Seems to me that many women have killed the golden goose. Thus we see so many contemporary men deciding to go their own way and actually are managing just fine. Not so much for women who are alone and can’t understand why they can’t get a husband they believe they were entitled to. It is a very sad state of affairs. The good news is that women are starting to see the failure that is feminism and are adjusting accordingly. A laconic observation that would take volumes to fully articulate. Pax
Very sad it really is. Some men think we can win by staying away from women. But for many men that causes too much pain. And the battle is not between men and women; it’s between those who don’t want war between people because of their biological identity (black or white, man or woman, gay or straight, cis or trans) and those who do.
We must also remember that a significant proportion of these men/women battles involve children - and in the current toxic and dysfunctional state of institutions, "justice", and "law enforcement" the men will be the only ones protecting the children, at their own cost; although the survival of the one may often depend on the survival of the other, but men mostly don't get that choice.
I’m very right and think eg there would be no western civilisation without white men and the M/f division of function that operated until the 1960s but this bleating is pathetic in my view and unbecoming to the notion of maleness you purport to believe in.
Ok simp. I was making an observation and putting out a view…not complaining one iota. That and opinions are like ass holes…everyone has one. I guess your reading comprehension isn’t that strong.
Men are still the only group that are net lifetime tax payers.
As ever, women put men in a double bind. Submit as a husband to incessant shit testing and fits of hysteria. Or pay taxes without representation at the kitchen table.
Yes it is. Their war really is with God, who they resent because He is masculine and the Father.
This is why in both modern times and the ancient world, most of the anti-God cults and 'religions' were cults of the 'Divine Mother' or 'Earth Goddess' or 'Divine Feminine'. Women, and many men, have a strong urge to worship a female divinity. The Hebrew tribes constantly were regressing to the 'divine feminine' just as Solomon did, under the sway of his many (many) 'wives' or concubines.
Christianity has traditionally been “gynocentric” in putting women’s needs above men’s, and even viewing women as more spiritual beings. A woman could complain about her husband, and expect to be able to divorce him for adultery, but not vice-versa (technically yes, but in practice he was expected to blame himself, and “forgive”).
This gynocentrism in life was balanced by “patriarchy” within the church structure, ie. male only priests/pastors. This balance prevented women’s excessive emotionalism from dominating the teachings and practice of the church.
However, in recent decades the churches have also invited women to enter, and then dominate, the clergy and the structure of the church.
The result has been the traditional gynocentrism on steroids, plus women’s emotionalism turning Christianity into another well-funded “social justice” institution.
In this new female religion men, especially white men, and their obvious needs and unjust suffering, are derided and scorned as much as in society at large.
Christianity has been turned into a goddess cult, just like the earlier ones you describe!
As an RCC I can confirm that it’s same here. The teaching of the all male clergy cannot be changed, but the feminists have whinged for fifty years, the clergy have submitted to women’s complaints (as always), and we now have parallel power structures dominated by lay women, who do what women in power (“leadership”) do everywhere.
I'm surprised there has not been a spin-off cult based on Mary.
Just like a fan-favourite character from a movie gets their own TV show (like the Lois spin-off from Superman, She Hulk etc).
A cult based on the 'holy mother' archetype would be a winner with the 'boss babe' set - with some imagined other life of radical female activism after giving birth to the son of God.
I'm surprised there has not been a spin-off cult based on Mary.
Just like a fan-favourite character from a movie gets their own TV show (like the Lois spin-off from Superman, She Hulk etc).
A cult based on the 'holy mother' archetype would be a winner with the 'boss babe' set - with some imagined other life of radical female activism after giving birth to the son of God.
The first sentence shows that the true power is with the women. They are allowed to hit a man without consequence and to be protected against any hits by a man. A sexist privilege sheldom mentioned. Feminism is just the opposite of the truth.
If Democrats win, men will continue to be at best ignored, at worst vilified and discriminated against. How could a white male vote for a party that does this as a matter of policy. You may have answered that question. Thanks
I look forward to reading your next post. I think it would be really helpful to offer "men only" classes in how women compete and fight in the workplace. Then train them on how to counter it. You may have eluded to something similar.
Thanks Mark. Yes, the last post in this series, which is about 2 or 3 posts away will focus on what men can do and offer specific ideas of how to counter this nonsense.
Yes it seems quite an evolved collective strategy to me, nothing at all like nonsense. Deliberate and calculated to achieve its purpose.
I mean, it works, doesn't it? First-class citizenship for them, like some nobility really, and the leavings for us. Government, courts, police, schools, the corporations . . . everybody seems well in on the grift, the automatic grift, like some Great Joke that we're always the butt of. Serfdom amidst 'democracy'.
Mankind on the run, whether in the workplace, the family, or on the street. Functions like some great union, except we pay the dues instead of them. More like a gender mafia, on second thought.
Don’t forget that men, to be attractive, must appear to have fit genes. By looking good or at least strong, or by being wealthy. Even men who inherited their wealth appear to have fit genes because their parents had.
When men are interested in a woman, they must make that clear without embarrassment, but also without appearing too needy. Both embarrassed and needy men are suspected to score low in the dating market and having to blame themselves for it.
Least of all, men must complain about personal troubles. Here is where feminisms success comes in. Even where feminism makes men’s lives hard, men must pretend, often even to themselves, it doesn’t bother them or they can conquer those troubles without any problem.
Even within the MRM many men often prefer to focus on legal issues and be silent on loneliness, dating and mental health; even trying to silence men who rock that boat. The law can be a strong adversary that even a strong man can’t beat. Being unsure about how to approach women and other more psychological problems are lethal for showing your fitness. That’s why there are so many female antifeminists who dare to say a lot more than most men.
Male feminists are the most traditional men of all when they throw other men under the bus to please women.
You nailed it, Tom. That is why men's rights is the most hopeless cause a human can choose to fight for. The black community were hailed as heroes and recognized for their courage even when their advocacy failed. Men who take a stand for men and boys are often mocked and undermined by the very demographic they are fighting for.
I wrote a poem about this very issue a few months ago when our Australian government caved in to the latest feminist hysteria and demonstrable lies about domestic violence being worse than it has ever bene in Australia. They handed over billions of dollars to the rabid haters who marched in our city streets chanting hatred of men and waving posters and flags filled with bigoted lies.
And then the Prime Minister scolded men yet again for being so disrespectful and threatening to our women. We were lectured at football matches. It was Orwellian.
Anyway- here's one of hundreds of poems I write to save my own sanity.
Great picture. The part on divorce could be expanded. For example, a plausible case can be made that, when children are involved, women are the moving party in 100% of divorces. I document this in my book, partly based on the book of the late Robert Seidenberg, whom I think you knew, Tom.
This is why I'm more than happy to speak up against prejudice and injustice against males! I have the privilege to do so as a female. I don't understand how people constantly say "speak against injustice and use your priviledged position" but that only applies to their agenda and bias. Demonizing an entire group of humans is always wrong, and that includes males.
A thoughtful, comprehensive post, Tom. Every time I thought I might be seeing some kind of upside to the situations you describe, you offered another complication. The comments are instructive and useful in pointing to ways in which men are caught in double-binds. Looks like men are damned, or at least culpable, no matter what we do. Given that, perhaps a man has to decide to act for himself, in his own interests, and weigh the consequences and risks of doing so against the security of deeply-held convictions.
Something that most women simply refuse to acknowledge is women can safely abuse men, physically, because the vast majority of men will not defend themselves. They may retreat, or just take it, but they will not hit back. Perversely, rather than see these abused men as above the fray, they see them as feckless passes who deserve scorn and abuse.
This is an important and powerful piece. It affirms much of what I have observed in my 55 years of life. What is interesting, however, is how it actually is an argument for Sharia law seen in Islam. The tenets of Sharia law can be summarized as follows:
1. The character of women is inherently suspect and harmful to men such that the following precautions are required.
A. It is the woman's job to preserve her honor, not the man's. If she sleeps around or is even accused of such conduct, there are lethally bad consequences.
B. The word of a woman is worth half that of a man...thus an accusation of a crime by a lone woman goes nowhere unless she has another's testimony on her behalf.
C. Woman are obliged to prevent temptation of men via their looks by remaining modestly clothed outside the home with a hijab to prevent exposure of their figure and most of their skin.
2. Women are not allowed to work outside the home preserving the man as provider.
3. A man can discipline his wife, like a child, with a "spanking" so long as the switch used to do so is no thicker than his finger.
4. A man can divorce a woman at any time simply by declaring, "I divorce thee!" 3 times in the presence of a male witness.
5. A man can take on up to 4 wives and as many concubines as he likes provided each wife is given equal housing/resources support.
6. Children are the property of the husband in the event of a split in the marriage.
7. Women's education is limited to the elementary grades.
All of these rules/policies seem harsh and harmful to the "rights" of women. Yet...each is clearly designed to address the harmful manipulative conduct that feminist women exploit against men. it makes sense that a desert society where social cohesion is important and excess resources are limited would need to deal with women's harmful conduct by preserving harmony in the home. Sharia law does this by accurately assessing the worst traits of women, those celebrated and weaponized by feminists, and seeks to neutralize them. It does give men too much power and ability to abuse THEIR situation to some degree...but clearly Sharia law was designed to reign in the misconduct to which women seem prone. Thoughts?
Very interesting. Makes me wonder how they deal with relational aggression? One example was "The word of a woman is worth half that of a man" which would cut down of false accusations. Contrast this with the hard push for "believe the woman" so popular in feminist circles....
Agreed. It seems they have chosen to deal with relational aggression by completely neutering women's ability to engage in it....but have left the ability of men to do so in place. This is not an idea situation...but....the feminist abuses in Western society are sufficient that it is time to consider mechanisms to address the problem even if women object. Contrary to what gynocentrism preaches...the universe is not designed to benefit exclusively women and other people ALSO have rights that must be respected. Heresy I realize. Still...the Sharia law comparison is instructive and should serve as a warning to feminists that there is a price to be paid for failing to deal with women's deficiencies in personality and conduct just as there are for men.
Goodness, living in Europe and when I first glanced at the picture.. I thought the man on the left wearing the blue suite was Emmanuelle Macron from France. 🤦♂️ 😂
Seems to me that many women have killed the golden goose. Thus we see so many contemporary men deciding to go their own way and actually are managing just fine. Not so much for women who are alone and can’t understand why they can’t get a husband they believe they were entitled to. It is a very sad state of affairs. The good news is that women are starting to see the failure that is feminism and are adjusting accordingly. A laconic observation that would take volumes to fully articulate. Pax
Killed the Golden Goose indeed! Well said.
Very sad it really is. Some men think we can win by staying away from women. But for many men that causes too much pain. And the battle is not between men and women; it’s between those who don’t want war between people because of their biological identity (black or white, man or woman, gay or straight, cis or trans) and those who do.
You make a wonderful point, Eisso.
I always wonder who has the most to gain from racial and gender division as well as the isolation it produces.
How can we focus our energy on those forces instead of continuing to make each other the enemy?
We must also remember that a significant proportion of these men/women battles involve children - and in the current toxic and dysfunctional state of institutions, "justice", and "law enforcement" the men will be the only ones protecting the children, at their own cost; although the survival of the one may often depend on the survival of the other, but men mostly don't get that choice.
Women need to feel pain so they'll do something about it.
I'm all in favour of our society failing and leaving us back on the Stone Age with Stone Age rights.
Women might care enough about white guys when they see hurting white guys is hurting themselves.
It ain’t the Golden Goose, no such thing, it’s the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Splitting hairs...but thanks for the input
Well said Roger. As the saying goes, too little too late.
I’m very right and think eg there would be no western civilisation without white men and the M/f division of function that operated until the 1960s but this bleating is pathetic in my view and unbecoming to the notion of maleness you purport to believe in.
Ok simp. I was making an observation and putting out a view…not complaining one iota. That and opinions are like ass holes…everyone has one. I guess your reading comprehension isn’t that strong.
Bullshit
They're still slaughtering the golden geese.
Men are still the only group that are net lifetime tax payers.
As ever, women put men in a double bind. Submit as a husband to incessant shit testing and fits of hysteria. Or pay taxes without representation at the kitchen table.
Hating and controlling men is an extension of rebellion against the authority of God himself .
Indeed!
Yes it is. Their war really is with God, who they resent because He is masculine and the Father.
This is why in both modern times and the ancient world, most of the anti-God cults and 'religions' were cults of the 'Divine Mother' or 'Earth Goddess' or 'Divine Feminine'. Women, and many men, have a strong urge to worship a female divinity. The Hebrew tribes constantly were regressing to the 'divine feminine' just as Solomon did, under the sway of his many (many) 'wives' or concubines.
Christianity has traditionally been “gynocentric” in putting women’s needs above men’s, and even viewing women as more spiritual beings. A woman could complain about her husband, and expect to be able to divorce him for adultery, but not vice-versa (technically yes, but in practice he was expected to blame himself, and “forgive”).
This gynocentrism in life was balanced by “patriarchy” within the church structure, ie. male only priests/pastors. This balance prevented women’s excessive emotionalism from dominating the teachings and practice of the church.
However, in recent decades the churches have also invited women to enter, and then dominate, the clergy and the structure of the church.
The result has been the traditional gynocentrism on steroids, plus women’s emotionalism turning Christianity into another well-funded “social justice” institution.
In this new female religion men, especially white men, and their obvious needs and unjust suffering, are derided and scorned as much as in society at large.
Christianity has been turned into a goddess cult, just like the earlier ones you describe!
As an RCC I can confirm that it’s same here. The teaching of the all male clergy cannot be changed, but the feminists have whinged for fifty years, the clergy have submitted to women’s complaints (as always), and we now have parallel power structures dominated by lay women, who do what women in power (“leadership”) do everywhere.
I'm surprised there has not been a spin-off cult based on Mary.
Just like a fan-favourite character from a movie gets their own TV show (like the Lois spin-off from Superman, She Hulk etc).
A cult based on the 'holy mother' archetype would be a winner with the 'boss babe' set - with some imagined other life of radical female activism after giving birth to the son of God.
Even Mary could 'have it all'!
I'm surprised there has not been a spin-off cult based on Mary.
Just like a fan-favourite character from a movie gets their own TV show (like the Lois spin-off from Superman, She Hulk etc).
A cult based on the 'holy mother' archetype would be a winner with the 'boss babe' set - with some imagined other life of radical female activism after giving birth to the son of God.
Even Mary could 'have it all'!
Blocked for god bothering.
I found it interesting reading about women that hit men, first, and then the Shame, etc., etc., that follows if a man hits back!
I know about this 'rule' but what ever happened to, "defending oneself'?
The right to defend oneself!
But I hear in my head the voice of Gynocentrism: but why didn't the man walk away then?
Which now a days I can think: why didn't she walk away instead of hitting him then?
I'd never thought about this being such a double standard.. consciously.. anyway...
The first sentence shows that the true power is with the women. They are allowed to hit a man without consequence and to be protected against any hits by a man. A sexist privilege sheldom mentioned. Feminism is just the opposite of the truth.
What about Muslims who stone women?
If Democrats win, men will continue to be at best ignored, at worst vilified and discriminated against. How could a white male vote for a party that does this as a matter of policy. You may have answered that question. Thanks
I look forward to reading your next post. I think it would be really helpful to offer "men only" classes in how women compete and fight in the workplace. Then train them on how to counter it. You may have eluded to something similar.
Thanks Mark. Yes, the last post in this series, which is about 2 or 3 posts away will focus on what men can do and offer specific ideas of how to counter this nonsense.
What appears as nonsense to men (me) appears as obvious to women. There seems to be opposing realities at work here.
Yes it seems quite an evolved collective strategy to me, nothing at all like nonsense. Deliberate and calculated to achieve its purpose.
I mean, it works, doesn't it? First-class citizenship for them, like some nobility really, and the leavings for us. Government, courts, police, schools, the corporations . . . everybody seems well in on the grift, the automatic grift, like some Great Joke that we're always the butt of. Serfdom amidst 'democracy'.
Mankind on the run, whether in the workplace, the family, or on the street. Functions like some great union, except we pay the dues instead of them. More like a gender mafia, on second thought.
Mike Buchanan on women's effect on organisational performance. https://youtu.be/rMujCcG0iRY?si=c7DSMPQEItjMpuiS
Don’t forget that men, to be attractive, must appear to have fit genes. By looking good or at least strong, or by being wealthy. Even men who inherited their wealth appear to have fit genes because their parents had.
When men are interested in a woman, they must make that clear without embarrassment, but also without appearing too needy. Both embarrassed and needy men are suspected to score low in the dating market and having to blame themselves for it.
Least of all, men must complain about personal troubles. Here is where feminisms success comes in. Even where feminism makes men’s lives hard, men must pretend, often even to themselves, it doesn’t bother them or they can conquer those troubles without any problem.
Even within the MRM many men often prefer to focus on legal issues and be silent on loneliness, dating and mental health; even trying to silence men who rock that boat. The law can be a strong adversary that even a strong man can’t beat. Being unsure about how to approach women and other more psychological problems are lethal for showing your fitness. That’s why there are so many female antifeminists who dare to say a lot more than most men.
Male feminists are the most traditional men of all when they throw other men under the bus to please women.
You nailed it, Tom. That is why men's rights is the most hopeless cause a human can choose to fight for. The black community were hailed as heroes and recognized for their courage even when their advocacy failed. Men who take a stand for men and boys are often mocked and undermined by the very demographic they are fighting for.
I wrote a poem about this very issue a few months ago when our Australian government caved in to the latest feminist hysteria and demonstrable lies about domestic violence being worse than it has ever bene in Australia. They handed over billions of dollars to the rabid haters who marched in our city streets chanting hatred of men and waving posters and flags filled with bigoted lies.
And then the Prime Minister scolded men yet again for being so disrespectful and threatening to our women. We were lectured at football matches. It was Orwellian.
Anyway- here's one of hundreds of poems I write to save my own sanity.
The Trap
Go on
Do it
Call out their lies
Expose their fraudulent actions
The crocodile tears
Feigned distress
The blatant bigotry
Ridiculous hyperbole
And abuse of the
Almost reflexive male
Response to women in tears
Demanding they do something
To ease their agony
Do it
I dare you
And just you see
What happens
This latest tsunami of accusatory
Language
And lust for victimhood
Is a model of behaviour
Acted out in homes
Across the country
Every day and night
I’m upset
I’m offended
I’m in need
Do something now!
Make me feel better
Perhaps some cash
Would do the job
A little retail therapy
Would take my mind off the pain
And possibly cause me to
Think about forgiving you
At some stage
Our sex life might even resume
Should you prove your love for me
Give me stuff
Lots of stuff
And
I’ll be happy
For a while
And the men always fold
Buy the flowers
The shiny diamond rings
Apologise for things they never did
Or meant
Or said
Just to bring peace
And stop the nagging
And the threats
And the tantrums and tears
This is all we are seeing today
Played out on a national stage
Simply on a larger scale
The mostly male governments
Always fold
Just like most husbands and boyfriends
And give them
Lots of stuff
Lots and lots
Just to silence them temporarily
To sate their insatiable appetites
Shut down their ceaseless babbling
But back to the dare
Call them out
And just you see what happens
Before your first sentence
Of opposition to their stated claims
Is spoken
They will hear your tone
See your body language
And with the speed of a striking cobra
Know
They must shut you down
Denigrate
Humiliate
Belittle
Besmirch
Your character
Your motives
Your integrity
No matter how conciliatory
Softly spoken or reasonable
Your words
If you oppose the narrative
You will lose your job
If a media figure
And even if not
You will be smeared and branded
Cancelled and flung
Into the dark pit of obscurity
And irrelevance
For daring to question the narrative
Let alone
Expose it for the deceptive
Hateful lie it is
Every waking moment
Following your cancellation
Will be akin
To the shunning lepers experienced
In a different place and time
So, listen to their demonstrable deception
Swallow the rising bile
Smile nod
And move on with your day
Like all compliant members
Of the underclass
Have done throughout human history
Or scribble your rage on paper
Or a computer
Like Winston Smith
Just a tiny rebellion in your
Own bedroom
Or dining room
But never share it
Or discuss it
This is life in Melbourne
Australia in 2024
Don’t be fooled by the shining sun
Or enviable lifestyle
It comes at a cost
Don’t ever push back
Accept the lie
Believe the lie
Support the lie
And you will be just fine
And you will be called a good man
A friend to women
A denouncer of his own unfortunate
Chromosomes
He acknowledges the original sin
Of being born a male
6/5/24
Love the poem. It says it clearly and powerfully.
That's ok I like 'hopeless causes'. Been doing this one a long time.
It's a challenge for sure. Opposing feminism and gynocentrism is like opposing the entire world. That's a worthy fight in my book. They will lose.
Amen
Mark, like you, I despair about what the future holds.
It's difficult I admit, but try not to despair. That's what the enemy wants. Don't give them that satisfaction.
They hate seeing us content and strong.
Great picture. The part on divorce could be expanded. For example, a plausible case can be made that, when children are involved, women are the moving party in 100% of divorces. I document this in my book, partly based on the book of the late Robert Seidenberg, whom I think you knew, Tom.
This is why I'm more than happy to speak up against prejudice and injustice against males! I have the privilege to do so as a female. I don't understand how people constantly say "speak against injustice and use your priviledged position" but that only applies to their agenda and bias. Demonizing an entire group of humans is always wrong, and that includes males.
A thoughtful, comprehensive post, Tom. Every time I thought I might be seeing some kind of upside to the situations you describe, you offered another complication. The comments are instructive and useful in pointing to ways in which men are caught in double-binds. Looks like men are damned, or at least culpable, no matter what we do. Given that, perhaps a man has to decide to act for himself, in his own interests, and weigh the consequences and risks of doing so against the security of deeply-held convictions.
Yes, it ain't easy being a man! And feminists have noted and used that. grrrrr
Something that most women simply refuse to acknowledge is women can safely abuse men, physically, because the vast majority of men will not defend themselves. They may retreat, or just take it, but they will not hit back. Perversely, rather than see these abused men as above the fray, they see them as feckless passes who deserve scorn and abuse.
So true Derpetology101. Is your audio ok?
It's weird. I can listen to your older videos. But not the newer ones. I'm getting a new phone tomorrow and maybe that will help, somehow
This article is fantastic. I posted it on the front page of Menandboys.net. Thank you for your great writing.
Thank you Sir!
Thank you for your efforts.
Great photograph, by the way. Says it all.
It's courtesy of AI......smile....
This is an important and powerful piece. It affirms much of what I have observed in my 55 years of life. What is interesting, however, is how it actually is an argument for Sharia law seen in Islam. The tenets of Sharia law can be summarized as follows:
1. The character of women is inherently suspect and harmful to men such that the following precautions are required.
A. It is the woman's job to preserve her honor, not the man's. If she sleeps around or is even accused of such conduct, there are lethally bad consequences.
B. The word of a woman is worth half that of a man...thus an accusation of a crime by a lone woman goes nowhere unless she has another's testimony on her behalf.
C. Woman are obliged to prevent temptation of men via their looks by remaining modestly clothed outside the home with a hijab to prevent exposure of their figure and most of their skin.
2. Women are not allowed to work outside the home preserving the man as provider.
3. A man can discipline his wife, like a child, with a "spanking" so long as the switch used to do so is no thicker than his finger.
4. A man can divorce a woman at any time simply by declaring, "I divorce thee!" 3 times in the presence of a male witness.
5. A man can take on up to 4 wives and as many concubines as he likes provided each wife is given equal housing/resources support.
6. Children are the property of the husband in the event of a split in the marriage.
7. Women's education is limited to the elementary grades.
All of these rules/policies seem harsh and harmful to the "rights" of women. Yet...each is clearly designed to address the harmful manipulative conduct that feminist women exploit against men. it makes sense that a desert society where social cohesion is important and excess resources are limited would need to deal with women's harmful conduct by preserving harmony in the home. Sharia law does this by accurately assessing the worst traits of women, those celebrated and weaponized by feminists, and seeks to neutralize them. It does give men too much power and ability to abuse THEIR situation to some degree...but clearly Sharia law was designed to reign in the misconduct to which women seem prone. Thoughts?
Very interesting. Makes me wonder how they deal with relational aggression? One example was "The word of a woman is worth half that of a man" which would cut down of false accusations. Contrast this with the hard push for "believe the woman" so popular in feminist circles....
Agreed. It seems they have chosen to deal with relational aggression by completely neutering women's ability to engage in it....but have left the ability of men to do so in place. This is not an idea situation...but....the feminist abuses in Western society are sufficient that it is time to consider mechanisms to address the problem even if women object. Contrary to what gynocentrism preaches...the universe is not designed to benefit exclusively women and other people ALSO have rights that must be respected. Heresy I realize. Still...the Sharia law comparison is instructive and should serve as a warning to feminists that there is a price to be paid for failing to deal with women's deficiencies in personality and conduct just as there are for men.
Quick question... I thought there were more female university graduates in Saudi Arabia than male... given point 7 in your list, is this not true?
I am a follower of Christ, but Islam is very realistic concerning female nature and behavior.
Goodness, living in Europe and when I first glanced at the picture.. I thought the man on the left wearing the blue suite was Emmanuelle Macron from France. 🤦♂️ 😂
LOL!
LOL do you mean that dood that married somebody's grandmother?
🤷♂️🤷♂️
Because if a man stands his ground….
He is immediately: “ toxic…. mysoginistic ….. insecure …
immature ….. and ANY number of derogatory terms ..”
which he has mo defence against….
Better to shutup and have another beer…..
Yes indeed.
I started by my mid 20s, decades ago simply telling my wife "Nope, it aint gonna be like that.'