The lulz of all time, today as each day

Sunday, 28 June, Year 12 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

From my high tower of altitude & grandiose welfarei the common affairs of everyday pantsuit appear, other than distant, regularily amusing. Allow me to share this morning's installment.

As it happens, within the space of half an hour I read two different tales. But very different, okay ? We could almost say identically opposite, to wit :

The first tale was of a small registered company, which was sold by the owner. A few months later the owner's wife sued : she went to a court and claimed to have not known about the sale, and not be happy with the effects. The court found : a) that the wife and husband own a company jointly even if that company is registered in the husband's name ; b) that unjust enrichment is not a concern, because the wife is deemed to have contributed an equal value to whatever the husband actually did contribute (as a factual matter, established by the sale value) and the wife's constructive contribution is to be presumed indifferently of whether she had an income at all, or merely kept house -- in fact, she's not even required to keep house, "educating the children" is sufficient, and amusingly enough also presumed, their physical presence in whatever shape being sufficient proof in and of itselfii. So the first instance court threw out the contract, the other parties to this insanity appealed, and the appeal court... threw out the appeal. Don't buy anything from married men is, apparently, the new law in pantsuitlands.

The second tale was of a small unregistered company, which was destructured by the state.iii It consisted of a couple that contributed the work of business administration (placing adverts in newspapers and generally managing the customer flow, renting and furnishing apartments and generally managing the capital goods, along with assorted other such usual "taking care of business" activities) and a bunch of practically worthless girlies fuckingiv for pay. In this case, and in spite of the quite obvious and palpable contribution of the manv there's no recognition of contribution (let alone any constructive presumptions) forthcoming from pantsuit courts. In fact, the case against the misfortunate pair of business owners is, hold on to your butts, having benefitted from the work of the girlies.

So, to sum up pantsuit legal arrangements : males must work ; females may not work (they will be given freely and just-for-existingvi pantsuit spreading jobs instead). Males must share their income with whatever female can be found ; females can not share their income with malesvii. Gender is of course a construct -- so if you're being a good pantsuit, you may count as a woman (for as long as they don't change their mind, of course -- and no, I very much don't mean they, the women in question) whereas if you're not being a good pantsuit -- well, that's illegal, ain't it now.

Pretty lulzy, especially when one thinks about all the many ways in which you fuckwads actually attempt to live like that, and "make it work" and tell yourselves stories to go to sleep, and carefully not notice your entire world collapsed just like that spire ever since you've moved away from the more traditional women are property and men own all things worldview.

But... whatever, I laugh, then I move on, who cares two wits about you sad lot when not even yourselves do.

  1. What, you thought "welfare" is the living wage ? That's socialist plebfare, let's not appropriate words inappropriately. []
  2. Seriously, go ask the court to look into exactly how much work the claimaint can prove to have put into their supposed "contribution", and what value was it. They'll review anything else in whatever detail, but those "standards" don't uniformly apply, like all the other "standards". Pantsuitism, in a word. []
  3. Notice how all small companies end, there's no such thing in socialism as a small company that took over the state, yes ? []
  4. I have no doubt very badly -- but hey, like with the education (and most other pantsuit things) the quality of their work is presumed. Why the fuck would anyone imagine most women fuck so well it's worth paying for is anyone's guess. []
  5. The man in this case was a couple, but this is the problem with magical "rights" constructed by pantsuit courts : they come with an on/off button, you're only a "wife" as the pantsuit protected class if they say so, not otherwise. And they say so if and when it suits them and then only, duh. []
  6. And don't fucking dare tell me "those girls worked to get there" -- when they do the sort of dumb shit they'd be doing anyway it ain't called work and it's not earning pay. []
  7. And if they do -- the males in question go to jail. The females involved are "presumed to not have been capable to have agreed", like with drunk fucking and everything else that "happens" (in the sense of being retconned whenever the pantsuit overmind dun like the situation in the field). []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

4 Responses

  1. Men can't own things. It's not that they're not being allowed to, is that they simply can not, so when you attempted to "let them" all they wanted to do all day was whine bitch and moan about how it's not really like being a woman in pantsuit.

    Owning shit is hard, mang.

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 28 June 2020

    Butt of course.

  1. [...] confiscate (mostly Catholic) church lands. [↩]Period term for socialists. [↩]Their! [↩]Apparently parking spaces were also always as much trouble, who knew. [↩]Why's he [...]

  2. [...] manhood now fashionable : not only is it a matter of, braindead good, active bad at rest as in general. It's also a matter of "tell the court, Mr. Doctor, what have you done to prevent outcome X". And [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.