Eternal Bachelor

Close encounters of the married kind

2008-10-19T10:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-19T10:34:00.000-07:00

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.

...and the horse she rode in on.

2008-09-24T15:04:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T13:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Breakfast-time Misandry

2008-09-23T16:23:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-08-27T16:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-27T10:49:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-08-20T15:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Privileged Patriarchal Fiend

2008-08-14T13:16:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-08-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-08-14T10:56:00.000-07:00

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.

A superhero flick that's not aimed at chicks

2008-07-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-07-09T10:59:00.000-07:00

'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!!

Alpha Cunt

2008-07-08T16:48:00.000-07:00

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.

"Anything to declare?" "Yeah, don't go to England."

2008-07-04T12:50:00.000-07:00

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!!'

Marriage strike bites

2008-06-26T12:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Pyrogirl

2008-06-17T11:43:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-06-14T03:02:00.000-07:00

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.

Home Alone 5

2008-06-05T11:14:00.000-07:00

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.)

Karma Chameleon Kunts

2008-05-29T13:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Fathers officially inconsequential

2008-05-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

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...

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

2008-05-15T12:23:00.000-07:00

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.

Daft slag

2008-05-10T08:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-10T02:52:00.000-07:00

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.

The stench of manginas

2008-05-03T07:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Don't mention the Divorce!

2008-04-23T10:59:00.000-07:00

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!

Poor women, victims of their own success

2008-04-18T11:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Shaddap Your Face You Mangina

2008-04-16T17:29:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-04-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Unemployment benefit for the employed

2008-04-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-04T12:28:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-04-04T04:28:00.000-07:00

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.

A man's world?

2008-03-26T13:04:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-26T12:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Matriarchal hellholes

2008-03-22T04:28:00.000-07:00

Why Shannon is one more victim of the folly of 'lifestyle choice'

A good article about the dysfunctional 'families' that are the trademark of a Matriarchy.

Even more infuriating is the knowledge that us British taxpayers are forced to fund these worthless cunts and their broods of brooding bastards.

Treat us like Princesses you bastard man-scum!

2008-03-21T05:16:00.000-07:00

Only Unicorns get the horn for the Princess Mentality.

I've been aware of this Alpha Mummy blog for a while but it's generally too stupid to even comment on; a woman who titles her blog to indicate she's the best mother in the world, primarily on the basis that she doesn't look after her kids because she would rather write shitty man-bashing articles and call it a career.

This post, Heather Mills didn't get enough money is too dumb to comment on too, but the comments are revealing, particularly several by women demanding to know why men are commenting on the post; how dare men have an opinion on something, how dare we wander in to women's domain of misandry and self-important.

Check out this comment though:

But who am I kidding? Men are like slobbering robots, too dumb and guillible for their own good, and flap around like helpless fish out of water around these 'sharks'.

Just don't blame the rest of us [women] for your selfish mistakes, because the rest of us are lovely, honest, kind and deserve to be treated ... like princesses?- actually Queens!

Posted by: tulip

Nothing personifies modern women's arrogance than this dumb cunt; in the same breath, she condemns, slanders, insults and abuses men, and yet also insists - nay, demands - men worship women because they're so 'lovely.'

If condemning men as 'slobbering robots' and 'dumb' is 'lovely' and 'kind', fuck knows what a complete bitch is like in this twat's opinion. Even her handle, 'tulip', is indicative of the Princess Mentality'; 'Look at me, I'm a beautiful floweeeer!'

Stupid fuck.

It's heartening to see plenty of comments on articles about marriage and relations between the sexes on mainstream blogs and newspaper increasingly dominated by men calling women out on their bullshit. It's also enlightening - but not really surprising - to see that women invariably respond with shock and awe, stunned at men's hostility to them.

Only modern women could be so stupid and arrogant to think that bashing men endlessly would always be met with slavish devotion and pussy-worship on behalf of men. Bollocks. It doesn't work like that, not after the point of no return, which was reached some time in the past. Women better throw their expectations of being treated like Princess/Queens out the fucking window; they're going to be treated with the same contempt they've treated us. I already notice younger guys - those who've grown up in a solid Matriarchy, who've gone through an education system that makes no attempt to disguise it's worship of girls and disgust at boys - display an attitude towards women that makes Marc Lepine look like a mangina.

(Honary mention to this comment too.)

The £24,300,000 robbery - committed without a shot being fired

2008-03-17T16:03:00.000-07:00

Heather Mills, blah blah

Happens every day in countless court cases throughout the Western World; man stripped of a huge proportion of his assets by some bitch who contributed fuck all to it. This only hit the news because the guy was famous and the amounts involved were vast.

The bitch's greed is only matched by her snivelling attempts to justify her thievery by declaring its for 'her' daughter and her charities.

The family courts in any sane society - that is, a proper Patriarchy - would have handed the daughter to her loving father and then just given Heather a shiny pound coin for the bus home and then told her to hop it.

It takes (men's) money to make money (for women)

2008-03-12T17:41:00.000-07:00

The Annual Smug-Thieving-Fuck-Holding-A-Red-Briefcase Ceremony

There was also praise for a new £12.5m investment fund which will specifically target women entrepreneurs. Pam Alexander, co-chair of the Women's Enterprise Task Force, said: "We have advocated the creation of such a fund for women as one of our top five priorities. This fund presents an opportunity to create a bridge between aspiring entrepreneurs and capital."

Sure, why not throw twelve and a half million squid at women and their batty ideas for businesses. Let the men who start businesses on their own initiative and who risk bankruptcy by begging for small-business loans to get off the ground fork out the taxes to cover this cost.

It is astonishing that women will bang on and on about how equal - nay, superior - they are to men, yet see no contradiction in demanding special treatment. This Mzz Alexander seems to effortlessly put on a positive spin to what is quite frankly an acknowledgement by the government that women are fucking useless in business, hence the need to have a 'bridge between aspiring entrepreneurs and capital'; i.e. lots of money to fund half-baked schemes.

But only those half-baked schemes thought up by women. Obviously.

Making such a fund available to men too would come close to 'sexual equality', something feminists worship only when convenient but regard with horror when it may puts them and all other non-willie-owners at a disadvantage.

And there's loads of taxes going on booze too. As usual. Fucking hell, how unfair is that? How can they make booze more expensive? Getting fucking smashed out our skulls is the only way us Brits can try and blot out the horror of finding ourselves lingering in the wretched over-taxed Socialist shithole of an EU-region this former-country has become.

Well, we could try armed insurrection, but guns are outlawed. So, as the old saying goes; only the outlaws have guns. Like the government.

And I see Child Benefit is going up too. Great. That means childless people like me are going to be subsidising people with kids even more and working people with kids are going to be subsidising workshy single mothers even more.

It does seem that single mothers will not get any extra benefits beyond simple unemployment benefit once their illegitimate bastards turn 12; whoopee-fucking-do, that'll mean they'll just get knocked up again before their existing bastard turns 12 instead of 18 like they currently do. Everyone knows the majority of single mothers become single mothers deliberately for the sole purpose of avoiding having to work for a living.

If you readers of this humble blog will excuse me, I'm off to drink a load of Victory Gin and then I'm going to lean out of my bedroom window and shake my fist in the general direction of Westminster whilst shouting "Cocksuckers!" until I either pass-out on the window-ledge or a neighbour calls the police, whichever conclusion to the night occurs soonest.

This fucking cuntry!

One man and his dog

2008-03-09T05:16:00.000-07:00

I was ambling through the park this morning, back from the shops, when some small yappy dog tore after me and barked it's stupid little head off. It didn't attack, merely circled me and barked like a lunatic.

Then it's owner - an old guy with a walking stick - appeared, and called out to me:

"Don't worry mate, she doesn't bite, just barks. She bloody barks at everyone, the stupid bitch. Typical bloody female, eh?"

Then he called his bitch to heel, and the dog stopped barking and scurried of to her master.

It was a moderately amusing little encounter; shame there were no passing feminists to be shocked by the old guy's rather politically incorrect comments.

Shaming and psychological projection galore!

2008-03-01T03:11:00.000-08:00

What happens when the woman proposes

Is proposing a man's job?

Check out the comments:

This makes me laugh - i feel sorry for you men as you have to keep telling yourselves that women are after your money, just to make yourselves feel big.

Furthermore statistics consistently show that marriage is bad for women financially (and in terms of our physical and mental health and happiness), and good for men in all these ways. So can we stop with this tired old meme that marriage is something women want and men have to be 'trapped' into. It simply isn't true. In my personal experience, it's the men who tend to be more keen on having the whole marriage-and-children package.

All this mumbo jumbo about women trying to lure guys into getting married: so you think your money is more attractive than you are?

Guys, get a bit more self-esteem! You might be more loveable than you think you are.

If you hate women and you're
not gay then what a very sad existence you must
lead. Your name says it all... Open your heart and
your mind and get a life!!!

The comments for articles on marriage always go the same way:

1. Men point out their intention of staying single because marriage only benefits women, women are invariably the ones who'll divorce a guy at the drop of a hat and take him for all he's worth,and that divorce (and now co-habitation) laws are a licence for women to financially fuck a man into oblivion.

2. Women accuse men of being cynical, claim 'not all women are goldiggers.'

3. Men point out they're not cynical, merely realists basing their opinions on experience of women's attitudes and behaviour, and by listening to men who've been divorced, and that, in fact, most women are indeed 'goldiggers' these days, or it's at least impossible to sort those who are from those who aren't.

4. Women sneer and claim marriage benefits men more than women, and allude to studies that are either bias, woefully out of date, or which just don't exist.

5. Men ask 'how do men benefit from slaving away to support a woman's early retirement and hobbies of shopping and watching telly?' and also sincerely ask why women, therefore, are the ones so keen on marriage, and men - even before feminism - aren't, if it's supposedly the case that men and not women benefit from marriage.

6. Women accuse men of being gay / insecure / misogynists / poorly endowed.

7. Men point out that this is merely shaming language, and try to steer the debate back to facts and logic.

8. Women accuse men of being hate-filled lunatics who are very sad and lonely, and, in case they didn't hear it the first time, are also in possession of very small willies.

9. Repeat 7 and 8 for a while.

10. Men get bored with the shaming language and go and play video games.

11. Women claim victory.

Sunday afternoon humour

2008-02-16T16:30:00.000-08:00

From Big Train, a sketch show from a few years back.

Imagine how great it would it be if a genuine chatshow host sang such a song to a genuine feminist on live TV.

And from the same show, here's an extreme, pre-emptive and completely insane method of terrorising people into never daring to criticise your unmarried status.

Great article

2008-02-10T10:51:00.000-08:00

Single Young Males: A Defense

I do not know whether Tucker Max was right about female insecurity being “a gift that keeps on giving,” but I do know that male ignorance about the social injustice of marriage in our new millennium is a gift upon which millions of women rely.

Fortunately that ignorance is being rapidly eroded. Even if they don't know the whole truth about the horrors of the family courts, most young men are at least aware that marriage can and often will end up in divorce, and it'll be the guy who is thrown out of the house and left with little or nothing, not even his dignity.

"Lets insult men into marrying us. That'll work!"

2008-02-02T03:48:00.000-08:00

Where have all the men gone?

Short answer; they're in hiding from the sperm-hungry old career hags who want a sucker to fund their early retirement and the single-mother whores who want a stepdaddy to their illegitimate kids.

This article, which many have already stumbled upon, is fucking great. I mean it.

Sure, it's the usual spew of shaming language, hypocrisy (when women don't want to marry, they're independent and strong, whereas when men - especially eligible ones - don't want to marry they're immature selfish losers who have something wrong with them), arrogance (no questioning as to whether modern women are worth marrying) and general drivel, but it's still great.

In my younger years, when I was still vulnerable to shaming language, and actually gave a fuck about women's opinions, it may have offended me, it just brings a big smile to my face because I smell the sweet stench of desperation.

These articles about the lack of good/real/marriage minded/etc men are cropping up repeatedly - all swimming in the contradiction of their authors denouncing men as useless whilst they pine for a man - and it makes it clear the marriage strike (and associated dating and baby strikes; basically just rejecting women completely, except perhaps for casual flings) is having an effect. Despite all their posturing, these women - sick of working, lonely, realising they've got a limited amount of time to have babies, seeing the interest men used to have for them evaporate now they've passed thirty - desperately need men to marry them. And we're not taking the bait. Actually, there is no bait. There's nothing for us to tempt us into going to the altar.

As some wise chap once said: "Us men didn't start the battle of the sexes, but we're clearly going to win it via the simple tactic of just leaving the battlefield in contempt."

Best of all are the comments at the above article. There are far too many to quote here, but they're just one man after another pointing out that women aren't worth marrying, that divorce laws make marriage a stupid risk, that feminism, ironically, has ended up liberating men, and generally showing complete immunity to shaming language. Hell, some of the guys practically revel in the shaming language, pretty much declaring "Yeah yeah, I'm selfish and immature, whatever you say bitch, but I'm enjoying my life, you aren't. Up yours with knobs on!"

Seriously, I can't imagine many of those guys being amongst the small (relative to the number of internet users) squad of guys who make the rounds in the anti-feminist portion of the internet, and I dare say many have never heard of the term 'marriage strike', but pretty much every one of them just sneers with derision at modern women, marriage and shaming language. It's the same with the comments at all these types of articles that have been cropping up recently.

Men are truly waking up, and women are shitting bricks. Seriously, thirty-something career gals reading that article will no doubt nod and agree gleefully at the article itself, but their faces must drop with an Earth-shattering crash when they read the comments and see that the attitudes of so many men suggests the odds of her and her fellow spinsters finding a sucker willing to get married are rather low.

Today's headlines; madwoman goes mad

2008-01-31T16:38:00.000-08:00

More than a thousand news articles in the English-speaking world think it's important to note that, shock-horror, Britney Spears is fucking mental.

I suppose I can't really comment on the annoyance factor of the attention being given to this slag-bag shitfuck, given that I've ironically just gone and given her even more attention via this post, but either way, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is going to grin when her impending death occurs.

Just as annoying is reading the comments left at some of the news articles, which are littered with the ravings of various women pouring sympathy on this jizz-encrusted fruitcake, and who invariably claim her ex-husband is to blame (always blame the man!) for being in her present state.

I've got to hand it to Britney though; at least she's done men a favour by being a very public ~~walking~~ stumbling reminder of how fucked up modern women are.

Misandry in the media? Oh my goodness, what a surprise.

2008-01-27T05:57:00.000-08:00

The trouble with British men

Blah blah blah. A load of words from some cunt playing 'lets pretend to be a journalist, squeal!'

Good news for British men: there have never been so many attractive, single women from abroad looking for love. The bad news?

The bad news is that they're just as fucking fat, obnoxious, parasitic, stuck-up and money-hungry as the homegrown slags. It seems so anyway:

And while Maryam left Iran for a society where women had more freedom, egalitarianism, she feels, can go too far. 'I remember my first date with a British man in a restaurant: the bill came and I waited for him to take his wallet out but he did nothing. In the end I realised he wanted us to split it. I think that's terrible. If a man can't even pay for dinner how is he going to support you and a child?'

I think that perfectly sums up women in a nutshell; wherever they're from, wherever they're going, whoever they are, they just want a fucking meal ticket.

"Somebody support meeeeee!"

The best way to piss post-feminist women off is to give them exactly what they wanted; equality. Make them pay for their own cunting food.

'I used to live in America and there men opened doors and said, "Ladies first," and helped me on with my jacket, because I think American women need a lot of attention. English women are much more independent, and perhaps as a result British men don't treat them so courteously.'

No, English women aren't more "independent", they're just fucking hypocrites who want equality only when it suits them, although from what I've heard, that doesn't really distinguish them from American women. Or French ones. Or Swedish, or Australian, or New Zealanders, etc...

Maryam stresses that, for all her misgivings, she would still rather marry a British man than an Iranian. 'They have what we call "clean eyes". They don't stare at other women when their wife isn't there - unlike the Spanish.' She smiles. 'Look, I think your men are really good and nice. If they weren't so lazy, they'd be fantastic.'

Yeah, yeah, we're so fucking lazy aren't we? Jeez.

You know why women bitch about men (British or otherwise) being lazy or immature? It's because a man who wants to laze about and live for himself is unable and unwilling to support a woman, and that means one more woman being obliged to get off her fat arse and actually work for a living instead of lazing about on the broken back of a man-slave.

What a load of crap this article is; I'm regretting even paying it any attention. Some dumb bitch finds a few dumb bitches and asks them to insult men and moan about their singlehood, and, hey-presto, an article in a newspaper. So long as it insults men and raises the pathetic, rapidly-crumbling egos of women, that's all that matters.

Now, my good friends and fellow bachelors, please excuse me whilst I go off to spend my Sunday afternoon being so horrifically lazy that I run the risk of turning into a sofa.

Dylan Moran; women have no feelings

2008-01-18T14:32:00.000-08:00

Young widow glad husband's dead

2008-01-15T22:34:00.000-08:00

I’m happier since he died

He was a fantastic father to our children and still irresistible to me most of the time, except when I was too tired to appreciate a spontaneous bottle of champagne.When he died I thought it was the end of the world.

Then the second shock came: I realised how comfortable we now were financially. The mortgage was paid off instantly and Stephen’s pension kicked in. I’d had both of us insured to the hilt, and we now had a lot of money in the bank.

So the poor guy drops dead at 30 (probably from the stress of having a wife as a control-freak; given her snide remarks about his supposed lack of focus on work, I dare say she pushed and pushed him to work as hard as possible to set her up for early retirement) and his wife is secretly happy?

She admits her husband loved her, and regularly surprised her with a spontaneous bottle of champagne, and was a fantastic father to their children, and yet, just because she's discovered she's better off financially now that he's kicked the bucket, she's much happier.

Women, it seems, don't love men, just our money. Salaries, stolen pensions, alimony, life insurance, it doesn't matter, it's just the money they love.

Real mature!

2008-01-10T11:43:00.000-08:00

After Real Man/Men, "mature" and "immature" are the favourite terms in the arsenal of shaming language a lot of women like to use.

Of course, women's definitions of maturity and immaturity differ from objective fact.

Take two hypothetical men:

Man A is married and works long hours to support his wife and kids ("their" kids in his view, "her's" in her's), his income going on paying the mortgage of the excessively large suburban home and the cost of running a car and an S.U.V. He provides well for his wife, remembers wedding anniversaries and brings home flowers each Friday when he gets home from the office at 9:00PM. He hates his job and the long hours give him migraines and heart palpatations, but he remains stoic and slogs away at his desk to provide for his wife. He doesn't go out to the pub with his mates much because he knows his wife feels neglected if he does so too often. He watches Coronation Street and Friends; not because he likes them but because his wife loves to snuggle up next to him whilst she watches them. She does not like Top Gear and finds Jeremy Clarkson offensive and sexist, so he does not watch it either. His wife's happiness is his primary concern.

Man B is single, lives on his own, works less than 40-hours a week at a job that's either easy or halfway enjoyable. After providing for himself - and no-one but himself - he saves some of his money and blows the rest on his hobbies; building model railways, fixing up motorbikes, reading horror novels, whatever. He goes to the pub when he wants, leaves his socks on the floor, plays video games, runs screaming from any girlfriend who utters the word 'commitment' in a serious conversation, and watches Top Gear and South Park because they're fucking great.

In a woman's mind, Man A is 'mature' and Man B is an 'immature big kid.' And women love to speak their mind. I've been condemned as immature many times in recent years by women, just because my lifestyle is similar to the latter example.

To me, immaturity in males means harking back to infancy, of avoiding behaviour that may incur the disapproval of Mother. Say 'please' and 'thank you', don't get into fights, don't say the word 'willie' in polite company, lest your mum cross her arms and glare at you with that look that says 'I'm not happy with you, you have disappointed me.'

Not that there's anything wrong in mothers employing the threat of a withdrawal of approval in their young son's - or young daughter's - behaviour. After all, saying 'please' and 'thank you', not getting into fights and not saying the word 'willie' - or 'cunt', 'shitfuck' and 'meecrob' - in polite company are lessons kids must learn to become proper social beings (not there's much of a society out there to be being in these days.)

However, to become a fully-fledged man, a boy must learn to shrug off the yearning for female approval, primarily by not giving a flying fuck about whether a woman denounces you as 'immature', 'a big kid' or 'not a Real Man(TM)'.

So in my view:

Man A is immature. He has thrown his life - and his happiness, freedom, financial security and, above all else, his bollocks - into the handbag of a woman. Bearing in mind the fact that, thanks to feminism, marriage these days offers nothing but risks and obligitations to a man, this individual is acting against his own interests; he had nothing to benefit from getting married, save for the approval of his future wife, and her approval meant more to him than his own happiness and security. He is stuck in mental infancy, desperately seeking the approval of 'mother', the personification of which he now transfers to his wife, and it's her glare of disapproval (and threat of divorce and associated financial arse-ramming of course) that he fears.

Man B is mature. He has thrown aside the residues of Woman Worship, sneered at the pressure the Matriarchy places on a man to become a slave to a woman and 'her' kids, and basically thrown a spanner in the works of women, big corporations and the government by working just enough to get himself by and putting his energies into basically having a good time, rather than ensuring a woman, big corporations and the government have a good time at the expense of his labours. This guy loves his mum and even remembers her birthday, but nonetheless he has long since outgrown the need to win the approval of her or any other member of her sex at the expense of going his own damn way.

The paradox is that if a woman tells a man that 'if you were a Real Man you would do X' then, if he does X, he is not a Real Man. The term Real Man is absurd, a joke, the primary tool in the lexicon of shaming language, but whilst neither I nor anyone else can declare objectively what a Real Man is, I can certainly tell you that it isn't a guy who will do any stupid shit (invariably against his own interest) to prove to a woman that he is one.

Similarly, a man who abandons hobbies and behaviour just because a woman accuses him of immaturity is, paradoxically, immature, as he is still stuck in the infant stages of desperately seeking Mother's approval, just with Mother projected onto another woman.

On the other hand, a man who is 'mature' has outgrown that dependancy on female approval. He is not neccesarily hostile to women or their opinions, but he most certainly does not change his behaviour or adapt his lifestyle just so a woman will nod her head and declare that she bestows her approval of him. He laughs in the scowling faces of disapproving women, and tweaks the nose of shaming language.

The evil men that say

2007-12-28T15:40:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with the Patriarchy

2007-12-28T12:04:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heheh! Just to be ironic.

And then sacked, no doubt. :(

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

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

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

Paying for sex = you are teh loser!!1

2007-12-19T11:10:00.000-08:00

Who pays for sex? You'd be surprised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heheh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Denial

2007-12-09T03:17:00.001-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was much nodding in agreement all round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hooray.

Parasites-in-waiting

2007-12-04T12:27:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fireman hoses lezzer's ovaries, pays the price

2007-12-04T11:48:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My advice is; don't trust women.

Nanny State Britain

2007-11-28T12:56:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baby strike = blame the men

2007-11-26T22:24:00.001-08:00

Baby strike? Blame the Invisible Man

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

For fuck's sake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There are no good men left!"

2007-11-23T11:31:00.000-08:00

That's the frequent call of women everywhere.

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

Etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"So? That's your problem."

Then ignore her.

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

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

Advice

2007-11-17T13:49:00.000-08:00

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

1. Don't marry.

Obviously.

2. Don't co-habit.

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

3. Don't have children.

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laugh at aging single career gals.

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

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

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

8. Play Quake III regularly.

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

Feel free to suggest your own snippets of advice.

Chivalry

2007-11-17T06:38:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any better responses.

On the buses

2007-11-17T05:59:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

300

2007-11-17T05:28:00.000-08:00

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

I saw 300 the other day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out the South Park parody too.

Bachelorhood is fucking great

2007-11-17T05:01:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pussy Pass Example #2,433,996

2007-11-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

Woman fatally breaks baby's neck, gets three-years

Probably out after fourteen-months on good behaviour.

Quickie

2007-11-09T07:48:00.001-08:00

Funniest Point/Counterpoint at The Onion ever.

Man jailed for taking his baby from the state

2007-11-09T03:12:00.000-08:00

Solicitor jailed for snatching own baby daughter from social workers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get rid of "it"

2007-11-07T04:22:00.000-08:00

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

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

I barely even registered her comments.

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

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

Renaissance

2007-11-03T13:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ciao (for now) my fembot-hating droogs!

Fin

2007-06-22T10:52:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

Ciao.