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.