Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Why do married women stray?

Its a topsy-turvy world...

Why do married women stray?

By Nanita Quigley

September 26, 2007 06:00am

WHEN you look at Simon Callahan and his lovely children you can't help but ask why Susan Warne has thrown it all away.

The same can be asked of any person who has cheated on a gorgeous and loving partner.

In a week when Warne has been accused of doing so again - and beauty contest star Michaela Clark has been photographed getting up close with a young man who isn't her stunning boyfriend Lars Bingle - you have to wonder if these gals have rocks in their heads.

Is it being far too simple to say women cheat simply because they can?

Take Hollywood actress Estelle Hawke, who said of the first time she saw Richard Thurman: "I was standing behind him in line (at the automatic teller machine) and thinking he was the most handsome creature I'd ever seen.

"I introduced myself, but he hadn't seen my film (Dead Poet's Society) and was polite, but just treated me like any fan."

Obviously Thurman - one of the most handsome men in the world - eventually did pay her attention, because the pair married and had two children. Then Hawke cheated on her, and they divorced.

I wonder if Hawke thought biker Janus Perzow, the man she had the marriage-ending affair with, was the second most handsome creature she'd ever seen? Or was he just the closest male with a pulse when Hawke was feeling frisky?

Actor Michelle Douglas thought claiming to be a "sex-addict" gave her repeated affairs some kind of legitimacy as a medical condition.

If you believe that, then since being married to Neil Jones she must have been miraculously cured because, hey, so far so good.

It may be safer to assume their pre-nuptial agreement, which included a $5 million "straying fee", has more to do with her embrace of monogamy.

The typical pathetic female response of a woman caught with her pants down is to call it anything but what it is.

Up there with Hillary Clinton is celebrity fisherwoman Rachel Hunt.

Last year Hunt admitted paying a man $1000 a week in order to, in her own words, get her "rocks off".

She paid money to two other men for sexual favours, but refused to call it prostitution.

Yesterday, in response to a piece I wrote about the Warnes, one bright female reader offered this profound explanation for Shane's repetitive philandering: "If men want thier (sic) woman to remain faithful (sic), they need to ensure that they don't have any energy left to spend elsewhere."

Another female reader boasted of her infidelity: "When I had a fling ... both of us were married to different spouses who we loved, and we had kids ... but we needed a lot more ... and we went for it.
Yes we had plenty of wowsers, die hard fundamentalists and purists who, like yourself, obviously didn't understand ... (who) never dared and never enjoyed the huge adrenaline rush of a sizzling hot hot hot relationship outside the box of incantations and indoctrinations.

"Frankly we didn't give a s...! In truth we both got a huge kick out of doing what others couldn't fathom or had no guts to do ... it was part of the experience and added to the rush! The adrenaline was sensational and I have to admit, was far better than anything you get in a repetitive, predictable marriage environment."

What a great role model for her children.

Of course the "experts" have their own theory, with scientists claiming that some people simply can't help being "sex addicts" because of their genetic makeup.

Last year a team from Hebrew University and Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Israel claimed a gene called D4 was responsible for some people having a much stronger sex drive than others.

Blaming a gene doesn't cut it. Blame what's in their jeans.

(Mind you, these bright academics also "discovered" that women thought about sex more often than did men. Hold the presses.)

Men who sleep with other men's wives do so because they can't find a happy relationship of their own - so they mooch in on other people's.

But why do some women, when they have found a happy relationship, continue to blow it for a life of empty liaisons when so many others wouldn't dream about it?

She's a feisty one all right!

Most women get away with murdering their husbands because they use more indirect methods... such as poisoning, hiring a mercenary, influencing other men to do it, and of course, some more direct methods too, like driving over him with his own Mercedes and shooting him in the back while he is sleeping.

But female violence does not just take the shape of domestic violence. Noooo. That would be stereotyping, wouldn't it? And we all know how much the equality-chasers hate stereotyping...

No, female violence against men can take any form. Consider this. Barmaid with a real sense of humor.

You might be wondering, just what does a sense of humor have to do with violence? The answer is everything, when you're a female.

An Australian "prankster" barmaid who served a patron a shot of disinfectant has appeared in court over what her lawyers said was a "misguided" joke.

Melbourne barmaid Emily Craig, 23, served a client a single 30ml shot glass of Pine-O-Cleen disinfectant in March during a 6 a.m. drinking bout at Evolution Nightclub, causing him to become violently ill, the Melbourne Magistrates court was told.

"This was a misguided joke at an ungodly hour," Craig's lawyer George Balot told the judge, according to reports on Tuesday in local newspapers.

Police told the court that Craig "was known for her prankster-style behavior" and once covered a bar in sticky tape. She "upped the ante" with her pranks by serving up the powerful floor cleaner after giving the man shots of pure water.

The patron developed ulcers on his skin after drinking the disinfectant shot from Craig, who has since lost her job and faces four charges of intentionally causing injury.

Oh yeah. Serving straight-up poison is a "prank". I bet everyone involved thinks this is just a big hullabaloo, it should never have blown up this way, yadda yadda. Except the poisoned man. The victim, remember? This story talks more about the bartender than about the victim, funny how that's always the case with a female perpetrator. Serving up poison is just one step on the prank ladder above covering the bar with sticky tape.

Of course, Australia is one of the most feminist countries, so look for her to get off on the pussy pass.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Feminism and Nazism

The other day, ArgusEyes made a video on Youtube where he claims that men who call feminists feminazies are not very nice. There are some more arguments, but I forgot them. You can watch the video here - Why I don't agree with the term 'Feminazi'.

Here is an excellent post by Exposing Feminism about how feminists have co-opted Nazi terminology and imagery into their own movement. Feminism - Cult of Victimhood. Here are a few feminist quotes from that article:

‘A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.’ - Gloria Steinem

‘the women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a housewife,’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps….’ - Betty Friedan

‘I have little sympathy for men. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.’ - Marilyn French

Marriage today

I saw this article today by the Oregon Live website - Marriage today: Fewer 'I do's' and more just 'I's'.

Its yet another article meant to shame and blame men for not wanting to marry a Western Harridan and subject yourself to the scrutiny of a court which is based on lies, deceit, and bias. Like what was said for me in my previous post, marriage today brings ZERO benefit to the man, and a big "Fuck You" to ANYONE who dares to imply that men should sacrifice themselves in marriage for women. Women aren't worth that level of self-sacrifice, and a society which hates men certainly isn't worthy of self-sacrifice by men.

However, contrary to the way some folks in the MRM believe, I don't think that the marriage rate is going down solely because of the marriage strike. I think women are contributing a lot to the late-marriage/no-marriage culture. First of all, careers are very important to women because money is how you gain independence, and independence (from consequences) is very high on western women's list of priorities. Children are also very important, but family and a husband isn't. So we have women in their 20's who still have a very adolescent frame of mind, like a teenager with a job and no limits. They hate their Dad, they tolerate their Mom, and just want to spend, spend, spend. The amount of TV they watch is inversely proportional to the number of intelligent, independent thoughts that come out of their head - more TV, less thought. Less TV, more thought.

These women with their adolescent frame of mind want to find a white knight (or rather, want a white knight to find them), but not before they're done partying. Kind of like how a 16 year old wants her parents to come pick her up, but not before she's done hanging out.

So that is why I think women are also contributing to the marriage numbers. Note that this line would be taken as misogynistic in the mainstream media, so you never see it. Its allllll men's fault. Whether they marry or not, its our fault. It seems that its men's job to carry women, kicking and screaming, to the altar, impregnate them as they are kicking and screaming, and force them to stay home and live off your salary as they continue kicking and screaming.

Could there be a bigger lie? It seems that the only time women stop kicking and screaming is in the post-coital afterglow with the latest bad boy who makes them feel so good.

Despite their strategy, and individual successes, their county -- and Oregon -- is less married than ever. New census data reveal the share of married adults has shrunk noticeably since 2000. And the drop has been steepest in rural counties and suburbs.

Nationally, the percentage of people ages 15 and older who are married has declined 4 points since 2000. The drop in Polk, Umatilla, Yamhill and Klamath counties was twice as steep.

If you think it's young, unattached people moving in, you're wrong. Compared with 2000, a smaller share of Oregon's adults are under 35. The state's population surge has come primarily among people ages 55 to 64. Oregonians at that, and every other age span, are less likely to be married than before.

What's happening? Marriage has changed, even in the most married places, researchers say. People no longer consider marriage the first step into adulthood, and they marry later. Living together has become a normal part of courtship, and for some, an acceptable alternative. Divorced 50-year-olds remarry at lower rates, avoiding economic entanglements close to retirement. And Oregonians live longer than ever, making "until death do you part" a long time indeed.

The unprecedented changes unsettle many people, who are uncertain of where they fit and what will happen to children. Some lash out at same-sex unions or no-fault divorce.

Funny how they make it sound like same-sex unions are as harmful to marriage as no-fault divorce is. They intend to do that, they intend to imply that the same kooks who are against same-sex marriage are against no-fault divorce. Media = propaganda.

"And marriage is more open to renegotiation. Is it for a lifetime? Until I'm not happy? What does it mean? People aren't as sure, so they're a little more hesitant to get in and a little more willing to get out."

The trends emerge from the 2006 American Community Survey that allows the Census Bureau to compare the population mid-decade. And they frustrate Tom Dressel. "Couples are looking at their parents, at divorces and difficult marriages and saying, 'We don't want a marriage like that,' " says Dressel, who helps run the nonprofit Every Marriage Matters in Oregon City. "So they're putting it off or choosing to avoid it completely."

But marriage is not doomed, says Stephanie Coontz, a sociologist and author of "Marriage, A History." Optional? Yes. Fragile? Certainly. But a union today is more likely than ever to be a lasting love match with more joy, intimacy and satisfaction than our ancestors dreamed.

A last love match with more joy, intimacy and satisfaction? Pure, 100%, Grade A Bull Shit.

The content of the article belies its title and its premise - that men are to blame. Here we have a man who can't find a woman. I thought they wanted to be married? Picky, picky.

When Dahl finally took an economic development job in John Day, he thought he'd have time for a personal life. A Canyon City official thought so, too, bringing him a list of eligible local women. Despite the list, and a few forays into Internet dating, Dahl discovered the exquisite difficulty in finding someone right. At 40, he became economic development coordinator for Grants Pass. He's still single.

And here comes the misandry:

Researchers say that women, whose remarkable gains in education and the workplace mean they no longer must settle, may be the greatest complication of all.

"If you talk to young guys, they are terribly confused by women who are just as smart and sexually empowered as they are, " Kimmel says. Such struggles over equality, power and expectation are slowing remarriage rates among older men who still haven't adjusted.

Angie Sandercock has found a job she loves, close friends and raised an 18-year-old daughter alone. "I would love to be married," says Sandercock, 36, of Oregon City. "But a lot of men my age don't seem mature; they're not focused, and I'm not going to settle. Because I really can do it by myself."

Smart = Slept her way into middle management.

Sexually empowered = Slut who likes bad boys.

Equality = Some are more equal than others.

36 year old single mom = Abused her child by denying her the father she rightfully should have had. Another poisoned western woman created.

"Older men who still haven't adjusted" is quickly becoming "younger men who don't want to adjust." Better watch out, girls. And older men are the most likely to get caught out by the marriage scam since they grew up with parents who stayed together and they sincerely believe that women are better, more moral and nicer than men. Remember, a gentleman is a man who is prepared to draw his sword to defend women. A man who doesn't draw his sword at all is a pussy, not a gentleman in entitled women's eyes.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Marriage is a bitch

I saw this post on a forum that I visit the other day... this guy is married with a toddler, and his wife is starting the descent into insanity that will end with him penniless and unable to see his kid. Men who marry today are just stupid.

Alrighty, here goes...wanted to get some general opinion on this and see how common this kind of thing is.

Last night, my buddy Mike calls me and asks if I want to go engagement ring shopping with him. Long story short, I end up not going, but tell him that I'll come over to his house to check it out when he gets home. In the meantime, my wife wants to watch a movie. We end up watching the movie, which was turning out to be pretty good, and she ends up falling asleep. I turn the DVD off and tell her that I'm going to go to Mike's because he really wants me to see it (he was proud, ya know), and that this would be be only chance to do so before he pops the question (we are heading out of town today to visit the in-laws). She looks at me like I just lit a baby on fire.

I ask her what is wrong...she just stares at me, looks at the clock, then looks back at me and says "That is just STUPID!, it's so late!". Granted, it was about 10pm, but that's not incredibly late, he only lives a mile from my house, and I wasn't going to be there long. He's a good friend, and really just wanted to show it off. I then call him, and tell him that I wont be coming over because my wife said it was stupid that I'd want to come over so late, so in order to avoid a fight, I'm just going to stay home. She hears this, and says "Oh fuck you!". She then runs in to the kitchen where I am and screams "FUCK YOU! I didn't say you were stupid! I can have my own opinions! We don't have to agree on everything, FUCK YOU!".

Now, this isn't the first time she has talked to me like this. Last week she cut me down and I spent three nights on the couch because I didn't want to sleep near her. There have been plenty of other times she has done shit like this. One time, she was sitting down with our daughter on her lap and screamed "you're a total FUCK" at me.

Hell, one night we went out to a local bar to watch a band play. I'd had four drinks the entire night. We came home, went to bed etc. Her mom was staying the night and had babysat for us. Well, I guess at about 4 am, I woke up, went to the bathroom, started moaning and pissed all over the sink. She came in to the bathroom and asked me what I was doing and I replied "Computer programming" and went back to bed. Obviously I had been sleep walking, as I've been known to do. I finally came to with her screaming at me telling me how she was going to call the cops on me because I was "so drunk". I reminded her that we had a totally lucid, normal conversation when we came home, and since I wasn't drunk then, how could I be drunk after sleeping for two hours? It was super great, especially since her mom got hear her daughter SCREAM at her "drunk" husband about how she was going to have him arrested, for being "drunk" in his own house.

I know this isn't "normal", but how common is stuff like this in marriages?

Oh its really common boyo. More common than you think. And if your wife were a man, you'd be able to get her hauled away on multiple domestic violence charges, have her go through anger management classes, forced therapy (brainwashing) according to the Duluth Model of Men are Always Perpetrators, the whole nine yards.

But since she's a woman, she's immune. She can call the police at any time and have you taken away. And other men will laugh at you and say "You must have done something to provoke her, she's a woman, only next to God in virtue."

Here's a clueless fuck:

Haha, I'm not married, but in my relationship experience it happens pretty rarely. I'm going to guess that she will apologize for over reacting. What is wrong with your relationship that you're not allowed to go to a friends house? Especially if she was sleeping after you ditched a friends big plans to hang out with her for some (apparently) boring ass movie?

Rationalize with her, and if she doesn't follow, then just drop it and wait for her to think it over.

Here's someone who believes the man is ALWAYS at fault:

How come you didn't want to sleep near her?

Because she cut him down in an argument.
Here's further explanation by the idiot who got married:
Well, yes, I did say that. More or less because she get's mad any time I hang out with my friends. Basically she gets mad if I go out to a bar, for any length of time, because for some reason, she can go out with her friends to a bar, but I cannot. Not sure why that is. However, on this particular night, I wasn't going to a bar, was simply going to a friends house. Any time I go anywhere with friends I get the third degree. My friends rarely visit because they feel uncomfortable in my home.
Controlling behavior, nagging and withholding sex are the order of the day when you've signed over yourself into lifetime servitude. The worst part is all the idiots in the thread who just can not imagine that the woman could possibly be at fault. It is just unthinkable for them. They keep coming up with excuses for her, trying to elicit some sort of confession from the married dolt that he has done something to upset her, maybe if not in this life then in a past life, if not then maybe there's some other way he's at fault... its just insane.
She works outside of the home, school teacher. She did not work, she was finishing up college. My behavior has changed some.

The day we brought home our daughter, my wife basically pretended that I no longer existed in the home. I thought it was a "phase" that a lot of new families go through. The thing is, it never changed. She devotes ALL of her attention to our daughter while she is at home and awake. This sounds great in theory, but it's almost over bearing.

It has gotten to the point where my daughter, now almost two, has no independence what-so-ever when mommy is around. My daughter even flat out rejects me when my wife is around. When my wife is not around, my daughter is super affectionate and fun to play with. Hates me when the wife is around though. My wife has even flat-out told me that our daughter gets all of her attention when she is awake. Afterwards is her time to grade, and after that, if there is time, that time she can give to me.
See that? That's what is in store for you if you get married. This is why Parental Alienation Syndrome is not recognized - because its the order of the day, its what 90% of marriages with kids are like. A quote:
Basically, I think she resents me.
Probably, because you knocked her up and ruined her life. And yours, too.
Pinning responsibility on a woman? AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
We are not intimate very often. Maybe once every 10 days or so, and most of the time, she is pretty disinterested and makes it out to be like she is doing me some huge favor. Daughter is almost two. She wasn't really like this prior to my daughter's birth. I do not think she was terribly upset by my sleeping on the couch.

Another poster replied with "You sound like you're willing to accept horrible treatment and haven't established what you will and won't accept in a relationship. Your partner is completely neglectful of your needs, and that means it's not much of a relationship."
----------It's not that I'm willing to accept that, and it's not that I haven't tried to establish bounds, but seriously, and I mean this, how does one try to set these bounds, and have them crushed time and time again, and still try to have said bounds. I don't know what I'm trying to say...i've told her that I do not want to be talked to that way. I've told her to never do it again. She keeps doing it. What do you do to remedy that? I really don't know.

She had the summer off, for the most part. She did a few random catering gigs for weddings. The summer was about the same, maybe a little worse. I was working full time (still am, of course) and she was staying home. There would be trash on the floor, dishes laying around the house, laundry not done, filth everywhere.

I did a lot of the cleaning. Not once during the summer did I come home to a decent looking home. I'm not saying "its a woman's job to do a woman's work, har har har" I am simply saying that if you have an entire summer off (without pay, she wasn't contracted yet), and I'm working, still doing the yard work, cleaning the cars, etc, I could have at least gotten a clean home once.

Instead it fell to shambles, and that bothered me a lot. She told me the whole reason nothing was getting done was because she "didnt have time" but oddly, she had time to take all kinds of fucking surveys on the internet. every day.
Here's an idiot who would fucking lick the ass of a whore on the street just because she's so superior to the male sex in every way:
She's probably depressed. Teaching is a demanding, thankless profession. Some people just aren't cut out for it.

As for her sitting home all summer, the transition from work->no work is stressful, and then she has only two months before she has to go back to her thankless, packed-full schedule, so she feels like she shouldn't have to work around the house (my wife is also a teacher, and she comments on this at times - thankfully, she deals with it in a more positive manner).

Your wife is unhappy, and you're there at home and it's convenient for her to take her frustrations out on you. Sounds like she's taking you for granted. This is common in marriages, and it's something marriage counselors see and work with all the time.
And THIS is the pinnacle of the whole skimmity-riding thread.
Play another DVD,and when she falls asleep, it's OK to do the nasty. She's your wife, and this is well withing your rights as a husband.
How the fuck do people not know about the concept of marital rape? Why the hell are men so goddamn stupid? Why don't they know all this stuff, they have parents, neighbors, friends, uncles who went through the bullshit of marriage, divorce, alimony and child support, did they not? Why don't they fucking learn?

I can excuse somebody who recently came to the US and wants to fit their culture in with American laws, but how the hell does a man who has lived here his whole life, who doubtless knows men who were devastated in divorce, think "OH THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, I'LL MARRY!" People are way too ignorant of the truth, as is demonstrated above.

I'm betting that marital rape was enshrined in law before this jackass was a twinkle in his mother's eye, yet he thinks that we're in the 1950s or something. "This is well within your rights as a husband" indeed.

Hey you idiot, the husband has NO RIGHTS in marriage or in divorce. Get that through your thick skull.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Australian Navy paying for breast enlargement surgery

The Australian Navy is paying for boob jobs

Wow, can you believe this shit? Can you just imagine this sort of stuff being allowed if men were on the receiving end? How about "After doctors and researchers worked round the clock for years to find a safe alternative to steroids, the Navy and Army are paying for muscle treatment for its deskbound workers who don't get the workouts that their field-working brethren do."

This stuff is beyond the pale, it really is. How can this be defensible at all?

Defence officials claim the surgery is justified because some servicewomen need bigger breasts to address "psychological issues".

Ah yes, "psychological issues" - the same excuse that got Andrea Yates therapy instead of prison, that gets women tons of misandry IV drips disguised as "therapy" and "counseling," psychological issues is the catchword of the decade. But of course, gotta remember that double standard...

If women have psychological issues, they need counseling and therapy.

If men have psychological issues, they need to be put in prison because they are potentially dangerous.

Anyway, this is the here and now. Right now the women are being paid for the boob jobs, and five years later, they'll be paid for the reductions/maintenance, and ten years after that, for treatment of the inevitable breast cancer. Women just have a knack for getting the free ride even when there's no man to pay for it, don't they.


THE Royal Australian Navy is paying for women sailors to have breast enlargements for purely cosmetic reasons, at a cost to taxpayers of $10,000 an operation.

Defence officials claim the surgery is justified because some servicewomen need bigger breasts to address "psychological issues".

Darling Point plastic surgeon Kourosh Tavakoli told The Sunday Telegraph the navy had paid for two officers, aged 25 and 32, to have breast-augmentation surgery at his private clinic.

Dr Tavakoli said the women had not been injured but claimed to suffer "psychological" problems.

"I've had two female officers who have got the navy to pay for breast augmentation for psychological reasons," he said.

"I know for a fact two patients claimed it back on the navy. They (the navy) knew it was breast augmentation and paid for it.

"I don't know why they pay for it. There's no breast augmentation, that I know of, for medical purposes. You've got to be fair to yourself."

A Defence spokesman admitted cosmetic surgery occurred at "public expense" when there were "compelling psychological/psychiatric reasons", but refused to say how many such cases were taxpayer-funded.

Cosmetic surgery was also provided for servicemen or women who were disfigured by work-related injuries, he said.

"Cosmetic procedures undertaken solely for the purpose of preserving or improving a person's subjective appearance will be considered only if the underlying (psychological) problem is causing difficulties that adversely impact on the member's ability to do their job.

"Operations purely for cosmetic reasons are not allowed."

The Sunday Telegraph asked Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, formerly a GP, how many members of the armed forces had received taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery.

A spokesman said figures would not be available until next week.

Australian Defence Association spokesman Neil James defended the practice of taxpayers funding medical procedures such as breast enhancement surgery for psychological reasons.

He said young men and women were attracted to defence careers because they offered free medical care. This, in turn, improved the efficiency of the force.

"Just as there are in civilian life, there are some females who feel their breasts are too small and if their breasts were bigger, they might be more of a 'normal' woman," Mr James said.

"If they were lacking in self-confidence, this might provide the measure of self-confidence that would help them tackle their wider job.

"There are privacy issues here for people. It's not as if they keep a record of who has had a nose job in the Defence Force over the past 100 years."

Dr Tavakoli, a member of the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons, said the navy officers had visited him in 2005 and 2006.

Each had had $10,000 worth of surgery, which required a recovery period of at least two weeks.

Boosting self-esteem was the biggest motivation for cosmetic surgery, Dr Tavakoli said.

The Sunday Telegraph understands Dr Tavakoli is not the usual surgeon used by the navy for reconstructive/cosmetic surgery.

"I don't see a lot of them (naval officers) because they have their own plastic surgeon," he said.

"I know for a fact they have their own surgeon."

Last year, a Brisbane surgeon revealed that an army cook had had a taxpayer-funded nose job.

Thursday, September 06, 2007


If I Only Had a V - by Angry Harry

If I only had a V
I could be accusatory
And hide in anonymity
Despite my obvious perjury.
If I only had a V
I could live so happily
Causing untold agony
To the man who married me.

If I only had a V
I would be officially
protected by immunity
With no responsibility.

If I only had a V
I would dress most prettily
And all of the judiciary
Would judge my claims most favorably.

If I only had a V
I would use it expertly
To generate equality
That somehow always favors me.

If I only had a V
I could act appallingly
And cause my partner misery
No matter how atrociously.

If I only had a V
I would stroke it tenderly
Because quite unbelievably
It is my gold-filled treasury.


And one by Dr. Evil from SYG:

When do you get full reproductive choice?
When you have a vagina.

When is cold blooded murder "voluntary manslaughter"?
When you have a vagina.

When is it cruel and illegal to circumcise?
When you have a vagina.

When do you get safety from DV?
When you have a vagina.

When is it easy to get a restraining order?
When you have a vagina.

When can we get full custody of our kids?
When you have a vagina.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Divorce Insurance for Men

The past couple of days, talk has been going around of a concrete idea for "Marriage Insurance" or "Divorce Insurance" - the idea being that the man can pay to keep his assets protected in times of divorce - maybe he is under pressure to marry no matter what, maybe he really loves his girlfriend, maybe he's just insane.

No matter, never fear! Divorce Insurance is here! The claims are that you can pay the insurance, and if you do end up losing the game of Russian roulette where the woman is holding the gun and the bullets, you won't end up living under a bridge because that is the only place the restraining orders and registries allow you to be.

I think its a fucking terrible idea. There are many reasons. First of all, if you have ever taken insurance, you know that they are only too happy to take your money for years, but as soon as a claim comes in, they will weasel their way out of it and pay as little as they can, and then jack up the prices to astronomical levels for years.

Next, the idea of divorce insurance is terrible because just like pre-nups, it will give scheming women a chance to lasso innocent lovestruck men with claims of "its going to be OK, we have the insurance, see? I'll even pay half of the premiums!" Make no mistake, the 75% of divorces initiated by women is not because all the men are assholes.

Finally, and more importantly, the government needs to be held accountable to fix what they broke. I don't mean to patch it up with more half-assed solutions that hurt more than they help, but to repeal no-fault divorce, to introduce the foreign concept of equality into the courts, and fire fry misandrist and misogynist judges.

So what do you think? Am I totally off-base here? I just think its a terrible idea, and I pay for car and home insurance. I'm not stupid enough to pay for the other kinds of insurances you get offered at every place you shop, but a lot of people are. And while I wouldn't say