Women: Homewreckers From Birth
It’s a commonly accepted fact that women ruin most marriages. At the moment, the worldwide divorce rate is somewhere around 50%. If it isn’t, I don’t care. The point is, in addition to being loud-mouthed and lazy, today’s modern woman doesn’t know how to compensate for her shortcomings in marriage by shelling out any respect. Women also have opinions these days instead of chores. That’s stupid.
What about when divorce isn’t a woman’s fault? It’s unlikely, but since I’m a man, I’ll be the first to admit when women are not to blame.
Science, unclouded by my male compassion, disagrees, and points the blame at daughters. The Little Women.
Gordon Dahl and Enrico Moretti have compiled a scientific paper that includes the following man-ass blowing statistics:
Parents of girls are 5% more likely to divorce.
Parents of three girls are 10% more likely to divorce.
Single mothers of girls are completely fucked.
Apparently, women are poison to relationships no matter what their age! Whether they’re making ten cents on the dollar neglecting their children at some stupid Barbie Dream Job, or just being ten and playing with their Barbie Dream House, women ruin marriages. There’s no arguing with statistics. The figures are black and white.
When I first found out about this study, I was appalled. Little girls are even smaller and more helpless than women. They know even less and need more assurance and assistance than their larger and more opinionated counter-parts. Maybe, I decided, that’s why they’re such a strain on marriage.
Little girls cost way more to raise than little boys.
Men (and therefore boys) have something called imanginations. It means they can turn a cardboard box into a spaceship or a racecar or an outhouse at a construction site. Little boys don’t need constant fucking babysitting and they don’t need a bunch of expensive clothing and shiny bullshit. Fuck the nickel and dime shit, today’s modern little girl needs to have her wedding and college financed! That’s the dollar double dip that broke the marriage camel’s back!
Little boys wig the fuck out at divorces.
As a woman, would you want your bedroom furniture burned or your teenage son to be banned from public school transportation? No way. There aren’t enough hours in the week for a woman to deal with something like that. That’s called, ‘boys incentivize a happy marriage’.
No one wants a daughter.
It sounds harsh and that’s why women are banned from reading all of this, but while everyone loves their daughters, no one ever wanted one. Cindy Crawford loves her mole and Owen Wilson probably loves his fucked up nose, but at some point both were catastrophes. What’s a daughter going to do? Get married to a billionaire? That’s some big fucking achievement. A son might start IBM or join the Marines. There’s no telling what kind of excitement lay ahead.
In conclusion, just like keeping a full-sized woman, having a baby girl involves a lot of charity. If you find yourself in the predicament of having one and you also want to maintain your marriage, take a lesson from China: have a boy instead.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 8 7 6 [5] 4 3 2 1 » Show All
Hmm, I wonder. How come you’re here then? You must have searched for it or something.
Go somehwere you’re wanted, Christina.
Jesus christ. You guys are so fucking pathetic it’s amusing.
If you’re such tough men, grow a fucking dick and stop whining like depressed schoolgirls. You pathetic fucks.
Not quite. The adjectives ’stupid’ or ‘obnoxious’ should precede, thus making her name more accurate.
Point. Hypocritical should be in there too.
Not quite. The adjectives ’stupid’ or ‘obnoxious’ should precede, thus making her name more accurate.
Her name is very accurate for her isn’t it.
Wow! What wonderful insight she gives, indeed.
In all honesty, I sincerely wouldn’t want to lay the prom queen. I could save time and money sticking my penis in a urinal at the high school stadium, everyone’s had their’s in their too and I wouldn’t have to drop a bundle to get at it.
As for the “FEMALE” character that is blasting everyone here. She is a Sociopathic Narcassist, or not a SHE at all. More than likely this is a male that is so mixed up with his sexual identity, that he has no way to relate in either direction. Every time this person makes yet another post, they show their immaturity by choice of words, and their profane view of life. Wake up FEMALE, it’s a wonderful world you’re missing.
Good women, Dinosaurs, Dodo birds, anyone notice a pattern here? To say one is looking for a “good woman” is to believe in Santa, The Easter Bunny, and Leprochauns. Keep looking for them, tell us how that turns out.
What a brilliant argument. Gwallan, Diamatik, what fools we are to think about the world when this pearl of narcissus lies before us.
-wolfe
you guys are so queer! If you hate women so much why do you need pussy?
this website should be called: weareabunchoffagswithnopenises.cum
So your excuse for not being a Ghandi is because in doing so you cannot get laid? Have you ever considered that the reason such men are great is because they don’t base their own motivation and sense of worth on whether or not they get to fuck the prom queen?
RAS YOU ARE SUCH A FAG
You’ve been told before Female: FUCK OFF. You are not welcome here. I cannot tolerate your feminine non-arguments and your totally unfounded statements on men’s personal sexual desires (e.g. principles - something that women are totally incapable of). If you’ve been told once, you’ve been told a million times… FUCK OFF…
See boys? More wasted energy on this estrogen-fuelled piece of shit.
GET A FUCKING LIFE! You guys seriously need to get laid-or if you hate women so much- remove a few ribs and blow yourselves
GAY!
There has been no US blockade of Cuba other than during the ‘62 Crisis, where, yes, nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons delivery systems were interdicted.
To refer to the US sanctions on Cuba as a ‘blockade’ is to distort the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.
But fair enough; let’s amend your argument to economic sanctions and we can ponder it.
And the answer is ‘no’. Plenty of countries sanctioned (or not sanctioned) by the US or the USSR (#2) and much of the rest of the world have failed or succeeded on their own merits. Most of the world had all kinds of trade sanctions against South Africa, yet she managed to continue operating at a somewhat higher relative standard than Cuba. (Stipulated: education was considerably worse in the townships than in Cuba due to the repressive nature of Apartheid. Stipulated: Apartheid was an evil system. That said, the economics of the nation were sufficiently attractive that blacks headed into the country from elsewhere in Africa to work, despite the racist National Party government. People across the Carribean did go to Cuban universities, but few headed there to work.)
Actually, the West was busy assisting Vietnam and Malaysia and South Korea far more than it was Singapore. Singapore was, for quite some time, viewed as a lost cause. Not lost to Communism, but simply something that would not be economically viable.
And I’ll accept the term “propping up” for Vietnam and Malaysia in a military and political sense; I won’t accept it for any of those countries in an economic sense. See below.
The ’strategic geo-political position’ argument ignores how easily it fell in ‘41 to the Japanese. Western strategists were very aware of this, and initially uninclined to pour resources into something unstable and vulnerable.
Now as for “propping up”, the West did spend a lot on economic aid, but much of that was to Egypt (and Israel). The Soviet Union treated Cuba as its shining dream of a client state, subsidizing it to the tune of billions. (And sure, let’s compare Cuba in ‘89 to Singapore in ‘89 when Cuba was still getting aid. No contest, and Cuba was being ‘propped up’ economically — obviously. Singapore wasn’t).
The overall economic assistance to South Korea (say) was nugatory, relative to her success. Ditto Singapore. The “propping up” model of economic development simply doesn’t wash, or Egypt would be a powerhouse, a model economy for the world.
Singapore and South Korea succeeded, not because of aid, but because of their economic approaches. (Incidentally, Korea isn’t a good model for the ardent capitalist such as me — they had a lot of state sponsored/guided stuff, and way too much crony capitalism. Yet it still worked a lot better than Cuba).
But fair enough, you want a country that was miserably repressive, evil, socialistic, but didn’t have huge US sanctions. Zimbabwe (which had huge sanctions against it as Rhodesia, then all sanctions removed). Was it better for the average person (black or white) in ‘79 or in 2006? It does, I admit, have much nicer social programs on the books today than it did back then… and on paper it’s not racist at all any more.
The superbly developed welfare state of East Germany vs West Germany.
North and South Korea… North Korea actually bordering its masters.
Admittedly, crime in North Korea is probably lower since everyone’s starving to death.
I really don’t think I need to provide other examples, but I’ve done so. In general, I can’t find any ethnically and culturally heterogenous state where welfare and socialism work well, provided one makes as close to an apples to apples comparison as one can. (The Scandinavians debatably made a go of it for a while, but mass immigration seems to be killing that off).
-wolfe
Thank you, gwallan. I would further like to posit that Singapore is never a good example of economic development. Its strategic geo-political postion has more to do with its success than just its domestic policies. As communism was being spread through Asia, the West was busy propping up Singapore and South Korea.
Wolfe, please come up with a better example.
@wolfe
Singapore WO blockade > Cuba + blockade
Nobody, least of all the worlds most powerful nation, is running interference with Singapore’s development.
Hmm. Let me first say (as I’ve said elsewhere) I don’t buy the alpha/beta male dichotomy. It assumes human males are even simpler than wolves, and that I don’t buy. Men aren’t binary, nor are we even calibrated on a single axis. The space of men is a rich and gloriously multi-dimensional one. That said, of course I respect those who wish to analyze using alpha/beta, and those who believe it. This of course makes discussion somewhat difficult at times; so be it.
Now. Welfare itself. Giving money to people who don’t work. Let’s stipulate that we’ve a duty as a decent society to take care of those who genuinely cannot work due to extreme disability, illness, age, etc. Some (SotS?) might argue that our ‘duty’ to ‘take care’ is to leave such people on the nearest ice floe; others (Sony?) that it’s to pay them a rich comfortable pension. I’m somewhere in the middle. In any event, this shouldn’t be more than about 5-10% of the population at most.
For those who can work, paying them welfare, is simply subsidizing joblessness and idleness. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned from socialism it’s this: That which you subsidize, you get more of.
But leaving that aside: for a man, there’s a hopelessness in knowing that he is not the master of his fate, the captain of his soul. That he does not earn his living, but simply lives off the charity of others. The rise in crime of heavy welfare urban neighborhoods in the US and Ireland are surely indicators to us all.
Welfare, while stupid and counterproductive, may be very well for women who are used to living off the charity of others, but it’s not a good thing for men.
FDR, even though he was a pinko, had it more or less right: If you must pay people from government coffers, then create massive infrastructure projects so they’re actually doing something useful that they can look back on at the end of the day and notice accomplishment.
Let’s compare Cuba: well developed welfare state, with Singapore: not a welfare state. Which is lower crime? Which is a better place to live? Which is somewhat less corrupt? Somewhat freer? And yet, in the 1950’s Singapore looked like a write-off. It didn’t look viable without being part of the Malaysian Federation. Cuba, by contrast, was the wave of the future. It had everything going for it: proximity to the US, wonderful climate, tourism, ability to play the superpowers off one another, and the wonderful Marxist-Leninist-Castro approach to government.
5 decades of welfare and socialism turned Cuba into a bit of a hell hole. 5 decades of fevered capitalism, sometimes red of tooth and claw, turned Singapore into a first world city-state, a jewel of Asia. A great city of the world.
I’m not saying there should be no welfare, or no social programs; I am saying that welfare as anything other than a stopgap emergency measure is detrimental to most men, creates and subsidizes poverty, and likely leads to more crime.
-wolfe
It is unfortunate that I don’t have the figures to back me up, but I wish to disagree with sots’ sentiments. It is my personal belief that social welfare helps to ease the pain of the ‘income gap’ between the rich and the poor, and helps to reduce *(note well that I didn’t say eliminate)* the occurence of violent crimes.
If we look at countries that have well functioning welfare systems (States in Western Europe, Cuba, etc.) and compare them to those whose welfare systems are not as developed (Honduras, Jamaica, South Africa etc.) we will see that perhaps eliminating welfare will just lead to the ‘alpha-males’ brutalizing of the other males. They will just be more likely to rob and kill if there was no welfare system.
Good. That way they can be killed quicker by privately armed citizens or the State.
It is unfortunate that I don’t have the figures to back me up, but I wish to disagree with sots’ sentiments. It is my personal belief that social welfare helps to ease the pain of the ‘income gap’ between the rich and the poor, and helps to reduce *(note well that I didn’t say eliminate)* the occurence of violent crimes.
If we look at countries that have well functioning welfare systems (States in Western Europe, Cuba, etc.) and compare them to those whose welfare systems are not as developed (Honduras, Jamaica, South Africa etc.) we will see that perhaps eliminating welfare will just lead to the ‘alpha-males’ brutalizing of the other males. They will just be more likely to rob and kill if there was no welfare system.