Sunday, 19 October 2008

Close encounters of the married kind

One evening last week, as the sun was nudging the horizon with it's big fat orange arse, I was heading to the shops, taking a shortcut through a park, when I passed a couple in their forties. The woman was walking behind the guy, and she was in mid-rant when I passed whilst the guy looked at his heavy feet. I picked up the following snippet of her rant - in that whiney tone that is both self-pitying and full of blame and hate at the same time - as I passed (pretty much word-for-word, although my memory isn't flawless):

"You don't know what I mean, you don't listen. Do you? You don't, you don't. Look, I'll do the same thing, but I'll not do the same thing. Yeah? You have to see it from my point of view. Did it occur to you..."

Then it trailed off as I passed.

Now to be fair, I didn't get the entire context of the conversation, but as I plodded onwards with the woman's blithering fading into the dusk behind me, it occured to me: Holy FUCK! I am so glad I'm single.

Is that what marriage is? Plodding along with some fucking woman dribbling self-contradictorary meanlingless shite at your heels? The guy looked broken down and despaired. Not surprising really. How could he react? Turn on her and tell her to shut up? That's domestic violence. Turn on her and slap her? That's domestic violence. Run away? That's domestic violence too ('emotional neglect') Say he wants a divorce? Bye-bye house, children and future income. He looked broken, resigned and pissed off.

I, on the other hand, gave thanks to fate for not inflicting matrimony upon thyself, and continued to the shop to buy some beers which I would be sharing with a couple of mates who were coming round that evening (one with his X-Box 360 in tow), whilst married-boy there was probably going to spend the evening with soap operas going in one ear and his wife's protracted ravings bludgeoning their way into the other.

These days a single man can embark on a brief stroll to the shops for a few cans of beer and encounter a hair-raising reminder of why he should damn well stay single.

Women are all lesbians, according to unattractive men, according to a scary looking woman journo

It's Sunday, and time for some man-bashing from the previously well-respected Times

In my experience, men always assume women are into them and if not, they assume she must be a lesbian.

Talk about projection. Most guys, when finding and approaching a woman they desire, only to be knocked back, will either change their tact or move on to another equally desirable woman.

On the other hand, as many readers will know, a man rejecting a woman's advances or simply declaring that he's rather happy not being in relationship - as such, rejecting women in a more general sense - will be buried under an avalanche of accusations of gayness, a mixture of shaming language on behalf of women, mixed in with their genuine conviction that any man happy to not be tied to some money-consuming harpy STD-ridden cunt long past her prime is obviously a screaming poof.

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

...and the horse she rode in on.

Ex-wife given £50,000-a-year maintenance for her three horses as part of £1.5m divorce deal


A wife has been awarded £50,000 in maintenance for her horses as part of a £1.5m divorce package in a landmark case that could spark bitter disputes over pets.

...

Lawyers believe the case could break new ground in divorce cases with couples claiming maintenance for their pets as well as themselves and their children.


Jeez, so we've gone from women - strong, independent beings that they supposedly are/were - getting a shedload of man's hard-earned cash in divorce settlements to support themselves and 'their' children to them getting more of a man's hard-earned cash to support their frigging pets!

The woman, who has not been named, was awarded the yearly sum after appeal judges agreed her three horses were a key part of her life.


She isn't Catherine The Great is she?

(Yes, I know it's an urban legend that Cathy croaked it getting a portion of equine-knob, but that doesn't stop it from being funny.)

Seriously though, just when you didn't think divorce courts couldn't get any more messed up and women couldn't get even more greedier. The judge actually agreed that this goldigging cunt shouldn't have to take up a '9-to-5 job' because that would take her away from her hobby. So her ex-husband has to stick to his job to ensure the bitch doesn't have to do a day's work ever again.

Fuck EU


The European Union is the most repulsive political creation in a long, long time. Nothing but a Socialist Organization of fuckwits, champagne-Socialists, muslim-appeasers, thieves and general fascist scumbags.

As you may have guessed, I'm anti-EU. The EU itself labels its opponents (particularly those of us in the UK) as being 'Eurosceptic' or 'anti-Europe', which is bollocks. The EU isn't Europe and vice versa. I love Europe. France, Germany, Italy...it's all cool. I just hate vast beaucratic organizations that sap freedom and spend peoples hard earned taxes on fucking those same people over by reducing their freedom and inflicting Marxism-lite on them. And that's what the EU is. And that's why I hate it.

It's also far from Democratic. France and Denmark held referendums as to whether they wanted their leaders to sign the EU Constitution. They said 'No.' It was clear people in Britain, Ireland and everywhere else would say the same. So the constitution was titled a 'Treaty' and passed through anyway, even though it was pretty much the same. The shithead Labour Party in the U.K. had promised a referendum on the Constitution, but now got out of one because it was now called a 'Treaty.' Only the good people of the Republic of Ireland got to vote on the matter as it was written into their existing constitution; they said 'No.' This prompted much angry mutterings amidst the Socialist heads of the EU. How dare anyone not go with the programme! It is expected there'll be further referendums in Ireland until its citizens provide the 'correct' result.

I recall reading some brochure issued by some EU propaganda department bragging about how great the EU was because it ensured the rights of women. In other words, it encouraged abortion, economy-wrecking, hypocritical 'equal opportunities' policies and welfare handouts for single-mothers.

The anti-US and inexplicably pro-Muslim streak within the EU and it's supporters is almost as virulant as their hatred of freedom of expression, as shown in particular by the banning of a demo against the Islamification of Europe on September 11 last year (compared to a multitude of Islamic demos across the EU - like this one in London - which are seemingly just fine and dandy and perfectly legal.)

So fuck the EU.

The reason I bring up the shitty EU is because of this.

Yes, it appears the E.U. wants to force bloggers (like yours most humbly and truly) to have their exact identities known; not necessarily to readers, but certainly to The Authorities. It seems some of us in the EU aren't all that pro-EU, or pro-Feminist, pro-Jihad or pro-Marxist, and as such it seems our identities have to be known, our credentials scrutinised and our interests examined (specficially to see whether they're in line with the EU leaders.)

Interesting how it's a woman pushing for the ban on anonymous blogging too; women - feminists in particular - seem to love restricting freedom. Men's in particular. The vote's tomorrow.

A recent internal European Commission report, leaked three weeks ago, found that the EU was losing the battle for hearts and minds online.

"Blog activity remains overwhelmingly negative," it said.


That's 'cos we can see that you're all worthless, pig-headed, tax-payers money consuming cunts.

Fuck the EU.

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Breakfast-time Misandry

I rarely bother with TV but I did a spot of channel hopping this morning before heading off to work.

I caught a bit of BBC Breakfast, which used to be an early-morning news show but, being the BBC, is now a big wank-fest hosted by a duo of interchangable manginas and plastic bitches.

I caught a bit of an interview with an Australian guy, and it seemed to be about stereotypes of Australian men or something. Before I caught much of what the Ozzie gentleman had to say, the simpering ponce of a male co-host turned to some gormless bitch and asked her 'So (gormless bitch's name), what do you think is wrong with men in this country?', her main qualification to answer this being that she was a gormless bitch.

'Well, you know, they take themselves too seriously,' she replied - in an English accent, so she wasn't offering an international view on the subject - 'and they're too caught up in work and the rat-race.'

I turned it off. I can't stand such drivel.

But those few moments of watching it still had me growling angrily as I stomped off to work.

For starters, there was the tosspot mangina fuck of a male presenter. He's meant to be a man - and in the good 'ol days a man on a news show was a bloke who told the news in the form of facts delivered in an firm and formal manner.

Now, it's just a self-loathing fuck who enjoys inviting women to denigrate his own sex in the hope of getting a shag.

Also, the BBC seems to think that despite all the major (and often rather alarming) events in current affairs at the moment, it's worth spending a good chunk of a breakfast news programme on deciding to ask women what they hate about us men this week.

Then there's the woman's comments themselves.

Us men take ourselve too seriously? Isn't that a bit of projection? At least us men can laugh at ourselves and take criticism (so long as it's fair and not just some random misandry.) Women are the ones who huff and sigh and call for their castration sheers if any mere male dares to poke fun at them.

And we're caught up in the rat-race of careers? First off, in any man made the same criticism at young British women, he'd be labeled a woman-hating psycho who wants women bare-foot and pregnant. Secondly, the reason many men are dedicated to their careers - aside from the fact that we have no choice because we have to support our-fucking-selves, not rely on a spouse/the state - is that most men want to sleep with women, and as women invariably sleep with men with lots of money and good careers, it stands to reason that - due to women's selfishness and shallow materialism - many men, driven by the desire to shag women, dedicate themselves to their careers.

It's the usual lose-lose situation. If you like a laugh and enjoy video games, women don't stand in awe of your ability to not take yourself seriously. They denigrate you as an immature perpetual adolescent. And if you don't care for the career ladder and take it easy, doing an easy job for just enough money to get by on, then you're a loser not worthy of a woman's approval.

Not that I give a shit about women's approval. Nor, I believe, should any man. But still, if you want women's approval, you're out of luck. They're never happy. You're either an immature slacker, or a career-driven git who takes himself too seriously. If you fall into the first category, no woman will marry you. If you fall into the latter category, many will marry you but then divorce you on the grounds that you are who you are. And they'll take all your fucking money, obviously.

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

"I was raped! Oh, I mean, I wasn't. Sorry."

Woman who made false rape claim against her ex-fiance walks free from court



Gemma Capon, 20, invented the allegation after she and Graham Tysoe's turbulent six-month relationship came to an end.

...

Yet, instead of a six-month maximum jail term, Capon was given a 12-week suspended sentence and ordered to pay £95 costs.


I'm sure she could earn that much by giving 190 blow-jobs in a back-alley. Slag.

Mr Tysoe, who had an alibi, was released on bail and later that day Capon, a fast-food waitress, admitted lying to the police.

Officers spent 156 hours investigating the false claims, the court was told.

Alan Hurst, mitigating, said his client was 'genuinely sorry'.


Oh, well, that's all right then:

"Look here judge I'm (a) in possession of a cunt and (b) 'sorry', and thus I can go free right? Yeah, thanks very much."

Another day, another 'rape'-allegation, another horrifyingly ugly whore with a grudge whose flash of the Cunt-Pass lets her avoid jail for all but ruining a man's life.

The rise and inevitable fall of feminism

This article has a comment by a guy called Fred Kite that neatly summed up the reason for feminism's success:

Feminism is not the problem here. Its proponents have neither the brains nor the talent to advance this far on their own - high-status elite managerial men have allowed this to happen.

Men run the world. Men always have. Just a small number of alphas though. But that white technocratic political elite realised that in feminism they had found an unbeatable tool for cowing and demoralising lower status males who will always be potential usurpers.

Feminists are no problem to high status bosses. Women are wired to treat them with adoration and give them a pass whatever the transgression - see Bill Clinton (or even George W Bush being invited to slap a female gymnast on the rear "for luck."
If a low status male suggested that he try that he'd be lucky to escape with just being fired.)

Even feminist women are totally loyal to their male bosses, and reserve their wrath for peers and subordinates.

Feminism is part of the new class war whereby the right wing authoritarian elite have found they can use left wing dogmas to shore up their power. That is why elite managerial white alpha men like Tony Blair, David Cameron and Brown are so keen on it - it does not threaten them.

Feminism has finally achieved what Mrs Thatcher could never quite do - destroy workplace solidarity and ensure that collective action is largely a thing of the past. And it did not take billy-club wielding strike-breakers or labor camps. It took a generation of victimhood obsessed, unhinged females, who knew they could get away with saying and doing anything.


It is a theory I've long since subscribed too; if the Wimmin's Movement had been orchestrated and acted upon by women solely - and every man was either neutral or dead against it - those whining lezzers would have been bitch-slapped back into the kitchen so hard they'd smash through the wall and into the dining room with their burning bras round their neck.

Yet they seem to have been rather successful in inflicting their shitty ideology onto Western Society; and it does seem rather suspicious that virtually every man in mainstream-politics licks the unholy arses of feminisms. David Cameron forever being associated in my mind with his leadership acceptance speech when he bemoaned the horrors of the lack of women in his party, thus losing the vote of many men at a single stroke. The ponce.

Then there's the Labour Party in the U.K. As it's name suggests, it was meant to speak for the common man, the worker. The guy who does dirty and dangerous work to try to support himself and his wife and kids. The families who are almost on the breadline. The powerless. Now it's just morphed into something that rubs the faces of common men into shit, enforces feminist ideology, encourages single-motherhood, taxes the workers to support the lazy and feckless, and as side-project manages to tear the shit out of British culture in the name of diversity. What the fuck happened? All they wanted was power, and what better way to wield power than to sideline men by encouraging their removal from families, and make women subservient to the government by hooking them on benefits and governmental support.

Feminists and their powerful male allies seem to have failed to have taken one thing into account; when someone is made redundant, they don't work any more. And us men have been declared redundant.

This is what is happening in British Society and, no doubt, in other Feminist infected nations. In Britain there are millions of young men who don't work, who aren't in full-time education, who do fuck all, who basically don't have any interest or motive in contributing to society. And who can blame them? They've been declared redundant. They're not needed. Or, rather, they are needed, but only as wage-slaves to be taxed and, from time to time, as cannon-fodder to be fed to enemy cannons whilst the elite and their ho's relax. And even many guys (like me) who do work only work the bare minimum, avoid marriage and other traps to transfer what wealth we have to women, and who plot to emigrate. Or just vent our spleens on blogs.

In Britain, a single woman can nip to a sperm clinic, get a sample, get pregnant and then get on welfare, the idea of a father - or a step-father, or any man whatsoever - being part of a family now officially a 'sexist' idea and one to be rejected. In the workplace, women get priority in promotions and then get to all but choose their hours (usually very few) if/when they have kids. And if a guy works, he'll be taxed to buggery to pay for hordes of single mothers, effectively forcing him to pay for other men's offspring.

"Why bother?", sayeth us men in our almighty multitude. "Fuck this," we add.

If there's a war, many men won't fight to save this country. I fucking won't. Why bother? Most of us men don't have any attachment or any investment in what this country has become. Given that you'll never hear a feminist cry for 'equality' when it comes to the draft, why the fuck would any man be willing to get his head blown off to protect some whining, ungrateful, abortion-happy women and the powerful men, all safe at home? Fuck that. We might as well join the invaders and wreck some stuff for laughs.

The gravy train of feminism won't last long. What women call 'independence' requires a hell of a lot of funding; the single-mothers on benefits, the working mothers who barely work at all and consume taxes with their 'free' daycare, the Women's Shelters, the NHS-funded abortions for slags who can't keep their legs shut, the Ministry of Bloody Women, the endless non-jobs in the female-dominated civil-service...it all needs paying for through taxes. Taxes predominantly paid for by men, who increasingly shrink from the work-force thinking; 'Why bother?'

Similarly, it is men who do the real-work; refining oil, building buildings, logging trees, laying roads. And fighting wars of course. Rendered redundant, devoid of any incentive or investment in life, many men will stop doing this, and the powerful men and their harem of 'independent' wimmin will be left terrified in a society with no proper work-force and dwindling tax-reserves.

And a hell of a lot of seriously annoyed men with nothing to lose.

Maybe that's a bit of a nihilistic vision. But I can't see things getting any better, and the one thing that can keep us guys who, individually, have very relatively little or no power in society is that, collectively, we keep it going. So we can make it grind to a halt with very little effort at all.

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

Critics of Womens Studies are nasty and selfish. And racist too!

Lawyer Roy Den Hollander plans 'jihad' against university feminism

The article itself is mildly interesting, but more worthy of my infinite derision are a couple of wimmin's comments; one within it, one beyond it.

But Kim Gandy, president of the National Organisation for Women, said: “They have a men’s studies department: It’s called ’history’, ’politics’, ’business’. It’s the entire university. It’s all about men’s studies. It’s like asking why there isn’t a White Studies department.”


Okay, for starters, Muzzz Gandy, you're the prez of a bunch of man-hating fucking lezzers - closeted and otherwise - so you're opinion is clearly not going to be (a) objective or (b) logical.

Secondly, 'history', 'politics' and 'business' departments cannot be regarded as "Men's Studies" in the same way "Women's Studies" is because:


  • They do not focus on men. They focus on the study at hand.

  • If men feature prominently amongst the individuals who crop up in those studies, it's because they founded and put into effect the primary theories of them. Women could have done so, but they either didn't feel the need, or couldn't (oops, controversial!)

  • They are founded on either proven facts, or theories that are rigorously tested and questioned, not on the whacked out ideas of a demented ideology like feminism that is clearly demented on the grounds that it makes 'the personal political'

  • These subjects teach, they don't indoctrinate

  • If you disagree with a theory the lecturer in a history or business class personally holds, you may raise your hand and say so, and get a fair hearing, not a scowl and an accusation you're a traitor or rapist (if you're a female or male respectively) as in Wimmin's Studies

  • Ask a Business Studies or History professor what the point of his/her subject is, and what application it has in the real world, and - so long as you ask politely - they'll explain why, give examples, and be open and even welcoming to any sensible objections. Ask the same question to a Women's Studies "professor" and, no matter how polite you may be, expect to be accused of having a small cock, of being a virgin, of hating women, etc, etc.



And why the reference to a 'White Studies' department. Why the fuck do feminists try and drag race into everything?

Now onto some comment from some bitch appropriately named 'Nancy':

This "man" forgets that women in America STILL make far less money than men, STILL are far less likely to get hired-promoted than a man! The lawyer sounds like a selfish, neolithic neo-conservative, to me.

He probably wants to make blacks sit at the back of the bus again, too.


Note the word man being in inverted commas, implying no Real Man (C) questions women's superiority complex or right to spew hatred.

Then there's the whining that women still - sorry; STILL - make less money than men. Yeah, guess why; that's because - on average - they don't deserve to. Yet, addicted to the victim-mantra of modern Western Fucking Women, it's all boo-hoo-hoo, evil men being evil to women, and so on and so forth.

I personally make less money than Richard Branson, Bill Gates or Alan Sugar. Is this fair? Sure it is. They work harder than me, took more risks than me, were more innovative than me (or better at marketing crap products; that's a matter of opinion of course) and furthermore are older than me so had more time to earn money. On top of that, I only care about making enough money to keep going; I wouldn't mind a huge mansion but I don't want one enough to bust my balls 100-hours a week for years on end to get one, as these guys did.

It's not a case that it's unfair or unjust that these millionaires earn more money than me; we just have different priorities and different abilities.

Yet, to femshits like Nancygirl there, it's all dreadfully unfair that men dare to work hard enough to earn more money than women, or to get these frightfully unjust promotions, and that - in her and other feminist's opinions - this money needs to be stolen from the labours of men and handed to women, and men should be shoved out of high-ranking jobs to make way for women, regardless of whether they're equally qualified, or even can be bothered to turn up for more than a few hours a day.

And this cunt has the nerve to accuse the guy of being "selfish"?

A typical attempt at an argument with a feminist goes like this:

Feminist: Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me...
Man: Erm...excuse me but...
Feminist: Oh, right, typical man, it's all 'me me me!'"


Finally, in her last sentence of crazy shaming language, she brings in race.

Yes, indeed, it seems that objecting to feminists getting carte blanche to indoctrinate young women into some messed up, illogical, amoral cult of man-hating claptrap on University campuses means that - by some bizarre form of logic known only to feminists - you advocate racial apartheid against black people.

I get a headache just trying to figure out how feminist's trains of thought work (although - to extend the rail-based metaphor a bit further than necessary - I dare say they usually end with multi-carriage pile-ups with lots of confused wailing.)

Give it a rest you pampered femorrhoids. Go and put another Starbucks on your daddy's credit-card, sit quietly in the corner surrounded by shopping bags and gulp down a big frothy cup of shut-the-fucking-fuck-up.

Thursday, 14 August 2008

Privileged Patriarchal Fiend

Yeah, that's me, a Privilege Patriarchal Fiend. According to feminists anyway.

The silliest thing - and there are many - about feminists is their constant use of the word 'privilege' and hurling it at men. Why? Just because some of the most powerful people in the world happen to be men?

They only represent about 0.0001% of men. I certainly don't have any power. Yet because I'm the same sex as those in charge, I'm 'privileged'.

Furthermore, most men 'in charge' care more about women than men. David Cameron, the Conservative Party Leader, bleated in his opening speech about how horrified he was at the lack of women in his party.

How many times have you seen a woman in power give one iota of a damn about men? Never. Yet powerful men do, because it's often in their interests (in the grand scale of things, feminism wouldn't have gotten so far as to name itself if there weren't men to support it. But there were; the Socialists, for whom the destruction of the family and neutering of men was vital to their totalitarian vision, and - at the opposite end of the spectrum - Capitalists, who would be raking it in with the female half of the population joining the male half in wage-slavery.) It's not in the interests of the majority of men though, or women for that matter.

Yet feminists still declare us men - even the most humble of us, like me - as being somehow Almighty Privileged Man-Bastards just because we share the same downstairs plumbing as the tiny number of individuals in charge upstairs.

That's as stupid as a non-British person assuming all of us Brits are privileged on the basis of the luxury the Royal Family are enshrouded in.

King Idaho IV checks his e-mail


"Gee, all you limeys are so Goddamn privileged, with your big castles, your retinue of servants and your Crown Jewels!"

That sounds silly, but this is basically what feminists do all the time. A tiny, tiny proportion of men run big companies and governments - and invariably care more for women than men anyway - yet us men are expected to never, ever criticise feminism and women in general on the basis that we're all living privileged and luxurious lives, no matter what our actual fucking lives are like and no matter what daily shittiness assails us, and despite the fact that 99.9% of us men have as little power as women do, if not less.

It's the easy way out of an argument I guess. Feminists hate arguments. That would force them to realise the emptiness and stupidity of their ideology and make them realise they've devoted their miserable lives and their few brain-cells to something that's as silly and as pointless as a frog in a fez. It's so much easier to dismiss someone who questions them as a loser, a woman-hater, gay, or just someone who is 'unable to see how privileged he is' - which is connected to the accusations flung at non-feminist women; 'you don't see how oppressed you are due to Patriarchal brainwashing.' See? No logic, facts or even common sense required! Hooray for feminist tactics!

Given that women live longer than men, they're allowed to denounce us as 'bastards' and 'scum' whilst we're silenced into submission for implying they're not perfect, that they get pretty much automatic custody of the kids (and the house, furniture, savings, etc) in divorce cases, are allowed Women's Studies, have the right to kill a man's baby and call it 'the right to choose', have their own fucking government department, I think women have got a fucking cheek squealing 'you over-privileged bastard' should any of us guys dare object to their cat-like mewling and say 'Hang on a fucking minute...'

Arse!

I was walking down the high-street the other day and before me was a big-bottomed woman.

I know she had a big bottom because most of it was on display.

Now I'm not sneering contemptously at this woman for having a fat arse. I'm of the libertarian belief that one's arse is one's own, and one can let it be as fat as one desires.

No, I'm sneering contemptously at her for having jeans that hung almost a third of the way down the derriere in question. Two great big spotty cheeks jiggling menacingly at me, like two acne-ridden Zeppelins engaging in frottage behind a low wall made of denim. Beneath a silvery tramp-stamp.

She was pushing a pushchair too, and the kid was crying and wailing, and she seemed to think (incorrectly) that the best way to comfort her child was to take the cigarette out of her mouth and scold the child for being 'stupid.'

It's fair to assume she's a single-mother on benefits; after all, it was noon on a weekday and she was strolling around the shops, and no father was in sight. The kid was about two and, although it was hard to tell, I don't think she was beyond her teens.

My initial disgust grew greater when I realised that the taxes that are taken from the salary I earn at the shitty job I was briefly taking a break from at the time no doubt supported this fucking wretch.

Feminism solves all!

Why feminism should be taught in schools




"'Men are all: (a) bastards, (b) rapists, or (c) bastard rapists.'
Hmmmm. Oooh, I know this, I know this!"



The only reason a modern teenager is likely burn her bra is to emulate underwear-dodging celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Our daughters are in dire need of lessons in women's rights, says a feminist author.

...

We need feminism more than ever, not just to address all the myths that have grown up - we're still a long way from living in an equal society, despite girls' much-vaunted success over boys in exams - but to counter the pervasive influence of the commercial sex industry on young women.


How dim-witted are feminists?

They don't even know their own movement, or it's aims and 'achievements.'

Feminism is the primary reason young women are pretty much viewed as sex-objects. Beforehand, in the Evil Old Patriarchy, young women were taught modesty and discouraged from sleeping around and indeed urged to only sleep with their husband and only after the wedding.

Then came the fembots who encouraged young women to whore about until their twats split, and woe betide any man who tutted in disgust at the 'loose women', who would be condemned by feminist as a prudish misogynist who wanted to restrict women's 'sexual freedom' and who probably had a small dick too.

Girls used to be pretty much groomed for marriage, in order that a man would view her as a potential companion for life, a devoted housekeeper and a good mother to their children. Feminism urged women to get all bitchy and angry, to sneer at the idea of doing anything that constituted 'domestic slavery', and to have abortions and shove the kids they didn't have killed in daycare centres, and to hell with any such thing as 'fathers rights' - children now belong to women.

Having largely become too bitter and angry to make good companions, unwilling and unable to run a home (but still wanting a man to bring home the bacon - and the SUV, plasma-screen telly, expensive dresses, etc) and not the sort of women you'd figure would make good mothers to their children, men see sex as the only real thing many young women have to offer. And they'll happily offer it before marriage too. After all, they're liberated grrrls.

So men increasingly just see women as sex-objects, because more and more, thanks to feminism, sex is all they have left to offer.

Yet feminists can't seem to see the results of their own fucked up ideology and it's insane application to the Western World. Girls are acting like sluts, so it must be because feminism hasn't gone far enough, they think, when in fact it's because of feminism. Duh!

Feminism can't let go of women's monopoly on victimhood, and still screech on about wimmin's issues and problems, even though many are actually thanks to feminism. Take the bemoaning about how single mothers and their kids are more likely to live in poverty, especially in harsh economic times. Well of course they're going to be in poverty, if they don't have a man as the breadwinner! But it was feminists who encouraged the removal of men from families. Don't blame us for the effects of your social experiment you daft lezzers.

In the article, the author complains about young girls being forced into prostitution. Sure, I'll agree that that's really shitty for the girls, but does she think for one moment about these girl's family background? I very much doubt if girls raised in a two-parent family with a big strong father there to protect her are the ones being lured into the sex-industry. More likely it's the girls from dysfuctional (read: no father) 'familes.' Once again, fatherless families was the aim - and the result - of feminism, and now the problems caused by fatherless families are rampant, those who encouraged this not only refuse to accept blame but still insist they know what to do about it.

Whether it's single mothers in poverty, girls being viewed as sex-objects and the rise of slut-culture, or the increasing numbers of women unable to find a man stupid enough to marry them, feminism is the primary cause of the problem, yet once again the answer to this problem - according to feminists - is more fucking feminism.

The author also comments:

"I'm amazed at how much we achieved - many feminist ideas, such as the right to maternity leave, have become mainstream - but I'm also horrified by the casual misogyny of 21st-century life. Since my book, Misogynies, was first published in 1989, it has got much worse. "


There's no evidence supplied by her to imply misogyny is getting 'worse' - after all, what do facts and evidence matter to a feminist? - but she may have a point. I do notice that, whilst men my age tend to be somewhat apathetic towards women (which to many women is the same as hatred), a lot of young men tend to be outrightly hostile towards women.

Yet if this is the case, feminism is to blame in a big way. What the fuck did feminists think would happen to generations of boys raised by man-hating bitches in schools, raised by single-mothers who often don't hide their whorishness from their kids, seeing stories of ridiculous divorce rulings in favour of women and surrounded by media-images and politician's drivel that implies men are worthless and women are virtual goddesses, beyond criticism? Why, you'll have a generation of men who don't really care much for women, and may even think 'Hey, if I'm supposedly a woman-hating brute and total shit, I guess I might as well act that way!'

Some woman in the comments sneers:

these last few comments illustrate that men still do and will always hate women.


Actually, men used to love women. And many still do. Love is what drove men to work to provide for a woman, to die on battlefields to save not just an individual woman but the mass of women in his invaded country. Not any more. Fuck that. Provide for yourselves, pay your own fucking mortgages, and fuck off if you think we're getting shot to save you and 'your' children.

Feminists indulge heavily in projection. They hated men and presumed we all hated women back. Given that contempt has an alarming ability to boomarang back, feminism and it's incessant hatred of us men - and it's political lackeys eagerness to make men socially redundant (except as tax-mines in peacetime and cannon-fodder in wartime) and remove any investment men have in society - has made many men either contemptous of - or at least apathetic towards - women. Oops! How ironic.

Yet feminists just think that the best thing to do is to continue to force their twisted ideology on kids even more, even though this is the same ideology that helped turned girls into sex-objects and helps foster resentement and contempt amongst boys towards the girls. Yeah, well done grrls, great logic there.

Furthermore, like any feminist, she makes a living through 'highlighting' and drivelling on about misogyny. Of course she's going to claim it's getting worse! The same way domestic-violence charities will never say that domestic-violence is decreasing; their livelihood would be over otherwise.

A feminist in a world without misogyny - real or imagined - is a nothing but a woman who has to get a proper fucking job.

Here's one last sentence that caught my attention:

Young women need to know that there's nothing wrong with liking clothes, shoes and boys (or other girls), but they're also in urgent need of a language and ethics that allow them to be themselves.


Well, yes, there's nothing wrong with liking clothes and shoes, so long as you accept that there's nothing wrong with being a fucking airhead with no life outside shopping.

More significant is the latter half of her sentence, whereby the brainwashing nature of feminism is made clear; she talks of giving girls 'language and ethics' that allows them to 'be themselves.' In other words, the 'language and ethics' of feminism.

Feminists will only allow girls (and boys for that matter) to 'be themselves' if it corresponds to what feminists want them to be.

And never mind that feminism is, at it's heart, nothing but a hate movement which has caused (probably irreversible) damage to those societies that didn't violently stomp it out as soon as possible.

The comments at the article (and this surprisingly similar one today) show feminist's hatred of dissenting opinions perfectly; howls of anger that any man dare criticise feminism. Indeed, feminism's emptiness and stupidity is personified in the fact that those who follow it never listen to - and logically break down - criticism. Knowing there is no logical merit to their ideology (and logic is an evil Patriarchal tool of oppression anyway) they have no weapons to fling other than insults and abuse. Even calling someone 'anti-feminist' seems be classified as some sort of shameful label to be flung around, even though being anti-feminist is a label any sane man should any embrace.

Some women even try to backpedal, insisting feminism was about equality. The author of the article even claims feminism was about human rights. Yeah right! Maybe it was concerned with the rights (ideally without responsibility) of a certain 50% of humans, but not the other 50%.

Most pathetic of all are the many accusations that any man who criticises feminism is a misogynist, even though feminism is just an ideology, and therefore - like any ideology - has no immunity from being questioned and rejected, or even loathed. Claiming that anyone who criticises feminism hates all women is as absurd as saying that anyone who criticises Maoism hates all Chinese people.

By its very nature of being a hate-filled ideology closely linked to Marxism, feminism allows no questioning or individuality. If it's taught in primary/elementary schools you can imagine any boy who maybe questions the teacher ('Miss...I mean, Muzzz?I don't think it's true that I want to rape women just because I'm a boy, and I'm pretty sure my dad doesn't regularly beat up my mum.') being marked down or even reported for counselling for 'inappropriate behaviour.'

The only thing dumber than the first, second and third wave feminists who fucked-up our society in the first place is a fourth wave one who thinks that more feminism will magically unfuck-up everything.

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

A superhero flick that's not aimed at chicks


I went to the cinema (for the first time in more than two-years) to see The Dark Knight yesterday.

It's a great flick. I normally avoid Hollywood's mangina celluloid puke, but I figured I'd give this one a try and I did in fact like it.

The best thing is the lack of females - butt-kicking, loud-mouthed "independent" ones especially - who invariably shove their way into nearly every damn movie these days. Sure, there is one such character, but...well, I won't spoil it for you. And there is another woman character but she doesn't say much in the one or two scenes she's in and I can't even remember her name. And Batman does go all annoyingly 'save teh wimmin' briefly (a response his adversary predicts, with interesting results.)

Apart from that it's just two or three hours of guys doing stuff like robbing banks, saving the city, having car-chases, beating up baddies, talking with really really deep voices, garotting helicopters, beating up baddies some more, jumping from one skyscraper to another, and ruining someone's day with nothing more than a sharpened pencil.

Y'know, guy stuff.

And there's some other, more deeper philosophical man-stuff, like the contemplation of moral boundries, self-sacrifice, whether the ends justify the means in administering justice, whether relinquishing the moral high-ground is forgivable in the face of an amoral enemy, if people can be trusted not to recede into atavistic barbarism for the purposes of self-preservation in extreme circumstances, the loyalty of friends, and how to really ruin someone's day with nothing more than a sharpened pencil.

Wednesday, 9 July 2008

There are no female criminals, just women who make 'big mistakes.'

'I'm terrified - it was a mistake': British businesswoman faces jail in Dubai after 'having sex on the beach'


Every headline in the main newspapers about this case scream about a British women (or 'businesswoman' - what's the relevance of the 'business' prefix?) facing jail for sex on the beach.

Yet there's no mention of the guy she was having sex with. I could understand it if he wasn't facing charges and/or was a local - it's journalistic tradition to give more importance to compatriots of the journalist than to foreign types.

But neither is the case. From here:

[T]he man also accused in connection with the incident was a British holidaymaker...Her fellow accused faces a similar sentence.


So a British man and woman get nabbed making the two-backed-beast and face the same sentence, yet the woman is mentioned solely in the headlines. A bit like the case a while back whereby human rights groups scream with rage about a woman in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to be lashed for adultery after she was raped, her adultery uncovered by the fact that she was kidnapped with her adulterous lover - largely ignoring the fact that her lover was not only also raped by the gang but also faced the same sentence. He warranted little mention and no appeals from Hu(wo)man Rights Groups.

Also, the Daily Mail's headline omits the fact that she's not just facing prison for sex outside of marriage and public sex, but also for the fact that she was publicly drunk and allegedly assaulted and hurled abuse at a police officer.

Oh, and then there's the typical Western Woman habit of the wringing of hands, the wails of victimisation, and the claim that it was 'all a mistake.'

How the fuck do you get drunk, hump a stranger in public then throw a tantrum at a cop 'by accident'? Not even the clumsy Mr. Bean managed to do that, at least not in any episodes I've seen.

Expect immediate diplomatic measures to be employed to secure her release.

Nice to see she's getting little sympathy though; I think many men (and women for that matter) see through the fake tears female criminals sprinkle over their charge sheets in order to get a light punishment.

"Burn her, burn her!!

Tuesday, 8 July 2008

Alpha Cunt

Indeed, I am starting to wonder if I might actually be, contrary to all my assumptions, an incredibly diligent and loving mother, after all...

Well, given that you killed your third child because "my career would be hamstrung and, most importantly of all, I was just too tired to do it all again" and that the decision to abort your child (with seemingly no consultation from his/her father) involved less consideration than deciding "what work-tops to have in the kitchen" - and you furthermore expected a pat on the back for what you consider to have been a brave and noble decision - I'd say you were, in accordance with my assumptions, a terrible, selfish, narcissistic, and quite frankly horrifying 'mother'.

Alpha Mummy?

Beta Bitch more like.

This, my brothers, is the sort of female feminism has left us with.

No wonder we don't want to breed with them.

Friday, 4 July 2008

"Anything to declare?"

"Yeah, don't go to England."

Three charged with murder after 17-year-old boy is tied to tree, forced to drink petrol and set alight

Sixteen-year-old London knife victim was killed in 'planned ambush in dispute over girl'

Innocent French students stabbed 243 times in London flat murder

Woman mourning miscarriage stabbed in street row

Soap star's brother,18, fatally stabbed

Girl gang member Chelsea Bennett cleared of steak knife murder

And on top of all that, a couple of 11-year-old boys were disciplined by their teacher for not worshipping Allah.

All this from just the last week.

Yet the most recent twaddle spouted by the wankfest of touchy-feely Socialist Feminist Shitfucks that are, unfortunately, the British government, is about 'positive discrimination' and 'green taxes'.

Our economy is sinking, our country is being swallowed whole by the Socialist E.U. State, random murder is so frequent that you have to have a stab-wound/bullet-hole count into triple figures to hit the front pages, Islam stomps it's stinking feet all over our once green and pleasant land, and a recession looms, yet the gobshite feminist/socialist twats in charge act like us Brits lay awake at night thinking:

'OMG! There aren't enough wimmin in charge of companies and trees might be getting smokers-cough!!'

Thursday, 26 June 2008

Marriage strike bites

Married couples are now in the minority as number of single and divorced people soars

In 2006, the last year for which details are available, there were just 236,980 weddings in England and Wales - the lowest number since 1895 and the lowest proportion of marriages compared to the population since counting began in the mid-Victorian era.


We've swiftly caught up with the USA then.

Get ready for a blizzard of forthcoming articles in the press about how this clearly indicates us men are worthless and how Strong Empowered Wimmin have rejected us.

Mixed in with some whining articles about how us men are all such immature bastard selfish losers for not being keen to fund some woman's early retirement tie the knot.

Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Pyrogirl

Girl, 15, torched in gruesome attack by love rival who told her 'You won't be pretty anymore'


A 15-year-old girl was set on fire using white spirit in a street ambush by a love rival who was jealous over a kiss.

...

When Lucy arrived at the rendezvous, the attacker allegedly leapt from the bushes and doused her in the highly flammable liquid hidden in a Coca-Cola bottle.

Police say that as she flicked a lighter, the girl told Lucy: 'You won't look pretty anymore.'


...

'It wasn't a normal scream. It was a chilling, horrible sound like something from a horror movie,' the mother-of-one said.

She saw Lucy writhing in agony as her hair blazed until it was all gone.

'The skin on the left side of her face was peeling off. She looked like she had been burnt under a grill.

Her T-shirt and bra had melted and her skin was bubbling,' Ms Costin told told the Sun newspaper.

...

A 19-year-old woman was being held today on suspicion of attempted murder.


Isn't the Fairer Sex (TM) lovely?

No doubt on the off-chance any feminists comment on this, they'll be blaming the boy the victim supposedly kissed; damn that evil Patriarchal fiend for causing this horror!

No way could any feminist ever accept that any foulness ever occurs without there being a male at fault somewhere.

Saturday, 14 June 2008

Father's don't deserve Father's Day, says Mother

Father's Day - the worst thing American President Richard Nixon did

Yes, it's Father's Day on Sunday (in most countries anyway) and what better way to celebrate by having some woman spew forth a load of bile on masculinity?

Of course, there are single fathers who deserve every treat coming their way this weekend. But although one quarter of all families live with a single parent, only one in 10 of those parents is a father.


Strange how women are, once again, determined to be the victims by this statistic; nevermind that it is women who demanded and gained the right to near automatic custody of children in the event of divorce and as such it is down to women alone that their is such a scarcity of single-fathers.

But real co-parenting is still a rare and remote ideal. For all the family activities that men do join in, a few still, bizarrely, get overlooked. Nit-combing remains a female preserve. As does the dentist's waiting room, the scrum of the school uniform sale, the toy stall at the fete.


Yes, and the idea of joint breadwinning is still a rare and remote ideal. For all women's pissy attempts at careers, most give up working the second they marry - that being their motiviation for marrying - and slogging away in factories and offices for no reason than to support a spouse and their children remains the male preserve.

Who the fuck does this bitch think works to pay for children's dental plans, the school uniforms and the toys? The tooth fairy and Santa Claus? Why does she think it's left to mothers to organize dentist visits and shopping? It's because fathers are chained to a factory floor or cubicle for 8+ hours a day - but, significantly, are getting on with it in a stoic kind of way without gnashing their teeth and fuming with victimhood in the national press.

Incidentally, the writer of this article, Gill Hornby, is married to
Robert Harris, the author. Just goes to show; you can be a Cambridge graduate, successful reporter and journalist, and best-selling author, and your wife will still insult and demean you just to try and grab a bit of attention and indulge in that favourite hobby of modern women; denigrating and insulting men.

Thursday, 5 June 2008

Home Alone 5

Guilty: Mother who locked two-year-old son in flooded kitchen during weekend of partying

A mother was convicted yesterday of leaving her toddler home alone and locked in a flooded kitchen while she spent the weekend 'partying' with friends.

Kelly Tollerton, 22, was warned it was 'almost inevitable' that she would be jailed after a judge heard how she left the two-year-old boy to fend for himself in the kitchen, penned in by a baby gate and with scraps of food left on plates on the floor.


'Almost inevitable' that she'll be jailed? If it were a man there'd be no question.

Yesterday the trainee beautician broke down in tears outside court after being found guilty of two charges of child neglect and a third of attempting to pervert the course of justice.


That good old legal defence offered only to women; cry and cry and cry. A few tears sprinkled on the ground will no doubt halve those chances of going to prison.

And where was the dad in all this? Not even she can answer that:

The mother-of-two was pregnant by a 31-year-old man before she was 16, and does not even know who the father of her second son is.


What a start in life for that poor kid; piece of shit neglectful mother, a 'sibling' with a totally different father, and no way of finding out who is dad is without DNA testing every male in Britain. And yet this cunt can and will still breed more illegitimate bastards and the tax-payers will foot the bill (unless I'm wrong in doubting the ability of a trainee beautician to be earning enough to fully support however many kids she's got by the time she's fully-trained in painting narcassistic cunt's nails.)

Thursday, 29 May 2008

Karma Chameleon Kunts

Credit crunch karma

"When money looks like flying out of the window, love walks out the door." What a poetic statement. It’s enough to make you well up. You could almost mistake it for an Amy Winehouse lyric used in a Cambridge university English exam, if you didn’t read it carefully and discover it was actually from Sandra Davis, head of Mishcon de Reya, one of the country’s leading legal firms.

And that she was talking about a rush of trophy wives looking to get out of their marriages before their husbands are hung out to dry by the investment banks they work for.

City wives are rushing to divorce court for their slice of the cake before their husbands are hung out to dry.

Who said romance was dead? Ms Davis, it would seem. The economy may be about to bust, but business for divorce lawyers is booming. "Redundancies are still only being whispered about in the big city," she told a newspaper at the weekend, "but… we have never been busier with stay-at-home spouses asking what their options are."

Proving her point, one such woman blogged on a city website that she had no time for bankers who moaned about their financial woes. "How typical that they just think of themselves!" she wrote, presumably from the comfort of her £3 million townhouse, not paid for by her sitting on her bottom all day, doing absolutely nothing at all.

"How about the impact on their wives? Most of us didn’t sign up to share every waking minute with a down-on-his-luck egotist who spends his days moping around with a pitiful hang-dog expression and constantly relives past 'glories' in a feeble effort to retain what little self-respect he seems to have left."


As much as I disapprove of the state-sanctioned financial bum-raping in store for any man - be he a factory-worker or stockbroker - who is getting divorced, I can't feel complete sympathy for men who married after about 1990, when all but a blind simpleton couldn't fail to grasp the fact that a man getting married is basically throwing his financial future and security into a furnace.

Women - as they themselves make fucking clear by every damn word that spews from their mouths, by every sodding bile they spill regularly in the 'lifestyle' sections of daily newspapers - care for nothing but money. A man is money and/or potential money. To be spent by her, on her. He is a walking cash-machine, a Pension Plan. If said Man stops earning money, then he is to be ditched. If it is more lucrative for wifey to ditch and fuck over hubby then wifey will ditch him, fuck him over then ditch and fuck him over and over some more until the previously top-hatted sucker that she once declared before an altar (whilst sniggering internally) that she would be with 'for richer or for poorer' is basically left living in a cardboard box; very much poorer whilst she is far richer than she deserves to be.

Don't take the article's author's condemnation too seriously; despite claiming otherwise, she clearly is pissed off that she's not in a position to divorce some rich idiot and take him to the cleaners.

The only men who get married these days are idiots and losers.

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Fathers officially inconsequential

IVF 'right to a father' bid defeated

Lesbian couples and single women won landmark parental rights tonight, as the House of Commons voted to remove the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child’s need for a father.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will replace the rule with a “need for supportive parenting”, after two amendments that would have restored the original clauses were defeated by unexpectedly wide margins.

While the Government had been prepared for defeat, it won the free votes by majorities of 75 and 68.

The decisions mean that the legislation will grant the most significant extention to homosexual family rights since gay adoption was sanctioned.

It will prevent fertility clinics from turning away lesbians and single women because their children will not have a father or male role model. While the current law does not block such therapy, it is sometimes used to justify refusals


I've stated rumours of the impending death of Britain's society (or what's left of it) several times before, and clearly these rumours were not exaggerated.

It's bad enough that a bunch of Marxist twats have formally declared fathers to be all but worthless, but on top of that there's the hypocrisy; is Child Support going to be abolished? If they and their 'supportive parenting' is not needed, are fathers who are absent from their children's lives - voluntarily or otherwise - going to be let off the hook for Child Support? No, of course not. Fuck 'em, squeeze 'em for every penny they've got. They don't mean shit save for what funds they've got to steal for women's benefit.

Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, said that the current law was a “practical impediment” to lesbian couples seeking fertility treatment and that it was right to replace it.


It was a "practical impediment" for a good reason you moron; to prevent it! To prevent man-hating lezzers from getting to have children, who anyone but a Marxist twit would realise would have an upbringing somewhat less supportive, stable and above all normal than a child raised by his/her mother and father.

The legislation was “fair, it offers equitable access and it recognises the complexities of the Britain we live in today,” she said.


I suppose one could describe modern-day Britain as complex.

'Crime-ridden', 'over-taxed', 'Marxist', 'Orwellian', 'shit' and 'fucking doomed' are other descriptions one could employ, due in large part to feminism/socialism and it's total trashing of the society it took so long to build.

“What counts is the quality of parenting.”


And here was me thinking that the best quality of parenting a child could receive would be from the child's parents, not some dumb single career-gal or a rug-muncher and her dyke 'wife' and some anonymous guy who wanked into a jar in exchange for some beer money who'll never know (or probably care) if his cock-snot ever made a baby or not.

This fucking cuntry...

Thursday, 15 May 2008

"We want Macho Men (to manipulate, snigger!)"

Feminists created Mr Sensitive, but what we REALLY want is a man to fix the car

At least this article - one of many along the same lines that crop up recently - has the decency to be honest; she wants men to go back to doing the dirty work for women, something we don't want/have to do under the silly sexual-equality rules women themselves imposed.

Us men will be whatever we like; whether that's being a video game addict, a macho man, a sensitive poet, a spaced out hippy, a blogger...whatever it is, if we want to be it, we'll be it, and sod whatever women want us to be at that particular moment in time. If there's any such thing as a 'Real Man' it's a guy who'll never even consider changing his attitude or lifestyle just to keep some whining bitch happy.

Besides, us men still long for nice decent women. Ones who aren't so boiling with misandry that they'll conclude an article with this little gem:

I tried not to laugh. MMs [Macho Men] can be unintentionally hilarious. The way to deal with a modern MM I realise, is to channel his energies into things you need him to do, like fix the car, and ignore the rest, or at least don't let him see you smirking. It might hurt his ego, poor lamb.


Once again, though, credit to her for at least being an honest female and admitting that the sole use women have for us men - sensitive ones or 'MMs' - is to manipulate us into doing stuff for them, whilst they simultaneously snicker and sneer at us.

A 'Macho Man' who does a woman's heavy-lifting out of chivalry is far more niave in his attitude towards women than the 'sensitive' poet who ignores women as a nuisance, because, regardless of how big his muscles are, or how many tattoos he's got, or how hairy his chest is, the former is still a mangina in wolf's clothing who seeks out and helps women but is too thick or too much of a Vangina-Worshipper to notice that his Masters are sniggering and sneering at him whilst he get's his hands dirty and breaks his balls.

If this woman wants to see a man who is genuinely insensitive she'd shit her pants because it'd give her a glimpse into women's lack of power when faced with a full-on assault of apathy and indifference from a man towards some whining single-mother trying to 'channel his energies' into doing whatever shit she can't be arsed doing. In fact, I dare say her own sons - lacking a father, for whatever reasons she doesn't deign to mention - will grow up to be such apathetic and indifferent men.

And I can't let this paragraph go without a mention:

I look at myself and my girlfriends, all so tired from being bravely, fabulously independent, and I wonder if, in wanting to show we are not silly damsels in distress, we have let men off the hook?


What the fuck is it with women and their constant need to throw shiny glitter and tinsel over their already vast collective egos?. We're so 'bravely, fabulously, indepe-' - shut the fuck up already. All they're doing is what men have done for generations - namely working and being independent; except at least us men don't declare ourselves fabulous when doing so because...well, we're not egotistical twats I guess.

The above quote of her's basically sums up her's - and many other women's - attitude towards equality:

Well, we can be independent, and do things for ourselves...but we'd rather not. It's hard work. Boo-hoo, come and save us silly damsels in distress. But don't think of us as damsels in distress or we'll kick you in the nuts you chauvanistic pig!

To summarise: a man who does traditional male duties like change the oil, put up shelves and does all the breadwinning is a good, traditional macho man - nay, a Real Man (TM) - but the second he asks his wife 'what's for dinner love?' then he's a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who is one more incidence of emotional-abuse away from having some divorce papers rammed up his left nostril.

To conclude the summary: if women are so bravely fabulous then they can bravely fix their own fabulous fucking cars.

Saturday, 10 May 2008

Daft slag

My relationship is heading south. Should I keep the baby?

In a nutshell:

"I'm a thick cunt who got knocked up by a tattooed ex-convict thug and he's totally psycho and I don't know what to dooooo, should I kill the kid I was impregnated with ('Unbeknownst to me') and ditch the deceased's daddy, or what, please teh help!"


My advice:

Drop dead.

You shagged a thug, you got a baby-thug/thugette planted inside of you; deal with it. You don't like it? You reckon the kid's bad-boy dad isn't as responsible as he was exciting?

Boo-hoo!

Ya shoulda been more careful, toots!

Fuck you, fuck your whining, and fuck you thrice more for expecting sympathy for being a daft slapper. You and your bastard kid should die in a rain-soaked cardboard box under an overpass and be a warning to any other dumb cunt who thought it'd be fun to whore about and arrogantly assumed society would be there to offer sympathy and pick up the pieces when it all goes horribly - and predictably - wrong.

This thug-humping moron is a walking, sobbing, snivelling reminder of what happens when a Patriarchy is replaced by a Matriarchy.

(She was raised without a dad; just thought I'd point that out.)

Girl terrorists



Police hunt girl gang who poured liquid through letterbox of London blast house

Former classmates of Charlotte Anderson, 17, are being sought by police after a blast destroyed her flat, an apartment above and two neighbouring cottages in Harrow, northwest London.

Miss Anderson suffered serious blast injuries and Emad Qureshi, 26, her neighbour, was killed in the explosion at 9.30pm on Wednesday.


The fairer, gentler, never-hurts-anyone, pure-as-virgin-snow sex indeed.

Saturday, 3 May 2008

The stench of manginas


I was strolling around a department store the other day and noticed some fragrance for women by Armani, pledging that 40% of the vast profits to be had from each bottle of over-priced scented liquid would be sent to 'women and children' in Africa who have AIDs.

Hmmm. Just women and children? I suppose it was women's perfume. What about the men's then? That would have profits going to men with AIDs, right?

Nope. The men's aftershave of the fragrance likewise boasted that 40% of all sales profits go to 'women and children' with AIDs in Africa.

Er...where does that leave the men?

Up shit-creek with a completely buggered immune-system I guess. But, hey, it's only men, they're not as important as Women and teh Children! And what of the male children that have AIDs? Are they foresaken when they hit 16 and turn from children into men? I guess so.

I wouldn't buy such over-priced metrosexual puffy piss anyway, but it's still annoying that both the women and men's version of this brand boast of specifically helping only women and children, and make it clear men can go and fucking die for all they care.

Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Don't mention the Divorce!

John Cleese's divorce could cost two homes and £1m a year

John Cleese faces a costly divorce from his third wife which could see him hand over two homes, half his earnings and maintenance of almost £1 million a year.


Run away, run away!

The Monty Python star and Alyce Faye Eichelberger Cleese announced in January that they were separating amicably after 15 years of marriage.


Amicable divorce = wife says she still likes you as a friend and says she just wants you to both go your separate ways and make a clean break, and then - at the earliest opportunity - sends her beserker lawyer to stampede forth wearing a sharpened titanium-tipped strap-on dildo aimed at your bank account's bumhole.

Lawyers also asked for half his income going back to 1992, the year of their marriage, and annual maintenance.


Surely he's technically paid her half (probably more, given that women control most of the spending power in marriages) of his income since they were married? I guess he's got to pay twice over for the, ahem, honour of marrying this greedy bint. And annual maintenance too? Gee, there was me thinking women were strong and empowered and able to support themselves. I guess not.

The guy is two-years shy of seventy and he's facing having to support an ex-wife. Say goodbye to retirement plans.

Mrs Eichelberger Cleese, an American-born psychotherapist, is famous for her work in psychoanalysis with children and was a pupil of Anna Freud, the psychoanalyst and daughter of Sigmund Freud.


Wow, an educational and occupational history in psychology; the hardest and most well-respected of sciences! Snigger.

She is also the author of the book How to Manage your Mother.


And the soon to be published How To Fuck Over Your Husband.

John Cleese will probably be okay. He's rich. He'll be fucked over but, like Paul McCartney, he'll be okay. However, how many non-celebrity 68-year-old guys - just retired from an office/factory job - would be 'okay' if their wife wanted half his income backdated to their wedding day, plus maintenance? Not many. And this case doesn't even have to take into account Child Support.

The only fool-proof divorce self-defence tactic for men is to not get married in the first damn fucking place.

I just wish Paul McCartney, Ray Parlour, John Cleese and other big-time losers in the divorce courts would at least step forwards and write articles, appear on chatshows, or fucking something to highlight how badly they've been fucked over. Women celebs host press-conferences and write autobiographies on how they broke a nail or battled with bulimia or some other yawn-inspiring (except to women, who lap this gushing 'martyrdom' up) moaning.

These guys should at least throw caution to the wind and publicly denounce on prime-time television their bitch-whore greedy cunt ex-wives, rage against the divorce courts, declare modern marriage to be a scam that benefits greedy bloody women and - probably whilst, at this point, being hauled off by the police live on air - urge all men not to marry. Fuck being stoic, cause a scene!

Friday, 18 April 2008

Poor women, victims of their own success

Oh for the days of lime juice and daisies

Today's teenage girls no longer lie long-limbed on the lawn making daisy chains and flirting at the tennis club over lemonade, they're throwing up at 3am and texting Mum to collect them from the gutter.

Mothers aren't taking off their aprons for a pre-dinner gin at 6pm, they are too busy reading a work email while helping with the homework, booking the holiday to Greece and ordering the Ocado online.


Oh dear, it seems the rather nasty side-effects of wimmin's lib is biting wimmin's big fat bottoms with foam-slathered pointy teeth.

Who'd have thunk that women 'liberating their sexuality' and storming into the workplace to compete with men would result in women ending up rather stressed out, fucked up and fucked and dumped?

Sixty years is a long time, women have forgotten how restricted and predictable many women's lives once were. Our's now seem so chaotic and complicated and we have so many choices that we think we are worse off. We've become so exhausted by doing everything, we crave boredom again.


Craving 'boredom' actually means craving not having the responsibility and stress of paying their own way through life again. Make no mistake; women who advocate this return to pre-feminist days are rarely - if ever - eager to go back to tirelessly running a home and raising kids. They just want out of the damn office with all it's soul-destroying pettiness and leave that to a man-slave so they can relax.

She also dares to point out how 'restricted' women's lives were. Oh boo hoo; how restricted do you think the lives of their husbands were, as they broke their backs in factories and mills and grey offices, day after day after day until they dropped dead? Housewives of yesteryear probably weren't terribly happy with their lots half the time, but neither were most men.

Women are giving up on work, they've forgotten the point of it.


I'll tell you what the fucking point of work is; it's to survive!

Put a roof over your head, food in the fridge, buy clothes yourself and the kids. Even after all their 'progress' into the workplace (invariably backed by government gender-quota initiatives) women still hang on to the idea that work is optional for them - and only them - that the only reason they should have to work is if there's a 'point' to it, such as if it's enjoyable and rewarding.

Neither I nor the vast majority of men regard work as 'fun', and if there's any point to it, it's because not doing it - short of winning the lottery - will result in homelessness and hunger. Women, it seems, just assume by default that men should support them; whether it be a husband or Big Daddy government and it's reluctant citizens/subjects who are taxed to oblivion to pay for the armies of single mothers whose ranks grow relentlessly as the benefits on offer to any slag with a bastard continue to be handed out.

Girls have already proved that they can do better at exams than boys, why do they need to work if they marry well?


Girls have already proved that they can do better at exams than boys now that, at least in the British education system, curriculums have been poked and twisted by women until they're mostly about 'coursework' (i.e. how well you can copy stuff from a text-book or colour in pretty diagrams) than actual exams (i.e. learning facts and utilizing them.)

And as for them marrying well? Good luck. Marriage rates in Britain are the lowest since records began. All the Prince Charmings are on the marriage strike.

Politicians rarely grasp this. Female Labour MPs have always been obsessed by getting their sisters to work; some Tories would still prefer it if no mothers did.

What we want is what Miss Hunter Dunn never had - the freedom to choose.


This just sums up the arrogance and entitlement of women; they want to the 'freedom to choose' whether to work or not. Like working for a living is a hobby they can pick and choose whether to take up or not, and if they find they don't like it, they can just walk away.

Us men don't get a choice. It's work or die. Or win the lottery or marry a rich woman who'll support you, neither of which are terribly likely.

Yet women seem to think - often labeled with the tiresome demand of 'equality' - they should be able to choose.

I can't think of anything more staggeringly greedy, obnoxious and just plain fucking stuck-up that women seem to think that they should be given the choice whether to work for a living or not, whilst at the same time they assume - if not demand - that us men should have no choice but to work in order to support the vast proportion of women who decide working for a living isn't for them.

I think it's the duty of us men to ensure that women don't have a choice but to work, work and work some more.

Let's ensure these whining, ungrateful, endlessly spiteful modern women never have the luxury of boredom.

Enjoy your overflowing in-trays, TPS reports and stress-induced migraines ladies. Please direct any complaints about your less-than-enjoyable lot in life to the long-dead man-hating lezzers your mothers eagerly - and stupidly - followed in the sixties and seventies.

Wednesday, 16 April 2008

Shaddap Your Face You Mangina


Silvio Berlusconi angers Spain for mocking female cabinet

A heated row has broken out between Spain and Italy over whether women should be given powerful Cabinet jobs.

Silvio Berlusconi, who takes power shortly as Prime Minister of Italy for the third time, caused outrage in Spain after he suggested that the new Government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was “too pink”.

Mr Berlusconi, who won a sweeping victory in this week’s Italian election, told a radio station: “Zapatero has formed a government that is too pink, something that we cannot do in Italy because there is a prevalence of men in politics and it isn’t easy to find women who are qualified.”

Mr Zapatero, a self-declared feminist, made equal rights a centrepiece of his first term in office, passing a law making it compulsory for electoral lists and even company boards to be composed of at least 40 per cent women. This week he suggested that he would go even further in his second government by naming more women than men to his Cabinet. “Now he’s asked for it,” Mr Berlusconi said. “He will have problems leading them.”


I dare say Mr Berlusconi is hardly flawless, but credit to the guy; he knows feminist bullshit when he sniffs it, and is happy to bring it's stench to people's attention.

I feel sorry for Spain with what appears to be a 'self-declared feminist' as a leader. I don't think it's a coincidence that Spain has one of the lowest birth-rates in Europe; 1.1 kids per woman. That's a sure sign of feminist infestation; a dying society.

Not that we in Britain can talk of course; the Labour party are a bunch of feminist/socialist scum and even David Cameron - supposed leader of the Conservative Party - spent most of his leadership acceptance speach waffling on about how he was going to fill the ranks of his cabinet with wimmin.

Still, it's nice to see that there's a leader in Europe who is quite happy to sneer and jeer at mangina wimmin-firster scum.

Monday, 7 April 2008

"I'm a success! That's why men hate me, obviously!"



Too fucking obnoxious and egotistical successful for a mate?

I find it laughable that these women boast of how 'successful' they are when, in the realms of relationships, they are clearly failures. They want a husband and kids, but they can't find a man to marry them and impregnate them. As they want this more than anything (although to avoid appearing anything but Independent (TM) they skirt round this issue; not that these man-woman freaks have ever been in a skirt :) ) then, by their own inability to obtain this, they are failures. They've failed. They're losers.

It'd be fair enough if these barren aging career gals said they never wanted a family anyway. Good on them. But most seem to want a hubby and kids, but they've failed to obtain them, unlike a multitude of other women of past generations (who employed the drastic tactics of obtaining a husband by looking for one whilst young and in their prime and by actually being pleasant towards men instead of denigrating them at every opportunity then wondering why men stop bothering with them.)

But the feminized Media doesn't see it this way. Or, rather, won't show it this way lest the all-important money-gushing dumb-shit independent-womyn demographic ditches them.

A man who wants a wife but can't get one is a 'loser.'

Hell, according to women, a man who doesn't want a fucking wife but who doesn't have one is still a 'loser.'

But a woman who desperately wants a husband - or even just a date - but who can't get one...we'll, she's fantastic and successful and there is nothing wrong with her! It's us men who are 'losers' for not wanting Her Cunting Highness.

The thing that is so glaringly notable about all these sorts of articles - that men are intimidated by career women - is the monumental arrogance of these career chicks. They honestly think that if they find a man attractive but he doesn't immediately drool over her and kiss her Holy Bottom, then there's something wrong with him. The main reason us guys don't like these types of women is because they're so horrifically egotistical, as proven by the fact that they never, ever consider there might be something wrong with them in their flawed mission to get a date or a mate.

Friday, 4 April 2008

Unemployment benefit for the employed




I've seen some poster ad around town recently, showing some grinning bint feeding a horse with her two kids. I thought it was advertising some petting zoo.

Closer examination revealed it to be a heavy marketing campaign telling single mothers (well, single 'parents', but how many are men eh?) how they can grab lots of nice taxpayer's cash even when (if) they bother working.

If you're bringing up children on your own and start work, we'll give you an extra £40 a week on top of your wages, or £60 a week if you live in London. We'll give you this every week for up to a year, tax-free. It'll feel like you're getting paid twice.


Yes, it'll feel like they're paid twice because they fucking well are! One 'wage' coming from us taxpayers.

I barely feel like I get paid once thanks to being taxed to the bollocks and back again, primarily to fund a load of worthless civil servant scum to sit around thinking up new and exciting ways to hand my hard-earned fucking money out to lazy fucks like slutbag single mummys.

If these single parents mothers are working, they shouldn't need benefits, should they? I suppose the government have finally figured out that most of these single mothers get knocked up to get benefits, so the only way to get them to work is to keep giving them benefits after they start work.

The ad I saw boasted of how such single mothers can 'treat their children' more. Hence the nice display of a woman taking her kiddie-winks to see the pony (how many single mums would do that with an extra forty-quid a week? Most would buy an extra load of Gregg's pasties, cigarettes and scratch-cards.) Why the fuck should these single mothers be able to 'treat' their children at taxpayer's expense? Why the fuck is it up to working, self-sufficient people - with or without children - to ensure the pampering of an army of bastards?

Of course, we know that if you're bringing up children on your own, going back to work could seem challenging. Which is why we have put together a Choices Kit for you.


Why don't they at least be honest:

Of course, we know that you slags hate the idea of working, hence you popped out some bastards before you left your teens, and after a decade of slouching around doing nothing productive and living shamelessly on other people's money, the idea of getting up before noon and doing some actual work seem like a real drag, which is why we've created (at taxpayer's expense) some worthless patronizing brochures and given it a fancy NuLab-NewsSpeak title, 'Choices Kit', to make it appear as if any of this matters.


Benefits for non-working single mums, now benefits for working single-mums.

No wonder people snort and laugh at this shitpot of a country.

Early retirement

A comment at this article beautifully sums up most women's, ahem, 'career' ambitions:

I'd encourage women to have a career first. Get some money and respect under your belt. At 36 when work became tiresome I left and had my family and the joy of spending time with my two children is even more marked after years in an office. Mind you I never cracked the desire to clean or cook!

- Kate, Bristol


Yup. Get some money to spend on yourself, have your ego stroked with a meaningless job title, and then when you're bored (not to mention past your prime), quit your 'tiresome' job and let some poor git slave away to support you. Don't bother learning to clean or cook. Hell, boast about your inability to run a home, it's sooo sexist for a non-working married woman to do anything anyway.

Worthless fuck.

Note the references she makes to 'my' children and 'my' family. Not her husband's children, oh no, he's just the walking wallet who's there to fund her early retirement and support 'her' children. He's probably not even the dad anyway.

I see this attitude in women all the time. Women barely out of school/university, sometimes just a few months into their first full-time jobs, going on about how they can't wait to work part-time or not at all, or blatantly having no intention of still working by the time they're 30.

Given the plunging marriage rate and the fact that it's impossible for an average guy to support a wife and kids on his income alone (and that's not taking into account the coming recession), plenty of these women are in for a real shock. Ha ha!

What's up Ms Doc?

Rise in women doctors 'worrying'

The rising number of female doctors is "bad for medicine", and universities should recruit more men, a GP warns.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Dr Brian McKinstry said female doctors were more likely to work part-time, leading to staffing problems.

Women, who now outnumber men in medical schools, were also less likely to take part in training or research, he said.


A great example of pig-headed femspeak follows:

But opponents said the best candidates should be chosen regardless of gender and flexible working policies improved.


So on the one hand these opponents (i.e. some whining bint) insists 'gender' doesn't matter when it comes to hiring policies, yet at the same time demand 'flexible working policies', meaning for women.

This is so common when it comes to fembots; they insist women can do anything men can do whilst, in the same breath, implicitly accepting this isn't the case and demanding everything be done to accommodate women.

"There is quite a developing evidence base that female doctors are not inferior to male doctors, but in fact are doing better in terms of getting into medical school and in their exams."


Big fucking deal!

It doesn't matter how great they're doing in medical school, if they're only working twenty-hours a week or taking big career breaks, it doesn't matter.

The best candidates needed to be chosen for medical school whatever their sex but flexible hours, on-site child care and part-time training options were needed to ensure women doctors had equal opportunities in their career, she said.


Women do have equal opportunities in their careers; like men, if they study hard, work full-time and bust their bottoms training in specialised areas, they'll do well.

What she really means is that women should be able to take time out and basically slack off to ensure their precious bloody work/life balance yet still be able to have all the rewards of their hardworking male colleagues.

And who's going to cough up for this 'on-site child care'? Fucking taxpayers, that's who. With a male doctor, you pay him his salary. With a female one, you pay their salary (and get less output) and their childcare costs, and additional expenses for their flexible hours and drawn-out part-time training courses. What a fucking waste. Why bother?

"I'm not meaning to be critical - women have a difficult time of it because they are left with the bulk of childcare.

"The main thing we need is a revolution in the attitude of society towards childcare and who has the responsibility for childcare."


The above quoted guy makes the usual mistake of assuming there is some evil conspiracy to force women to have children and lumber them with the responsibility of childcare. Bollocks. Women invariably want children as much as their husbands do - if not more so - and it is the woman who usually decides she'll be taking over the childcare responsibilities.

I'd like to see the average career woman's reaction when, whilst pregnant, her husband starts declaring his intention to quit his job so he can be a full-time father and enquires of his wife whether she will be able to support him and their child on her salary alone. Most women will be puzzled, having automatically assumed she'd be the one quitting her high-stress job to raise a baby.

I'm lucky enough to have never been seriously ill, but if I had to see a specialist doctor regularly I'd be pretty pissed off if appointments had to be within the five-hour window between the school-runs, or were cancelled regularly because Ms. Doc's kid had a cold.

Wednesday, 26 March 2008

A man's world?

Is it now a woman's world?

A loaded question that has produced (amidst the predictable shaming language; watch out for ANITA) lots of rather pleasantly high-calibre responses from blokes.

Neighbours from Hell


I was off sick the other day, and whilst sprawled feverishly on the sofa at death's door - oh okay, sat up with just a bit of a headache and a slightly sore throat - I was surfing around the TV Channels in a futile attempt to find something worth watching. I ended up on some Australian soap-opera I thought had ended years ago, called Neighbours.

For some masochistic reason I watched a few a few minutes of it, and caught a scene whereby some young woman stormed into her mother's house and said angrily to her mother:


"Men! Just when you think they're getting better, they do something stupid! It would be so much simpler if we just hated them."


Divorced mother evidently - and sneeringly - agreed with this declaration; it seemed the hatred of daughter was towards her father, for reasons I couldn't be arsed to figure out given that it would involve watching it for a few more hellish minutes.

I didn't bother getting pissed off about it. I know, I know, it's just another shitty Western TV programme, just another bit of misandry. It's just annoying that it's so tiresomely the norm for stuff that's 'family-friendly' to have female characters triumphantly spew hatred towards men whilst any man who criticises - nay, fails to worship - females in any such programme gets his comeuppance for such evil sexist attitudes.

Fuckin' TV. That'll teach me to turn the cunt on I guess.