Men's Rights Blogs » Eternal Bachelor

Eternal Bachelor (10 unread)

Skip to page: 1 2 3 ... 13

Close encounters of the married kind

Posted: October 19th, 2008, 1:55pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

One evening last week, as the sun was nudging the horizon with it's big fat orange arse, I was heading to the shops, taking a shortcut through a park, when I passed a couple in their forties. The woman was walking behind the guy, and she was in mid-rant when I passed whilst the guy looked at his heavy feet. I picked up the following snippet of her rant - in that whiney tone that is both self-pitying and full of blame and hate at the same time - as I passed (pretty much word-for-word, although my memory isn't flawless):

"You don't know what I mean, you don't listen. Do you? You don't, you don't. Look, I'll do the same thing, but I'll not do the same thing. Yeah? You have to see it from my point of view. Did it occur to you..."

Then it trailed off as I passed.

Now to be fair, I didn't get the entire context of the conversation, but as I plodded onwards with the woman's blithering fading into the dusk behind me, it occured to me: Holy FUCK! I am so glad I'm single.

Is that what marriage is? Plodding along with some fucking woman dribbling self-contradictorary meanlingless shite at your heels? The guy looked broken down and despaired. Not surprising really. How could he react? Turn on her and tell her to shut up? That's domestic violence. Turn on her and slap her? That's domestic violence. Run away? That's domestic violence too ('emotional neglect') Say he wants a divorce? Bye-bye house, children and future income. He looked broken, resigned and pissed off.

I, on the other hand, gave thanks to fate for not inflicting matrimony upon thyself, and continued to the shop to buy some beers which I would be sharing with a couple of mates who were coming round that evening (one with his X-Box 360 in tow), whilst married-boy there was probably going to spend the evening with soap operas going in one ear and his wife's protracted ravings bludgeoning their way into the other.

These days a single man can embark on a brief stroll to the shops for a few cans of beer and encounter a hair-raising reminder of why he should damn well stay single.
Women are all lesbians, according to unattractive men, according to a scary looking woman journo

Posted: October 19th, 2008, 1:34pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

It's Sunday, and time for some man-bashing from the previously well-respected Times

In my experience, men always assume women are into them and if not, they assume she must be a lesbian.

Talk about projection. Most guys, when finding and approaching a woman they desire, only to be knocked back, will either change their tact or move on to another equally desirable woman.

On the other hand, as many readers will know, a man rejecting a woman's advances or simply declaring that he's rather happy not being in relationship - as such, rejecting women in a more general sense - will be buried under an avalanche of accusations of gayness, a mixture of shaming language on behalf of women, mixed in with their genuine conviction that any man happy to not be tied to some money-consuming harpy STD-ridden cunt long past her prime is obviously a screaming poof.
...and the horse she rode in on.

Posted: September 24th, 2008, 6:04pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

Ex-wife given £50,000-a-year maintenance for her three horses as part of £1.5m divorce deal

A wife has been awarded £50,000 in maintenance for her horses as part of a £1.5m divorce package in a landmark case that could spark bitter disputes over pets.

...

Lawyers believe the case could break new ground in divorce cases with couples claiming maintenance for their pets as well as themselves and their children.

Jeez, so we've gone from women - strong, independent beings that they supposedly are/were - getting a shedload of man's hard-earned cash in divorce settlements to support themselves and 'their' children to them getting more of a man's hard-earned cash to support their frigging pets!

The woman, who has not been named, was awarded the yearly sum after appeal judges agreed her three horses were a key part of her life.

She isn't Catherine The Great is she?

(Yes, I know it's an urban legend that Cathy croaked it getting a portion of equine-knob, but that doesn't stop it from being funny.)

Seriously though, just when you didn't think divorce courts couldn't get any more messed up and women couldn't get even more greedier. The judge actually agreed that this goldigging cunt shouldn't have to take up a '9-to-5 job' because that would take her away from her hobby. So her ex-husband has to stick to his job to ensure the bitch doesn't have to do a day's work ever again.
Fuck EU

Posted: September 24th, 2008, 4:44pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

The European Union is the most repulsive political creation in a long, long time. Nothing but a Socialist Organization of fuckwits, champagne-Socialists, muslim-appeasers, thieves and general fascist scumbags.

As you may have guessed, I'm anti-EU. The EU itself labels its opponents (particularly those of us in the UK) as being 'Eurosceptic' or 'anti-Europe', which is bollocks. The EU isn't Europe and vice versa. I love Europe. France, Germany, Italy...it's all cool. I just hate vast beaucratic organizations that sap freedom and spend peoples hard earned taxes on fucking those same people over by reducing their freedom and inflicting Marxism-lite on them. And that's what the EU is. And that's why I hate it.

It's also far from Democratic. France and Denmark held referendums as to whether they wanted their leaders to sign the EU Constitution. They said 'No.' It was clear people in Britain, Ireland and everywhere else would say the same. So the constitution was titled a 'Treaty' and passed through anyway, even though it was pretty much the same. The shithead Labour Party in the U.K. had promised a referendum on the Constitution, but now got out of one because it was now called a 'Treaty.' Only the good people of the Republic of Ireland got to vote on the matter as it was written into their existing constitution; they said 'No.' This prompted much angry mutterings amidst the Socialist heads of the EU. How dare anyone not go with the programme! It is expected there'll be further referendums in Ireland until its citizens provide the 'correct' result.

I recall reading some brochure issued by some EU propaganda department bragging about how great the EU was because it ensured the rights of women. In other words, it encouraged abortion, economy-wrecking, hypocritical 'equal opportunities' policies and welfare handouts for single-mothers.

The anti-US and inexplicably pro-Muslim streak within the EU and it's supporters is almost as virulant as their hatred of freedom of expression, as shown in particular by the banning of a demo against the Islamification of Europe on September 11 last year (compared to a multitude of Islamic demos across the EU - like this one in London - which are seemingly just fine and dandy and perfectly legal.)

So fuck the EU.

The reason I bring up the shitty EU is because of this.

Yes, it appears the E.U. wants to force bloggers (like yours most humbly and truly) to have their exact identities known; not necessarily to readers, but certainly to The Authorities. It seems some of us in the EU aren't all that pro-EU, or pro-Feminist, pro-Jihad or pro-Marxist, and as such it seems our identities have to be known, our credentials scrutinised and our interests examined (specficially to see whether they're in line with the EU leaders.)

Interesting how it's a woman pushing for the ban on anonymous blogging too; women - feminists in particular - seem to love restricting freedom. Men's in particular. The vote's tomorrow.

A recent internal European Commission report, leaked three weeks ago, found that the EU was losing the battle for hearts and minds online.

"Blog activity remains overwhelmingly negative," it said.

That's 'cos we can see that you're all worthless, pig-headed, tax-payers money consuming cunts.

Fuck the EU.
Breakfast-time Misandry

Posted: September 23rd, 2008, 7:23pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

I rarely bother with TV but I did a spot of channel hopping this morning before heading off to work.

I caught a bit of BBC Breakfast, which used to be an early-morning news show but, being the BBC, is now a big wank-fest hosted by a duo of interchangable manginas and plastic bitches.

I caught a bit of an interview with an Australian guy, and it seemed to be about stereotypes of Australian men or something. Before I caught much of what the Ozzie gentleman had to say, the simpering ponce of a male co-host turned to some gormless bitch and asked her 'So (gormless bitch's name), what do you think is wrong with men in this country?', her main qualification to answer this being that she was a gormless bitch.

'Well, you know, they take themselves too seriously,' she replied - in an English accent, so she wasn't offering an international view on the subject - 'and they're too caught up in work and the rat-race.'

I turned it off. I can't stand such drivel.

But those few moments of watching it still had me growling angrily as I stomped off to work.

For starters, there was the tosspot mangina fuck of a male presenter. He's meant to be a man - and in the good 'ol days a man on a news show was a bloke who told the news in the form of facts delivered in an firm and formal manner.

Now, it's just a self-loathing fuck who enjoys inviting women to denigrate his own sex in the hope of getting a shag.

Also, the BBC seems to think that despite all the major (and often rather alarming) events in current affairs at the moment, it's worth spending a good chunk of a breakfast news programme on deciding to ask women what they hate about us men this week.

Then there's the woman's comments themselves.

Us men take ourselve too seriously? Isn't that a bit of projection? At least us men can laugh at ourselves and take criticism (so long as it's fair and not just some random misandry.) Women are the ones who huff and sigh and call for their castration sheers if any mere male dares to poke fun at them.

And we're caught up in the rat-race of careers? First off, in any man made the same criticism at young British women, he'd be labeled a woman-hating psycho who wants women bare-foot and pregnant. Secondly, the reason many men are dedicated to their careers - aside from the fact that we have no choice because we have to support our-fucking-selves, not rely on a spouse/the state - is that most men want to sleep with women, and as women invariably sleep with men with lots of money and good careers, it stands to reason that - due to women's selfishness and shallow materialism - many men, driven by the desire to shag women, dedicate themselves to their careers.

It's the usual lose-lose situation. If you like a laugh and enjoy video games, women don't stand in awe of your ability to not take yourself seriously. They denigrate you as an immature perpetual adolescent. And if you don't care for the career ladder and take it easy, doing an easy job for just enough money to get by on, then you're a loser not worthy of a woman's approval.

Not that I give a shit about women's approval. Nor, I believe, should any man. But still, if you want women's approval, you're out of luck. They're never happy. You're either an immature slacker, or a career-driven git who takes himself too seriously. If you fall into the first category, no woman will marry you. If you fall into the latter category, many will marry you but then divorce you on the grounds that you are who you are. And they'll take all your fucking money, obviously.
"I was raped! Oh, I mean, I wasn't. Sorry."

Posted: August 27th, 2008, 7:32pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

Woman who made false rape claim against her ex-fiance walks free from court

Gemma Capon, 20, invented the allegation after she and Graham Tysoe's turbulent six-month relationship came to an end.

...

Yet, instead of a six-month maximum jail term, Capon was given a 12-week suspended sentence and ordered to pay £95 costs.

I'm sure she could earn that much by giving 190 blow-jobs in a back-alley. Slag.

Mr Tysoe, who had an alibi, was released on bail and later that day Capon, a fast-food waitress, admitted lying to the police.

Officers spent 156 hours investigating the false claims, the court was told.

Alan Hurst, mitigating, said his client was 'genuinely sorry'.

Oh, well, that's all right then:

"Look here judge I'm (a) in possession of a cunt and (b) 'sorry', and thus I can go free right? Yeah, thanks very much."

Another day, another 'rape'-allegation, another horrifyingly ugly whore with a grudge whose flash of the Cunt-Pass lets her avoid jail for all but ruining a man's life.
The rise and inevitable fall of feminism

Posted: August 27th, 2008, 1:49pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

This article has a comment by a guy called Fred Kite that neatly summed up the reason for feminism's success:

Feminism is not the problem here. Its proponents have neither the brains nor the talent to advance this far on their own - high-status elite managerial men have allowed this to happen.

Men run the world. Men always have. Just a small number of alphas though. But that white technocratic political elite realised that in feminism they had found an unbeatable tool for cowing and demoralising lower status males who will always be potential usurpers.

Feminists are no problem to high status bosses. Women are wired to treat them with adoration and give them a pass whatever the transgression - see Bill Clinton (or even George W Bush being invited to slap a female gymnast on the rear "for luck."
If a low status male suggested that he try that he'd be lucky to escape with just being fired.)

Even feminist women are totally loyal to their male bosses, and reserve their wrath for peers and subordinates.

Feminism is part of the new class war whereby the right wing authoritarian elite have found they can use left wing dogmas to shore up their power. That is why elite managerial white alpha men like Tony Blair, David Cameron and Brown are so keen on it - it does not threaten them.

Feminism has finally achieved what Mrs Thatcher could never quite do - destroy workplace solidarity and ensure that collective action is largely a thing of the past. And it did not take billy-club wielding strike-breakers or labor camps. It took a generation of victimhood obsessed, unhinged females, who knew they could get away with saying and doing anything.

It is a theory I've long since subscribed too; if the Wimmin's Movement had been orchestrated and acted upon by women solely - and every man was either neutral or dead against it - those whining lezzers would have been bitch-slapped back into the kitchen so hard they'd smash through the wall and into the dining room with their burning bras round their neck.

Yet they seem to have been rather successful in inflicting their shitty ideology onto Western Society; and it does seem rather suspicious that virtually every man in mainstream-politics licks the unholy arses of feminisms. David Cameron forever being associated in my mind with his leadership acceptance speech when he bemoaned the horrors of the lack of women in his party, thus losing the vote of many men at a single stroke. The ponce.

Then there's the Labour Party in the U.K. As it's name suggests, it was meant to speak for the common man, the worker. The guy who does dirty and dangerous work to try to support himself and his wife and kids. The families who are almost on the breadline. The powerless. Now it's just morphed into something that rubs the faces of common men into shit, enforces feminist ideology, encourages single-motherhood, taxes the workers to support the lazy and feckless, and as side-project manages to tear the shit out of British culture in the name of diversity. What the fuck happened? All they wanted was power, and what better way to wield power than to sideline men by encouraging their removal from families, and make women subservient to the government by hooking them on benefits and governmental support.

Feminists and their powerful male allies seem to have failed to have taken one thing into account; when someone is made redundant, they don't work any more. And us men have been declared redundant.

This is what is happening in British Society and, no doubt, in other Feminist infected nations. In Britain there are millions of young men who don't work, who aren't in full-time education, who do fuck all, who basically don't have any interest or motive in contributing to society. And who can blame them? They've been declared redundant. They're not needed. Or, rather, they are needed, but only as wage-slaves to be taxed and, from time to time, as cannon-fodder to be fed to enemy cannons whilst the elite and their ho's relax. And even many guys (like me) who do work only work the bare minimum, avoid marriage and other traps to transfer what wealth we have to women, and who plot to emigrate. Or just vent our spleens on blogs.

In Britain, a single woman can nip to a sperm clinic, get a sample, get pregnant and then get on welfare, the idea of a father - or a step-father, or any man whatsoever - being part of a family now officially a 'sexist' idea and one to be rejected. In the workplace, women get priority in promotions and then get to all but choose their hours (usually very few) if/when they have kids. And if a guy works, he'll be taxed to buggery to pay for hordes of single mothers, effectively forcing him to pay for other men's offspring.

"Why bother?", sayeth us men in our almighty multitude. "Fuck this," we add.

If there's a war, many men won't fight to save this country. I fucking won't. Why bother? Most of us men don't have any attachment or any investment in what this country has become. Given that you'll never hear a feminist cry for 'equality' when it comes to the draft, why the fuck would any man be willing to get his head blown off to protect some whining, ungrateful, abortion-happy women and the powerful men, all safe at home? Fuck that. We might as well join the invaders and wreck some stuff for laughs.

The gravy train of feminism won't last long. What women call 'independence' requires a hell of a lot of funding; the single-mothers on benefits, the working mothers who barely work at all and consume taxes with their 'free' daycare, the Women's Shelters, the NHS-funded abortions for slags who can't keep their legs shut, the Ministry of Bloody Women, the endless non-jobs in the female-dominated civil-service...it all needs paying for through taxes. Taxes predominantly paid for by men, who increasingly shrink from the work-force thinking; 'Why bother?'

Similarly, it is men who do the real-work; refining oil, building buildings, logging trees, laying roads. And fighting wars of course. Rendered redundant, devoid of any incentive or investment in life, many men will stop doing this, and the powerful men and their harem of 'independent' wimmin will be left terrified in a society with no proper work-force and dwindling tax-reserves.

And a hell of a lot of seriously annoyed men with nothing to lose.

Maybe that's a bit of a nihilistic vision. But I can't see things getting any better, and the one thing that can keep us guys who, individually, have very relatively little or no power in society is that, collectively, we keep it going. So we can make it grind to a halt with very little effort at all.
Critics of Womens Studies are nasty and selfish. And racist too!

Posted: August 20th, 2008, 6:15pm PDT by Duncan Idaho
Lawyer Roy Den Hollander plans 'jihad' against university feminism

The article itself is mildly interesting, but more worthy of my infinite derision are a couple of wimmin's comments; one within it, one beyond it.

But Kim Gandy, president of the National Organisation for Women, said: “They have a men’s studies department: It’s called ’history’, ’politics’, ’business’. It’s the entire university. It’s all about men’s studies. It’s like asking why there isn’t a White Studies department.”

Okay, for starters, Muzzz Gandy, you're the prez of a bunch of man-hating fucking lezzers - closeted and otherwise - so you're opinion is clearly not going to be (a) objective or (b) logical.

Secondly, 'history', 'politics' and 'business' departments cannot be regarded as "Men's Studies" in the same way "Women's Studies" is because:
- They do not focus on men. They focus on the study at hand.
- If men feature prominently amongst the individuals who crop up in those studies, it's because they founded and put into effect the primary theories of them. Women could have done so, but they either didn't feel the need, or couldn't (oops, controversial!)
- They are founded on either proven facts, or theories that are rigorously tested and questioned, not on the whacked out ideas of a demented ideology like feminism that is clearly demented on the grounds that it makes 'the personal political'
- These subjects teach, they don't indoctrinate
- If you disagree with a theory the lecturer in a history or business class personally holds, you may raise your hand and say so, and get a fair hearing, not a scowl and an accusation you're a traitor or rapist (if you're a female or male respectively) as in Wimmin's Studies
- Ask a Business Studies or History professor what the point of his/her subject is, and what application it has in the real world, and - so long as you ask politely - they'll explain why, give examples, and be open and even welcoming to any sensible objections. Ask the same question to a Women's Studies "professor" and, no matter how polite you may be, expect to be accused of having a small cock, of being a virgin, of hating women, etc, etc.
And why the reference to a 'White Studies' department. Why the fuck do feminists try and drag race into everything?

Now onto some comment from some bitch appropriately named 'Nancy':

This "man" forgets that women in America STILL make far less money than men, STILL are far less likely to get hired-promoted than a man! The lawyer sounds like a selfish, neolithic neo-conservative, to me.

He probably wants to make blacks sit at the back of the bus again, too.

Note the word man being in inverted commas, implying no Real Man (C) questions women's superiority complex or right to spew hatred.

Then there's the whining that women still - sorry; STILL - make less money than men. Yeah, guess why; that's because - on average - they don't deserve to. Yet, addicted to the victim-mantra of modern Western Fucking Women, it's all boo-hoo-hoo, evil men being evil to women, and so on and so forth.

I personally make less money than Richard Branson, Bill Gates or Alan Sugar. Is this fair? Sure it is. They work harder than me, took more risks than me, were more innovative than me (or better at marketing crap products; that's a matter of opinion of course) and furthermore are older than me so had more time to earn money. On top of that, I only care about making enough money to keep going; I wouldn't mind a huge mansion but I don't want one enough to bust my balls 100-hours a week for years on end to get one, as these guys did.

It's not a case that it's unfair or unjust that these millionaires earn more money than me; we just have different priorities and different abilities.

Yet, to femshits like Nancygirl there, it's all dreadfully unfair that men dare to work hard enough to earn more money than women, or to get these frightfully unjust promotions, and that - in her and other feminist's opinions - this money needs to be stolen from the labours of men and handed to women, and men should be shoved out of high-ranking jobs to make way for women, regardless of whether they're equally qualified, or even can be bothered to turn up for more than a few hours a day.

And this cunt has the nerve to accuse the guy of being "selfish"?

A typical attempt at an argument with a feminist goes like this:

Feminist: Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me...
Man: Erm...excuse me but...
Feminist: Oh, right, typical man, it's all 'me me me!'"

Finally, in her last sentence of crazy shaming language, she brings in race.

Yes, indeed, it seems that objecting to feminists getting carte blanche to indoctrinate young women into some messed up, illogical, amoral cult of man-hating claptrap on University campuses means that - by some bizarre form of logic known only to feminists - you advocate racial apartheid against black people.

I get a headache just trying to figure out how feminist's trains of thought work (although - to extend the rail-based metaphor a bit further than necessary - I dare say they usually end with multi-carriage pile-ups with lots of confused wailing.)

Give it a rest you pampered femorrhoids. Go and put another Starbucks on your daddy's credit-card, sit quietly in the corner surrounded by shopping bags and gulp down a big frothy cup of shut-the-fucking-fuck-up.
Privileged Patriarchal Fiend

Posted: August 14th, 2008, 4:16pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

Yeah, that's me, a Privilege Patriarchal Fiend. According to feminists anyway.

The silliest thing - and there are many - about feminists is their constant use of the word 'privilege' and hurling it at men. Why? Just because some of the most powerful people in the world happen to be men?

They only represent about 0.0001% of men. I certainly don't have any power. Yet because I'm the same sex as those in charge, I'm 'privileged'.

Furthermore, most men 'in charge' care more about women than men. David Cameron, the Conservative Party Leader, bleated in his opening speech about how horrified he was at the lack of women in his party.

How many times have you seen a woman in power give one iota of a damn about men? Never. Yet powerful men do, because it's often in their interests (in the grand scale of things, feminism wouldn't have gotten so far as to name itself if there weren't men to support it. But there were; the Socialists, for whom the destruction of the family and neutering of men was vital to their totalitarian vision, and - at the opposite end of the spectrum - Capitalists, who would be raking it in with the female half of the population joining the male half in wage-slavery.) It's not in the interests of the majority of men though, or women for that matter.

Yet feminists still declare us men - even the most humble of us, like me - as being somehow Almighty Privileged Man-Bastards just because we share the same downstairs plumbing as the tiny number of individuals in charge upstairs.

That's as stupid as a non-British person assuming all of us Brits are privileged on the basis of the luxury the Royal Family are enshrouded in.

King Idaho IV checks his e-mail

"Gee, all you limeys are so Goddamn privileged, with your big castles, your retinue of servants and your Crown Jewels!"

That sounds silly, but this is basically what feminists do all the time. A tiny, tiny proportion of men run big companies and governments - and invariably care more for women than men anyway - yet us men are expected to never, ever criticise feminism and women in general on the basis that we're all living privileged and luxurious lives, no matter what our actual fucking lives are like and no matter what daily shittiness assails us, and despite the fact that 99.9% of us men have as little power as women do, if not less.

It's the easy way out of an argument I guess. Feminists hate arguments. That would force them to realise the emptiness and stupidity of their ideology and make them realise they've devoted their miserable lives and their few brain-cells to something that's as silly and as pointless as a frog in a fez. It's so much easier to dismiss someone who questions them as a loser, a woman-hater, gay, or just someone who is 'unable to see how privileged he is' - which is connected to the accusations flung at non-feminist women; 'you don't see how oppressed you are due to Patriarchal brainwashing.' See? No logic, facts or even common sense required! Hooray for feminist tactics!

Given that women live longer than men, they're allowed to denounce us as 'bastards' and 'scum' whilst we're silenced into submission for implying they're not perfect, that they get pretty much automatic custody of the kids (and the house, furniture, savings, etc) in divorce cases, are allowed Women's Studies, have the right to kill a man's baby and call it 'the right to choose', have their own fucking government department, I think women have got a fucking cheek squealing 'you over-privileged bastard' should any of us guys dare object to their cat-like mewling and say 'Hang on a fucking minute...'
Arse!

Posted: August 14th, 2008, 3:32pm PDT by Duncan Idaho

I was walking down the high-street the other day and before me was a big-bottomed woman.

I know she had a big bottom because most of it was on display.

Now I'm not sneering contemptously at this woman for having a fat arse. I'm of the libertarian belief that one's arse is one's own, and one can let it be as fat as one desires.

No, I'm sneering contemptously at her for having jeans that hung almost a third of the way down the derriere in question. Two great big spotty cheeks jiggling menacingly at me, like two acne-ridden Zeppelins engaging in frottage behind a low wall made of denim. Beneath a silvery tramp-stamp.

She was pushing a pushchair too, and the kid was crying and wailing, and she seemed to think (incorrectly) that the best way to comfort her child was to take the cigarette out of her mouth and scold the child for being 'stupid.'

It's fair to assume she's a single-mother on benefits; after all, it was noon on a weekday and she was strolling around the shops, and no father was in sight. The kid was about two and, although it was hard to tell, I don't think she was beyond her teens.

My initial disgust grew greater when I realised that the taxes that are taken from the salary I earn at the shitty job I was briefly taking a break from at the time no doubt supported this fucking wretch.