Monday, April 30, 2007

How to destroy a family

I saw this post today on a forum I frequent...

Family troubles

Character introduction:
  • Me - 22 years old
  • "Ashley" - My older younger sister, 20 years old
  • "Megan" - The slut in question, 16 years old
  • Mom
  • Dad
  • Stepmom
  • And then of course the handful of guys who bang Megan

My background:

Mom and Dad divorced when i was 12. Was a nice experience, because that meant no more fighting, throwing stuff etc.

I lived with my mom up until i was 17, where i caught 90% of the blame for every argument occurring in that household, even if i wasn't involved. The usual case would be Megan would do something completely bullshit, Ashley and I would call her on it, then my mom would take sides with Megan because "you 2 are always picking on her." Mom being the authority figure, Megan would get her way, and that would be that. The final straw for me moving out was when my mom started renting my room out to traveling missionaries, christian singers, or whoever the church had by, when i was spending that weekend with my dad. I came home one weekend, yelled at my mom about it, she told me it'd be best if i just left, so i did.

It was a tough move, since my dad was extremely more strict than my mom, but it had to be done. I lived with him for about 2 years, after which he moved in with my (now) stepmom.

Ashley's background:

After i left she became the new "source" of the family troubles. I don't know much of what happened, but i know she too was kicked out in much the same fashion i was. I think what occurred was M decided one day that Ashley's bedroom furniture would look better in her room, so while Ashley was at school Megan and mom switched their rooms (I got the switch pulled on me too, came home with half my poo poo in the hall and the rest in Megan's room, because Megan needs the bigger room because well she's a girl).

Ashley now lives with my grandmother (dad's mom) across town.

Dad is a complex subject because of mom. I love him a lot, he's a great guy, everyone likes him. Sometimes it feels like half the town knows him. At face there's literally nothing wrong with the man, until you talk to mom. They were married for about 15 years and dated about 4, so she's spent some time around the guy. Around the time of the divorce up to today she's told me with conviction that he's a gay whore mongering pedophile. She's not a very mentally stable woman at all, she's been in and out of clinics and is almost constantly medicated in some way. But still, the assertion raises doubts.

So, to the heart of it. All signs point to my sister being not just a sexually active girl, but one of if not the one of the biggest sluts at her school.

My mom has put her on birth control, since she has admitted to having sex with one of her boyfriends. Almost every time i go over there, which isn't often, maybe once a week or 2 for an hour, i get to meet a new guy.

We also get to hear rumors, which are usually directly from her closest friends, about her recent activities.

The latest of which i've just been informed of by my sister Ashley, which was having sex with 2 black guys one night at the "informant"'s house (Yeah, the first question that popped in my mind was "at the same time?" too, but that information is kind of arbitrary at this point). I can't see any motivation for this guy to make anything up, as I'm pretty sure he's a friend to her (lives down the street).

And before we get into any racial argument, you need to understand two things. The first is that I'm not opposed to interracial couples at all. It's all just a matter of preference to me.

Second, i live in the middle of Alabama. The culture here is a bit extreme. She is also in time and place which falls most victim to these radical points of view, high school. It wasn't long since i was there, and any girl sleeping with black guys is instantly labeled a whore unworthy of mere conversation let alone anything else. And what's worse is that people tend to fall into the character that others stereotype them into. If Megan becomes cast out from most of society, she is going to fulfill her role as class slut and only hang around the only people who will hang around her who are only hanging around her for one thing.

As for me, i don't get into the whole big brother "i'm gonna whoop some rear end" way of thinking. It's her life, whatever. Hell, i don't even like her. Only a few years ago it took everything i had not to beat her face in (did i tell you she had the habit of throwing heavy objects at my face, at the best times, like in the middle of chewing up my dinner? Oh, and she received literally ZERO punishment for doing this, nothing more than a sharp "Megan!" from my mother followed by Megan saying something like "I fucking HATE ALL OF YOU" and running to her room and locking the door, waiting for my mom to go fill up on pills and be too drugged up to do anything, God i just need to die my hair black and cut myself, but yeah. And i know you're thinking that i did something to warrant this, but it'd all be because of something trivial that i'd say, that most would take as a joke. Like for instance, Megan would go shopping with mom, while me and Ashley were too old to go do that. Megan would make sure to take every snack food and every sweet she convinced mom to buy and hide it somewhere in her room. Then one day Megan would scream across the house "Mom we're out of food go buy some!" and i'd say something like "did you check your room?" eliciting a giggle out of Ashley and myself. About 15 seconds later WAM candlestick to the face, etc)

But i'm close to Ashley. She's a great girl, and for some reason whenever my mother has to go to the hospital or Megan gets gang-banged or w/e she gets all emotional and takes it on herself to do something about it.

So i'm thinking about what to do. I'm sure i wouldn't even have to explain the situation to my dad, maybe just utter the word "black guys" and he'd be fighting for custody, which i'm pretty sure he could get. As you can tell by now my mom isn't the most responsible person. She also has almost no income and gets all her bills paid by griefing one of her parents (they're divorced) to pay for them.

My mom is in probably the worst psychological state i've seen her in in a while. I'm thinking getting Megan taken away may be good for her. On the other hand though, it may be removing her closest "friend" and leaving her a lonely old woman (well, late 40's).

Of course Megan doesn't want to go, hell she'd probably fake suicide attempts if it ever came down to it.

But aha, here's the rub.

My mom tonight has reiterated her assertion that my dad is a pedophile. I know for a fact that he's never even come close to doing anything to me. But Ashley is having second thoughts about sending her down there, because she said that my dad would quite often fall asleep in her room, which later on, after the divorce, has commonly been her and Megan's room. Ashley said that he's come close to all out spooning Megan on a number of occasions. Now, it's not so weird that he slept in our rooms when he and mom were married (indeed, it's the only time he's ever slept in the same room as me), but he did so even when he was living with my (now) stepmom, the last occurrence being 2 years ago i think.

I remember when i was really young he'd fall asleep next to me. He'd never touch me or anything, just crash. He's a hard working guy, so i can understand it. And like i said he has a heart of gold.

But between Ashley's testimony and Mom's i'm getting a little iffy about trying to get her sent down there. Ashley is extremely torn over the subject. I'm definitely leaning towards her moving to my dad's, because the chance that he is a pedophile, coupled with the chance that my stepmom would allow it (she seems to be extremely nice etc as well), is really small, while the chance of her becoming, if not already being, a huge slut is pretty substantial.

And like i said, i probably wouldn't even care. I'd let her fuck her little life up and hope dad could stay blissfully ignorant as long as possible if it wasn't for Ashley calling me near tears about how she can't sleep etc.

And if we follow through on Megan's moving to my dad's, I'm also thinking about approaching my stepmom and saying something to the extent of "hey, i know this is going to sound silly, but my mom is bent on the idea that my dad is a pedophile and she's been telling us this for years, so even though it's a bit of an crazy request, just keep an eye on him please"

There's a big chance she'd just tell him what i said in a "lol you'll never guess what your son told me today" fashion, but at least if there *is* a danger he'd at least know other people know and might keep it to himself. If there's not, he'll probably just roll his eyes and wish for the 107,376th time in his life that he'd never met my mom.

You know, fuck everything. If you don't show affection, you're labeled a cold-hearted monster who doesn't love anyone and you are probably a serial killer waiting to break free. If you do show affection, you are a fucking child molester.

This is why I don't want to fucking marry, this is why I don't want to fucking have kids, and this is why I'm staying as fucking far away as I can from any western woman.

You might say, "Well Pete, you get crazies everywhere, why pick on these poor wikkly oppressed white wimmens??"

To that I say, hopefully the country where I do marry will not have man-hating laws that enable women to take a man for all he's worth. I accept that petty thieves and crooks are everywhere, but I draw the line at state-sponsored highway robbery.

Just the fact that his own children have been poisoned to the point that they can't trust their own father is reason enough to not have kids here. I wonder if they even know that their father has probably sacrificed his own life and his hard work for them, oh noooo I bet the cuntmom has told the kids that their father doesn't pay child support, he's a deadbeat and what not, while she's on the way to checking out her balance and making sure the child support is in so the check for the Prada handbag won't bounce.

Fuck everyone and peace out.

Divorce and Child Support

Outcast Superstar has just finished four articles on Child Support and what he has summarized is very powerful. He is doing a series of summaries on the book From Courtship to Courtroom: What Divorce Law is Doing to Marriage by Jed Abraham. I'm almost happy he can only do one article every few days because if I were to pick up the book and start reading, I'd almost certainly develop ulcers.

Part 45

Part 44

Part 43

Part 42

Feminists, women and collaborationists invariably say that men are too attached to money when it comes to child support, as if money is just a passing thought in their ethereal lives, in their lives spent above the plane of human existence. Or they don't really give a fuck about other men's woes, since you'll notice they're not ascetics or beggars themselves. Noooo, they've instead made a career out of telling men that their hard-earned money is better when its transferred to the mother.

And the best part is, we're supposed to be embarassed when some bitch who is in a cushy job thanks to affirmative action says that money should not be all-important. They would know huh.

For hundreds of years men happily handed over their paychecks to their wives so that the home could be run smoothly. Men acted selflessly, and part of that was society's steadfast refusal to accept a man who was beholden to no one.

Now these vile cunts have the gall to say that men should transfer a sizeable after-tax amount of our paychecks to women because the bitch lied about being on birth control or is raising someone else's child on our money, and we're supposed to be happy about it?? FUCK THAT!

I'm pissed! Money is what I'm slaving away at my job for and ain't no lying bitch gonna take it away from me! If money is not that important, give me custody and have her give me child support! She'll learn in a jiffy what the value of a fucking dollar is when it doesn't "magically" appear in her bank accunt.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Is there no end?

I am a big fan of my local library - it supplies me with Warren Farrell books, new music and keeps my girlfriend occupied with the excellent DVD selection, all for free.

I usually check out a few CDs from there every couple of weeks, and just yesterday I checked out Anniemal, by Annie. As soon as I heard the first track, I knew I loved it. The rest of the CD didn't really disappoint either, which is a rarity with the state of most popular music today.

So I went online today, researched her, and read the reviews on Amazon. I also found out that the track which I liked so much was called "Chewing Gum" and it was the hit single out of that album. So far, so good.

So I decided I'd look up the lyrics, and I turned on the CD and started reading the lyrics... if you would like to listen, go to and type "chewing gum" in the search box.

No.5 - Annie, "Chewing Gum"

Hey Annie, well, look at you!
Is that a new boy stuck on your shoe?
Come on Annie, how is it so?
You've always got a new bubble to blow

I'm gonna tell you how it's gonna get done
I'm just a girl that's only chewing for fun
You spit it out when all the flavour has gone
Wrap him round your finger like you're playing with gum


Hey Annie, you used to be
The only girl to take it seriously
Come on Annie, tell us your trick
On how you keep on getting boys to stick

Okay, I'll tell you why - you'll never look back
It's my selection it's my pick of the pack
Well hot dog, I'm a chewing machine
It makes me smile and keeps my teeth clean
Why? Why???


Why the fuck is everything in the media so fucking misandric? Of course, she never tells us about her secret as to why she always has boys clamoring for her attention, but I'll give you a thousand words...

This is why everyone is after you Annie, its because you're a genetic celebrity and we're genetic groupies, all vying for a place in the limelight.

Is it just me guys, or is practically every famous song sung by female singers misandric? When have guys ever written such songs about women? Maybe its because men innately don't want to mistreat women? Maybe its because guys are innately honorable and chivalrous towards girls?

Maybe female singers are just jealous that male singers get all the groupies ;-)

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The Female Commitment Shift

I was again reading Why Men Are The Way They Are, and found this tidbit... perfectly illustrates what I fear in marriage.

Item: Trial marriage, the American Couples study found, differs from the institution of marriage in one major respect: "A woman who intends to quit her job will not do so until the marriage has occured."

Item: Forty-five percent of single women (vs. twenty-three percent of single men) live with their parents. For women, commitment often means going from their parents to a man. And should they break up with a man, their relationship with their man is ten times more likely to improve again.

Trial marriage means cohabitation of course. Its like marriage, but without the juicy "support me through sickness and health" part that makes it so appealing for women.

You know, this kind of stuff is why marriage is a raw deal for men. All the "EKWALITEEEEEE" screaming women banshees magically turn into house-dominating harridans upon marriage, quit their work and start eating bonbons while watching Oprah and shouting at her husband to finish working on the car so he can get to cleaning the gutters.

A man should be as afraid of marriage as a normal, everyday woman is afraid of being raped - the fear of being raped is cultivated, but the fear of marriage is discouraged. Men should take at least as many precautions against marriage as many women take against being raped.

Marriage is the rape of a man's wallet, bank account, retirement, of his life.

Dr. Farrell goes on...
Both of the above "items" reflect aspects of the "female commitment shift." They are perhaps best illustrated by Colette Dowling, author of The Cinderella Complex. Dowling recalls how when she made a commitment to a man by moving in with him, she "found herself" sliding from being a full-time professional writer who supported herself and her three children before moving into "letting" her new living partner become the sole supporter of her three children, herself and himself. He resented her shift. She recalls, "I hadn't anticipated the startling collapse of ambition that would occur as soon as I began sharing my home with a man again." and moreover, "I didn't even seem to be aware of the inequity."

Now imagine a woman telling her friend: "When we moved in together I supported him, his three children by another woman, and myself. I didn't even seem to be aware of the inequity."
It would be impossible for any woman to be unaware of the inequity of moving in with a man and immediately supporting him and his three children - without even a marital commitment. Impossible because the woman's mother, father, and women friends would let her know in no uncertain terms: "He's using you. Are you sure he really loves you?"

A man's commitment to a woman can mean her shifting from working out of necessity to working for fulfillment, thereby postponing his ability to make the shift himself.

If a man wants to commit to an independent woman with a blossoming career and believes he has found her, should he be fearful that once he commits she will become pregnant to avoid career anxiety? Dr. Ruth Molton, of Columbia University, and Judith Bardwick, author of The Psychology of Women, both suggest that he should. Even highly talented women, Moulton finds, "often become pregnant to avoid anxiety about their blossoming careers."

In what she calls the "pregnancy-to-avoid" syndrome, Bardwick explains that college-educated mothers complain about boredom and claim to want to return to work: however, "It's easy to talk, but difficult to face potential failure and loss of self-esteem. As their children grow older and the possibility of entering into a profession becomes a reality, their interest declines. The logical and salient mechanism for prohibiting entrance into the occupational world is an accidental pregnancy."
Men are much more likely to provide economically for women in marriage than in cohabitation. And women are 40 percent more likely than men to prefer marriage over cohabitation. Once married, though, both sexual quality and sexual frequency decrease.

As shown by Outcast Superstar's What Divorce Law is doing to Marriage series, divorce is not a cake walk. And marriage definitely isn't, as opening your eyes and looking around will tell you.

Don't marry. Its like going to Vegas and putting it all on red, except that if the ball ends up on black, you get thrown in prison, contract AIDS and everything you work for is snatched from you and given to your ex-wife. Oh, and if it ends up on red, you just become a slave for life.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Women getting arrested? Time to change the laws!

We all know that, for some reason, the media is giving more coverage to female teachers raping young boys nowadays. Of course, the coverage is not the same that a man would get - no way, no how. Most of the time, the story is built up so you sympathize with the poor female teacher who was hopelessly in love and ended up flouting societal taboos. Is there ever a popular story where a woman isn't the heroine? Take Bridges of Madison County, if you exchange the sexes you will have a prime-time action flick where the wife murders the hubby in the end and makes him pay child support from the heavens above!

But anyway. There's been a load of such stories lately, and female teachers are getting all the attention. So what should the sexist, bigoted, man-hating, evil, misandric feminist witches do? Or, what would collaborationists do?

Check this out. I saw this post on a forum I visit:

Thread Title:
About female teachers having sex with high-school students.


For a recent example (even though she's a teacher's aid):
Pics (That's a mugshot. She probably looks great in person with a smile on her face).©type=2


Most people assume that it is the bad bad teacher who seduced the poor innocent student but maybe the increase in such cases in recent years is due to the high-school dudes being more confident and/or less wary of consequences and they are the ones initiating contact and insisting, seducing the teachers. Maybe the high-school male students are more inclined by current mass media to be sexually active and see a decent-looking teacher as a badge of honour.

I only taught at university level and was by no means superhandsome but I had to say no to two second-year lady students in my 15y career. Grades have become so important now that some students are willing to boink their professors for a grade increase. Some will even threaten the prof with false allegations (one reason why we had to keep our office doors open when talking to a student). Even when proven innocent, the stigma of false accusations of sexual misconduct will irrevocably damage one's career. I saw this happen to one prof at another university.

Anyway, maybe it was not for a better grade but I have a feeling that current high-school dudes are more openly sexed up and that some will take advantage of cute profs if given the chance. The female prof may resist at first but the student can be tenacious and finally get her at a vulnerable time in her personal life.

Of course, there are also cases when the teacher is the oversexed one but I think that the media tend to underestimate the student's role in the affair, even though legally the prof will take the whole burden.

It takes two to tango.

Yes siree, this is what we're up against. The woman has to be the victim, the man has to be the perpetrator. And I've seen this guy's photo, which I can't stop attaching to every post he makes - fat, balding, ugly, greasy, all the adjectives that would fly thick and fast towards a "troll" such as myself, were I to join the discussion with my point of view.

Make no mistake, NOW and SOW and all the other feminist headquarters are probably full of lawyers and judges busy thinking of get-out clauses, because the chivalry and the goodwill is going to run out sooner or later and then these women won't have the free pass they now do to commit sexual and physical abuse of children.

You know, I actually agree with some of the arguments, but you would never in a million years hear them apply these arguments to a man caught in a compromising situation with a 17 year old girl, so I'm not going to support any of this shit when a women-firster is saying it to drum up sympathy.

Look at what the asshole says when confronted with logic:

Why does the woman have to take the passive role? If a teacher, female or male, can't resist the sexual advances of minors, then he or she should find another career.

Well, they can be persistent rude little pigs, you know.

Then the rest of the apologists joined the discussion, with some pointing out that the women may have been abused (implying that the chance of past abuse is very high, thus passing the blame on to a man) or that the teachers were hot or whatever.
And of course, the old standby: Man, I wish my Math teacher would have been willing when I was in HS.

We must work hard to make sure that nothing of the sort passes - no law should be made that lets off female perpetrators because they were female or because their victims were male. As it is, I'm sure a man convicted of gay pedophilia gets a longer term than a female convicted of pedophilia - the laws and the judges don't care about the victim when its a boy, they're too busy playing the chivalrous gent.

Mark my words, there will soon be a law quietly passed in the hush of midnight that exonerates female teachers from their sex crimes. Then politicians and feminists will gloat that men make up the majority of sex offenders and they should be tortured to protect innocent little girls.

Its for the children, you see. All of it.

Time for a quote:
IMO. This 15 year old kid should takes the full responsibiltiy and should be held in court and be punished alongside with his abuser. He may be a minor in our legal system but his dick ain't that matter.

Monday, April 23, 2007

On Payday, its still a Man's world

Saw this on CNN... Study: Gender gap hits after graduation, widens later.

A dramatic pay gap emerges between women and men in America the year after they graduate from college and widens over the ensuing decade, according to research released on Monday.
One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.

You know, whenever you come across a study or piece of research, it is very important to see who has funded/done the study.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
This study just lost all its credibility in my eyes, because its just more of the same dreck that comes out of feminist think tanks claiming women are oh-so-oppressed while assuming that women do make the same choices. The AAUW is the same group of cunts who put forward the "study" showing that girls were being short-changed in schools. They have a history of lying.

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

"These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force."

Yeah sure, I believe you. L-oh-fucking-L. What flawed mechanisms did you use to get that result? How many lies did you fill in that one sentence? Why is your nose growing longer, you fucking cunt?

The implication is that women make the same choices as men, which is true - as far as going to college goes. After that, women overwhelmingly choose the "fluff" fields, carefully calculated to make their college careers as easy as possible, while men slog it out in the hard subjects. Go check out the Engineering building sometime you cunt, and count just how many patriarchal oppressors you see, and compare that to the number of vaginas. Then go to the Education department.

Now that you've done your research, look up an Engineer's salary on and compare it to how much a Kindergarten teacher makes.

Now print that out, roll it up, and STICK IT UP YOUR ASS!

Specifically, about one-quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender - 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation, it said.

One year out of college, men and women should arguably be the least likely to show a gender pay gap, the study said, since neither tend to be parents yet and they enter the work force without significant experience.

If there was "only" a 5 percent difference in teen suicides, in the number of men who go into psychology compared to women, or pretty much any situation where men are disadvantages, it would be attributed to statistical error or "it is just how it is."

How many women care that men die, on average, 7-10 years younger? Its just biology, right?

What I got out of this article is that men work harder, take the harder courses in college, are less likely to be an entitlement princess waiting for some sucker on a white horse to come along, and are less likely to slack in the workplace.

All stereotypes of women, ALL FUCKING TRUE. Women just don't work as hard as men because they know, whether they are "traditional" or not, that its the man's job to provide for both of them. And there ain't going to be much providin' going on with a Kindergarten teacher's salary, which is why all the men in Education have Ph D's and teach at the Professor level.

Female students tended to study areas with lower pay, such as education, health and psychology, while male students dominated higher-paying fields such as engineering, mathematics and physical sciences, it said.

Even so, one year after graduation, a pay gap turned up between women and men who studied the same fields.

In education, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn, while in math, women earn 76 percent as much as men earn, the study showed.

Here's the explanation you need - women don't work as hard and are not as good at mathematics as men.

There, I said it.

UPDATE: Thanks to Anonymous, I'm posting the actual AAUW article: get it at

And here is where the trolls are coming from:

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Language, selfishness and enlightenment

Saw this in page 157 of Why Men Are The Way They Are by Warren Farrell:

Commitment valued for its own sake, then, tempts "falling in love" to commit rather than genuinely falling in love. This encourages a fragile family life. A parallel pressure occurs for women when we call women selfish if they choose to not have children - we generally recognize this now as unenlightened.
I have discussed how a single woman is called a career woman, while a single man who supports himself is called a playboy. He may pay for her play as well as his own - but he hasn't "grown up" until he pays for her life. Ironically, a woman who commits and becomes financially dependent is considered more mature than a man who doesn't commit but is financially independent.

When I realized this, something clicked in my head. This happens a lot with Warren Farrell's books and I always love it when that happens.
Ever since feminism came about, or as I like to refer to it, the Female Supremacy Movement, anything that refers to women in a negative light has gradually been eliminated, censored or legislated away. Look at Career Woman - such a positive term, positively laden with good vibes and energy. It implies a smart, well-dressed woman who is not afraid to say no. I'm sure that there must have been many negative pseudonyms for "single, childless woman" but with the advent of feminism they were deemed misogynistic and only adjectives that referred to men in a negative light were allowed - only misandric opinions were politically correct, since women were naturally as pure as the driven snow, innocent of the original sin, and free of the bounds that made the "rest of us" racist, sexist, homophobic, and what have you. A select few took it upon themselves to brand their chosen opinions as the "right" ones and censor everything else. Sound familiar? It should - its been repeated countless times throughout history.

A playboy is such a negative term - even when a man uses it, it doesn't carry many positive vibes. I can fully imagine a jealous man or a collaborationist using it to describe a man who gets more pussy than he does - to a feminist, to his wife, to his daughter, and so on. If a man is getting respect and admiration for his ability to snag pussy, he is usually referred to as something else, like a player, a god among men, and so on. ;-)

Think of the term "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and think of why the feminists have allowed it to be in such common use. I'm sure its come up in many domestic violence cases where the woman was the perpetrator, which of course she can never be according to the Duluth Model, the official government-endorsed bit of feminist theory that is used in every domestic violence shelter across the country, maybe even across the Western World.

Call a woman selfish for not having children or for aborting the ones she didn't want to have and see how much abuse you get. You just can't call a woman selfish anymore - whether she doesn't cook, doesn't shave her legs, doesn't care for her husband, or doesn't care for her children - her meal tickets. But of course, men are fair game - whether its for a family they don't want to have, or for children they had no say in apart from their genetic matter, which of course carries the risk that the woman was cheating and its someone else's baby the man is told to be responsible for.

Its for the children, you see. All of it.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

The Female Hegemony

Some shaming language from a forum member from

You guys have a serious case of paranoia, it's getting kinda creepy here.

Afer reading a couple of threads on the forum this morning, I am strating to visualize you as a bunch of frustrated nerds with represses homosexual tendencies living in your parents home basement with nothing better to do than vent your frustrations out on a 'seduction' forum in a desperate attempt to reassess your manhood. Is that who you wanna be? If it is then fine, because that's what your posts point at.

I am active in the French community and things are quite different there. Guys exchanging seduction tips and having a laugh.

I have never seen topics such as "Ho's like to be choked" "How to punish a woman" or "My GF's crying makes me wanna laugh"

Guys, just let go. You drowning further and further in a dellusional world of hatred and resentment. I hope this will be a wake up call for at least one of you.
Saw this on a forum that linked to me. You know, ever since I started blogging and consequently stopped ranting about feminism anywhere I could (since I now had an outlet for my frustration and anger), I have pretty much stopped seeing these types of shaming tactics - and if I or another MRA blogger does receive blame and shame like this in the comments section, it is pretty much dissected and dried out by everyone else, exposed for the feeble tactic that it is.

So its a little strange to see all the boxes of feminist bingo checked - the frustrated nerds, homosexuals, living in a basement, trying to reclaim manhood, all of that is there. What a pile of cowshit.

But anyway, moving on...

Ever noticed that you usually can't tell who is defending feminism, whether its a man or a woman? Ever noticed that its pretty much equally likely that the shaming tactics will be coming from a fellow man as from a woman who sounds like she needs to go drown in a tub of Midol?

Ever noticed that every time someone is against feminism, its a man? The situation is very different for the Men's Rights Movement - back when feminism was the big thing, men and women were on the ground, marching - even though feminists hated men, they needed them to pass all the laws, to be their protectors and enablers. Most of the feminists would not have had time to write and be activists if their husbands hadn't set them up for life - if these cunts had not married up looking for a cushy life, as women are wont to do.

Those of you who have engaged people (both men and women) in debate about feminism will know what I'm talking about here - when there is any sort of slight against women or feminism, real or imagined, men and women will come to defend women/feminism.

However, when there are injustices committed against men, out comes the shaming language and outmoded notions like chivalry and men supporting women. Funny how that traditional stuff only works one way right? Only when it benefits women. Heaven forbid a woman should need to work for the free ride and the awesome job of raising a child, spending time with the child, making the child into a smaller version of herself with the husband's money.

Its a fine position to be in, a woman. A really sweet gig. Not only do you get to defend yourself and your sex, but you know that every woman out there will back you up without giving the man so much as a fair shake. An enviable position, to be sure.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Amy the feminist cunt bandwagon

Amy from Scorpio Risen said:
"Are you sick of the normalisation of pornography in our society? Do you find it distinctly un-funny and not ironic in any way when you see young girls wearing tee-shirts with slogans like 'Future footballers wife' or 'supermodel in training'? Are you fed up with seeing shelves full of porn when you pop to your corner shop for milk or buy a paper at the station? Do you despair when you hear that the pay gap between women and men is still around 20%? Does it make you outraged that there are more licensed lap dancing clubs in Britain today than there are Rape Crisis centres? What do you think about the fact that today only 1 in 20 rapists are convicted, compared to 1 in 3 in the 1970's? Do you wonder why we talk so much about sex in our society yet never seem to talk about sexual violence? Does it make you mad that 1 in 3 girls are sexually assaulted before their 16th Birthday? Do you wonder why nobody ever asks what right men have to buy and sell sexual access to women's bodies, rather than simply blaming women who work in prostitution? Do you think its disgusting and shameful that every night over 5000 young people go out to work on our streets in prostitution? Do you wonder why we don't criminalise those men who assume a right to buy another human being? Are you tired of seeing the same old stereotypes of women in our media and stick thin models in our clothes stores and adverts, do you think this is linked to the fact that over half of size 12 girls describe themselves as 'fat'?"

What a fucking pointless tirade. Let me take it piece by piece, relish each scatter-brained notion on its own, a tiny morsel of your brain to chew on with every little asinine comment. Looks like in addition to not shaving her legs, she also don't wash her vag, must be why she's all like "people are teh judgging me!!! oppression!!" when nobody wants to hang out with her smelly self. Hey you cunt, here's a word for you - DEODORANT. Use it.

On to the paragraph-less tirade...

I'm not sick of the normalization of pr0n in our society at all. Hell, I think we need to celebrate porn! And all the fine individuals that make it! Of course, I also think we should get rid of the wage gap and representation of men in porn - have you noticed how women are depicted as real persons, with faces, facial expressions and voices in porn movies, while men are reduced to flesh-colored dildoes?
Of course, I'd be lying if I said that I enjoy looking at the man's face when I myself am at the point of no return, but when did feminists let facts get in the way of ideology? Fight fire with fire, right! Although I do draw the line at not using deodorant like feminist cunts.

I do find it distinctly scummy and dirty when young sluts spread their legs for any john with a bit of cash and look askance at the nice guys, who either don't spend their money on the sluts or don't have any to begin with. I do think little girls start training to be mommy's little whores as soon as they start to realize what kind of an effect they have on boys. Do you think the little sluts at the mall dress the way they do because they are so innocent they don't know better? FUCK NO!! They know all about how much power they have over the boys.

I'm not fed up with seeing porn for men because I'm not fed up of goddamn Harlequin romance novels and Danielle Steel and Better Homes and Gardens and Bride Magazine and shit. Just because women don't get off with the same stuff that men do doesn't make porn dirty you vile cunt.

I don't despair that the pay gap is 20%, I despair that it isn't more - more and more females taking the place of men in jobs that they are ill suited for and getting paid way more than they're worth - getting pregnant and skipping out with shore leave in the navy, avoiding deployment and desertion court martial pleadings by faking sexual harassment in the army, doing the job of a hole in the ground by holding a fucking SLOW sign while men work, and asking your male colleagues to do the heavy lifting so you don't break a fucking nail.

It doesn't affect me that there are more lap dance clubs than rape crisis centers just as it doesn't affect me that there are more nail salons than moustache waxing salons. It does extremely bother me that there are a shitload more vag-only domestic violence shelters than domestic violence shelters for men.

Only 1 in 20 rape convictions go through? Tsk tsk. I do think we need to do something about that. Let's start with a beheading of any woman found to be lying of rape. Couple that with lifetime imprisonment for any female who threatens a man with a false rape allegation and we're on to something.

We talk about sex so much because females are the ones selling and men are the ones buying. I do wish they were selling it cheaper but that's it. I'm not really worried about sexual violence.

Women have the right to sell their bodies as whores just as much as men have the right to sell theirs doing hard, back-breaking labor. You fucking beastly feminists would have it that men could only get access to women's bodies after signing a lifetime contract for indentured servitude - that little sexual revolution came back to bite you on the ass didn't it?

I think its awesome that so many people go out and sell their bodies every night - by the way did you count all the truckers hauling 80,000 lb loads? Or the men going out to work in a night when tears freeze on one's eyelids and turn into icicles hitting the pavement? I've done that and its no piece of cake compared to a whore earning 100x what I earn just laying on her back.

Thin women are great, I really like it when I can hug my girlfriend and not feel like I'm hugging Mama Bear, as it doubtless feels with all these budding Andrea Dworkins, fat and hairy bleeding vaginas that they are.


Friday, April 13, 2007

Woman benefits from man's connections, man in trouble

The Chief of the World Bank has apparently arranged a job for a woman who had sex with him... now he has to lean on his sword because the relationship was found out. How much did the woman stand to benefit?

She stood to earn a cool $193,500 a year -$10,000 a year more than Condoleeza Rice.
WASHINGTON, April 12 — Paul D. Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank, apologized today for his role in arranging a highly paid job at the State Department for a woman with whom he has a personal relationship.

“I made a mistake, for which I am sorry,” Mr. Wolfowitz said in a statement on the World Bank’s Web site. He said that in retrospect he should have “trusted my original instincts” and stayed out of the job negotiations involving the woman, Shaha Ali Riza.

Mr. Wolfowitz seemed to be throwing himself on the mercy of the World Bank board members, who are meeting today. “I will accept any remedies they propose,” he said in his statement. He had promised earlier to “cooperate fully” with the board’s review of the episode.

“I cannot speculate on what the board is going to decide,” Mr. Wolfowitz told The Associated Press.

But the World Bank’s staff association said today that Mr. Wolfowitz had “compromised the integrity and effectiveness” of the bank and “destroyed the staff’s trust in his leadership,” and so should resign, The A.P. said.

Mr. Wolfowitz, 63, has said that he arranged for Ms. Riza’s transfer because World Bank rules bar the institution’s employees from supervising anyone with whom they have a personal relationship, and that he consulted the bank’s executive board. But the transfer — and Ms. Riza’s salary, which the Government Accountability Project, an independent watchdog group, said is $193,500, about $10,000 more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s, even without tax breaks enjoyed by bank officials — only fueled more resentment among bank employees.
And how much is she being forced to apologize for using Wolfowitz to get her to this position? Oh wait, she's a member of the royal sex, and has no consequences attached to her actions! Wolfowitz was obviously using her for sex, oh and he abused her too I bet, that face looks like a batterer's face to me, and he even has the instruments of torture, oppression and harassment dangling between his legs!

Its really sickening how only the man's role in cases like this is considered - as if the woman was just a third-party who had nothing to lose or gain from this situation, and who was just like a leaf in the wind, blown every which way by the vagaries of men around her.

She should be sacked and have to pay reparations to the man she displaced and to Wolfowitz.

Some new MRA blogs

I've been following a few MRA blogs for a while now with the handy dandy Google Reader, and I think its time to put them on my blog... I really like reading their blog, and I think they should write more. ;-)

An Irishman Against Feminism

Faustus' Liar

Hawaiian Libertarian

Male Rights Blog

Men's Rights Board

The General's Blog

Kumogakure School


Thursday, April 12, 2007

Titanic repeat shows that men are still expendable

Greek incident shows "men still considered expendable"

While men and women are supposed to be considered "equal" under the law, no one seemed to think that in the outrage that occurred last week during the Greek cruise ship disaster: the assumed expendability of the male passengers. While most people probably take for granted that a lot has changed since the days of the Titanic, when it comes to Maritime law, everything is still 1912. When the Greek liner went aground and began to sink, the dreaded "women and children first" slogan was announced over the PA, and men were not allowed to disembark before all women had been saved.

Not only is this sentiment purely sexist in its own right, but it pre-supposes
(a) that the lives of women are worth more then the lives of men,
(b) that women must be protected by men and therefore it is the duty of men to give up everything - life, rights, etc.
(c) that all of the children on board will have a female parent/guardian available to take care of them on shore while they wait for male parent/guardian to be released.
This really is a fucking outrage. Its like some woman being told that she may not work at an office.. no, some woman being told she can't abort the baby, naah no way... ah crap I'm thinking of a situation where a woman would actually be asked, no, told to sacrifice her own life for that of someone else, and I can't think of any. Bah.

It is really a fucking outrage that in this day and age of feminism, of ekwaliteeee, and of men and women supposedly marching shoulder-to-shoulder, that as soon as women's lives are in danger, all the gloves come off and men are forced to the back of the line.

It is all a fucking outrageous lie - governments are least interested in actual equality, all they want is to please the female populace - the royal sex - at all costs, since the men will either sacrifice themselves or be forced to, while no one would even dare to ask any woman to sacrifice herself for her man or even her child - remember the rights of the mother always trump the rights of the child if there's a conflict.

The last thing feminists want is actual equality, but we all knew that. Its really infuriating that after being spoonfed the message of sex equality/equity/fuckwittery, we're just told that it was a lie all along, women will always get the lifeboats, men will always get the icy seas, and if you're lucky, you will only have to swim a few hundred yards instead of dying in the water.

There are some people making excuses along the lines of "this was in Greece" and whatnot, but the chilling reality is that whether this happened in the bloody English Channel or the Arctic ocean, the outcome would be the same - hundreds of men will find a watery grave.

And its not the patriarchy that will be holding us back, it will be each other - some man you say hello to while boarding may become a deranged lunatic keeping you away from the lifeboats with a broken bottle, the handsome waiters may be called upon to restrain any man who tries to get on the lifeboats with the royal sex, the cunt that screams "ekwaliteeeeee" on land will hiss and spit at you and shame your entire family if you try and show her how equal-minded and forward-thinking you actually are.
Strilchuk, 16, said she and her friends had no life jackets. When she saw a man clutching one, she pleaded with him to hand it over.
She said she made a fist and punched him in the face when he wouldn't.
"He was holding it and he was 40 years old and we were kids," she explained, adding that she pulled the life jacket from him and gave it to a friend.
Strilchuk said she later punched another man and took his life jacket for herself.
I'm incensed! Talk about a fucking entitled cunt! She fucking told two men that their lives were not as important as hers and her friends!! And mark my words, the only reason the men didn't fucking drop these bitches asses right there, if they weren't chivalrous gentlemen themselves, was because they knew they would get the shit kicked out of them for daring to interfere with the royal sex.

And because they needed to sacrifice a man...

The ship's captain was charged Saturday with causing a shipwreck through negligence, a charge that carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.

The captain was indicted along with the other crew members on blanket charges of causing a shipwreck through negligence, breaching international shipping safety regulations and polluting the environment, the Cyclades islands public prosecution office said.

Wanna bet that all of these crew members facing criminal charges are men?

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

UK News Roundup

I've been busy installing Ubuntu Linux on my home desktop after giving it a trial run on another computer. It worked fabulously on that other computer, but my main desktop has a blasted ATi video card which has little to no support on Linux.

You know, Linux has come a long way from when I first tried out Red Hat and later, Mandrake. A long long way. Now Live CDs are common, you can play games or surf the net while installing, and its generally very very easy as long as you stay away from installing stuff that is not supported, like Beryl. Oh Beryl. That sweet sweet 3D window manager that Vista and OS X can't hold a candle to. Why won't you run on my pithy little ATi Radeon 9600? Should I throw away the card and run the integrated nForce2 graphics? Will that make you happier?

On to the news...
UK Says No to Megan's Law.
The US law, named after Megan Kanka, 7, who was murdered by a convicted sex offender, gives parents access to names and addresses of known paedophiles.
Instead, the Home Office may allow parents to request information about people left unsupervised with children.

US readers will be familiar with Megan's Law - a male-demonizing crap law that treats fathers looking for some time with their children as worse than murderers and child rapists (female of course). Just recently, there was a huge manhunt launched for a father who kept his daughter for a longer time than the visitation allowed. Rather like a pimp beats up a john who keeps a whore longer than he paid for, police came in to arrest the man who dared to keep his daughter away from her mother - arrested him in a restaurant in full public view, in front of his own flesh and blood. Every time I see an Amber Alert on the highway, I pray that if it is not a criminal being hunted, he escapes persecution. Because it is never a woman. Nope, never. Even when they kidnap their children and the father reports it to the police, it is treated as a non-serious matter. Because after all, the mother is the true parent. The father is just a walking wallet. A mere ATM machine.

'Woman' bomber hits Iraq police.
A suicide bomber reported to be a woman has attacked a police recruiting centre in Iraq, leaving at least 14 dead.
About 20 people were reported to have been wounded in the attack on a large crowd of would-be officers at a centre in Muqdadiya, north-east of Baghdad.
Nothing out of the ordinary here, just an example of how they are 'woman' suicide bombers, not female suicide bombers.

Woman loses final embryo appeal
A woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner. Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up. She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process.
Ms Evans, 35, said she was "distraught" after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said "common sense had prevailed."
But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed.
Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission. She has argued he had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and he should not be allowed to change his mind.
Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted.

This is the most interesting bit today. So apparently this cunt doesn't want to admit that she waited too long and her disease-ridden body is no place for a baby to grow. Of course, she probably also wanted that sweet sweet child support and council home that is apparently given out free of charge to single mothers, to encourage broken families.

She has the gall to argue that he, being the man, should be held to a higher standard - that he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind - after all, he doesn't have a vagina! And we all know that changing her mind is the woman's prerogative. Fortunately, common sense prevailed. Its too late bitch, try again next life.

Also look at the pictures - the cunt is shown blubbering and emotional, while the man is shown stoic and unmoved - heartless beast, isn't he, you can almost hear the writer think. They even have a bloody video of her reaction!

Monday, April 09, 2007

Blog Blogger Blogged Bloggest

I saw this Maddox article today, and I was struck by how true it is. I've liked Maddox since I discovered him a few years ago, he always strikes a chord with me. Well, most of the time anyway. Its really funny how he takes apart the self-important blogs - the worst offenders are always the huge ones, like many of the famous feminist and/or political blogs.

The problem with this layout is that there's too much shit to click on. Seriously, who's ever going to click on all those links? The worst blogs are the ones that make every other word a hyperlink to another website so by the time you finish reading this sentence, you've forgotten what you were reading, or why you were reading it in the first place. Hey, this article is great but you know what would make it better? If I could read another article in the middle of it. Great design, morons.

If the thousands of mid-sentence links don't annoy you, the long slender columns of text will. Most of the screen on a blog is blank for an imaginary populace of readers still using 640x480 resolution. I didn't buy a 19" monitor to have 50% of its screen realestate pissed away on firing white pixels, you assholes. They don't print books on receipt paper for a reason. Every time I see this layout, I want to choke the creator with my dry, crackled, and bleeding hands for making my fingers so calloused from having to keep scrolling the mouse wheel to read your dumb "blog."
So true, so true. This is why my layout is the only one that spans text across the screen and doesn't outright suck (at least in my eyes).

Anyway, on to the article...

Happy Birthday Anon 65!

Anonymous 65 enjoys a cake brought by a lovely senorita...

I got this comment today on the "Rape Rape Rape" article that you can read from the sidebar...

I just came back here by google, and was curious to see this again. Hotshot Shanleigh seems to be 14 years old, and in her opinion is filled with the wisdom of the ages. She called me a misogynist fuck, her words, because I don't agree with her stupid, insane definition of rape. She, a prime misandrist fiend, is an example for those who for unknown reasons believe younger women are better than their misandrist older sisters.

Okay, stupid, let me say this again. When a woman marries, she well knows she is giving blanket consent to sex, or she is committing fraud.

This flippant broad definition of rape to include marital sex if the man forgets to say SIMON SAYS belittles the suffering of women who have experienced real rape.

Don't marry in the US, guys, and don't bring a foreign woman to the States. These fiends are insane. Let this misandrist fiend wallow in her STD's and enjoy her cats.

Anonymous age 65
Since just yesterday you went by Anonymous age 64, and now you're going by Anonymous age 65, it follows that today is your birthday!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! May you live to blow out as many candles as the biggest cake can handle, and may your life in Mexico be filled with happiness and joy.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

The Key to Breaking Out

What is the key to breaking out of the cycle of poverty? What is the biggest reason why you can be upwardly mobile these days - going from a lower pay, lower glam-factor job to a higher paying job that puts you a few rungs higher on the social ladder? What is the reason why I'm a well-paid professional these days, from my humble beginnings in a third-world country?

I'm writing this after seeing what The Sharpened Pen wrote on the Honor Network. Saw this on the Honor Network.

The key to breaking out, the key to being upwardly mobile, the key to a life of success that you earn is education.

Today, men aren't being educated. Boys suffer lowered standards, less attention paid to them by teachers, a much higher rate of being labeled retarded, oops "learning disabled," and a higher risk of being put on crack err Ritalin, Adderall or other such drugs. All of this poisoining against boys in the K-12 school system leads to females on the express route to claim more than half of all university degrees - many men enter university with high hopes, but drop out - maybe their one-night stand got pregnant and now is claiming child support, maybe their girlfriend had an "accident" and now he has to provide for three instead of one, maybe he is demoralized by the feminized system of higher education, whatever the reason, men drop out a lot compared to women.

What this leads to is men being only qualified for low-skilled, low-pay jobs in a world where BSs and BAs are like high school diplomas. One group that suffers the most from this is black men - not only have they been fed the gangsta kool-aid, but "acting white" will almost certainly lead to ostracization and ridicule from his peers. Black women on the other hand, are making strides and its common, at least in movies, to see a professional black woman with a black thug. It is a fairly widely-held belief that the African-American population is a crucible for the changes that are going to come into American society as a whole - the welfare phenomenon, the fatherlessness and higher crime, all of these have come into the wider society after infecting the black population first.

Naturally, women want to marry up, and when there are not enough men to marry because all of them have low-paying or low-status jobs, the entire institution of marriage is undermined. Stable marriages are the bedrock of a stable society, and feminism is out to change that.

But forget feminism for a moment. Without an education, a man can not amass wealth easily - he can either get lucky with a business idea or stardom, or he can work hard and somehow break through, but to get a well-paying job, an education is a must. Even if you don't believe in working hard to provide for an ex-wife, you can't deny that money equals a higher quality of life in many ways. Being a college-educated male, you can get a job that is fairly comfortable, lets you work 8 hours a day, leaves you free on the weekends, and gives you enough money to enjoy the weekends and holidays.

With that, Saturday night is over and its time to relish the last day before another work-week. Happy Easter, everybody!

Friday, April 06, 2007

Biological Imperatives

Biology. Genetics. Hormones. All things that we don't really get to decide - none of us do, not the men, not the women - not the blacks, not the whites.

But there's one division - only one group is allowed to use their biology as an excuse, only 52% of the world's population is allowed the use of these Get out of Jail Free cards. Ever noticed how women's biological imperatives are always A-OK? Whether its dumping babies in the trash, gold-digging, murder, acting bitchy on their period or before it, or just being a total bitch, women can always blame it on genetics, evolution, or their hormones.

Now think of a man who doesn't pay child support, who wants to have sex/relationships with only beautiful women, or who displays anger physically. Yeah, not such a pretty picture, is it? Leave alone any violence or aggression towards a woman. Our society and the legal system would feel free to give him an ass-kicking he wouldn't soon forget.

Ever since feminism took hold of the collective consciousness, its been making it as easy as possible for women to "get out of jail free" - look at the woman-only defenses in use at your local courthouse, for example. Only women can get away with murder and be called the victim with excuses like the Battered Women's Syndrome and Postpartum Depression and other such bullshit.

Men? We get to own up full responsibility for our actions. We also get to own up responsibility for any woman around us who needs a convenient scapegoat. This could be your wife, your girlfriend, your mistress, your sister, your mother - it wasn't so long ago that a man was sent to prison in Germany for the crime of incest. Who was he doing this incest with, you ask? His sister, who didn't have to spend a single day in jail. Let me guess, she was the victim, by virtue of her vagina?

This is the heavy stuff - but every day, women are, thanks to a combination of feminism and chivalry, using sexist excuses to get out of the heavy lifting. Had a bad day at work? Well, if you're a man, you can just keep your nose to the grindstone till 5PM, but if you're a woman woe betide any man who questions why you are leaving early.

Having a bad day and just snapped at your co-worker? Well, if you're a man, look forward to polishing up your résumé and/or dealing with assault/harassment charges. If you're a woman, blame it on PMS, the victim, or the color of the walls. Anything will do - men and other women are all too eager to excuse a woman of any responsibility, its in our genes to do so. Chivalry is in our genes. Rather like a pathological strain of some virus which kills you slowly, its in your blood and you can't do a damn thing about it. ♂

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Comment from "I can't marry money, sob moan"

I was over at ChristianJ's blog, reading about this woman who spent around $40,000 on cosmetic surgery solely on her face, trying to attract a man - sorry, a rich man.
Anyway, I followed the link to the story and started reading the comments. There were the usual crazy ones, but this one stood out as being the most feminist.

What gets me is how you rarely hear of men making this kind of effort to attract a woman. it also says a lot about how men are very much focused on looks and not the mind of a woman wheras we women often have to make do with very unattractive men physically as rare is the man who takes care of his appearance to the extremes that women are expected to. Very unfair, don't you think?

- Jamie, Luton
What this sad old bitch has missed are the numerous references to Shahnaz's addiction to wealth in the article - the entire article is about a deluded old 41-year old virgin who spent nearly a year's salary (she earns GBP 25,000 a year as a teacher after decades of studying. Wouldn't you know it?) on cosmetic surgery - with nary a boob job or tummy tuck in sight - all for one goal.

What was her stated goal?
She saw herself married to a wealthy and loving man, living in a period detached house, preferably in some leafy road with two children - naturally a boy first, followed by a little girl.
Some more hints?
At the same time Shahnaz says she answered an ad for a therapist to work for a football club, motivating the team. It was there, during her interview, she met Michael for the first time.
"He was a wealthy businessman who was involved in the running of the club. He was more than 20 years older than me but everything I wanted in a partner," she says.
Come on, that's the patriarchy speaking... right?
"My looks didn’t attract the sort of wealthy, intelligent men like Michael. Instead, they were seedy or unintelligent men who thought, mistakenly, that I would be the right woman for them."
I believe that's sufficient proof that this woman is a total privilege princess who believes the world should be handed to her on a platter by the man she chooses for the task.

So this feminist cuntista glosses over the entire article about this vacuous gold-digger and launches straight into a tirade against men - that we have it so easy, that we focus too much on looks, that women have hearts made of gold to "make do" with less attractive men. She could be channelling Andrea Dworkin for all we know.

And this worldview is typically feminine, not to say that it isn't feminist. Feminists have a hard time looking at themselves in the mirror and not thinking "oh i am sooo oppressed today. where did i put my herbal mask made of baby foreskins again? damn patriarchy, always making me forget stuff!"

Women have only themselves to blame for their emphasis on beauty and youth and sexiness and appearing alluring. But hey, I don't care. I get to look at eye candy occasionally so I'm not complaining about all the hot skanks around - even the 40+ ones because unlike women, I can avert my eyes or just simply not care when something offensive, like that Shahnaz Tart falls into my field of vision.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Shock and Horror! A woman is actually held responsible!

Its pretty well-known that the untouchable sex is the female sex - the stereotypes have been with us for hundreds of years, leading to clichés like "the fairer sex," "my better half," "the gentler sex" and so on. The stereotypes are so ingrained in us that even the upholders of justice refuse to arrest and prosecute women - either because they themselves are biased, or because they believe that the rest of the system is biased.

So I was quite surprised that a woman has actually been held responsible for once - check out the biased headline "Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged". The story is cut and dry -

• Caught with lover, the cunt cries rape; valiant husband shoots fleeing (consensual) lover
• Grand jury charges a member of the divine sex with manslaughter
• Luckily, Texas law exonerates those who believe their actions are justified at time
• The bitch has also been charged with making false report to tha police, a charge not nearly enough to encompass her black heart and heinous actions.

I'm sure that in any other set of circumstances, the woman in this case would have been let off scot-free. Hell, she probably would have claimed that her husband was abusive and made him go to jail so she could go off and enjoy her new lover in the marital bed.

However, do note that she has only been indicted - whatever that means, its apparently not very serious, since she hasn't even been arrested yet. Its a long way to conviction, and even if she is convicted, something tells me she'll get even less than the "two to twenty years" this charge carries. Let me guess, she'll get time off for all the years she spent in the marriage since she's a heroine for getting a lover, Bridges of Madison County style?