Archive for the ‘spinsters’ Category

Lock up your daughters. Even the rich slutty ones.
September 24, 2007

——————————————————-

09 June 2007

Boo-fucking-hoo.

America tunes in to see Paris [Hilton] sent back to jail, kicking and screaming

PDF

The celebrity heiress was dragged from a courtroom screaming and crying after a judge ordered her to go back to jail. She was whisked off to the medical centre at Los Angeles’s Twin Towers jail less than 36 hours after the local sheriff’s department had told her that she could serve out her sentence at her luxury home in the Hollywood hills.

“Mom! Mom! Mom!” she shouted as a female deputy escorted her from the courtroom. “It’s not fair. It’s not right!”

Much as I hate to give yet more attention to this tedious brat, it is funny to see her get what she deserves. A lot of people have been saying that she only got out after three days because she was rich. Maybe so, but being female no doubt played a big part in it.

Sadly enough, her behavior is only remarkable for being so public; this hysterical whining about being held responsible for her actions is common amongst most women, even non-rich ones.

What’s worse is the fact that, in the UK, the idea of women not having to be punished for their actions could become an official reality. A serious suggestion in the UK to all but abolish prison for female criminals and give them community service sentences by default was made in the UK earlier this year. Oh, and the report suggested the empty former women’s prisons could be filled by – you guessed it – men. All this because some women in prison have committed suicide (like male prisoners don’t? A boy of just fourteen did so recently. In 2002, there were 94 suicides in UK prisons, and outrage because – oh no! – nine of them were women. More shock in 2004 when a whole thirteen of 95 prison suicides were women. Nevermind the men I suppose.)

Paris Hilton, at least, won’t be getting off as easy as she’d liked.

Judge Michael Sauer declared that she should serve the entirety of her 45-day sentence for breaching probation on a reckless driving offence. Before her early release on Thursday morning, she had expected her sentence to be cut in half.

Good. Nice to see there’s a judge somewhere in the West who refuses to accept the Pussy Pass. Off to jail you wench!

Incidentally, if you haven’t seen it, check out the South Park episode Stupid Spoiled Whore Play Set:

Wendy: Who’s Paris Hilton?
Red: “Who’s Paris Hilton?”
Annie: You don’t know?
Announcer: [someone takes a picture as he approaches the mic.] Hello, everyone! [drumroll] The Guess Clothing Company is pleased to have as its new spokesperson model, a woman all you young ones can look up to, Ms. Paris Hilton. [she appears and flashbulbs go off amid squeals from females in the crowd. She then lifts her bra and shows off her breasts]
Bebe: Wow, that’s really her! Paris! Over here!
Wendy: I don’t get it. What does she do?
Annie: She’s super-rich!
Wendy: …but what does she do?
Red: She’s totally spoiled and savvy.
Wendy: [annoyed] What does she do?!
Man: [walks by and overhears] She’s a whore. [takes his camera and snaps a few pictures]
Paris: [her left eyelid hangs heavy] Hey everyone. Sorry if I’m a little spent. I did a whole lot of partying last night with a LOT of different guys.

Great stuff.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:33 AM

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Libby Purves article
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

31 May 2007

Oh, the garden looks lovely, darling

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

This may be why I am not an agony aunt.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:17 PM

(more…)

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

——————————————————-

24 May 2007

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

‘Housewife’ keeps record £48m divorce payout

PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more…)

More man-bashing in The Times – there’s been a lot of it recently
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

22 May 2007

Beware of the nanny

PDF

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.

(more…)

Us nasty men aren’t complimenting women enough, it seems
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

18 May 2007

Men wary of paying women compliments

PDF

Men have become too worried about political correctness to pay women simple compliments, according to a new survey.

We’re not worried about political correctness; it’s the sexual harassment laws that political correctness bought about that worries us, not to mention the fact that a woman can retort with an abusive insult that you can’t respond back to without either getting sacked, arrested or beaten up by a passing Captain Save-a-Ho.

There have been several reports of this today – slow news day I guess – and all invariably have comments or quotes from women saying how they love compliments and want to receive them.

Aw, poor girlies. They’re not getting enough attention, or being told how pretty they are. Maybe they shouldn’t have followed their ‘liberation’ movement that demonised and even criminalised male sexuality.

It’s like a report from California last year about how career gals were getting all upset because men in the workplace often didn’t talk to them or invite them out for after-work drinks because the guys were worried about sexual harassment charges. Back then – like now – there is no talk of relaxing these rules or perhaps changing women’s attitudes (like not being man-hating entitlement princesses.)

Fewer than one in five women questioned (16%) received the “recommended” five compliments a day, and 12% said no one had paid them a compliment in the past three months.

What’s this about the ‘recommended’ five compliments a day? Do women fall into a coma if they don’t get them?

Another important reason why women aren’t receiving as many compliments these days is because many don’t deserve them. That seems to have been overlooked by all these news reports on the story.

If women want more compliments, how about acting and dressing as if they deserve them? It’s rather hard to find anything about most modern women to compliment (let alone an incentive to do so) when many act and dress like either sluts, or like some bizarre, warped, confused wannabe-man.

Complimenting modern Western Women
A beginner’s guide

“Nice slag-stamp. Makes you look like a right slag, as well as
drawing attention away from the vastness of your enormous arse.”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:09 PM

(more…)

Women in/out the workplace
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

We hear a lot about “getting women into the workplace”, about new schemes or ideas to ensure more women (or subcategories thereof, such as mothers, single-mothers, female ex-convicts, women with AIDs, etc) are in the workplace. Or in a specific workplace (e.g. company directors, I.T., film directors, journalism, politics, etc. But never – strangely enough – construction, sewer maintenance, front-line soldiers, pest-controllers, etc.)

All these schemes and plans always seem to talk of offering:

* Paid maternity leave
* Flexi-time
* Job-Sharing schemes
* Part-time position
* Career breaks
* Paid leave when a child is ill
* No harm done to promotion prospects for taking an X-years-long career break
* Opportunities to work from home

Every damn time there is talk of getting more women into work, or a certain industry, the above items are touted as ways to accomplish this.

Forgive me if I’m being silly, but are all those things actually orchestrated to ensure the woman in question is actually out of the workplace? Either whilst she has kids, whilst she raises them, whilst the kid is ill, or even just to fuck off at three o’clock every day to make the school run?

There’s always a bit of the old positive discrimination/affirmative action thrown in too of course; nothing like boosting the numbers of women in a job by forcing companies to recruit them under threat of fines or closure. But otherwise, it seems the best way to get woman into a certain job is to provide her with plenty of opportunities to be paid without having to be there all the time, or indeed at all for considerable periods of time (working full-time for ever and ever and ever is, it seems, only us men have to do.)

Whilst, of course, she keeps her fancy job title – for her grrl-power ego-boost – and, most importantly of all, the full salary too.

It says a lot about women’s attitude to work that even the government implicitly accepts that the only real way of encouraging more women into a workplace is to ensure that the women have plenty of opportunities to not actually have to be there.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:38 PM

(more…)

Funny stuff
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

17 May 2007

My recent entry, “Feminists angry because mother who abandoned baby is judged and criticised“, appears to annoyed quite a few fembots.

Check out this wonderful selection of shaming language and insults from the comments:

You sick fuck, Duncan. What ever happened to you to make you such a sad little women-hating psycho? Did the girls at school make fun of you because of how you look? Did your mummy run off with the milkman? Whatever it was do yourself a favour and get some therapy..quick. You need help.

It’s interesting how feminists and mangina automatically assume anyone who is critical of feminists must have had a traumatic background or a terrible mother. The stupid femibumwipes can’t comprehend or even consider the fact that I actually had a jolly nice childhood and a wonderful mother, because to do so would mean these raving lunatics may have to face the fact that – like so many men of my mindset (and there are many) – I actually came to be so pissed off at feminists simply through exposure to them.

Feminists themselves inspire the well deserved hatred they are getting from more and more men.

You and this blog is without doubt just for little knob tools!

And you’re all wasteing oxygen.

Gee, a small-dick accusation, I didn’t see that coming. Try and be original.

And I don’t waste oxygen, I recycle it and turn it into lovely, healthy carbon dioxide. Which trees eat.

It is pointless to write any serious comments in response to your hate-filled diatribe.

I will say this though… what the HELL happened to you to make you into such a disturbed individual.

In fact, your blog is SO ridiculous that I can’t help but think it is perhaps satire…

What the hell happened to me? I was exposed to feminism. See above.

It’s sickening to see this kind of vicious tripe being published.

Please believe me when I say that plenty of women do understand that the presence and involvement of the father is important to the children.

It’s sickening for me to see hate-filled rants from feminists published too, but at least my stuff is only on a blog; feminist crap gets into national newspapers and on college curriculums.

Funny these feminists and manginas will always accuse anti-feminists like me of being full of hate, even though these are the same mental little lot who proceed to scurry away and write hate-filled diatribes about men.

I probably shouldn’t give these arse-biscuits the attention, but on the other hand, I know how we all like to laugh at the predictable and unimaginative accusations from these angry men-hating hairy fembots.

In fact, I think I’m getting close to getting Fembot Bingo!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:18 PM

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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

(more…)

Thongzilla
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

08 May 2007

A mildly amusing incident on Monday.

Whilst taking a short-cut through a park on my way to purchase some beer, I spied a woman sitting on a bench. She was about twenty-five, wearing a tight top and jeans, and was yakking loudly on a mobile phone. She seemed somewhat annoyed at whoever she was talking to, with some dispute as to plans for a night out that evening.

What I immediately noticed was a boy, aged about ten, standing behind her with his hand over his mouth, trying to muffle his giggling. Something about the rear of this woman was causing much mirth. He silently beckoned over a girl, who was a bit younger than him and probably his little sister, who came over and joined him in giggling and pointing at the woman’s rear.

The woman was too busy on the phone to notice the kids, and she continued yapping away. When she ran her free hand through her hair, the children seemed to think she was about to turn around and scurried away, still giggling.

On the return journey about five-minutes later, carrying several cans of lovely beer, I saw the woman was still there sitting on the bench (although the children had gone.) I decided to walk behind the woman to see what the kids were sniggering at.

It turned out to be what I thought they’d been sniggering at; the woman’s jeans were rather low-slung and, sitting there slightly hunched forward, giving an earful to the person on the other end of her phone, a fair portion of her arse was visible, and the top of her thong was riding high; pink, lacy and proud.

The incident rather amused me. The kids had been giggling in a rather derisive manner, which is understandable; here’s a woman – a grown-up – sitting there with her arse hanging out of her jeans and her underwear on display, like it was normal behaviour, like it didn’t in anyway detract from the authority she was trying to display towards whoever she was yelling at on the phone.

Stupid slut.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:56 PM

(more…)

A quickie
September 23, 2007

——————————————————-

04 May 2007

Women worry about the future until they get married.

Men don’t worry about the future until they get married.

(I read that somewhere ages ago – I can’t remember where – and those two sentences perfectly encapsulate the reason more and more of us men are on the marriage strike, and why the marriage strike is clearly annoying a lot of women and causing them to bring out the barrage of shaming language to try and get us to end it. It won’t work bitches. Save your breath. The marriage rate is plummeting and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Co-habiting will go the same way soon as well.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:38 PM

(more…)

Worn out wannabe brides
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

20 April 2007

enjoy_cock.jpg

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.

(more…)

Minor blow to gold-digging cunts
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

14 April 2007

Women to receive less in divorce settlements

PDF

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?

(more…)

Comments
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

13 April 2007

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

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

Why I believe abortion is part of being a good mother

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

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

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

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

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

Then there was this:

Are men becoming obsolete?

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

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

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

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

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

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:06 PM

(more…)

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 stories..you should stop hanging out with them.

homer-drool.gif

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.

(more…)

The Marriage Strike Strikes
September 20, 2007

——————————————————-

10 April 2007

bj.jpg

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

PDF

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

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Thanks to feminism, there are not enough rich men to go round. Boo-fucking-hoo!
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

02 April 2007

Post-Bridget, it’s looking even worse for the girls

PDF

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an alpha female requires an even more alpha male as a mate. But a recent report suggests today’s successful woman with her high standards and picky notions will have nobody to marry: women now make up 57% of university graduates and outnumber men in every subject in higher education (though not engineering or maths, yet).

For the post-Bridget Jones and Sex and the City generation, it’s bad news. The sobering truth is that demographics being what they are, more and more educated, eligible women are facing a choice: downgrade your notions of Mr Right, or face up to life alone.

I love articles like this, that reveal how badly women have shot themselves in the foot.

“Oh boo-hoo, we stormed into the universities and workplace, shoving men out of the way in the process, and now we’re finding we’ve inadvertantly hampered our chances of marrying Mr Right Sucker who’ll let us retire in our 30s.”

Stupid cunts.

Women are getting better degrees — more 2:1s and firsts in every subject — and two-thirds of medical students are now women, compared with 29% in the 1960s. So not much point in hoping that a handsome consultant will come along, whose Harley Street earnings will pay for the school fees and the 4×4.

Damn right you can throw those hopes away bitches. You left the home in the 1950s and demanded us men iron our own clothes and cook our own tea. Fine. We will do. Now we’re dropping out of universities and the workplace and telling women to pay their own mortgages and support themselves.

(more…)

Crazy woman
September 19, 2007

——————————————————-

27 March 2007

crazy_cat_lady.jpg

If you fancy a laugh, have a read of this deranged rambling I found amongst the comments at The Times interview with fembot Marylin French a few posts ago.

I am a woman and I have cleaned many a drain and run a farm etc.Why categorise work as being suitable for men or women.The only task men cannot do is have children.
Women on the other hand can do all.
Men run out of energy after sex. Women are full of energy, if with a giving partner of course.
Men, bless them have been fooled by the leaders to take and rape women. Women are conditioned to give to everyone until they drop. But, if men were told the secret is to give to women FIRST, then wait and see what she gives back.
Thenn, dear boys, your would grow into men and worship your goddess at her feet for your reward. Ahhhh, see they kept the secret to themselves and left you out. Because they want control over both men and women.
Both sexes got brainwashed along the way and true human nature is not expressed.
Soon, it will all come to light.
What joy awaits both men and women.

Catherine

Shaming language (“you would grow into men”) – CHECK

Supreme arrogance (“worship your goddess at her feet”) – CHECK

Bizarre belief that women are anything other than outrageously selfish (“women are conditioned to give to everyone until they drop”) – CHECK

Total lack of logic (the whole damn comment!) – CHECK

It’s hard to see any real point to her comment amongst the paranoia and inexplicable bragging that she’s cleaned lots of drains, except, I believe, that she seems to think that us men are encouraged to ‘take and rape’ women by our leaders (for our leaders’ benefit, so she claims) when, in fact, us men should worship women ‘for our reward’.

So it seems she wants us men to all become manginas and worship women as Goddesses in return for a shag. Or something like that.

I think.

Whatever she’s on about it doesn’t seem to relate to the article. Fucking crazy.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:20 PM

(more…)

%d bloggers like this: