Sickening song I heard on the radio

I was going home tonight and had the radio on in my car. I like radio, especially NPR (National Public Radio). I like NPR. It is a good source of lightly-seasoned news and intelligent conversation. Can you tell I feel smrt when I listen to a reasoned and intelligent dialogue? ;-)
I say lightly-seasoned because the news is ever so slightly biased to the left, but in a bipartisan media this is as close to the center as we're going to get.

Anyway, I was going through the different stations when I came across a song I hadn't heard in ages... TLC's Scrubs. Most of you have to have probably heard this song, but I'll comment on it because this is the first time I'm hearing it in ages and because I never thought much of this song before. Essentially, the song is about a man who "don't got no money" and who wants to get with one of the beauties who is singing this song.

A few choice lines...

A scrub is a guy that thinks he's fly and is
also known as a buster
always talkin' about what he wants
and just sits on his broke ass
so (no)
I don't want your number
no I don't wanna give you mine
and no I don't wanna meet you nowhere
no I don't want none of your time and no
Chorus:
I don't want no scrub
a scrub is a guy that can't get no love from me
hanging out the passenger side
of his best friend's ride
trying to holler at me (x2)
But a scrub's checkin' me
but his game is kinda weak
and i know that he cannot approach me
cuz I'm lookin' like class and he's looking like trash
can't get wit' a deadbeat ass
So (no)
I don't want your number
no I don't wanna give you mine
and no I don't wanna meet you nowhere
no I don't want none of your time (so no)
Chorus
If you don't have a car and you're walking
Oh yes son I'm talking to you
If you live at home wit' your momma
Oh yes son I'm talking to you
If you have a shorty but you don't show love
Oh yes son I'm talking to you
Wanna get with me with no money, oh nooo
I don't want no scrub
Chorus (until fade)

That last line really made the song for me. Not only is it clear that the bitch only cares about "lookin like class" and not actually being classy, but its a painful reminder of what is really important to the women in our culture. This was a very popular song, and the message must have hit home to the girls it was targeting.

A lot of you might be thinking, "But Pete, we know that money and security is all women want, why do you need to tell us that?"
I'm commenting on this song because no woman - NO WOMAN, period says she wants a man with money, and that's the only quality he needs to have. Somehow its always a "sense of humor" or some other touchy-feely bullshit like that. But what that really means, especially with the more attractive females, is that they fall in love within a framework. If a man has money, is tall enough, has the right color eyes, et cetera, the woman will look further and try to get him to approach her. If he doesn't have the base-level qualities, he can go fuck himself - she will shriek sexual harassment if he approaches her at work, talk to him rudely if he approaches her somewhere else, or will just lead him on with endless posh dinners until he realizes he is being played.

This song is an important reminder of what women are after and why we are refusing to marry. All the while the feminist media is whittling down men's natural urge to find the most attractive and fertile woman to procreate with, they are applauding women's "right" to go after the $$$, screw the personality - I'm protected by the state if we don't get along.
 

Heather Mills branded a "f**king liar" at awards ceremony

Saw this over on Google News...

Good on Jonathan Ross! He publicly branded Her Highness The Lying Cunt Heather Mills a fucking liar in the Q Awards Ceremony, whatever that is. The important thing is to note that he was greeted with applause by the star-studded audience, many of whom are probably quaking at the thought of losing millions of their own hard-earned money in the blink of an eye.

British TV star Jonathan Ross has attacked Heather Mills - branding her a "f***ing liar".

The chat show host launched his foul-mouthed tirade against the former model - the estranged wife of ex-Beatle Sir Paul McCartney - while presenting the Q Awards at London's Grosvenor House hotel on Monday ( 30.10.06).

During his opening line at the prestigious music awards ceremony, he said: "Heather Mills McCartney - what a f***ing liar.

Another gem by the same man: "I wouldn't be surprised if we found out she's actually got two legs."

Ross' vicious quip was met with a cacophony of cheers and laughter from the star-studded audience which included U2, Oasis guitarist Noel Gallagher, Boy George, Arctic Monkeys, Paul Weller, Moby - who was in a state of shock over the English propensity for drink, and the living soul legend Smokey Robinson. (No women in that lot, eh?)

Ross was referring to allegations made by Heather, earlier this month, that Paul had been "physically violent" towards her during their marriage.

Among the most serious allegations made in court papers lodged by her lawyer included accusations that Paul pushed her into a bath while she was pregnant, pushed her over a coffee table and poured wine over her head before allegedly stabbing her in the arm with a broken glass.

With that last paragraph there, you can see how she's playing on the emotions of the public. The public, which believes that any man has the capacity to become ultra-violent in the blink of an eye, playing the sweet old man in public but turning into a monster at home. And of course the poor old woman is the victim, she suffers through all this for her undying love and of course the fat payout at the end.

I think a lot of us recognize a little bit of the women we have met in the belief that a person can be so two-faced - sweet and cheerful when with friends, and nasty and horrid to her own family. I've known many women like this - my dear sister for one. She was a bit older than I was, so we didn't hang out much together, but when we were out with her friends, she was a totally different person. At home she was very violent, being bigger than me until my puberty, and she kept me under her thumb with the generous help of my dear mother, who ardently believed in the adage, "Spare the rod, spoil the child." Since then I've grown up and have met many more women, and most of them display the pattern of behaving vastly different at home and outside. Maybe its something to do with the female gender being more prone to multiple personality disorder?

First the naming and shaming of Shannon Taylor by Lord Campbell-Savours in parliament, and now calling Heather Mills a fucking liar at an awards ceremony. Its great to see the public finally accepting the view that women can be liars. Maybe we can make some headway against anti-male laws.

Archive of Sixteen Volts blog

Here's an archive of the Sixteen Volts blog, which as you might know was taken down under duress. The women's center at Ilkka's university was responsible for this.

Information wants to be indestructible.

Policemen get unequal pay for equal work

Eternal Bachelor: Policewomen get bonuses for work they don't actually do.

Here's something that should make you curl up your toes at the gross unfairness and sexism brazenly displayed by the government that's at the leading edge of the feminist inequality movement.

The gist of it is that women are entitled to higher pay just because they are women. They don't come out and say it in so many words, but they plainly state that working mothers should get the extra pay that working fathers get when they work the extra hours.

I can think of three groups that this is unfair to...

Working single women, who do not have a baby (yet) to pimp out for all sorts of cash rewards.
Working mothers, who have gone through the process of raising children and accepting that there is an opportunity cost to that.
Working fathers. Ah fuck them, they're worthless anyway according to society.
Working single men, who are of course the prime cut of the labor market cow. Ah fuck them, who gives a shit. They're probably irresponsible bastards anyway, right?

In the end, it comes down to opportunity cost. You take one opportunity and lose the other. Simple as that. One bird in the hand, two in the bush.
Actually according to the feminists, they should have one bird in the one hand, and the government should tax everyone else to buy them a cage and capture those two birds in the bush. Me Me MEEEE!!

Let me tell you a story about a man named Abdirahman Hudow. Abdirahman was a nice man from Somalia who came to the US after his family was uprooted by rebel forces in the heart of Somalia. He came with a wife, two kids and upon coming to the US, had one more kid. He came on a refugee visa, but unlike most immigrants, actually worked hard and got a job. This job was hard work. He and his wife worked hard, with his wife working 1st shift and him working 3rd shift so that there would always be someone at home for the kids. They did this until all the kids were in school and had regular hours, and they also hired a sitter from time to time.

Anyway, the years of hard work had taken a toll on Abdirahman and I guessed that he was around 40 or so. He was 31. Did the Hudows complain to the government that they needed more handouts? No, they worked hard and realized that they were fulfilling their roles in life by marrying, procreating and working.

Western women seem to think they are doing the world a favor if they pop out a screaming brat or two. They seem to think that they should get adequate compensation for doing what billions of people on the planet have been doing for aeons and will keep doing as long as there is a human race. Hell, even if the cockroaches take over, they'll be right there, procreating with the best of them. None of this entitlement bullshit. We need to stop western women from thinking they are entitled to all sorts of gifts and rewards for simply existing or fulfilling their most basic urge, we need to stop feminists from demanding more and more rights for women and women only, and we need to make politicians aware that we are sick of their sexism and double standards in the law and we're not gonna take it anymore.

Literotica.com Story

Literotica.com - Gentlemen's Party Patriarch Palace Ch. 01

I was browsing the literotica website today and happened upon this story. I think this is the first erotic story I've seen with "Patriarch" in the title, so I clicked it. This is the first chapter, but it looks like its shaping up to be a good series. Check it out if you like written erotica.

Double standards at work

Double standards - don't feminists love to bleat on about those? Especially the imaginary ones, like the myth that women earn less than men. That claim has been thoroughly disproved, but in any feminist literature you read that comes from the mothership you will see that "addressing the wage gap" is still a major issue for feminists.

Never mind that the wage gap may have existed in such a large proportion in the 1970s.
Never mind that the wage gap is brought about by women choosing the motherhood track instead of the career track.

I wonder what would happen if somebody studied the average wages of white women versus white men who recently graduated from college. Hmm, I wonder what the results would be...

The results would make it clear that women in the same major probably earn at the same level or more than men with similar resumes. They will earn at least as much as men because of the law (which has been in effect since 1963) or they will earn more than men because they are a rarity in pretty much any field that isn't completely dominated by women. I know that women engineers are highly in demand because companies want to hire more women to appear diverse, and to find a white American woman with Computer Science on her resume is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.

What other double standards are there at work in the workplace?
I vividly remember my first 9-5 (well, 8:00 to 4:30) job. I worked at Wells Fargo in an out-of-the-way filing location. This location was bigger than the average county library, and filled with files and drudgery. The women in the office could be classified into three categories - retarded white women in a dead-end position, black women in a dead-end position, and normal white entitlement queens women in a high-end position. The only men in the office were those who did the grunt work, and these men were all black. These men and women were the permanent employees.

I came in with a temp team. The team consisted of 8 men, none of them white, and around 15 women, mostly black but a few of them were white. On the first day, after orientation, we were assigned to one of two ladies, who headed up two teams. Was it a coincidence that all the men and one token woman were assigned to one team, and the rest assigned to the other. It definitely was not a coincidence that the men had to work outside in the dock, in the blazing July heat (it was a summer job) to bring in pallets loaded with boxes full of files. Pretty much any college student who has ever moved has realized that paper is extremely heavy for the size. A medium-sized box loaded up with A4 size paper and a few books can quickly become too heavy to lift.

So anyway, we thought we were being paid at the same rate. They wouldn't give us different pay rates just because the women were doing their work sitting down, in an air conditioned office while we toiled in the heat, absolutely tired at the end of the day... right?

WRONG! I got talking to a girl named Nicole, an airheaded blonde whose looks were fading and whose hair looked like it had just climbed out of a hydrogen peroxide bottle. In the course of our conversation, she let slip that she, and most of the other girls she had talked to, were being paid $10.75 an hour. How much was I making, you ask? I was making a measly $9.50 an hour. Apparently when recruiting us, the temp agency had already selected us into the two groups. What about that one girl? Well, she was put in charge of writing down the numbers of the boxes the men brought in. I think that should speak volumes about the kind of discrimination that happens in the workplace when one group is traditionally not protected. Like men. Or minorities. Or minority men. Certainly not white women, who have been protected by men around them since time immemorial.

A few assignments after that, I was recruited to a project for a big insurance company. The recruiter actually called me and my girlfriend separately, and we both accepted. The pay was $12.87 for both of us. Then, the night before the project was due to start, I received a call from the recruiter telling me not to come in. I dropped off my girlfriend and she confirmed my suspicions - all of the people on the project were women. A few days later, I received a call from the same recruiter telling me that I could come in for a slightly different position, for the same pay.

Slightly different? The first position was on the 10th floor, required professional dress, and had you interacting with the people who mattered.
The second position was in the basement, required jeans and a t-shirt, and had you interacting with the mentally challenged, the uneducated, and people who generally you would avoid at a party, that's if they were invited in the first place. The work was harder, the supervisors harsher, and it was generally not a pleasant place to be in. Since my girlfriend worked in the same building, I made a trip up to see her and when I saw her workstation, I decided to immediately start looking for something better - this workplace was not for me. Whereas my desk was in the middle of a crowded area with bare concrete walls and harsh overhead lighting, hers was where the middle managers worked, and it was a much nicer area. Naturally, the vast majority of the people I saw upstairs were women. It goes without saying that they were almost all white.

The group I was in was much more "diverse" - many more blacks, internationals who could barely speak English, and many more men. In fact, the only white woman was the supervisor. The rest of the women were black. There were a few white men though, including one man in his 40s. I struck up a conversation with him, and learned that he was in his late 40s and divorced a few years ago. His wife got the house and the kids, and he was kicked out onto the street. He lost his job because he was depressed and didn't go to work for a few days, while the wife had never had a job in the first place. His wife is married again now, but he is still paying for his first marriage and the house was sold by the wife so she could move away, uprooting his children in the process. Encounters like this only further my determination to never get married in the west, and not even cohabit if laws like the UK come to the US.

Anyway, we as a group were literally the underbelly of the building, and everyone else realized that. We ate our lunches in the basement, and were not encouraged to go upstairs, where the suits were. Now that I'm in a better position, thanks to my hard work and my father's backing, if I meet someone like that, I make it a point to be polite to them, because I remember when I was in that position.

Who benefits from marriage? Part II

In the first part, I covered the feminist belief that marriage is beneficial for men, at the expense of women. Here's another quote to that effect: "I'm turned off by the idea of marriage because I feel like the institution of marriage has tradionally given women the short end of the stick... marriage has traditionally meant giving up (or not pursuing in the first place) a career, taking responsibility for all of the household chores and child-rearing, and living to be sweet, comforting, and helpful to the husband."

Now, for men, marriage means responsibilities. You get the responsibility of providing for a woman who has "given up" her career, for the children that inevitably follow, and you have to do 50% of the household chores as well as 100% of the yardwork and DIY. (On a side note: This is why I hate Home Improvement. Along with presenting the men as idiots, the projects they undertake and the car maintenance they do are "hobbies" even though they probably save thousands of dollars every year due to the round-the-clock handyman in the house. Have you priced out a plumber lately? They are not cheap!)

If you ask a man whether he would like to be free of the need to work and still maintain their family's lifestyle, you are most likely to get a resounding yes. There are a few men who enjoy their work and there are some men who wouldn't do it because it goes against their idea of traditional masculinity. But the majority are going to say yes. So forgive us if we take the idea that women give up their pink collar jobs, err careers with a pinch of salt.

For women, marriage is a fantastic deal. They get to quit the workplace, live at home (the safest "workplace" of all) and they get to take care of the household as they wish. A recent study showed that even in today's equality culture, men and women consider the home to be the woman's domain. Examples were shown of women getting irritated when the husband loaded up the dishwasher in a different way, or hung up the ladles that were supposed to be put in the cupboard, etc. And of course, the classic "put your socks away!"

There are more benefits to marriage for women - since women are at the peak of their sexual attractiveness at adolescence and a few years after that, they can get a man to provide for them and their progeny even as they lose their attractiveness. Essentially, the man marries to get sex and companionship with a beautiful woman who gradually loses her attractiveness, and the woman marries to get support and protection from a man who gradually builds in attractiveness as he gets richer. This is why a man in his early 30s is at a high point in the dating game - he has not totally lost his looks, but is far richer than men in their 20s. A woman in her early 20s is in a similar position of power - she is far more attractive than women in their late 20s and early 30s.

So who does marriage benefit?

I think that marriage benefits society. I think that marriage benefits the products of the marriage - the children much more than the partners of the marriage. The evidence is clear that a child raised in a traditional family is far more likely to be successful in life than a child raised in a broken home without a father. Fatherlessness is a primary indicator of the likelyhood that a child will grow up to be an antisocial element.

Marriage benefits society by benefiting the building blocks of society - its children. If the children grow up lawless and fatherless, it is society that suffers. This is why marriage is a societal construct today that has been enforced in all "old" societies that are surviving today - since societies that did not have marriage or otherwise encouraged children out of wedlock or no children at all have not survived.

Who benefits from marriage? Part I

Who actually benefits from marriage? Is it the men, as feminists say, or is it the women who benefit, as Men's Rights Activists like myself assert?

Due to my upbringing and feminised education, I had never questioned the idea that women don't benefit in marriage, and that marriage is a social construct designed to give men a slave and a cook, nothing else. However, hard as it was, after growing up and seeing the evidence around me, I began to question the popular belief. When I started reading the father's rights and anti-feminist websites, I threw the belief that only men benefit from marriage in the trash.

Now, after reading the article in the NY Times about the marriage strike, and the comments associated with that article, I decided to rethink my beliefs.

First of all, let's tackle the issue of whether men benefit from marriage. According to feminist dogma, marriage serves the man by having the woman serve him.

Here's a quote: "If a woman can earn her own living, the idea of working outside the home and then coming home to do the lion'’s share of the domestic duties loses its appeal pretty quickly. And she is less likely to be forgiving and tolerant of the kind of machismo that her grandmothers accepted as the price of being supported. While this may seem to represent a kind of evolution, the evolution is social, not biological. Men aren'’t necessarily sharing in this social evolution; women have changed the rules on them and they don'’t seem to have caught up with it -— or perhaps they are not interested in catching up with it!"

Leaving aside the heavy dose of shaming and blaming in the quote, we see that the message is that the man is a drag on the household.

Here's another quote: "Marriage is an outmoded, feudal institution no longer relevant for women. The feminist critique of marriage from the 1970s is still germaine. Marriage is a bad deal for women who are expected to work outside the home, plus raise the children, plus clean the house, plus be available for sex. Men, on the other hand, benefit tremendously from marriage for the same reasons. They work only one job, get a maid, a nanny, and a sex partner. When women have actual economic options, they are clearly chosing to remain single. It'’s better for them financially. Women will still be fine emotionally outside of marriage because they know how to create emotional support networks; they give and receive comfort on a daily basis. As a society, however, we raise men who cannot meet their own emotional needs outside of leaning perpetually on a wife. Marriage as an institution, if it is to survive (and the need for that is debatable) must become equitable for both women and men"

According to the author of this quote, women don't have a sex drive. They only have sex because the man wants it, and since they were dependent on the man financially, the woman does not have sex according to her own free will - in short, all sex is rape. What seems to be common among feminists is that they believe that women can not give consent. They seem to think that women don't really want to have children, keep a clean house, take care of their children and their husband, essentially they think that all women are like themselves - fat, lazy lesbians who live in filth and don't care about anyone but themselves. (Cheap shot!)

There are a couple of points in the post that I do agree with - society does encourage women to create support networks while men are supposed to be the problem solvers. If a woman goes to another woman with a problem, they might chat about it and not solve it, but if a man goes to another man with a problem, his masculinity will be questioned and he will be seen as inferior as the other man will solve his problem. And of course, there's the old double standard of men being afraid to be seen together for fear of being labeled homosexual while society encourages women to hang out together.

Now, does marriage benefit women? Continued in Part II...

McCartney's Divorce and Domestic Violence

So it turns out that Heather Mills is pulling out the guns in her divorce with Paul McCartney. She is accusing him of domestic violence.

I was talking with my girlfriend about the Paul McCartney divorce when the case first came to my attention, and I told her that cases like this are why I don't want to marry. It is clear that divorce is just a way to redistribute the man's earnings and it is apparently very hard for women to understand that this could make a man wary of tying the noose knot.

Her response was that the lives of celebrities do not apply to the rest of us - that just because Paul McCartney stands to lose millions of dollars from this divorce, doesn't really affect how marriage and divorce are in the "real world."

If there is one thing that is applicable to the rest of us from the entire selection of tabloids dedicated to the stars' latest hijinks, its their dealings with family law - child support, divorce and all the aces that the family court gives to women. The Domestic Violence (DV) card is one such ace. With one phone call, the entire machinery will be set into action. First, the police will come and arrest the primary aggressor (the male). Now, you might say that the aggressor in this could be the female! And you are right. According to the studies, more than half the time, the woman is the one who crosses the line from verbal to physical battering. However, when the police decided to start arresting who they thought was the aggressor, a lot of women started being arrested. Feminists campaigned for the "victims" and thus primary aggressor laws were born to restore the power balance - all the power in the hands of the female.

According to the feminist model that the law follows, the woman is the victim regardless of who hit whom. If she hit him, she was just trying to get him to listen. The inner chivalrous male in all of us instantly takes the side of the woman, but one thing we have to realize is that not all women are reasonable, and they are definitely not reasonable all the time. She could hit him with the feminist-preferred method of attack - kicking, kneeing or otherwise attacking the groin of the man. She could use a weapon, and she often does. Sometimes its a kitchen utensil, sometimes its a baby, sometimes its whatever is close at hand. No matter what the mode of attack or the severity of attack, the man will be arrested if he is not in an ambulance because of primary aggressor laws.


The next step is the restraining order. This restraining order ensures that once you go back to your home, to your home, you will be arrested because you violated the restraining order keeping you away from the victim that you didn't know about. Remember, ignorance is not an excuse. Often, the victim will be allowed to not only stay, but she will be encourage to change the locks to ensure that you can't get in. Of course, you will have to keep paying for the mortgage or rent, since you are still fully responsible.

The next step is indoctrination for you and the "victim" - you will be forced to admit that you are the perpetrator, you are guilty because you are male, and you seek to have power over the victim. The victim will be welcomed into a comforting environment where man-hating is the order of the day, it is a feminist indoctrination camp and nothing but the official party dogma is followed. She will be told that you are guilty because you are a male, you seek to exert your power over her, and will be told to get out of the relationship.

If you have kids, here's where it gets fun. The CPS (Child Protection Services) may get involved and decide to take away your kids because they are living in fear, they are in a hostile environment, and you are the biggest risk to them since the boogeyman. Never mind that statistically the mother acting alone or with a boyfriend is the biggest is the biggest contributor to child abuse. Never mind that most child murders are committed by the mother.

So now you are out of the house, you may have lost your job because of the absence and the fact that you were probably arrested in your office, and you can't talk to, write to or otherwise contact the kids, all the while the system is poisoning the ear of your victim, sorry girlfriend/wife, and your dear girlfriend/wife is more than likely poisoning the ear of your child.


Enjoy!

Some Random Thoughts

The government and the feminist mindset that makes these rules will never consider giving men a way out. Who will fund all these silly policies - sexual harassment, the divorce industry, National Organization of Women if not men with their tax dollars and productivity?

Many people today have seen how the MSM (Mainstream Media) is not friendly towards men but don't know what to think. Boys have been trained to believe that women are nothing less than downtrodden and oppressed, and the message they receive overwhelmingly from real life is that they are anything but. This leads to a lot of confusion - how do you think something when you've been taught to think the exact opposite your whole life? Not all of us are Galileos, with the same confidence that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Many of us grow up thinking women in the workplace are great, since most high school and college jobs have women who are generally more easy-going and attractive. They are definitely catching up in complaints and lawsuits though. Hiring a woman is terribly risky because unlike a male, you run the risk of having her get pregnant, leave because she put the noose around some guy's neck, sue for harassment or inequality when she gets tired of working - while with men you basically have to worry about us leaving for career advancement and salary growth.

Someone said to me that being a provider is a personal choice, that men die early because of our own stupid choices, like cigarette smoking and driving fast. Yea, us stupid men can't stop providing, can't stop being at a much higher risk of physical violence (including rape and murder), can't stop working the most dangerous jobs.

All those men who died in Iraq and basically all the wars until now are just immature idiots who can't get their shit together, right? Men constitute around 95% of the deaths in Iraq, but you won't find anyone mentioning that.

A 65 year old man is 3 times more likely to suffer a physical attack than a 65 year old woman. Can't stop smoking and driving fast huh.

When the suffragette movement was active, there's something the feminists don't want you to know - that most men couldn't vote either. The only people who could vote were men and women of high status, and/or landowners. Which means most men had no say - they were drafted for wars to be killed to protect the women and high status men at home.

Child Support and the Cost of Raising Children

To a young worker trying to make his way in the world, a child support order can be a crippling blow, bringing your upward climb in the world to a screetching halt in an instant. You don't get the nagging girlfriend or the frenzied wife adding to your ulcers, but you'll have to work a lot harder to make up for the child support money that she gets tax-free. Tell me, would you rather pay $1196 a month towards a child you never wanted and a girlfriend you no longer are even friends with, or towards your student loan or house down ayment? I am vasectomized, or whatever the word is. I allowed a man with a knife near my balls; I shoot blanks; . This was done before I learned about the Men's Rights Movement and read Warren Farrell's books. From the very beginning, I wanted an adventurous lifestyle - I did not want to be held down with kids and a wife at home, waiting to be provided for. I made the decision to remain childfree and have no regrets. It is far easier to get a child if I ever feel like it than to get rid of one after the fact. According to this handy-dandy website, it would take more than $800,000 over 18 years to raise a child that was born in 2004. And that's when I entered my starting salary. Who knows what ungodly figure it may be now. I can invest in a LOT of Googles and Youtubes with that money.

I'm an advocate of cheap and simple living. Well, sometimes its not so cheap and sometimes I act sophisticated, but there's always the inner fatwalleter in me, telling me that I could have this very same steak a lot cheaper down at the local, and it would taste a lot better if my heart was not being frozen by the haughty waiter who thinks he is somehow above me even though he's serving me.

I have a girlfriend, but I am an avid traveler. I also move a lot and thus prefer to rent. No big fancy townhomes for me, I prefer short-term leases in luxury apartments.

Men's Issues

I'm a Men's Rights Activist and proud of it.

Did you know that white women live the longest, and white men and black men round out the bottom? That men of all ages from the teens onward commit suicide at a much higher rate than girls/women? That 75% of all divorces are initiated by women?

Did you know that your girlfriend could dial 911 and the police would take you to jail and give her a restraining order with no proof of violence against her? Even if you come in scratched and bleeding, yup.

There are many issues men's rights activists need to work on. Paramount among them are divorce law reform, repealing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA 2005), fixing the Child Support system and father's visitation rights, and stopping the demonization of men in the Mainstream Media (MSM).

Welcome to my blog!

I decided it was time to stop clicking the "other" link when commenting, and so I decided to make this blog.

I will probably not be posting much, but I will archive some of my comments made to other blogs and post some of my own thoughts as and when they become available. I'm looking forward to blogging and I hope you enjoy your stay!