For those awful times where you realise nothing has changed in 200 years

A while ago I wrote about how Mary Wollstonecraft would have reacted to realising she was completely vindicated in her Vindication, and that she was absolutely bang-on.

To summarise, here is a macro to wheel out at those times where you know Wollstonecraft would have been livid, like if she read More! magazine or found herself stuck watching skin cream adverts.

17 thoughts on “For those awful times where you realise nothing has changed in 200 years”

  1. What hasn’t changed in 200 years is women whining and men trying to stop them. We should just let you whine. When women get what they claim to want they simply demand more. There’s no end to the appetite and it’s a symptom of the chronic childishness of some adult women, most particularly radical feminists.

    Women demand gender balance in the boardroom and then demand, er, a ‘better’ work/life balance. Grow up.

    Skin cream adverts – give me strength! Women seek to make themselves more attractive in order to attract and/or retain a higher status man than they otherwise could. The payback on attractiveness for women is incredibly high, and not available to men – women are highly disinclined to accept as partners men far below them socio-economically, regardless of the man’s attractiveness. And for the women who match up with the highest status men, even upon divorce they expect to be kept in the lap of luxury for the rest of their days.

    Did it escape your attention that the first case of a pre-nup being accepted by English courts was to protect a German heiress’s fortune from her markedly less well-off partner? Karin Radmacher.

    Despite your relentless bleating, women never seek equality, they always seek special treatment. And almost always get it, unfortunately.

  2. @mike buchanan wow, you’re a massively ill-informed, nasty misogynistic little fuck-bag.
    so to you wanting equal pay, equal say over our lives and equal opportunities is whining, and it is man’s duty to stop our childishness? hmmm. idiotic.

  3. The last time I heard this much bleating, there was shearing going on. Just because women bleat more than men doesn’t mean they have more to bleat about. Sorry to trouble you with facts, this forum being largely a fact-free zone, but:

    1. Women DO get equal pay for the same work and have for decades. What they don’t get is equally high pay for lines of work they prefer to do (e.g. nursing, caring) where supply exceeds demand, compared with lines of work they don’t want to do, and where demand exceeds supply (e.g. engineering).

    2. Women for many years retired five years before men – some of them engaged in heavy physical work – despite living years longer. Why?

    3. Expenditure on breast cancer detection and treatment dwarfs that on prostate cancer detection and treatment.

    4. Male suicides across the western world have long been far higher than female suicides.

    5. Male deaths in the workplace represent 95%+ of all work-related deaths.

    6. Men still don’t have an enforceable right in law to have decent access to their children after divorce.

    7. Women who actively choose to bring up children on their own do so largely with the support of the taxes of the very men they wouldn’t countenance as having as partners. The men are being mugged by the state on their behalf.

    It’s not man’s duty to stop feminist childishness, it can’t be done. You just need to grow up. Normal women are more sick of you lot than men are, because they realise how your misandry has screwed up their lives and their families’ lives.

    Have a good evening.

    1. In answer to your points.
      1. No they don’t. Please read the actual reports before you go around spouting stupid shit.
      2. I’m really surprised you didn’t know why the retirement ages were different: it’s because men tend to marry women a few years younger and they wanted to spare the poor diddums men the shame of spending a few years with their wife as the breadwinner. Please read up on sociology.
      3. That would be because most cases of prostate cancer are essentially harmless. In countries where they DO spend more on screening, men are put through unnecessary treatment which causes unpleasant side effects like impotence and incontinence for cancers which would not have impacted upon their lifespan in the slightest. Please read up on epidemiology.
      4. The incidence of suicide attempts are the same between men and women. Men are more successful at killing themselves. Please read up on epidemiology.
      5. Many male deaths in the workplace are battlefield injuries: women are not allowed on the front lines. Likewise for other dangerous jobs. Please, for the love of God, read up on epidemiology.
      6. Mothers are still perceived as primary caregivers due to–you guessed it!–discrimination. Please read up on sociology.
      7. I can’t even understand what your point is here. I’m assuming it’s two poorly-worded ones: that (a) all single mothers claim benefits and (b) only hideous unpleasant men pay taxes. Wrong on both fronts. FUCKING READ MORE, YOU SELF-PUBLISHING CHODE.

      1. Stavvers, always a joy to hear from you. Please read the following books which between them drive a coach and horses through your arguments, both on this particular topic and others you write about:


        Good evening.

        P.S. Do you ever manage a post without the f-word? Just wondered.

  4. Stavvers, I see from your edit of my last post that it’s a rule violation to reveal the identity of books – most of them written by women – which present arguments on gender-related matters which conflict with your own. Hmm, this isn’t exactly a forum for the exchange of ideas, is it? More a forum for the converted to preach to the converted, with the occasional opportunity to be abusive at non-converts. What exactly is the danger of these books being revealed to your readers? George Orwell would have had a field day with this.

    Good night.

    1. Put simply, books are not good evidence.

      The books you linked were particularly shit.

      There needs to be a version of Godwin’s Law for the increasing probability of the butthurt mentioning Orwell.

  5. Given what a massive wanker Mike Buchanan clearly is, I’m slightly nonplussed as to his prissy reaction to BAD SWEARING on the internet. I’d imagine he hears worse flying his way most days.

    My advice to him would be: Try frowning, pursing your lips tightly and muttering ‘tut-tut’. It always seemed to make my nan feel better.

    “The future of the internet: A crowd of sexist arseholes quoting George Orwell at each other, for ever.”

  6. Hi Kate, nice to hear from you. Stavvers is a heroine, you presumably mean, unless she’s changed her gender. Men don’t claim to be heroines, so why would women claim to be heroes? Just another symptom of chronic childishness, which is also evident in the language used by some contributors to this forum.

    Maybe the cape would be for her role as the superheroine ‘CensorWoman’ who won’t let readers of this forum trouble their pretty little heads by knowing the titles of books on gender politics – mostly written by women, most of them academics – which reach conclusions different to her own.

    Hi Dan, nice to hear from you. If you’re a male ‘Dan’ you’re clearly a male feminist or ‘mangina’, a species much admired by Dick Masterson in ‘Men are Better than Women’ . Oops, does that violate Stavvers’s Rule 47(b)?

    Or are you a female ‘Dan’, possibly Danielle? If so, why the shortened male-sounding version (as we see with Jacqueline > Jack, Samantha > Sam, Josephine > Jo, Stephanie > Stevie etc.) which is a symptom of good old penis envy, according to recent research at the University of Leighton Buzzard. As the proud owner of a good old penis myself, that envy is understandable, it has to be said.

    Have a nice day.

  7. I’m a male, you foul tosspot. ‘Mangina’ indeed. Yeah, that’s right, to disagree with you and think you’re a massive wanker, I must clearly not be a “real” man – whatever the fuck that is. The plain truth is, I just think that you’re a massive wanker, based on your incredibly cunty posts.

    Your neuroses and women-hating is showing, “Mike” (or is it Michelle?). You’ve been reduced to playground sniping and the equivalent of texting “UR gay LOL”. Poor wee you.

    You’re the only pitiful, insecure *excuse* for a man on this thread, “Mike”, as all your over-compensatory bluster (hilariously combined with faux-victim whining) all too tragically displays.

    Have a shit day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.