Mathematics – The Final Frontier In The Feminist War Against Boys

By Philip Jones

Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it’s kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, ” Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests”.

This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking “What is the `Femi` Brigade’s` Endgame” ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?

Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let’s examine this business with maths and education more closely. As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.

In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.

For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject.

They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.

Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.

The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and – increasingly – degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.

Boys tend to like ‘sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds. Continue reading

Former Abortionist Bernard Nathanson Exposes Lies of American Pro-Abortion Movement

Population control groups, liberals and socialists lying in order to push their Holier-Than-Thou agenda? Say it ain’t so!

Source: LifeSiteNews

(Extract)

By Tim Waggoner

TORONTO, ON, July 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On July 9, 2008, CFRB talk show host, Spider Jones, interviewed former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson about his past involvement in the abortion movement and his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint.

At one time Nathanson was deeply entrenched in the American pro-abortion movement, having co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and overseen 75,000 abortions as director of an abortion clinic. During the CFRB program Nathanson recalled the deceitful and dishonest tactics that he and NARAL relied upon to push for the legalization and acceptance of abortion.

“We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions,” he said. “The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception.”

“I mean as a founding member and chairman of the medical committee, I accepted the figures which came from a biostatistician named Christopher Tietze and he and his wife passed along these figures to us at NARAL. We were in no position to validate them or not, so we accepted them in the interests of higher standards, or at least higher objectives,” he explained.

Nathanson’s conversion to the pro-life movement was sparked by the advent of the ultrasound machine in the early 1970s.  He related how his heart was moved to realize that a fetus is in fact a human being after he watched an unborn baby recoil from a vacuum abortion device before being sucked from its mother’s womb.

1 in 5 Men ‘Wrongly’ Identified by Mothers as Father

Source: The Guardian

Nearly one in five paternity claims handled by the Child Support Agency end up showing the mother has deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father, figures show.

Since DNA paternity testing figures began to be collected in 1998-99, 4,854 paternity claims have turned out to be false after DNA testing.

Under child support legislation it is a criminal offence to make a false statement or representation, and to provide false documents or information.

However, according to the CSA, there has not been a single prosecution of a woman for making a false claim. The figures showing the number of false paternity claims have been compiled using freedom of information legislation.

That is because women, especially single mothers are protected by fascism, I mean feminism. (Sorry, I tend to get the ‘-isms’ mixed up.) You see, they are one of the politically correct protected groups. It gets better;

The CSA does not have figures for whether any women have named the wrong father on more than one occasion. They also appear to have no information as to why women named the wrong father.

CSA rules state that if the DNA test establishes that the named father is the actual father, then he must pay for the cost of the test. If the DNA establishes he is not the father then the taxpayer pays, so there is no consquence for the mother in making a false claim.

The government has spent £9.37m on paternity tests since 1998. This includes refunds for DNA tests privately funded.

The government hasn’t spent anything. The taxpayer has. Another example of using the victim card to avoid consequences. So, similar to accusations of rape, women can through the weight of the State against a male, for whatever selfish reason and feel safe of no repercussions.

And women still have the nerve to claim that men have it easier. But then they have to, it’s part of the act. As soon as they give up the victim card the game is over.

Wives to be let off for murdering their husbands in cold blood

Hot on the heels of my earlier scribblings regarding what actually constitutes ‘abuse’ for the self interested feminists and abuse industry.

Source: Daily Mail

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.

Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence.

Women’s groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.

As long as they’re women, hitting men.

But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel ‘seriously wronged’ by ‘words and conduct’ took experts completely by surprise.

They must establish only that they were responding to a ‘slow burn’ of abuse.

The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a ‘sudden’ loss of control.

In cases where a husband kills, the existing ‘partial defence’ of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether.

The Ministry of Justice said this was in response to long-standing concerns that the centuries- old measure impacts differently on men and women.

In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer, as well as domestic violence victims, should be offered new partial defences of provocation.

They include those ‘seriously wronged’ by an insult.

Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours, or victims of a serious crime who are taunted at a later date by the attacker.

Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction.

Note that this is the complete opposite to equality. This is just giving women who are so inclined, a government mandate to kill their husbands, as long as they can cook up a good textbook story about abuse, which as we know can be almost anything women say it is.

Essentially, this means that if a woman ‘feels’ wronged, she can kill you, if you ‘feel’ wronged, you cannot kill her. The ‘crime of passion’ motive has been strengthened for women and taken away from men. This represents laws for certain groups. This is illegal. Continue reading

Sienna Miller discovers that her sh*t stinks

Terrible, a selfish little woman experiencing accountability. She did it for the lulz?

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

I prefer other womens men myself...

I prefer other women's men myself...

Just a fortnight ago, she was pictured frolicking topless on a yacht with her new multi-millionaire actor boyfriend, but Sienna Miller has spent the past week in hiding after being snubbed by friends on both sides of the Atlantic.

For those who don’t know, she dumped former boyfriend Rhys Ifans, slept about and eventually ran off with married multi-millionaire family man, Balthazar Getty, causing untold grief and upset to his family, although he isn’t exactly innocent either.

The 26-year-old actress, who has been nicknamed ‘Sluttyienna’ and ‘Serial Miller’ because of her increasingly long list of lovers, has fled to New York – where her father, banker Ed Miller, lives – to escape the backlash over her affair with Balthazar Getty, 33, I can report.

Sources close to the GI Joe star say she has been ‘stunned’ by the fallout since her affair with the married father of four was revealed.

What is there to be surprised about? She targeted a married man. She’s been sleeping around with men like she’s on commission. People call her a slut, because she’s acting like a slut. I guess these little princesses aren’t used to being criticised for anything. Stunned. Idiot.

Sienna has told friends she plans to keep a low profile for the rest of this summer.

Run rabbit run. Continue reading

Save the males! A new book says society is biased AGAINST men.

We could have told you this years ago, but nevermind.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

Amanda Platell

Every once in a while, a book not so much lands on your desk as lobs itself like a hand grenade, exploding preconceived wisdoms and shattering the bones of the status quo. Save The Males is such a book.

It is the fiercest and most fearless defence of men, fatherhood and ultimately the family I have read in many years.

American author Kathleen Parker’s courageous thesis is that initially, through extreme feminism, then via its craven implementation into society, women have demonised men and trivialised their contribution, especially to family life.

I say courageous because, in the eyes of many women and of the liberal establishment, suggesting men have had a rough deal is nothing short of heresy.

Parker should be burnt at the stake, they cry. But isn’t it ironic that only a woman could make such a plea for men?

She argues: ‘As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favour and approval they seek, as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts, as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour, as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.’

It’s enough to set a feminist’s hair on end. Parker argues that in trying to make the world fairer for women, an adjustment most agree was vital, we have made it unfair for men. In our attempt to honour women, we have dishonoured men.

By bending over backwards to make single mothers feel good about themselves, by diminishing the role of fathers, by elevating women as the superior parents, we have gone a considerable way to destroying one of the basic tenets of a successful society – family life.

Apart from the effects of this seismic social shift on society, it is also grossly unfair. Can you imagine a world where men demanded women be more like them – dress like them, act like them, even look like them. Because that is effectively what our post-feminist society has done, but with the genders switched.

The traditional male values, what Parker almost poetically calls ‘masculinity tied to honour’, are now seen as nothing more than a direct assault on women.

Unless men are like us, the thinking goes, they insult us and threaten our existence: hence the feminisation of men, or as we so disingenuously describe it, getting in touch with your feminine side.

Thus Hybrid Man was born. An acceptable male model now is more likely to be of the David Beckham variety, wearing more make-up than the missus, hairless, perfumed, varnished, emasculated by his bossy wife and perhaps fond of wearing her undies.

Good dads, loving husbands, supportive male role models, they’re few and far between even in the fictional world of TV. Continue reading

Woman Kills Own Baby, Walks Free

Source: Daily Mail

A mum who killed her six-month-old baby by shaking him and throwing him to the ground causing devastating brain injuries has walked free from court.

Martina McHattie, 26, described as a perfect mum, lost her temper with horrific consequences after baby Reece wouldn’t stop crying because he was teething.

Are they trying to blame her actions on the baby?

A court heard the stress caused her to shake the infant and throw him against a hard object, fracturing his skull.

Reece died from his injuries four days later in October 2004.

The ‘perfect mother’ then lied to cover it up;

Police investigated the incident after doctors suspected Reece was not the victim of an accidental fall as McHattie had claimed. However there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

The harrowing incident at her home in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, only came to the fore two years later when she admitted that she had caused Reece’s death because she was unable to cope.

But McHattie, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter, was handed just a 12-month suspended prison sentence after a judge was told she had tried to commit suicide and had self-harmed in the years since the death.

Right, so now this woman is a victim?

Defending, Michael Harrison QC said: ‘On a daily basis, this mum was taking superlative care of her baby.

‘It is therefore astonishing to find that in one catastrophic moment she gave way to the stresses that had built up in the days and hours before.

‘In the last two weeks he was teething and she was getting flustered because she couldn’t soothe him.

‘What went on in her mind was a feeling of inadequacy and so in that moment she brought everything crashing down around her and ended her baby’s life.

The baby is dead. She not only killed him but lied afterwards, but because she was feeling inadequate and took a few pills she gets a suspended sentence.

Just another case of the Pussy Pass. Throw it on the pile!

Maternity leave and equality laws are ‘sabotaging’ women’s careers

Source: Daily Mail

Generous maternity leave and flexible working practices are in danger of sabotaging women’s careers, the head of the new equality watchdog has warned.

With women now entitled to a year off for each child, Dr Nicola Brewer, the chief executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said employers were thinking twice about offering them jobs or promotion.

The current set of benefits, which strongly favour the mother, has also entrenched the idea that women bring up children, instead of both parents taking an equal responsibility for childcare.

‘The thing I worry about is that the current legislation and regulations have had the unintended consequence of making women a less attractive prospect to employers.’ British fathers are allowed two weeks of paternity leave compared to 52 weeks for their partners.

As usual, the only thing that matters is the effect on women that choose to have children. What about the businesses and all of the other workers?

She said: ‘The way it is framed means it is up to the women to transfer the leave to the man. It is not his right.’

In a speech today, she is expected to call for an extension of fathers’ rights, suggesting men be entitled to 12 weeks of leave on 90 per cent of their earnings following the birth of a child.

Wow, 12 whole weeks! Women = 52 weeks. Men = 12 weeks. (That’s when they even know their girlfriend/ wife is pregnant.)

Aware that her proposals will face criticism from the business lobby, she said: ‘Of course, there is a business case for these changes and many companies are going further. But this is a social argument as well as an economic one.

‘There may well be a cost [to business], but as a society we are already thinking in terms of wellbeing as well as take home pay.’

Well, that answers my earlier question. The businesses and other workers just have to pay for it. Nothing like redistribution of wealth to keep Communism alive.

Sir Alan warned in February that equal opportunity laws had made it harder for a woman to get a job.

Employers are not allowed to ask women about having children  –  so they would just not employ them, he said.

And he is right.

It really gets on my nerves, how the State thinks it has a duty to regulate every little aspect of our lives. In fact it sounds much more like totalitarianism than freedom to me. The State autonomously deciding what society should be like? I thought they were supposed to serve the People, and remain bound by our laws?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, why should a business employ someone who has a high probability of leaving, while you still have financial obligations to them? It reminds me of the treatment of women in divorce. They leave, you pay. What would you do, as a business owner? Especially a small business. How is it good business sense to employ someone, have them leave the workforce while you still have to pay them and then employ someone else to do the same bloody job? You can of course, get the other (working) employees to make up for it, but you know that will not help morale. That could encourage your staff to look elsewhere for work. On top of that, you cannot ask women these questions in interviews, so the women cannot even defend themselves! All brought to you by your socialist State who dictates more and more of our lives to us every day!

Woman bites off ex-lover’s ear during pub row

The gentle sex strikes again. Another example of extreme violence from a woman, and the resulting let off she gets from the court.

Source: Daily Mail

(Extract)

When accountant Louise Croxson met her ex-boyfriend a few weeks after he ditched her, she was understandably feeling rather bitter.

Unfortunately, she took her anger a little further than most  –  and ended up biting his ear off.

The 32-year-old lunged forward and sank her teeth into Andrew Robbins after a pub night out with mutual friends descended into a drunken row between the couple.

Croxson ignored his screams of agony and kept her jaw locked on to his earlobe until it was completely severed. To the horror of onlookers, she then spat the mangled piece of flesh on to the pub floor.

It was saved only because a quick-thinking member of the bar staff picked it up and put it on ice. Mr Robbins, a 35-year- old financial analyst, had emergency surgery to have his ear sewn back on.

Mr Robbins ‘quite suddenly’ broke up with Croxson late last year, after two years together, leaving her ‘anxious and unhappy.’ Soon afterwards, they both turned up at one of the running club’s social events at a Central London pub.

‘At around 9pm Miss Croxson, in all probability accidentally, spilt a pint of beer over Mr Robbins. Remarks were exchanged and an argument broke out.

‘Suddenly the defendant went for the victim. She leaned over and bit his ear. The piece of flesh was then spat out by the defendant on to the floor.

‘Fortunately it was recovered by one of the bar persons, who placed it in an ice bucket and kept it fresh.’

After surgery, the lobe was restored in a fully functional state, but with some minor scarring.

Bitch viciously attacks ex-boyfriend because of the way he dumped her? I guess the entitlement princess could not accept that he didn’t want to worship her anymore. The aftermath of the attack revolves around trying to absolve this selfish nasty woman from responsibility, even trying to pin it on the ex-boyfriend!

Mr Zinner added: ‘The Crown accept this was not premeditated, but a spur-of-the-moment attack, perhaps following the distress of the breakdown of the relationship.’

Croxson admitted wounding Mr Robbins in the attack on December 28 last year.

She bowed her head in apparent shame as Judge John Price told her: ‘It is a sad, sad case. What you did was appalling. If you do meet him again, I hope there will be civility and nothing else.’

In a victim impact statement, Mr Robbins said he bore ‘no ill-will or bad feelings’ towards her, but felt she needed to accept responsibility for her actions.

Well she won’t. Not with the sentence she got.

Croxson was given a two-year community punishment order and ordered to undergo a mental health treatment programme. She was also told to pay £1,000 in compensation plus £250 towards costs.

Every bloody time a woman is caught doing something like this, they always throw the mental health excuse out there, usually accompanied by the ‘I don’t remember doing it’ nonsense.

The pussy pass works again.

I wonder what sentence a man would have received if he had done this to his ex-girlfriend? If he had defended himself and hurt her in the process he would have probably ended up being charged.

http://freebritain.wordpress.com/

Harriet (femscum) Harman still wants to discriminate against white men

I touched upon this scheme from this liberal Marxo-feminist in an earlier post, It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men. Today on the BBC website is another article about her continued push for this most disgusting proposal.

There is no such thing as positive discrimination. It is all discrimination. Remember, this is straight out of Communism, the States’ desire to ‘equalise’ the (Collectivist) groups in employment. White men in Britain must be completely undermined in order to be able to complete the State’s takeover of the country. Notice how there is no similar campaign to discriminate against other groups in the case of white men being the minority. By the way, society is not composed of groups, it is composed of individuals. Using groups is the Collectivist method to ‘divide and conquer’.

BBC

Harriet Harman has defended plans to make it legal for firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

The equalities minister said firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they want to.

In favour of female and ethnic minorities means anyone but white men. There are more women of working age in Britain than men. So technically men are the minority, not that it matters. Who does the State see as the threat eh?

The new Equalities Bill will also force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to close the gender pay gap.

The plans, which will be adopted first across England then Wales and Scotland, will also ban all age discrimination.

We all know about the Gender Pay GapTM LIE. It does however offer a suitable Dialectic for the State to continue to expand its powers into the lives of private businesses.

Ms Harman said she wanted a more “open and diverse” economy with companies not just choosing from “a pool of friends of friends”.

Tackled on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about whether the proposals would lead to discrimination against white men, she said companies would not be forced to use positive discrimination.

What the hell has the ‘make up’ of the economy got to do with a politician? In a free society you employ who you bloody like and make your own decisions. It just goes to show how the State is socially engineering a Communist ideal by enforcing whatever it thinks is ‘fair’.

But she added: “They might think we don’t want an all male team.

“We’ve got a new post coming up, we’ve got equally qualified men and women going for it, we are going to pick the woman because we want to have a more balanced top team.

Yeah, until she gets pregnant or something.

“The law at the moment is not clear and we are clarifying and saying if you want to do it, you can, and it makes it much more open.”

Ms Harman will set out the proposals in the Commons later.

Age discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since 2006, but the new legislation will tackle more widespread forms of age-related prejudice.

The Bill aims to close the gender pay gap by forcing firms to “publish their gender pay gap”.

Again, who gets paid what is none of the States’ business.

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today.

“Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It’s not the case. It’s entrenched discrimination. It’s allowed to persist because it’s all swept under the carpet.”

Oh fuck off. If a business ever chose to employ a man over a woman, I’m sure there are very good reasons for doing so, as Sir Alan Sugar explains to us. A business is supposed to employ whomever they think will be best for the job and for the business. The State is essentially saying your business should serve the interests of ‘equality’ and not capitalism.

The Bill will also seek to stop pensioners being denied NHS treatment because of their age.

Ms Harman said doctors will still be able to refuse treatment if they believe there are sound clinical reason for doing so.

But she added: “Everybody should be treated as individuals and not just discriminated against across the board because of their age.”

I wonder if the men will still be denied treatment?

Age discrimination will also be outlawed in the provision of goods and services, such as holidays and insurance.

It is likely organisations and companies will be given time to review and, if necessary, change their practices before the new law would be enforced.

Other age distinctions, such as free bus passes and holidays for the over-50s or 18-to-30s, will be exempt.

A sickening power grab by the Police State over fundamental freedoms, as always, under the guise of protecting one ‘group’ from another ‘group’. The real enemy of the State are two ‘groups’. White men and the middle class. Why the middle class? Well generally they tend to run the means of production, like farmers and tend to know their rights and have the financial ability to fight for them. Release a few weaponised diseases and pile on the EU regulations and disenfranchise them. The government can centralise production using taxpayer money in response (preferably with corporate partnership, as is the case with Corporate Fascism.) It is plainly obvious what is going on.

“Feminism is just Communism with tits” – FM Watkins

Harriet Harman should be thrown off a cliff.

(Continued) Rise of the Gold-digger

An article in the Daily Mail appears today, written by a woman (you will see why that is important later) talking about the ‘Rise of the gold-digger’.

Gold-digger

Like it’s something new! She tries her best to view this kind of woman in the tiny minority, but men with experience know better. Extracts from the article below;

When did it become acceptable to be a gold-digger?

Erm, when feminism campaigned to free women from the ‘oppressive regime’ of socially acceptable behaviour.

After all, isn’t a woman who sleeps with a man for money – or at least for extensive use of his credit card – called something else?

But then, ‘prostitute’ doesn’t have quite the same glamorous, diamond-encrusted platinum ring to it, does it?

No it does not, and that is precisely why we must do our best to call these women exactly that. Well to be fair, prostitutes are better than these women. At least with them you know what is going on upfront.

How depressing and how insulting to the millions of women who don’t live their lives according to these mercenary rules.

While we are the majority, the sad fact is, we are all judged as a result of movies like this.

It makes us all look cheap. Priceless cannot be blamed alone.

The message it delivers is one that has been subtly gaining currency in recent times and not just on film.

Well it is the fact that it has become so widespread that it made it into film in the first place, and although it may be insulting to the women who do not behave in that way, it does not stop it existing. Just because it offends a few women, does not mean it should not be publicised.

There is also, of course, the whole WAG phenomenon, predicated almost entirely on a cynical pact between rich, bored, badly behaved men (Ashley Cole comes to mind) and the women who want to live off them.

The gaggle of wannabe WAGs hovering outside any nightclub frequented by Premier League footballers is proof that there is an increasing number of women who believe that far from having their own life and their own job, the notion of being a human leech is to some degree a preferable career.

Well get used to it, it has been happening for decades.

As evidence that bleeding a man dry is on the up, there is now a fashion label called Golddigga and even websites such as www.golddiggers.uk.com, devoted to ways of hooking a rich guy.

Click on www.sugardaddyforme.com and the deal being struck is clear.

A glamorous-looking young woman appears on the screen. ‘Attractive, ambitious, insatiable,’ it reads.

In other words, she’s offering sex on tap. When the picture of the tastefully greying man floats into view, it says: ‘Affluent, caring, generous.’

Yet, we’re not supposed to call these women prostitutes. That would be rude.

Like I said, these predatory females are below prostitutes. I shall explain their psychological make-up at the end of this article.

Of course, it is still only a tiny percentage of women that would dream of behaving like this; it’s just that percentage – which is rising – think what they do is so acceptable. Listen to Sophie Sharp, a dancer from Bromley in Kent, who says: ‘I’ve always been into expensive clothes and accessories and think nothing of paying £400 for a dress.

But on my earnings it was hard to afford everything I wanted.’ Well, um, yes it would be. Still, Sophie’s solution was not to visit Primark but to get herself a sugar daddy instead. ‘My friends told me to go to Chinawhite (the fashionable club in London),’ she reveals.

It may be a small percentage that are so openly gold-diggers, but what of the women who think in a similar way but keep it quiet? Of women who are not so extreme, but are still motivated to date the man with more money rather than less (notice I haven’t mentioned any other factors) and watch the number of women included rise dramatically.

Would 75% be a tiny minority? Moving on;

So she put on her best low-cut black frock and, hey presto, she’d hooked herself a Dubai businessman. ‘I didn’t find him attractive,’ she admits.

Even so, she accepted his offer to take her shopping.

A total of £2,500 later, she says, he flew back to Dubai with nothing more than a chaste peck on the cheek in return, to which it’s tempting to say, is a likely story.

Yeah yeah nothing new to those in the know.

In Sophie’s world, being a golddigger is par for the course. All Sophie’s friends are doing the same.

Another light into the ‘minds’ of these females here.

Rachel MacLynn is head of global membership for millionaires-only networking service Seventy Thirty.

‘There are gold-diggers everywhere in London and other British cities. I’m constantly approached by young women,’ she says.

‘They are desperate for me to match them with our millionaire members.

They are like lice, and as the complient media (in its quest to undermine society) glamourises the lifestyles of these lying manipulative whores, it just sells this behaviour to other females, who sit there watching, secreting wishing to be able to shop all day and be in magazines (so much for fighting the New World Order eh, ladies?)

Or what about Natalie Parker, 24, who’s studying French and Spanish at university in Southampton? Her parents – a property developer and a housewife – live in a four-bedroom, four-bathroom house with a gym and a pool in Spain.

‘I’ve always dated wealthy men, even though I’ve not really been attracted to them,’ Natalie muses.

So, has she ever had to offer sex with a sugar daddy to secure a lavish gift?

‘Some of these men do want more at the end of the night,’ she concedes, without actually answering the question.

Now for the inevitable attack on the men. Of course they must be blamed for this in some way, men are always at fault;

It is worth saying that the men are not blameless in this unpleasant sex for designer clothes/ jewellery/breast implants transaction. A man who buys a woman is no better than the woman who agrees to sell herself. It all reduces human interaction to the level of a business deal.

Successful men will attract these bitches. That’s life. Don’t blame men for being successful. Blame the women for choosing to pursue the money man. What of the men who do not find such behaviour acceptable? Simple for women, they just pretend they love him and keep up the pretense long enough to fleece the fella.

Still, it is the women’s attitudes that are so shocking. It’s as if feminism never happened. Did it ever occur to Sophie or Heather or all the other young women who now aspire to be golddiggers, that they could work to provide a life for themselves rather than just expect a guy to buy it for them?

No, they are behaving like this precisely because feminism happened. Feminism wanted license for women to behave as they wish, free from the restrictions of acceptable behaviour and free from responsibilities (men can pick up the tab).

Looking further ahead, do these girls know the sort of deal they are doing? They are not only throwing away any moral sense, but also their independence, control of their own lives and self-respect.

They never had any of these things to begin with. Such concepts are imbued in people by society and peer groups. Once upon a time women (like men) had such imprinting, but that resulted in strong relationships, strong families, low crime and high productivity. You can’t have Order from Chaos without Chaos. Hence Marxo-Feminism. The author seems to have some sort of sense though, which explains why she find gold-digger behaviour so strange;

I didn’t take the gold-digger route because I think it is wrong. It is insulting to men and it cheapens women. Every woman who does it polishes an image of womankind that the rest of us then have to try to argue against.

It makes us all look as if we are for sale for the price of a pair of Gucci shoes. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with men where they have said that basically all a woman is interested in is how much money they have and the size of their car.

Maybe not Gucci shoes, but restaurant dinners, rent and paid for holidays? I would say, from my experience and the combined experience of all the guys I know, and the ones I’ve met on my travels, that the majority of women behave, in differing levels, as gold-diggers. But with women perceiving themselves as princesses, what else would they expect but to be treated as such?

When I explain that I have never dated a man for his money, nor have any of my girlfriends, that we have jobs and homes of our own and we wouldn’t dream of expecting a boyfriend to provide either, they look at me with disbelief.

The image of womanhood that the gold-digger propagates is one of a greedily acquisitive airhead. She never reads a book or a newspaper, but knows the ticket price for the latest designer handbag.

She is a parasite, useless to anyone but themselves. Don’t count on her campaigning against the Lisbon Treaty.

Consumption replaces affection.

Not quite. Consumption replacing humanity would be more accurate.

Her diamante sandals may be lovely and sparkly, but she tarnishes all of us.

Right, what motivates a woman to not only behave in such a superficial way, but also promote it proudly? What will society think? Her friends and family?

The truth is, she doesn’t care.

Marx said ‘all truth is relative’. Funny, it seems he figured out how women view the world. To these women, there is no right or wrong, there are only wants and needs. The process of evaluating and committing actions operates backwards with these women.

What they desire is right and the methods to achieve it are acceptable because the end result is them acquiring what they desire. It really is that simple. Whereas men generally view the world (with all its rules) as external concepts which he navigates, these women seem to view the world as an extension of them. (exceptions would be psychopaths like Tony Blair).

In other words, reality (with all its rules) changes in relation to their desires. These gold-diggers do not view their actions as wrong because ‘truth is relative’ to them. They want it therefore it is right and it is right because they want it.

No wonder feminism was so successful. It essentially told women that the only thing that is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is not getting what you want.

The Problem With Women Today

Life under a feminist mother, by her daughter

The full version can be found at the source site. I will post a shorter version here.

Daily Mail

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: ‘Mummy, Mummy.’

It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother  –  thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late  –  I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

My mother’s feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn’t even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

I love my mother very much, but I haven’t seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son  –  her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.

Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world  –  goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it’s time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.

My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I’m told they even made me walk down the street to the school.

Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter

When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds  –  my father’s very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother’s avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent  –  a bizarre way of doing things.

Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa  –  offering herself up as a mother figure.

But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities  –  after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.

My mother would always do what she wanted  –  for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?

I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me  –  a ‘delightful distraction’, but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.

According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio  –  some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.

What about the children?

The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn’t take into account the toll on children. That’s all part of the unfinished business of feminism.

Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: ‘I’d like a child. If it happens, it happens.’ I tell them: ‘Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.’ As I know only too well.

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them  –  as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters  –  a happy family.

The full version can be read here.

Makes you wonder. Feminists speak of ‘freeing’ women from men but according to feminists, women should only be free to do what the feminists command. Not only does that sound like a form of totalitarianism, but it tends to result in women actually having less options than they had before feminism. The results of feminism are obvious; broken homes, constantly denigrated men (thus forcing men to reject such bitter women), sky rocketing abortion rates, women seeing their own positives as negatives (maternity) and more.

These are not hard to extend into modern society with a little thought. As an example;

Feral girls come from single mother homes (so do most criminals) > lack of education > alcohol abuse > teenage sex with random boys > more pregnancies > more abortions > more depression > more problems with self-image and self-worth > consumerism > denial of instincts/ joining the rat race > find men not really interested in such females > no children > more consumerism > death.

I really can’t see any benefit of feminism at all.

Rocket MAN flies to 8,200ft

How cool is this?

Swooping and diving above the mountainous town of Bex in western Switzerland, the self-styled “Rocket Man” flew at 8,200ft for more than five minutes thanks to an 8ft jet-powered wing strapped to his back.

It has always been Mr Rossy’s ambition to fly freely, but it has taken four years of working on his jet design for that dream to become reality.

To achieve his bird-like status, the former Swiss fighter pilot was taken up in a light aircraft, just like a normal skydiver.

On jumping from the plane he appeared to plummet towards earth, before his fall turned to a glide and he ignited the four small jet engines attached to the carbon wing. Once under power and using a lever to control the fuel, he had the freedom to soar where he chose.

Clearly enjoying his first public flight, at speeds of up to 186mph, Mr Rossy tipped his wings, flipped onto his back then levelled out again, performing a 360-degree roll.

Unlike Icaraus, the Greek mythological figure who flew too close to the sun and did not live to tell the tale, the 48-year-old landed safely using a parachute.

“This flight was excellent,” he said afterwards. “It’s like a second skin. If I turn to the left, I fly left. If I nudge to the right, I go right.”

Now he is planning an even greater challenge – to fly across the Channel.

I was reading this and wondering why there aren’t more women conceiving and constructing things like this, especially considering all of their women-only tax schemes and business initiatives continually being set up to pander to them.

Well consider this.

First you actually have to find something like this interesting (as opposed to the latest celeb crap gossip). You then have to study engineering and construction so you can understand the limits of what is possible compared to what you want to achieve. You then have to dedicate years of your life to trying to build it.

And there is no guarantee it is going to work. So its all very time consuming and requires much effort that may not result in a gain.

Except that, the desire to build it, and the journey trying to build it is what makes it fun.

This brings me to the point of my little rant. Women and girls love trying to denigrate men and boys, saying they’re useless, clumsy, girl power and all that bollocks.

For guys who may benefit from a bit of a boost from the constant onslaught of anti-male attitudes and propaganda… Who’s flying in the jet suit like a Centurion? Who designed the machinery that enables that light bulb to shine when you flick the switch…

It’s amazing, the level of delusional grandeur women will wallow in. Like this silly bitch.

I tried not to laugh. MMs (Macho Men) can be unintentionally hilarious. The way to deal with a modern MM, I realise, is to channel his energies into things you need him to do, like fix the car, and ignore the rest, or at least don’t let him see you smirking. It might hurt his ego, poor lamb.

The reality is that the mechanics of civilisation are invented, built and maintained by men, contrary to media-fed femmie-pandering propaganda. Remember to think about what IS, not was IS SAID.

Don’t forget that.

Emerging Hotties of 2008

I feel like pissing off feminists. You know those ‘men make women into sexual objects and therefore oppress them’ crowd. I’m also tired of reading the narcissistic ramblings of those haggard, crusty, old, weak, socialist scum hiding under the banner of ‘Women’s Rights’ but are much more interested in ‘Re-shaping Society to suit out Communist Goals’.

But seriously, the right women are as great as the bitches are evil. Good women are now in the minority, so don’t hold your breath in regards to finding a decent one. Concentrate on honing your mind and your abilities, at least then you know you’re investing in something that will definitely benefit you.

Anyways, it’s the weekend and I’m tired of ranting. I want to prove something.

That men adore women.

Also, as you look through the list, try and explain how they are ‘oppressed’ by these images. Feel free to look over them again to try and clarify your thoughts LOL. Gemma Atkinson and Odette Yustman will do nicely. And Jessica Lucas. And Kate Mara… Anything but this.

COED Presents: Emerging Hotties of 2008

By the way, I suggest watching Shooter if you can. It’s a class movie.

Have a good weekend, folks.

Sláinte!

Families in meltdown, judge says

What people like me have been saying for ages.

A senior family court judge has hit out at the government over what he says is an “epidemic” of family failure that will have “catastrophic” effects.

In a speech, Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge for England and Wales, warned the results could be as destructive as global warming.

In a speech in Brighton to lawyers from Resolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, the judge warned of a “cancerous” increase in broken families and said the government must take “comprehensive action”.

The judge said those who witnessed the goings-on inside family courts would be aware of it being a “never ending carnival of human misery – a ceaseless river of human distress”.

Mr Justice Coleridge said the collapse of family life is at a scale and severity that would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago.

This can be attributed directly to feminism and the socialist/ communist elements of government that adopted that evil ideology, in the quest for ever increasing control over individuals. As is usually the case with these ideologies, their theory doesn’t fit with reality.

Feminism as you should know by now, hates the nuclear family.

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18 Continue reading

Sexism and the City?

The femprop never stops. Every couple of months, another article has to come out moaning about how hard done by women are.

In April 2008 the Fawcett Society launches a campaign for equal pay for women, in an effort to close the gender pay gap.

This still exists more than 10 years after Labour came to power pledging to address the issue.

The situation is particularly acute in London.

Really?

Unequal pay for women has been illegal for 30 years, and yet in London men earn 24% more than women – the highest discrepancy in the country.

The gap becomes even more marked at the higher end of the scale with men earning 32% more than their female counterparts.

Only 11% of FTSE 100 directors are female and no company in the city has more than 30% female staff.

So what. When was the last time you heard of a business giving a woman a job, but actually paying her less money than they advertised? I mean, if the job states £20,000 a year, that comes with some conditions. Like actually being there full time. For a whole year. Continue reading

It should not be illegal to discriminate against white men

So says the Minister for Equality, Harriet (Feminist/ Communist Scum) Harman.

White men could be legally blocked from getting jobs under new anti-discrimination laws being considered by Labour.

Employers would be able to give jobs to women or ethnic minority candidates in preference to other applicants, under the plans unveiled by equalities minister Harriet Harman.

If two candidates were equally qualified for a position, employers would be able to reject the white person or the man in favour of a black person or a woman.

When they say black person, they actually mean non-white, as this fucking scum of a government, in its never ending quest for division and conflict, keeps trying to separate the people into groups, which they can then set into opposition.

Miss Harman – known as Harriet Harperson for her politically correct views – wants to look at how to bring U.S.-style “positive action” to Britain, saying it is vital to ensure the workforce more accurately reflects the demographic make-up of the population.

She says too many women and people from ethnic minorities are being held back because they cannot break through the “glass ceiling”.

Who let this stupid bitch into Westminster? Oh yeah, Gordon Brown. These commie-femcunts are obsessed with attacking the main demographic of western countries. Disenfranchise them, and the country is yours… Continue reading

A Life Blighted By Feminism

A great letter, written by a gentleman called Philip Jones to Henry Makow. Found via Rense.

I’m sure many men can relate this his experiences. He has been there, done that and got the T-Shirt, this is how he feels.

Dear Henry,

Feminism has been a blight on my life. *It has obstructed, even prevented me from realizing my absolute potential as a man and creature of nature. It has corrupted every relationship, perverted how others have perceived me, how I have perceived others, and endeared a rotten and reluctant misogyny within my breast for that deranged part of the female of our breed which kneels at the alter of the feminist lie.

Of course, the nature of this misogyny is borne out of resentment for experiences lost and is vengeful and bitter in it’s reluctance, as as much as I loathe them, I delight in the true feminine. Continue reading

Abortion; Legal if women want it = Illegal if men want it.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Jail for man who slipped abortion drugs into wife’s sandwiches in bid to kill his unborn baby

Found via AntiMisandry.

In summary, the woman was 11 weeks pregnant. He didn’t want it, he tried to get it aborted with pills he was feeding her. She did want it.

A husband hid abortion pills in a sandwich and gave it to his wife in a desperate bid to kill their unborn child, a court heard yesterday.

Yesterday, the businessman was jailed for three years and nine months at the Old Bailey after admitting the rare offence of administering a poison with intent to cause miscarriage.

Isn’t that what happens when women willingly take pills to induce a chemical abortion?

“He tried to terminate our baby, end his child’s life before it had even begun and that’s the cruellest thing imaginable.

Yesterday, the businessman was jailed for three years and nine months at the Old Bailey after admitting the rare offence of administering a poison with intent to cause miscarriage.

I’m not a fan of abortion myself, so her having a baby is obviously good.But my opinion is irrelevant. The question I have regards the application of the law. Continue reading

How pooling your money with friends can keep you on top of the latest trends

You know, when I first started reading the title of this article, I saw, ‘how pooling your money’… and thought ‘great, some logical financial sense to help women out with their perpetual debt-ridden fiat currency burning materialistic spending habits.’

Obviously. I was wrong.

With the whiff of spring in the air, fashion-conscious women everywhere are poised to splurge on the new season’s collections. But when your penchant is for Prada not Primark, keeping up with the latest high-end offerings can be an expensive business.

Unless, of course, you split the cost with your friends and save yourself thousands in the process. Small wonder that clubbing together for clothes is the latest trend among women who are as savvy with their finances as they are with their fashion.

Savvy with their finances by ‘saving thousands’ spending on clothes and handbags? I don’t see how spending lots of money on designer clothes is savvy at all. Paying half the price is still PAYING half the price. Continue reading