Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Strip club patrons hit up for man-hating fee

Texas just passed a law stating that men who go to strip clubs have to pay $5 each time, for a "new state sex assault prevention fund." Beats me why they're only worried about sex assault, and presumably only for females, but that's the reality - men are being forced to give up money for false accusers and real victims, both of which will be overwhelmingly female.

The measure, pushed through the House earlier by Rep. Ellen Cohen, would require the clubs to take a daily count of patrons and pay the state $5 for each one. Those records would be subject to audits from the state comptroller.

It would be up to the clubs to determine how much, if any, of the burden to pass on to the customers.

West had the gumption to call the fee nominal. In other news, West also said that war is peace and freedom is slavery. The burden would of course be passed to consumers in the same way that any mandated fee that is allowed to be passed on is passed on. Think cellphone bill. Do any of you actually pay $39.99 plus taxes? No, they tack on all these fees that you only see once you get the bill.

Anyway, this sets a dangerous precedent. Pretty soon any male-dominated industry will be under the spotlight by big government - "Can we milk these f*ckers some more?"

In other news, I had a great Memorial Day weekend, met Outcast Superstar in person (he's a great guy) and taught my nephew how to swim.

Saturday, May 26, 2007


These are two cards I picked up from adjoining sections in the same store. One is meant for men, one is meant for women.Why the hate, ladies?

Friday, May 25, 2007

Nobody is safe from terrorizing females

And I mean nobody. Some of you may be familiar with the procedure known as "surrogacy," in which an infertile couple hires a surrogate to have a baby. This arrangement is enshrined in law and usually goes well. What usually happens is that either the egg or the sperm is implanted in the surrogate's uterus, where the fetus grows and the baby is delivered.

Now, this Florida couple had a successful surrogacy already - they had a boy born of a surrogate mom. So they tried again. And look what happened.

In a nutshell, the surrogate didn't sign the papers, didn't give up the baby, and is now suing the couple who hired her, for child support.

Can you believe that? Here's the story.

Birth Battle: Couple Says Surrogate Mom Won't Give Up Baby
By Grayson Kamm

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- A couple paid a First Coast woman to have their child because they couldn't conceive on their own. Now, they say she won't give them the baby.
The Lamitinas say they had a great experience having a surrogate mom give birth to their two-year-old son TJ, so they were thrilled to try it again. Through a website, they found and hired a surrogate mother from Jacksonville.
But they say this fairy tale turned foul.
Last year, the couple says it signed a "surrogacy contract" with the Jacksonville woman. But they say since they trusted her, they never checked to see if she signed the document.
Then, two months into the pregnancy, the family says their surrogate started asking strange questions. "Personal questions, like how much money I made doing this, doing that. And then how much money I made at the end of the year," Tom remembered. "My first surrogate never asked me how much money I made."
And then, a letter arrived from the surrogate mother's lawyer.
It says this case is now a "child support issue."
"We didn't think anybody would be that low to use a child as a way to scam people out of money. That's pretty -- I mean -- I just didn't think anybody would be that low," Tom said.
We went to the mother's home in Argyle Forest looking for answers. As we did, a woman sped away. In the back of her minivan was what looked like the handle of a baby's car seat.
At the doorstep, a hand reached out from inside the house and stuck a sign on the front door. It said "No comment," and suggested we contact the surrogate mother's attorney.
So we did.
The surrogate's lawyer, Kelly Hampton, declined an on-camera interview, but said over the phone, "Under the laws of the State of Florida, surrogacy is like adoption. The surrogate mom has the option to keep the baby."
We asked, "Is she asking for child support?" The attorney said, "I'm not going to answer that."
Both sides agreed to a DNA test. A document provided to First Coast News by the Lamitinas showed the test was performed by a company on the First Coast and that the test determined a 99.9999 percent probability that Tom Lamitina is the baby's father.
Tom says the surrogate did cash their $1,500 deposit check.
But still, the couple says the surrogate, who provided the egg, never signed that contract. To them, the motive's clear.
"Fraud. Very fraudulent," Gwyn said. "It's almost like extortion... I have the baby, and you have to do what I want."
The Lamitinas' attorney says he plans to go to court soon, filing a suit to give the family full custody of the baby.

Every day, more and more people learn the hard way about the fucked up laws governing child support and custody.

UPDATE May 26, 2007:

"Here is a clip that updates the situation. She has filed for full custody of the baby and is asking for child support, life insurance, health insurance and stating that the father would not provide a safe environment. What a load. They are awesome parents. Apparently, she had the baby 2 weeks ago and she named her. That is hard because they gave her a different name then what the IP's are referring to her as. Of course she would not use the same name but it just makes this all the more terrible and heartbreaking."

From the article: "They would have to balance the best interest of the child and decide where the child goes, but whoever doesn't have the child the other party is going to have to pay child support," Shorstein said.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Awarding custody to abusers

I saw this article by Glenn Sacks: NOW says Family Courts Are Awarding Custody to Abusers.

Of course, for NOW, father = abuser. No difference. In their mind, the two terms are perfectly interchangeable. All fathers are abusers, and all abusers are fathers. This is the feminist dogma.

The fact is that Family Courts are in fact awarding custody to abusers. In droves. Women are much more likely to commit child abuse than men, they are much more likely to murder their own children than men, and they are more likely to use the child to get back at the man, hurting the child terribly in the process. But does that matter? No! The courts give a woman who has killed her child far less serious sentences than a man who has sex with child - a pedophile. If you are man, you just might get a more serious sentence for pissing in the bushes or for having sex with your underage girlfriend than a woman would get for abusing and killing her children.

If you are a criminal, it is far more profitable to be a woman. Not only are you more likely to have men do your dirty work, but even if you get caught, the judges will hardly sentence you to a fraction of the time they'd give a man. Also, men are never "too pretty for prison" a la Debra LaFave.

Glenn Sacks goes through the entire case history of the very cases the NOW presents as victims and pretty much blows apart their argument. Why has this never been done before? Why does everyone take the word of feminists, of NOW, of women as the truth? Where are the investigations and the fact-finding missions?

I've looked into the three most highly-publicized cases featured by the BMCC and NOW-NYS--the Genia Shockome case, the Sadia Loeliger case, and the Bridget Marks case. In each case, we were told that a fit, loving, protective mother was stripped of custody by an abusive father.

When I first started looking into these cases, I figured there probably were some where the mothers really were mistreated. I still think those cases are out there, but I haven't found them yet. Neither the Shockome case, the Loeliger case, nor the Marks case fit the NOW/BMCC "protective mother losing custody to abusive father" model. None even came close. 

In the Loeliger case, it was the mother who had been found culpable of child abuse by a California juvenile court. The father got custody not due to family court machinations, as the mother's supporters claimed, but because the juvenile court removed the little girl from the mother's care because of the physical abuse.

In the Marks case, all five judges who heard the case, male and female, concluded that she had coached her little girls into asserting that they had been molested by their father.

In the Shockome case, the mother's absolute refusal to co-parent with her ex-husband led the courts--eventually, after giving her many chances--to transfer custody of the kids from Genia to her ex-husband.

A simple cursory check of the facts in the NOW report shows that there is no basis for claims of victimization. But does that matter? Or will the media, the courts accept the report at face value? I think we know the answer. Women, and subsequently feminist organizations, are held to a lower standard. If they lie, its ok.

Also read the article by Sacks on the Shockome Syndrome.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

9 yr old girl calls for police when asked to clean room

A nine-year-old German girl was so upset about having to tidy her room she put up a sign in her window urging passers-by to call police for help.

Pedestrians in the central city of Braunschweig saw the girl crying in the window, holding up a sign up saying "Help! Please call the police!" Next to her sat a small boy.

Quickly alerted, officers rushed to the scene to discover the girl had argued with her mother about tidying her room and enlisted her two-year-old brother's aid to attract attention.

"The room looked like a battlefield," said a spokesman for local police on Monday. "Officers told the girl to tidy her room. When they came back two hours later to check, it was all cleaned up. And the mother and daughter had made up too."

Slow news day I guess, its sort of funny that girls (and women) seem to call the police nowadays for every trivial matter. Help, police! BK doesn't want to give it to me my way!!

Welcome new visitors

What you see may shock you. This is not your typical whining blog. This is about serious matters. I'm angry, and so are many of the fine men who are with me. We are not going to take this assault on masculinity lying down. There is misandry in the media, there is misandry in greeting cards, it seems that the very same people who would call me a misogynist happily engage in man-hating with their friends over an afternoon lunch. (By the way - did you recoil when you read the words "I'm angry"? Did you stop to consider where you would be today had the way before you not been paved by angry men? Do you think that the Marines who are fighting for this country are pacifists? Do you think the founding fathers should have been arrested for domestic violence?)

Men marched with women to secure equal rights back in the 1960's. It is time for another hand-in-hand march. It is time for women to admit that they are more privileged and march with men for equality once again. Feminists couldn't have done what they did without men, and while we seek women's help, men are fully capable of reversing the current women's rights/men's responsibilities by themselves if they need to.

For more background, check out my first few posts from the sidebar. Understand why I created this blog and why it is strong even today. Understand why the Eternal Bachelor blog is such a force - how many men are deciding that the price is too high. This is a movement with no leader, nobody that feminists can tar and feather. It is an inexorable movement that can only be halted by reversing sexist, discriminatory and hateful laws.

Most of us, when we see someone call the justice system unfair, write off that person as a lunatic. Call me whatever you wish, I'm here to tell you that the justice system is unfair. And I'm not only talking about family law and divorce and child support here.

Women routinely get off with lower or NO sentences for crimes that would land a man in prison or on death row. Last year, a woman in Texas was acquitted of murdering FIVE children on the grounds that she was insane, by her own testimony. She planned that murder to the minutest detail and carried it out when her husband wasn't home, and still people were asking "Where was the husband?"

The majority of child abuse and child murder are committed by the mother acting alone, with the father acting alone the least likely to abuse or murder a child. Yet whenever a father goes to watch his son practise baseball or his daughter try out for cheerleader, he is all but fried in vat of hot oil by public opinion, which is poisoned by false statements that outright tell lies about fathers to an uninformed public.

Like I said, this is like no other blog you will read. I'm not a conspiracy nut, and what I write is the truth. Not because I wrote it, but because I only write about the truth. The truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to see. Or if that is too "conspiracy" for you, the Truth that the mainstream media doesn't tell you.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Four women fired for gossipping

Hahaha, I love these stories! Most of the time, women are untouchable at work - they can say whatever they want, they can openly flaunt their tits and bits, they can come late and leave early, and while its not like they get the run of the place while the bosses sit bound to their desks, women do get more leeway than men. And that's just the single women. The mothers are worse.

But anyway, here's the story - Idle Chatter Cost Four Seasoned Employees Their Jobs.

Four town employees with 46 years of service between them were fired, in part for gossiping and discussing rumors of an improper relationship between the town administrator and another employee that Hooksett residents now agree were not true.

The administrator complained, and after an investigation the town council fired the women, finding, "Gossip, whispering, and an unfriendly environment are causing poor morale and interfering with the efficient performance of town business."

"When I was given my termination papers, I just looked at the gentlemen that were present in the room and I said, 'You've got to be kidding!'" said fired worker Sandy Piper, who insisted her comments weren't out of line. "We discussed it on a lunch break, and then it ended."

I just wonder about this part:
Lawyers for the Town Council of Hooksett told ABC News they have "no comment" at this time, but there could be a decision this week on whether to reinstate some or all of the women.

"Attitudes don't always reflect behavior with women"

I've been on lots of forums where everyone is talking about WAF - Wife Appreciation Factor. Mostly Home Theater and other "guy stuff" forums. Basically, if the wife doesn't like it, back it goes. I find that extremely disturbing, and a symptom of the average home's power distribution - remember, its the women that have the nesting urge. You are just the enabler, the wallet. They will decorate the whole house as they wish, including "your" bedroom, and banish all the guy stuff to the garage. And then all the other wives will come in and coo "Oooh you've done such a nice job of decorating Linda, you have a great eye for color!" The man becomes an unwelcome stranger in his own home, but hey, leave the wallet behind.

Its the same whenever you try to exert a little bit of influence on the home's decor - for example, even to change bulbs from incandescent to fluorescent, which mostly doesn't make a difference in decor but conserves energy and saves money. Oh wait, why would the woman be concerned with saving money, that's not her department is it LOL!

Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity
Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 30, 2007; A01

NESKOWIN, Ore. -- Alex and Sara Sifford, who live here on the Oregon coast, want to do the right thing to save a warming world.

To that end, Alex Sifford, 51, has been buying compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use about 75 percent less power than incandescent bulbs. He sneaks them into sockets all over the house. This has been driving his wife nuts.

She knows that the bulbs, called CFLs, save money and use less energy, thus cutting greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change. She knows, too, that Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and the Department of Energy endorse them. Still, the bulbs, with their initial flicker, slow warm-up and slightly weird color, bug her.

"What really got me was when my husband put a fluorescent in the lamp next to my bed," recalls Sara Sifford, 53. She said she yelled at her husband for "violating the last vestige of my personal space."

Experts on energy consumption call it the "wife test." And one of the dimly lighted truths of the global-warming era is that fluorescent bulbs still seem to be flunking out in most American homes.

The current market share of CFL bulbs in the United States is about 6 percent, up from less than 1 percent before 2001. But that compares dismally with CFL adoption rates in other wealthy countries such as Japan (80 percent), Germany (50 percent) and the United Kingdom (20 percent). Australia has announced a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2009, and the Canadian province of Ontario decided last week to ban them by 2012.

The relatively glacial adoption rate of CFLs in most of the United States suggests continued stiff resistance on the home front, despite dramatically lower prices for the bulbs and impressive improvements in their quality.

"There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting-purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.

"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters."

A key to the abiding grass-roots resistance to CFLs, Reed and other experts said, is indelible consumer memories of the hideous looks and poor quality of earlier generations of fluorescent lights. They were bulky. They were expensive, as much as $25 each. They had an annoying flicker and hum. They cast an icky, cold-white light that made people look pale, wrinkly and old.

"People remember them from 20 years ago and they are not going to forgive," said Dave Shiller, vice president of new business development for MaxLite, a Fairfield, N.J., company that manufactures CFL bulbs.

A new breed of bulbs solves most, if not all, of the old gripes. The bulbs are smaller and much cheaper -- often selling for as little as $1.50 each at big-box stores. Most bulbs pay for themselves in reduced power consumption within six months. They last seven to 10 years longer than incandescent bulbs. The hum and flicker are long gone, and many bulbs are designed to mimic the soothing, yellowish warmth of incandescent bulbs. (Most, though, still do not work on dimmers.)

"The new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment -- they produce better light," declares the May issue of Popular Mechanics, in an exhaustive comparison test of the new breed of CFLs against incandescents.

Still, many consumers -- especially women -- do not seem to be buying in.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week showed that while women are more likely than men to say they are "very willing" to change behavior to help the environment, they are less likely to have CFL bulbs at home. Wal-Mart company research shows a similar "disconnect" between the pro-environmental attitudes of women shoppers and their in-store purchases of CFL bulbs.

Wal-Mart launched a campaign last fall to sell 100 million CFL bulbs a year and is prominently displaying them in all its stores. That campaign, Wal-Mart says, has more than doubled the share of CFLs it has sold.

"Attitudes don't always reflect behavior, and that is what was most surprising to us," said Tara Raddohl, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. "Customers may have in mind, yes, they want to support environmentally friendly products, but when they come to the shelf to buy, the data shows they are not always buying them."

Utility company surveys show the same gender-based bulb-buying pattern in the Pacific Northwest, which has the highest CFL market share in the nation, about 11 percent. Men have been aware of CFLs longer than women, have bought them earlier and have installed more of them in the house than women, according to surveys that the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance has been conducting since 2004.

In groceries and drugstores, where 70 percent to 90 percent of light bulbs historically have been sold and where women usually have been the ones doing the buying, CFLs have not taken off nearly as fast as they have in home-improvement stores such as Home Depot and Lowe's, where men do much of the shopping.

"My gut feeling is that the last remaining factor that we have not cracked in selling these bulbs is the 'wife test,' " said My Ton, a senior manager at Ecos Consulting, a company in Portland, Ore., that does market research on energy efficiency.

After a decade as a researcher in residential lighting, Ton said he has concluded that a major part of the CFL problem in penetrating the American home "is a lack of communication between the sexes."

"The guy typically brings a CFL home and just screws it into a lamp in the bedroom, without discussing it with his wife," Ton said. "She walks in, turns on the light and boom -- there is trouble. That is where the negative impressions begin, especially when the guy puts it into the bedroom or the bathroom, the two most sacred areas of the home."

Ton advises husbands and wives "to talk about it before the light bulb is screwed in."

For Alex and Sara Sifford, the time for talking seems long gone.

Over the past nine years, Alex Sifford, who once worked for a utility as an energy-efficiency expert, has replaced nearly every incandescent bulb in the house. If his wife removes a new CFL, he simply waits a few weeks and screws it back in. As the bulbs have improved, he insists, his wife can no longer tell the difference.

Sara Sifford says that is ridiculous. But she has lost the will to fight. She also said she believes that using CFLs is "the moral, ethical and environmentally correct thing to do."

"He has worn me down," she said. "Honestly, the fluorescent bulbs still bug me."

You know, there are lots of things here. First of all is the fact that its awesome that "research shows" that women are more likely to talk about it, while men are more likely to go out and do it. That bit really put a smile on my face. And its true too - the fact is that in most surveys, when women are asked about something, its never corroborated or followed up on.

So when a researcher asks women "What do you look for in a man" and she gives a bullshit answer like "Oh lol a sense of humor, gentleman and what not" nobody ever follows up on that. No one goes out and trails the woman to see if she really does want what she says she wants.

I hate to stereotype here, but this is the crux of the paradox of "What do women want?" If you ask women what they want, you get half truths at best and outright lies at worst. Leave aside the obvious fact that most women are so lost to their hormones you could ask them the same question a different time of the month and get a totally different reply. If you ask men what they want and they say "Well a fit bird with righteous tits" then that is much more likely to be what the man really wants.

Another thing of course is the fact that the man is muzzled when it comes to making decisions for the home. He has to go by her wishes, otherwise she will read him the Riot Act. His contribution is limited to doing the DIY and supplying the ca$h needed.

Now, you must be thinking, "Well Pete what about your home? I bet you've got problems with upgrading to CFLs too."
I'm very happy to say that my SO and I are very much on the same wavelength here. I prefer the whitest of white light, and so does she. Most folks hate the idea of having strip lights in their homes, but me and my SO love them. We like it bright and we like it white. In fact, just today I went to Home Depot and got a pair of daylight tubes and fixture. Cost me a pretty penny compared to getting a couple of bulbs for a buck or even a couple of CFLs for a fiver, but the light those tubes give out is incomparable. I got the fancy (not fancy in looks - it looks like it was meant for the garage) electronic ballasted fixture and T8 bulbs - most strip lights you see that are flickering, greenish or otherwise shitty are old and worn T12 bulbs. T5 is the latest thing, but its prohibitively expensive. I think CFLs are a stop gap technology - we need to rethink lighting and stop depending on fixtures made for incandescents, trying to shoehorn CFLs into places where they're not suited. Spot lighting is cool, but there has to be a good source of flood light too.

But let me tell you - even if we weren't on the same wavelength, we'd compromise. And no, asking her to compromise is not domestic abuse. At least not yet.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Louis Theroux on Thai women

Well, not on Thai women but that's a nice double entendre isn't it? ;-)

Louis Theroux goes to Bangkok and interviews the owner of a Thai matchmaking agency. He isn't very enamored of the idea, since he seems to be more comfortable seeing the screws turned on a man by western women in a marriage.

Anyway, watch the videos:

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Dirt on Shaha Riza

Mikeray managed to dig up some really awesome dirt on Shaha Riza in the comments section of my post Wolfowitz forced to resign.... Thanks Mike!

Turns out that not only is she a feminist, but she also loves to play the victim card!

Feminist girlfriend felt Bank stripped her of rights

Associated Press

Mystery surrounds Shaha Riza’s personal life, by her design, yet two things are beyond doubt. She is smart. And angry.

“Very angry,” Wolfowitz said of her recently. Wolfowitz lost his job as World Bank president on Thursday over an ethical entanglement arising from his relationship with the former Bank employee.

Riza, an Oxford-educated Arab Muslim feminist in her early 50s, has worked for years for democratic change in West Asia and for sexual equality both in repressive societies and within the bank. She has done so most of that time without drawing enormous attention to herself. “I simply do not know how to blow my own trumpet,” she says.

Yet, in statements to World Bank officials, she came out fighting against the “vicious public attacks on me” that flowed from her relationship with hard-line conservative Wolfowitz, a bond that has been as notable for its quiet unfolding as for its longevity.

Riza began working for the Bank eight years before Wolfowitz took over as president in June, 2005. She was moved to the State Department that fall, to avoid a conflict of interest but stayed on the Bank’s payroll.

Riza bristled at being forced to leave the Bank in 2005, arguing that as senior communications officer for West Asia and North Africa office, she did not report to Wolfowitz in any capacity and no bank regulations prohibited her continued employment. “I felt under attack by a powerful group that had no right to make assumptions,” she told the special panel investigating Wolfowitz.

And she noted the “irony of my working to ensure women’s participation and rights through the work of the World Bank and to be then stripped of my own rights by this same institution.

Wolfowitz went so far as to suggest that the Bank’s ethics committee members put the onus on him to arrange her outside employment because they were afraid to cross her.

They “did not want to deal with a very angry Ms Riza,” he wrote in a biting assessment of the panel’s actions.

He hinted, too, that she was none too happy with him. He quoted her as telling the panel that he should have stood up for her, rather than accepted an arrangement that moved her out of her job.

“He became them — you — the Bank,” she told the panel, “and I had to fend for myself in the same way I’m now fending for myself.

In her bank and academic work, Riza has promoted the link between freedom and feminism.

Riza speaks Arabic, French, Italian, Turkish and English, and majored in international relations at London School of Economics and in social studies at Oxford. She has a son.

Oh poor fucking you! You had to fend for yourself, just like Wolfowitz had to fend for himself all his life in addition to fending for you. What a vile fucking cunt. But of course - she is a feminist! Also notice how she accuses Wolfowitz numerous times. Blame the man baby, that's the fashion! He should have just let the board do whatever they wished with her, instead of looking out for her.

Why did the snake bite the turtle when it was carrying the snake across the river?
Because the snake was feminist.

Marriages to foreigners increasing

Saw this on the Don't Get Married board... by bgman.

Between 2003 and 2006, there were 1,034,976 immigrants who got green cards via marriage to a U.S. citizen, or an average of about 260,000 a year. (stats here: )

Meanwhile, the number of marriages in FY2006 (ending September 2006) is estimated to be 2,155,000 (stats here: ).

What this means is, 12% of all marriages in the U.S. are between U.S. citizens and foreigners. Historically, the lion's share of these marriages (about three-quarters) are citizen man/foreign woman, and this trend seems to have held up in recent years.

In addition, it appears to be accelerating. In the 1990s, marriages between U.S. citizens and foreigners were well under 200,000, translating to about 6-8%.

In fact, the acceleration in marriages between U.S. citizens and foreigners appears to be a factor in the long visa wait times that other immigrants bringing in adult children or siblings have to endure. Although spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens can immigrate without limit, current immigration law takes it out of the hide of the number of visas for these other categories of family-sponsored immigrants, so that no more than 226,000 of these other immigrants can come in every year.

Also, these only count U.S. citizens who marry foreigners and bring them to immigrate and live with them in the United States. It does not account for, say, a U.S. citizen man who has fled and married a foreign woman and went to live with her in her country!

The marriage strike is reaching epic proportions! For 12% of American citizens who get married in the U.S. every year to marry foreigners, considering the size of the American population, is huge!!

This is very interesting news, especially for folks who believe that Foreign Women are a better option. Let's face it - there is tremendous pressure on men to marry and provide from every angle, and if one has to marry, might as well do it with a woman who is less likely to divorce you and run off with José, taking your money and children with her. About 20% of foreign-citizen marriages end in divorce, compared to more than 50% of citizen-citizen marriages.

While I don't believe that marrying foreign woman is a panacea (see this post and this one and this one and this one and of course this one for my views on foreign women) - I think that there's a difference compared to marrying a venomous western woman, but its still akin to handing someone a shotgun and asking them to shoot - there might be a lower chance of the foreign woman firing, but if she does, you're just as dead.

The best option is still to not marry - the rest all involve compromise or self-sacrifice. You could give up your high standard of living and settle in a country that respects men somewhat, you could marry a foreigner, or you could simply continue living here, and only involve yourselves superficially with women. The disadvantage to that is that men are supposed to place all their eggs in one basket and reserve all emotion and feeling for their wives only, and true friendships with men are harder to find than the the Patriarchy HQ.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Vote for Angry Harry

From Fred X and Eternal Bachelor:

Angry Harry has been nominated for the Political Blogger Award and an invasion is just what the Doctor ordered. is in the top position right now, but we just have to get Angry Harry into the top ten, if not the top three. He's a damn good blogger and our chance to get MRA issues into the mainstream. While you're at it, be sure to vote for Glenn Sacks too!

Sign up and vote for the MRA issues guys!

Why advertisements are so misandric

The "Khakis" commercial by Cadillac/GM made the rounds recently - this is the commercial with the woman walking through the office, making all the men cower and piss their pants. To see this gem, go here and select "CTS" in the "SORT BY" drop-down box. Then click the third one in the first row (entitled "KHAKIS"), with the picture of the man and woman looking out from the elevator.

I was reading MANN and saw this great comment on why misandry is so rampant in the media, whether they be ads or the programs that come between the ads.

To an extent...

Submitted by Male Rights Network on Sat, 2007-05-05 01:54.

The reality is - and the entire retail and consumer industry knows it - today's crop of women are the ones with the money, they are the big earners and the high-flyers. This is through pro-female education especially at third-level, "affirmative action" and through Systematic Wealth Transfer, also know as Marriage-and-Divorce. (Marriage is a feminist institution.)

Furthermore, when women have this money, they spend it much more liberally than men would, and they spend it on goods and services which allow businesses to make a high profit.

We should all know by now that hatred of the male gender is something indelibly inscribed in the female psyche, and it's just a matter of encouraging it. Advertisers work on the basis of what sort of images and messages match our common psychology. We like to be told something is "new", we like to associate with "success", and often we like to be shocked. Whatever makes that all-important psycho-emotional link in our brain; that's what makes the impact.

So it is entirely natural that advertisers and businesses which use advertising will want to tap into any exploitable female psychological sensitive-spot. I have no doubt that, at least to a certain extent, presenting women with "superiority" images over men gives them an ego boost, thus making an emotional connection, and thus help sell the product.

Men are nothing to the consumer/retail industry. I cannot say what decade exactly they gave up on us, but today, we are 0 to them. We represent people who do not need a massive quantity variety of cheaply-produced goods such as clothes, shoes, perfumes, necklaces, facial creams etc. Our spending habits are conservative, and, I would say less predictable and less spontaneous than women's. The male psyche, being less emotional and more objective and logic in nature (by and large), is not influenced so easily by targeted marketing.

So not only do we not need their wares in many cases, what we do need, we just don't buy them, or do so in an unpredictable manner. We are unpredictable consumers. Advertisers could pump billions into an ad that will be effective on 95% of men, but it just won't happen. Conceiving an advertisement that will work on 95% of women, however, is probably easily achieveable, and in advanced marketing and psychological circles, it is probably proven.

If misandry is one of those primordial triggers of the female psyche, you can be sure it will be used.

That is not to say that we should not complain, both online and in wider society, about these anti-male, denigratory advertisements. That is not to say that there is not an element of social engineering and propaganda behind these ads. That is not to say that there are at least some women and feminists in the industry that are using the mass media to alter the collective conscience to the disadvantage of men.

However, we should consider that the economic case for (i) ensuring women have the bulk of wealth in society and (ii) ensuring they spend and much as possible, which is easily achievable, makes huge commercial sense. Indeed, female dominance in education and the workplace is music to Corporation's ears: they know it means more profit and a bigger consumer economy.

Economics are not on our side, men. Any Men's Rights Activist is inclined to believe that "Feminism = Marxism, Full Stop" should consider just how closely Feminism and Capitalism are intertwined.

Would these highly offensive, targeted attacks being accepted if they had a huge commercial benefits if Jews were the scapegoat, or women were the scapegoat? That is an interesting one, especially in the case of women being portrayed in almost entirely negative lights; their very integrity as people attacked. Would the laws of economics make a concession in that case?

Lacking a powerful, perceivable "men's lobby" - consisting of Government officials and bodies, corporate interests as well as individuals - the misandric advertising will continue, as it is effective on the female psyche and thus, helps to sell products.

Women-only craze infecting America

I saw this article yesterday. Its about a new J.W. Marriott hotel opening up in Grand Rapids, MI which will have a special floor for women only. The entire 19th floor of the hotel will be reserved for members of the royal sex, in addition to an entire lounge also reserved for women only. (Be sure to visit the article and do the poll)

You know, I don't have a problem per se with women-only buses, seats, whatever. But it really jangles my nerves that we alternately hear that women are strong and can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with men, and that they are weak and need protection. Its very irritating. I wish they'd make up their damn mind. Being the sex that possesses the womb shouldn't get them so many damn unfair privileges.

Anti-discrimination legislation is de riguer in most western countries - you can't discriminate against anyone for a variety of reasons, including sex. But I guess all that goes out the window when its special privileges we're talking about, eh? We only hear about sex discrimination lawsuits when its a woman being discriminated against, not when its a woman being discriminated for. Just imagine the furore if they had made a floor for whites only.

Fairness - that's the root of all of this. I think most men know or have figured out that life is not fair. But it seems feminists haven't. They whined and whined until they got what they wanted - special privileges that are not equal to their responsibilities. And you know what they say about the squeaky wheel - it gets the most grease. They could throw Molotov cocktails, bomb buildings and get away with light sentences or no punishment by playing the innocent woman card. Not much has changed in the last 100 years has it.

Men are aware that life is not fair, but when the government has enacted laws to force fairness, well we jolly well want some of that fairness for ourselves! And this is why I'm opposing this hotel that will have a floor and a lounge for women only, while not having one for men only. Heck, I wouldn't even mind if this particular hotel didn't have a men-only section if feminists had not made men-only spaces illegal.

They claimed that men were making deals and excluding women in their exclusive clubs, so men-only clubs and colleges were made illegal. As soon as the first female CEO hit the Time magazine cover page, they should have made female-only spaces illegal too. But they didn't. All the privileges, none of the responsibilities. Now women can hobnob all they want, make all the business deals they wish, all without men. Of course, now its about sexual harassment - these undoubtedly fine career women don't want to get hit on. Where the hell do these people come up with these theories?

Spokeswoman Andrea Groom said more than half of all business travelers are women. She told The Grand Rapids Press that they want be able to relax over a drink without getting hit on by guys.

Ahhh... its a female. Deluded as usual.

If you're as angry about this sexist, discriminatory policy, let Marriott know. I have.

Some choice comments

I saw Eternal Bachelor's post about the woman who thinks men are just ATMs and decided to check out the article. I found a few gems there, which I'm going to post for your enjoyment...

Wake up to modern living, men of Britain do your duty and look after your kids & stop being lazy! Women should not have to choose between career & a family. We are all born of woman, right?
Posted by John Clachan

Choice may be a good thing, but I can envisage situations where mothers who would prefer to stay with their baby are persuaded to go back to work so the father can take some leave. I agree that a father's input is of far more benefit when the child is older, and surely we should be encouraging mothers to breast feed.
Posted by Mary Jackson

I say this Richard, the day women provide sex to average looking men who are financial losers, then all men will stop work, and stop trying to support them.
Posted by Charles

Men are not nurturers. They are hunters and protectors. They bring home the booty. "Baby, baby bunting, Daddy's gone a-hunting; he gone to catch a rabbit skin to wrap his baby bunting in."
This move is all part of the one-worlder, anti-capitalist Stalinesque agenda of levelling out the world: Weaken the workforce.
It's abnormal. That's why the socialists love it.
Posted by Verity

I think this is going a bit too far! Whatever people say in these politically correct times, the mother is usually the primary caretaker of a child in its first year of life. After all, fathers cannot breast feed!
However, having said that, I do think that fathers should be allowed between between two and four weeks off after the birth of a baby. In the first month after having a baby, most mothers really need that extra support with recovering from the birth and the disturbed nights. Because mothers tend to be the primary caretakers in a child's early life, fathers need to fulfil their provider/protector/supporter role during this important stage of family life (yes, even in these 'enlightened' times!). There is nothing worse for a mother with young children than having a partner/husband with a dodgy career at this time!
Posted by Alicia Fox

Women bear children because they are best at rearing very young children. The time the father should take off is immediatly after the birth to assist the new mother to adapt to looking after the new child, and then he should return to work leaving the mother to do what only she can do.
Posted by Ian K Pestell

Ah yes! We start out with a little bit of shaming, an appeal to the maternal with John's comment. Hey John, you idiot, women don't WANT us sitting around the house, they want us to earn money so they can buy shit like self-rocking cribs and musical pacifiers.

Mary's asinine comment shows that she thinks that whenever a man tells a woman something, he is victimizing her. Of course, a woman telling a man something is the natural order. A sexual harassment case waiting to happen because if she has a male boss she sure will resent his authority.

Hey Charles, maybe when women stop being such shallow gold diggers and try to look deeper than the the man's wallet, they will find true love.

Ah Verity, where were you when the feminists came along to upset the natural order of things? Let me guess, you were marching with them?

Alicia Fox's comment really shows what is going through the average woman's mind. "Less privileges? For me? NEVER!!" Maybe we should make breast feeding mandatory eh, because I know many mothers who never breast feed, and plenty who breast feed wherever, whenever including at work. Fathers can hold a bottle just as well as mothers, you sexist sow! And of course, the rest of her comment is about how men can support women, slaving away in the background so that the princess doesn't have to lift a finger.

Ian, women bear children because they bear children. Men are stronger because they are stronger. Their societal roles are a result of these biological realities.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Wolfowitz forced to resign because of Shaha Riza

I wrote about Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza a while ago. Essentially, Paul allegedly pulled some strings to get his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a good high-paying position at the State Department. When it was found out that Paul may have used his influence, an investigation started.

Obviously, Paul took the fall. No mention of whether Shaha Riza will suffer any consequences, but oh she was just a girl!! Just a poor wikkle innocent girl who got caught up in big bad Wolfowitz's plot to get her a high position and a big salary! We know she shouldn't suffer any more, the proof of her innocence is right there between her legs!


Parenting is very much taken as a woman's job. This is why Mother's Day is such a day of appreciation - husbands appreciate, sons appreciate, fathers appreciate, everyone appreciates women every chance they get. Why, I think Mother's Day is set to approach Valentine's Day in the number of flowers and other gifts given to women. After all, who wants to be shamed or put in the doghouse? Remember who holds the reins in the house and who wears the skirt, while reserving the right to wear the pants at any time.

And of course Father's Day is when the most collect calls are made. What is the father's role again? Ah yes, to be a walking wallet.

Parenting is a woman's privilege. Women get the right to choose to kill, they get the right to choose to abort, they get the right to choose to abandon, and they are praised for acting selfishly no matter what they do. Its as if women are celestial beings that have done so much good for the world that its A-OK if they do a little bit for themselves.

But anyway, where does the father or the husband fit into all this? His job is naturally to provide the financial womb for the woman's choice - whether she wants to work at a career, work part-time, or not work at all and claim that she should be earning $138,000 a year for doing work that does not have to conform to anybody's schedule, has no set standards or quality control and if she is fired, she walks away with half the assets.

His job is to be the family ATM... just like we don't worry about where the ATM gets its money from, so we don't care that the husband has to work to get the money that enables the wife to live in the manner to which she has become accustomed to. No, we only think about the ATM when it is not working. So we encourage nagging and moaning about housework, we encourage laws outlining men's responsibility to "share" 50-50 in the housework, while not making simultaneous laws for women's responsibility to earn half the household income (Spain). And of course, we take men's work and consequent absence as evidence that they don't really care about the children. Naturally, if a man doesn't work, he is roundly criticized and the fact that he doesn't have a job will be used against him, to deny him custody since he is obviously an irresponsible lazy bum. Men, with childcare have to continue to work full-time and be a father in their spare time. Women have the option to be a mother full-time and go to Mom-tini parties in their spare time.

Feminists would have you believe that taking care of a baby/child is such a drag, and that most women only have babies because they are pressured to. For that, just remember - whatever a feminist says has to be the complete opposite of the truth. A little closer look and a little personal experience goes a long way towards disproving the "women only have babies because the patriarchy forces them to" myth.

And taking care of children may be a drag, but so is going to work. So is driving. But they have their good sides too. Heck, I have heard some women claim that shopping is a drag! Speaking of taking care of children - the other day, I was at a cousin's house - they recently had a baby, and I saw a very fancy contraption they bought for the new arrival - it was a cradle... that rocks itself! So you just place the baby in there, turn the soft music on and turn the motor on, and the cradle rocks itself!

Rape Rape Kill Kill!!!

Respect Men's Rights


There has been a semi-famous case in South Africa recently, about a man accused of being raped by a woman. The man in question is a top official, reputed to be the next Presidential hopeful. And while I hate politicians, especially African politicians after having lived there, that is not the subject of my post.

Apparently, after a long fight which attracted a lot of international media attention, Jacob Zuma was acquitted of rape charges. And the media is not happy about it. Now blather on all you want about kangaroo courts and justice not being served, I will point you right back to the US Courts and the amount of "justice" they dispense. And that's the shining beacon of freedom in the west. Don't even think about the courts of Europe, which have still not shaken off their socialist, fascist and nazi roots.

The man has been acquitted after a sketchy rape allegation, and naturally, his life is ruined. He has had the legs of his campaign for President cut off, and it remains to be seen whether he will be welcome back in his party or whether he will be quietly disposed of.

Here are some quotes from the linked article:


Zuma is not fit to lead a country where women's rights are high on the agenda, where the fight against Aids is, or should be, an urgent national priority and where the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the duty of the powerful. South Africa deserves a president who can lead by example. Jacob Zuma has shown that he cannot do that.

And how exactly is being accused of a crime showing that he cannot lead a country? That's like throwing mud at someone and claiming they are too dirty for your company. The media led the charge, with most companies vilifying the man before his trial even began, and now instead of issuing apologies, they have the gall to say that he is guilty even when proven innocent.


Jacob Zuma's predictable acquittal is a setback for women's rights and for political stability... He has brought the party and the country into disrepute. His path to the presidency must be blocked firmly and permanently.  

How was his acquittal Predictable? Oh, maybe you knew he was innocent all along, eh? The female who accused him of rape has brought him into disrepute and so has the media which put spice on the story to sell it.

Oh, and naturally, the feminazis are going to be using this high-profile case to further their own agenda, probably passing legislation that cements the guilty-when-accused mindset that everyone seems to have, in the media at least.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Rewriting History

Today we had a small training session here at work. It was for a small group, very specific. The presenter had an image of two things on the screen, and asked us what we found common between them.

The guy sitting next to me piped up "They are both man-made!"

.... "Well man-and-woman-made, people-made, I want to be politically correct."

And that got me thinking - how is it that we minimize men's contributions so much in this era? I'm betting that most of the architects who laid out the plans for the Pyramids, the "people" who hauled the gigantic boulders in the Egyptian heat, who suffered the lashes from the task masters, and who gave their lives to the pharaohs, they were all men. Just like today in fact. What has almost 50 years of feminism done? It has just ensured that the easiest of jobs still go to women, and that the hardest of jobs still go to men, but now, instead of being paid a fair-market rate reflecting the reality that the men's jobs are harder and more vital to our survival, the pink collar jobs are paid at inflated rates to correct for the imagined "wrongs" that men committed in the past.

Now we seek to inflate the contributions of any valuable female a hundred times while not giving the same amount of admiration and respect to men who have done more. One female faints soldier faints in the field, she is rescued and her name is all over the media, but the men who gave their lives to get her out are faceless.

And when I say "imagined" I mean that feminists have lied in order to paint the female sex as long-suffering oppressed victims.

But anyway. The second object was something invented by a man and it is named after him even today. How the heck do you thank a woman for that? Do we thank the woman for being in the background? Cooking and cleaning? Do we thank his cobbler for making the shoes that he wore? His milkman for supplying the milk that he drank? Where does it end?

Men didn't keep women down, women happily kept themselves "down" while actually leading easier and oftentimes more fulfilling lives. Think of the average worker, not of Einstein or James Bond. He has a boss at work who ensures that he works his hardest, and a boss at home who ensures that he works his hardest. And who bosses the boss at home? Nobody.

One fucking bitch dies in Iraq and we bawl our collective eyes out, while not even giving two shits about the thousands of men who have died in this war that is taking place in our "gender equity" times. Then we bawl our eyes out that women don't work as hard and consequently don't get paid as much as men.

When a woman can't lift a box or climb a wall as part of a job it is "disparate impact" but when she fucking kills somebody she gets off because she had PMS and oh she's a woman so she obviously is more emotional and nurturing, she was probably driven to it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Science proves what we already knew

Relationships make women less horny

A woman's sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research.

Researchers from Germany found that four years into a relationship, less than half of 30-year-old women wanted regular sex.

Conversely, the team found a man's libido remained the same regardless of how long he had been in a relationship.

Writing in the journal Human Nature, the scientists said the differences resulted from how humans had evolved.

For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male

The researchers from Hamburg-Eppendorf University Hospital interviewed 530 men and women about their relationships.

They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex "often" at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.

In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.


The study also revealed tenderness was important for women in a relationship.

About 90% of women wanted tenderness, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship, but only 25% of men who had been in a relationship for 10 years said they were still seeking tenderness from their partner.

Dr Dietrich Klusmann, lead author of the study and a psychologist from Hamburg-Eppendorf University Hospital, believed the differences were down to human evolution.

He said: "For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male."

But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner.

But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added.

He said animal behaviour studies suggest this could be because females may be diverting their sexual interest towards other men, in order to secure the best combinations of genetic material for their offspring.

Or, he said, this could be because limiting sex may boost their partner's interest in it.

Professor George Fieldman, an evolutionary psychologist from Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, said: "These findings seem to fit in with anecdotal studies and his explanations seem plausible.

"The rational for why a woman's sex drive declines may be down to supply and demand. If something is in infinite supply, the perceived value would drop."
The study may have found something useful and pertinent, but look at the way they couch it. "Women want tenderness" my ass, its that men give women tenderness, while women give men nagging and scolding and generally are controlling.

That is why 90% of women expect tenderness, while 75% of men don't. But nooo, they couch it so that you think men are just brutes while women are fucking delicate flowers (who can obviously stand shoulder-to-shoulder with men in every arena while at the same time being fucking princesses that will wilt if they don't get pampered).

Don't marry guys - the sex will get less frequent, the sex you do get will be to the cunt who is growing older day by day, whose tits sag a little more with each passing year, and whose gash smells worse every birthday. Farrell put it best - marriage is the fulfillment of the woman's primary fantasy, while a man who tries to act out his own primary fantasy is said to be going through his mid-life crisis.

And here's a quote to finish it off:
I think it might be partially because a lot of men -but not all- seem to get rage-y if you give them any suggestions on their lovemaking routine. "Honey, would you mind doing x with y" can make a guy look like a kicked puppy. So women just don't make any suggestions -hell, sometimes they don't even make them in the first place, expecting sex to be perfect like a romance novel and not wanting to ruin the "magic"- and, oala: Boring, unsatisfying sex!

Blame the male baby!

Friday, May 11, 2007

An Omnipresent conspiracy for the Privileged Sex  

Back in 1992 the AAUW published the report, How Schools Shortchange Girls. The report purported to show that American schoolgirls were being kept down by the ever-present patriarchy. Man, they make those guys sound so powerful, I want to go to their meetings, and join up, but I just can't find them anywhere.

You know, the patriarchy does have a female counterpart. And you can go to their meetings. Does NOW and SOW ring a bell for anyone? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so infuriating how everyone has bought the lie of an omnipresent, omniscient Patriarchy and the feminist version, the Matriarchy, with all those taxpayer-funded organizations only concerned about the health, education and welfare of Women, has been built up under our noses.

The Matriarchy even has Action Alerts put out when there is some rumbling, like a Shared Parenting bill or anything else that would impede the wealth transfer from male to female. The Female Mafia will stop at nothing to ensure more privileges and rights for one sex, while putting the equivalent burdens on the other.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Great comment on Alimony

Saw this comment on NYC Buck's blog. Wonderful comment by a person I would love to have on my blog here.

Rob Case said...

There is absolutely no logic to the claim that married women have a right to their working husband's assets and income.

By luck rather than good management, I'm still a bachelor at 47, and have been retired now for 2 years. I own my own house and am financially secure. I came by my money just like most other guys - I held down a regular job. The difference is, as a bachelor, my earnings didn't get spent on dresses, shoes, jewellery, exotic vacations, hair-do's, ridiculous education, cute children's clothes, high-end furniture, extravagant housing and god knows how many other extravagances that bedevil the poor struggling married guy my age.

By the time I got to 45, I still had the cash a wife would have blown. I didn't have the debt she would have buried me under.

I know I'm not just one of a small percentage of guys who do ok unmarried. Look at the life of any married man in your street, and you will see the house he lives in is full of crap that he would never have bought for himself - stuff he would have left at the dump had he seen it going for nothing. He lives in, and pays for, a house and life-style whose primary purpose is to service the vanity of his wife. Most guys would be vastly better off without their marriage.

The notion that a woman makes a contribution to a man's wealth doesn't border on the absurd - it crossed that frontier miles back, got its passport stamped and was given the keys to the kingdom.

The simple fact that no woman will ever concede this point, no matter how easy it is to demonstrate, is proof enough of why this fiction is maintained. In their minds, their interests come before any man's. All reason and logic, all argument, are to be used to serve their primacy of interest.

So Buck, and any other young guy reading this, take it from an older dude that your instincts are 100% reliable. Stay single, stay sane and enjoy your life.

Really, what the man is saying is the truth. Women don't have an implicit right to have their husband support them when they're no longer supporting him - they may have had a right to a minimum level of support when they were doing work like raising children or cooking meals or cleaning house, but when the levels of arrogance displayed by modern women have reached such extremes as to claim that they should be paid $138,000 for work that amounts to nothing, they should be lucky to get kicked out with the clothes on their body.

But of course that's not what happens. What happens is that the golden parachute is made out of the skin of the slave, and then salt is poured onto his body with the double jeopardy of child support and alimony. All of this is after a marriage where he presumably gave his all and worked long hours to support the bitch at home and thought that the marriage was for life, through thick and thin. Turns out it was - thick for her, thin for him. Ha Ha Ha.

Its really a wonder that so many men marry even today. Its the natural instinct and centuries of social conditioning in us, we want to spread our seed, but if that's not gonna happen, at least pass on our genes. And the feminists have made full use of that, to push through ever more punishing laws. Do you think its a coincidence that the 500 year old law that states that any children born during marriage are presumed to be the husband's is still in the books?

MGTOW is the answer to these blatantly unfair laws. "Must keep her in a manner to which she is accustomed to" my ass. I will not be a slave.

If men as a group won't stand up to tyranny for once in history, we must each work for ourselves. The last person I expect shaming language from is a fellow man, but unfortunately, the first person I get insults and shaming language from is usually a man.

On Child Abuse

Continuing from my "Trippin'" post...
I met an old lady who I thought was wonderful and kind, but who showed her true colors yesterday. Anyway, this old hag has a fat daughter. This fat daughter has the accomplishment of being a single mom at the age of 20. Yes, she is 20 years old, weighs more than 250 lbs and has a 18 month old daughter.
This 18 month old daughter is the subject of my post. These guys live like hicks in the middle of California, just minutes away from the $1+ million homes of the Napa valley. There are geese honking and shitting in the front yard, a deaf dog, and the everpresent rusty old cars. So it isn't a wonder that the (grand)daughter is not in the best condition. I know that the bitch draws welfare (WIC) and probably child support from the father as well.
However, the fact is that she is an abused, neglected infant. She is alternately neglected and abused. She has bruises in various places on her body, her mother doesn't give a single shit about her, and she roams barefeet all around the house. Yes, including the outside with all the goose shit. Its no wonder that she has had pus running out of her ear, a chronic hacking cough, and who knows what else. Yesterday the temperature was in the fifties, the old hag didn't want to turn on the heat, and the poor baby was walking around barefoot. Her mom? Sitting cozy with a blanket and fuzzy slippers, talking to her friends and watching TV.
I really think I should call and get the poor baby taken out of the fat whore's hands, but I don't know - whom should I call, and will it do any good? Even if they do take the baby, will they give the baby to her father or will they keep her in some kind of government facility? Something tells me that the social services will just come and see that there isn't a single male in the house, and promptly leave.
I know the father's name and general address but don't know if I should contact him anonymously or something. And I don't want to upset the apple cart and somehow get myself in trouble or kicked out of the house either.

iVillage propaganda

I was home for lunch, just got back. While I was eating my delicious home-prepared meal, I turned on the TV and the only channel that didn't have ads on when I surfed past it was CBS 11, which was showing a program called "iVillage Live." is of course a very female-oriented site (how many aren't?) and they mainly cater to housewives or welfare queens. At least that's what I got from the TV program.

After a commercial break, the announcer said that there had been a new recently-released study that said that housewives should earn $138,000 a year. This of course was the blatantly untrue "study" conducted by last year, which kicked rhyme and reason into the well and made sure to put the largest dollar amounts they could find into the various made up sections. With titles such as CEO for deciding whether to get the Lean Cuisine or the Banquet and CFO for mailing the utility checks, its a wonder they didn't come up with a salary in the millions. (Lean Cuisine and Banquet are TV dinners)

Women of course get a golden parachute when they sever ties, just like top-level execs.

So anyway, they decided to go out on the street and corral unsuspecting proles. First they caught a family of four, which was pretty peaceful. They ostensibly posed questions to the man, but as soon as any female started speaking, the camera and the mic swung to her. Questions like "how much housework do you do" - the man replied "well, I do yard stuff, general guy stuff" and then mid-sentence, the focus shifted to the woman who had just opened her mouth.

So anyway, the "Certified Public Accountant" that was with them calculated that the woman earns $80,000 per year, and the man earns....


$17.76. Yup. The man earns less than twenty bucks a year for cooking, doing the "guy stuff" (defined as all the dangerous work around the house) and the woman earns $80,000 for cleaning.

OK, on to the next victim. They corral a black man with his 3-4 daughters, and ask him, "how much housework do you do." The man misunderstands the question and says he is a truck driver. So as the presenter is clarifying, the little pipsqueak, she must have been 7 at the most, pipes up - "HE DRIVES A TRUCK AND WATCHES TV" and the poor guy is relegated to the background while the "Certified Public Accountant" says "$14.92".

Yep, apparently your true market work is worthless on daytime TV. Driving a truck is on the same level as crashing on the couch and watching TV. And the worst part is, this was the young daughter saying this and the presenter allowing the child to speak before the father. Need any more proof that men are spit on by everyone else in this society and that male is a curse word?

Tuesday, May 08, 2007


Hey folks, sorry for the interruption. I've been on a road trip. I have moved, and my new address is Wine Country, USA.

Yessiree, I am officially in the People's Republic of California. Wine country actually, about an hour north of San Francisco. There is a winery/wine resort within walking distance of my new place, and my work is a 20 minute walk or a 5 minute bike ride. People pay very good money to visit here and drive on the same roads that make up my daily commute. It is so peaceful here in the country, a complete change from my usual big city living.

Yes, the life of a consultant is not that easy. :-D

The only thing I'd change are the bugs. A metric shit-ton of them trying to get in from every nook and cranny, and let me tell you - I hate bugs. Always have. They frighten and disgust me. So I really dislike not being able to go out after dark for fear of bugs, whether they bite, crawl or just brush up against me.

Anyway, an unfortunate side effect of the move to this beautiful place is that high-speed internet is not available here. I hope to get it soon, because I'm going to go nuts here. The old lady who rented me the house is very sweet, but her daughter is a real piece of work. I'm actually going to do a piece about that bitch. Every encounter I have with a piece of shit like that, and seeing the power she has in the court system further cements my desire to never marry, and to never have children with a woman in the US or any other feminised state, until women themselves take to the streets along with men in a show of solidarity like so many misguided men did back in the sixties.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Punishment fitting the crime

I have studiously stayed out of the Duke rape case through its entire lifecycle - the case started before I began blogging and I just was sick of all the coverage it got, both in the MSM and in the MRA blogger community so I never wrote about it. Of course, it was found that Crystal Gail Mangum (what the fuck kind of a name is that?) was lying and everyone is focusing on the next most convenient man to take the fall. Everyone is coming out against Nifong, but of course the lying bitch who filed the accusations got off without any damage.

I was going through Glenn Sacks's archives and saw this post about false rape accusations.

In the comments section,

  1. Ben Says:

    Here is a case of a false accusation that without a video tape would have resulted in decades of prison time for the young men.

    Woman did receive jail time for perjury and filing a false police report.

This story is about a slut who filed false rape accusations about a group of men who she claims hooded and gang-raped her, but it turns out that not only was she wide awake during the entire thing, but also was not satisfied with some of the men's penis size.

Next month an Orange County jury will hear the case against Moonier
(now Kerr following her marriage). Interesting footnote: without the
videotape, the men could have spent the rest of their lives in state
prison if they were convicted of kidnapping and aggravated rape with a
handgun. But the woman’s false accusation is a misdemeanor punishable
by no more than six months in county jail. It’s only because she took
several thousand dollars from a taxpayer-funded victims’ assistance
program that she was charged with two felonies.

False rape accusers are routinely let go, if they are caught in the first place - the overarching philosophy behind any rape accusation is that "she is right" - whether she is the rapist, or the alleged rapee. This is how women are able to get off whether they falsely accuse or commit statutory rape.

I don't know whether its feminist training that compels judges to view any females they see in their courts as angels fallen from the sky, or their own traditional thinking, but I'm inclined to believe its the former. Especially after reading about the MIT Admissions Dean who was forced to resign on Friday, April 27, 2007 after she made waves in the feminist university system with a report on why boys are falling behind in education.

Back to false rape accusations - why is someone who has calculated to abuse the justice system to ruin someone's life with a false rape accusation punished less than someone caught lifting a pack of gum at the local 7-11?

Why does the punishment never fit the crime when a female is the criminal?

Wake up and smell the misandry

More and more men are waking up... I saw this comment on Glenn Sacks's blog.
bretgarrison Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Dear Glenn,

After reading your recent column in the Chicago Tribune “Women don’t want men??….HA!!” I just had to track you down and thank you for speaking on behalf of all men and helping to share the WHOLE TRUTH and tell the WHOLE STORY. Personally, I’m getting tired of hearing only one half of the story….The woman’s side.

Your article was right on target. I am 47-years old and have been listening to women blabber on endlessly about how sorely deficient the men are in their lives. This has been told so many times before that I swear this has become an accepted truth in our culture. In order to verify this, all you have to do is look at any TV sitcom and/or movie and see how the men-of-today are portrayed as compared to the woman. The men are now the thoughtless, bumbling, fools and the woman are smart and sexy and tolerant of their men. The truth is, men don’t stick up for themselves because up till now they have hardly cared about the static noise going on around them. In my mind, this static noise is now becoming much too harsh and unfair and frequent. As you have pointed out on your web-page, if this negative image had been reversed, women would be enraged and extremely vocal about it. The double standard against men does now exist and in my mind, needs to be corrected. I can’t thank you enough for doing your part to educate men (and woman) about this double standard and telling our side of the story and telling the WHOLE TRUTH.

I can think of plenty of female leaders who are doing their part in educating woman about “the double standard” that exists in our world today. And I greatly respect that women do support each other. Having smart, capable, enlightened woman in our lives is good for all of us.
But this said, it is becoming over-due that men start becoming aware of the “double standard” that exists in our world today as well. And that is, woman have gone too far with their male bashing. Just like you, (and Jeff Leving), I see it more-n-more that men are getting the short end of the stick. And from what I can see, it’s solely because woman whine, bitch, moan, complain, cry about their plight. In other words, the squeaky wheel is getting all the spare oil. Thank you so much for counter balancing some of this wrongful female rhetoric. When I hear the words, “You go girl”…I am now starting to think…”yeah..go!!…please go!!”. Us men have PLENTY of our own to tolerate in woman. There is no bad-guy or good-girl in the Battle of the Sexes. To me, it’s clearly half-n-half. But the simple fact remains, men do NOT get nearly the air-time that woman do.

In writing this, please do NOT think for one minute that I hate women. On the contrary, I adore women and firmly believe that they are God’s gift to man. In fact, because I am single, most of my spare time is spent with women. But this said, I’ll be damn if I am going to give one single shred of my dignity and self respect and self image just because they feel they have been slighted and are therefore waging a smear campaign against men. I can easily think of a equal number of woman, (as men) who are thoughtless, self-centered, manipulative, cunning, etc, etc. It serves no purpose to portray men this way and/or take careful aim at each other. But if this is the war they want….I say bring it on!!! The work you are doing is much appreciated by me. Thanks again for being our general.

Best Regards,
Bret Garrison

You know, I think there are plenty of men out there (yes, even on FSTDT, even on Pandagon, even on who are aware of how much men are being short-changed in our society. Its extremely politically incorrect to speak about how men can be victims too, especially in leftist circles when half your "friends" are feminists, women-firsters who would sooner burn you alive than admit that Clara Harris committed murder or that male circumcision is also genital mutilation.

When I was young(er), there was nothing for a man who had a nagging feeling that maybe the world wasn't quite as it was made out to be - that maybe women were not really oppressed by "having" to stay home and clean up, maybe saying that men and women are equal and then turning around and claiming that women are better parents was hypocritical, maybe the wage gap was a lie.

But there was nothing to support me. If I had said this to my mother, I would have earned a slap or a disappointed look, if I had said this to my father, he would probably give me a lecture on what it means to be a man (all responsibilities, all obligations, no rights), and if I had said this to my friends, I would have been labeled a woman-hater and lost friendship because to them, pussy was above all else - the pursuit of a lay was the overriding impetus for their actions. And of course for most of my own. Can you imagine a 14 year old boy, even today, admitting to his peers that he was sexually abused by his teacher? He knows how they would react and he either keeps his mouth shut or talks about it in bragging tones.

Now, websites and blogs for men's rights are springing up all over. Governments are of course panicking, and we have legislation coming up from the birthplace of the Nazi and fascist movements to restrict freedom of speech online. But to the point, someone who browses the Internet today is far more likely to encounter an anti-feminist or men's rights blog than someone who searched two years ago, even someone who searched one year ago.

And I'm happy to do my part. :-)