Friday, 28 December 2007

The evil men that say

Now doing porridge is PC as sexist jokes are barred in jail

It's enough to make that old lag Norman Stanley Fletcher choke on his porridge ... prisoners have been banned from sharing "sexist" jokes.

Jail bosses say such quips could give the impression that women are "overly talkative" and "nagging."

There is even a danger it could turn convicts to a life of crime, they say - since some lawbreaking stems from men having a "negative" view of the opposite sex.

Well, that's it my fellow Brits, we can now look forward to a reduced rate of crime and a dramatically reduced recidivism rate, because violent muggers, armed robbers and gangland killers will spill forth on parole with substantially reduced malevolent urges and an increased desire to obey all social and moral codes, thanks to not being exposed to sexist...

Shit, this crap is so damn stupid, I feel undignified to have even attempted to bother hurling sarcastic remarks at it.

Interview with the Patriarchy

I had a job interview a few months ago, shortly after moving.

Within ten-minutes of the interview I was thinking to myself "I'd better apply for more jobs after this" and also "This is the sort of shit I'd post about if I still ran my blog."

It was an interview with a woman who ran her own financial investment practice. She was the boss and she had seven employees. I was applying for a job as a basic accounts clerk, the usual easy, stress-free shit us bachelors can afford to do, on account of us - by definition of being bachelors - not being legally bound to provide for a financial black-hole wife, just ourselves.

At first, this was a fifty-something career gal I started to feel some respect for. She said she'd been in the investment business since leaving University and had started her own practice twenty-years ago. Her offices were nice and fancy, her desk big and oaky, she owned and ran the business on her own - no rich hubby in the background funding it; I don't think she was married anyway, or at least she had no wedding ring on - and the receptionist was constantly answering client's telephone calls whilst I waited for my interview. She seemed to know her stuff and evidently made a lot of money for herself and her clients.

Any respect I had for her, and any hopes of getting the job, sank quickly when, shortly into the interview, she inexplicably asked me "Would you have a problem taking orders from a woman?" whilst furrowing her brow so quizically it looked like one of her eyebrows was trying to mate with the other, and both my respect and hopes plunged ever deeper when she asked me that exact same question, entirely at random, a second time just a few minutes later, to which I replied in the negative, just as I'd done the first time around.

My assurances evidently had little impact on her. I had all the qualifications and a good amount of experience required for the humble position, yet I didn't get the job. What a surprise.

What was most pathetic was that this woman clearly thought of herself as - and conducted herself as - some sort of big mean Alpha Female, taking on the might of a male dominated world. Yet here I was, just some guy young enough to be her son, acting all enthusiastic and pleasant, and she's twice asking me - almost fearfully - to confirm whether I'd be okay taking orders from a female boss. Pitifully, despite my assurances to the contrary, she still evidently thought that I was liable to metamorphose into some sort of Patriarchal flesh-ripping feral lunatic beast the first time she asks me to do something.

"No mere female tell me have figures
on her desk by morning! Me mad! Raaagh!!"

I should have guessed I wouldn't get the job. I saw six of her employees whilst I was waiting in reception, and they were all female, and it's a fair bet the seventh was female too (given that I overheard she was on maternity leave.)

I impatiently phoned up to hound the woman to find out if I was getting the job, and in addition to being told (by the receptionist) 'sorry, no', I happened to find out the sex of the successful applicant. Can you guess what sex she was? Actually, you probably can given that I gave it away in the previous sentence.

I really wish she'd have taken a chance and given me that job. It'd have been great to have taught her a lesson by living up to her horrors of the Patriarchal Menace Within (TM). I'd arrive early on my first day, sit at my desk, flick brazenly through a porn mag and then, when Alpha Female Boss arrives, tell her 'Hey love, I'm gaspin' for some tea. Milk no sugar darlin'.' Then I'd slap her arse and shove her towards the office kitchen.

Heheh! Just to be ironic.

And then sacked, no doubt. :(

Seriously though, I wouldn't have given a shit about her being a woman. I'd do the job I was contracted to do so long as she paid me the salary I was contracted to receive.

Note, incidentally, how a woman can employ solely women, but if a man employs solely men, the Equal Opportunities Commissars would be round with taser-guns.

Oh well, I've got another job since then and everything is cool now, so at least I can look back on it with amusement.

Wednesday, 19 December 2007

Paying for sex = you are teh loser!!1

Who pays for sex? You'd be surprised

It's not so much this article that's worth a look, but the comments. Many men have pointed out that paying a prostitute for sex is easier (and often cheaper) than getting girlfriends or wives, which involves paying for the chance of sex.

Most amusing of all is the deranged shaming language from plenty of females, this one in particular:

no wonder why the rate rapes and stds are going up..

im sure non of these men care about getting aids or chylmedia, which is soon to hit a crisis level?

Perhaps men who have sex with call girls, should take a look at there personality...(or there .....INFECTED/ INCYwincy PENIS!!) ha.

cause clealy they cant hold down a girlfriend. Once you find you do want kid's you'll find your infertile from all that fucking around, ha ha ha.

oh sure having sex with call girls, who work all hours, must be like screwing a cave.....

Personally i find sex is far more rewarding with a partner, who you love and trust, can experiment and have fun with.......

Men who use call girls must have such dull uninteresting lifes..........and need to make a few friends.....get out in the world


I remember in the old days, when I were a lad, and such shaming language would have touched me. Now it does nothing but amuse me.

There are plenty of harpies screaching on in the comments (and a few manginas/women pretending to be men) but this one gathers all the usual 'tactics' in one; accusations of not having a life, men who go to hookers have small penises, claims that prostitutes are all diseased (apart from the really grubby crack whores, I'd say they're probably cleaner than non-prostitutes; they're more likely to take - and insist on - precautions, given that pregnancy and std's threaten her earning power), claims that visiting prostitutes is a sign of not having a life and/or having no friends, and that basically men who use prostitutes/escorts girls/whatever they like to call themselves should basically bow their heads in shame and then channel all their efforts into wining and dining a demented fruitcake like her. All mixed in with an amusing lack of grammar and spelling.

It won't occur to these women that maybe acting a bit nicer and not using sex as a weapon in a relationship - and perhaps looking for Mr Right before turning 30 - would perhaps encourage a guy to seek her out. That would be too much effort. Instead, they just whine and moan and throw about the shaming language.

Most men, particularly young ones, will do what's required to get sex. Previously that used to be being a nice guy and getting married. Now it's either be a world-class 'playa', having a lot of money (or pretending you do) or just taking a short-cut and getting a good honest whore.

Nearly all women want to take early retirement or semi-retirement. I know of no single women working full-time past 30 who wouldn't give it up to be provided for by a husband, and even go-getting career gals fresh from University invariably talk of working either part-time or not at all after five or ten-years in the workforce. In order to avoid working full-time, they require a man. And all the woman has to offer these days is a shag. Or the chance of one.

If a man can get a shag from an escort girl far cheaper and with infinitely less hassle than spending a fortune dating and then throwing away his freedom and financial security to support a woman for life, then that's what he'll do. And that's what pisses these women off. Spinsterhood and full-time work beckons! And that's not what overgrown Princesses expect.

Women seeking Mr Right are infuriated at the idea of their monopoly on sex being broken by escort girls who are just flat-out honest about the whole deal and won't expect anything beyond what she charges upfront, so the shaming language is broken out. Then there's the other tactic of moaning that nearly all prostitutes are abused and enslaved and that paying for sex is basically on a par with being a rapist and accomplice to sex-trafficking (this is the view of the British Government, which is seeking harsher sentences for men who pay for sex. Not the women who sell it, obviously)

I don't doubt that some prostitutes are forced into it, but most choose the profession of their own free will; they may not enjoy it, but what the fuck, who does enjoy what they do for a living? (I once read that most prostitutes who are trafficked and enslaved in the sex trade and who are subsequently rescued are rescued either by - or thanks to tip-offs from - clients who are horrified to learn that the woman isn't consenting to her profession; contrary to what feminists say, the overwhelming majority of men would be horrified at the idea of being an accomplice - knowingly or otherwise - to sex-slavery and trafficking, and would only pay for sex on the assumption the woman is a willing participant in the deal. Making out men who use prostitutes are evil quasi-rapists is just another tactic women use to try to divert men back to the thorny path of, ugh, 'dating'.)

It's also worth bearing in mind that most women offer no more than a prostitute. Previously, a woman would run the home and bare and raise kids. Sex was important too, but the domestic and child-rearing front were a plus, and something a hooker couldn't provide. Then along came feminism, whereby women insisted they wouldn't be doing the babies and housework stuff, just the sex (although usually only until the honeymoon.) So if sex is all a girlfriend can really provide these days, then a girlfriend is really just on a par with a prostitute in terms of what she has to offer, only with the disadvantage of not giving you a quote upfront, or guarantee of service.

It's funny all these women insisting all these young men increasingly paying for sex are sad losers. After all, who is the more sad; men who spend their honest, hard-earned money on a jolly good shag with an honest, hard-working, big-titted twentysomething escort girl, or the aging thirtysomething career gals who decide the best way to try and land a husband is to not become less angry and bitter, but to become more so, and to angrily accuse any man who doesn't play by the absurd rules of 'romance' and 'dating' (which basically means worshipping a female unconditionally, ideally with money) as a dickless loser?

Sunday, 9 December 2007

In Denial

If there's one thing that pisses me off about modern-day women - and there's not, there's about a trillion things that pisses me off about them, but as the pubs are opening soon and I'm thirsty, I'll just concentrate on one of them - it's their abject horror and seemingly sincere outrage at being labelled goldiggers or parasites.

On a few occasions at my various workplaces, I've been so bold as to suggest that women are basically goldiggers and only interested in money, only to be met with wide-eyed shock and teeth-gnashing fury from the women.

This despite the fact that they've all regularly provided regular evidence to back up my opinion.

I don't know whether it's a sincere case of double-think and hypocrisy, or just a non-too-subtle attempt at diverting male attention away from the obvious truth, but either way, women I encounter just flat out deny any accusation of goldiggerism, even moments after proving me correct.

For example, I once overheard three women at work going on about a certain footballer who is not exactly renowned for his good looks - but who earns about a zillion pounds a week - and they all agreed they would marry him "even though he's ugly" because he's rich.

"You'll get half his fortune when you divorce him," one observed.

There was much nodding in agreement all round.

That same afternoon there was a brief discussion about marriage, and I put forth my opinion that I didn't want to marry, because women are only interested in money, and they only want rich guys so they can divorce them and get half their cash.

There was much tutting, accusations of cynicism and predictable cries of "I would never do that" all round.

Fucking hell. Can't they at least admit it? That they're only interested in a rich man, and they would only love the 'rich' part of him, not the 'man' part?

It's an egregious insult to us men's intelligence that women will swear blind they don't care about how much a man earns or that they would never marry for money, when invariably they state the contrary every waking hour.

It's just as stupidly hypocritical the way many women will denounce us men as useless and nothing more than tiresome burden they want nothing to do with, and yet, in the same breath, will wail with victimised despair at their never-ending spinsterhood.

Bollocks to them all. I'm off to the pub.

Actually, I'd better check with my wife whether it's okay for me to go to the pub. Y'see, she wanted me to take her to Ikea later to this afternoon, she wants a newer and more expensive coffee table, and I'm not sure if I've got enough beer money this month anyway after my wife went overboard with her store-cards this week doing Christmas shopping and...

...oh wait, I've just remembered; I'm not married!

So I can spend the afternoon in the pub if I feel like it without having to ask permission from any-fucking-one.


Tuesday, 4 December 2007


A conversation in my current workplace last week featured around the stupidily high house prices in the UK, and how even two incomes - let alone one - are barely enough to get on the property ladder.

After I admitted I was content just to rent, one woman snootily insisted she'd rather own a home (she's 27 and still lives with her parents) than rent, but admitted that she couldn't possible even cover the monthly payments on a mortgage ("My credit card bills are so high, (GIGGLE!)") let alone be able to save up for the deposit.

In fact, she'd rather "own" a home someone else paid for. A man, ideally.

"What I need," she honestly and unashamedly declared, "is a rich man with a house of his own. Then he can marry me and I won't need to buy a house."

"Then if you divorce him, the house is yours," brayed another woman, some forty-something spinster who honestly looks a lot like this...

...only less green. But fatter. And more piggish.

There was much approving laughter and chuckles amidst the female pack of the office. Then a few sneering comments about the lack of 'good men.' Or rather, the lack of men with good houses for women to legally pinch via the sick joke that the marriage laws have become.

And these, ahem, "ladies" have the nerve to wonder why I choose to be a bachelor.

Fireman hoses lezzer's ovaries, pays the price

Lesbian mother hits back at sperm donor dad: 'He acted like my baby's full-time father'

This case of a guy who donated his pod porridge to a couple of rug-munchers is a bit of a complicated one.

On the one hand, I sympathise with the poor sod for getting hit for Child Support, and it makes a mockery of women's always dubious claim of being oh-so fucking strong and independent that they need to wring money out of the nearest man.

On the other hand, the dumb fuck was quite happy to originally donate his sperm to a pair of women and reduce himself to nothing more than a sperm donor and potential walking-wallet, which is all feminists and most women see men as.

He fucked up. But he fucked up big style and any guy should've have seen this coming. He knew what he was getting into, and he should've seen that he was opening himself up to Child Support claims. Did he really think a woman would not miss an opportunity to put him through a mangle for some cash? Especially as at least one of the women was on income support; the worthless bitch couldn't support herself, of course she's gonna fuck over anyone - ideally a man with a good steady income - should the opportunity arise and should it prove more profitable than getting a job of her own.

I'm certainly not on the lezzer's side, but I can't really sympathise with him either. Sure, she may have said she wouldn't hit him for Child Support, but so fucking what? She'd have said that the grass was blue and the sky green if it'd have gotten her what she wanted. It's like a similar case in Sweden a year or two ago, whereby a man donated sperm to a couple of lesbians, and they swore they wouldn't nail him for Child Support; then they nailed him for Child Support.

In any case, I found this simple little one-sentence comment from some gentleman amidst the many comments on the Daily Mail's page to be so profound and so pertinent that it should be printed out, framed in gold and hanged in the gents of every school, university and bar in the West.

My advice is; don't trust women.

Wednesday, 28 November 2007

Nanny State Britain

As you may know, smoking in pubs and bars is illegal in the UK, and smoking outside them is apparently not allowed either (authorities are seemingly shocked that not allowing drinkers to smoke in a pub would mean they'll just nip outside for one.)

It reminds me of Eddie Izzard's comment regarding the ban on smoking in bars in certain states in the US: "Pretty soon it'll be no drinking and no talking!"

Well, the former part of that quip is almost a reality in the UK.

I remember when I were a lad when you could go into a pub, smoke and get drunk. Not so anymore. It's also significant that the new 'initiative' to prevent people having a good time binge drinking has lead to a clamour for public funds from the civil service. This is the primary symptom of a socialist state; individuals and groups realising that demanding public money is easier than generating it by doing something fucking useful.

I don't smoke anymore incidentally, but it's still stupid that the government has decided people can't smoke in pubs, when it ought to be up to the pub owner.

The other week I was a train station and some guy was about to light up on the open-air platform when he evidently began to wonder whether he would be breaking the law. He asked a nearby station guard if he could smoke, and the guard wasn't too sure, and just suggested he probably could, as it was outdoors.

"Stub it out if a transport cop comes along," the station guy advised.

"I wouldn't be surprised," the commuter mused loudly to no-one in particular, whilst lighting up his cigarette, "if this fucking government makes it illegal for us to take a shit after 6PM."

That marvelously crude and amusing comment beautifully summed up how pissed off normal people are at the fucking nanny state of a cuntry the UK has become.

Monday, 26 November 2007

Baby strike = blame the men

Baby strike? Blame the Invisible Man

Blame men? Oh my, that's not something women often say when it comes to any problem is it?

For fuck's sake.

Basically this woman is blithering on about how men should stand up and get involved in parenthood, suggests that we're probably either all irresponsible for not wanting kids or just content to reduce ourselves to sperm donors, and she ends by insisting that men "involve themselves in the whole messy business" (it's rather significant, not to mention hypocritical, that she moans men are shirking from the idea of parenthood even though she herself refers to parenthood as a 'messy business'.

For fucking starters, it is women who made childbearing solely a woman's issue. Abortion, childcare, childrearing, and so on...with the mantras of "it is up to the mother" and "my body my choice" with regard to when to have kids, whether to have them killed at the abortion clinic, whether to stuff them in a childcare prison, and so on, women made child-related issues solely their realm. They wanted us men out of the equation. Now they're pissed off we've gone?

And as for the idea of us men reducing ourselves to sperm donors, I think she'll find it was feminism, the attitude of the many women who followed it, and also politicians and their recent ruling in the UK that lesbians and single women can get IVF and use of sperm clinics, who have done that for us.

Can't she get her head round this? She can't. She simply can't shake off the automatic female reaction to blame men, and thus fails to mention any correlation between the fact that most men - despite it being hardwired into us to propogate - are reluctant to have children with the simple fact that we are indeed reduced to sperm donors and walking wallets, with no reproductive rights, only responsibilities at the whim of the child's mother.

I suppose it's at least commendable that she takes the time to actually ask what men want, but it's anyone's guess whether that's a serious suggestion she may actually listen, especially if she gets the answers she doesn't want.

Bascially, men didn't become invisible with regards to the issues of childbirth, women and the law just stopped paying any attention to us save for getting child support. After a generation of this, we're increasingly deciding to regard women and "their" children as invisible.

Friday, 23 November 2007

"There are no good men left!"

That's the frequent call of women everywhere.

"Where are all the good men? They're all taken. There's none left."


When women say this to us men - or, more commonly, to other women but deliberately in earshot of us - they do so to shame us. It's to basically say:

"I cannot find (or rather, they will not find me; God forbid I become pro-active in hunting a mate) a man who can and will fulfill my insanely long list of demands, in particular my insistence - nay, sense of entitlement - on having a rich man to provide for me. You men around me are shit! Explain and defend yourself! Justify your existence you worms!"

That's what it appears to be anyway. Women love to do it, to complain that there are "no good men" and other such variants ("real men", "successful men", and so on) in order that you and any other males leap to defend yourselves, to try and explain that you - and perhaps other men around you - are worthy of the attention of the Almighty Female who is flinging derision at your feet in order to make you crawl.

Rising to the bait is pointless. Trying to argue that women's entry into the workplace has diluted the workforce and thus demolished the ability of the average man to support himself, a wife and kids, and thus pointing out that women themselves have culled the ability of most men to fulfill a woman's demand to have a man who is able to support her, is a fruitless task. As is pointing out the fact that women's demands for no-fault divorce and outrageous anti-male divorce settlements are responsible for the lack of willingness of the existing rich men to marry.

These arguments are based on logic, and furthermore they pass the blame to women; and women are fatally allergic to blame.

Besides, putting forth these arguments - as I've erronously tried to in the past - is humiliating. Why the fuck should us men defend ourselves? Why on Earth should we be trying to argue, reason and explain that there are indeed plenty of good/real/etc men to some woman who is basically stating she is unimpressed by the males around her? To do so is to hark back to the mindset many of us men (certainly me included) go through in our younger and more naïve years, which is to foolishly think that women's approval is worth acquiring at any cost and that their disapproval should cause us sleepless nights.

The best reaction to a woman stating the lack of "good men" around, or lamenting that all the "good men are taken" or whatever, is to simply say:

"So? That's your problem."

Then ignore her.

It's true though. As a man, are you hampered in your quest for happiness at the lack of rich single men out there? Does it bother you, a man in the Matriarchy, that many affluent men are not willing to commit to marriage? Of course not. It's of no consequence whatsoever to you. It's solely the problem of women (which women know, and in trying to shame us men into giving a shit about this problem of women's, they hope to make it our problem so we'll do something about it. Like work harder, save more money, and then marry the nearest spinster looking for an idiot to fund her early retirement.)

So the next time a woman sneers at the male sex and declares her frustration about the lack of eligible (read: gullible) wealthy bachelors, just shrug, point out that that's her fucking problem, not yours, and then start telling the nearest fellow bachelor about how great it is to be single.

Saturday, 17 November 2007


Just to summarize a few little snippets of advice on how to survive being a bloke in the feminist/socialist UK:

1. Don't marry.


2. Don't co-habit.

In the UK, if you live with a woman for two-years, you are now all but married when it comes to what happens when you split (i.e. you are split from your assets and they're handed to your girlfriend, and you may have to pay her a portion of your salary forever more.) In Australia, I believe it's only six-months.

3. Don't have children.

Don't get me wrong, kids are great, and I'd personally love to be a dad. But unfortunately, children belong to women now. They are her nukes in her vast legally-backed arsenal of bombing you into financial submission. Women can have your kids aborted or just take them from you at any time, and your sole responsibility is to provide for them.

4. Never get a joint account, or a joint credit card, with a girlfriend.

Giving a girlfriend any access to your cash is like leaving your wallet unattended at a kleptomaniac-shopaholic's conference.

5. Ideally, don't even let a girlfriend know where you live.

They go nuts if you dump them when they expected you to pop the big (dumb) question.

6. Laugh at aging single career gals.

Yes, it's spiteful and mean to laugh at them as they grow old, lonely, childless, and realise that their sagging tits aren't attracting male attention like they did in their pre-sagging days, but what the fuck, you can be sure every aging lonely spinster in her younger, shag-happy years laughed at 95% of men who tried to flirt with her. Women have the relationship power in their younger years, men in their later years. If you're 30+, and have a good career and a stable income, wield that power as ruthlessly as 30+ women did when they were young and in their prime. Grind their fucking faces into the muddy bed they and their fucking liberation movement inadvertently made for them. Enjoy bachelorhood, but more importantly, enjoy it blatantly in the faces of spinsters on the off-chance they get an opportunity to look up from their desks as they busily slog themselves into an early grave at some shitty job they've long since stopped referring to as A Career.

7. Laugh heartily, and contemptously, if a single mother tries to flirt with you.

I know from personal experience that it's fucking hilarious seeing some single-mother skank's face drop when she realises a potential step-wallet for her bastard thug-offspring isn't taking the bait of possible access to her sloppy, used up, cavernous Hairy Highway To Hell.

8. Play Quake III regularly.

Yes, it's eight-years old, but hearing a guy with the deepest voice in the world bellow "Humiliation!!" after you've just pulverised someone into bloody chunks with a circular-saw is not only a great way to feel relief from the pressures of working in an office full of gibbering skanks, it's also way better than the stupid gay fucking Sims, or whatever the hell kids are playing these days.

Feel free to suggest your own snippets of advice.


Just as a slight continuation of the last post, it is quite common for women to tut and mutter something along the lines of "I guess chivalry is dead then?", usually when you've just failed to submit to some whimsically outrageous demand of theirs, such as to carry something heavy for them.

A common mistake is to try and argue that chivalry has been comprimised by various and contradictorary demands in the post-feminist era, such as that offering to help a woman whose car has broken down may bring about allegations of being a sexist pig who views women as useless. This is wrong because it tackles the problem in a logical basis, and logic is not something women who utter such shit as "I guess chivalry is dead then?" have in great supply.

The best response I've managed to utter in that situation is:

"Chivalry isn't dead. You women just traded it in for sexual equality back in the sixties. Remember?"

Let me know if you have any better responses.

On the buses

There was an amusing incident on the bus a couple of weeks ago.

I was on my way to work, sitting down near the front of the bus. I had a big fucking hangover. It felt like Andrea Dworkin was having sex with a rhino in my skull. Not cool.

The bus was packed and loads of people were standing in the aisle. Nearby was a woman in her fifties; not really old or frail, just not quite the prime of her youth. She is sort of the focus of this amusing incident but in fact she played no direct role in it. She was slightly forwards of me and facing away.

I was minding my own business and reading the paper when I felt a hand nudging my shoulder rudely. I swung my head round rather slowly and saw a young woman - amongst the many standing - looking at me.

"Maybe you can stand up and offer that lady your seat," she said, nodding towards the oblivious middle-aged woman.

She said it not in the form of a polite request but more of a demand, one put forth in the unmistakable shaming tone women employ when they want to pressure a guy into doing something chivalrous.

Like I said, I was a rather hungover, and the idea of opening my mouth to utter the word "No" was far, far too much effort. I just lazily stared at the young woman for a few seconds in silence, with half-closed eyes, then slowly turned my head back round and continued reading the paper.

"God, how rude," I heard the woman comment to her friend. They tutted and muttered softly amongst themselves for a while but I quickly tuned out and started doing the crossword.

It was rather funny. It's nice to take women - especially young and reasonably attractive ones - down a peg or two by not only failing to be chivalrous or accommodating but to barely even register their fucking presence, as if it is do them a massive favour by even looking in their general direction when they want something.

It also amused me that most of the people sitting down on the bus were men, whilst most of the people standing were women.

Just to prove I'm not a total shit, a couple of days later, incidentally, on the way home from work, an old guy hobbled onto the busy bus, and I didn't hesitate to stand up and offer him my seat.


An artist's impression of me when I'm inevitably arrested and
dragged off to jail in chains for criticising feminism

I saw 300 the other day.

It's quite a cool movie. Fighting, bloodshed, shouting, silly beards, big lunatics with swords for hands, weird oracle ladies with groovy big nipples, and more severed limbs than you can shake a severed limb at. Great stuff.

What was annoying, though, was the Queen back in Sparta. Whilst her husband is out fighting she's letting some guy shag her just so she can have permission to speak to some senate type thing or other. Then, when she's addressing the Spartan leaders, she starts urging them to raise armies and call for allies, and go and support the three-hundred in the fight. Obviously she seems to forget to volunteer herself to go forth to battle.

I know it's not exactly an historically accurate movie - unless the Persian leader really was a nine-foot tall version of 50-Cent - but either way, the Queen's actions and speech were a rather annoying reminder of what generally happens in human historty; whenever women feel that they and their children are threatened, they break out the shaming language and nagging and urge men to go off and fight to defend them - the women and their kids - from the invaders (the first feminists in Britain went around snidely handing out white feathers - to represent cowardice - to any able-bodied man who wasn't out getting shot at by Germans.)

And if the invaders win, the women invariably forget their dead menfolk and join the invader's society and shag their menfolk.

You wouldn't catch me risking my life to defend the pig-shit of a matriarchy that the UK has come. In fact I'm looking forwards to its collapse, which is what happens to all feminist/socialist societies.

"Oi, this is a no smoking oracular mountaintop!"

Otherwise, though, it's a class film. Better than all the romantic comedy shite that's around.

Check out the South Park parody too.

Bachelorhood is fucking great

"Women worry about the future until they get married.
Men don't worry about the future until they get married.

I can't remember exactly where I heard that, but it's a classic, neat little summary of wedlock these days.

Funny think is, I recently uttered it to a few (single) female colleagues, and there was nodding and agreement amongst them. Strangely enough, these are the same women who generally insist that marriage is more beneficial to men, and that women don't need it. The mainstream, female-dominated (or at least female-friendly) media has the same opinion. That's why reports of plummeting marriage rates are accompanied by opinion pieces in newspapers about how women are really great and independent now, and

Women always insist men need wives to take care of them, whilst women are perfectly fine on their own and independent.

There's no point in trying to correct them on this, such as by pointing out that women who often make this point are also likely to complain men are "afraid of committment" or whine that their long-term boyfriend still hasn't proposed. And it is pointless to point out that men and women, generally, do what is in their best interests, and women are the ones who read Bridal magazines, push for committment, dream of weddings and scramble for the tossed bouquet at their mate's weddings, whilst - even before divorce courts became as horrendously anti-male as they are now - men are either not too enthusiastic about marriage, against it or outrightly fearful of the whole monstrous institution. Likewise, don't bother asking why, if women are so fucking independent of us men, then why do they need big fat divorce settlements from their husbands? Or need to apply for child support?

Point these things out and women will just shake their heads and continue insisting us men are hopeless without women, that we need marriage more than they do, and that any man who doesn't want to get married is either gay, afraid of women or actually wants to get married but just doesn't know it.

The best thing to do when you women arrogantly insist that marriage is a patriarchal institution that is more beneficial to men than women, or that us men can't cope without a wife, or that a single man must be some sort of loser, etc, etc, is to just insist:

"Well, I must be some sort of bizarre anomaly because I seem to be doing quite fine living my own life rather than slaving away to fund some woman's early-retirement, and I'm strangely pleased that I have absolutely no chance of being financially ruined in the divorce courts, as opposed to an approximately forty-percent chance of that happening to me, which would be the case if I was married."

Tuesday, 13 November 2007

Friday, 9 November 2007


Funniest Point/Counterpoint at The Onion ever.

Man jailed for taking his baby from the state

Solicitor jailed for snatching own baby daughter from social workers

A solicitor who snatched his baby from two care workers before going on the run has been jailed for 20 months.

Jonathan Phillips, 40, punched the two women, one of whom was heavily pregnant, before grabbing his daughter and speeding away in his car.

The child had been taken into care because of concerns over his wife's mental health - although the couple insist she does not present a risk.

They were allowed to visit their daughter for two hours every day at a family contact centre in King's Lynn, Norfolk. But Phillips lashed out because he felt staff were treating her too roughly.

He shouted, "Take your hands off my baby" before overturning a table, attacking the women and seizing his child, who was four months old at the time.

The first thing a Socialist government does is nationalise the youth (e.g. The Hitler Youth, the Soviet's Youth for Socialist Action) and this is happening steadily in the UK. Children are the property of the state, with the state's frontline troops including leftie fembot teachers and equally feminist social workers.

Unanswerable to anyone, social workers can deem pretty much anyone unfit to be parents and take their kids away, maybe granting them the privilege of visiting their own children in the awfully titled "family contact centres" (normally reserved only for divorced fathers. It's unusual that in this case the mother was being deprived of the right to be a mother to the kid; normally it's just dads who are deprived of that.)

Note how it was the father who stepped in, fists flailing, to defend the daughter. That's exactly what dads are for; to get fucking violent when anyone fucks with their kids. Heavily pregnant busybody social workers or otherwise, anyone who inteferes with a man's children is in the line of fire.

Unfortunately, in the UK, that spells the state's foot stamping on the father's face for an eternity, and some mangina judge blithering that violence against state workers who kidnap people's babies will "not be tolerated."

The social workers say that the mother was "mentally ill", but this allegation does not have to be proved in anyway, and if it was disproved, then the social workers would not even be identified, let alone bought to book for being wrong (see The Cleveland Sex Scandal; none of the dipshit social workers who tore families apart in that sordid episode were ever publicly named, let alone disciplined.)

Only in the Matriarchal West can a man take his own baby from abusive state scum and be regarded as a kidnapper.

In this case, as in so many, the state has won. The kid will be adopted and probably farmed out to some single career chick or lezzers, or dumped in some god-awful state run "care home."

Wednesday, 7 November 2007

Get rid of "it"

I overheard a couple of young women in a pub the other week, yakking on about how the friend of one of them had gotten pregnant and was considering an abortion.

"If I found out I was pregnant, I'd get rid of it," one said - charming phrase, 'get rid of it - "I wouldn't want a kid. Not now. I know it sounds bad but, like, I wouldn't want to have to be spending money on nappies and toys and stuff. If I had a kid I'd be spending money on it, not myself. My shopping days would be over!"

I barely even registered her comments.

It's gotten to the point where I'm not even surprised that your average modern Western Woman would be willing to kill her own baby because it would stop her from buying herself a new fucking handbag or pair of shoes each week.

And these are the sort of women that scratch their heads in bewilderment at us men's reluctance to marry them?

Saturday, 3 November 2007


Thank you to all those who expressed concern about me since my vanishing act in the summer.

First, to dispense with a few theories I've heard: no, I wasn't dragged screaming into a re-education camp staffed by buzz-cut NuLabour lezzers who sought to spank me on the balls with rolled-up copies of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and no, I didn't go all gooey-eyed with love and get married or some other stupid shit, and nor was I kidnapped and bum-raped by triple-breasted strap-on-wearing alien skanks from Dworkatron Alpha.

Seriously though, all facetiousness aside, I do sincerely apologise to some of those who seriously thought I'd been hacked, arrested, silenced or whatever.

I just really needed a break from ranting though. So did my poor, battered, smoke-belching keyboard.

And t'was a good break as well. I feel refreshed. But I also feel a bit pissed off with all sorts of stuff - like this bitch and this shit - so I think I might start ranting about fucking feminist scum some more.

There was a reason I deleted all my old posts as well. It wasn't that serious, and in fact - with the benefit of hindsight - I was just being a bit paranoid. But that's a story for another day. Some kind people archived the lot anyway, it's out there somewhere.

Once again, cheers to the rather charmingly alarming number of people who wished me farewell/wondered where the fuck I was, and a big thanks-very-much to Darren at Cool Tools 4 Men; Darren was the gentleman who originally suggested I start my own blog back in 2005. Without him, there would never have been any Eternal Bachelor blog at all.

Anyhow, I'm still chilling out a bit at the moment - and settling in to a new job in a new city - but I'm beginning to shudder and gnash my teeth with bile and rage about the continued infestation of feminism and it's filthy ideology in Britain, and I feel the temptation to start blogging again.

Ciao (for now) my fembot-hating droogs!

Friday, 22 June 2007


Well, after almost two-years of typing and posting away, and a fairly impressive 700,000 hits or so, it's time to close this blog. It's been fun but there's only so many times I can rant and rage before repeating myself. Plus as well as running out of things to post about, the blog was taking up quite a bit of time and I've just moved to a new country and need to concentrate on sorting stuff out.

Not that I have any intention to stop being an bachelor, naturally.

I'll probably see some of you on the various forums out there anyway.