Pete Patriarch's Musings

Sticky: Want to comment?

2008-08-01T03:04:00.000-04:00

I have moved my blog over to Wordpress just like I said I would in this post. Comments are disabled, so if you found this blog and would like to comment on a recent post, click on to http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com/

This post is a sticky, so it'll remain on top of all the other posts.

Help! My ex-girlfriend wants my house and my money!

2008-03-26T02:42:00.001-04:00

Found this on another forum I frequent... this happens in Australia, but it could happen anywhere, since (for once) it is not misandric laws doing the shafting, but a member of the Royal Sex using her god-given powers to twist everything to her benefit.

Yesterday I received a letter from a solicitor regarding my ex-girlfriend. Before I get to what she wants, I'll try to briefly explain the situation. We're both in Australia, and we lived together for just over 10 years. We never had kids, and never got married. During this time, like most relationships, she got unhappy as we didn't talk much anymore, and our interests kinda drifted apart.
About 4 years ago I thought if we got an affordable house out in a regional part of NSW, it might save the relationship. As my business at the time was doing well, I put down roughly 80k of my money on the mortgage as a deposit, and her mother put about 20k towards it as well (which wasn't needed, but it was her way of contributing). The thing I regret most, is there was no reason for her name to even be on the mortgage (I was certainly making enough money), but thinking it might save us, I put both our names on it. About 2 and a half years ago, she decides she wanted to leave (which was a shock), and to avoid any conflict, I told her she could take whatever she wanted when she leaving. She ended up taking a bunch of stuff, including the crappy car I had paid for (but put in her name), and my TV/XBOX/DVDs/CDs/etc. She had no interest in the house, and said there was nothing to worry about... she would never demand that I sell it. Not being in a financial position to remortgage the house in my name, I left both our names on it, and hoped for the best.
When she left, we stayed as friends, and I had verbally agreed to gradually pay back around 30k, which was to be the money her mother gave us, plus a little more on top. The problem of course is one person doesn't have a great deal of spending money once the mortgage payments are made, and I couldn't afford to do make her payments anymore. I let her know, and she was ok with it. I have randomly given her money when she needed it, so it's not like I completely stopped sending her money.
About 6 months ago, she went for a bank loan for 55 grand so she could buy an established business. She had asked (although it was more of a demand) that I go guarantor, and to keep the peace, I agreed (with the house being at stake if she failed to make her repayments).
So, fast forward to the present, and I receive a letter that essentially says I have to give her over 80k, or I have to sell the house. There is a lot of info I'm leaving out, but basically in the time she lived here, she put a total of about $700 towards the mortgage repayments (which is one payment), never contributed to any of the household repair costs, and hardly ever paid bills. In the 8 years before we bought the house, she never paid rent, and again, never really contributed to the bills. I'm kinda shocked she has done this, but to be honest, it's my own fault for not expecting her to do it.
The real problem I think is her sister. She is always in her ear about getting what she deserves, and she has been pushing her to basically make me sell the house. I've so far probably put in about 150 grand towards this house, and there's still 220k to go. If the house is to be sold in the condition it is in (which is a damn site better than when she left), it'll probably sell for maybe 300k. There is no way in hell she can expect 80k, as I don't have that kinda of money (I have $200 in the bank), and if the house is sold, I'll be pretty much ruined (and she still won't have 80k after the taxes/solicitor costs). I'm aware it's probably the solicitor trying to scare me.
Any Aussies with legal experience in such matters have any idea what I should do in this situation? The other problem is I'm living week to week (I make $2000 a month, and the mortgage repayments are about $1800 a month), so I certainly don't have the funds to see a lawyer at the moment. I thought maybe some goon help might make my options a little clearer before I freak out too much. My main concern is if I do come to some sort of agreement with her, and take out another loan to pay her back, she'll probably be back later demanding more money. I've tried to call/email her, but I assume the solicitor has told her to ignore my requests to contact her.

I'm willing to bet that if he was living with a mate or mates, he wouldn't have let them stay rent-free for EIGHT YEARS - and that's before he bought the house. So basically, he was letting his girlfriend stay rent-free. Why? Because that's what men do, silly! What good is a man's earning power if it doesn't benefit a woman?

As a side note, I pay $500 to share a crappy 2-bedroom apartment in sunny California. Eight years of that is $48,000.

$48,000. Just think about that for a minute. Prostitution anyone? I wonder what she spent her rent money on.

And then he puts her on the mortgage, even though he knows that she has never made a rent payment - why? How could someone be so stupid as to risk his entire financial life because of a woman?

Because he thinks that he can buy his way into her pussy and into eternal bliss in the arms of a member of the Royal Sex.

It just gets better and better. He wants to pay her alimony for the time spent with him. "I have randomly given her money when she needed it, so it's not like I completely stopped sending her money."

This could happen anywhere, no palimony laws needed, just a pussy and a pussy.

Also, newsflash - relationships don't "drift apart" so much when you're with a traditional girl who loves you and doesn't see you as an object. Unfortunately, that pretty much disqualifies Western women right off the bat.

Trusssst usssss...

2008-03-24T20:53:00.002-04:00

Marrying a Western woman knowing the odds of being divorced and taken for all you’re worth, having your children held hostage from you for money, and having your children’s mind poisoned against you so that they see you as a monster… is like plunging your hand into a basket full of vipers and expecting to pull out a dove.

The Women's Center

2008-03-19T20:15:00.002-04:00

Two things overheard about the women's center in the last two days...

#1: "Yeah, we get a load of lost and found stuff in here. Even some expensive things like cellphones, iPods and other stuff. Most of the time, its picked up within the first two days, and if it isn't, we hold on to it for some time then donate it to the women's shelter."

#2: "Oh, we have to pull this (limo) driver off the assignment because its for the women's shelter, and they're hiring the limo to take their patients to the hospital and they sometimes have breast cancer patients or other female illnesses, so they always want a female driver. Let me see if we can find a female driver to replace him." After much difficulty, a female driver was found, because 95% of limo and taxi drivers are male.

A day as a housewife

2008-03-17T06:44:00.007-04:00

Check out this article... One day as a perfect 1950's wife. A woman decides to act like a 1950's wife for a few hours, and obviously write about the torture and abuse in The Sunday Times. The comments are great too. I love the one by that Australian woman who implies that her entire life until her husband died was torture. Simply lovely, aren't these dearies.

After 14 years of matrimony it is beginning to dawn on me that I’m a bad wife. I’ve done the childbirth thing – very enthusiastically, four times – and I think I’m okay at mothering. I don’t shrink at getting up in the night to sort out a wet bed, I can knock out a Little Woolly Lamb fancy-dress outfit with five minutes’ notice and I can do a mean school project on whatever subject necessary.
I’m a passable adult, too: a lovely dinner party guest, a loyal friend, daughter, sister. But as far as doting wife goes, I think I lack form.
Indeed, only this morning I shouted a bit at Mr Millard before selfishly going for a run, only to return an hour later and shout at him again for not taking the dog out. I think I even called him an idiot.
Of course, I love Mr Millard but do I dote on him? Do I look after him? Do I nurture him when he is ill? I’m not at all sure that I do. Our set-up is based on equality, you see. We were married in the 1990s, not the 1890s. He’s a better cook than I am and has a much better bedside manner.
But does all this equality make him happy? When I murmur to him at 6am that he can probably find the paracetamol himself and could he, by the way, make me some tea, I am doubtless enhancing the female cause of parity in matrimony. But am I enhancing his life?

I was a little shell-shocked at this point. I mean, I must admit that I haven't grown up with a feminist mother and my parents are still together, yada yada et cetera, but seriously, I was a little disoriented at this point. I realized how lucky I am to have a girlfriend totally unlike this tired old hag. At the risk of sounding like a braggart, my girlfriend:

- Prepares dinner and dresses nice for me when I come home from work if she gets home before me. I simply love this. I suspect she is going overboard because it is a novel experience, but she has stated on many occasions that she loves to take care of me and is happiest when I burp and complain about having a full stomach after a lovingly home-cooked meal.

- Never shouts or nags at me. This is partly my doing, because I made it clear early on that I'm not the type of man that responds well to that.

- Does not demean me in any way, because she respects me. Imagine that, a woman respecting a man. Someone call the VAWA!

- Looks after me, nurtures me when I'm ill, cooks chicken soup (from the can, admittedly) when I have a cold, and all that jazz. Is genuinely worried when I'm sick, not just in a sense of "Oh deary me, what will happen if the farm mule kicks the bucket, how will I feed my children?"

You know, most of this stuff is common courtesy. I know that this hag has been married for 14 years and some of the magic must have worn off, but I think back to my own mother and she behaves pretty much the same as my girlfriend for my father. Heck, my girlfriend acts like a proper daughter when around my parents, including helping mom in the cooking and cleaning!

Equality means caring for your spouse when he or she is ill, not leaving them to rot. For crying out loud! Heck, my father cares as much as he can for my mother when she is ill, and its not because he calls himself a feminist, its because he loves her.

I have to say that any man who marries a Western woman is pretty much a fool beyond hope at this point. This is a 14 year old marriage, that's almost one generation ago. Imagine how the women who are getting married today are? But then, men have been conditioned over time to accept this as the truth and integrate it into their reality. They just don't know that women can care and love, and they think that foreign women are inferior because of their brown skin and their "subservient" attitude, no doubt thanks to conditioning by Western women who are petrified of losing their stranglehold in the face of cheap airfares and smiling, happy brown women who know the true meaning of equality, not the feminist definition of it.

How women invest in men - an analogy

2008-03-17T06:44:00.006-04:00

I saw this excellent post by kingcobra23 and I must give it more publicity because it is a fine piece of writing and deserves a big audience. It makes perfect sense if you have a handle on investing.

Here's a new bit of terminology that I thought up. Investors can "long" (bet on) and "short" (bet against) a stock. Women "long" and "short" men. Women are currency, men are stocks, babies are bonds, divorce is selling a stock, marriage is buying a stock and dividends refer to money spent on the woman.
They "short" men by having sex quickly, partying with them, bleeding them for money early in the relationship and showing their terrible attitude. Great fun for them in the short term.
The guys that are "shorted" are the type that don't appreciate with time. They lower their value with a criminal record, drinking, drug abuse, gambling, violence, abuse and cheating. Emotionally dysfunctional women "long" these men and end up in a terrible relationship. Why do they stay? Because they bought a stock at 50 and it dropped to 40. They are hoping the stock will go back up. Irrational women are just like irrational investors, they throw good money after bad.
Smart women realize that "nice guys" (as in investment) are like a profitable company. At 30, their value is low, while the man's value is high and rising. What does an investor do? They go long on the investment. They demand chivalry, act like a "good girl", act perfect to bait the man and then get the payoff (expensive ring, wedding, house, retirement plan, baby...).
Of course when a stock has stagnant earnings and doesn't appreciate in value (probably because of the insanely high dividend payments the investor requires such as a woman's request to shop, not work and live above her means) a smart investor dumps that stock and cashes out (divorce). It doesn't matter that the high dividend payments kept the company from re-investing the money to earn more. Plus the investor still gets dividends even though they aren't even invested in the company anymore (alimony). Imagine if a stockholder demanded more than they invested when selling the stock and then demanded dividends after selling?
It also explains single moms. A child is like a convertible bond (a bond that can become stock). The set payments are just like owning a bond. If she can use the child to guilt the man into marriage, she just converted her investment to a stock due to the fact that she is now a 50% equity holder in the man's wealth. Also, just like a bond, when (child support) payments are not made (probably because it was an unreliable man/company that she should have "shorted"), as a creditor the woman looks to recover. Just like a distressed company, the creditor takes value (wage garnishment). The company is also forced to sell assets at a lower price due to distress, thus reducing the company's value. This happens when the child support systems brands people as "deadbeat dads", revokes professional licenses, suspends driver licenses, destroys credit ratings and throws the man in jail. Still, when a company goes under, the bond holders may not receive full payment (some guys just don't have the money for these outrageous child support payments). The company is weighed by the debt just like the man's ability to earn is hurt if he gets behind on child support payments. Unlike regular bonds, if the guy finds out that the wrong company name is on the bond (paternity fraud), it doesn't matter.
So dating is an investment game to women. If she spends too much time "shorting" men, then she won't have the funds (looks & youth) at 35 to purchase a good long term stock. Their chance to go "long" on a man has passed. If they go "long" early with a man, they have to wait for the young man to earn and produce dividends. Unlike with stocks, patience and waiting for an investment to grow is not advisable. Buying into an established man/company is the way to go.
So their ideal strategy is to "short" men until they find the best possible one to go "long" on. Luckily, they can borrow against that stock and "short" other men (by cheating). If they lose money by "shorting" men (getting caught), then a sale (divorce) will follow and the woman still gets her dividends.
Once the investor has gone "long" and then sold, their options open up. They can "short" different men, live off the proceeds from the sale and the dividends. They can also "long" another man by getting married again.
Since going "long" is the smart long-term strategy (just like with stocks), women press for marriage. Their "long" investment is likely to appreciate and pay dividends. Women are like paper currency, they have a steady depreciation due to inflation. So over time, as the price to "long" the stock goes up, her currency depreciates. Thus, each time she "shorts" a man, she is spending some currency (wear & tear, number of men who have scored) and her currency is always depreciating, even if she does nothing.
Like most investors, women understand the nuisances about how the market works. The are like the investors looking for the next Southwest or Starbucks. They try to time the market and when they do it wrong, they end up as spinsters. Also, like a smart investor, they fear foreign capital. If foreign woman are allowed on the market, demand for stock will rise sharply. Foreign currency (just like in real life), has higher value and the American currency will have little purchasing power. So the AW is left with "penny stocks" (undesirable guys), "junk bonds" (a thug's bastard children) and men that should be "shorted" because that is all she can afford. She will demonize foreign investors and companies who accept foreign currency in an attempt to monopolize the market.
For men, the advice is simple. Don't seek outside sources of funding/validation. Build equity, "short" all the women around you (short the US currency) and don't issue any bonds.
I hope this analogy wasn't too complicated. I like thinking of marriage as a woman "going long" on a man. I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

Feminists not concerned with truth, sun rises in East

2008-03-17T06:44:00.003-04:00

I picked this up on SYG just now. We all know "MRA", the swell dude who sets up displays, protests and has the awesome truck signs in Los Angeles, CA.

Now, this is about child abuse - thanks to feminists, it is a gender issue. Feminists who are more interested in portraying men as devils and women are martyrs than in protecting children from abuse.

No, children apparently don't count in the domestic violence industry's recognition. At the 2007 IVAT conference in San Diego there were red cut outs to emphasize, men, women, dogs and cats killed by intimate partner violence, but there were no red cut outs of kids anywhere. It was the same last year.

The clothesline project, at this same conference, hung kids clothes in the exact opposite proportion of the HHS stats, which show mothers killing about twice as many kids as fathers. The clothesline project showed dads killing kids at twice the rate of mothers.

We were so fed up with this distortion of the facts that we made our own display this year. We graphically pointed out the HHS stats and who was killing kids through abuse and neglect. Most people didn't say much or acknowledged what we were saying, but one woman said she didn't believe HHS's statistics.

A few people said this was because mothers got custody more than fathers to which I replied, "So are you saying that should be an excuse for domestic violence?"
At the historic Sacramento conference one woman argued that the HHS stats, "Did not control the variables." I pointed out that these stats are crime stats so they are what they are." She argued again, "...but they do not control the variable." Well, quite honestly to control the variable you'd have to award joint legal and physical custody to the father as much as to the mother.

Again, just take a look at the sentiments expressed by our dear lovable AW... don't believe official statistics, but would rather believe ideology, and that child abuse is OK because mothers are doing it because they get custody. Yep, they're F-U-B-A-R.

Ownership of the marriage strike

2008-03-17T06:43:00.002-04:00

What is the marriage strike? In your eyes, what do you picture when you hear the words "Marriage Strike"?

You picture masses of men walking off the battlefield that relationships in the Western world have become, you see the men who have been taken time and again and you see the men who have learned from others' mistakes. You imagine 30+ year old women running around, clucking that "men are afraid of commitment" and more generally "men are pigs who are only after one thing."

You picture men saying, "Enough is enough. Slut around in your youth and you won't get a ring from me." Or, "Why would I choose to buy you a gun and bullets and show you how to pull the trigger when you're only going to shoot me?"

One thing you don't picture is women saying that they are choosing not to marry. Talk about a reframing of the debate!

Yup, its true. Check out the article: Women choosing single life as marriage rate hits record low.

Modern women are turning their backs on marriage in droves, with single women now outnumbering their wedded sisters for the first time in 85 years.

However, the article is not the point of my post. Such articles have been printed before. The point is something Irlandes and Rob Case said on the DGM board, and which struck me as absolutely spot on.

Irlandes:

We must admire feminists for chutzpah, if nothing else. The marriage strike starts creating havoc; simply announce that it is women who are avoiding marriage to worthless, scummy men.
Will it work? Probably. They have succeeded at their propaganda for over 40 years. In a year or two, all the women who can't find husbands will be proudly announcing they are on strike against marriage, and will even believe it.

Rob Case:

And the government, alarmed at the plummeting drop in marriage rates (and the attendant effect on all the industries that feed off it), will feel compelled to do something about it.

In countries with declining birth rates, such as Australia and Singapore, governments pay women to have children. It's no stretch to imagine that they will eventually pay women to marry - seeing as how it's such a sacrifice for them, and against their better judgement and all.

Have we forgotten - again - how the women's lobby works?

They manufacture a grievance, take it to the state, then get money for its redress. They do it over and over and over again.

Whoever 'owns' the marriage strike stands to benefit substantially by it. As of now, we do. But we also used to own our houses, own our labour and own the right to defend ourselves.

Currently, our ownership of the marriage strike could be used as leverage for reform of marriage, child support and matrimonial property law. Lose that ownership, and it's all for nothing. More gravy for the Feminist train.

Perhaps this is why not a word of a male-initiated marriage strike gets past the mainstream media. It's too valuable an asset to let men keep. As usual, men are doing the work, but someone else will get paid.

Unless we shout out our ownership while we still can.

This is very real. While giving incentives to women won't do a damn thing for the marriage strike, since when was the government concerned with the ultimate outcome when it comes to feminist issues? The bigwigs are not concerned about the ultimate outcome when they can buy women's votes and pump up the economy artificially by transferring wealth to women, who spend it at a dizzying rate.

Advice for the Nice Girl in School

2007-12-13T19:20:00.001-05:00

Here's something from Gonzokid. Fantastic advice, the problem is that most women are too ensconced in their entitlement mentality to take it upon themselves to improve. The maximum improvement you will see out of most girls is a willingness to shop till they drop for that ONE outfit which will make them look drop-dead gorgeous, that ONE eye shadow which will make them irresistible, or that ONE workout which will make them shed X lbs.

Anyway, here it is.

Okay, once again the whole "Nice guy/Bad Boy" thing rears it's head, and it is grumbled "Well, you nice guys were chasing the cheerleaders and left us nice girls alone on the sidelines!"
Okay. Let's take a look at that.
Too late for us adults, I am afraid, but here are some frank words and good advice for the High School "Nice Girl." So for this, I am drawing from my own experience in High school for a lot of this:
1) Looking like a girl on occasion would help.
Ladies, if we think you are that kind of effeminate boy who is always hovering, we're likely to get creeped out and think you are the school fag who has a crush on us. A skirt. Show off some curves - hell, you don't have to give us a bunch of cleavage, but it would help to somehow know, "Yes, I have tits and am indeed FEMALE." Ditch the baggy and androgynous garb. Unless you are going for a guy who is also turned on by guys, it is not going to help your cause.
2) Look attractive on occasion.
And be this I don't mean "Look like something out of Glamour shots" but for pity's sake don't play up UNattractive as much as possible. Surprise! If you are trying to be unattractive, people will pick up on it, and read it as "Stay Away." Clearasil. Brush your teeth. Shower. And while you don't have to be a supermodel waif, reducing the weight to below "Blubber" is a bonus. Even the "muffin top" is cool with us, but chances are if you have to lift the roll of fat to undo your jeans, you have some work to do.
3) Ditch the Lesbians
Yes, I know. You and Julie have been friends since kindergarten. She is, however, known as the school carpet-muncher, and you two hang around together constantly, and worse yet, you take all these pictures of female singers and post them in your locker. Whack with the cluebat, girl. We really don't think we're qualified for the position of "Significant Other" as far as you are concerned.
4) Learn to say no GRACEFULLY.
Yes, Little Dorky MacDweeberson is a repulsive creep, who has been hanging around and all but stalking you since the 5th grade. And then he finally got up the nerve to ask you out, and what did you do? Verbally tore his balls off in front of homeroom class. Hmm. How eager do you think any other guy is going to be to risk that razor sharp tongue of yours?
You watch how we treat the Waiter. We watch how you treat other guys.
5) In that vein - CAN THE MAN BASHING.
Yes, you hold us in contempt as a gender. We get the message.
6) Or perhaps, "5b." A woman needs a man...
...as much as she wants a date. Ya know, ladies, when you send the message that a man is disposable, the only ones who will bother are the ones who don't mind being disposed of; namely, the guys who will have little interest in you after they cut that next notch on their bedpost. Just saying.
7) Mind your reputation.
And it is not the "Do you put out?" reputation. It's the one that says "Do you cheat? Are you a tease? Are you sexually manipulative? Do you talk about your wild and sexually adventurous past, and only go for vanilla missionary sex now?"
8) Marketing. Marketing. Marketing.
Unless you are willing to initiate things, you will attract the kind of guy as you set bait for. This means, if you like the "hottie"who is the mechanic, he'll be in those classes and activities, not in the chess club. If he never sees you, then yes, he doesn't know you exist. You're a band girl, and hang around the music crowd? Guess who will be asking you out?
If you don't like this, then (8b) - you'll have to do the initiating.
9) Get rid of the chip.
If the first hour of the date is spent with you "laying down the law," count on you being dropped off when the dance is over, and there being no second date. We don't want to date our mommies. And if you lay down a bunch of rules before the date, you may be stood up. What time you need to get home, and where you aren't permitted to go is sufficient "rules."
10) Being asked for a date IS being "hit on." Grow up.
Expect a move to be kissed goodnight. Hand holding - or some other such stuff. This will continue, and escalate, until you put an end to it. Your sisters have taught us this by being annoyed when we are "too slow." Believe it or not, 99.9% of us can - and are accustomed to - taking no for an answer. Don't freak out. And if he is moving to slow, I guarantee - if he has worked up the nerve to ask you out, he wants to have sex with you. If all you want is a kiss, go for that - he won't turn you down.
11) Be Approachable
The final and most important one. Lose the "Hard to get" page. Most guys have a "3 No" rule. Shoot him down three times running - he gets the hint. He doesn't want to ask you out publicly and get shot down publicly - let him take you aside.
And above all - for pity's sake, if we ask you out, fucking meet us halfway and say "Yes."

What happened to all the nice men?

2007-12-12T18:00:00.001-05:00

This is yet another post in the theme of man-woman relationships. I seem to be on a roll here.

Anyone reading this blog should know that being a "nice guy" today is the death knell for pretty much any man. Its as if a switch is flipped inside the modern woman who hears "nice" and thinks "loser". In fact, it is one of the tactics you can use as a Pickup Artist - If a woman seems too interested in a guy and you want her to focus her attention on you, subtly put him down on something, it can be anything, and say "but yeah he's a really nice guy and all." Instant lowering of his value. I used it the other day, to great effect, against this guy I know who doesn't know when to shut the fuck up and let a man talk to a woman and who always wants to show himself superior to me.

What Happened to All the Nice Guys?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2007-11-19, 3:52AM PST
I see this question posted with some regularity in the personals section, so I thought I'd take a minute to explain things to the ladies out there that haven't figured it out.

What happened to all the nice guys?
The answer is simple: you did.

See, if you think back, really hard, you might vaguely remember a Platonic guy pal who always seemed to want to spend time with you. He'd tag along with you when you went shopping, stop by your place for a movie when you were lonely but didn't feel like going out, or even sit there and hold you while you sobbed and told him about how horribly the (other) guy that you were fucking treated you.

At the time, you probably joked with your girlfriends about how he was a little puppy dog, always following you around, trying to do things to get you to pay attention to him. They probably teased you because they thought he had a crush on you. Given that his behavior was, admittedly, a little pathetic, you vehemently denied having any romantic feelings for him, and buttressed your position by claiming that you were "just friends." Besides, he totally wasn't your type. I mean, he was a little too short, or too bald, or too fat, or too poor, or didn't know how to dress himself, or basically be or do any of the things that your tall, good-looking, fit, rich, stylish boyfriend at the time pulled off with such ease.

Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him. More time passed, and the boyfriend eventually cheated on you, or became boring, or you realized that the things that attracted you to him weren't the kinds of things that make for a good, long-term relationship. So, now, you're single again, and after having tried the bar scene for several months having only encountered players and douche bags, you wonder, "What happened to all the nice guys?"

Well, once again, you did.

You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy. You laughed at his consideration and resented his devotion. You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive "just-a-" friend. Eventually, he took the hint and moved on with his life. He probably came to realize, one day, that women aren't really attracted to guys who hold doors open; or make dinners just because; or buy you a Christmas gift that you mentioned, in passing, that you really wanted five months ago; or listen when you're upset; or hold you when you cry. He came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he'd have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of an asshole than he ever wanted to be.

Fact is, now, he's probably getting laid, and in a way, your ultimate rejection of him is to thank for that. And I'm sorry that it took the complete absence of "nice guys" in your life for you to realize that you missed them and wanted them. Most women will only have a handful of nice guys stumble into their lives, if that.

So, if you're looking for a nice guy, here's what you do:
1.) Build a time machine.
2.) Go back a few years and pull your head out of your ass.
3.) Take a look at what's right in front of you and grab ahold of it.

I suppose the other possibility is that you STILL don't really want a nice guy, but you feel the social pressure to at least appear to have matured beyond your infantile taste in men. In which case, you might be in luck, because the nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle and is out there looking to unleash his cynicism and resentment onto someone just like you.

If you were five years younger.

So, please: either stop misrepresenting what you want, or own up to the fact that you've fucked yourself over. You're getting older, after all. It's time to excise the bullshit and deal with reality. You didn't want a nice guy then, and he certainly doesn't fucking want you, now.

Sincerely,
A Recovering Nice Guy

Losers hit the mainstream

2007-12-11T19:02:00.001-05:00

I got "The Ex" from the library yesterday. I hadn't watched it, but it was there and I figured I'd check it out to see what its like. I'm pretty much sick of misandry in the media, i.e. TV and movies, and as such don't really watch much of either.

Anyway, it was horrible. I really felt for the guy, you know? He has to move back to Ohio from NYC because his princess "fell pregnant", "got knocked up" or whatever you want to call her pregnancy that places all the blame on external forces conspiring against a wee little girl.

So he moves back, moves in with her parents, her father gets him a job in a stupid hippy-cultured hyper-sensitive company, working under.... drumroll please... the guy who his wife cheerleaded (is that a word?) with in high school. Fucking high school. Not even college, we're talking aeons ago here. And apparently the bitch is getting all chummy with him again, allowing him to do whatever with her, while our long-suffering, long-duffering "hero" watches.

In one sequence, when the ex and the wife meet, they do a cheerleading routine which ends with her balanced on his hand by her ass.

It would make my blood boil to see something like that, and I would dump the bitch in a split second. Sorry, but I don't play that bullshit "Oh are you jealous?" *coy eyes* game. Fuck yes I'm jealous bitch, but you're nothing to me anymore, you're not even worth a speck of dirt on my shoes, out you go on your ass. I only feel emotions like jealousy and anger for people who matter to me.

But wait! We're married! Which means she gets to keep half of what I earned while she enjoyed her early retirement sucking off the 7 year old kid next door (I think we can reasonably conclude that a lot of women are pedophiles eh, the least we can do is repay the favors they did us for 40 years) and watching Court TV.

Best of all, the sex completely dries up as soon as they hit Ohio. Completely. Fucked. Up. And of course he can't acknowledge that he's a man and that he has sexual urges that won't be satisfied with his hand, because to admit as much means that he's some kind of fucking monster.

I stopped watching at the point the 7 year old kid gets smart with Zach Braff (God I want to punch that guy for being such a pussy).

I started to think - why is it that so many movies are coming out with this loser theme nowadays? Why was Spiderman such a big hit, and Harry Potter too? Why are so many "main characters," can't even call them heroes, such pussies and idiots?

Make no mistake from my title - Loser in the mainstream does NOT mean loser is acceptable. It isn't. But so many men are buying and watching these movies and are nodding their head, I think its possible that more and more men are turning into losers while still beating themselves up and being beaten up by society about it.

Could it be that more and more men nowadays are turning into beta males? Have this many men really internalized the message that they can never be good enough, that the girls will always flock to the thugs and jerks, that they will always be beaten around by the ones they love and cherish the most? And that they will be helpless to do anything about it?

What is the answer to this? Will there even be a backlash if so many men really feel they have nothing to live for except shitty video games and occasional sex from some broad who is banging five thugs right now?

An older article about men committing suicide after divorce

2007-12-09T23:47:00.001-05:00

I saw this article today on CNN.com, about how men are more likely to commit suicide after divorce. This was written on March 15, 2000, more than 7 full years ago. As we head into 2008, its worth noting that the laws have only gotten worse, judgements have gotten more punitive, and child visitation is still not enforced while there are more and more methods to punish men who can't pay child support.

Men more likely to commit suicide after divorce, study finds

March 15, 2000
Web posted at: 10:36 AM EST (1536 GMT)
In this story:
A variation in coping
Women suffer too
Staggering results
Only for the divorced
RELATEDS

By Sarah Yang
(WebMD) -- Men seeking a good reason to salvage their marriages may want to consider this: A new study finds that divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men.
Divorce, however, doesn't seem to lead more women to commit suicide -- a surprising finding considering the popular wisdom that women suffer more than men after a divorce, according to the study, published this week in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
"We now need to look at the possibility that divorce negatively affects men, too," said study author Augustine Kposowa, Ph.D., an associate professor of sociology at the University of California at Riverside. Women are set back financially, he said, but "the man does not emerge unscathed."

A variation in coping

The difference, he theorized, lies in how men and women form social bonds. Men make friends with whom they can hang out, and women make friends with whom they can share their feelings. "Women are socialized to have more friends, deeper friendships, and so on. Men are socialized differently, to be macho, and do not have much deeper friendships. So when a divorce occurs, women have more of a social support network."
Another reason why men may have problems coping with divorce is that they not only lose the role of husband, but their fatherly role also often changes, said Bruce Hillowe, J.D., Ph.D., a family law attorney and a clinical psychologist in Long Island, New York.
"It's still generally the case that when children are involved, the mother becomes the custodial parent," said Hillowe. Generally speaking, "men lose the role of being a father in a way that women do not lose the role of being a mother."
Compounding the problem: Men often feel like they're responsible for the failure of a marriage, said Alvin Baraff, Ph.D., an expert on relationships from a male perspective, and founder and director of Men Center Counseling in Washington, D.C.
"Typically, the man is shocked at the news that he's going to be divorced," said Baraff, noting that women initiate the majority of divorce proceedings. "The woman has also been dropping hints all over the place for the man, but he just doesn't get it. He never thinks it's as bad as she does. He's lost not only a wife, he typically loses his children, home, and money."

Women suffer too

That's not to say divorce is a bed of roses for women, said Howard Markman, Ph.D., author of "Fighting for Your Marriage" and a psychologist at The University of Denver. Rather, the findings reflect different coping styles between the sexes. "Men, in general, in the face of stress, tend to do more destructive coping, like turn to substance abuse," Markman said.
He pointed out that men tend to have a higher suicide rate because they are more likely to use guns to kill themselves, whereas women attempt suicide with less lethal methods, such as poisonings or cuts.

Staggering results

Kposowa analyzed data on more than 472,000 people collected from 1979 to 1989. Of that group, 545 people committed suicide, with men outnumbering women four-to-one.
Confirming other studies on suicide, Kposowa found that for both sexes, poverty and age increased the risk of killing oneself -- those 65 and over have a 55 percent greater risk than people aged 15 to 24. White men in the study were also 51 percent more likely than African American men to commit suicide, a finding that may suggest a stronger support network among men in the black community, Kposowa said.
The study emphasizes the need to adjust the gender roles expected by society, said Constance Ahrons, Ph.D., author of "The Good Divorce" and a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. But experts admit that convincing men to acquaint themselves with their emotional side can be a hard sell. "Maybe, if we go back to (a younger) age, we can teach men skills for having friendships," Ahrons said.

Only for the divorced

Unlike prior research on marriage and suicide, this study showed that widowed and single people weren't at higher risk for suicide.
"With death (of a spouse), I don't think there is that sense of failure that follows divorce. There's no sense of personal inadequacy," Hillowe explained. "I guess in (the) case (of divorce) it's not better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."

Look at how, from the very beginning, the topic of male suicides is like an afterthought. Look at how they say that men should try to salvage their marriage, while inside the article, the actual researchers say "Men often feel like they're responsible for the failure of a marriage."

Guys, its not going to get any better anytime soon. This stuff is not a secret, the fact is that nobody cares.

The truth about women from a PUA perspective

2007-12-04T19:25:00.001-05:00

This ought to go well with the Schopenhauer post I made a while back. I got nothing to add except that I already kinda knew this before I got into the pickup community.

The Truth About Women

by Unknown
I wasn't a sexist before I understood women. There was a time when I was blissfully ignorant.
I grew up watching Disney cartoons, I believed in romance and "true love conquers all" etc. I wanted to find a woman who could be my equal, my partner. I believed in finding that one true love and being committed to each other forever. You know, like in the marriage vows, "for better or for worse, through sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer" etc. And I believed that women basically wanted the same thing. Now I understand that this was only possible when society was structured to enforce it. Now that women are "liberated" (and thus at the mercy of their own emotions and baser instincts) this is mostly no longer possible in today's society. Victorian society, or many Arab societies, are examples of how society used to be structured to keep women as faithful as possible.
I'd like to point out that I am not a misogynist...I love women. But I AM a sexist, in the sense that I believe women are vastly different than men and, according to the standards that men hold for other men, women are inferior as well.
I must be a bitter loser, right? In fact, I enjoy more success with women than most of the men in this city. I have slept with over 200 women in my life. I am sleeping with 5 different women right now. They are all normal, healthy, well-adjusted, good-looking (8+ on the looks scale) professional women. (At least as normal and healthy and well-adjusted as women can be - most women have issues.) But that's not all. I can go out any night of the week and pick up a woman. I can pick her up in front of all her friends (with 80% efficiency for each approach.) Women will slip me their phone number when their boyfriend is in the bathroom. I can talk to women on the street or in the grocery store and within 30 minutes, I can usually have sex with them right there in my car or get them back to my place. If I have to settle for a phone number, and I meet her on another day, assuming she doesn't flake, I WILL fuck her that next day.
Let me point out right now that my Modus Operandi doesn't change in the slightest if she single or if she has a boyfriend or husband. I just do my normal routine and I fuck her. Sometimes she brings up the boyfriend so she won't feel guilty when I fuck her because now it's "my fault." Sometimes she hides it from me until after I've fucked her, then she admits it. I can't tell you how many times I've been laying next to some chick, all sweaty cause I just finished busting a nut all over her face or in her mouth or on her back, and suddenly her phone rings and she's on the phone with her man, giving him some bullshit story. This is with NO GUILT WHATSOEVER!!! The sweetest most innocent girls you ever laid eyes on, will cheat at the drop of a HAT. The one thing that most men value most - loyalty - is just not there with women. Women don't think in terms of honor, women don't say "word is bond;" women are basically emotionally driven. If they feel it, they do it, period. Then they rationalize it to themselves later. Nothing is more meaningful, or compelling, to a woman than (1) the way she feels and (2) learning more about her own inner self and having emotional realizations. That's why women love astrology, chick flicks, soap operas, stupid Cosmo quizes that supposedly reveal info about yourself, etc.
I must be really good looking, right? NOPE. My looks are marginal; I'm maybe a 7. I don't work out (though I'm not fat or anything.) In fact I didn't have any success with women until I was in my early 20's. That's when I decided to go out a lot and start trying to get laid... I was willing to face rejection a thousand times a night, and do it over and over, trying everything, until I got it right. I had to completely set my ego aside. I didn't get laid at all for the first few months. Then every now and then. Then pretty often. Then downright consistently! I'm in my early 30's now and I am basically a sexual god. I wouldn't have even believed this were possible when I was in high school. The ONLY factor that determined whether a woman would cheat was my own skill level. When my skills were poor, women shit all over me. (Everyone knows how women think they have license to be rude bitches in social situations... in fact I understand and appreciate that behavior now.) But once my skills got good, I could fuck just about anyone's wife or girlfriend. And many times I didn't know they had a man until after I fucked them.
Look, I'm not saying that men are perfect, or whatever. Far from it. I'm just saying, I've spent a lot of my time studying women and interacting with them, and I know how they are. In fact, sometimes I hate knowing it. Sometimes I wish I had taken the blue pill, and never went down the rabbit hole, because now there's really no going back. I didn't want to believe these things... but how could I ever get married now? How could I ever be the chump who pays for everything and blissfully goes through life not worrying about his woman because he trusts her? Look, would you leave your dog alone with a steak? You can't hate the dog for doing what's in its nature. You can't trust a dog, BUT you can trust a dog to BE a dog. Some men are disloyal... but I could *never* trust a woman to be loyal. Some men are bad presidents...but I could *never* vote for a woman to be president. I can rarely expect a woman to regard her own promises as more important and compelling to her than the emotions she feels in the moment. She will rationalize it to herself later.
Here's an interesting fact. Did you know that the median 22 year old woman has TWICE as much sex as the median 22 year old man? You might ask, how is that possible? If a woman's having sex, doesn't that mean a man is having sex at the same time? And thus, shouldn't men be having just as much sex as women? NO...because most men hardly get laid, or if they do, it's because they "got lucky." But a small group of men get laid ALL THE TIME, and fuck LOTS AND LOTS of women! It's evolution at work. Women follow their emotions, and that leads them to sleep with men like me (who know how to control female emotions.) Women want the top man...so the top man fucks lots of women. That's right - the sexual revolution, feminism, etc has resulted in a return to harems. Women, at the mercy of their own emotions, are volunteering for the modern-day equivalent of harems. Lucky for me!! Heh.
You might say, "But...but...I'm so nice! I'm a nice guy!" Guess what? That's like a fat chick saying, "But I'm so smart!" As if those things have anything in the world to do with sexual attraction!
I'm going to give some tips here for the poor sucker guys who are posting online trying to get laid and who are spending hundreds / thousands of dollars on all those whores out there without getting any play. (You bitches know exactly what you're doing, and I'm on to your game!)
* Don't be sexually judgemental in any way. A woman's worst fear is to be perceived as a slut. She will suck your toes and take it in the ass if she thinks you don't view her poorly for it (and she knows her friends won't find out.)
* Don't get angry at her. Women know they have emotional outbursts and they need to trust that you can handle that. It's ok (and necessary) to occasionally put your foot down...just make sure she knows you are fully in control of yourself.
* Don't let her manipulate you or control you in any way. She will immediately lose all respect for you. Always be leading. It's just like dancing - women hate a man who can't lead.
* When first approaching a woman or a group, they tend to get a feeling like this is just your little scheme to get close to them, when you really just want something from them - like sex. (And they're right.) It's important to structure your body language and conversation so that they honestly don't believe you want something from them. They should feel like you are about to leave at any second.
* DON'T TRY TO IMPRESS HER IN ANY WAY. Don't show off. Don't talk about accomplishments or possessions. As soon as she perceives that you are trying to prove yourself to her, she loses all interest.
* Don't ignore her friends. A woman values her friend's opinions more than just about anything else in the world. Nothing matters to her more than what other women are thinking. Give her friends lots of attention and get everyone laughing. If one woman is feeling different than the others, she will drag them away. They will follow like a flock of pigeons. Society is the book of women. (Notice that men do NOT behave this way! Women are very different!)
* To get a woman attracted / emotionally vulnerable, give her lots of emotions and feelings. Don't just make her feel good. Make her feel good, and angry, and sad, and connected, and astonished, and intrigued, etc. Make her laugh. Tease her. Tell stories about your sick puppy. Tell her why things would never work out between the two of you. Call her a dork. If she gets heated up, she will start touching you...playfully push her away. If she calls you a jerk and punches your arm, you are doing it right. If she gives you that "I can't believe you just said that" look, do NOT back down, do not say "Oh I'm just kidding" or anything like that.
* As she gets more emotional, she will try to ruin things by throwing in logic. She will ask you if you are a player, or if you say this to all the girls, or whatever. The trick is this: Don't take it seriously by giving it some logical answer! That's right...women lose interest if you take them seriously!!! It's crazy but that's how they behave. Just blow it off or misinterpret what she's saying as though she is coming on to you. If you fail these tests, she will be gone so fast your head will spin.
* She will start asking you lots of questions. This is what chicks do when they suddenly find themselves attracted to a man they know nothing about. This is your chance to open up a little and also find out more about her and build a deeper connection. You have to do this, or she will flake later (even if you've kissed her!) Women are the worst flakes in the world! Don't make it too easy for her, make her work for it a bit. Then talk about connections and childhood memories and things you have in common, etc. She needs to feel that this is genuine. This is usually the time when I throw in a few fake vulnerabilities, like pretending I'm shy or insecure about something. I know it's fucked up but women need to see that there are at least a few small holes where they can sink their hooks in you. They get uneasy if you are too perfect.
* Make sure she gets the feeling that you have standards and that you are judging her based on them. Ask her questions that show her you are checking her out to see if she is up to snuff. Women don't like to feel like you are with them only because you can't do any better. They prefer to feel like you have high standards; you can get any chick you want, but you chose HER because she is SOOOO special and SOOOO different from all the others. Yeah, I know.
* Move her to different locations. Take her next door for a drink. Take her across the street to check out some art. The more locations the better.
* Take responsibility for every escalation. A woman will do just about anything as long as she doesn't have to feel like it was "her fault." Make it YOUR fault. Make it "just happen." She will rationalize it to herself later using the same bullshit generator that women use to flake out on dates at the last minute. Don't get her horny until you get her isolated. Believe me, emotional is better than horny.
* Keep the woman always swinging somewhere between validation and rejection. If she feels rejected, she drops out or gets REALLY MAD. And if she feels too validated, she will ditch you in a heartbeat. So push her away (emotionally) and then pull her back in.
* BELIEVE YOUR OWN BULLSHIT. Chicks do not look at your excuses and try to see if they are bullshit or not... because that is the logical thing to do, and chicks are not logical. Rather, what they do is see if YOU seem to believe your own bullshit when you say it. If you look like you do, then chances are, they will believe it too. So the key is to believe your own bullshit, and other aspects about yourself that you want the chick to believe about you too (alpha male..whatever)... because your own self beliefs for some reason will automatically 'impart' to the chick!
* One more thing...many guys make the mistake of listening to female romantic advice. Don't listen to them, THEY DON'T KNOW WTF THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, and they WILL steer you wrong. They will tell you what they THINK they want, instead of what they actually RESPOND to. And furthermore, a large part of the female sexual experience IS the inability to admit these things BECAUSE they derive sexual pleasure from putting up resistance and being overwhelmed.
If you do things this way, after a few months practice you WILL get laid like a rock star. The guys who get laid are the ones who know what they are doing, because they have practiced on lots of women. Ironically, women are most attracted to the men who are most likely to fuck them and then dump them on their ass - because those are precisely the men who have so many other options because they practice on lots of women. That's why you always hear women bitching about how men are assholes that only want to fuck them and dump them - because those are the men that they gravitate to.
Women tend to wise up when they get towards their 30s, and they start looking for a nice wimpy beta male to settle down with and pay for all their shit. As they get older, they will get more and more desperate to find this guy. Once they do, they will cheat on him with an exciting fun guy like me. (But who wants to fuck some old chick in her 30's? That's what beta males are for! Heh)
Hey, don't blame me - I didn't make things the way they are. I was just a guy who wanted to get laid. And I do. :-)

The Eternal Bachelor is back!

2007-11-09T16:29:00.000-05:00

Yes indeedy, Duncan Idaho is back to blogging, and Eternal Bachelor is up and running again after a few months where we all thought he was kidnapped or forced to give up blogging like Ilkka.

Not tonight dear... in fact, not ever.

2007-11-02T13:19:00.000-04:00

Here is an excellent article by a woman who wants to do the politically incorrect thing and hold women accountable for their actions. Read it, its good.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article2786172.ece
Feminism gave women control of their sex lives, but has it gone too far? Author and sex expert Dr Pam Spurr argues that many women are risking their relationships by saying ‘no’
Emily, 37, is a successful solicitor with a husband and a two-year-old son. To her friends, she doubtless lives a charmed existence. But recently she sat across from me in a life coaching session. She was very distressed. Having just discovered that her husband of five years had had an affair, she felt that her world had disintegrated. She’d been a good partner, hadn’t she? She was caring and hardworking, wasn’t she?
Closer examination of their relationship revealed that Emily hadn’t had sex with her husband for many months. When I pushed Emily gently on this she was incredibly defensive. It was her view that she was too busy with her career and raising their son to give any thought or time to sex.
Over the past two decades I have worked as a psychologist, life coach and sex expert, and I have found that Emily’s attitude is all too common. And such views don’t bode well for the success of relationships. With increasing frequency, women in their twenties, thirties and forties take a pragmatic, postfeminist view that sex is something over which they have no need to negotiate. In the bedroom, there is no compromise. If a man has a higher sex drive than a woman, then he can sort himself out. If he wants to try something new and she can’t be bothered, tough luck to him.
Eventually, Emily and her husband repaired their relationship – which meant learning how to confront their differences, including sexual ones.Recapture the honeymoon spirit
Olivia, a 39-year-old investment consultant, was less fortunate. She had wanted to make certain financial investments that her husband was against. Issues about their finances spread bad feeling into all other areas of their life and, like a stone dropped in water, the ripples from their acrimonious “discussions” reached far and wide.
When Olivia found that the stress of their differences diminished her sex drive, she felt completely justified in suggesting separate bedrooms. As she recounted to me – with bitter regret, after their divorce – sex had been the last thing on her mind. Her biggest mistake was not considering what was on his mind.
Having researched my new book, as well as talked to thousands of men and women over the years, I now firmly believe that too many women see the sexual side of their lives as something to be claimed completely and utterly as their own. That’s fine for single women flexing their sexual muscles.
But once they settle into a relationship, many will continue to do so. This doesn’t make sense to me at all – and unfortunately I’m privy to the heartbreak and distress that goes along with this view.
Like it or not, a sexless life is at the root of much heartache and many affairs and/or relationship break-ups. And although lack of sex can often be a symptom of other problems that lead a relationship to break down, it can also be the cause.
At the risk of being called old-fashioned (though I don’t think that old-fashioned should always have negative connotations) and antifeminist, I’d go so far as to say that for both partners sex could be considered a duty, if it is something that one partner knows would make the other happy.
Does he really want to go up on the roof to repair a leak on a Sunday afternoon?
Does she really want to take out the rubbish in the pouring rain? No, but partners in relationships do such things because they know that it makes the other happy. Sex should be seen in the same light.
I am not advocating submission. I oppose the idea that anyone should feel pressured into sex; I understand that the “sexualisation” of society often puts unnatural expectations on both women and men. I am merely pointing out that sex, as with other parts of a relationship, needs constant care and compromise. Why should the sexual area of a relationship be ringed by an emotional fence that makes it a no-go zone for discussion, while other areas are discussed openly, argued over and resolved?
Sometimes where sex has waned, both parties initially had different physical needs that were not discussed openly at the time. I have spoken to a fair few thirty-something women who settle down with a “decent chap” knowing that he’ll make a good father. On producing babies, though, many such men find themselves left out in the cold when they still desire the sexual warmth that they initially enjoyed. Such complete sexual pragmatism seems fair to these women, but what about the men? To them, sexually, men don’t seem to matter much once they have served their purpose.
Sometimes both partners feel that sex does not rank highly on their list of priorities. That’s fine. There’s no negotiation necessary when you’re both in agreement. But many women simply feel that their lives are too stressful, or that they are dealing with other relationship issues, and they don’t want to raise sex as yet another issue with which to contend.
That is a very dangerous place to be if the man doesn’t feel the same way. You may find, as Emily did, that he will seek sexual satisfaction without you. I certainly don’t justify infidelity but I can often understand why it happens. In contrast, when a woman’s sexual needs are denied, Heaven help the man responsible.
Jessica, 36, a political lobbyist, told me that she felt strongly that she and her husband were too young to give up enjoying sexual pleasure. It caused her much pain that he put long hours at work above consideration for their sex life. Tellingly, the reaction from many of her friends was “How dare he?”
That goes to the heart of this issue. As women, we have come to expect that we can control our sex lives completely – but we get angry when a man wants to do so.
Some may argue that sex is such an intimate and personal set of behaviours and beliefs that lack of compromise is justified. I would argue quite the opposite. It is because of its personal nature that sex should be explored between a couple. And by exploring their differences, and reconciling them, a couple’s attachment to, and love for, each other is often heightened.
In other cases I have found an even more disturbing attitude: that it’s fine to use occasional sex in a cold-hearted and calculated way as a favour or bartering tool for jobs well done by the man.
Amanda, a 38-year-old photographer, bartered sexual favours with her live-in partner when he did a particularly difficult piece of DIY or nasty bit of graft, such as unplugging drains. Using sex as a bargaining chip demeans both partners.
The solution is to take a holistic approach to a relationship and understand that every part of it – careers, finances, family issues, sex – needs nurturing and understanding. It’s the “only I count” sexual attitudes that are killing off much sexual intimacy.
Never be bullied into sexual activity that turns you off or be pressured into sex that doesn’t satisfy you. But always be prepared to discuss your feelings and desires and listen to his. Hopefully, that will improve your sex life and help to strengthen your relationship in other ways, too.

San Diego PD puts ho's online

2007-10-31T02:53:00.001-04:00

Prostitutes' photos, case details put online

EL CAJON – Mug shots of convicted prostitutes are appearing on the El Cajon Police Department's Web site. Police hope to discourage them from plying their trade in town using a 21st-century version of public flogging.

Naturally, they couldn't leave the men alone, could they...

Pictures of 11 women, details of their crimes and areas where they are banned from loitering were posted as of yesterday. Police said they plan to add pictures of convicted “johns” – the clients – within weeks. They are urging viewers to report when the offenders violate probation.

The goal of putting the faces of convicted prostitutes on the Web “is to move them and the crimes that come with them out of our city,” said El Cajon police Special Investigations Sgt. Mike Hook.

And naturally, some stupid academic with his head up his ass has a comment...

The tactic has drawn mixed reactions.
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, said the Web site violates the women's right to privacy.
“It's an incredible invasion of the privacy of the women, with no real benefit to law enforcement,” Cohn said.

Like I've said, women have a right to privacy enshrined in law - Roe vs Wade. Men? Men don't have shit.

I'm betting that there will be a furor, an outcry, feminists will bitch and moan, and eventually they will remove the prostitutes from the website. But the men will remain. Oh yes siree, they will remain.

Here's my favorite.

Salinas, Elisa

Hispanic female 125 lbs 5’05” Brown eyes Brown hair
Arrested 647(b) PC found guilty in Superior Court
Geographic probation until 05-31-2010

Geographic probation conditions: Defendant shall not:

(1). Contact or attempt to contact passing motorists. (2). Engage or attempt to engage motorists in conversation, (3) Solicit or accept rides from motorists or, (4). Loiter, congregate or remain on a public street, sidewalk or alleyway without apparent lawful reason or business at the following geographical areas of the city of El Cajon:

(a) The 500 Block of West Main Street to the 1600 Block of East Main.
(b) El Cajon Blvd between 100 and 1300 Blk
( c) The 500 Block of West Douglas Ave to the 300 Block of Douglas Ave.

The following conditions were deleted in this case
Additionally not to be in possession of a cell phone, pager, beeper, or other communication device while in the geographical areas described above, except in the course of lawful employment.

A poignant observation

2007-10-29T21:07:00.001-04:00

I was going through the threads linked by NO MA'AM on his post the other day, and one observation of his stuck out at me.

Another thing that you can notice almost instantly, that all married women do when they join the MRM, is right off assure everyone that they are not like that. In fact, they go out of their way to tell every male in the MRM, many of whom have been royally screwed by Western Women, that they are the epitome of the perfect woman & wife, which has been eluding all of us men our whole lives. Our lives would be perfect if we had just been lucky enough be one of these women's husbands.
So, it again becomes not all women are like that.
And they go out of their way to let us know that they are the perfect woman that we should all strive to find.
Oddly, these women's husbands are never posters on MRM boards, so we don't really know what their perfect marriage is really like, do we?

I think this man speaks the truth. The first thing any "anti-feminist" woman says is that "she's not like those other women" - the same way a girl trying to wheedle you into signing your balls over says "I'm not like those other women who will divorce you and take your money and children."

It has been said in the past, that dissimulation is the order of the day with women - it is what it is, you just have to guard yourself against it. You can't get mad at the rattlesnake for striking, and you can't get mad at the woman for her dissimulation and manipulation. That's why feminists call you a misogynist when you complain that women lie about rape or abuse or about basically anything, because it is in their nature. And to some extent people know it but don't want to say it.

I quite agree that things will be much worse for women than men. In fact, feminism's largest damage to women will be if men begin to see the natural manipulations that all women do, and men actually do make them equal and don't stick up for them anymore.
I don't really care what the women on the board think, and I am hardly talking to them, except to tell them to shut up. It irritates me though, to see women show up and start the mangina factory over and over again, and to see so many men that just love to come to heel for a "good woman." Of course, this is all just on these women's word. Every woman who's ever cheated on me told me she would never cheat on me at the beginning of the relationship too. Of course they are going to make us think that "they are not like that."
Notice that expat married men living abroad (of which I believe you are one) rarely talk about how good their marriages are compared to how the women in the MRM do. Basically, it seems that expat married men realize fully the nature of females, but have chosen to engage with one in a place where the law affords him the right to be in more control over her - expat married men are not preaching that "women are not all like that."
What we have going on in the MRM, in fact, what I view as the biggest problem overall, is that we are like a person trying to start a fire but there is someone right next to us who keeps blowing out the match before we can get it to the kindling. That's the effect that letting women into the MRM at the MRM's youthful stage has been having - they keep blowing out our matches before we can get the wildfire going.
Certainly, when the MRM reaches critical mass and takes off like a wildfire, there will be women involved. It is inevitable. Also, certainly when the MRM's message becomes more mainstream, it will tone down it's radicalness and become more docile and acceptable to the public in general.
Until it gets to that point, however, allowing women into the MRM and not pushing them away so we can get the damn match to the kindling, is going to be our eternal pitfall, as has been proven over and over by the MRM's history itself. Why are we still so small after being around for decades already?
I wish more in the MRM could see this, but they rarely do because they are just continually desperate to believe that all women are not like that.

Another good post.

I've noticed the "all women are not like that" crap a lot, but I never put it together the way Rob did here.

Why are all-girl schools ok while all-boy schools are not?

2007-10-29T02:31:00.001-04:00

I've always been curious as to why, exactly, men's colleges are subject to legal challenges while women's colleges are not. Why the YMCA is open to both sexes while the YWCA isn't, and why the same fate has befallen the Boy Scouts and various fraternities but not Girl Guides/Girl Scouts and sororities.

Why Single-Sex Classes Are Generally Unavailable

When the US Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the Virginia Military Institute was violating the 14th Amendment by excluding women, it dealt an almost-fatal blow to same-sex education for boys. In the majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court retained full protection for any female-only programs that could be said to compensate for the disabilities women suffer: "Sex classifications may be used to compensate women 'for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered,' to 'promote equal employment opportunity,' to advance the full development of the talent and capabilities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were, to create or perpetuate the legal, social and economic inferiority of women."

In light of this ruling, all-girls programs could still be seen as compensatory; all-boys programs, on the other hand, are regarded as discriminatory. The ruling puts a chill on all special initiatives for boys. However, while it discourages them, it does not strictly prohibit them. Programs that separate the sexes while offering each the same resources and opportunities remain permissible. In practice, however, single-sex education is an allowable option for girls, but rarely for boys.

This is straight from "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Society is abusing boys by treating them differently from women, and not in a good way. Boys are treated as trash and scum, and they grow up internalizing that message. Its a pity that so many parents love their boys less than they love their girls.

Men are responsible for their wife's behavior

2007-10-28T19:43:00.001-04:00

Russell Yates was dragged over the coals over Andrea's multiple murders, just as the husband of that woman who drove the family car into the lake was questioned, even though she kicked him out and drove the car into the lake with the kids screaming, strapped in their car seats.

The man is expected to be fully responsible for his wife in America. Let me remind you that this is by definition domestic violence, but I guess men are expected to walk the tightrope over the Grand Canyon every day and be happy about it. How else would you explain the number of women who wait for men to approach them and cry sexual harassment when they do?

The man is expected to be responsible for his wife's murders, his wife's abuse, his wife's spending them into credit card debt, hell, he is held responsible for "driving her" to kill him.

Is there anything that society is willing to hold women responsible for?

Now we have a mom who has already saddled the family (husband) with $135,000 in debt, goes out shopping every day, spends $400 at Starbucks in a month, and doesn't see anything with it. She goes on Oprah, goes "Hell yeah!" and basically says "Fuck you all, I'm not changing."

She holds all the cards and she knows it. A simple divorce motion, and all that debt that she was the sole contributor to, her husband will be responsible for, all those clothes she buys, those are the "manner to which she has become accustomed" and the children will naturally go with her to maximize the wealth transfer through the inevitable child support.

Consumers Gone Wild

I love new clothes. However, I like getting rid of the clothes just as quickly to go buy new ones."
This lady who appeared on Oprah lives the life of a big house in the burbs, new cars, six beautiful kids, and spending way beyond her husband's $5,000/month salary. Felice drops $400 a month on Starbucks, $240 on tans and manicures, and her children have no health insurance.
"I have six kids and I sell their toys sometimes just because I don't like them."
When money runs dry, as it often does, she takes out cash advances. She handles the family finances and hides receipts from her husband underneath a baby blanket in a drawer.
When I do shop, I do kind of get a rush. It makes me feel good... but afterwards, though, I get depressed. I'll buy something even if I really don't like it because I have to come out with something.

On page 5 you learn they're on the brink of being totally financially destroyed with $135,000 in credit card debt, $1,700 a month for three cars, two mortgages at $685,000, and are two weeks behind on their mortgage payment. Before you make Felice out to be the totally baddie, the husband is just as culpable for not asking more questions and making sure the numbers add up. He even says that he would get credit card bills and not know where $10,000 of it came from.

Lady? That fucking cow is no lady, let me tell you that. Why do idiots like this collaborationist Ben Popken insist on calling cunts and whores ladies?

Anyway, take a look at that last sentence and let it sink in. "The husband is just as culpable for .... .... .... not asking questions and making sure the numbers add up." All while the wife claims that she can’t go get a job because she has to be “home for the kids.”

This is what you're in for.

Look down. Have a penis? Congratulations, society considers you scum no matter what you do.

Wife strikes gold with husband's death

2007-10-28T19:11:00.001-04:00

Another dead man, another rich wife. Another "wrongful death" lawsuit. What's new here? Well, she and her lawyer and naturally the accomplice judge, raided another dead man's estate to pay the fiend.

$4.5 million awarded in Carrera GT case

Over two years ago a crash involving a Porsche Carrera GT during a Ferrari Owner's Club track day killed two event participants when they hit the wall at over 100 mph while trying to avoid a Ferrari merging onto the front straightaway. The driver and Carrera GT owner was Ben Keaton, an avid automotive enthusiast who regularly shared his wisdom on the website 6SpeedOnline.com. The car's passenger was Corey Rudl, a prospective Carrera GT buyer who wanted to take a ride. The tragic loss of these two lives brought out a great debate in the safety of California Speedway's tight infield road course, the responsibility of the event organizers, and the design of the Porsche Carrera GT itself.

Tracy Rudl, the wife of passenger Corey Rudl, filed a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by many parties associated with the track event. She recently received a settlement of approximately $4.5 million. The contributing parties to the settlement fund were 2% from the merging Ferrari driver, 8% from Porsche, 41% from California Speedway and Ferrari Owner's Club and finally 49% from the Carrera GT driver's estate.

The Ferrari driver was not found very responsible since he was waved on by a track worker, Porsche was found liable because (believe it or not) they didn't put Traction Control in the vehicle. Maybe I should sue Chevrolet if I get in an accident because my car doesn't have traction control and runflat tires and all the other assorted safety features it never had and I know it never had them?

The track is paying because the track worker waved the Ferrari into the track, and the GT driver is responsible because?? Oh, that's right, he had the money. Forgot that justice is always about getting the biggest payoff in the US.

Sickening. Why is it that judges and juries just can't help forcing other people's purse strings open whenever a woman comes along with a few crocodile tears?

Noted female chefs say that bias smolders inside the kitchen

2007-10-25T04:07:00.001-04:00

Accomplished female chefs still face deep-seated bias in the restaurant business, seven prominent female chefs tell New York magazine.

Seven prominent and presumably accomplished female chefs claim to struggle against Teh Patriarchy when they skated in on their Pussy Pass? Will wonders never cease?

In the fine-dining atmosphere where restaurants are identified with their chefs, these female cooks contend with regular reminders that the industry isn't comfortable with the idea of women in charge.

Here, naturally, the industry is wrong and the little princesses are right...

The chefs, all of whom have run well-known kitchens, describe situations in kitchens in New York or Paris where male colleagues insult or ignore their female counterparts.

And of course, male colleagues never insult or ignore their male counterparts, female colleagues never insult or ignore their male counterparts, and female colleagues never insult or ignore their female counterparts. Nope, no way. Or maybe they do, but its only notable when men do it to women. Its funny how the chefs find the time to be such good cooks when they're patriarchally oppressing these poor widdle women all the time.

Chef and restaurant owner Anita Lo says that her mail is frequently addressed to "Mr. Anito Lo."

Now that's just hilarious.

Wary of the machismo found in the main kitchen, women are more likely to gravitate toward pastry, a relatively calmer and more traditionally female area.

Ah yes, can't stand the heat, so they get out of the kitchen and whine about it. That is these women's motto. The pastry area. Relatively calmer, more female dominated, pays less but the work is easier? Sounds like all the pink collar jobs women flock to in droves. And when women run HR, guess who they hire. And bonus, they then whine about "the pay gap" and want to be paid more for less work.

Woman wants to ban books without happy endings

2007-10-06T01:44:00.001-04:00

What in the fuck... this stuff is better than any satirist could come up with.

We want happy endings for kids' books
04 October 2007 09:43
A crusading mother-of-three has made it her mission to ensure children grow up hearing of only the good things in life.
Norwich woman Clare Hughes is spearheading the eastern arm of a new national campaign to put a stop to children's books that don't have a happy ending.
The 42-year-old has been appointed head of the Happy Endings Foundation's East of England Cheering Committee, which urges parents to only let their children read books with happy endings.
The group was set up after its founder, Adrienne Small, read the first book in the series A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket to her daughter.
She said the books caused her daughter to take a more negative approach to life, which only got worse when she subsequently read all 13 books in the series.
Mrs Hughes, whose children are 13, 12 and nine, said: “I've seen the way my children respond to news that goes on in real life, whether that be the disappearance of a child, like Madeleine McCann, or bombings, and that gives them enough nightmares.
“Books should give them a sense of good triumphing over evil and let them be rest assured that the goodies will come out on top.”
“It's about encouraging children to read books with positive values. Look at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, there are some unpleasant characters, but Charlie wins out in the end. That's the type of book we support.”
As part of the campaign, letters have been sent out to school libraries asking them to remove Lemony Snicket books from the shelves and HEF are holding a number of activities, such as Bad Book Bonfires, where they are encouraging people on Guy Fawkes's Night to make their bonfires from “bad books”. Other reads on their “bad book” list include Villette by Charlotte Bronte, The Wide Sargasso Sea by Jeah Rhys, The Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Anderson and Shockheaded Peter by Heinrich Hoffman.
However, Harriet Cox, librarian for Norfolk's School Library Service, said the campaign was unnecessary.
She said: “It's patronising children if there are only books with happy endings and they will see through it because they know there's good and bad in the world.”
Are you campaigning for or against an issue that concerns you? Call Kate Scotter on 01603 772326 or email kate.scotter@archant.co.uk

Frigid Women = Victims

2007-10-03T01:05:00.001-04:00

So here's another "boo-hoo, women" article. This one focuses on how, when a man doesn't want to have sex with his girlfriend, he's denying her something. He's the one to blame, he's the stupid one, he's the closet homosexual, he's the creepy pervert. All because he would rather choke the chicken than do his girlfriend. She is of course, morally pure as the driven snow (sound familiar?) and has no blame in this whatsoever. Oh poor victim. I can hear the sound of a thousand keyboards firing up to denigrate the guy, how he must be such a loser, how they will show her a better time, whatever.

Read on...

The Web: Just another way to avoid sex, friends

By Helen A.S. Popkin

So here’s a story you’ve heard before, or at least some version of it. If it didn’t happen to a friend, you may very well be the protagonist of such a tale. This one I’m fixin’ to share comes straight from the mouth of a formerly-Internet naïve friend who, just a few years ago while closing in on the ripe age of 30, lost her boyfriend-since-high school to the wicked world of Internet Sex.
FYI: I’m not talking about me. Fortunately I’m not so unfortunate to have the same loser boyfriend from high school. Also, my mind’s been in the gutter way too long to not have heard this train coming down the track.
So, there's this couple from high school and they go to college and then on to grownup working life together and monogamously. As is easily predicted, things got super dull in the bedroom. And the living room. And the kitchen. And anywhere else they tried to zest up their premarital bliss.
Instead of doing the safe and sane thing by breaking up and moving on, The Boyfriend moved to the burgeoning world of Online Porn, dragging his Good, Giving and Game Girlfriend (as insightful, hilarious sex advice columnist Dan Savage would describe her) with him. After awhile, however, the GGG Girlfriend wasn’t enough. On his own, the Boyfriend discovered chat rooms, which then progressed to video chat rooms.
Video chat rooms then progressed to the GGG Girlfriends 28^th birthday which she spent alone in their bedroom while the Boyfriend (per usual by now) sat up all night in the living room in front of the monitor with his pants around his ankles, if you catch my meaning.
Did I mention that the GGG Girlfriend was still pretty much as cute and pleasant as she was in high school when they first hooked up? Not that it matters, as is totally explained in the recently-released poll results from advertising agency JWT which states that Americans are giving up friends and sex for Web life.
While anecdotal evidence like my poor GGG Girlfriend and The Boyfriend abound, you kind of have to wonder at the reliability of such a poll. According to the results, “More than a quarter of respondents — or 28 percent — admitted spending less time socializing face-to-face with peers because of the amount of time they spend online.” However, that doesn’t take into account hanging out with friends online through such exceedingly popular social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook.
More importantly, however, it doesn’t seem to define Sex, and as Bill Clinton taught us, Sex means different things to different people. Internet Sex, via downloadable porn, chat rooms, or Second Life, may be the closest the phobic and shy ever get to the so-called “real thing.” Meanwhile others, like the aforementioned Boyfriend, find the virtual version of “It” more fulfilling that the real thing waiting in the bedroom.
Other seemingly-important information imparted by this survey states that out of the 1,011 adults polled regarding the amount of time they would feel OK without going on the Web, 15 percent said they could do it for just a day or less. Twenty-one percent said a couple of days and another 19 percent said a few days. Only a fifth of those who took part in an online survey said they could go for a week. (Probably the same people still on AOL dialup, LOL).
That’s all very well and interesting, I suppose. But despite the suspect sciencey-goodness of such a poll, didn’t you pretty much know in your heart that the above was true? We love the Internet. Just like we used to love TV … long, long ago, before the Internet started making TV obsolete.
Meanwhile, if you’ve got the patience to search through microfiche, no doubt you’ll dig up an old alarmist news report from some other sort of suspect poll that states something along the lines of people giving up real friends and sex for “I Love Lucy.” You’ll probably also find such overarching statements about giving up same for marijuana. Or jazz. Or fire.
Whatever version of society-destroying evil you happened to scan on the microfiche viewer, there’d be an element of truth. Because, hey, all the above, like the Internet, are distractions. And as humans, we actively seek out distractions. Because when life isn’t painful, it’s often painfully dull.
So viva la distraction, or whatever. Just like the Boyfriend of GGG Girlfriend would’ve have been a perverted jerk even if Al Gore never invented binary code or whatever. If it wasn’t the Internet, we’d find some other reason to avoid our friends and sex.

So when do these bitches get off acting as though they're God's gift to mankind? "Real thing waiting in the bedroom" my ass. Its all about her, and sometimes even I would rather take care of business myself than to get her all aroused and lubed up, then make sure she comes first, and finally cuddle afterwards.

The Privilege Checklist

2007-10-02T22:19:00.001-04:00

The last thing feminism is about is equality. If it was then I would support it. No feminism is all about privilege for women at the expense of men. Remember, these are the same women who fight to get into men's-only clubs but support banning men from women-only health clubs as discriminatory. Here are some more of their double standards.

The female/feminist privilege checklist:
1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?
2. Do you occasionally experience subservient gestures by the opposite sex(opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?
3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on "breadwinning" - although you could also take that route if it interests you?
4.a. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?
4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at ("No one should be drafted" - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if China & Russia combined and attacked full force - and "If men start wars ..." when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely "Men are SENT in wars ..." - exactly what you're trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others)
5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?
6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?
7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?
8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?
11. Are you much more capable of "marrying up" - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?
12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn't work for the money?
13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone's tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma's Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?
14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to breadwinning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as "expendable" or viewing your problems as not being important?
15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same death rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?
16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?
17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofus? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?
18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (women's studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?
19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don't CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don't choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don't "come out right"?
20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don't even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?
21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?
22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?
23. Can you get sympathy if you don't work and don't have children by listing all the household work (hmm ... Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister's husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?
24. Can you "mix and match" traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a "traditional wife" - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist when THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?
25. Can you constantly say "that's just typical" and "it doesn't surprise me a bit" and make a lemon face if you are a parent-in-law? Is near-universal contempt by both genders for your behavior hidden to a much greater extent?
26. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve "speaking your mind" and "some people just don't want to hear the truth"?
27. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you're only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?
28. Can you propagate myths and outright lies ("Superbowl/domestic violence hoax", "rule of thumb", 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstrual of pay figures, and many more) and be given a "pass" - without more rigor being demanded?
29. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the "patriarchy", and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just ... failures?
30. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? Do you "look the other way" when someone doesn't require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?
31. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people's choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death...). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don't take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).
32. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?
33. And if you are irritated about generalizations and stereotypes - and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped ...
... you may have female/feminist privilege! Congratulations!

But don't let on - because you can gain much more with a continual and manipulative victim status.

I found this today, it was originally on the Forbes forum. Good times, great writing. This guy is a budding MRA with fire in his belly.

Why do married women stray?

2007-09-26T17:42:00.001-04:00

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!

2007-09-26T14:29:00.001-04:00

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.

Feminism and Nazism

2007-09-23T14:12:00.001-04:00

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

2007-09-23T14:07:00.001-04:00

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.

Marriage is a bitch

2007-09-22T14:14:00.001-04:00

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.

Australian Navy paying for breast enlargement surgery

2007-09-16T02:46:00.001-04:00

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.

Poems

2007-09-06T00:21:00.001-04:00

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.

Divorce Insurance for Men

2007-09-05T00:37:00.001-04:00

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

The white man's burden

2007-08-24T22:57:00.001-04:00

Way back in the day, when Africa was known as the Dark Continent and America had just been discovered, taming the natives was the White Man's burden. The natives were so savage that it fell upon the white men (missionaries) to tame them and harness their power for the greater good of (white) mankind.

Today, men are the fairer sex's burden. It falls upon women to tame men, to harness them for the greater good of womynkind. Interestingly enough, this dictionary recognizes womankind as a word but doesn't recognize misandry.

Anyway, I present to you the travails of a teenage boy who just wants to have safe sex. This series of posts was made by Pentium 4 on SYG:

I was talking to my 14 year old nephew just now and he said that he had to go get a booster shot in order to go to school this year.
So, at the health department he asked for some condoms. He was told they only give them to females unless he is tested?

What does "tested" mean?

Can someone explain the logic in giving MALE birth control devices ONLY to females???

Called them, my nephew was telling the truth!

They give them to women who come in to get birth control or pap smear.

I asked if there was any condition where men could get them for free and she said only if they come in to be tested for an STD and are positive!
So let me get this straight. Women get free birth control pills and free condoms. Yet men get nothing UNLESS they are positive for an STD!!!
She said: "It was just too expensive to give them out to men".

How is this not the government giving women FULL reproductive control when they can get both the female contraceptive and the male contraceptive for FREE more readily than men can get male contraceptives for free?

Well, my nephew isn't into Men's Rights, he was just telling me what happened. He thought it was funny. I DID NOT!

Where I live (ND) they are out on the counter, where he lives apparently they are not.

I have no problem with the "it's too expensive" stuff. My problem is that the ones they do give out are given to FEMALES ONLY...unless a male has an STD.

It is all about women. They seem to want to give 100% reproductive control to women by giving them free birth control for both males and females. That she might punch holes in it is just one aspect. It sends the message that SHE is control of the use of contraceptives (ex, to use it or not to use it is not his choice as he isn't the one who brought it to the party) and if she did poke holes in it you can bet she will be pushing him to wear HER FREE condom not the one he BOUGHT! Men like to save money, even when horny.

They will give them to males ONLY if they have an STD. It is all about protecting women from men with STD's but otherwise, it is about women having 100% reproductive control in a sexual encounter. No matter how you look at it, they don't appear to give a shit about male reproductive rights but are all about helping to protect the woman if he has an STD.

A post by Brian:

Sounds about right. The woman is a victim and so she gets taxpayer paid for services for free. The man is told to get a job and pay for his own(and hers too by virtue of the taxes he pays) condoms. Now switch it around and watch how quickly the NAGS file a discrimination suit. Tell you nephew to make an EO complaint.

One from typhonblue:

I think it's even more insidious.

The idea behind it is that women need to have their precious sexuality protected. But a man only needs protection if it's necessary to protect his female partner from him.

I guess they believe STDs only go one way. From man to woman. And protection is only needed if you're protecting a woman from a man.
BTW, what about gay youth?

You could get him to ask the nurse why she thinks a girl needs protection, but he doesn't.

This is the kind of thing we're dealing with here. People just naturally assume that teenage boys aren't worthy of getting the same services that teenage girls are. If boys cost the healthcare system as much as girls do, what with routine visits, monthly appointments, pap smears and whatnots, people would blow a gasket and tell them to "man up and stop running to the doctor for every little thing."

Turning around the feminist canard of "If men got pregnant,"

If men got pregnant, they would die at childbirth, because nobody cares when men die.

For Single Guys

2007-08-20T01:58:00.001-04:00

An excellent post by uzemandluzem... about how western women are sluts...

from Unhooked:
"Stepp follows three high school girls and six college women through a year in their lives, chronicling their sexual behavior. These girls and women don't date, don't develop long-term relationships or even short, serious ones -- instead, they "hook up." Hooking up, Stepp writes, "isn't exactly anything." It can "consist entirely of one kiss, or it can involve fondling, oral sex, anal sex, intercourse or any combination of those things."

As I stated in another thread, "The real and not often recognized root of women’s power in our society is that 90% of them are really only truly interested in 5% of guys. Just as importantly, when these girls are young (under 30) they’d much rather share the 5% than have one of the 95% all to themselves."
Obviously, it can only be a best guess but I would breakdown the 5% as follows:
Players: 2%
Bad Boys: 2%
Studs:1%
Good players are smooth talkers so they generally do well in clubs. While they do get plenty of sex, its not necessarily easy sex because they still have to make the effort and encounter lots of rejection. While they do have many more one night stands than the average guy, most of the time they still have to take the girl on at least one date before they get any action.
As for bad boys, women perceive them to be very masculine, adventurous and dangerous - and when dealing with the shallow, arrogant creature that is WW, perception is reality. If a bad boy isn't a smooth talker then he won't get laid like crazy but like rich dudes, he will always have a girlfriend because girls tend to be drawn to them like stink on shit.
The Studs however, are the true chosen ones: they get easy sex and lots of sex because they have the package (like the bad boys) and the skill (like the players) that allows them to bypass the whole dating scam - I mean scene. The classic example of the stud is the hi school or college quarterback. The following are just a few of the characteristics of the stud:
He has lots of female friends (and many of these girls have borefriends) and he is the king of the "one thing just led to another" hookup - No need to get numbers and certainly no need to waste time or money "dating".
For example, as the article above alludes to:
He'll be just hanging out watching a movie with 2 girls and the next thing you know (ATNTYK) he's piling both of them
He'll be studying with a girl at a library ATNTYK they're fucking under the stairwell
He'll go to a party ATNTYK a girl's blowing him while her bf's in the other room
He'll go to a club with his buddies ATNTYK he's fucking a girl in the bathroom
He'll give a girl a ride home from work ATNTYK he's riding her in the back seat or
He'll meet a girl on the street ATNTYK he's on her sofa with her ankles pinned behind her ears like bugs bunny.
Of course, the distinction between players, bad boys and studs is not black and white but the important thing to remember is that women are really only truly interested in the studs and the bad boys. They are entertained by players and the good ones do get lots of action but mainly because there are not enough bad boys and studs to go around - despite the fact that they do their best to spread their seed.
So what about the other 95% of guys?
As far as WW are concerned they are worker bees and sexual drones. In other words, WW simply are NOT INTERESTED IN 95% OF MEN. Instinctively, your gut has been telling you that and your gut has been 100% right as the article above proves.
It proves it because you can only be "casually hooking up" with these whores if you are already in their circle. Women operate in cliques and they only let the studs and bad boys into their cliques because they are the only guys that they are really interested in. For everyone else, including the players, they make it extremely difficult just to talk to them. This is not an accident.
The players and rich dudes are third and fourth in line but they are still made to jump through hoops (i.e. do the dating thing) whereas the studs and bad boys get the "advance straight to pussy - no need to ask for my number and no need to take me on a date" pass.
To Summarize
For non gold digging woman their genuine preference in men before they are ready to get married is as follows:
First Choice: The Stud
Second Choice: The Bad Boy
Third Choice: The Player
Fourth Choice: The Rich Guy (he can provide material excitement)
Fifth Choice: The Catch (good looks, right family & fast track career)
Last Resort: The Average Joe (who in reality is far more of a "catch" than the average WW)
When WW are ready to get married the key thing to remember is that their preferences stay the same but their choices change. So even the non gold diggers will try and get a rich guy or a catch. Since there are not enough of those men to go around they will begrudgingly settle for an average Joe.
And therein lies part of the reason why the typical wife is so angry. She is deeply resentful that she wasn't able to land a meal ticket and retirement plan so payback comes by cutting her hair, ballooning into a beached whale, making her husband's life as miserable as possible and of course (in 75% of the cases) the coup de grace, eventually divorcing his ass and cleaning him out.
Of course, we can't forget that if she thinks she can get away with it she will try and find a stud, a bad boy or a player to knock her up and have the sucker (the rich guy, the catch or the average Joe) raise it.
The irony is that even if a WW can land a rich guy or a catch, in her shallow, arrogant, twisted and entitled little mind, she still will not be happy because to her, such men are not really men, they are personal slaves - suckers, just like the average Joe - only a lot more useful.
Always remember that a western woman's "heart" will always be reserved for the studs and the bad boys.
To summarize:
WW love Studs & Bad Boys (to the extent that WW are even capable of loving)
They respect players (women only fuck guys they respect**)
They use (while resenting) rich guys and catches & (most disturbingly)
They contemptuously think of average Joes as last resorts
Since bad boys and studs are born not made, unless you've always been getting tonnes of easy pussy while rarely spending a dime, the only self respecting option - aside from opting out from dealing with WW completely - is to (learn to) be a master player.
Uzem & Luzem
**hopefully by now, having the "respect" of WW means about as much to you as having the respect of a vulture or a rat - it only matters if you want to fuck them.

Our Own Enemies

2007-08-17T18:48:00.001-04:00

Here are a couple of posts I made recently, about how I feel that men are our worst enemies.

It started with this post by Mr. X:

yeah that whole ED stuff is really pissing me off. Men haven't changed. Its not like some meteor hit the earth and all of a sudden men are impotent. I think women are actually insulted men aren't on the jazz 24/7 and thinking with our groins like they were told.

As usual, my reply was tangential. I responded:

The problem is that men are their own enemies. Men are the ones who keep prattling on about how we men think with our little heads, we tell our daughters that their boyfriends are only interested in one thing, and we are the ones who make a big deal of wanting to bone every attractive woman who crosses our line of sight.

Not all men obviously, but too many.

To that, LAYM said:

Rather,such men are the enemies of independent thinking MRA men,and pretty much whoever comes his way the wrong time,like a father hating on his daughter's harmless boyfriend. Of course they are hypocrites,as they allowed themselves to inseminate a young woman once in their youth,despite the similar guys of the then generation giving the same look. I don't think you believe what you wrote really hard. As it implies all of men's problems are caused by men and only by men.

And I said:

I don't think all of men's problems are caused only by men, but its pretty close. Men have willingly allowed themselves to be sacrificed for the good of societies for hundreds of years, and its showing now - in the way that misandry is everywhere, in how feminism took over our justice system and in how men commit suicide more than women at any age.

Often, men are the first ones to cut other men down. I don't expect a positive response from women, but I also don't expect such a negative response from men.

And its true. How can men catch a break when the people most willing to hold them back are other men? When a thousand men will stand up and say "there's no problem" in any discussion about gender issues or about boys falling behind for every one man saying "there is a problem," how can we get ahead?

Feminists are all too quick to point to the bootlickers and say "Well these men don't seem to have any problems," how can the rest of us persuade any audience that there is a problem?

How can we be in any debate when other men are the first to muzzle us and push us down, and out of sight?

Responsibility for the other

2007-08-13T17:25:00.001-04:00

You know, it is often said, mostly by feminists, women, and women-firsters, that men need to take responsibility for who they marry. If they marry a gold-digger, they themselves are solely responsible for her actions, she is but an agent of nature and does not have any more conscience than a bird, whose shit has an equal chance of falling on a Lexus or a Lada. Your mistake for keeping the top down, now the poo is on the seats and has stained the leather.

The assumption is that men need to apologize for another's behavior when it doesn't turn out right. So if she decides to leave you and takes half of everything, you should have seen it coming because you're a man, and men are clairvoyant.

Sayeth the woman - they aren't? Then how come they always know what gifts to give me? How do they always know where all the romantic places are?

Heh, heh.

I was reading a letter that Glenn Sacks put on his blog, from a witch (who else can be that angry and evil?) who doesn't like that her ex has a new life. Vindictiveness and spite, ahh what a beauty the fair sex is.

There's a rabble-rouser in the comments, a female supremacist in the purest sense of the word - Annie. You can read her comments if you have the stomach. I bet the WKKK would be proud of her. There are a few choice comments too...

Here's a comment from Mark:
The other problem I see on this blog is that men tend to get a pass on everything, feminism in reverse if you will. The answer isn't not getting married, it's making a good choice on whom you marry. Sorry, but there are no shortage of men that think it's just great the woman they're dating is really impressed with their car and Visa card then act shocked when they "pretend" to realize the woman was just after someone to pay her bills.

Comment from Rosemarie:
Ding ding ding! We have a winner - Mark, you have hit the nail on the head when it comes to men who try to impress women with their Porches and their sailboats and their Amex, then cry foul when they realize they've attracted a money-grubbing opportunist.

As usual, the man gets the responsibility, the woman gets a free pass. I'll show you why.

Just think for a moment that a man meets a woman. She is highly sexual, sensual, free with her body and takes care of his intimate needs like no other. Let's not bring money into this; let's say they are both young and carefree with nary a penny to their name.

They marry, thinking that the bliss is going to last forever. Pretty soon, she pops out a kid, then another. Her gyno puts her on some pills, the sex dries up, she doesn't feel attracted to him anymore now that she's got what her biological clock was telling her to get.

Does the man have a right to expect sex to continue? Actually, if you answer in the affirmative, your opinion doesn't matter because of a simple little thing called marital rape. Law trumps opinion. This little feminist invention allows men to be prosecuted for the most basic function of marriage - sex.

He's a beast if he wants sex when she doesn't.

He's a beast if he doesn't want sex when she does.

So if a man cannot expect the good sex to continue, and cannot take it from her forcibly, what right does a woman have to expect the support to continue?

Ah, there we have the double standard. Money is not deemed personal like the body is, because men have money and women have the body. Simple gender politics.

A woman having to have sex with a man she does not like is a travesty, a human rights violation, it is everything that is wrong with the world; whereas a man having to support a woman he does not like is called marriage.

Men ignore their wives

2007-07-24T21:43:00.000-04:00

Men ignore their wives and spend all their time at work... isn't that a common sentiment nowadays? Men are being shamed into working less and spending more time with their family in public, while in private, men are shamed into earning more so that the fat wife can get even fatter.

Just can't win, can you.

I was reading a blog about technology and here's what it says about the work/life balance.

All of silicon.com's 12-strong CIO Jury IT user panel agreed BlackBerrys and smart phones have improved their productivity but warned it can have a negative impact on work/life balance without judicious use of the off-switch.
I personally have my device setup for push email during the week between 7am and 6pm. In the evenings/weekends I manually synchronise when I feel appropriate or necessary. When I'm on vacation I still take my Windows Mobile device but switch synchronisation off completely. If I continue to work on vacation - how is it a vacation?
Now there are always critical situations that require me to work outside of those core hours but I can choose to change how/when I access email and other systems.

The overwhelming majority of people who choose to accept tethers into their personal time are men. So basically, according to the rules of disparate impact, you are talking about men when you say that these devices tilt the work/life balance.

The man's needs are never thought about - he works and earns money for his family, and he comes home to spend time with his family. He is naught but a sacrificial goat, sacrificed for the betterment of his wife and kids.

In other news, women are equal to men, and men must allow their wives to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. If they don't, they are weak and must be discarded.

Anyway, the implication is that the man is a fool and not worthy of pussy and a female's company if he doesn't give her his full attention and lick her boots when they are together - whether on a date in the beginning, or years after marriage and kids.

"I think it just takes a little common sense to use these tools outside the office. If you are constantly distracted from your "significant other" checking email and taking phone calls, then you need to learn to set proper priorities."
"You just have to know when to put the toys away and focus on your life away from the office. And most importantly, learn to ignore the "inbox" alarm when she's talking to you!"
"Exactly it's all about balance and learning to detach yourself away from."
"Its all about choices.
If you choose to work during off hours/weekends then its your own fault and not of the device(s) you carry."

This is insane!

Here are my comments...

People are not accepting the flip side of this coin.

This is work we are talking about, not an idle pursuit or a mistress. Work is what pays the bills, and if I need to be on-call when I'm out with my wife, she should be able to accept it since if I was out of a job I wouldn't even need the cellphone.
Some of us earn our salary by being on-call, some of us want to be there when the company needs us so we can get promoted faster and earn more.

Hardly anybody is a workaholic just for the sake of being a workaholic.

It would be like calling a mother evil for attending to the kids when they want attention. You wouldn't do that would you? You would rightly chastise the man for wanting his wife's attention when the kids need it.

The same goes for the job that puts the food on the table.

Women lie, cheat and steal

2007-07-22T22:14:00.001-04:00

Like I said in my previous post...

She is as much at home in a web of lies and deceit as a fish is at home in the water. Female supremacists claim that women lie to make others feel good or so others don't feel as bad, but its clearly obvious that they don't give two bloody hemorrhoids about anyone else's feelings. The entire article can be summed up as "Waah waah woe is me, I feel so sorry... for myself."

Here we have an article stating the obvious...

HALF of all women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man, a survey said today.

They also said four out of ten (42%) would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner.

The new survey of women's attitudes to truth, relationships, and behavior, said the overwhelming majority (96%) admit to lying.

Almost half (45%) of the 5,000 questioned told the researchers for That's Life! magazine they tell "little white lies" most days.

One bizarre finding was that a third of women (33%) said they would stay with their husband if they found out he was a "secret transvestite", but only half that number (17%) would put up with him if he refused to wash.

And here comes the excuses... don't women get ashamed of defending lowly sluts and whores with no morals of their own to speak of?

Jo Checkley, editor of That's Life! magazine, said: "Modern women just can't stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other people's feelings.

"It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when it's not or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn't want a baby is playing Russian roulette with other people's lives."

Yeah whatever, shut it bitch. We know exactly why you lie. You are not fallen angels sent to earth to spare poor humans the hurt of having their feelings hurt, you are just pathetic little compulsive liars who couldn't tell the truth if your Dad's life depended on it.

The rest of the article continues with the rest of all the lies that women tell on a daily basis. Read on if you'd like.

Woman physically abuses children on plane

2007-07-20T16:32:00.001-04:00

Ah yes, in a world where fathers are viewed with suspicion and men aren't allowed to sit near children because they might be pedophiles, women commit child abuse with impunity. Just look at the headline and how they try to put it in the least offensive way possible.

Mom charged with beating kids on plane
A California mother was charged with beating her children, ages 2 and 4, on a commercial aircraft and interfering with the flight crew.
Tamera Freeman, 38, who appeared in court on Wednesday, was arrested on Monday at Denver International Airport upon her arrival on a Frontier Airlines flight from San Francisco, California.
An FBI affidavit quotes passengers as saying Freeman appeared intoxicated, was abusive with her children before she boarded the plane and repeatedly hit and yelled at them during the flight.
The affidavit also alleges Freeman threw a drink at the feet of a flight attendant and followed her into an aisle yelling and pointing her finger, causing the attendant, who had intervened on the children's behalf, to feel threatened.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's staff, which is prosecuting Freeman, said the children were handed over to a relative.
If convicted on the felony charges, Freeman faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, but under federal sentencing guidelines her sentence is likely to be much less severe.

So she got drunk and hit her kids. What a fucking wonderful mother isn't she. And the crew didn't even do anything! Can you imagine what the reaction would've been if a father was doing the same to his children? He would have been hogtied and thrown off the plan at 35,000 feet!

Something tells me she's not going to get much punishment at all. After all, she's a member of the virtuous and angelic and self-sacrificing sex right? What a fucking scam women have got going on, it is beyond belief.

I wonder if we'll remember this story next Mother's Day and ask the world, do Moms really deserve a Mother's Day?

Blog transition to Wordpress

2007-07-19T14:42:00.001-04:00

From now on, I will be simulposting to both Blogger and Wordpress.

Blogger - http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com/

Wordpress - http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com/

With Fred X's departure today, I am very worried about this blog being deleted by Google. Anyone know of another blog service that values freedom of speech and won't delete politically-incorrect material?

To the rest of you bloggers, you should strongly consider some alternative, given Google's flexibility with censorship when it suits them. Wordpress also has more features, some that I really like, including comment editing.

UPDATE: I'm going to disable comments on this blog (Blogger) from the next post onwards, so that there isn't a mess with people posting comments in both blogs.

Woman cheats, has baby, boasts about it

2007-07-18T17:54:00.001-04:00

This woman cheated on her "The One" (the ox chosen by her to pull her load for the rest of her natural life) with a Mexican fisherman who was 20 years older than her.

Could it be any truer that women only look for niceness, stability and a temperate demeanor when it is time to settle down? Men all over the MRA movement are pissed because American females don't like nice guys like girls from other cultures do, and they are angry that these females spend their prime years fucking and sucking thugs and then want to settle down with a nice guy in the suburbs when the tits start to sag.

But it is only different because the Western world is rich enough to afford it. In a country where even the lowliest of peons can have a TV, a computer and a can of beer in the cupholder, women can afford to fuck exciting thugs until its time to settle/settle down. Of course, the more attractive ones quickly learn the value of their cunt and use it to its full extent, but the more traditional MRA's praise those women.

Women accuse men of having the Madonna/Whore complex, but as usual, it is projection. These women willingly have wild and crazy sex with other men, but don't want to do the same with their husband, because "then he would want me to do that all the time." Can you think of a more selfish thing to do?

These women have the sucker/fucker thing down pat - one type of man to pay for the drinks, one type of man to fuck after the drinks.

So anyway, this cunt goes to Mexico, fucks a fisherman, has his baby and tells her boyfriend that its his - going to the extent of putting him down as the father, and doubtless he will be on the hook for child support for many years all thanks to this evil cunt's lying.

What must it be like to conceive a child during a secret holiday romance, and then have to confess to your long-term partner that you have betrayed him?
That was the dilemma facing Francesca Morosi, 37, when she discovered she was pregnant after an affair on holiday in Mexico. Here, Francesca, who lives in Leicester with her son Julian, aged four, and runs her own financial services business, tells her extraordinary story.

WHAT THE FUCK SHE IS A LYING BITCH HOW DARE YOU TREAT HER LIKE A FUCKING CELEBRITY YOU BASTARDS. What must it be like indeed.

Here are some excerpts I culled from the way-too-long article.

I have no doubt I was deeply in love with him. I remember telling my mother that I'd met 'The One', and he in turn told me that I was the first woman he'd fallen in love with.

Sean dreamed of going to central America to help the street children of Mexico City. We agreed this could form part of a grown-up gap year, so in January 2002, we both quit our jobs - I was working in accounting - and went to Mexico.

He wasn't, of course, my usual bookish type. He was very different to Sean and with his angular face and skinny legs, he wasn't even remotely attractive. Yet there was something about him which was compelling and I found myself looking forward to seeing him when he came in for a drink.
Especially as Sean and I had not been getting along that well since leaving Mexico City. Despite our breathtaking surroundings, there was tension between us and so when Cecilio invited me to join him on a fishing trip, I agreed.
I never planned for anything to happen, but afterwards, as we cooked fish on an open fire on a secluded beach, Cecilio kissed me. To my amazement, I found myself responding, and, carried away by the passion of the moment, soon we were making love on the sand.
Afterwards I felt incredibly guilty at my betrayal of Sean.
Far from our beach tryst being just a brief encounter, it was the start of six weeks of madness during which I slipped away from Sean while he worked in the restaurant, to see Cecilio every day.
He challenged me about my friendship with the fisherman. 'Is anything going on?' he demanded. 'Don't be ridiculous!' I lied. 'How could you think that of me!' To my relief Sean, who'd always been on the jealous side, accepted my denial.
But a distance grew between us and I'd push him away when he approached me sexually. On the few occasions we did sleep together, I'd be thinking of Cecilio. That would make me feel guilty, too. 'What kind of woman am I?' I'd think, hating myself for being so deceitful.
Sean could tell something was wrong, but was stunned when I said I thought I should have a pregnancy test - even more so when it was positive and I burst into tears. I felt panicked. A baby was the last thing I'd planned and I didn't know who the father was!

Though Sean told me how happy he was, I could not have been more miserable and wept hysterical, guilty tears. The two men I'd slept with could not have looked more different and I knew I would not be able to pass off my baby as Sean's if he wasn't his.
I knew he was devastated, but I did not want to break him completely. 'How many times were you with him?' he demanded. 'Only a couple of times,' I lied. I couldn't face telling him it had gone on every day for six weeks.

Sean must have felt devastated when he learned that she cheated on him. This is what I hate about the societal double standard - a man must prove himself continually, be exhorted to "be a man" and is constantly being judged, while women, they just are.

To be a man implies acting against your own interests, such as to work in a dangerous job to provide for one's family, or to go to war to slake a politician's thirst for blood.

To be a lady (not a woman) implies serving your own interests, such as not having sex outside of marriage so men can't get free sex, not wearing revealing clothes so that men can't get a free peek at her boobies.

Is it any wonder then, that women are the selfish sex?

Perfectly OK to be a slacker if you're the right sex

2007-07-18T03:55:00.001-04:00

While researching my last post about the Juggling Act, I happened across this article: 'Beta Moms' drop the juggling act. Looks like there's a fucking epidemic of lazy bitches all over the media - I also found this MSNBC article.

So, now, if you're a member of the royal sex, its perfectly alright to be lazy, proudly call yourself a slacker and neglect your duties.

But sociologists, including Melinda Forthofer of the Institute for Families in Society at the University of South Carolina-Columbia, say there's no evidence Alphas are actually better mothers.
And now an anti-Alpha movement is taking hold. Those moms have it together sometimes. They may forget to send back permission slips or lose track of their turn for team snacks. They don't necessarily have the catchy name, though some call themselves Beta Moms or even Slacker Moms as they urge their peers to chill.

When women hold the power of divorce, of child support, of being able to perform extra-late-term abortions and not having to answer to anybody, you tend to start wallowing in your own shit. It becomes a Lord of the Flies situation - one tends to become barbaric when the reward-punishment system is broken, when the civilizing effect of societal judgement is removed.

Of course they urge their peers to chill! This is what the entire herd mentality thing is all about - some women start thinking a certain way, and if its good, the rest of the herd follows like drooling cows. This is why NOW is so successful and this is why female supremacists constantly talk about the Patriarchy, because they just can't imagine that men wouldn't be just as evil as them if given the chance.

And of course their fathers wouldn't say anything would they? Half of them are petrified of being thrown out of their house with the clothes on their back, the others are too busy licking their wife's boots, seeking approval like a fucking puppy dog.

This is a really long article. Really fucking long article trying to justify lazy females, because obviously it was written by a woman (how many fluff pieces aren't?), picking out other women who back up the claim.

Woman, 39, a somehow important but largely irrelevant person, says that other women are, in fact, right. News at 11.

You know, if you do a Google image search for slacker, I bet you're mostly going to find men. After all, its not men who stay home and live off another person's hard work and claim to be worth $140,000 a year.

Juggling Act

2007-07-17T23:15:00.001-04:00

Multi-tasking or scatter-brained?

I'm reading Warren Farrell's "Why Men Earn More" and he makes an excellent point about the "juggling act", which, along with the second shift is part of the women-as-victims popular culture nowadays.

Thousands of articles and cartoons focus only on the women's juggling act. These articles and cartoons play upon and reinforce society's failure to have equal compassion for men; in the process, it helps make us vulnerable to a second bias - that "women are better managers because women are better jugglers" of their dual role as mothers and workers.

In reality, men and women juggle in different ways. As a rule, moms do more juggling at home and dads do more at works.

Mom's juggling at home is well recognized: While the laundry and dinner are on, she's nursing her infant, answering a cell phone, and using eye contact and six fingers to give her seven-year-old permission to visit a friend next door but be back by six for dinner. Men are more likely to contribute to the home in some 50 different ways that are less predictable, more as-needed: repairing, assembling, remodeling; driving under dangerous conditions or when everyone is tired; working outdoors shoveling snow, raking leaves, mowing lawns, coaching kids; climbing ladders to paint or put up screens, check out a roof, or get something from the attic. These kinds of contribution go largely unrecognized because many of them, like driving, coaching, and assembling, are not measured by "housework" studies, so they don't make headlines and we think of only women as having a "second shift."

Men's juggling, though, is more likely to occur at work than at home. For example, although women today are as likely as men to win public office when they seek it, men are still much more likely to seek it. Yet every politician is a walking, talking juggling act - expected to juggle hundreds of conflicting interests yet avoid conflict-of-interest. Governors, for example, juggle the taxpayers' demand for the best education systems and highways; they try to attract companies to their state to pay those taxes by keeping down the taxes companies pay. They cannot stay elected unless they speak and listen most every night to another constituency, yet they are accused by their family of spending every night taking care of everyone except the family. If they don't juggle well, they will soon find themselves praising family values and watching their own family fall apart. The juggle winning with losing-even-if-they-win.

Its a good summary, because everyone recognizes the contributions of women, especially managers who then go on to hold those women to a lower standard and are more flexible with letting the women go home early or come in late or have erratic hours.

If a manager doesn't let women act as they please, either he or the company is accused of being archaic, inflexible and insensitive to women's needs. Basically what this means is that feminists don't give a shit about men's needs, but women's needs are elevated to this-must-be-resolved status. Of course, chivalry then kicks in, and kicks men in the balls.

Women have fertile imagination

2007-07-17T18:59:00.001-04:00

Fertile imagination - that's newspeak for "lying bitches."

We have another fucking false rape accusation. This cunt made up a story which had no basis in reality and no connection to what actually happened, and she would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling cops who abuse women by demanding petty, male things like evidence.

Police say woman made up rape story, point to parking lot video for proof
She said she was abducted during trip to get her car tags in Williamson County
By MITCHELL KLINE

FRANKLIN — It sounded like a heinous, frightening crime.
A woman told police she was abducted in broad daylight, driven to an unknown location and repeatedly raped. But that woman, Mary E. Chafin, has been charged with filing a false report after detectives could find no evidence supporting her claim.
Detective David Dixon, lead investigator in the case, said he was baffled by the woman's story but is even more perplexed about why someone would make this up.
"We can't figure out for the life of us why," Dixon said. "Unless it was something to get attention, I don't know why she did this."
Chafin, 30, who lives in Fairview, was released from Williamson County Jail Monday after posting $7,500 bail. She is charged with a felony level of filing a false report. Chafin's story brought emergency medical personnel, six police officers, sheriff's deputies and firefighters to the scene. Dixon arrested her on Friday.
"She did not want to talk to us when we served the warrant for her arrest," Dixon said. "She screamed and carried on. She may believe what happened is real."
Chafin could not be reached for comment.
On July 11, Chafin called 911 and said she had just been abducted, raped and placed into the driver's seat of her car after the two-hour ordeal.
Chafin told officers she was kidnapped while in the parking lot of Williamson County Administration Complex, where residents purchase and pick up car tags. Chafin said she was putting stickers on her license plate when someone put a sack or bag over her head. She claimed that she was picked up, put into a vehicle and driven 15 minutes to an unknown location. Chafin told police there were three abductors, but she never saw their faces because the sack or bag never came off her head.
"She said that over the next hour to hour and a half she was raped repeatedly by one or all three men," Dixon said. "She claimed she fought these guys fiercely."
Chafin said the men brought her back to the parking lot and put her in her van, then left. She called her boyfriend and a family member, drove to a pharmacy and called 911.
Dixon said doctors at Williamson Medical Center examined Chafin and found no signs that she had been in a struggle or raped.
The next day, Dixon examined video surveillance taken at the parking lot. The detective said Chafin could be seen parking her van, getting her stickers, applying them to her license plate and leaving.

You can't figure out why she did this, Dixon?
Why do you care? Do you care so much when its a man caught lying to the police? And I do hope you're booking her for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, both felony offences if I remember correctly.

Mitchell Kline, you tool, do you routinely try to contact men accused of rape or even lying to the police for "their views" on the story? Or are you happy to treat them as guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt?

Excellent point about Child support

2007-07-17T14:20:00.001-04:00

You know how Child support debt is retroactive to the day of birth, how it is unforgivable thanks to the Bradley Amendment, and basically once a man is on the hook he is not let off for any reason, including DNA evidence. DNA evidence is good enough for those falsely accused of rape and murder but not for someone convicted of child support.

Child support can also drive a man to kill. The problem with child support as it is applied today is that it is not really child support - it is a form of mommy support. You can dress it up all you want in gender-neutral words, but its a cold reality that women are awarded custody far, far more often and when they aren't, they default (if an effort to collect is made in the first place) much, much more often. When women collect welfare, WIC (now there's a sexist, government-as-husband program if I ever saw one), food stamps et al, they can only spend it on certain items and they are held accountable if they cheat.

Ain't no way you're gonna show that the $1000 handbags, or even that case of Tecate Light is for the benefit of the child. But with child support collected from the man? Its hers to do with as she pleases.

So child support is either a replacement or a side-dish to alimony.

bluegrass over on SYG made an excellent point about unforgivable child support cases, in which a man is still on the hook years after the children have grown up and moved out. The primary justification is that the single mom expended the money to raise the child and the child support is rightfully hers because that money was spent in the past and can not be un-spent now.

So basically what you're saying then is that in a case like this, the mother is then as morally reprehensible as the father -- in your opinion that is.

So growing up the kid doesn't get the benefit of that money because dad spends it on himself.

Then when the kid's grown, he still doesn't get it because mom spends it on herself.

I'm a parent though not divorced. I've never heard of this idea that one can be "reimbursed" for taking care of one's own children.
could you please explain?

I know of quite a few cases where, in states where the father has to pay child support till 21 if the kid decides to attend college, the woman keeps the entire child support check for herself. The kid is burdened with crushing student loans and debts even when the father is paying.

After all, the mother is under no obligation to spend it on the child, how can you expect to oppress her by holding her accountable, you patriarchal oppressing bastard!

She may even lie to the kid and tell her that her father is a bastard who doesn't pay. After all, mothers are encouraged to lie and its not like she hasn't used the kids as pawns before.

Man arrested for not having grass on his lawn

2007-07-15T23:39:00.001-04:00

WHITE CLOUD -- A Newaygo County man could spend another weekend behind bars if he doesn't take care of his yard.
David Burch says he tried to seed the yard last fall but it wouldn't take root. This all stems from a contractor who failed to sod the yard in the first place. Now a judge is saying, do the yard or do the time.
"The people who work at the court, at the jail, thought it was funny," Burch said. "They said there had to be more. I said, 'No, it's just because I don't have grass growing.' They said, 'You're in here for that?'"
He claims he is not skirting the law. Burch said the contractor for his new house is responsible for the lawn. But a White Cloud city ordinance states otherwise.
"This has been in the courts for over a year," said White Cloud Police Chief Roger Ungrey. "I believe Mr. Burch has made an attempt. He did bring me in some receipts for grass seed."
But when it didn't grow, a county judge ordered the yard planted. It never happened. Again this April - no sprouts. Then, in jail, an inspiration. Burch is sodding his yard with donated turf.
"He has been working on it," Ungrey said. "However, he remains to this day noncompliant."
That is because the backyard must also be green.
But will the patchwork sod qualify as a lawn? "It's not your normal sod that you would have, that you would go to a sod farm and purchase," Ungrey told 24 Hour News 8. "So that remains to be seen. I can't answer that question."
Burch was back in court Thursday. The judge told him he has two weeks to complete the job. If not, it's another weekend back in jail.

Better watch out if you're a man. It doesn't take much to put you behind bars and give you a criminal record nowadays. All this while women who murder and rape children get probation and get to blame everything on the closest man.

Not much at all.

Fawcett society wants equal outcome for less work

2007-07-15T19:51:00.001-04:00

A female supremacist organization wants women to receive money and benefits disproportionate to what they pay in. What else is new? This is what feminism is about - it has been about ME ME ME, US US US, WOMEN WOMEN WOMEN since day one.

This is just the latest episode, like an angry pig who starts whining and oinking when she is led away from the feeding trough even though she is full and its the other animals' turn to feed.

Now they want women to get retirement benefits equal to men, even though women don't contribute as much as men because of their propensity for taking the easy jobs, for retiring earlier, and taking long career breaks to "find themselves" and having babies.

Credit goes to neonsamurai on SYG for this piece:

For example, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for equal pensions for women. "For every pound of income received by men in a pensioner couple, women receive less than 32 pence." They claim that this is unfair and are campaigning to prevent female OAP's living in poverty.

What they forget to mention is that most pensions in the UK are based on how much you contribute to them and also the fact that the retirement age for men is 65 and for women 60. Men in the UK work an average of 14 years more in their (shorter) life times than the average woman and contribute far more to the countries GDP. That's bearing in mind that the average Briton works around 39 years of their life.

So what the Fawcett Society want is an 'equal' outcome for less work. They're not pushing for women to work longer and contribute more, they're just picking bits of 'equality' and demanding they have it.

You either have equality or special treatment. You can't have one and claim it's the other.

You know, its the same as the fuss over the earnings gap - women make the choices that lead to them earning less, they save less because they are sure that a white knight is going to fight off the evil debt collectors for them in return for a chance to fuck that used up soggy pussy, and they retire earlier even though they live longer.

And then they have the fucking gall to say that women are oppressed into not saving as much and into not earning as much. Fucking bullshit.

Man walks into office and kills ex-girlfriend over child support

2007-07-14T21:17:00.001-04:00

Yeah. You read that right. He drove all the way from Arizona to Ukiah in California and shot the succubus in the head. And then he walked next door to the courthouse and surrendered. You gotta hand it to him. There's only so much abuse a man can take before reacting. And this is the kind of man that pushes back, violently.

But of course, since he's the wrong gender, the politically-incorrect sex, and the abuse was done under the auspices of the law, heck, the system is what made it possible for the "remote-control" abuse to happen, he is going to suffer. Just imagine the judge's glee as he sentenced him to four life terms.

When a man controls his wife's finances, its domestic violence.

When a woman controls her husband's finances, its child support or alimony and it is business as usual.

UKIAH, Calif.—A man convicted of killing his former girlfriend because she was trying to collect two decades' worth of child support payments was sentenced to life in prison.

Howard Raff, 55, was sentenced Tuesday by a Mendocino County Superior Court judge to four life terms in prison.

Raff was convicted in June of first-degree murder with three special allegations—lying in wait, murder for financial gain and using a firearm—in the shooting death of Virginia Larkin, 60.

Raff said in a videotaped confession that he drove from Arizona to California to kill Larkin. He described walking into the Ukiah law office where she worked in November of last year, shooting her in the head, then turning himself in at the courthouse.

He told jurors the killing was justified because Larkin was trying to bankrupt him. After dodging the court-ordered $200-per-month payments for 22 years, the debt had grown to $85,500 with interest.

"It is incomprehensible to the court how a decision to kill can be motivated by court-ordered child support," Judge Ronald Brown said at the sentencing.

Raff said he planned to appeal his conviction.

Can you believe that? Its so terribly sad that two lives had to be wasted because of an unfair system which profits by nailing men to crosses. How many more men and women need to die before the bigwigs agree that it is time to stop whipping the slaves? Of course, the importance of men is not the same as that of women... I think one woman dying is worth 100 or 150 men. Can anyone refresh me on what the current comparable worth ratio is?

The man probably made a choice - either slave away for the next two decades to pay the ever-growing amount (can you imagine what the interest on $85,500 would be?) with the court-appointed thugs making his life a living hell, with prison only a bout of unemployment away, or end it all and make a statement.

This man is one of the walking wounded. But since he dared to visit harm on a member of the royal sex, he is being punished accordingly.

I wonder how many life terms Clara Harris got? Or how about Mary Winkler? How about any of the numerous women who hire other men to murder their husbands?

Oh wait, they are not punished at all. The same way that a white person could kill a negro and get away just a few short decades ago, women are getting away today.

Raff is planning to appeal - my guess is that he planned to sacrifice himself for the greater cause of men's rights. Its incredibly hard to penetrate the lace curtain in matters like this, but I'll be waiting for more news about his plight.

Choices for women

2007-07-14T06:43:00.001-04:00

Suckerfish gave me this link yesterday. Its full of various women gloating over how they have it made, how they have a buffet table of choices and they can make whatever choice they want with no real consequences to them because of all the safety nets they have.

new majority of working moms in the United States would be happiest in part-time jobs, with fewer seeing full-time work as an ideal, according to a study released today.
In a notable shift during the past decade, working mothers overwhelmingly view fewer work hours as the best option for their busy lives with young children. The proportion of mothers who feel that way jumped 12 percentage points since 1997.

And they acknowledge men in the same way that a Queen acknowledges her slaves. The slaves are there like a pillar holding up a roof, and her empire is built on their back, but they amount to nothing in her eyes.

"We found that the younger people are more family-centric than boomers are," Galinsky said. "Most young people have seen someone lose their job, and they have lived through 9/11. It's not that they don't want to work. They just want to work more flexibly."
Rachel Schumacher, 36, of the District agrees that her generation is a factor. She feels lucky to have negotiated a part-time arrangement at the nonprofit organization where she is a policy analyst. This has meant some financial cutbacks and compromises.
"It lets me keep a hand in my career, and it allows me to be home more with my son, who is my priority," she said.
Schumacher's mother worked full time, without such an option, she said. A generation later, "we have the luxury of making these choices because of all the blood, sweat and tears our mothers put in," she said.

Its the same way with women. They barely acknowledge that there's almost always a man behind a woman's ability to choose. There was a father behind her ability to choose college, there was a boyfriend behind her ability to choose to leave her wallet behind every time she went out, and there were policemen, bouncers and countless unpaid bodyguards bound by the code of chivalry behind her choice to wear that revealing slinky little dress and lead on every guy in the bar.

The same is true of a mother's choice to work, not work, to work full-time or to work part-time. It is her husband's work that enables her to be able to make that choice, to enable her to become a parasite, to suck his lifeblood.

"Nowadays, in this society, you've got to be home with teenagers. You need to know what they are doing, You need to know their friends. You need to supervise their phone calls," said Wyche, a teacher. "You cannot do any of that if you are not in the house."

Yeah, teenagers sure are home all day including normal business hours, making calls using the phone in the living room and inviting friends over. Is this woman even connected to reality?

Many women get so used to not working that they would rather work their slave to death than to get their own hands dirty. Let's just say I have a friend who's mother doesn't have anything keeping her at home - the kids are grown up and moved out, and now she's trying to fill the emptiness by traveling to see them and being a good grandparent. No doubt that most people appreciate her being there for the new parents and the grandchildren, but people don't appreciate the fact that her husband is slaving away right now to pay for those air tickets. He is slaving away at that very moment to make enough money for both of them.

It is understandable that they came from a different era, one in which the woman was not expected to work, but its about common sense and a goddamn sense of honor ya know? The husband was likely to get laid off and it probably would have helped a ton if she took some of the bread-winning burden off him by going to work herself, but noooo, her daytime soap operas were far more important. Its not like she can cook and clean house when she's off with the grandkids anyway.

She's only too happy to hasten the inevitable heart attack by not taking responsibility for the financial state they're in and instead dumping it all on him.

And before you say "AW are all fucked in the head," no they are not American. They don't even live here. Every culture in the world treats men like disposable slaves.

You know, I believe that there are two kinds of MRA's and marriage strikers... look for my next post.

How things have changed

2007-07-10T13:40:00.001-04:00

I rented a movie last weekend from the library. As the library is free to use and I rented a little late, there weren't many good titles available. Most people had already rented the interesting stuff.

Or so I thought.

I picked up a classic movie that I had heard about, but never watched or knew the story of. The movie's name is "My Man Godfrey".

Its about Godfrey, a "forgotten man" who is hired by a young, wealthy eccentric girl as the family's new butler. Godfey brings sanity and a dose of reality to the spoiled rich Bullock family.

I had basically given up on movies and TV. With serials like King of Queens and movies like My Super Ex-Girlfriend, turning on the TV felt like kicking myself in the balls repeatedly.

But not so with this movie. There were actually men portrayed as sane, loving and honorable people! Not one step removed from the family pet, a la Tim Allen in Shaggy Dog.

The men were portrayed as having a variety of emotions and reactions, and the women were portrayed the same way! Imagine that, equality before the ERA, before the female supremacy movement.

While watching it, you didn't get the overwhelming feeling of superciliousness that just drips from the TV nowadays. I rather enjoyed the mother's airheadedness and the sister's false sense of superiority that crumbled at the end of the movie.

Its telling that women were never exclusively portrayed as the dumb buffoons men are portrayed as today, while some people blow it off by saying, "Oh well, the pendulum has swung too far." Bull fucking shit! Women were always on top. Just because washing machines and electricity hadn't been invented by oppressive men in the 1800s doesn't mean that men were off hobnobbing and smoking cigars while the women slaved.

No! It was the exact opposite!

But revisionist history ensures that every movie coming out has to have man-hating baked into it, and nowhere is it more obvious than in the remakes and sequels. Disney is especially guilty of twisting and turning classic plots to make men always the evil ones.

"Males should be restricted to a total of 10% of the population"

2007-07-08T03:20:00.001-04:00

Here is an excellent post by malerightsnetwork, an MRA from Ireland who has a few thoughts on what the future could hold for men in a feminist state.

Quote:

"MALE PROLETARIAT, FEMALE BOURGEOIS."
This is exactly what is going to create what Arnold Toynbee has called horizontal schism: you can compare it to a mirror, broken in two pieces, horizontally. Then with the incoming flux of external and hostile forces, such as Islam, creating a vertical schism, you have all the necessary elements to complete the destruction, or deconstruction of a society.

I agree with you up to where you spoke of the "incoming flux" of people of from Islamic backgrounds. I've said before that the Islam issue is hugely overstated. As one poster said in another thread, the morals of Muslim women will degrade just as those of Western women has, with the availability of the whoring Pill and pro-female educational and divorce systems.

Take even a country like Ireland. Fifty years ago it would have been quite isolationalist - culturally and economically. We would have taken the Catholic doctrine as serious - or perhaps even more so - than most Muslim Middle Eastern countries take their religious doctrine. Since the economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s, our relativist, secular, hedonistic culture is practically indistinguishable from that of Britain or the US, who have sustained such a culture for decades longer. It is not very difficult to break down a morally conservative country or society. It is very easy to instill a liberal culture, which invariably in the West, becomes a Matriarchal culture.

I agree with you that society is undergoing "destruction and deconstruction", and society is already very advanced in that direction. Though one could argue that it the traditional Patriarchal Western culture that is being destroyed, more than any general downfall. It is only when the economy collapses - and I do not predict it will - that chaos really occurs. Nothing brings a society to its knees like economic collapse.

I don't agree entirely with this:

Quote:

we will be watching it all come down while sipping our cognac and smoking our cigar

If by "we", you mean, the male members of society, I don't think we will have such a comfortable vantage point. Rather, it's more likely that we'll be rotting in the ballooning State prisons (friendly Gulags): already, 1 in every 100 American males are in prison. Or, it's possible we are homeless and destitute as degrees become a necessity as the decline of the manufacturing industry and the rise of services continues. It's possible that employers (which will be either headed by a female, or have a dominant pro-female culture) will openly discriminate against men.

Already, Allied Irish Banks, one of Ireland's top 2 banks has a female-to-male employee ratio of 67:33. This would be quite representative of the financial services sector.

It's possible too that we are sent to die by the millions in wars "manufactured" by the Feminist Government to get rid of the male population. The right of men to own property could be completely withrawn; men could be ordered to work for nothing. (Of course, Divorce Law will have stripped away most of male wealth by then anyway.) Men could be quite literally, slaves.

The female proportion of the population could be 60 or 70% in a couple of decades time, especially in the larger cities. Millions of men have already died by suicide. There could be a preference towards female children and a trend to "abort the males".. There could be a biochemical mass sterilisation of men.

I see all of these things as a possibility. Men are not the preffered gender in society, and women are and will be in control - all socio-economic trends ensure this - so anything can happen. All it will take is one loony female (and there are certainly lots of them) to become leader and convert feminist fantasy to feminist reality.

I'm not so optimistic that we will be able to comfortably observe the vast defacing and re-structuring of Western society. Rather, I think men could well be bearing the brunt of such change.

You know, that stuff sent a chill down my spine. As irlandes would back me up, ordinary men are too busy putting their nose to the grindstone and seeking women's approval to do anything for themselves or their fellow men.

The only way feminism will be defeated is when it doesn't serve women's purpose any longer, or our culture has been taken over by one which hasn't been infected by female supremacism. All this stuff sounds fatalist, alarmist and extreme, but you know, female supremacists have been advocating for male extermination for a long time. It only takes one Hillary to come into power - who knows how much things will change by the end of eight years?

This is why men are wary of women

2007-07-07T17:00:00.001-04:00

Remember this article from a couple of months ago that men don't pay women the "recommended" number of compliments per day? Here's what Eternal Bachelor had to say about it:

Men wary of paying women compliments

Men have become too worried about political correctness to pay women simple compliments, according to a new survey.

We're not worried about political correctness; it's the sexual harassment laws that political correctness bought about that worries us, not to mention the fact that a woman can retort with an abusive insult that you can't respond back to without either getting sacked, arrested or beaten up by a passing Captain Save-a-Ho.

There have been several reports of this today - slow news day I guess - and all invariably have comments or quotes from women saying how they love compliments and want to receive them.

Aw, poor girlies. They're not getting enough attention, or being told how pretty they are. Maybe they shouldn't have followed their 'liberation' movement that demonised and even criminalised male sexuality.

It's like a report from California last year about how career gals were getting all upset because men in the workplace often didn't talk to them or invite them out for after-work drinks because the guys were worried about sexual harassment charges. Back then - like now - there is no talk of relaxing these rules or perhaps changing women's attitudes (like not being man-hating entitlement princesses.)

Fewer than one in five women questioned (16%) received the “recommended” five compliments a day, and 12% said no one had paid them a compliment in the past three months.

What's this about the 'recommended' five compliments a day? Do women fall into a coma if they don't get them?

Another important reason why women aren't receiving as many compliments these days is because many don't deserve them. That seems to have been overlooked by all these news reports on the story.

If women want more compliments, how about acting and dressing as if they deserve them? It's rather hard to find anything about most modern women to compliment (let alone an incentive to do so) when many act and dress like either sluts, or like some bizarre, warped, confused wannabe-man.

Yeah, its not political correctness we're afraid of, its vindictive fucking women who wield their hatred with the full backing of the state.

Like these two women in Denver, who, upon receiving a compliment from a man, promptly called the police and got the man arrested for harassment. Imagine that! Telling a woman that she is beautiful is tantamount to harassment and deserves immediate arrest and a $10,000 bond. I bet even female murderers and rapists don't get that much punishment.

DENVER -- A man who told two women they were extremely beautiful was arrested on charges of harassment last week, Denver police said.
Police said 32-year-old Jeff John Hergert approached the women and "expressed interest in them." He told each woman in two separate incidents that they were extremely beautiful and that they should consider modeling.
Hergert was arrested and is being held on two counts of harassment. He is being held on a $10,000 bond.

What a fucking hellhole the Western world is becoming. He "expressed interest in" a member of the royal sex! OFF WITH HIS HEAD! No wonder that girls are going after bad boys and thugs with such a vengeance, because basically anyone who pays them a compliment has become a thug in the eyes of the law.

Doubtless there will be many chivalrous white knights on their donkeys rolling in to make excuses. They always do. The only thing that sickens me more than women's vehement defending of their own sex is the collaborationists' belief that women are weak, all men are evil, and of course that they'll get sex if they defend women.

Here its the system that is punishing the men, so it is easy to shift the blame from the women. One could say that if the system were sane, these women's complaint would have been treated like the frivolity it was. But make no mistake, this machinery would not be in place without women's complicity - their knowledge that laws like this will make criminals of their sons, husbands and fathers is what is so damning. Hell, they engineered the systems for exactly this result! They just don't fucking care about anything except what benefits the female sex.

The only purpose greater than more privileges for the female sex, in the mind of women, is more privileges for themselves.

No wonder they're the selfish sex.

Poetic justice - a woman gets her comeuppance

2007-07-04T19:25:00.001-04:00

This is a really cool story, in the same vein as my "Reversal of 'This Was No Accident'" post. In that story, a man is cheated on by a woman who claims to be pregnant with his child, but the man has had a vasectomy and knows that the child can not be his. He keeps the charade up for a while, but eventually tells her what's up. Read the story, its very satisfying.

Anyway, this is a similar story in that a woman is forcibly put in the place of a man, but with a less happy ending. In this story, a man spends lavishly on a woman, treating like a princess, but the punchline is that he does it with her own money! He took her bank card when she wasn't looking and spent (most of) the money on her. The relationship was great until she found out. She probably thought she was going to get access to a large fortune by marrying Mr. BMW Driving Department Manager, and instead she got squat.

But the sad ending is that the guy is now in prison. He admitted that he had cheated her by pretending to come from a wealthy background.

Hey guys, you think we should take our ex-girlfriends to court for fraud? They buy bras to enhance their cleavage, they apply makeup to enhance their face, and they have surgery to appear more youthful and sexy - just like a whore, that's all that many of them bring to the table.

Man courts girl with stolen money -- hers

A man in Shanghai's Minhang District courted his girlfriend by buying her luxury goods but their affair ended when she found he was paying for the presents with money embezzled from her bank card, Shanghai Evening Post reported today.
The 24-year-old suspected fraudster, identified as Zhang Guyuan, was arrested over theft yesterday. Zhang admitted he had cheated the woman by pretending to come from a wealthy background, the report said.
"She revealed the password of her bank card inadvertently, and I took away the card secretly," Zhang told police.
Zhang was reported to have embezzled at least 50,000 yuan (US$6,562) from his girlfriend and most of the money was used to buy her gifts to please her.
Zhang's girlfriend surnamed Jin got to know the man via the Internet.
"He told me he's a department manager with a foreign company and he earned 200,000 yuan a year," said Jin, a designer.
Zhang at the beginning of their affair told Jin that he just bought a BMW and would like to invite her to go on a ride to the beach in Fengxian District, said the report.
Zhang had to behave like a rich man though he had been jobless since graduation from university.
"He bought me luxurious clothes and shoes and a 24K gold ring," Jin said. What she didn't realize was that it was actually she who was paying the bill.
She had not realized that her card had been taken because she was careful with money and seldom used the credit card.
Zhang's embezzlement was not discovered until May 27 when Jin went to withdraw some money on the card to pay for her mother's medical treatment.
"I asked to watch the monitoring video at the bank to see who took away my money, and I was so surprised when I saw my boyfriend on the screen," Jin said.

Oh yeah baby, you thought you were In like Flynn didn't you, you gold-digging materialistic bitch? Maybe now she'll realize that all those gifts and "romantic moments" don't come free.

Female pedophilia

2007-07-01T07:23:00.000-04:00

Just like most other crimes committed by women, female pedophilia is very much swept under the rug. It has historically been women who have had the trust of society, and we as a people are extremely uncomfortable in suggesting that women/mothers can be anything less than perfect.

So its no surprise that female supremacists have found a way to leverage their claims of oppression into demanding that NAMBLA be legalized - only they want to have the privilege of molesting children solely for themselves.

Here is the website: Butterfly Kisses - Celebrating Love Between Women and Girls.

Just take a look at the homepage:

Isn't that so sweet? A mother's love is so tender right? WRONG! Pedophilia is wrong whether its perpetrated by a man or a woman.

Here's the intro paragraph:

Hello and welcome to "Butterfly Kisses". This web site is about and for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls. Our primary goal is to give women and girls a tool for expressing their feelings and their love about this controversial topic, and to get people to open their minds to ideas about romantic and erotic attraction between women and girls that our society in the past has not been able to discuss openly and rationally. We also want to provide a place where women and girls can express themselves and can learn about their love in an atmosphere where they are encouraged to feel good about themselves and their sexuality.

This is some sick stuff, all wrapped up in the "women can't do any wrong" lie and packaged so that it tugs at your heartstrings, like most other things that are women's specialties. The manipulative sex indeed.

Here's a testimony:

My Daughter and I
.....................................................
by Sonali

My daughter and I have a healthy close relationship. I have been separated from her father for a year and a half so it's just the 2 of us. We love to cuddle and give each other tender kisses. Since her father and I separated, my relationship with her has gotten deeper and closer.

We have been in a "consensual sexual relationship", almost 2 months now. Before we admitted that we felt very stong feelings for each other we would cuddle and we would hug for long periods of time, maybe an hour at a time. That started when Jessica was 8, she is 10 now. She is a very giving child, always has been. I am so lucky. :D

I am so happy to find this site. It has helped me deal with what I thought was a strange and un-natural relationship. I thought I was the only one. I thought having a sexual attraction to my daughter was bad. I now do not feel guilty or conflicted. Just recently Jessica asked me about masturbation and I didn't feel at all uncomfortable talking about it with her. What we do is loving and comforting for the 2 of us. Tenderness is an arousing thing. I love putting my nose in her hair and filling my lungs with her sweetness. I love stroking her neck with my hand and feeling her softness. My daughter and I are very happy.

You couldn't make this sick stuff up. Eve Ensler's "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could" is also in there. It says Eve Ensler [editor], so I'm pretty sure the pedo is in there. I wonder if she's taken any vacations to Thailand recently... oh wait, I forgot, she's a woman. She can have all the little girl pussy she wants right here in the USA. If she gets caught, which is a slim chance when you're a woman, female supremacists will defend her "right to make love to whom she wants to" and chivalrous judges will look for the nearest man to throw into jail.

Now I have a little video for you. It is NOT SAFE FOR WORK so don't even open it unless you're sure of your company or don't have any.

Spoiler (highlight to view): Just look at how the mother is forcing the child to suck at her breast even though it doesn't want to, just because she wants to get pleasure. Just because she wants to get her rocks off. These kinds of abuses happen every day, but they are invisible because women are not even suspected of abusing children as a matter of course, while any time a man goes out with his daughter on a walk, he is accused of being a pedophile, a child-snatcher or both.

In Erin Pizzey's Prone to Violence, she writes about how women casually use their children for sexual relief, recounting one time when a mother came in to the living room and gave her son an open-mouth kiss - a lover's kiss, right in front of Erin. That's the kind of stuff that fucks up a child irretrievably. You can imagine what else goes on behind closed doors because women today are brazen enough - they know that the children are their possessions, and they treat them like that.

Here are some comments by typhonblue over on SYG about this issue:

"In Japan there is an entire industry catering to female pedophiles. It's called "Shota".

I would bet that the majority of child-sex-tourists in Thailand come from Japan and not western countries. As for the *precentage* of male vs. female... not sure. Although when they did studies on incest in Japan they found *very* high levels of mother-son. (I think it was the largest incest catagory.)

BTW, this all overlooks one avenue by which women can have a sexual relationship with children: motherhood.

The same hormones that regulate nursing regulate human sexual responce. In other words the act of nursing can lead to a sexual experience, including orgasm, in a woman. The fact that a woman has a legitimate avenue to having a sexual relationship(as any relationship that results in orgasm is, by definition) with a child probably reduces the number of women who have to go out and prey on unrelated children(and thus make their interests more readily visible.)

Puts an interesting twist on all those "earth mommas" who nurse their offspring till they're pre-schoolers or older, don't it? Couldn't be these women are after a sexual thrill and are pedophiles could it?"

"(Responding to a poster who was later uncovered as a troll) And why not? If a woman is nursing a child until said child can have a coherent conversation with her, why *couldn't* it be due to purient interests on her part?

In other words, she's using the child to achieve orgasm for her own gratification. (Incidentally, many children start to become lactose intolerant at around the age of 3-5(2 for Asians and Black people), which means nursing isn't that healthy after a certain age and has little nutritional value.) "

"Just to illustrate the bias: Let's imagine a father cuddling with his three year old boy or girl. The father then, without any penetration (which makes it even less intrusive then nursing), allows the child to play with his genitals to orgasm.

Hold that feeling... the feeling of instant condemnation and revulsion.

Now look at a woman cuddling and breast-feeding a 3 year old. At that point the child has lost much of the lactase that allowed him or her to deride nutritional benefit from his or her mother's milk, or, even more preversely, his or her mother has ceased producing milk yet lets her child continue to nurse. The mother allows the stimulation of the child's nursing to sexually excite her to orgasm.

Why no parallel feeling of condemnation or revulsion? Is it because one is seen as "bonding" and the other isn't? Why?"

"BTW, I've been finding some really interesting stuff on breastfeeding and sexual abuse:

http://www.messengers2.com/instructive_cases/Oral_sexual_abuse.htm

http://jhl.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/219

"In this nationally representative sample, self-identified childhood sexual abuse is associated with an increased likelihood of breastfeeding initiation[by the mother]."

In other words mothers who were victims of sexual abuse are more likely to initiate breast feeding with their infant (instead of letting the infant initiate.)

A possible explanation offered by the article was "concern over proper parenting" but perhaps an alternate explanation is offered by the observation that abuse victims often become victimizers and that these women are using their infants to cater to their sexual needs."

"I mean, what if the situation was reversed. What if it were *men* achieving orgasm whilst providing nourishment for their children. Let's say a man decided to prolong the activity long past the time when the child ceases to benefit from it, wouldn't his motives be suspect?
If you're getting sexual pleasure from breast feeding your child, then you are engaging in a sexual relationship with your child.

If the mother tries to avoid orgasming while breast feeding or ceases breast-feeding, she's obviously not a pedophile. However if she seeks out using her child to pleasure herself this way I don't see how thats any different then a male pedophile. I suppose _ignoring_ the fact that it's happening and continuing to breast-feed is a grey area.

Except, of course, this form of pedophilia is completely unrecognized by society and nearly impossible to combat."

"If a man got an erection when-ever he hugged his kids (not so unlikely since I've read about men who become aroused from hugging, even someone they would never have sex with) and then he decided to cuddle his infant while masturbating. Wow! Would he be dealing with a shit storm. Not so with this lady, and countless other shadow-pedophiles like her who have, undoubtedly, abused their own children through breast-feeding.

Imagine what that statistic would be if we were able to quantify the number of women who, like the sexually abusive mother in one of the links I posted above, use their nursing infants for their own sexual gratification? This is currently *invisible* sexual abuse that most probably has an effect on the psyche and when it manifests it may be ignored or, worse, blamed on a father(also like the link I posted.)

Interestingly, there is *no* medical study about the potential for sexual abuse of children via breastfeeding(breast rape, I suppose), yet many mothers seem to be on the defensive against some vague sense of disapproval. Feelings of persecution without any actual persecution (imagine how quickly a M.D. or researcher would be shamed into silence if he or she was to even broach such a topic) usually arise from guilt.

Both men and women have their dark sides, but our society is fascinated to the point of insanity with the dark side of men while ignoring the dark side of women."

"What bothers me is that he never answered my question.

I gave him a plausible scenario about how women could turn a nurturing activity into an opportunity for sexual predation on children (even a few examples of them doing so to prove that it does happen. One could imagine the outrage and immediate calls for studies and research if it were a nurturing activity that only men could do that a few men turned into an opportunity for sexual predation on children.)

And then I asked him, "what's stopping women?"

No answer. Although I imagine his answer would be along the lines of "women are more moral then men." Thus they would never, well not never, but very rarely take advantage of such an opportunity to sexually exploit children.

And I'm sure that his answer is the same reason why research has never been done on women's sexual exploitation of children via common nurturing behaviors. And thus why it *appears* (without adequate research) that there are more male pedophiles.

The bias protects itself."

Here's an damning post by jaketk:

A few years ago there was a woman out in Naperville who forced her 8-year-old son to breastfeed. He told his babysitter, who then informed the police. It was later discovered that the woman forced the boy to sleep nude with her and forced him to breastfeed several times a day. I believe at this point she was no longer producing milk. DCFS removed the boy twice, and then placed him back in her home twice knowing that the woman was sexually abusing the boy. Interestingly, an organization called La Leche International backed this woman's "right" to force her son to breastfeed when he no longer wished to.

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

2007-06-29T20:12:00.001-04:00

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

2007-06-29T18:44:00.001-04:00

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.

Man told to prove filial bond - at Wal-Mart

2007-06-28T20:12:00.001-04:00

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

2007-06-28T17:34:00.001-04:00

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

2007-06-28T17:26:00.001-04:00

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.

Conversation with a co-worker

2007-06-26T02:07:00.000-04:00

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.

A Father's Choice

2007-06-23T13:01:00.000-04:00

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?

2007-06-23T02:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Ciao.

Farewell Eternal Bachelor, may we see you again.

Think the media isn't biased?

2007-06-21T23:28:00.000-04:00

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

2007-06-21T17:50:00.001-04:00

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
really
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
rain
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
yeah
right
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,
bitch
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
N-O NO
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
chauvinist
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
bye
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
ok
i will be back
ok bye

Madame President - an essay about Hillary Clinton

2007-06-15T19:38:00.001-04:00

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...

MADAME PRESIDENT
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, "...it 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.

Another man who got a divorce and is now against marriage

2007-06-11T12:35:00.001-04:00

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.

Eight year old charged with lewd sexual conduct

2007-06-08T19:25:00.001-04:00

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

2007-06-08T19:14:00.001-04:00

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.

Feminist definitions

2007-06-04T14:53:00.001-04:00

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

2007-06-04T12:48:00.001-04:00

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 amazon.com. 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.

What was that about compliments again?

2007-06-02T18:44:00.001-04:00

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"

2007-06-02T18:19:00.001-04:00

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 NEWS.com.au 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?

Another woman looking out for her own

2007-06-01T21:23:00.001-04:00

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:
www.polarisproject.com
www.cargoinnocencelost.com
Thanks for reading.
Vanessa

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,
Pete

Schopenhauer on women

2007-06-01T21:05:00.001-04:00

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

2007-06-01T17:40:00.001-04:00

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"

Strip club patrons hit up for man-hating fee

2007-05-30T08:45:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate

2007-05-26T17:54:00.001-04:00

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

Nobody is safe from terrorizing females

2007-05-25T13:57:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

Can you believe that? Here's the story.

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

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

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

UPDATE May 26, 2007: http://www.news4jax.com/news/13386918/detail.html

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

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

Awarding custody to abusers

2007-05-24T14:25:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I first started looking into these cases, I figured there probably were some where the mothers really were mistreated. I still think those cases are out there, but I haven't found them yet. Neither the Shockome case, the Loeliger case, nor the Marks case fit the NOW/BMCC "protective mother losing custody to abusive father" model. None even came close.
In the Loeliger case, it was the mother who had been found culpable of child abuse by a California juvenile court. The father got custody not due to family court machinations, as the mother's supporters claimed, but because the juvenile court removed the little girl from the mother's care because of the physical abuse.
In the Marks case, all five judges who heard the case, male and female, concluded that she had coached her little girls into asserting that they had been molested by their father.
In the Shockome case, the mother's absolute refusal to co-parent with her ex-husband led the courts--eventually, after giving her many chances--to transfer custody of the kids from Genia to her ex-husband.

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

Also read the article by Sacks on the Shockome Syndrome.

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

2007-05-23T17:02:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome new visitors

2007-05-23T13:55:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four women fired for gossipping

2007-05-22T17:24:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

I just wonder about this part:

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

"Attitudes don't always reflect behavior with women"

2007-05-22T02:18:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Theroux on Thai women

2007-05-20T18:47:00.000-04:00

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

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

Anyway, watch the videos:

Dirt on Shaha Riza

2007-05-19T18:33:00.000-04:00

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

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

Feminist girlfriend felt Bank stripped her of rights

Associated Press
WASHINGTON , May 18
Mystery surrounds Shaha Riza’s personal life, by her design, yet two things are beyond doubt. She is smart. And angry.
“Very angry,” Wolfowitz said of her recently. Wolfowitz lost his job as World Bank president on Thursday over an ethical entanglement arising from his relationship with the former Bank employee.
Riza, an Oxford-educated Arab Muslim feminist in her early 50s, has worked for years for democratic change in West Asia and for sexual equality both in repressive societies and within the bank. She has done so most of that time without drawing enormous attention to herself. “I simply do not know how to blow my own trumpet,” she says.
Yet, in statements to World Bank officials, she came out fighting against the “vicious public attacks on me” that flowed from her relationship with hard-line conservative Wolfowitz, a bond that has been as notable for its quiet unfolding as for its longevity.
Riza began working for the Bank eight years before Wolfowitz took over as president in June, 2005. She was moved to the State Department that fall, to avoid a conflict of interest but stayed on the Bank’s payroll.
Riza bristled at being forced to leave the Bank in 2005, arguing that as senior communications officer for West Asia and North Africa office, she did not report to Wolfowitz in any capacity and no bank regulations prohibited her continued employment. “I felt under attack by a powerful group that had no right to make assumptions,” she told the special panel investigating Wolfowitz.
And she noted the “irony of my working to ensure women’s participation and rights through the work of the World Bank and to be then stripped of my own rights by this same institution.”
Wolfowitz went so far as to suggest that the Bank’s ethics committee members put the onus on him to arrange her outside employment because they were afraid to cross her.
They “did not want to deal with a very angry Ms Riza,” he wrote in a biting assessment of the panel’s actions.
He hinted, too, that she was none too happy with him. He quoted her as telling the panel that he should have stood up for her, rather than accepted an arrangement that moved her out of her job.
“He became them — you — the Bank,” she told the panel, “and I had to fend for myself in the same way I’m now fending for myself.”
In her bank and academic work, Riza has promoted the link between freedom and feminism.
Riza speaks Arabic, French, Italian, Turkish and English, and majored in international relations at London School of Economics and in social studies at Oxford. She has a son.

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

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

Marriages to foreigners increasing

2007-05-19T17:40:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote for Angry Harry

2007-05-18T22:10:00.001-04:00

From Fred X and Eternal Bachelor:

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

Why advertisements are so misandric

2007-05-18T14:46:00.001-04:00

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

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

To an extent...

Submitted by Male Rights Network on Sat, 2007-05-05 01:54.
The reality is - and the entire retail and consumer industry knows it - today's crop of women are the ones with the money, they are the big earners and the high-flyers. This is through pro-female education especially at third-level, "affirmative action" and through Systematic Wealth Transfer, also know as Marriage-and-Divorce. (Marriage is a feminist institution.)
Furthermore, when women have this money, they spend it much more liberally than men would, and they spend it on goods and services which allow businesses to make a high profit.
We should all know by now that hatred of the male gender is something indelibly inscribed in the female psyche, and it's just a matter of encouraging it. Advertisers work on the basis of what sort of images and messages match our common psychology. We like to be told something is "new", we like to associate with "success", and often we like to be shocked. Whatever makes that all-important psycho-emotional link in our brain; that's what makes the impact.
So it is entirely natural that advertisers and businesses which use advertising will want to tap into any exploitable female psychological sensitive-spot. I have no doubt that, at least to a certain extent, presenting women with "superiority" images over men gives them an ego boost, thus making an emotional connection, and thus help sell the product.
Men are nothing to the consumer/retail industry. I cannot say what decade exactly they gave up on us, but today, we are 0 to them. We represent people who do not need a massive quantity variety of cheaply-produced goods such as clothes, shoes, perfumes, necklaces, facial creams etc. Our spending habits are conservative, and, I would say less predictable and less spontaneous than women's. The male psyche, being less emotional and more objective and logic in nature (by and large), is not influenced so easily by targeted marketing.
So not only do we not need their wares in many cases, what we do need, we just don't buy them, or do so in an unpredictable manner. We are unpredictable consumers. Advertisers could pump billions into an ad that will be effective on 95% of men, but it just won't happen. Conceiving an advertisement that will work on 95% of women, however, is probably easily achieveable, and in advanced marketing and psychological circles, it is probably proven.
If misandry is one of those primordial triggers of the female psyche, you can be sure it will be used.
That is not to say that we should not complain, both online and in wider society, about these anti-male, denigratory advertisements. That is not to say that there is not an element of social engineering and propaganda behind these ads. That is not to say that there are at least some women and feminists in the industry that are using the mass media to alter the collective conscience to the disadvantage of men.
However, we should consider that the economic case for (i) ensuring women have the bulk of wealth in society and (ii) ensuring they spend and much as possible, which is easily achievable, makes huge commercial sense. Indeed, female dominance in education and the workplace is music to Corporation's ears: they know it means more profit and a bigger consumer economy.
Economics are not on our side, men. Any Men's Rights Activist is inclined to believe that "Feminism = Marxism, Full Stop" should consider just how closely Feminism and Capitalism are intertwined.
Would these highly offensive, targeted attacks being accepted if they had a huge commercial benefits if Jews were the scapegoat, or women were the scapegoat? That is an interesting one, especially in the case of women being portrayed in almost entirely negative lights; their very integrity as people attacked. Would the laws of economics make a concession in that case?
Lacking a powerful, perceivable "men's lobby" - consisting of Government officials and bodies, corporate interests as well as individuals - the misandric advertising will continue, as it is effective on the female psyche and thus, helps to sell products.

Women-only craze infecting America

2007-05-18T13:25:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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