Applying logic, facts and accountability to the mindless droning of the feminist hate movement.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Encouraging aggression without responsibility leads to violence. You don't say?

No I'M the Strongest, Specialest Womyn

In the wake of a vicious stabbing murder of a teenage girl in the UK, this is an article bemoaning the rising levels of violence of the female sex in western culture. Nothing men couldn't have told you, but considering the victims are increasingly female, it has suddenly become a public concern. If you go the article, you can safely ignore most of the comments. They seem to have decided to act like dicks and blame the whole thing on black culture and rap music seeing as there is a picture of the (black) victim at the top of the page. Towards the end someone mentions that in actual fact the perpetrator was a white female, but the discussion had already sort of wound down.

Violent Femmes

The girl gang violence that killed 18-year-old student Sian Simpson is a tragic effect of the way 'fierce' has been ruthlessly sold to young women.

Big Brother's Charley wonders how it is possible that she is not adored by millions. After all, she personifies today's It Girl. Designer clothes - tick. Loud and uncouth - tick. Scantily clad, with hair extensions - tick. So what's the problem?

The problem is, she's an attention whore. Sure she's scantily clad which attracts attention from members of the opposite sex, but her obtuse need for attention brings her level of legitimate interest and potential fidelity into question resulting in their resentment in the end. Women, on the other hand, although it was them who demanded the sexual freedom to act like complete sluts, seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that the girls next to them had the same ideas about soaking up all the attention they did resulting in their resentment in the end as well.

Nevertheless, she has been told this is the ideal way to be, she wants this to be the ideal way to be, but apparently it is not the ideal way to be. Well, not if she wants to actually get along with other people anyway. The ironic thing is, a primary characteristic of this sort of person (ie. histrionic fucktard) is that they can't fathom why someone wouldn't like them anyway. What's the bet her favourite defence mechanism for denying that men don't like her because of her is some such bullshit as "they are intimidated by strong women"?

Feral girls have always been cool, but have only become a mainstream aspiration since the Spice Girls. The ubiquitous five ushered in a new era in which girls could be as wild as the boys and still represent the UN.

Whereas girls used to worry about getting a bad reputation, being one of the "Mean Girls" a la Lindsay Lohan has become a marketable asset - as illustrated by Bratz dolls and the "ride or die" self-described bitches of commercial hip hop, Lil Kim, Eve and even Beyonce, who flash their bodies and set out their financial and sexual ambitions in hard-edged terms.

In America's Next Top Model, Tyra Banks exhorts her wannabes to be "fierce" rather than pretty, and St Trinian's will soon be coming to our screens with cameo roles by Girls Aloud in shrunken uniforms and visible suspenders.

Actually feral girls were pretty much looked down upon until feminism started turning society into a matriarchy. In the days of more civilised rule, the manners of the upper classes would slowly seep into the lower classes. Under matriarchal systems, the more primitive immediate emotion and instant gratification based manners of the lower class, which run contrary to the constraints of civility, appear to slowly seep upwards.

The whole girlpower, "I am woman hear me roar", thing is typical of the farces feminism perpetrates. It's not about being as wild as the boys and still running the UN. Wild boys are not running the UN - an ineffective, feminized pussy organisation responsible for spreading feminism to third world countries like wildfire - for a start. It's about being sexy, retaining female privileges such as chivalry and not having moral constraints on behaviour as a result of being morally inferior to men, while simultaneously demanding equal opportunity, nay equal outcome, in the affairs of men by claiming "equality".

It's about demanding to be able to take on male behaviour such as acting macho, loud and aggressive, but invoking chivalry and sympathy for their lack of moral equality to not be held responsible for that behaviour.

If they were treated as harshly as men are treated for behaving aggressively, then the first time they acted in such a manner around a man, they would be on their way either to jail or to hospital.

Geri Halliwell did not get a job with the UN because she "acted like a man". She acted like a punk who couldn't hold down a job at McDonalds. She got that job because it was a public relations exercise by the UN to show how progressive they were and get a famous face on board. She's an imbecile who got the job due to fame and female privilege.

"Girlpower" is an excellent example of why people say feminists demand equality but also demand they retain their special privilege.

But the sad reality of these aspirations can be seen on UK streets, in a rise in alcoholism and violent crime among teenage girls. The murder of 18-year-old Sian Simpson (another teenage girl has been charged with the crime) follows many other incidents of girls attacking other girls in "respect killings" over a boyfriend or less.

It is as if a violent reputation has become as glamorous as a Chanel handbag - and the queue of weaponised young femme fatales prepare to seize the "girl power" baton is understandably long. They all want to feel the rush of empowerment they think they see in music videos and on television.

That is, they want to be fierce, sexy women, engaging the world on their own hard-edged terms.

I should know - I wrote about fierce girls in my novel Rude Girls, which was taken up by the media as part of the new ladette trend. It was written at 16, utterly without irony, but back then, Lil Kim had not yet won a grammy for rapping in her underwear, Britney was unknown and even the Spice Girls wore knickers.

Times have changed and young girls today are much more easily persuaded that the more outrageous their behaviour, the greater the returns will be. The marketing gurus sell "fierce" to young women, many of whom are insufficiently equipped with the education and awareness to know the difference between this destructive version of "girl power" and real self-empowerment.

Well, what does she expect if the ideal of the "empowered womyn" is applauded while being immune to criticism? They're not held responsible for their behavior so why not go overboard with it? Problem is the girl next to them has the same idea. Considering aggression and Buffy The Vampire Slayer style violence is generally approved of and considered acceptable for obtaining attention do they expect her to not use it to sort out who gets the monopoly on attention seeking behavior and thus the attention? Fancy an ideal that is synonymous with "power" being corrupted when left unchecked. Particularly when we are dealing with a class of people who have been told they are beyond corruption, always being innocent victims and all.

Naturally the concern about female violence here is only a result of females being the victims of it. We of course, should forget that this whole "empowering" females thing, which has led to females becoming violent, was initiated by feminists in the context of "empowering women - relative to men" and of course, they would never behave like this towards anyone with a penis.

See the link on the right; The Last Time I Hit A Woman.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Nagging Husband? No Problem - Kill Him

If I posed the question to a feminist, "If a wife nags her husband, can he beat her?" what do you suppose she would have to say about that? Reckon we'd even get to the part about "noone asks to be a victim of violence", "taking provocation into account is blaming the victim" somewhere in the midst of her caterwauling that I was a misogynist?

So what if I altered that question a little and it were a husband nagging a wife, oh and hey change "beat" to "murder" while we're at it. Well of course. That's different:

Wife who snapped after 20 years of nagging escapes murder charge

A WOMAN stabbed her nagging partner to death after more than 20 years of "mental torture", a court heard yesterday.

Linda McGhee, 53, was originally charged with murdering her partner, but yesterday a jury accepted she was at her wits' end when she killed him.

The High Court in Glasgow heard that McGhee's partner, Ian Tannock, 48, constantly moaned and nagged at her.

Okay then. Leave him. It's not like no fault divorces for touchy feely reasons rather than anything substantial aren't the norm today anyway. If the majority of women filing for divorce barely have a reason, I'm sure "nagging", or I suppose in this case (seeing as it's a man doing it to a woman), "emotional abuse", would suffice as a reason, particularly considering she doesn't even need one.

He even complained after she scrimped and saved to send them both on a once-in-a lifetime cruise to Egypt.

Throughout the holiday, Mr Tannock moaned because he could not get his favourite drink, Tennent's lager, on the luxury liner and had to consume foreign beer instead.

Woah! He EVEN DID THAT?! More proof all men are bastards. My god he really did have to die then. We now find out that the skank had money of her own anyway, which means she wasn't financially dependent AND COULD HAVE EASILY LEFT HIM. No, apparently that was not possible, obviously hiring a QC to defend her for murder was the more sensible option.

McGhee finally snapped on the night of 7 March, 2006, when she plunged a knife into Mr Tannock's neck during a row at their home in Gourock.

She was convicted of killing Mr Tannock by striking him on the neck with a knife. She was also found guilty of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by washing bloodstained clothing and trying to concoct a false alibi.

Dr Julie McAdam, a pathologist, told the court that Mr Tannock would have died within minutes.

She said that the knife almost went clean through his neck, cutting the carotid artery, back of the throat and windpipe. But she added that the blow would only have required mild force.

Wait! It would only have required mild force? That's alright then. For some reason the fact that although she managed to slice almost clean through his neck the idea that "she only used mild force" is some sort of mitigating factor because they can't accept a woman could possibly be a perpetrator of wrongdoing. I don't suppose the fact that there is a dead body involved is any cause for concern. He was Only A Man, afterall.

They found her guilty of the lesser crime of culpable homicide and rejected the Crown's claim that she had murdered him as he lay sleeping.
So after all this time and complaints from feminists about blaming the victim and nobody asking to be subjected to violence, when a wife nags her husband, he can simply stab her in the neck and get off with Culpable Homicide, also known as manslaughter outside Scotland? Oh wait, he would have a penis. Therefore he would not be eligible for this defence.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Wage Gap Influenced By Discrimination (Based On Competence)

38 times more incompetent that she should be

The last thing feminists want to take into account when figuring out why one person got promoted over another is competence. As matters stand they rarely understand why they can't take Women's Studies instead of something useful like Engineering, and get paid an Engineering salary, or why if they work part time and sit in front of Oprah half the week, they don't get paid the same as a man working full time. If they're trying to blame their own choices on discrimination against them, then it's no surprise that they consider the mere suggestion a female could possibly be incompetent as an indication of discrimination against women and we end up with cases of extreme female incompetence being ignored such as this story of a female school principal failing a competency test 38 times:

After failing test 38 times, principal finally loses job

A San Antonio school principal tried again to pass the test required for her job. She recently took that test for the 38th time.

The results were not good and now she is out of that job.

The boy's club at work, obviously. She has the education to be a principal, she has the experience to be a principal, she works full-time. Why is she being discriminated against? Oh yeah, because she's not competent.

It was her second attempt since we revealed in February that she'd already failed it 36 times before, more than any other educator in the state.

Rojas failed again for the 38th time.

You fail the test once, you go back and study, come back the next time and pass the test. She failed this test 38 times. At least three more times than anyone else in the state. That's how many faiures it takes for PC education departments to actually justify demoting a woman. Any less and this lipstick smeared rhinocerous would be hiring a lawyer to launch a class action suit - which they would probably settle.

The district has now removed her from that job and given her the position of administrative assistant at Smith.

She now makes just slightly less than her nearly $78,000 a year principal's salary.

On second thoughts, why does she even need to file a class action suit? Despite the fact she can't do her fucking job, she is still making almost double the median wage of $39, 584 for someone in San Antonio employed in a school or school district. Nevertheless, her slightly reduced salary is no doubt contributing to the wage gap even when we do account for education and hours worked.

I can hear the feminists whining already.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Prominent Feminist Tells Women To Get Back In The Kitchen

It's not just this guy who says so.

Rosie Boycott was the first editor of Spare Rib, a feminist magazine running from the 1970s to the 1990s. Seems that it took her around 40 years to put two and two together and realise that if women went into the workforce and noone had any time to cook proper meals, pretty much everyone might just go and get fat from eating junk food. She explains more in her recent article, Why A Woman's Place Is In The Kitchen

Today Britain has the dubious distinction of being the largest consumer of ready meals in Europe - everything from Pot Noodles to sophisticated concoctions such as duck à l'orange and chicken à la king. Not only has home cooking declined, but in many households these pre-assembled dishes are consumed individually, all over the house, when and where family members want. Food - once something that brought adults and children together around the kitchen table - is now yet another way to avoid family life.

Today, cook books dominate the bestseller lists: most of them are destined to lie, unused, on kitchen shelves. Schools no longer teach cooking per se, just variants on subjects such as home technology, in which teachers explain to children how microwaves heat up food. Meanwhile, sales of ready meals continue to climb hand in hand with teenage obesity. It may be fanciful to lay the blame for this at the feet of the early feminists, but, without a doubt, our struggle to free women from the sheer drudgery of housework was a small link in the chain.

Given the timeframe of women neglecting their household duties:

38 Percent of women are in the workforce in 1960
64 Percent of women are in the workforce in 2000

And the timeframe of the increase in obesity, also known as The Obesity Epidemic, as explained in this article, Obesity Rate Continues Relentless Climb:

From the 1960s to 2004, the prevalence of obesity and overweight in the U.S. has increased at an average rate of 0.3 to 0.9 percentage points across different sociodemographic groups, according to the meta-analysis.

In 1976, about 15.1% of Americans were obese, which rose to 30.9% by 2000, Youfa Wang, Ph.D., M.D, and May A. Beydoun, M.A., of Johns Hopkins reported in Epidemiologic Reviews on the basis of a meta-analysis.

We can see a very strong positive correlation between women going into the workforce and the rise in obesity.

So there you have it. Feminism is making everyone fat. Prominent feminist Rosie Boycott says so.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

The Female Lunatic er Eunuch: Book Review - Part One

A frequent accusation levelled at me by feminists is that I am misinformed about their hate movement. Usually this is in the form of rebutting my pointing out an action by feminists which promotes misandry or female privilege, their duly citing some definition of feminism as being about "equality" and thinking that has just trashed my entire point, but occasionally I get told to pick up a feminist book and educate myself on the movement, even though I seemed to have knowledge of what the movement was doing and this to appeared to be a standalone rebuttal to my point also.

At any rate I picked up a copy of The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer so they couldn't complain (ie. stole it from the public library). Initially I was reluctant to post a review or comments about it because Ms Greer doesn't have a terribly large amount of friends outside the feminist movement these days due to her kiddie porn book The Beautiful Boy and her attacks on Steve Irwin following his death, not to mention her sort of recanting the whole thing by moaning about having had no children thus making my addressing her book perhaps unnecessarily taking a crazy woman more seriously than I should.

But then again, I had no idea of the insanity I would discover in its pages. The book is anti-marriage, anti-male and utterly cuckoo. So I think I'll review the book anyway in order to apply a bit of critical analysis to her claims, particularly questioning what the male point of view is in the situations she covers and how the feminist movement is going with fixing up the many complaints she outlines. This review should offer you some juicy quotes to use against any fembots you might come across, as well as alleviating you from actually having to read the pile of misandric garbage yourself.

Incidentally, doesn't look like the feminists have stopped accusing me of being misinformed or uneducated about feminism after I've read more feminist books than they have. Go figure.

Reviews on the Back Cover

A fine continuous flow of angry power...terrific polemical force...a brilliant attack on marriage. - TRIBUNE
Funny that one of the most acclaimed books on feminism should be described as an attack on marriage. Particularly when I'm frequently told feminism is not anti-marriage, nor did it have anything to do with the current fucked up state of marriage. Needless to say, you will find fembots refusing to accept this, so I will go into it's attacks on marriage later on.

A detailed exposition, of chilling clarity, that guarantees a cosmic persecution complex to any woman reading it - GUARDIAN
Of course to any reasonable person, one who believes in personal accountability, the book is qualified for the fireplace right here. A "cosmic persecution complex" is a good thing, is it? Well, I suppose so, if you want to blame all your problems on other people and refuse to accept any actual responsibility for your situation yourself; arguably the sole reason for the popularity of feminism in the first place. Again, feminists wonder where the accusation they wallow in victimhood, or that they are irresponsible comes from. Personal accountability will be applied to the contents of this book.

The first few chapters, encompassing the subject "Body", is a description of physical characteristics of women, especially as compared to men. Considering this section contained more physical descriptions than feminist theory I thought I wouldn't have much to rant about. I was wrong.


The gist of this chapter appears to be that while there are some physical differences between the two sexes you can't say one is superior or inferior on this basis. Problem is, right after she's done explaining that she jumps into a tirade about how men are inferior physically.

She mentions spends the middle of the chapter speaking of the Y chromosome as inferior, when in actual fact the Y chromosome is largely responsible for driving evolution. She alludes to the fact that men tend towards the extremes, ie. genius and idiocy but doesn't get around to completely explaining that this is because the Y chromosome contains the most mutations in the human genome. For example, the recent Time Magazine article, What Makes Us Different, reports:

Although the news was largely overshadowed by the impact of Hurricane Katrina... the publication of a rough draft of the chimp genome in the journal Nature immediately told scientists several important things. First they learned that overall, the sequences of base pairs that make up both species' [i.e., humans and chimps] genomes differ by 1.23% -- a ringing confirmation of the 1970 estimates -- and that the most striking divergence between them occurs, intriguingly, in the Y chromosome present only in males.
Illustrating the frequency of evolution in the Y chromosome and incidentally that women are closer genetically speaking to chimps than men are. (Oops).

Another claim made by Greer in this chapter is that of the XYY karyotype:

Recently criminologists have come up with another disconcerting observation about the Y chromosome. They found that there was a high proportion of males with the XYY chromosome, that is an extra Y, among those men in prison for crimes of violence and it seemed to be linked to certain deficiencies in mental ability.
The XYY karyotype appears in approximately 1 in 1000 men in the population. It is linked to learning disabilities, however the claim that it is linked to crimes of violence is a MYTH. The wikipedia entry on the Y chromosome states:

When chromosome surveys were done in the mid-1960s in British secure hospitals for the developmentally disabled, a higher than expected number of patients were found to have an extra Y chromosome. The patients were mischaracterized as aggressive and criminal, so that for a while an extra Y chromosome was believed to predispose a boy to antisocial behavior (and was dubbed the "criminal karyotype"). Subsequently, in 1968 in Scotland the only ever comprehensive nationwide chromosome survey of prisons found no overrepresentation of 47,XYY men, and later studies found 47,XYY boys and men had the same rate of criminal convictions as 46,XY boys and men of equal intelligence. Thus, the "criminal karyotype" concept is inaccurate and obsolete.
However, it does appear the finding of the single study was snapped up by feminists as a way of impugning the Y chromosome and by extension men as "inherently violent". A quite common form of misandry. Unfortunately this was given such coverage that the myth persists today, featured in Aliens 3, set in a penal colony for XYY's, and more recently CSI. As a matter of fact, considering The Female Eunuch was first published in 1971 and the myth of the criminal karyotype was proven in 1968, she should have known she was spreading lies to promote misandry.

She also claims men are afflicted by strange deformities like hypertrichosis which she claims are only found in the Y chromosome. This claim was rather a stretch as There are only 19 people in the entire WORLD with hypertrychosis and some of them happen to be female. Examples existed before Greer wrote this book, such as Annie Jones, the bearded woman in PT Barnum's circus. The way she makes it sound, men are running around all over the place with these deformities, when in fact this claim is a pretty far stretch to begin with, even if it didn't end up being blatantly false.


Gist of the chapter is that there are differences in the bone structure of men and women, often due to manual labour that men perform.


Basically a whinge about how having all the right curves in all the right places doesn't necessarily mean better child bearing capability. This is such a common gripe of feminists, and they should all be directed to Marilyn Monroe. Turns out this example of an archetypal attractive woman is almost the EXACT best specifications for child bearing. Feminist complaints focus around abnormal wafer thin models, which men don't particularly prefer anyway, or something equally contrived. Greer in fact complains about certain preferences for chubby women:

The female body is commonly believed to be enveloped in insulating fat, just so she is more cuddly, Nature and Hugh Hefner being alike bawds in this traffic.

Historically we may see that all repressed, indolent people have been fat, that eunuchs tend to fatten like bullocks, and so we need not be surprised to find that the male preference for cuddlesome women persists.

Uh yeah. So what are we to make of the lack of preference for chubby women today while still hearing complaints of "oppressive male preference" for women who are NOT chubby and how women with fat on them are more normal than the current preference? In the early 70s, feminists were complaining, "why do men prefer fat? why don't they want slim and fit?". Men now don't like chubby women BECAUSE they are fat and slovenly. Just doing what feminists told us. Now they're complaining about the opposite.


Point of the chapter is to suggest that because women are encouraged to shave hair from their bodies, they are encouraged to be less animal and primitive than men. Not sure what to say about this other than I don't particularly mind unshaven armpits if a chick is actually French, but if she's refusing to shave to make some sort of point about how she's liberated then she can go fuck herself. Her choice.

All this raving about men's preferences oppressing women really comes down to the fact that she is resentful that "one woman is better than another" if men have the freedom to choice their preference in partner. It doesn't matter if feminism makes men into second class citizens where the approval of women is held up as a stellar achievement or that any man is worthless for not reaching this. If men still have the small amount of power to choose one woman over another - and they will as long as women have the power to choose, because some men will be more desireable than others - there is nothing that can be done. I mean does she really think she can remove men's power to choose completely? Does she think a female will just be able to choose whatever man she wants and get him? What will other females say about her selecting the best man for herself?

Feminists fail to understand why men might have a problem with feminism considering this is a fairly noticeable part of it.


This chapter is about a couple of things, the first that distilling sex down to procedure ruins it for women which I'd have to say is correct but won't elaborate on because this is not a sex therapy blog. It then talks about women's genitalia not really being accepted as anything but dirty in today's society, I mean men's blimmen genitalia are considered equally dirty, so there's no case for oppression there. I also don't want to hear any complaints about hard core pornography if feminists are going to be advocating acceptance of female genitalia either because I remember the first time I read this sort of thing in a Nancy Friday book (before I decided feminism was a pile of steaming bullshit), I did a bit of soul searching, realised I thought hardcore pornography including closeups of said women's genitalia turned my stomach a bit so deliberately went out to desensitize myself to it because I concluded it would make me more accepting of women's sexuality.

She also concludes that women are too passive and unskilled when it comes to sex:

Love-making has become another male skill, of which women are the judges. The skills that the Wife of Bath used to make her husbands swink, the athletic sphincters of the Tahitian girls who can keep their men inside them all night, are alike unknown to us.

I'm sure there aren't a hell of a lot of men who would have a problem with something being done about this, but I can already hear the complaints of modern feminists of women being reduced to sexual slaves if they were asked to perform in this manner.

The Wicked Womb

This chapter opens with complaints that not enough attention is paid towards the vagina in the medical profession. In the course of this she admits:

I went to the V.D. clinic in despair because my own doctor would not examine my vagina or use pathology to discover the nature of an irritation, which turned out to be exactly what I thought it was.
What? V.D.? Seriously, she's been going on about how oppressive it is that promscuity is discouraged and here we have a perfect example of why promiscuity may have been discouraged in her case. Venereal Disease is a good reason to not engage in irresponsible sex. Also note that this bloody empowered woman didn't have the good sense to use a condom. Honestly, being promiscuous is not that bad as long as it is done responsibly, but if a woman can't be responsible about these matters and wear a condom, then the best advice to her IS to abstain from premarital sex completely or by the time she's thirty her vagina really is a disgusting petrie dish of chlamydia, gonnorhoea and siphillis or whatever it was that Greer contracted.

She then rants about how having a period is considered dirty and not worshipped. Does she really think that if sperm mixed with blood got splattered all over the sheets someone would say thank you? Anyway she also rants that women PMSing is looked upon as a cause of negative behaviour when instead it should be honoured. It's pretty hard to honour something which causes anger and irritability and provides a justification for said anger and irritability meaning men just have to put up with it. It's not like we're going to be giving women any slack since the spread of terms such as 'testosterone poisoning', first coined in 1975 in Ms Magazine and further promoted in the 1980s in the feminist dictionary, not to mention myths like the Criminal XYY Karyotype for that matter.

Anyway in the course of encouraging women to honour their vaginas, wombs, periods etc. she delivers this corker:

If you think you are emancipated, you might consider the idea of tasting your menstrual blood - If it makes you sick, you've a long way to go baby.

Ahem. And with that we end the Section 'Body' and will continue with our examination at a later date.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Career Women Say Equality Was Not What They Wanted. Ever.

Ever heard a feminist whinge that only men can have it all, a career and a family, whereas women are discriminated against because they don't have that choice. They seem to have ommitted that the reason they can't have that choice is because they discriminate against the men they would have to provide for

Househusband backlash as high-flying wives ditch men they wanted to stay at home

It's the bitterest of ironies: thousands of men who've given up work to care for their children are being ditched by their high-flying wives - who wanted them to stay at home in the first place

At the time it seemed like a good idea. After all, Richard Dean told himself, he was earning less than his wife Louise, a high-flying marketing executive. And did it really matter who was at home to look after their children?

With that in mind, it was not such a difficult decision for him to give up his career as a manager in the manufacturing industry to look after their ten-month-old son, Jack.

He hoped it would bring them closer together as a family. In reality, it sounded the death knell for their marriage.

For five years Richard, from Watford, Herts, had worked hard to become a perfect "mother" to their sons, Jack, who is now nine, and Edward, seven. But from the moment he gave up his job, Richard says Louise, 47, failed to see him as a "man".
Well of course she didn't. She had an expectation that a family - a man - is there to provide for her. In her messed up little entitlement fantasy she expected to have a career and be provided for by an even richer man. That's why feminists omit the fact that the reason men can have it all is because the men that do are providing for their wives, because anything a man does, in this case being a provider, could only ever be a negative thing or they can't take it for granted or use it as justification for special privileges. If he's a provider, it's oppression. If he's a househusband, he's a wimp and not a real man.

Divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says that in her experience, the decision to allow the wife to be the main wage earner will have a detrimental effect on as many as half of these relationships, and that divorce statistics in these cases have risen by at least five per cent in the past two years.

"My warning would be to think long and hard about letting the man stay at home,' she says. 'I know it is very trendy for the wife to be the breadwinner, but in my professional experience this decision will strain the marriage. It may be fun at first to say 'I have a househusband', but the wife will quickly begin to resent the fact the man is not pulling his weight financially.

In other words, this whole househusband thing is one of the biggest shit tests known to man. In a familiar story the woman demands her immediate emotional needs of power over her husband and being able to brag to her friends about what an empowered woman she is be met, only to turn this around on the man who met her needs because he's made himself into a loser for her benefit.

David is still very bitter about the outcome of their divorce.

"Even though I had been looking after my daughter for two years, when it came to our divorce the judge assumed my wife should be the one to have custody of our child - just because she's a mother," he says.

"This was despite the fact she was working full-time, and I had been the primary carer. Now that she has full custody of Alexandra, she works part-time from home. It is a situation that makes me weep - I miss my daughter so much."

He now lives alone, in the little cottage he owned before he married, and sees Alexandra only every other week.

"She lives 110 miles away from me, away from the friends she made when she lived in our village, and my family, in the area that was her home. I'm allowed to see her for two weekends a month. That means a round trip for me of more than 200 miles. It is annihilating me, both emotionally and physically."

So, despite the common feminist argument that maternal custody is more common because women are the principal childcarers, in the case where the man is the principal childcarer - the kids are taken away from him. And he is getting a fat alimony and child support cheque the way a woman would if she were in this position? Looks like despite the enormous gap in his resume resulting from the time taken to be a househusband (if this was a woman we could say support her partner's career, but as mere males we are expected to ignore this sort of hypocrisy) he has to get off his lazy arse and get a job to support his kids through child support.

Househusbandry. Increase your risk of divorce and paying child support while decreasing your ability to pay it. An excellent deal.

Fundamental Statistics: Marriage and Divorce

This collection of statistics on marriage and divorce lays the groundwork for a discussion on the negative impact of feminism.

Hopefully, you have come here from an internal link from the blog. If that is not the case and you were directed here from an external source, then take a glance to the left - because a sharp smack upside the head with that is what you may very well require.

The more informed reader will immediately see the relevance these statistics have to feminism considering the same statistics before feminism weren't nearly so dismal. Expect to see further detail on feminism's involvement in these matters in posts to come.

The Divorce Rate Is 48% The Marriage Rate

The National Center For Disease Control: National Centre For Health Statistics Says So

Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population

Seeing the above, your average fembot will retort with something along the lines of "Men are abandoning women in 50% of marriages? See how evil you men are!" Not so, because..

Divorce Is Initiated By The Woman 2/3 Of The Time

The National Center For Disease Control: National Centre For Health Statistics Says So

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that from 1975 to 1988, in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately 2/3 of the cases each year. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women
Australian Institute of Family Studies Also Says So

Nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of women compared with one-fifth (21 per cent) of men indicated that it was mostly themselves who had made the decision to separate.
After seeing the above your average fembot will retort with something along the lines of "Well why shouldn't a woman leave an abusive situation?!", something I've often wondered myself considering the amount of abusive bad boys they seem to fall in love with. Not surprising that it is not pertinent to women's high divorce initiation rate, because..

The Most Common Reasons For Divorce Are Spurious. Not 'Abuse'. Says So

Percentage of divorces due to irreconcilable differences in 1997: 80%
Australian Institute of Family Studies Also Says So

Communication problems: 22.6%
Incompatibility / 'drifted apart': 19.8%
Infidelity: 20%
Alcohol/drug abuse: 11.3%
Physical violence to her or children: 9.6%
Other: 16.7%

From this collection we can easily see that for some reason women are initiating divorces in a substantial number of cases, for reasons along the lines of "I got bored". An excellent investment if you ask me, particularly considering how costly divorces are these days (ie. how much money she gets out of it, which of course has nothing to do with the whole thing).