Friday, June 29, 2007

Sweet Jesus. Man to be arrested for being shot - by wife

Yes, you read that right. A man was shot in the head by his wife, and the police says that he is going to be arrested when he gets better.

He is SHOT. In the fucking HEAD. While he is SLEEPING. By his wife, who is a CONVICTED FELON.

And they want to arrest HIM? What the fuck?

Bullet Headache

Michael Moylan was admitted to hospital in Florida on Wednesday complaining of severe head pain. His wife April fled when a bullet was discovered.

She was subsequently arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

Moylan, a convicted felon, later told police she had accidentally shot her husband as he slept when she drew a gun kept under her pillow.

She fired the weapon by mistake after being woken up by a burglar alarm in the early hours of Wednesday morning, reports quoted Moylan as saying.

Her previous conviction for cocaine dealing disqualifies her from owning a firearm in the United States.

Mr Moylan, meanwhile, remains in hospital in a stable condition.

A spokesman for the local sheriff told the BBC a decision had yet to be made on whether to charge Mr Moylan, who is also a convicted felon.

The sheriff's spokesman said it was "logistically not a useful thing" to arrest Mr Moylan at this stage.

If arrested, he said, Mr Moylan would have to appear in court within 21 days and the sheriff's office would have to pay any of his outstanding medical bills.

"There is no reason for the public to have to pay for this crime," he said.

Conflicting accounts

Mr Moylan arrived at a Florida hospital on Wednesday, saying he was woken up with a headache so severe he thought he had suffered an aneurysm.

He also reportedly told doctors he thought his wife had elbowed him in the head during the night.

A local newspaper, The Fort Pierce Tribune, quoted the sheriff as saying: "The nurse looked at him and said: 'It appears that you've been shot.' And he said: 'No way.'"

A police search of the couple's house uncovered a gun and blood-stained rags.

When initially questioned by police, husband and wife reportedly gave conflicting accounts of what had happened.

Just look at the story - and this is one of the less biased ones. At least they're not poking fun at the victim in this one. Or maybe they reserve that for the ones whose genitals were ripped off.

Conflicting accounts? You fucking idiots, he was SLEEPING when he was shot! Its a miracle he survived, why don't you go after the fucking shooter, the criminal, the one who had the gun, the one who fired the gun? Why the fuck are you making the victim's life miserable you fucking numbskulls, you fucking evil bastards, you fucking thugs?

There is no reason for the public to pay for a woman's choice to whelp out bastards, for the woman's choice to raise them into criminals, for the public to pay for her bad choices, but we do it every fucking day. Who the fuck appointed you as the judge of what the public should and should not have to pay for? We pay for all the fancy equipment you have, all the guns and tasers and teargas you use against law-abiding men to remove them from their families, who the hell are you to decide what the public should pay for?

If there is anyone to go after for this crime, it is the woman, who, being a member of the royal sex, is not even mentioned. Any guesses on what sort of "time" she'll do?

She fled. She fucking fled after the bullet was discovered. I'll give you three guesses on whether a man wouldn't already be in handcuffs sprawled on the concrete if a woman was found in this state.

14 year-old boy left to die because he fell sick

Boy complaining of illness found dead at center

The Salt Lake Tribune

Draper police are investigating the Thursday morning death of a 14-year-old resident of a center for troubled teens, said Sgt. Gerald Allred, a police spokesman.
    About 3 a.m., the boy fell ill and complained about having stomach and bowel problems, Allred said. Center staff placed the teen in a separate room to prevent other children from getting sick.
    Staff tried to wake the boy around 7 a.m. and found him dead.
    "We are interviewing everyone involved who was in the unit at the time," Allred said. "We are not ruling out anything at this point." Police are awaiting an autopsy.
    In February, the boy entered the private facility, which counsels teens needing special attention or help with learning or personality issues, Allred said.
    "[Teens] are put in there by their parents, to teach them the extra skills they need," Allred said.
    The Division of Child and Family Services licenses the facility but will not review the case until after the police investigation is concluded, said division spokeswoman Carol Sisco.

This is fucked up. No ambulance, no medical care, they just dumped him in a different room and left him there to die. Can you imagine how agonizing his last hours must have been? All alone in the dark with the pain growing worse by the hour until you see the Reaper is not a fun way to go.

It sucks to be a boy in this world. It sucks to be a member of the disposable sex.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Man told to prove filial bond - at Wal-Mart

This shit is just insane. Just a few weeks after my post "Don't Go Walking With your Daughter," in which a Toronto man is called in by a "concerned citizen" and practically thrown in jail after going for a walk with his daughter, and just days after a Virginia poster showing a father holding his daughter's hands and the words "It doesn't feel right when I see them together", we have this:

Is she your daughter? Man asked to prove it at Wal-Mart.

This is a sickening story. A man is out with his daughter, doing some shopping, and is harassed by two security guards wanting him to prove that she is his daughter. The security guard first asks the daughter, then the father, then another man comes out and wants to know, and then the police come along. How wonderful is that.

Pretty soon just daring to appear in public will give some "concerned citizen" busybody cause to call you in and have you spread out on the concrete with a knee in your back.

Is there a reason behind this hysteria? I mean, that's three incidents in such a short time, what could be behind this sudden push to get fathers criminalized?

'This is my daddy'

Man charges racism after he, daughter are confronted by guards at Wal-Mart

June 24, 2007

BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist

"What did he say?" Ed Lino asked his 7-year-old daughter, Destiny, as they walked out of the Wal-Mart.

"That man wants to know if you are my daddy," the little girl told her father.

Maybe it would have been a legitimate question had the girl been screaming bloody murder, or there was an Amber Alert that fit Lino and his daughter's description. After all, children have been abducted from department stores.

» Click to enlarge image

Ed Lino and his daughter Destiny, shown at one of their favorite parks on Wednesday.
(Michael McArdle/STNG)

» Click to enlarge image

Ed Lino showed security guards at Wal-Mart a keychain that had pictures of his daughter Destiny when she was little to try and convince them he had custody of the girl.

But Lino -- who is white -- thinks someone looked at him, looked at the dark-skinned girl, and assumed the worst. He's tired of this kind of drama, but it hasn't stopped him from taking care of his daughter on a daily basis since last June, or from taking her shopping and to the park to skate.

Still, some people look at the father and daughter like he could be be a sexual predator -- which is what Lino thinks happened earlier this month when he went shopping at the Wal-Mart at 167th and Torrence.

"We went into the store; we walked around looking for school supplies she needed; we stood in line; we paid. There was no problem. There was no reason for a security guard to ask her if I'm her daddy," he said.

So Lino walked back into Wal-Mart and approached the uniformed security guard.

"He was an older black gentleman, and he asked me: 'Is this your child?' I said: 'Yes, this is my daughter,' and I showed him my key chain with her picture on it."

'This was blatant racism'

Lino said he and his daughter walked back out of the store and went to his car. Just as he opened the door, another black man whom he assumed was a Wal-Mart employee approached him and asked the same question, explaining that a "question concerning the child had come up."

"I told him the same thing. I even showed him the key chain and a medical card with her name on it," Lino said. "When I started to get back in the car, the man said I had to show some identification."

Lino refused.

"I told him I'm not going to give you anything," Lino said. "This was blatant racism. The child was not crying when he walked up, and there was no sign of any struggle. There was no problem until he walked up, and then she started crying: 'This is my daddy. Leave him alone,' " the father said.

At this point, the white father put his dark-skinned daughter into the car and drove off.

Twenty minutes later, a Lynwood police officer was pounding on the door of Lino's south suburban home.

"They had gotten a call that I had taken a child from the Wal-Mart," Lino said.

"I told them, 'I took a child all right. She is right here. Here is her grandmother,' " Lino said, pointing to an older black woman. "The police officer apologized and started laughing."

But Lino didn't see anything funny.

He called Wal-Mart and complained to a manager.

"I wanted to know what was this all about and why did I have to go through this harassment. My daughter wasn't crying in the store. She wasn't being pulled by me or anything like that."

'That's just a lie'

Mia Masten, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman for the Chicago region, told a slightly different version of the same story, carefully pointing out that the security guard involved was employed by a third party. She also denied that the man in the "white shirt and tie" was associated with Wal-Mart.

"One of our security guards was approached by a customer who was concerned about the safety of the child," Masten said, but she did not identify the customer or say why the customer thought there was a safety issue.

"We don't know. But the customer approached the guard, who was acting in response to the customer's concern," she said. "The guard accompanied the customer outside the store, where the customer approached Mr. Lino and his daughter. To our knowledge, no Wal-Mart associate was involved," Masten said.

Lino vehemently disagrees with this version of the facts.

"That's just a lie," he told me.

Masten also claimed that it was the unidentified customer who took a photograph of Lino's license plate and called police. She said a store manager apologized to Lino over the phone because Wal-Mart wants all of its customers to have a "pleasant experience."

Lino said he isn't satisfied with Wal-Mart's response.

"The store manager promised me that she would check with the security guard and look at the tape to find out what reason he had to question us. It's been over a week, and I haven't heard from them. My daughter doesn't want to go back to a Wal-Mart because she thinks I'm going to be arrested," he said. "It was outrageous."

It doesn't help that Lino's estranged African-American wife, Diane Maxwell, now calls Lino a "father figure" and not the girl's biological father, even though she was born during their marriage and he is listed as the father on the hospital's announcement of birth.

"As far as I know, she's my daughter," Lino told me. "I love her."

Forty years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial unions, Lino's love means that when in public, he almost has to hang a sign around his daughter's neck that says: "It's OK. He's my daddy."

The lying cunt representing Wal-Mart can go take a bath in boiling oil. Its perfectly clear that there were probably no "concerned citizens" involved, just sexism and sexist pedophile hysteria.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with racism.

How come?

Just ask yourself - would they do the same thing to a woman with a black child?

A blatantly unfair child-support case

Child support is of course a euphemism for mommy support.

But here we have a woman who is actually fair, who is actually doing her bit to earn the 50% thing the female supremacists like to talk about oh-so-often. She has the kids half the time, while the Dad has the kids half the time. But of course Daddy is the walking wallet, and is ordered to pay GBP 365 a month to the wife. She is fair, but we see the corruption and the malfeasance of the system shine through... he has been jailed.

Think about that for a minute. She agrees that he shouldn't pay child support, she implores the judge not to send him in because it'll negatively affect the family, but the man still goes to jail.

He's off to gaol for 42 days. That's a month and a half. Any bets on the type of treatment he'll get in jail? Any doubts that his F4J connections did him in?

The problem is with the system. People nowadays think that the system can do no wrong, that the justic system is as fair and transparent as it can ever be, that the pinnacles of perfection who sit with their wigs and gavels can do no wrong. Everyone goes after the lawyers, but it is the system that makes it profitable for lawyers to fight a case in the morning and go to lunch together in the afternoon, as many men have been dismayed to find out.

Michael Cox, 43, had argued that their three children spent half their lives with him and that he should not therefore have to pay the Child Support Agency (CSA) for the time that they spent with their mother. Cox – a legal adviser to the campaign group Fathers 4 Justice – called the system “oppressive, unjust and discriminatory” towards men.

The court was told yesterday that Cox was required to pay £365 a month in maintenance to his former wife, Lesley Peach, 39, but she did not have to pay anything to him.

In March, Cox, who has five children, was given a 42-day prison sentence for failing to pay the charge, but the sentence was suspended on condition that he began to pay monthly instalments.

Yesterday he heavily criticised the CSA as he was jailed for 42 days. A letter from Ms Peach was read out in court begging magistrates not to give Cox a custodial sentence because of the impact on her family. Prosecutors said that his former wife would appreciate more financial support.

Cox, who represented himself, told Southampton Magistrates’ Court: “I have been referred to as an absent father, but that’s not what I am. I’m a father who well knows the obligation to his children and I discharge that obligation. I feed all of my children, I clothe them, I house them – that’s what I spend my money on. The Child Support Agency gives me no assistance for that and requires me to spend the money twice. I say that makes it oppressive, unjust and discriminatory in its action. In this case you have two established families living in equilibrium.
My ex-wife lives a mile away from me and the children pass easily between the two households. They spend half of the time with me and half of the time with their mother.
My ex-wife is not a little old lady living in a shoe, reaching in the back of a cupboard for the last tin of beans. This is not about the law. According to the law I’m dead in the water – I’m bang to rights.”

Cox asked magistrates to show discretion and spare him jail so that he could continue to earn money to pay for the care of his children.

Tom Concannon, for the prosecution, said that since the couple separated in 1994 Cox had amassed debts to the CSA of £45,000. The court was told that Cox was required to pay because the children were officially resident with their mother.

In a letter to magistrates, Ms Peach said that if her former husband were sent to jail, she would have to give up her job to look after the children.

Reacting to the sentence, Cox, of Hythe, Southampton, said: “It is outrageous that people are released early from prison for serious crimes and yet I’m being locked up as a caring father.”

You talk to somebody and once you even mention blaming the court system, the government or feminism, people look at you like you're from the fucking moon. Like you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the government puts fluoride in the water for the mind-control rays. Feminism especially, since people have a space in their heart devoted to women, whether they're women themselves or men. Feminism is the sacred cow of the west.

Off-Topic: You know, its no accident that anyone with a conspiracy theory is treated as a nutjob in the media. Its no accident that its the pot-smoking hippies who always come up with zany conspiracy theories in movies and other fiction. Its no accident that the wildest, most off-the-hook nutjobs are chosen to represent the most off-the-wall conspiracy theories in the media.

The MSM has long ceased to be our friend. They're there to represent themselves, and if turning into a government-propaganda channel is what fills their balance sheet, they'll do it. In the blink of an eye.

A blatantly unfair wife-support case

You know, I think that nowadays the system doesn't even care about appearing gender neutral - the judges and lawyers are just like "Fuck you man, what you gonna do huh?" and giving out settlements that should get them disbarred and thrown in jail for perverting the course of justice so badly.

But the abuse continues... because only men are suffering.

Look at the first one - a man divorces his cheating wife in 1981, is ordered by the court to give her money, and gives her enough to never need to work in her entire lifetime.

Alimony 30 years after the divorce.

Just think about that for a second. Do you go to work? Do you suffer under a boss who doesn't appreciate you, snarky coworkers who take all the credit, or bitchy customers or harsh deadlines?

Well, this CUNT has never seen that world. She has never worked. Not once in her life. She has always been a albatross on some man - first her Dad, then her Husband. Her kids (if there were any) are long grown up and gone, and she has been living the high life with support from her ex-husband and from Britain's welfare-state-gone-wild. This bitch had the audacity to move to the poshest area of Sidney, Australia, blow the money on useless shit and "investments" and now she's back for more.

And the court fucking gives it to her! The judge, may he die in a fire, gave her GBP 202,000. At today's exchange rate, that's $404,518.67. And that's after she blew the rest, don't forget that.

So now divorces that had been settled 30 years ago can be re-opened for the purposes of wealth-redistribution under Britain's new female-friendly laws. And who has the balls to say that female-friendly can be bad too? Nobody!

... NOBODY can say that female-friendly can be bad. Not because everything is automatically male-friendly unless its female-friendly, although that's a nice drum for female supremacists to beat, but because its men's job to make things better for women.

Remember: Women are the royal sex, and men were put on earth to serve them.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Conversation with a co-worker

I was talking with a co-worker today. He is about five years older than me, and is just about ready to find a wife. He isn't American, and neither will be his wife. As if that matters though. If you marry a foreign-born and raised woman in the US, she will still be able to get everything, including a fast-track to citizenship if she cries abuse. And you think her family back home won't believe her? Ha ha. And look forward to getting your bones broken if her family ever sees you in their turf.

Anyway, so we're talking about investments and college savings for children and stuff. I'm talking about the 529 plans for saving for college, and whether its better to let the kids go on their own or finance their college and whether they'll have to take jobs in high school or not.

Then, all of a sudden, he pipes up with, "I think girls are better than boys." As I'm digesting this shocking bit of sexism, he continues, "I think girls on the whole are better than boys. Girls don't make as much mess, they're more obedient, and they're on the whole better."

He is the type of guy who will see the Trojan commercial portraying men as pigs and nod his head and agree. Then he will probably flog himself with a cat o' nine tails before going to bed. He is a victim of the mainstream media's feminist programming. Most intelligent men I know have unplugged themselves from the TV's feminist drivel, but he hasn't. And he's a reasonably bright person. But his view totally shocked me.

I made a comment on how girl children used to be unwanted (female infanticide in China and India) and now boy children are unwanted, and he said that percentage-wise, girls are just.... better. That's what rankled me. He is basically telling me that men as a sex are inferior to women. Talk about self-loathing.

I'm going to have to stop talking with him, because while I've tried to introduce him to the Men's movement by way of Tom Leykis and a couple of Chris Rock's videos, but if he is this far gone I have no interest in beating my head against a brick wall.

I just pray to God that he doesn't have a son.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

A Father's Choice

This looks like a trailer to a movie, which deals with Father's Rights, and from what I can see, in a mostly positive way. What a complete shock! In a world of features like Breaking the Silence and Sprox commercials, this is a total shock.

Anyway, check it out:

Eternal Bachelor - out but not down?

Today is a very sad day. Today, one of the most famous bloggers in MRA-land has hung up his socks. Eternal Bachelor is no longer writing, saying that since he moved to a new country and the blog is taking up too much time of his, he is going to discontinue it.

I have no clue why he went and deleted all the material from his site. I sure hope he wasn't Ilkka-fied. He had some excellent stuff there, and it would have been good reference material for budding MRA's to check out. I spent many a day going through his archives when I first discovered his blog.

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

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

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

Farewell Eternal Bachelor, may we see you again.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Think the media isn't biased?

Check out this article...

Three people have been killed in a crash in Devon after reports a car was seen driving the wrong way along the carriageway.
Police said evidence pointed to one of the cars being driven on the wrong side of the road for a couple of miles.
Police said those killed were a 33-year-old woman from Torpoint and couple aged 59 and 60 from Ivybridge.
So you think, hmmm ok so these two cars crashed, what of it?

But you don't know! Someone at the Big Brother Corporation (just made that up, hehe) slipped up earlier. This is what it originally read:

Police said evidence pointed to a car, driven by a woman, being on the wrong side of the road for a couple of miles.
Makes you think about what else goes on behind the scenes huh?

Props to an anonymous commenter from EB.

Got called a male chauvinist

Yep, I just got called a male chauvinist by my girlfriend. I clam up whenever someone makes accusations like that, because I recognize them for what they are - attempts to shout me down from an assumed higher moral ground. So they roll off me like water off a duck's back.

However, this is my girlfriend, and I want to make her see, to bring her over to our side. Its so easy for women to choose the path of privilege and victimhood, but I want her to see that women are not the woebegone helpless trodden-upon creatures they are made out to be. Of course, that's against all her training and she resists a lot.

Her: "one day you're going to wake up and realize how much you care for her by the time you do she'll be waking up next to the guy who already knew."
11:09 AM is this quote negative?
or positive?
i can't figure out
11:15 AM me: -ve
totally negative
11:16 AM Her: really
11:18 AM me: of course
she's saynig that she will leave him for someone who praises her
11:19 AM by the time he realizes he should have praised her, she will be gone
Her: i think its the other way around
me: and she throws sex in there too.. "waking up next to the guy..."
11:20 AM Her: its about the girl finding someone who appreciates her
me: then she should go and do it instead of shaming the guy into appreciating her more
its not all about her
11:21 AM Her: its the guy not understanding her..
but its both ways
don't you think
11:24 AM just like some things you realize only after you lose it, right?
11:28 AM me: yea
i guess
Her: does this apply to that quote
me: but listen to songs by men and by women
i don't know but only angry songs by women are popular
11:29 AM whereas the love songs by men are more romantic and hopeful
even you commented about that
11:30 AM Her: well woman have also given nice romantic songs
and popular
remember..."you are still the one" by Shania Twain
Kiss me by sixpence none the richer
me: nowadays?
11:31 AM i mean, its the volume of those songs
a few romantic songs versus a ton of angry songs
whereas there are no angry songs by male singers
Her: men have a lot more angry songs too
me: at least not in the mainstream
11:32 AM irreplaceable by beyonce
versus anything by john mayer etc
remember the "wanna make you feel beautiful" song
Her: i don't think you can compare it like that
me: "i don't mind spending every day
out in the corner in the pouring rani
look for the girl with the broken smile"
hate sells here
11:33 AM and women love to hate men
Her: its not about me i like that song
me: you don't believe me?
11:34 AM Her: when you say that it feels like you have learn from dealing with me
i am the women you have in your life right now
and you are getting this impression because i am behaving that way
me: i haven't been restricted only to the women in my life
my last girlfriend was a big feminist
big in all ways
she said all men are pigs
11:35 AM that's the common thing to say
Her: hmm and you never defended then
me: whereas no man can say in public similarly about women
Her: yeah right
what about whore,
cunts and all
thats such a praise for women
isn't it
11:36 AM me: is it acceptable to say those phrases in movies and TV
but its ok to say
dick dickhead asshole
Her: its acceptable to say "men are pigs on TV too"
me: its A-OK to kick men in the balls
yes it absolutely is
how do you think so many women say it
those exact words
11:37 AM why are you defending your sisterhood anyway
you can accept that some women hate men
can't you?
men don't defend other men just because they're men
Her: i am so sad to see you be such a male schononist.. what ever you call it
me: women do defend other women just because they're women
11:38 AM Her: you are doing the same
me: its ok
Her: you are defending your fellow men
me: because its high time men stood up for themselves
women ain't gonna do it for us
Her: wow
ok i am done
11:39 AM me: women are too busy defending female rapists and murderers
Her: i am going to eat with Jen
me: have fun baby
Her: i don't know i am in the middle i don't want to be a feminist
11:40 AM but then i can't say yes to whatever u are saying
its not a fight
me: i don't want to be near a man-hater so its great to hear that
Her: well i am not saying this to please you
thats what i am
and i feel bad you are a male chauvinist
i will be back
ok bye

Friday, June 15, 2007

Madame President - an essay about Hillary Clinton

A very powerful and moving essay. This guy (I am going to assume its a man) pulls no punches with his admonishment of Hillary Clinton and feminism. Read on...

By P. T. Mycas

I have no objection to electing a female President of the United States. As a matter of fact, I believe there are millions of women who could do a better job than the current male President. But that's a pretty low bar. I would like to vote for the most qualified person for President, male or female. Because I do not believe Hillary Clinton would be President for all Americans, I do not believe she is qualified.

Politically, I like to think of myself as an Independent, but in order to vote in primaries, I declare as a Democrat. I am liberal. I hold the usual liberal views with one exception. I generally do not like feminism. Feminism is defined as equality between women and men, but the name itself belies this definition. It is like trying to coin a word which expresses the harmony and equality between Ford and Chevy owners and coming up with the name "Fordism." Chevy owners would not allow such nonsense. By saying feminism is about equality, feminists are hiding that much of feminism is about sexism. Why have we let feminists get away with this?

Of course, there are several varieties of feminism, some of which are fine. For example, I have little problem with equity feminism (is that an oxymoron?). However, I think radical feminists form, for the most part, a sexist hate group which has hijacked feminism.

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be far closer to the radical feminists than to the equity feminists.

Living History is her rather pompously-entitled autobiography. It is also a long campaign speech, in which she engages in blatant Presidential self-promotion, especially aimed at women. I found it a disorganized and rambling, stream-of-consciousness screed. It felt more like a diary.

As one might expect in a diary, there are many examples showing her emotional side. Perhaps these examples are to counter her reputation for being an ice queen. Or perhaps they are to appeal to female voters. But I feel they revealed weakness, insecurity, indecisiveness and superficiality. For example, she inadvertently showed her weakness when she said she couldn't eat or sleep and lost 10 pounds before testifying before the Grand Jury. Another time she mentioned being "flat on my back and unable to move" due to tension and high heels. And during the Starr investigations she mentioned that she thought Bill was sailing along, while she was "buffeted by every gust of wind." There were also many examples of her holding back tears and leaning on friends for support. She several times described her separation anxiety when Chelsea left for Stanford. She quoted Eleanor Roosevelt as saying, "A woman is like a tea bag. You never know how strong she is until she's in hot water." I do not think Hillary is a very strong tea bag. Indecisiveness showed in her slowness in marrying Bill, deciding on a career, moving to Arkansas, and running for the Senate. She often complained about how the press focused on her hair and clothes, but the book was peppered with examples of her focus on appearance and style, hers as well as others'.

My biggest objection to President Hillary is that she would only be President for about half of the people of the United States---the inny half. Living History reflects this. She constantly plays the gender card in the book. She is obsessive about her focus on women. Certainly different people could come to different counts, but I counted 315 instances of her playing the gender card---that's once every 1.7 pages. Some of the examples are fairly insignificant, such as using her maiden name, adding a bust of Eleanor Roosevelt to the Roosevelt Room, and telling us that so-and-so was the first woman to do such-and-such. Some examples may even exhibit pettiness. For example, she got a haircut and a perm to show solidarity with a woman whose hair was criticized. However, most examples are significant, and added together, they indicate a maniacal focus on women and women's issues.

In fact, Clinton states explicitly that working on women's issues is a prime focus for her. In the first paragraph she says she wasn't born a women's advocate but was free to make that choice. Later, she details the organizational and staff changes she made upon becoming First Lady, so that she could work on women's issues. She also mentions at one point that she "had been working for twenty-five years on improving the status and dignity of women...." At the Democratic Convention in 2000, she thanked the nation for allowing her to work here and abroad on issues that matter most to women. At another point, she mentions that Admiral Elmo Zumwalt told Chelsea that her mother will be remembered "for opening the eyes of the world" to women's rights.

While deliberating to run for the Senate, she writes, "I had traveled the world on behalf of women's rights...." She details in the book the many trips she has taken as First Lady (e.g., China, Mongolia, Africa, Ireland, South Asia, Australia, Italy, The Philippines, and Thailand) and the focus on women's issues of each trip. She met with women and women's groups, at girls' schools, women's banks, and maternity hospitals, and gave speeches to women's groups on women's issues. In fact, on her trips without Bill she focused almost exclusively on women's issues.

She also seems to only think of herself in gender terms. In her testimony to the Congress on health care she said, "I'm here as a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a woman."

Her focus on women occasionally makes her overly sensitive. For example, after telling us that she is skilled at public speaking, she then relates how after she had testified before an Arkansas legislative joint session, a male legislator commented that perhaps the state had elected the wrong Clinton to the governorship. It's hard to know exactly how the legislator meant this, but it sounds like a compliment to me. However, Clinton took this as an insult to women. She thought the legislator was expressing amazement that a "woman" could be articulate and knowledgeable. She refers to this offense as the "talking dog syndrome." Apparently, this is a distortion of a quip by Samuel Johnson: "A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." She was similarly offended after testifying before the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on health care.

I am also concerned about her appointments, advisers, and staff if she becomes President. It appears nearly all of her advisers and staff when she was First Lady were women. Living History shows a group picture of her staff and only 2 of the 30 shown are men. She seems to surround herself with women, which included going to a women's college and attending an all-female prayer group. Cronyism has been a serious problem of the Bush administration. We do not need to continue the problem with Clinton hiring women just because they are women, when there may be more qualified men available.

As First Lady, Clinton often met with world leaders and their spouses. In Living History, she nearly always (25 times) describes the spouses in more glowing terms than the leaders themselves. The one exception to this rule is when she talks about meeting the female Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland. Brundtland's husband is not mentioned.

Clinton also shows some antipathy toward men. For example in Living History she says that in fifth grade she had a reputation for being able to stand up to the rowdy boys. Also, she twice refers to the Chinese saying that women hold up half the sky, but adds, "but in most of the world, it's really more than half." It appears she doesn't think much of men. She also twice quotes Joyce McCartan's condescending comment, "It takes women to bring men to their senses." After the Lewinsky scandal, she writes that she "wanted to wring Bill's neck." This also brings to mind her recent "joke" when asked how she would handle the evil men in the world. She implied she had experience from dealing with her husband. When confronted with the harshness of this "joke," she responded, "You guys keep telling me to lighten up, be funny. I get a little funny and now I'm being psychoanalyzed." Well, yes. Why did she choose to make fun of men? Was she really joking? If she thinks her husband is evil, what can the rest of the male population expect? Or was she just pandering to the lowest instincts of female voters?

In Clinton's speech to the UN Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 she said, " is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights...human rights are women's rights...and women's rights are human rights, once and for all." Perhaps she meant this rhetorically, but it is odd that she demands equating women's rights with human rights considering she does quite the opposite throughout Living History. She constantly makes "women's rights" the focus of attention and treats them as separate from "human rights." In fact, the two phrases often occur in the same sentence, confirming their difference. I suspect her purpose in equating the two is to deny that women's rights are "special" rights, which is belied by her book. She does something similar when accused of feminizing politics, by insisting that she is humanizing politics. This is the same trick I mentioned earlier when "feminism" is defined as "equality." It is actually an attempt to deny her own sexism. And by saying women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights, she is strongly implying that men have no rights, or that they are not human.

Living History is not the only example of her woman-centric attitude. Her Talking-It-Over columns during her years as First Lady often dealt with women's issues. Examples included topics such as birth control for women, low-income women, a woman-friendly workplace, encouraging women to vote, her trip to the United Nations Conference on Women, drive-thru deliveries, the U.S. women's soccer team, trafficking of women, renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, women's rights in Viet Nam, Irish women for peace, microcredit for women, the pay gap, and women leaders. And two of her last columns summarized her work on women's issues as First Lady. Her campaign website also has a page on women's issues, but none on men's issues. This page includes the incredibly popular but incredibly wrong statement that "women still earn only $.76 cents (sic) for every dollar men earn for doing the same work."

Clinton has often touted her concern for children. How much of this is genuine and how much is a smokescreen for her concern for women? In her speech to the Democratic convention in 1996, she listed eight ways for the government and citizens to help children: longer maternity hospital stays, home nurses and hot lines for new mothers, expansion of the new family leave law, flex-time, health-insurance for all, tax breaks for people who adopt, an end to racial preferences in adoption, and reading proficiency by the third grade. Most of these have more to do with helping women than children.

Contrary to what feminists want us to believe, American women have a tremendous amount of power today. They dominate politics because there are more female than male voters. Therefore, all elected officials must cater to women in order to be elected. Women control the economy because they spend nearly all of the money while their husbands are alive (the spending gap), and all of the money when their husbands die. The spending gap results in women controlling the media. Women also receive much power from chivalry and imposed guilt, which has probably increased during feminism. And let us not forget the ever-present sexual power that women have over men. Just think of all the powerful men humbled by women like Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice, Elizabeth Ray, Fanny Fox, Jessica Hahn, etc.

I'd like to say more about the spending gap. The power in money comes not from making it but from spending it. So the ever-present controversy about the pay gap is misplaced. The spending gap is far more significant. Women spend roughly 80 cents of every consumer dollar. This gives them enormous power. Advertisers, as a result, aim their advertising at women. As a consequence of this, nearly all advertising media must also aim at women in order to attract advertisers. So, newspapers, television, magazines, etc., bias their content toward women. These media pander to women at nearly every opportunity, presenting woman as strong, intelligent, victimized, and superior, while presenting men as weak, dumb, victimizing, and inferior. This results in such media fiascoes as those associated with the pay gap, the Duke lacrosse team, girls’ self-esteem crisis, domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday, Jessica Lynch, and runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks. The media seem to have new rules like: Focus on female victims. If female victims can't be found, focus on mothers or wives of victims. Focus on discrimination against women. If discrimination against women in the United States can't be found, focus on discrimination against women in the third world. Highlight all accomplishments of women. As well as becoming more and more tabloid to appeal to women, the media are also discriminating against men, resulting in the devaluing of men by society. I suspect female candidates for office are also receiving more beneficial coverage.

Another example of women's power is that chivalry results in an inordinate amount of charity going to women. For example, what disease receives more attention and funding than breast cancer? Why? Lung cancer kills more women and prostate cancer kills almost as many men. And why ignore pancreatic, liver, or brain cancers? Obviously, we value women's lives more than men's. Some criticized this inordinate amount of attention on breast cancer by pointing out that many more women die of heart disease. In response, a campaign was instituted to focus on heart disease, but only in women. The Go Red for Women campaign focuses only on women even though heart disease kills a comparable number of men and kills them 10 years younger.

Considering that we abhor gender discrimination, women's power has resulted in some odd legislation. For example, even though girls are doing much better than boys in schools and colleges, we have the Women's Educational Equity Act. Even though women participate in school extracurricular activities more than boys, we have Title IX enforcement only in sports, the one area where boys dominate. Even though men generally die five years earlier than women and die earlier in 14 of the 15 leading causes of death, we have the Women's Health Equity Act and the Women's Health Initiative focusing only on women's health. Even though men are victims of violence 2 to 3 times more often than women, we have the Violence Against Women Act giving women special protections and programs. Even though men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crimes, states have instituted women's commissions to study discrimination against women in the justice system. And the ironic fact about all of this legislation is that it was passed by, for all practical purposes, male legislators.

We constantly hear that the country is becoming more polarized, with more and more people unwilling to compromise. Clinton, with her openly women-based attitude, will add to this problem by separating the sexes and contributing to antagonism between them. We need a President to bring the country together.

All politicians pander to women. But I feel this pandering would become extreme under a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Women who were influenced by women's studies programs and feminism from an early age are now entering power positions such as CEO and President where they can exert much influence over policies and direction.
If these women bring radical feminism with them, men will become, more and more, second class citizens. Because of their chivalrous nature, I fear men will do little to stop this.

Some women are probably saying, "Good, it's about time." But I don't see how discrimination against our great-grandmothers justifies discrimination against our brothers now. I expect women to be more magnanimous than that. Let me remind you of Harry Burn. He voted for the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote after his mother told him "be a good boy, Harry, and do the right thing." In fact, nearly all of the legislators who did the right thing and voted for the 19th Amendment were men. It is time for women (and men) to do the right thing. Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for half of the country.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Another man who got a divorce and is now against marriage

Don't get Married! - by Marc Perkel

It's a Lie - It's a Trap

Marriage isn't what you think it is. It's a license you give the government that allows greedy opportunistic lawyers to steal everything you own. Here in America there are a lot of people making a lot of money splitting up relationships hunting for people like you to suck you dry.

You think it can't happen to you. That's what I thought. I am Marc Perkel and when I tell you my story you're going to think, "This is America, the can't do that!" Well, they can and they do. If you are considering marriage, run from it as fast as you can.

If you want to be in a relationship, do it. Buy her a ring, live happily ever after. But a contract with the government doesn't add to the relationship. In fact, because of todays laws, marriage actually hurts the relationship and you are more likely to stay together if you don't get married.

I am in the process of losing everything I own. I am under a court order to pay more money than I have. If I manage to borrow the money, she will get more than 100% of everything. You're thinking "No way, that's not possible!" I'm going through it and I can't believe it. But it's true!

Read on and see why marriage is a bad idea, written by someone who got run through the wringer for no-fault of his own. I saw this website last year and it really helped me understand that the Family court system is not about fairness and justice, not at all.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Eight year old charged with lewd sexual conduct

So this eight year old boy has a babysitter, who sexually assaults him, and its blamed on him by the local friendly anti-male prosecutor. Isn't that so wonderful? The pussy pass works in all situations, as long as a male is involved, the card-carrying member of the Royal Sex will go free. Think about all other cases like this where it doesn't even make it to the police, let alone to prosecution. Think about all the cases where the boy is told that its his own fault. Society is only able to accept the concept of sexual abuse against children when it is committed by a man - whether it is to a boy child or a girl child.

It has to be a boy.

A mother is upset after a 14-year-old babysitter engaged in sexual conduct with her eight-year-old boy, and the eight-year-old was charged with lewd conduct.
Prosecutors have since dropped the charges against the boy, but his mother is still concerned.
The sexual conduct occurred during a game of “truth or dare” while the boy was being watched by the babysitter.
Prosecutors say that, while the babysitter initiated the contact, the young boy was a willing participant.
“She dared my son to touch her breasts,” says Michelle Grosbeck, the boy’s mother.
After hiring the teenager to baby sit, Grosbeck got the feeling something was wrong.
“It was just that sense that something wasn’t quite right with this 14-year-old girl,” she said. She asked her son what had happened. “He just came right out as if nothing was awry, and just started talking about what had happened.”
Grosbeck went to police and child protection workers, and the case went to the district attorney, after which her son, age eight, had been charged with an act of lewdness with a minor.
Grosbeck says the Salt Lake County District Attorney told her both the child and teenager were equal participants. But Mrs. Grosbeck didn’t believe that.
“My son is eight, he’s a little boy. He does not have the ability to participate on the same level as a fourteen-year-old,” she said.
Although the charges against her son were dropped, she is concerned that the same thing could happen to other victims of sexual abuse.
“I don’t want parents to be afraid to go to the state agencies that are supposed to be protecting our children when things like this happen, out of fear that their children are going to be charged
The district attorney’s office confirmed the charges had been made, and that they had been dropped. Other than that, they wouldn’t comment. The Division of Child and Family Services also declined to comment.

Look at how the story starts - the mother is upset! God forbid, the child and the abuse he suffered is secondary to the tale. Exactly like how a 1950's story about a pet slave nigger kept by a white woman and how she is offended by something that happened to her pet would read. This is nothing against the mother of course, I'm pointing out the misandry in the media.

Look at the man-hating prosecutors - they themselves have the gall to say that, "Oh, he is a male, he must have been a willing participant, hell let's get him for daring to touch her - he should have clearly known better, eight is a very mature age." HEY ASSHOLE, DON'T GIRLS MATURE FASTER THAN BOYS, OR IS THAT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS YOUR FUCKING AGENDA??

And how the fuck do these assholes get to decline commenting about these atrocities? Who the fuck is holding these man-haters accountable? The media certainly isn't up to the task.

Don't go walking with your daughter

Yes sir, presumed guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt. A man was walking with his daughter and somebody fucking called him in and the po-po were ready to do a fucking multi-million dollar rescue operation, all because a father was out walking with his daughter after dinner. How fucked up is that? 

Girl feared abducted found at home

A manhunt for a girl police feared had been abducted ended in relief last night when officers found the girl at home, several hours after the search had started.

A motorist passing by on Bloor St. called police to say he saw a man walking into a wooded area near Bloor and Sherbourne Sts. around 8 p.m. with a young girl, believed to be 3 or 4 years old.

The motorist described the man as “looking homeless,” triggering fears the girl had been coerced into wandering off with a stranger.

Several other people also reportedly tipped off police about the seemingly unusual pairing, including a registered nurse walking along Bloor St. and a Toronto parking control officer.

"I don’t know if all three saw the girl, but they all saw something," said Staff Sgt. Randy Carter of Toronto police 51 Division.

The tips sparked a large search that brought in officers from other divisions across the GTA, and even made use of the Durham Region police helicopter. Also involved in the search were the K-9 and mounted units.

Police concentrated their search in a ravine under the TTC Bloor subway line and various bridges that cross over. The area – known as “the cave” – contains makeshift shelters the homeless have set up.

For hours last night, the area of Rosedale Valley Rd. from Park Rd. near Church St. to Bayview Ave. – at the bottom of the ravine – was closed as officers scoured the brush from end to end.

Police also questioned people about three homeless men in connection with the case.

Eventually, the search was ended after a nearby resident recognized the description of the man and the girl as a local man and his young daughter, and alerted police, providing them with the address to find the girl, safe and sound, Carter said.

Men - NEVER MARRY, NEVER HAVE CHILDREN because you are so going to get fucked in the ass.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Feminist definitions

Men seeking equal treatment = "backlash"
Women seeking equal treatment = "feminism"

Discrimination against men = "equal opportunity"
Discrimination against women = "discrimination"

A woman with grievances = "victim"
A man with grievances = "angry"

Open discussion of gender issues = "misogyny"

Men looking for equal treatment in the courts = "abuse"

Consensual sex between a man and woman = "rape"

Heated discussion between a man and woman = "domestic violence"

Women receiving preferential treatment/privileges = "equality"

A numeric majority of the human species = "minority"

Any woman = "victim"
Any man = "oppressor"
Any child = "property"

A woman talking about hating men = "empowerment"
A man talking about hating women = "hate speech"

A sexually predatory woman dressed like a hooker = "liberation"
A man with any interest in sex = "rapist"

A woman who wants to be with her children = "mother"
A man who wants to be with his children = "abuser"

A woman who forces children under her care/authority into sex = "the child was lucky"
A man who forces children under his care/authority into sex = "pedophile"

A shelter providing emergency services to abused women = "women's shelter"
A shelter providing any services to abused men = "prison"

Female genital mutilation = "sexual repression"
Male genital mutilation = "acceptable custom that protects women from HIV"

A man assaulting a women = "(domestic) violence"
A woman assaulting a man = "humor"

A man who beats his female partner = "batterer"
A woman who beats her male partner = "victim"

A disposable slave = "man"
A human being = "woman"

Hating women = "a crime"
Hating men = "'a viable political act'"

Distorting or lying about reality = "feminist analysis"

Biology = "lies"
Reality = "discrimination"

Did I miss any?

From RandomMan over at MANN.

Some more from Mr. X over at SYG:

Woman = good
Man = evil

God could be a woman
Satan is always a man

Woman dealing with pregnancy = "choices"
Man dealing with pregnancy = "responsibilities"

Women die in combat = "travesty"
Men die in combat = "duty"

Girls not succeeding in school = "low self esteem, patriarchal school system"
Boys not succeeding in school = "ADHD"

Woman not a CEO = "glass ceiling"
Man not a CEO = "failure"

Woman says no to man hitting on her = "choices"
Man says no to woman hitting on him = "gay"

Woman fools around = "dissatisfied"
Man fools around = "jerk"

Prone to Violence by Erin Pizzey

Erin Pizzey is of course the famous woman who opened the first Women's Shelter in the world. This was back when she thought domestic violence was a multi-faceted problem, before the domestic violence cause had been hijacked by female supremacists and turned into a "men always bad, women always good" issue.

Erin Pizzey has had death threats, has been booed off the stage when speaking about domestic violence, had reduced funding for her shelters and much more, all because of the fact that she categorically denies that Domestic Violence is a male-on-female act in which no woman can harm any man, that all women are subject to all men, and other sacred feminist cows. She is quite the MRA ally for that reason.

Anyway, here is her book about domestic violence: Prone to Violence. It has been banned and you will have a very hard time finding it at your local bookstore, library or even Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you can now read it and be amazed at how little man-hate is displayed in this book. Thanks to MenWeb.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

What was that about compliments again?

Remember the article a few weeks back that claimed men don't give women enough compliments? That women should get a minimum recommended amount of compliments per day?

Well, this is why. This is exactly why women don't get many compliments anymore. Not that they deserve many of course.

When Tom Pacholke spotted a co-worker wearing her prom dress on her way into the Nino Salvaggio market where he was working, he let out a whistle to get her attention. Twenty minutes later, he was called into the manager's office and fired.

His parents protested the April 27 firing, but the store held firm, even though the co-worker didn't complain and wasn't offended.

Pacholke's former co-worker backed up his version of the incident , adding: "It was no big deal." She didn't want to be identified because she's afraid of losing her job, too.

Long live PC and zero-tolerance!

Have you seen some of the high school senior age women (17-18) in their prom dress? They're the hottest they'll ever be, they know it, and the dresses are meant to accentuate that. Slits going up to the thigh, no bra, cleavage pushed up, backless, strapless, plunging neckline, and they do it all under the auspices of their parents who are also slaves to the culture that sexualizes children from infants to teenagers. The same culture that punishes men for even looking at a teen that's dressed like a hooker.

But enough of that. I'm not going to defend this guy, but rest assured that even if he had made a polite compliment, it could still have been taken as sexual harassment and led to his firing. Of course, the opposite is hardly true - if a woman was fired for complimenting a man, she would be the one suing for sexual harassment.

Also read: Don't even talk to women at work.

Don't hire male babysitters, says "expert"

Look at the blatant misandry - the blatant attempt to paint all men with the same brush. Note the fact that she is actively saying that 48% of the population can't control their thoughts and is likely to fuck children if given the chance.

PARENTS should not use teenage boys to babysit, a child abuse expert says.

University of South Australia child abuse expert Professor Freda Briggs has told male adolescents can pose a risk with young children.
"Teenage boys are sexually inquisitive ... if they don't have any opportunity for sexual release," she said.
"Their hormones are pumping and they are curious."

"If there is a choice, choose girls without their boyfriends to babysit your children,” she said.

Just listen to the bitch. Now imagine, could a man say anything even remotely similar about women? Even grown women? That maybe with all the female teachers raping young boys and girls, we should screen them or refuse to hire them on the basis of their sex? Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue at the slightest hint that women aren't angels?

Prof Briggs said most sex offenders were abused as children. Many of the pedophiles she interviewed said they didn't tell anyone about the abuse because they thought no-one would believe them or they weren't sure that it was wrong.

At least she is aware that most child abusers were abused by their parents, with far more likelihood that they were abused by their mom acting alone or in concert with her latest thug boyfriend. But according to her, the buck stops at the man. To trace the abuse back to the mother would go against everything she stands for. To blame men is in her blood.

Prof Briggs also said parents should be aware of the grooming process pedophiles used to trick them into providing access to their children.

"In the interviews with child sex offenders we found they target families deliberately and particularly single mothers," Prof Briggs said.

"If you think people are too good to be true then they probably are. Sex abusers appear to be kind and generous. They befriend parents and children and don’t make demands .

"Children love them because they behave like big kids offering rough and tumble play and tickling. They flatter and boost boys' egos, filling a need for attention and approval."

Is it any wonder that men are leaving the teaching and child-caring professions in droves? How about some affirmative action there you equality-hating privileged cunts?

When a kind and gentle man who genuinely likes kids is looked at with more hate and suspicion than the gangster boyfriend of the mother, is it really any wonder that men are being forced to withdraw from the next generation? 

Friday, June 01, 2007

Another woman looking out for her own

I got this comment on my post about Strip clubs being forced to pay into a "sexual assault prevention" fund.


I feel compelled to respond to several of these comments.. First, the sex industry is NOT controlled by women. By and large, it is men who own, operate, and control not only establishments but also much of the industry. Many women do strip of their own volition, but others are coerced. There are also many who are coerced into prostituting, even though they only signed on to strip. She may seem like a willing participant, but what you don't see is the man who has manipulated and threatened her. Granted, this is not the case all the time, but it is certainly something to consider.
The other comment related to going overseas to get "more bang for your buck" was troubling..... not that the blogger implied that the services solicited would be illegal or coercive, but that type of thing is so much more common abroad. Many, many women and children are forced into working in brothels-- it's called human trafficking-- and must service 20, 30, 40, 50 men a day. It's a haven for abusers. How does this all relate to stripping? Many owners of strip clubs turn a blind eye to a lot of what goes on and it's not a far leap to find clubs hosting "players' balls," which are huge pimp gatherings....
Check out the following for more information and be an educated, ethical consumer is all I'm saying:
Thanks for reading.

Yes honey, of course you feel compelled. After all, where would the female supremacists be without you nice and innocent, everyday women defending them and supporting them? Where would Andrea Dworkin the rabid man-hater be without you all swallowing that crap and asking for more? You are "compelled" by your very nature to band together, to take advantage of good, honest men and to hate men as a class regardless of the good we have done for you. Kind of like how rich white women hated black slaves just a few years ago, didn't even consider them human. Even today, white women are much more likely to sleep with black men in their rebellious phase, and if they're beautiful enough to land a rich white man, they don't look back. A slave's a slave, right? As long as he keeps toiling and keeps his Princess happy so she doesn't need the Enforcers to whip him to keep him in line.

Of course you found the comments on my blog troubling, you are after all a moral paragon aren't you? Pure as the driven snow, am I correct? A member of the Royal Sex forced into interaction with us lowly heathens. Tsk tsk, we shall have to keep those troubling comments away from you, don't we!








Go fuck yourself you fucking CUNT!

The sex industry would crumble without all the disease-ridden whores that go there to be oppressed to exchange their pu$$y (or the promise of it) for CASH. I wonder how many strippers pay taxes on all those $2 bills they dig out of their G-string? After all, they're not the most moral members of society, eh? Many men work in coal mines of their own volition, but plenty are coerced. Even more men and children are coerced into working in mines or other industries (those small hands can reach in where larger ones can't) and a huge amount of male children learn to fire an AK-47 to defend their family after seeing their father blown to bits. Where's your sympathy for men you fucking bitch? Oh wait, you don't have any, you don't care about the disposable sex, do you? Think back to the last couple of wars. Those men may seem like willing participants, but you don't see the women who went around handing out white feathers, then make a U-turn and claim to be war protesters, all to keep their stranglehold on the moral high ground. All while they didn't have to dodge enemy fire, all while they went about their daily lives and fucked the men who sent their husband to war.


Thanks for reading, fuck you come again,

Schopenhauer on women

I found this on a couple of sites, and decided to post it here. This one is for those of us who want to do the crime for doing the time of being called misogynists.

On Women

Updated translation

The nature of the female
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Absence of genius
Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

Insipid women-veneration
This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Monogamy and 'filles de joie'
In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

No argument about polygamy
There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

Property and inheritance
In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband's funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband's money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.
In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.
That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

12 year old girls will learn how to pole-dance in classes

Check out this great article (thanks, Mikeray) about how an empowered cunt is going to start teaching girls (and boys, but how many do you think will want to or be allowed to attend?) as young as 12 how to use their bodies for cash - how to dance with a pole.

Naturally, she tries to distance herself from the "other" pole dancing that millions of strippers do every day. Fucking typical. Trying to claim that as a cunt, she is so impossibly pure, that she has the moral high ground over anyone who links her quasi-striptease class for pre-teens with the strippers she imitates and claims to be different from at the same time.

Ms Riddell insists the classes are nothing but good exercise for children who are at risk of obesity.

But the fact is that many many women will send their daughters to this class. There will be high society girls and low class ones. Their mothers will think "Oh this is so cute" because maybe they themselves take similar classes. After all, stripping-as-exercise has been around for a few years now and is gaining legitimacy, primarily since when you compare those classes to stripclubs, you are automatically the dirty old man for making that connection. So people keep quiet.

Now, of course, there will be plenty of innocent girls in these classes. But the fact is that pole dancing has traditionally been the domain of those who use the promise of their body to extract cash from men. Once they learn how to do the tease, they're well-prepared for their later years. Fired from your job and got bills to pay? Time to fall back on stripping!


Also see "Sex-Positive Feminism" and "Strip club patrons forced to pay fee for man-hating propaganda"