Latest in the McCartney Divorce

Why in the hell didn't he make her sign a well drawn up prenuptial agreement? He could have also put his assets in a trust. He is (I think) 64 years old and should have known better than fall for that chivalrous romantic crap especially when she is many years younger than he. And of course she has the golden trump card of having custody of the 2 year old brat allegedly Pauls. He should demand a paternity test.

As the old saying goes there is no fool like an old fool and that is obviously Paul at 64.

hello

i doubt mick jagger would have ever allowed this to happen. do i blame the beatles legend?
i do!..if i had a billion dollars (this might come as a shock, but i don't) i would have engraved a prenubtial agreement on the very ass sir paul found so attractive. this woman should befriend anna nicole smith.

this woman embodies the term "gold digger", something wothy of websters dictionary

anthony

Not only should he have got a prenuptial agreement, he should never have married her. With his reputation and fortune, she would probably have stayed with him anyway.

It's not a stretch to understand why Sir Paul would not have soiled his romantic delusions about his one-legged lass by requiring her to sign a pre-nup.

Most of his songs are goofy slobbering confessions of being gob-smacked by some chick. (With a good bass line...)

Now John Lennon, on the other hand, really knew how to pick a good non-predatory wife. Then he married Yoko. And poor George lost his cupcake to Eric Clapton fer crikey's sake. Is Ringo still married to his high school girlfriend?

Sir Paul's a super-rich Chivalrist about to understand the tragic cost of his idealism.

Ms. Mills will probably try to go after future royalities from all songs Paul wrote while she was married to him. ("He was inspired by me..." etc.)

I read recently that the U.K. passed a major divorce reform law that allows a woman to receive not just a large portion of her ex's current assets; but also a nice percentage of his FUTURE earnings!

Being raped in divorce court will soon be termed -- "He was McCartneyed!"

Being raped in divorce court will soon be termed -- "He was McCartneyed!"

I have to agree that Sir Paul is going to get a royal screwing over in divorce court. And I do believe he is a victim of an outmoded and unrealistic view of romanticism and chivalry.

I wonder if he will now support Fathers4Justice rather than his soon to be ex's kooky land mine crusade? He probably won't get any credit for supporting that junk cause. Heard he donated million$!
I just bet he wouldn't have given F4J the time of day before. That is unfortunately typical of men. They always lock the barn door AFTER the horse escapes.

Bert Guy

It really doesn’t take a big manly man to call other men pussies over the Internet.

Exactly who’s Asses are you kicking and what is your ultimate plan? Hating women? Well have fun dying like Dorkin all fat and bitter and lonely. Don’t get me wrong I “hate” a lot of feminists, but it would seem from your presence on this site all you do is bitch about how unmanly other men are for not being angry women haters like you, what the fuck is that going to do? Nothing that’s what.

Well said hujo, but the problem is he (or she) is simply a troll who likes to screw up the comments pages here, so reasoning won't help that much..

RM--You see, that is why I ended up here. I do appreciate your post, thank you, as well as the warning of your rants. I won't take any rantings that go on personally. From my research and recent change of mindset (albeit in a stage of infancy at this time) you and all men have every right to rant. It was not something I ever gave any thought to, because A) I am female, and B) I grew up watching my mom rant about how tough "those men" made it for her in the workplace. No doubt she had some difficulty, but it clouded my perception even then. I read some of what the radical feminists have written for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and I was appalled. I look at the men around me (the ones I love, the ones I work closely with) and it angered me. I do not believe "all men are rapists", or any of the other brainwash bullshit these "women" proclaim. It is dastardly what these people are doing to their own gender as well as men. I myself began to question my own pursuits. Can I really be an engineer and a mom? OMG, I don't want to BE a man, just becuase I want to work in a field dominated by them!! What is this shit? It is utter lunacy and I do not want to be associated with those "women" and their rhetoric. It is hate that destroys us, and the feminists have destroyed our society by hating men (yet proclaiming they are no different from men).

I am ashamed that I have gone this long without noticing. I guess that makes me just as bad as the ones who do it consciously, but as I said, I am in the process of a mindset change because I do not want to be associated with people who hate. I have always gotten along with men very well--which is good, since I am the only woman in my department at work, and in my house! I owe it to my boys and my husband (who, incidentally, thinks I am taking this way too seriously) to see what's really going on and change my attitude. So I continue the journey...thanks in advance for not flaming me...

So what's the deal here, NotAFeminazi? Bert's suggested that you're trolling, and you've said you are. WTF?

“please don't be intiminated by anyone here.
(i'm not suggesting you are)”

No worries—one thing I have learned from my male coworkers in the corporate environment is to have a thick skin. ;) One thing that drew me to this site was that most folks here do not appear to be women haters.

“as mentioned, women and feminists are not the same. i think i speak for most here, feminism is the problem, not women.”

Only very recently have I made that discovery myself. My mother used to say that women are worse enemies to other women than men are, and I have been thinking about that statement quite a bit lately.

“I would be very interseted regarding your insight on feminism and how it has changed from legitamate womans rights, to male bashing, a hate group, and a collection of wanna-be supremists. women that perpetuate false statistics and facts to support their own ignorant and political idealogy.”

Thanks, I appreciate that. I would be happy to oblige as much as I can. Recently I have found out how little I really know about it. I never really fancied myself a feminist, but my mindset of them growing up was that of the legitimate womens rights advocates you mention. For that, I admired them. But getting into the 90s I first noticed it going too far. I really did not want to be a part of that because I had many male friends and had not experienced any real discrimination. I also knew I’d be entering a male dominated field in the workplace and figured if I didn’t make an issue, there wouldn’t be an issue (and there never was an issue).

I look at the feminist movement now as completely off the wall and with no logic whatsoever. I find it abhorrent that these people think my dad, my husband, and all other men I held dear were evil incarnate. These women are so full of hate and disdain, yet they want to be just like a man. WTF??? It is just SICK.
One of my favorite anti-feminist articles I have found so far is here:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/pizzey/how_women_were_taught_to_hate_men.htm
So far I like Erin Pizzey (the author) and would like to read more of her stuff.

“check out wendy mcelroys theory on individual feminism..(ifeminism.com)”

Thanks for the recommendation. Individual feminism, I am not familiar with that.
I will do so.

“why are men afraid of that term? i have no idea. maybe its political correctness...something i dont adhere to. “

It may be PC…I think it is because things are so screwed up now people are afraid to say anything because it might get them sued…or worse.

Thanks again...I look forward to gaining more insight.

"O, BTW, I see a new feminazi has joined the "men's movement", I bet you wimps are jerking off already. You know what's funny? On my site there was also a feminazi cunt called ChristinaAF, on Bates' "Misogyny Central" board she was known as "the AF" (the Anti Feminist, holy crap). Look at the name of this stupid cow, NotAFeminazi. "

Damn, you've found me out, and my conspiracy to infiltrate your little universe!! Now what am I going to do???

There's plenty of decaffienated brands on the market, sir. I suggest you have a cup. Cheers!

RM, and all, I was being sarcastic. I am sorry for the uproar. I scanned through and saw Bert's post and it made me laugh that he actually thinks I am someone else attempting to throw a monkey wrench into things. That will teach me to ignore, I guess.

I meant everything in my previous posts OUTSIDE of my response to Bert. This has been an epiphonal change for me which has occurred in the last 3-4 weeks. My apologies for any misunderstandings, I could not help my sarcasm. Seriously, I have only just discovered this, and a couple of other sites through research conducted very recently. This is the only one I have posted on--and I started only a day or so ago.

i think i wrote feminism....it's ifeminist.com

anthony

I didn't get the impression from your comments that you were trolling, and I suspected you were pulling Bert's leg. You'll notice that I asked for links to substantiate what he said. I'm curious to see what was posted on his site that set him off.

I'm sure you can understand why we're a suspicious bunch, given that we live in a society where men regularly suffer and even do hard time for things that women can do without worrying. When a man hates a woman, he's a "misogynist" and a "pig". When a woman hates a man, she's "liberated" and "empowered". That's what makes it difficult to accept the idea of a woman rejecting that sort of privilege.

Infiltrators are common on sites for any cause, and all posts from all contributors should be taken with a grain of salt.

as mentioned, women and feminists are not the same. i think i speak for most here, feminism is the problem, not women.

Never were more truer words written! Even Marc Lepine differentiated between women as a group and women who were feminists. He did not like feminists. Feminists were his problem not women.

Gotcha. I will take a gander.

I understand. I realize how I boo-booed afterwards. Damn forums, there's so much that gets lost in translation. Grain of salt indeed.

"I owe it to my boys and my husband (who, incidentally, thinks I am taking this way too seriously) to see what's really going on and change my attitude."

You can exile all of those serious males just by dialing 911, and stating four words---

"I'm afraid of them."

Poof!

You get the house, a restraining order, full custody, and no more trivial husband non-understanding problems.

But you already knew that, right?

Non-feminist wife?

hello

i thought the topic of this article was paul? oh well, i like the Rolling Stones more anyway...lol

Exile On Main Sreet destroys any beattle album. even though The White Album is decent.

47 posts!!!!....maybe a new record. Sir Paul would be proud. I heard a rumor when he throws a party he charges guests for drinks...i'm not kidding!!!

by the way, why hasn't Mick Jagger earned the title of "Sir"???...can someone give me the e-mail address for the queen of england?

anthony

I am going to assume that was meant to illustrate your point about why you don't trust women--point taken.

I am not going to waste too much time with this one because I don't need to defend myself or my marriage on a forum; I don't care if you believe it or not--but WHY would I do that? Because I CAN? Pure idiocy. Think whatever you want. You will never know me so it is of no consequence to me.

...about Paul...I think.

Have you ever listened to "Stripped"? It is a live acoustic recording of the Stones in concert. Great CD.

That's the thing about our society today: every woman who is in a relationship with a man has a loaded, cocked pistol pointed at his head in the form of the various misandric DV and family court mechanisms out there. It doesn't matter in the slightest that she will probably never use it. I live under the constant threat of "shout at your spouse, lose your house" laws, and assured destruction in the ubiquitously named "family courts" and "domestic violence courts" if I make one false step, or maybe for no valid reason at all. I can lose my job, my reputation and everything I've saved if a hypersensitive woman complains about her feelings. Pre-nups are useless because women have the legal responsibilities of a child in "family courts": even when they seek independent legal advice about a pre-nup before signing, courts frequently ignore them as "unfair" to the woman, so McCartney couldn't have done a damn thing to protect himself from this leech.

That's why I don't have children. That's why I will never live with a woman in a house I own. It dictates everything a man can do in his relationships with women, and thanks to the prevailing force majeure in our laws, "trust" is not an option. Even having apparently consensual sex with a woman attracts massive criminal and civil liability. How inclined would women be to have sex if they ran a substantial chance of being imprisoned or losing everything they owned (including their reputations) for doing so?

The fact that women are actually slightly more likely to be violent in relationships is irrelevant. The fact that women have all of the choices when it comes to reproduction is irrelevant. That fact that the woman/women claim(s) they would never pull the trigger is irrelevant. If I had a loaded gun pointed at your head 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, would you trust me not to use it? Of course not, that's why we have laws prohibiting such conduct. Unless the person holding the gun is a woman, of course.

Men are acting in self-defense when they refuse to trust women, and that lack of trust rapidly becomes an automatic and perfectly reasonable response to all women, thanks to our laws. Unfortunately, women refuse to see the logic of this in most cases, or refuse to believe that it's "that bad", and simply dismiss us as paranoid or misogynistic, when we are neither. I've written at length about the things a man can do to protect himself and unload a few chambers of the gun pointed at his head. Vasectomy, financial reserves or credit which the women in his life can't touch or don't know about so he has something to live on when an ex parte man-bash is held and he is evicted from his life on a woman's say-so, pre-nups, never owning a "matrimonial home", never marrying, etc. These are all half-measures, though, in a society which regularly ships men off to debtor's prisons, treats men as sperm donors and ATMs and falsely imprisons them on the word of neurotic or vengeful false accusers. When that situation is corrected, men will start to trust women again. As I said: until then, trusting women is not a viable option.

I hope you understand why it's difficult for men to trust you, NotAFeminazi, and see that it's a perfectly natural and reasonable response under the circumstances. I hope you'll still participate here, but I thought it only fair to warn you that thanks to the ravages of radical feminism, there will be some lingering suspicion about what you say. It's not personal, it's a necessary self-defence mechanism. I, for one, will do my level best to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with your observation that it's "idiocy."

But you intentionally dismissed my point about the POWER you have to destroy your husband's and your son's lives.

"WHY" would you do that?

Now, please, provide an inventory of every female friend, colleague, boss, or relative...

who somehow screwed you.

Be conservative... else the server will crash.

Just name the perps ... "the little-more-than-equal" predators.

Start with 1st Grade School and transcribe every female who did you harm.

Then, list the men who have harmed you.

(BTW, in principle, we do not disagree.)

This elusive point is just that women know who their true enemies are.

They seldom reveal that secret.

RM-

As usual, excellent points.

Some may see your opinions as unusally cruel.

I view them as strategically logical.

Logic being the issue ---

What possible "benefit" do you anticipate from accepting the iFeminist protestations of yet another "I'm-not-like-those-feminists" Trojan Horse?

Her writings could be just bait for what comes next....

Paranoid musings?

That defines the REALITY for men in these gender-war times.

1) I still can't tell if 'Bert' is just a nut, or maybe it is a troll who assumed the name of someone who used to post on this board.
2)NotAFeminazi sounds okay. She is obviously intelligent...unfortunately there are few people with such good insight, which is a necessary ingredient for someone to change for the better. In other words, the women who are dumbos will not see a need to change; and the men who are dumbos cannot even see that they are victims of the feminist idealogy.
3)I myself am suspicious of most women, even if they're not feminists. That is why I am not married or have a girl friend for the last few years.
4)I'm glad I have a low testosterone level, this helps keep me out of trouble!
5) I think McCartney is sophisticated enough to have hidden a lot of his money, in foreign accounts or whatever.

And most important:
6)Sorry, but Wings was by far better than the Beatles (or Stones).

-Axolotl

I have that CD, "Stripped."

But the sweet one is a bootleg from KTS, titled "More Stripped", from an Italian company specializing in master board rips.

20 live tracks, 77 minutes of small club soundboard direct recordings.

KTS was prosecuted and put out of business by federal mafia.

Of course, you can still find their product.