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.