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

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

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

- Jamie, Luton

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

What was her stated goal?

She saw herself married to a wealthy and loving man, living in a period detached house, preferably in some leafy road with two children - naturally a boy first, followed by a little girl.

Some more hints?

At the same time Shahnaz says she answered an ad for a therapist to work for a football club, motivating the team. It was there, during her interview, she met Michael for the first time.
"He was a wealthy businessman who was involved in the running of the club. He was more than 20 years older than me but everything I wanted in a partner," she says.

Come on, that's the patriarchy speaking... right?

"My looks didn’t attract the sort of wealthy, intelligent men like Michael. Instead, they were seedy or unintelligent men who thought, mistakenly, that I would be the right woman for them."

I believe that's sufficient proof that this woman is a total privilege princess who believes the world should be handed to her on a platter by the man she chooses for the task.

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

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

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

Shock and Horror! A woman is actually held responsible!

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

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

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

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

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

Flip off a female driver?

Got this forwarded email...

I was riding to work yesterday when I observed a female driver cut right in front of a pickup truck, causing him to have to drive on to the shoulder to avoid hitting her. This evidently angered the driver enough that he hung his arm out his window and "flipped" the woman off.

"Man, that guy is stupid," I thought to myself. I ALWAYS smile nicely and wave in a sheepish manner whenever a female does anything to me in traffic, and here's why:

I drive 48 miles each way every day to work. That's 96 miles each day. Of these, 16 miles each way is bumper-to-bumper. Most of the bumper-to-bumper is on an 8 lane highway.

There are 7 cars every 40 feet for 32 miles. That works out to be 982 cars every mile, or 31,424 cars. Even though the rest of the 32 miles is not bumper-to-bumper, I figure I pass at least another 4000 cars. That brings the number to something like 36,000 cars that I pass every day.

Statistically, females drive half of these. That's 18,000 women drivers! In any given group of females, 1 in 28 has PMS. That's 642.

According to Cosmopolitan, 70% describe their love life as dissatisfying or unrewarding. That's 449.

According to the National Institute of Health, 22% of all females have seriously considered suicide or homicide. That's 98. And 34% describe men as their biggest problem. That's 33.

According to the National Rifle Association, 5% of all females carry weapons, and this number is increasing.

That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY, I drive past at least one female that has a lousy love life, thinks men are her biggest problem, has seriously considered suicide or homicide, has PMS, and is armed.

Flip one off? ... I think not.

Double standards? Acceptance of female violence? Blaming men for women's anger? All check.

Your Ex-Wife is now a man? Keep paying slave!

Check this article out - Ex-wife's sex change doesn't end alimony. Apparently this guy is/was a utility worker and was already saddled with a $1250 a month donation to his wife's tranny fund. She used the money to good effect, and is now legally a man. Sex change, hormone therapy, the works.

But the slave must keep paying. According to the Florida courts, her sex change into a him doesn't mean that he doesn't have an obligation to him.

Look at what awaits you if you marry - look at the fucking double standard. S/He will be able to sue anyone who calls him a she now, as well as draw alimony for the vagina s/he no longer possesses. Just look at the freedoms females are awarded in this country, and know that you, as an ordinary male, will never be accorded the same freedoms and basic rights and privileges.

Naturally, I'm against alimony for any reason - women know they have more options available to them than any given man, and I don't think it is the patriarchy that tells them to go into low-paying, easy as piss jobs, whiling away their time until they are "saved" by a serfmale whose back they will then latch onto until they die.

Alimony is the foulest, most evil concept I've seen in my lifetime, worse than being imprisoned for having a Swastika on your person. At its very core, it is a belief that men must pay women - for companionship, for a fuck, for whatever it is that women provide men. But this payment is couched in terms that elevate the female and denigrate the male, so it is not as if the payment is either voluntary or it is clear what the payment is for. Look at all the well-educated, high-earning women females cunts that have managed to wring out alimony payments from their rich husbands. Hell, they didn't have to lift a finger - the lawyer's cost was either borne by the state or by the husband, and the money just flowed in by virtue of the vagina's innate power.

Can you tell I'm mad as hell?

Fight at New York Times

Another catfight, yesterday

Yep, New York Times - the bastion of feminism, the newspaper that gave legitimacy to such names as Marilyn French and Andrea Dworkin had a little "disturbance". They had a bitchfight!

A catfight at The New York Times Friday still has staffers in shock.
The dustup between two female editors in the Styles department disrupted work on the Thursday and Sunday Styles sections as co-workers froze at the fracas.
Fashion editor Anita LeClerc was the aggressor and her superior, deputy editor Mary Ann Giordano, the victim, sources say.
The two had exchanged words just moments before, allegedly over turf, and LeClerc began stomping around the office, muttering loudly to herself. But when Giordano, a talented import from the Metro section, came over in a conciliatory way and tried to smooth things over, LeClerc made it physical.
"She shoved Mary Ann and pushed her, and Mary Ann said, 'Don't you touch me! Don't you touch me!'" says a source. "Mary Ann grabbed her wrists to try to stop her, and [LeClerc] just started flailing."

Notice how there's no mention of charges being filed or the aggressor being disciplined. Hell, if the NY Times could get away with it, they'd just fire a jew a man and be done with it. Just like the time I was reading about a man who couldn't help but overhear two women loudly arguing at work - he looked over, and the next day he was called in to HR because the cunts reported "visual harassment" - i.e. he had the gall to look at them, members of the divine sex.

That's why some at the respected broadsheet are baffled as to why no apparent disciplinary action has been taken against LeClerc. A Times spokeswoman did not answer questions about the slugfest, or disciplinary action, by deadline. Calls to LeClerc, Giordano and Gabriel were not returned.

This is really something - a full-on fight at work, and none of the females involved are getting even disciplinary action, let alone being fired or arrested? Reminds me of the double standard where its acceptable for women to display their wares in public (a la any awards ceremony where females dress up in the most shocking attire possible) where a man would be told to cover up long before. Well, unless the man was wearing something made entirely out of $100 bills.

And notice where the story is coming from - the ass end of some two-bit newspaper - no front page story here, women are never violent and women never lie about rape, don't ya know? The news is just slipped in with the rest of the celebrity gossip - as if this is nothing, no big deal. They even have a joke in there!

And of course its no big deal. Women are routinely not even pursued for offences that would land a man in prison. Is it a wonder that men are seen as the barbarian sex, is it a wonder that there are so many men in prison? And this is for female-on-female violence. Any idea on what would happen if the victim were a man in this position? Bound by the knowledge that as soon as he raises his hand he will be hauled off to prison to the tune of prison rape jokes everywhere, he remains mute and doesn't even report the violence.

Oh, women only have minor parking lot fender-benders

Like this one?

Vagina Monologues renamed in Florida

Hahaha, this is awesome. So a theater in Florida received a complaint from some woman who thought that the word "vagina" was offensive. Which, if you've been following the Pedophile Monologues, is what it is all about - that the word vagina is offensive and shit.

You know what they're gonna name it? Hahaha

They're gonna call it the "The Hoohaa Monologues"!!! Isn't that awesome!

Funny as this news is, the play itself is as evil as any feminist-backed undertaking can be. Naturally, being a women-first play headed by a women-first woman who has lesbian pedophile tendencies, the play focusses on how the statutory rape of a 13 year old by a tired old hag is A-OK and that you can empower yourself by being a giant vagina. In more ways than one.

Its always good news when the lesbian feminist agenda is subverted, and best of all, by a woman. Read the link.

It is telling of how the world is so accepting of female aberration and is eager to forgive females, that according to the article, this is the second time it has generated enough controversy to get its message altered.

In 2004 the production was banned from the southern Indian city of Madras, as police there thought some of the script was "objectionable".

IE Users

I use Performancing For Firefox a lot. This is a handy extension that lets you start blog entries with a single click, and you don't have to sign in to blogger. So I've been using it for a while now, and the layout etc have looked fine to me.

Until today. I opened up my blog in IE 6, and I see that the extension apparently mishandles paragraphs/enter key presses, and it gives twice as many as I want. So if I press Enter twice to make a new paragraph with one blank line, it actually gives me two blank lines.

Hmm. I don't know if I should sit down and fix all the entries, or leave it as is. I think I'll fix the most recent few, and leave the rest as they are.