Saturday, March 31, 2007

Flip off a female driver?

Got this forwarded email...
I was riding to work yesterday when I observed a female driver cut right in front of a pickup truck, causing him to have to drive on to the shoulder to avoid hitting her. This evidently angered the driver enough that he hung his arm out his window and "flipped" the woman off.

"Man, that guy is stupid," I thought to myself. I ALWAYS smile nicely and wave in a sheepish manner whenever a female does anything to me in traffic, and here's why:

I drive 48 miles each way every day to work. That's 96 miles each day. Of these, 16 miles each way is bumper-to-bumper. Most of the bumper-to-bumper is on an 8 lane highway.

There are 7 cars every 40 feet for 32 miles. That works out to be 982 cars every mile, or 31,424 cars. Even though the rest of the 32 miles is not bumper-to-bumper, I figure I pass at least another 4000 cars. That brings the number to something like 36,000 cars that I pass every day.

Statistically, females drive half of these. That's 18,000 women drivers! In any given group of females, 1 in 28 has PMS. That's 642.

According to Cosmopolitan, 70% describe their love life as dissatisfying or unrewarding. That's 449.

According to the National Institute of Health, 22% of all females have seriously considered suicide or homicide. That's 98. And 34% describe men as their biggest problem. That's 33.

According to the National Rifle Association, 5% of all females carry weapons, and this number is increasing.

That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY, I drive past at least one female that has a lousy love life, thinks men are her biggest problem, has seriously considered suicide or homicide, has PMS, and is armed.

Flip one off? ... I think not.
Double standards? Acceptance of female violence? Blaming men for women's anger? All check.

Friday, March 30, 2007

Your Ex-Wife is now a man? Keep paying slave!

Check this article out - Ex-wife's sex change doesn't end alimony. Apparently this guy is/was a utility worker and was already saddled with a $1250 a month donation to his wife's tranny fund. She used the money to good effect, and is now legally a man. Sex change, hormone therapy, the works.

But the slave must keep paying. According to the Florida courts, her sex change into a him doesn't mean that he doesn't have an obligation to him.

Look at what awaits you if you marry - look at the fucking double standard. S/He will be able to sue anyone who calls him a she now, as well as draw alimony for the vagina s/he no longer possesses. Just look at the freedoms females are awarded in this country, and know that you, as an ordinary male, will never be accorded the same freedoms and basic rights and privileges.

Naturally, I'm against alimony for any reason - women know they have more options available to them than any given man, and I don't think it is the patriarchy that tells them to go into low-paying, easy as piss jobs, whiling away their time until they are "saved" by a serfmale whose back they will then latch onto until they die.

Alimony is the foulest, most evil concept I've seen in my lifetime, worse than being imprisoned for having a Swastika on your person. At its very core, it is a belief that men must pay women - for companionship, for a fuck, for whatever it is that women provide men. But this payment is couched in terms that elevate the female and denigrate the male, so it is not as if the payment is either voluntary or it is clear what the payment is for. Look at all the well-educated, high-earning women females cunts that have managed to wring out alimony payments from their rich husbands. Hell, they didn't have to lift a finger - the lawyer's cost was either borne by the state or by the husband, and the money just flowed in by virtue of the vagina's innate power.

Can you tell I'm mad as hell?

Fight at New York Times

Another catfight, yesterday

Yep, New York Times - the bastion of feminism, the newspaper that gave legitimacy to such names as Marilyn French and Andrea Dworkin had a little "disturbance". They had a bitchfight!

A catfight at The New York Times Friday still has staffers in shock.
The dustup between two female editors in the Styles department disrupted work on the Thursday and Sunday Styles sections as co-workers froze at the fracas.
Fashion editor Anita LeClerc was the aggressor and her superior, deputy editor Mary Ann Giordano, the victim, sources say.
The two had exchanged words just moments before, allegedly over turf, and LeClerc began stomping around the office, muttering loudly to herself. But when Giordano, a talented import from the Metro section, came over in a conciliatory way and tried to smooth things over, LeClerc made it physical.
"She shoved Mary Ann and pushed her, and Mary Ann said, 'Don't you touch me! Don't you touch me!'" says a source. "Mary Ann grabbed her wrists to try to stop her, and [LeClerc] just started flailing."

Notice how there's no mention of charges being filed or the aggressor being disciplined. Hell, if the NY Times could get away with it, they'd just fire a jew a man and be done with it. Just like the time I was reading about a man who couldn't help but overhear two women loudly arguing at work - he looked over, and the next day he was called in to HR because the cunts reported "visual harassment" - i.e. he had the gall to look at them, members of the divine sex.

That's why some at the respected broadsheet are baffled as to why no apparent disciplinary action has been taken against LeClerc. A Times spokeswoman did not answer questions about the slugfest, or disciplinary action, by deadline. Calls to LeClerc, Giordano and Gabriel were not returned.

This is really something - a full-on fight at work, and none of the females involved are getting even disciplinary action, let alone being fired or arrested? Reminds me of the double standard where its acceptable for women to display their wares in public (a la any awards ceremony where females dress up in the most shocking attire possible) where a man would be told to cover up long before. Well, unless the man was wearing something made entirely out of $100 bills.

And notice where the story is coming from - the ass end of some two-bit newspaper - no front page story here, women are never violent and women never lie about rape, don't ya know? The news is just slipped in with the rest of the celebrity gossip - as if this is nothing, no big deal. They even have a joke in there!

And of course its no big deal. Women are routinely not even pursued for offences that would land a man in prison. Is it a wonder that men are seen as the barbarian sex, is it a wonder that there are so many men in prison? And this is for female-on-female violence. Any idea on what would happen if the victim were a man in this position? Bound by the knowledge that as soon as he raises his hand he will be hauled off to prison to the tune of prison rape jokes everywhere, he remains mute and doesn't even report the violence.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Vagina Monologues renamed in Florida

Hahaha, this is awesome. So a theater in Florida received a complaint from some woman who thought that the word "vagina" was offensive. Which, if you've been following the Pedophile Monologues, is what it is all about - that the word vagina is offensive and shit.

You know what they're gonna name it? Hahaha

They're gonna call it the "The Hoohaa Monologues"!!! Isn't that awesome!

Funny as this news is, the play itself is as evil as any feminist-backed undertaking can be. Naturally, being a women-first play headed by a women-first woman who has lesbian pedophile tendencies, the play focusses on how the statutory rape of a 13 year old by a tired old hag is A-OK and that you can empower yourself by being a giant vagina. In more ways than one.

Its always good news when the lesbian feminist agenda is subverted, and best of all, by a woman. Read the link.

It is telling of how the world is so accepting of female aberration and is eager to forgive females, that according to the article, this is the second time it has generated enough controversy to get its message altered.

In 2004 the production was banned from the southern Indian city of Madras, as police there thought some of the script was "objectionable".

Monday, March 12, 2007

IE Users

I use Performancing For Firefox a lot. This is a handy extension that lets you start blog entries with a single click, and you don't have to sign in to blogger. So I've been using it for a while now, and the layout etc have looked fine to me.

Until today. I opened up my blog in IE 6, and I see that the extension apparently mishandles paragraphs/enter key presses, and it gives twice as many as I want. So if I press Enter twice to make a new paragraph with one blank line, it actually gives me two blank lines.

Hmm. I don't know if I should sit down and fix all the entries, or leave it as is. I think I'll fix the most recent few, and leave the rest as they are.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Slapper grabs nuts of copper

Oh you crazy crazy women. How far will you go before you are finally punished?

So this woman, Toni Comer, apparently is a fucking crazy whore who gets thrown out of a nightclub, exacts revenge on a bouncer's car, and when the police are called, she fucking grabs the policeman's nuts in between kicking him, spitting at him, and biting him. Before that, both of them fall down the stairs, with the officer landing on top of her.

Naturally, she is black.

You know what, you British guys should export her to the US. Sure it'll be a racial issue when she "accidentally" gets shot after grabbing a cop's nuts, but we don't take kindly to anyone laying a hand on our coppers, let alone a scruffy black ho. From what I've seen on youtube and in chav discussions, british cops usually are scared of using the proper amount of force on criminals, and basically are worthless unless they're behind a radar gun. Too many stories about thieves and thugs getting away because the cops would have to do too much paperwork. Do I have the wrong impression?

Now imagine what would have happened if a drunk man would have grabbed a female cop's tits or ass. You think it would've been a racial issue then? Which side do you think the media would've taken?

Repeat after me: Women are never held responsible for their actions, men are always held responsible for their actions.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Worse than I thought

I talked about this Indian movie I had rented a couple of posts ago, called The Side Effects of Love. Yesterday I finally got around to watching it.
My word, it was worse than I thought. I had assumed from the cover that it might have a man beaten up in the name of love and things of that sort, but overall, Indian movies aren't misandrist to the point that English movies are, be they from Hollywood or not.

The entire movie was full of phrases seemingly lifted from Andrea Dworkin's memoirs, including a sister of the protagonist who talks like a raging lesbian but has a man around to pay for the bills.

The movie revolves around this guy who met a girl at a wedding where she was running away while he was in Delhi. The starting scene is a fight in which she terrorizes him until he says I love you, nay, shes is not happy until he proves to him how much he loves her, all while he is trying to watch a match.

So anyway, this pair met at her wedding, she runs away when he gives her money to escape, and then they meet a few months later, when she is working in Bombay. So they meet, and now three years later, she wants to get married to him.

Man, there is so much palpable man hating in there, I can't describe it. It felt like I was watching a Hollywood movie, only the actors were not as dark or as pale as Hollywood actors, and the plot was marginally worse.

Everything in the movie revolved around how men are stupid, men are dumb, men are dirty, yadda yadda yadda.
There was the classic scene where the sister of the hero (sic) picks up a dirty sock and goes on a tirade about how men are not rational, how they can never seem to put their socks along their shoes, oh man I'm telling you I wanted to reach in and twist her throat right there, and then rape her corpse for good measure. She was that hateful of a character.

Then there's the scene where the hero and his heroine are having an argument and a small scoreboard appears on the screen, and predictably, she pulls out the trump card and his score vanishes, leaving her the winner.

I don't know whether this sort of misandry has been there all along but hidden, or what in the fuck is happening to people to make them hate men so much all of a sudden.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Keeping up with the Janes

I saw this article on MSN today. Money Envy - MSN Lifestyle - Mind, Body Soul
Woah. What a read. The blurb says, "How one family started keeping up with the neighbors and ended up living beyond their means. A true (scary) story of the perils of overspending."

What they don't mention is that it is a scary story about how your wife can spend you into bankruptcy.

Here's my synopsis:
Dan and Tammy grew up in working-class families and married shortly after graduation. He started out at a retail job earning minimum wage but eventually got promoted to manager; she was a secretary. They lived with relatives to save money. Dan remembers Tammy being so frugal that when he offered to take her to Olive Garden for dinner, she would turn him down and buy supper at Publix supermarket instead. But self-denial paid off: In their mid-20s, when most of their friends weren't even married yet, they became homeowners. Just a few years later, they had a three-bedroom house built in a relaxed southern Florida community. It was the nicest house on the block.

Dan got a call: You're being transferred to Orlando. He'd be managing a bigger store - but to relocate, they had to sell their brand-new house at a loss.

Shopping for a new home, they fell in love with a four-bedroom place in a 15-year-old suburban neighborhood. Buying there would be a reach-15 percent more than they'd planned to spend - but Tammy convinced Dan they could afford it. They were in good financial shape overall, thanks to their great credit.

In one move, the couple went from the nicest house around to living at the low end in a much fancier neighborhood, surrounded by people who, compared with Dan and Tammy, had done better, gotten farther, acquired more. Their new best friends lived in a house worth three times as much as Dan and Tammy's new nest.

Within a year of moving in, the couple yielded to peer pressure and joined the local country club. After their second child was born, Tammy signed up for a ladies' tennis league, which meant paying for court fees, cute white outfits, and hours of child care. Many afternoons, she went with her new friends to the mall, where she upgraded her wardrobe and outfitted her kids in matching ensembles. At the cash register, she got a discount on her purchases by opening store credit accounts, which only made buying easier the next time.

Although in the past the couple had always saved, now they began spending their entire income. To look her best, Tammy joined a top health club and started having her hair colored every few weeks. The couple bought a used SUV, financed through a home-equity line. On getaway weekends with other couples, they stayed at oceanfront hotels. When her friends started getting breast implants, Tammy decided to get them, too, putting the $5,000 cost on a credit card.

But no matter how much larger they lived, they could never catch up with their friends' more exciting lives. Other people always had more impressive cars, parties that were catered, expensive furniture made of rare woods they had never even heard of. Tammy started feeling anxious about their life. Was she dressing well enough? Shouldn't they move into a larger house? Why wasn't Dan more ambitious?

Dan started getting larger bonuses, but the amounts were unpredictable. Tammy, who had handled the finances since their wedding day, started making only minimum credit card payments, and the balances grew larger. Instead of reining in expenses when money was tight, she simply went to an ATM and transferred $1,000 from the home-equity credit line to the checking account. At the same time, the couple started projects like installing granite counters and hardwood floors, all designed to put their house on a par with everyone else's. My husband has a good job, Tammy told herself. We can afford it.

Then, one month, Tammy asked Dan to cash in some stock options to pay for basic monthly expenses. A few months later, she had to ask again. That's when Dan realized something was wrong. He knew that it had been a while since his regular paycheck had covered all their bills. But since Tammy handled the money, he didn't know the details. We should slow down, he told his wife. We can afford it, she insisted. You're about to get your bonus.

True, the annual bonus was coming. And it was huge. By far the largest bonus Dan had ever gotten, it totaled nearly $100,000 - much more than his annual salary. With this windfall, they could pay off everything and start over with a clean slate.

But to quell his anxiety, Dan wanted to review the details. For the first time, he asked his wife to hand over their account statements. One night, he took them into the home office, along with their credit reports, which he'd obtained on the Internet. Going down the list, he noted the current balance for each card. He felt sick. Overwhelmed. Deceived - not just by his wife, but by himself. Now he knew the truth, and it was almost like discovering that Tammy was having an affair. She had never told him how far behind they were falling, and he had just looked the other way. On credit cards alone, the couple owed nearly $100,000.

Dan took over the family finances. Nonetheless, their spending didn't slow down. They'd been relying on credit to support their lifestyle, and now it was difficult to stop.

Dan didn't understand how anyone with an income like his could be in such bad shape. He decided they should give up luxuries like the country club. Tammy negotiated: She'd cancel the membership only if they could have a backyard pool. He compared the monthly pool payments to what they spent on the club and discovered the pool would be cheaper. So he agreed to her terms and applied for an increase in the home-equity line to put in the pool. But somehow they never canceled the club membership.

Spending money was the only thing that seemed to make Tammy happy. Dan dreaded saying no to her; an argument would often follow, and he was afraid the children would overhear. Tammy blamed him for not earning enough. Why were the other husbands doing so much better? she'd ask. Dan couldn't figure out how they used to be happy on so little, when now she was never satisfied.

Dan's mind was racing. Sitting at his desk in tears, he prayed for help-then turned to the Internet to research his alternatives. The one that kept coming up was bankruptcy. Dan considered that to be the ultimate shame, but he couldn't find any other way out. He tried to show Tammy books on bankruptcy, but she wouldn't look at them. I don't want to deal with this, she told him. You handle it.

The deeper they got into the bankruptcy process, however, the more isolated Tammy became. With her spending cut off, she went through what Dan saw as withdrawal. She worried that the children would be forced to give up their activities and that they would see themselves as different from their friends.

When the lawyer told them that bankruptcy filings are in the public record and their names might be printed in the local newspaper, Tammy became petrified of being exposed. To keep their secret safe-and also because they had no money-she started making excuses whenever friends invited them out: They had other plans. Dan would be working late. They couldn't find a sitter.

While Tammy is still struggling to deal with life in bankruptcy, Dan says that he's actually thankful for the experience because it has given him a greater appreciation for what he has. "You realize that you can enjoy doing the simple things," says Dan. "When you spend thousands of dollars on a trip, and then it's over, you have this depression, like: ‘Well, that's done, and the money's gone.' But when you spend the day hiking or camping with your children and you haven't spent a dime, it's really a great feeling. And that stays with you for a while."

Wow. I told you it'd be a hell of a read. So this guy works himself to the bone, and all so his wife can say "I don't want to deal with our bankruptcy"? He spends his days away from his children, all so his wife can go shopping and leave them at the creche? All so she can get a boob job and put it on his credit card?

And make no mistake, every single red cent she spent was his. She played barely any part in it. Unlike what feminists love to say, a woman at home isn't the boon its considered to be. I'm 100% sure that if I had it in me to make a million dollars, it wouldn't be because I had a woman at home telling me to do my share of housework and pick up those socks and put them in that fancy laundry hamper that my blood, sweat and tears paid for.

And make no mistake, the modern woman knows exactly what her vagina buys - she will divorce you and "my boobs" will miraculously become "your debts" in divorce court. The marriage vows are privately considered unrealistic by a large segment of the female population you'll encounter, its just that they don't mention it to you - and the obligations heaped on you certainly don't appear unrealistic to the judge, who will heap more and more of them on you.

Just look at Tammy. She is so unwilling to compromise, even when the stark reality is facing them in the face and she's cowering behind her husband, telling him to make it go away or she'll shame and insult him some more. This sentence says it all really - "Tammy negotiated: She'd cancel the membership only if they could have a backyard pool." Keep in mind, this was after they had tallied up the total and arrived at the conclusion that they were in deep deep debt shit.

This is what most (too many) American women are. Be vigilant, soldier.

Stupid or crazy in love?

I saw this article while reading through the Russian Women blog's archives the day before yesterday. I usually like RW's blog, its pretty nice and gives a view of what life in Russia with Russian women would be like. However, I can't agree with rw_man in this one, but maybe I have the wrong view...

Check it out: How Stupid Can this Man Be?

Apparently, some guy from the US was so smitten by a Russian woman, and why not, when they're as pretty and non-vitriolic, non-feminist as they appear? He was so smitten that he sent money over to her - he got $100k scammed out of him.

Then, when he came to Russia for his beloved, she told him that she will call the cops on him and get him thrown in jail on a DV charge. So simple for her - must have took her two seconds to say that sentence. And he must have been ruined. All that hope, all those dreams, dashed in an instant.
But to me it sounds like all the commenters on this story are pretty much dancing on his grave, to use a cliché. There is no need to revel in his foolishness, to call him names and insult him like that. Just as girls are taught that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, boys learn from observation that the way to a girl's heart is through her purse - fill it and her heart will fill with love too. Of course, now cooking is probably legally defined as abuse and the man will continue to pay long after she's left him, but that's beside the point.

By ignoring the scammer's role, he's essentially telling the mark that he was so stupid, he deserved it. And that is never the case. People don't deserve to be scammed, to be beaten, to be abused - physically, mentally or sexually, and in this case, just because he was taken in by a russian woman, doesn't excuse the bitch who carried out this masterplan.

What made me even more sick was that after pages and pages of representing Russian Women as sweet innocent angelic creatures, rw_man is painting this man as a demon, as just wanting "a lifetime whore because money is the only thing he's got and their ain’t much else he can show to represent himself as a Man.."

I don't know, but that passage sounds like it belongs in some feminist blog, not Russian Women. I personally think that scammers shouldn't get a free pass just because the tragedy happened to someone who you can make a caricature of and laugh at. Am I wrong?
Cover of a Russian newspaper I saw in the grocery store today.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Middle school boys get felony charges for "spanking"

KATU - Portland, Oregon - News - Middle school students charged with sex abuse

KATU - Portland, Oregon - News - Boys accused of spanking girls get to go home to 24-hour supervision

These two boys may get to go to Federal PMITA Juvenile prison for their hideous crimes against humanity, their brutality shall be punished, those fien... oh wait they just slapped their female classmates on the buttocks. Apparently they also poked their breasts. One mistake with a woman will fuck you up for life today.

Two of the victims testified that they did not feel threatened and did not want the boys punished. But the tank of justice had started rolling and it would not stop until it had crushed the boys, who would inevitably grow up to be males, the most destructive force this planet has ever known.

The judge ordered 24-hour supervision at home for the boys.

I don't know what to say. Not even our kids boys are safe from these fanatics - I bet their life is ruined now. Felony charges don't go away that easy, not even ones that you got when you were barely sprouting your pubes. Can you imagine what snapping a bra nowdays would get you?

Apparently, one of the grave crimes these DEMONS from HELL committed was...

According to authorities, the boys were sometimes acting out a character known as 'Party Boy' from a movie based on a popular MTV television series.
You know, I think that as the punishment awarded to those who bully girls grows more and more, the backlash will focus on boys. Make no mistake, girls hardly ever suffer or used to suffer the kind of bullying boys have always had to endure, and even then, they bloody well band together and react - if you're the unpopular kid and you're male, God help you. You will be chewed up and spit out.

It will definitely get worse for boys - and since there won't be lawsuits and stuff, the public won't even know about it. I bet if you interviewed a class of freshman boys today in any high school, you'd get stories that'll make your toes curl. Certainly worse than being slapped on the ass while wearing the shortest miniskirt you could steal.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Hombres to go to jail for refusing to be raped

Mexico's Information Minister
Mexico's Information MinisterCame across this link while surfing MANN: "Jealous" Mexican Men may face trial in court.

Mexican men who avoid sex with their wives could be tried in court and punished under a new law, the special prosecutor for crimes against women told a local newspaper on Friday.

Men who phone their wives every half hour to check up on them, constantly suspect them of infidelity or try to control the way they dress are committing the crime of jealousy, special prosecutor Alicia Elena Perez Duarte told Excelsior newspaper.

Those who stop talking to their wives, avoid sex or try to convince suspicious spouses they are "crazy" even if they are caught red-handed having an affair, are guilty of indifference, she said.

Men found guilty of jealousy or indifference could face up to five years in prison, the newspaper said. Mexico's individual states will determine the punishments, it said.

The progressive new law was passed this month to protect women from domestic violence.

In Mexico, about 75 percent of all murdered women are killed by their husbands, Perez Duarte said.

"If we do not stop this from the beginning, it turns into beatings, and the beatings turn into more beatings and rape, until it gets out of hand, and whoops, she died," she told the paper.

Perez Duarte said the law would be a weapon that women could employ to level the playing field with abusive men.

"Men ought not to feel discriminated against," she told Excelsior.

Perez Duarte said indifference, jealousy or lack of love were crimes against women just as much as physical violence.

"Jealousy produces a particular type of stress in the person that comes up against it," she said. "It is exactly the same. They are wounds, psychological scars identical to physical scars."

There are a few important things in this ridiculous new law - joining the "Illegal to be naked inside your own house" law which came from Mexico's tequila-infused legislature last year.

First of all, men are going to go to jail for baseless, groundless, no-need-of-proof accusations of jealousy. Like the Information Minister says, Just another weapon for women to bludgeon men with.

Men are going to be hauled off for refusing to have sex, hell, for indifference towards the bitch that makes their life a living hell! This is truly a case of "jailed if you do, jailed if you don't."

And of course, the same old LIE is trotted out that this law is to protect women from domestic violence. Of course, all that research that domestic violence is a 50-50 male-female problem is ignored, swept under the carpet, all so that the carpet munchers can have their say in demonizing men even more.

The problem with laws, aside from the obvious you go to jail for breaking them is that many people are idealistic and think that the government really knows best. Right now, whatever Mexicans are discussing this issue are probably hearing "well the government is not stupid, they must have done their research, poor women need to be protected from their jealous hotheaded husbands!"

Another thing that is notable about this new law and the reasoning behind it is that it paves the way for thoughtcrime - only applicable against men of course, because women always have the purest thoughts. Roy said it well in his comment on MANN...

Wow! This is a major advance in the criminalizing of emotion and thought!

How does one disprove the crime of "indifference" in a feminist court of law?

"Yer honor, I didn't DO anything!"


Imagine -- to be "indifferent" towards women will now be a crime! What specific behaviors will a husband or boyfriend have to perform in order to demonstrate that he's not in fact "indifferent?"

(Wife) - "Honey, what color do you think our new living room carpet should be?"
(Hubby) - "Oh, whatever you like, I don't really care."


"Lack of love" is also now a crime?

How do you legally define the minimal quotient of "love" that exempts you from prosecution? (I'm suspecting it has more to do with dinero than with amore...)

Notice that women can still be jealous, controlling and abusive. Women are still allowed to say no to their husbands - if a woman marries a man and refuses to have sex with him starting the honeymoon night, there is nothing the man can do about it. Nothing. Even if the wife fucks the poolboy in front of him and has his baby 9 months later, he can only look forward to 18 years of child support.

Never marry.


I've written about diamonds here, and the Eternal Bachelor has also written about diamonds here. Now for a few images...

Friday, March 02, 2007

Fuck hard work, I've got Wonderbra™!

Saw this article in the Daily Mail. Its a little old, but I haven't seen it discussed on the MRA blogs I frequent.

Forget hard work - women would rather flirt their way to the top | the Daily Mail

According to the article, "three out of five women would rather work for a man than a woman, while a further 86% would flirt with a male colleague if it meant they got their own way."

We've all seen it before - whether its on the job or in school or even in the family, women are not averse to using their feminine charms to get their own way. Hell, half the time, they don't even have to go as far as suggestive dressing or acting - just being a woman and not having any major disfigurements is enough. But boy oh boy do they know how to lay it on thick if they really want something. Flexible morals, you know.

The best payoff is when they can not only use their tits and ass to get ahead, but then sue the company for sexual harassment later. Double jackpot!!

One thing that has always infuriated me is that women don't seem to have a dress code - they can wear anything from a mumuu, to a short skirt with thong poking out the back, to a pantsuit - anything they bloody well want to. One outfit that's really popular these days is tight tight skin tight sheer nylon pants - with a thong or G-string underneath of course, don't want a VPL! These can be paired with a cleavage-exposing tank top and a loosely buttoned shirt. And if anyone except that cute guy from Accounting stares, dirty looks and dirtier gossip abounds. Its pretty much the uniform, and they know just how much those pants accentuate their ass. They know exactly how much attention they're drawing, make no mistake.

I don't know if most of you notice, but a lot of women don't shower before coming to work. I personally don't care if you guys don't shower in the morning even though I religiously shower every morning, but apparently these women are used to not showering and most of their perfumes and sprays just cover up that smell. You only notice the stench in the really fat cows because they sweat a lot and smell worse, but the thinner ones are just as bad.

The standard excuse is that their hairdo would be ruined if they took a shower, or their skin would become dry, or they don't have time, what will all the other primping a ho must do. Just don't EVER take a whiff of their hair - I almost fainted when I was helping out a particularly pretty blonde with something on her computer, and I thought she'd smell nice so I just took in a breath when I was near her head. I just about gagged, it was that horrible.

Most of the time they put perfume in their hair or one of those leave-in conditioners so it doesn't smell like shit.


It found that while women continue to reach high-powered positions in the workplace, they are still prone to indulging in what could be described as typically female behaviour.

Crying in the loos was a common confession with 85 per cent of women admitting that they had locked themselves in the office toilet for a quick weep.

See, this is the kind of double standard that I hate. They can be all professional and not-taking-shit one moment, all vulnerable and teary-eyed the next. "Quick weep" my ass. They're just attention whores. And woe betide you if you confuse the two. They should be committed for multi-personality disorder, goddamn twats.

And of course they need to be consoled, whatever made them cry has to be dealt with, yadda yadda - remind anyone of their sister?

There are a lot more statistics in the article so go ahead and read it all.

While 70 per cent of women thought that socialising outside office hours brought them more influence at work two in five women had not been invited to traditional male bonding activities such as a round of golf or a game of poker.

Maybe because they aren't any fun and would probably cry sexual harassment on finding out that their male colleague's shots were consistently better and they were more able to suppress their giggling when they got a good hand.