothers, only to be promptly told to take what he said back by a squad of single mother “groups” and whining feminist politicians.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:48 PM


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


Selfish woman wants sympathy for leaving motherhood far too late
September 20, 2007


05 April 2007

Why two miscarriages and a termination has not deterred a wannabe mum

After three pregnancies, one reluctant termination and two miscarriages, Louise Janson has just embarked on her fifth cycle of IVF at the age of 41.

Louise, a writer from North London, is single. Having always longed to be a mother, she made the difficult decision to try for a baby on her own four years ago.

Why the fuck are women who choose to become Single Mothers By Choice always thought of as ‘brave’ or applauded for making a ‘difficult decision’? They’re selfish fucking bitches making selfish decisions. I hate them. Single Mothers By Choice are repulsive child abusers.

I’m undergoing medical treatment as a direct result of a social problem: I’m single. Four years ago, aged 38, I made the agonising decision – after years of reflection, research and discussion – to try to become a mother on my own.

I had six months of inseminations with donor sperm, but decided the method was so unreliable, I would have full IVF treatment, which meant registering with a fertility clinic.

I never wanted to be a ‘single mother’ and I’m sure I could describe for you in painstaking detail the shock, panic, depression and bewilderment that overwhelmed me in the years leading up to that decision – and those immediately after.

But quite frankly, there aren’t enough variations on ‘despair’ in my Thesaurus, there isn’t enough space on this page, and there’s not enough time in your lives or mine to do it justice.

And there are not enough variations on ‘selfish’ to do your actions justice.


Yob fondles crotch at David Cameron, mimes shooting him
September 16, 2007


23 February 2007


Heheh. Rather amusing. Hug that hoodie you mangina!

(This article quotes the retarded yob’s equally retarded and monumentally oblivious mother, but there’s no mention of a father anywhere. Ho-hum, what a surprise.)

Seriously though, this stupid degenerate little twat (the yob I mean, not David Cameron, although he is a twat too) is typical of the yobs that infest nearly every big city and town in the UK. Strangely enough, they’re mainly seen in council estates which are basically big single-mother ghettos. These hooded smack-head thugs are the spawn of the Matriarchy. And Cameron honestly thinks that shaking down fathers for more child support (whilst making sure single mothers are not criticised in any way, shape or form) is somehow going to solve this problem? That git in the picture (again, I mean the yob, not Cameron, although he is, coincidentally, also a git) will no doubt have fathered a few illegitimate bastards by the time he’s thirty. Let’s see the new-improved CSA garnish his income from burglary and dope-dealing for Child Support and see how far that gets them.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:35 PM


Sex education; single mother style
September 16, 2007


20 February 2007

Couple Charged With Having Intercourse In Front of 9-Year-Old Daughter to Teach Her About Sex

Even before reading the story it was easy to guess that it would not be the natural father involved.

A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman’s 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex “all the time” in front of the child and that “we don’t believe in hiding anything.”

The joys of single-motherhood; hooked up with a loser and fucking him in front of the children.

This is the epitome of ultra-liberalism and free-love; believing children are just little adults, to be treated as such. At least the kid is with her natural father now. One more reason why kids should be placed with their fathers by default during break-ups.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:05 PM


Feminism ruins society, men blamed
September 16, 2007


16 February 2007


Cameron blames fathers for ‘broken’ society (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The youth of today
September 13, 2007


14 February 2007


British youngsters get worst deal, says UN

Britain has been ranked bottom out of 21 countries in a United Nations assessment of children’s well-being.

The nation’s high number of single parents and step-families has contributed to the ranking.

Well duh!

Why the fuck is the United Nations wagging its finger at the UK for having disfunctional and broken families? This outdated prologue to a World Government piece of shit organisation is infested with feminists and all sorts of weirdo Women’s Groups. They’re the sort of big government twats who encourage broken families and single motherhood.

Lone parent organisations argue that there is no evidence that all children with one parent are bound to turn out worse off in adult life than children of traditional family units.

No evidence? Well of course they’ll say that. When has an organisation for single parents (i.e. single mothers) ever admitted children are better off with two parents? Not only do statistics show kids are better off with a father, common sense dictates this as well.

Ask anyone who disagrees with this to contemplate the following: if you were going to buy a house and you had a choice of two identical homes, both the same price, and one was in a neighbourhood whereby every household consists of a married couple and their children, and the other was in a neighbourhood whereby every household is a single mother and her kids by several different fathers – and maybe her latest boyfriend too – and anyone with any sense would pick the first home. That’ll be in the neighbourhood that is less likely to have gangs of feral youths hanging on street corners.

This is feminism’s greatest legacy; miserable children, broken families and poverty. Well fucking done you stupid cunts. Bra-fucking-vo. And you dumb fucking baby-boomer women who eagerly followed the hate-filled ideology of a bunch of mentally deranged lesbians, give yourselves a round of applause. Then fuck off.

Feminists; fucking things up since the sixties and refusing to apologise ever since. Cunts.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:36 PM


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


12 February 2007

Daughters Struggling After Mom Locked Them Away for 7 Years

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

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

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

What a bitch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:00 PM


Benefit nation
September 13, 2007


12 February 2007

One third of homes dependent on benefits

One in three households across Britain is now dependent on the state for at least half its income, it emerged today.

Official government figures showed that more than seven million households are getting most of their income from government handouts.

This is what Socialists want, for households to be increasingly dependent on the government rather than independent and self-reliant. That way they’re easy to push around.

The best way to do this of course is to remove men from families by rewarding women for getting knocked up out of wedlock or for getting a divorce.

In many single-parent homes with two children, the proportion of families that would be financially crippled without state support is now as high as 61 per cent. That compares with just nine per cent in a two-parent home.

See? Remove men from families and they soon descend into welfare dependency and poverty. Yes, women are sooo strong and independent (after all, we all know that single-parent homes invariably equals single-mother homes, and the few single-father households around are also statistically more affluent than the single-mother ones.)

As it states in the article, many people don’t bother improving their situation if they’re getting by on benefits. Why work if you can get paid not to?

It also applies to people like me, who do work but – as I pointed out in the previous post – refuse to go beyond the call of duty and climb the career ladder because, not only is the primary incentive for obtaining wealth (to attract a wife and support her and the kids) gone thanks to insane divorce laws and insane women, but the more you earn the more you’ll be taxed to support the lazy and the feckless. Screw that. The only real incentive left to work hard is to save up to emigrate, although as feminism has long since infested traditional places for Brits to emigrate to (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and is beginning to infest other countries (India and Japan for instance) even that plan is not foolproof.

This nation is well and truly getting flushed down the toilet, and before anyone solely blames Labour, the Cuntservetive Party – under the leadership of David “Mangina to the Max” Cameron – will only pull the chain just as hard.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:53 PM


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


07 February 2007

An education crisis is looming, unless parents do their homework

By Simon Heffer.

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:16 PM


%d bloggers like this: