In my recent post questioning the origins of what seems to be a sudden awareness of men’s issues, I wrote that the transition appears to have begun about two years ago. In asking what trends might have converged to spark an awakening of sorts and the emergence of a new generation of writers and activists, I received a number of thoughtful and well-written comments, proving that I am far from the only person thinking about this.
While I intend to concatenate these responses in a future post, I found a two-year-old article written for Salon.com that gives us a clue as to what has been going on in the late 2000s, and sheds some light on the cultural changes that may have helped bring awareness to the fore.
The article, “Women are the new men on TV,” reviews a number of TV shows scheduled to debut in 2007. Although many of these shows never got anywhere, the theme and tone of the shows is very revealing, depicting an America where men have lost their way, and their very manhood. I would urge readers to read the entire article, as it is a well-written piece and surprisingly candid coming from a female entertainment writer (Rebecca Traister), but I will include a few of the better quotes below for readers without the time to slog through three pages.
Traister starts off on a positive note, pointing to the empowering roles women are portrayed in:
Sept. 12, 2007 | Here’s the good news: When you turn on your television this fall, you’ll be watching more women kick more ass than you can possibly imagine — physically, economically and sexually. Hard-bodied and smart, rich and aggressive, confident and independent, the chicks who populate the prime-time lineup are being cast in roles that once belonged almost exclusively to men. These broads are cops and lawyers and masters of the business universe. Hollywood doyennes like Kyra Sedgwick, Mary-Louise Parker and Holly Hunter have already found midlife career solace (and good writing) on cable. This year, Julianna Margulies will star as a nasty Nancy Grace knockoff, Angie Harmon as a police lieutenant, Lucy Liu as a publishing executive, and Patricia Heaton as a news anchor; there’s a new “Bionic Woman” and a whole show about the world’s leading incubator of the future, “The Terminator’s” Sarah Connor. The flinty Cagneys, Laceys, Murphys and Buffys of yore aren’t the exceptions in the new TV season; they rule.
Note the adjectives used to describe the women in the shows: aggressive, confident, hard-bodied, independent. These are not traits that men generally find attractive in women, but perhaps women themselves enjoy being portrayed as such.
Next, the roles men are cast in are markedly different from those of women:
So what happened to the men? Nothing good, that’s for sure. Here, for instance, is what happens when Lucy Liu’s character, Mia, on ABC’s “Cashmere Mafia,” wins a work contest, and big promotion, over her boyfriend and colleague Richard: He breaks up with her, tail between his legs. “I thought I’d win and buy us a place and take care of you,” he explains. “And now that it’s reversed I just can’t see us … I’m 40 next month. I want someone to come home to. I’m going to want kids, and we’re just going in opposite directions.”
[...]
It can’t all be coincidence that this season is coming at the end of a summer in which the biggest movie hits have featured dopey, ill-groomed, irresponsible boys who score beautiful high-achieving women and then have no idea what to do once they land them. That’s right, we’re in Apatowland, baby, where the idea of a male romantic lead now begins with a water bong and ends with a fart joke. This isn’t an isolated trend; it seems to be a broad cultural response that speaks to enough people to keep it floating.
[...]
Among the degradations about to be heaped on television’s men? There are guys whose wives cheat on them, whose girlfriends get promoted over them, whose mates make more money than they do; guys who get left out of baby-making, who date women with penises and at least one who gets anally raped by a monkey.
Men are shown to be needy, awkward and juvenile. They are kicked around by women and sexually assaulted by monkeys — in fact some were actually portrayed as monkeys themselves in the short-lived “Cavemen” show (based on the Geico commercials). Now, the idea of a horny monkey may be a bit funny, but would any TV show ever portray bestiality as an acceptable punchline where a woman was concerned?
The depressing litany continues:
The idea behind “Carpoolers,” voiced several times during its pilot, is that daily trips to and from work are the only escape for these four miserable men, who have nothing in common except a barely disguised antipathy for the women in their lives. Aubrey’s wife has him by the balls: He waits on her, cooks and cares for the kids while she watches television and takes his money. Laird (Jerry O’Connell), the carpool’s founder, has been dumped by his wife, who cheated and left him with nothing but an ass-print on the sliding glass door.
[...]
The fury and confusion about shifting gender roles as expressed on “Carpoolers” is scary in its nakedness. At one point, Laird suggests to Gracen that he talk to his wife about how she’s spending his money. “My money? Ha ha, no,” says Gracen. “All the money I make is our money; it always has been. The money she’s making now is her money.” Aubrey chimes in, “Well at least you have your money. My wife gets my checks; I don’t even know how much I make!” To which Laird says, “My wife and I have it all worked out out. She gets everything. Her lawyer saw to that.”
Traister is starting to see the implications of these shows, and she doesn’t like them:
“Carpoolers” does more to impugn the American male than any high-earning spouse could ever do. But if this sitcom is any measure — and god willing it is not — the American female is fucked. There is no mode of femininity that satisfies these guys: The wife who is too successful makes her husband feel unmanly; the wife who doesn’t work makes her husband bake; the wife who leaves is a bitch who takes the furniture.
Welcome to the male world, Ms. Traister; these TV shows, bad as they are, contain more than a kernel of truth.
Below, one of the biggest sources of female discomfort is clearly revealed:
It’s understandable and honest to express some befuddlement with shifting expectations. But these are characters whose discomfort makes them unattractive, or silly-looking. They are whipped, flummoxed and helpless without the power to make the calls — in the bedroom or the boardroom. They can’t just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control, who do childcare or play a subordinate role at work but who do so in a way that is still sexy, still powerful, instead of in a way that is marked as submissive, beaten down or pansy-assed. Nope, they must be buffoons, caricatures, dopes or just angry, neutered bastards.
That’s it: the men are unattractive after they have been subordinated. Traister wants them “to just be normal nice guys who are no longer entirely in control.” Doesn’t she realize that putting men in the role she and millions of other women wanted us to fulfill required a serious social and legal beatdown as well as a massive seizure of power? Like the woman who cuckolds her husband, she wants men to be reasonable and accepting rather than “angry, neutered bastards.”
Summing it up:
Little wonder that many of these programs include plotlines in which women and men turn in on their own gender to fulfill their social, professional and sexual needs. Many of us who rather enjoy the upturn in women’s professional, political, sexual and social fortunes might think that it could only help our relationships with the men we love and respect, and with whom we come ever closer to being considered equal. But if television is any measure, and this summer it appears to be measuring something palpable in our collective consciousness, then it seems that as our field gets closer to level, men and women are simply not playing well together.
Traister sees that it isn’t working, but she doesn’t get it. Women have a huge blind spot when it comes to what they have helped do to men. Women, together with a small elite of men at the apex of society, have collectively engaged in a war on the average American man, and even after doing so they can’t understand why men are acting like defeatists, bereft of pride and able to show defiance only in the most abject, naked displays of their emasculated state.
22 responses so far ↓
1 wtf // Sep 9, 2009 at 1:52 pm
fuck salon, those chicks are so ridiculous with their broadsheet BS, fking makes me go nuts sometimes. i like the old lesbo camille though, she is a shit-talker!
2 Elusive Wapiti // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I could go for hard-bodied, smart, confident, and maybe rich (depends on how she got that way). But the other stuff–red flag alert!
“…the American female is fucked.”
The irony is that the American female thinks they’re on top of the world right now. And in some measures, that’s absolutely true. But what man wants to pair bond with someone that looks, talks, and acts like a Napoleon-complex-having man with tits and dry vag?
What’s more, the female comeuppance is coming: they can’t do it all as well as single chicks as can properly constructed male-female families. Their world will economically, morally, and politically implode, collapse under its own weight.
“That’s it: the men are unattractive after they have been subordinated.”
I just love it when the Bible’s truths become self-evident to the irreligious.
3 Daniel L. Taylor // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:21 pm
What’s more, the female comeuppance is coming: they can’t do it all as well as single chicks as can properly constructed male-female families. Their world will economically, morally, and politically implode, collapse under its own weight.
Already happening. America is going off the deep end economically in large part thanks to feminist inspired policies. Right now men are being hit the hardest. But when, not if, government budgets finally implode women will find themselves laid off in droves.
4 Daniel L. Taylor // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I’ve simply stopped watching TV because of the way men and women are portrayed. I also hardly ever go to the movies any more. I have very little interest in the trash put out by Hollywood.
5 miles // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Welmer wrote:
“Women, together with a small elite of men at the apex of society, have collectively engaged in a war on the average American man, and even after doing so they can’t understand why men are acting like defeatists, bereft of pride and able to show defiance only in the most abject, naked displays of their emasculated state. ”
Welmer,
This is exactly what Im talking about when I discuss the 1)outsourcing of manufacturing, 2)the insourcing of illegal construction (and mechanic) labor, and 3)H1-B insourcing of tech and semi-skilled help.
All of the above has hurt ONLY men.
Meanwhile the government expands office-girl jobs, the government requires much more paperwork from companies that force them to hire more office-girls, and the government has pressured companies to hire as many women as possible.
Underemployed men, and reams of women getting non-wealth creating office jobs and being mandated into jobs like law enforcement, fire-rescue, etc. The males just keep losing employement (especially the white males) to EVERYBODY else. Ewbow room for the “other” is only being made at the expense of males, white males in particular.
I personally know (and dated one of them) some women now in their forties who are childless. These are not happy people. I thought working was something a man did begrudgingly because that is what it cost to get to have a family. It sure as hell isn’t because its fun. If the government would send me 4K a month, I’d sit at home on my ass and piddle around the house, no work required. A man goes to work to support a family, not for “fun”. Women are being lied to, and many are missing out on the glorious experience of getting to have a couple of kids.
This movie will not end well for them. Hollywood is selling them propaganda that will leave them miserable in middle-age.
6 Curiepoint // Sep 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Ah, television…the vast, corruptible wasteland that has turned more minds to mush than ever it entertained or enlightened. Of this current trend of role reversal, all I can say is “Bravo. You wanted this and now you no longer conceal your contempt for men. That makes it easier for us to walk away from your poison society, and start one of our own”
As far as I am concerned, let these women kick pretend ass all they want. Let them excoriate men until their faces turn purple. The reality is that this is not reality, and the more that they cheer on the butch heroines, the more they isolate themselves from human company. The grasp that women have on the realities of life are tenuous at best. They will be easier to defeat when they find out that:
a). Kicking ass hurts! And not just the one whose ass is getting kicked. One can expect a few well-aimed blows to find their mark on you.
b). Men in ever increasing numbers will refuse to engage them in any way shape or form.
c). Cats don’t make good life partners.
d). Being a top success at anything always claims it’s pound of flesh, in one way or another. It isn’t easy and fun.
e). For all of their posturing, they will never be men, or anywhere near better than them at anything.
I am amazed at the befuddlement of the author, who can’t understand that levelling the playing field does not make women attractive. They lack femininity, beauty, and grace, and in fact are penis-less men. No man of distinction or taste wants to be with another man dimly masquerading as a woman. She wants to be closer to us men whom she loves and respects? That’s a laugh riot…women love men in the same manner that they love a slightly retarded pet who continues to shit on the rug. Respect? They don’t respect themselves, so how can they respect anyone else? At the most, they show gratitude for the tireless efforts of her slave, but even that is subject to her whims…or her period.
Enjoy the television, girls…we men will enjoy the real show that’s about to start. I don’t know the whole plot yet, but one thing is for certain:
It will end badly for you.
7 Niko // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Problem is those elite at the apex are well aware of what is happening. If Jo blow has caught wind of it now, you can bet these guys were anticipating it decades ago.
The white Anglo Christian male and his patriarchal family is (was) the last and only edifice that is standing in the way of the humanist utopia.
8 Welmer // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Miles, you are right about the structural problems we are facing. It is easy to get caught up in the emotional aspect of all this and forget that there are real socioeconomic trends responsible for many of the social ills we are facing.
I think what we are facing is legal, economic and cultural pressure. Each aspect of the current dilemma deserves its own post — or its own book for that matter. However, they are all linked together. Social degeneration is a fairly complex process.
This is why no one man among us can figure this out alone. It took a system to cause our current problems, and it will take a system for us to solve them.
this is why it’s up to men all over America to participate in the solution — we can’t do it alone.
9 miles // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Welmer,
I see that I made some grammatical mistakes (Im always doing multiple things at once, LOL), but I assure you Im actually pretty stoic about this, because I fully realize that Im a sparrow in a hurricane figuratively.
My proposed solution is first this: 1) We as men and fathers have to tell our sons, nephews, and younger cousins (and other men) that the deck is pretty stacked against us out there. 2)We need to inform other young men of what new jobs will be the ones in demand so they dont waste years studying something that will be a professional mistake later. 3) We need to inform young men of their legal disadvantages as per their state. 4)We need to make men aware of Game, its psychological steps and forms, and of how to use some psychology to navigate their own life (I know that is ugly, but mass psychology that closely resembles game is used on young males constantly******Example below). 5)I think young men also need honest financial advice, and tips on how to save money, eat cheaply, entertain, live, and educate (internet) themselves cheaply.
******Reverse game is used on young men constantly in the academy and entertainment.
Of course comfort building and last-minute-resistance are not going to be part of this kind of game, so we can omit those, but the “war” game is pretty much as follows:
Psyche-war-Game (Left-wing version):
1 Framing
2 Negs,
3 Demonstrations of Higher Value (DHV’s)
4 Demonstrations of Lower Value (DLV’s)
5 Takeaways
6 Positive Reinforcement
7 Negative Reinforcement.
8 Full Status Exchange.
If you follow many movies, classroom lectures, TV shows………………..you can watch the above process be directed toward males (especially white males) almost to a “t”.
For example, professors open up classes talking about all thats wrong with society and carefully lay the blame in the obvious direction of white males (FRAMING). He cites a few explicit examples (NEGS). He overly lauds the heroic ahievements of a few women and minorites (think various history months, take-your-daughter-to-work-days, lionizing a few female historical characters like Tubman or Curie) as DHV’s toward everyone except white males. White males are brought up only as “bad guy” characters in history and their humongous achievements are denigrated or unmentioned (DLV’s toward white males).
White men who stand up and point some of the above out are openly ridiculed (takeaways) and risk social ostracism.
The way for white males to achieve the professors and his amen choruses’ acceptance is to abase himself and his own culture (positive reinforcement). If he continues to point out that free markets generally create more wealth than other systems and true equality before the law is the only truly fair system, he will recieve more takeaways (Negative reinforcement). At the end of this process is the full status exchange whereby white males begin to see themselves as the dolts they are endlessly portrayed as, and begin to look up to people who do not possess equal grades, equivalent test scores, or equivalent intellectual candlepower and even defer to them openly as their ethical betters because of sex or race.
If you watch several movies and TV shows, a similar process as above takes place toward white male characters constantly. They are portrayed as buffons, specific examples of buffonery are played out, they end up causing the much of the struggle against the real antagonist with their idoicy, and are only portrayed positively when they yeild their autotomy to others (who end up saving the day).
Its like a reverse-engineered mystery method. No wonder lefties hate game so much. They probably recognize the psyche processes involved.
I think men need to be made aware of the broad usage of psycholgoy against them, what a matriarchy really is, and what the patriarchy really was.
10 Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech // Sep 9, 2009 at 9:17 pm
There is no mode of femininity that satisfies these guys: The wife who is too successful makes her husband feel unmanly; the wife who doesn’t work makes her husband bake; the wife who leaves is a bitch who takes the furniture.
This part at least is true. One thing I have noticed arguments between feminist women and so called “anti-feminist” women are basically about how do women best extract money and resources from men. Of course there is no “mode of femininity” that satisfies these guys because its really all the same.
Already happening. America is going off the deep end economically in large part thanks to feminist inspired policies. Right now men are being hit the hardest. But when, not if, government budgets finally implode women will find themselves laid off in droves.
Yes, this is happening, and its not going to be long before women are laid off in droves. Because realtors (who are mainly female) are considered “self-employed” they haven’t shown up in the unemployment numbers yet. This is accelerate with the coming collapse in commercial real estate. Student loans will be one of the next bubbles to pop. That means more female layoffs. Governments won’t be able to keep up spending on female sectors of the economy since they are inefficient and mostly unnecessary leading to more female layoffs. On top of that there will be a collapse in credit cards, and women have much more credit card debt than men. I don’t know when this will hit, but women will have trouble because of this when the sectors of the economy they are in come crashing down.
11 Justin // Sep 9, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I miss the days of being able to root for my country.
12 codebuster // Sep 10, 2009 at 5:25 am
I’ve got just one, single, itzy-bitzy, teency-weency little problem with all this “you-go-grrrl” self-empowerment hype… two words… “affirmative action”. NONE of this womanly hubris could have arisen without affirmative action… it could not have been done without men handing it all over on a silver platter. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to what would happen if affirmative action was to cease?
13 novaseeker // Sep 10, 2009 at 10:59 am
The truly puzzling thing is how unaware women seem to be of the dynamic between women and men.
The idea that men can be subordinate and under the control of others and yet still be “powerful” and “sexy” simply demonstrates the stupidity of the author of the cited piece, and how little she understands the male/female attractional dynamic. Yes, women want men who are sexy and powerful, but honey, men are not powerful when they are subordinate, now are they? Men are not powerful when the law is 100% on the side of women in any aspect that pertains to male/female relations, when women can run roughshod over their husbands because the law gives them such an upper hand, and so on. No, this doesn’t make for sexy, powerful men, cupcake, but, hey, at least women are more powerful, right?
This idea that women seem to have that their empowerment makes them more attractive to men is beyond puzzling, really. I think what they don’t like to realize is that it almost never makes them attractive in and of itself. At the most a very attractive women can remain attractive despite her aggressiveness and pushyness, by sheer force of her physicality, in some cases, or perhaps by a pushy kind of sexiness. But generally that kind of “show of power” is not attractive in itself. I think women find that puzzling because it is precisely such power in men that *they* find attractive, and they project that onto us, when in fact we have a different attractional dynamic.
I do think that more men are waking up. Yes, men are feeling emasculated. No, men becoming nannies and male housewives and so on isn’t going to make them less emasculated or more sexy and powerful. No, men being subordinated to women at work does not make them sexy, powerful, or appealing to women. The reality is that this story has one endgame: handful of empowered women who have power couple relationships (two uber driven people like super friends type marriage), and a lot of women either married to men they find boring, unsexy and subordinate or women who just can’t find mates. That is the endgame. And when that hits critical mass, for the educated elite women whom it will hit hardest, we will see much wailing and gnashing of teeth, for certain.
14 slwerner // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:50 am
PM/AFT – “One thing I have noticed arguments between feminist women and so called “anti-feminist” women are basically about how do women best extract money and resources from men.”
Spot-on!
You should make that a banner for your website , or something.
15 Ovid // Sep 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“I don’t know when this will hit, but women will have trouble because of this when the sectors of the economy they are in come crashing down.”
I’ll wager that when it happens all of the betacons will run to their rescue,thereby sowing the seeds of a future resurgence of female treachery when circumstances change and the moment is right.Devlin touched upon this in one of his essays.
16 Ovid // Sep 10, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“One thing I have noticed arguments between feminist women and so called “anti-feminist” women are basically about how do women best extract money and resources from men.”
Bullseye.Which is why a few clever women with their finger on the pulse of society are trying to maneuver themselves back to the “traditional” (i.e. gold digger) pattern.Smartly,they realize current conditions are unsustainable.Betaboy will rescue them from their folly,like a sucker who cleans up after a wild party he never attended,and indeed,paid for.After a bit,the daughters and granddaughters of these “conservatives” will rediscover “female lib” and how oppressed they are,etc. etc..And then promptly deliver the dagger thrust to betaboy’s kidney.
17 whiskey // Sep 11, 2009 at 12:23 am
I will have a post on this (sort of) soon, but suffice it to say strong women REQUIRE strong men. Men who are neither dominating, nor wish to dominate, nor subordinate. Men who are not overawed by female physical attractiveness, but not un-moved by it either. Men who are above all, TOUGH. Able to endure, and capable of well, almost anything though most of the time they do very little of some of the shocking things they CAN do (but again, mostly don’t). This is both dramatically speaking, and in real life.
The short lived series Love Monkey sort of encapsulated how female entertainment execs viewed most guys. One CBS female exec was quoted as how she “loved how these guys fall on their face and look foolish.” The female execs found Joe Average looking like an idiot amusing.
It’s noteworthy that most of these shows failed VERY quickly. Many in just a few episodes. Even with women being 80% of the sitcom audience (and close to that for dramas — TV being a female and gay ghetto), there was not much appetite for this type of entertainment.
It is telling what DOES succeed in the female/gay ghetto of TV as far as masculine role models go. It’s the hunkadelic, “perfect” guy who has some sort of barrier for the girl, and follows the woman around longingly. He’s an Alpha male, dominant physically, socially, economically, and often intellectually. He often humiliates other guys interested in the female character, something that women respond strongly to (they like it).
Examples include the alcoholic, spoiled, inherited wealth wastrel men on “Gilmore Girls” who win the female leads by very expensive gifts (handbags costing $20,000 and flatscreens). The doofus ordinary guys enamored of the girls are dumped and humiliated, lacking the money and the social power to play. Pretty much every medical show has the hunky, “McSteamy” or “McDreamy” doctor character enamored of a thirty something plus woman, and Desperate Housewives has boy-toys and dominant hunky neighbors as sex objects and lust objects.
All other men are loser beta types who are gay, nearly gay, effeminate, or otherwise not bothering the female leads.
So men are divided into three parts (like Caesar’s Gaul). Beta type ordinary losers, who have to lose because they are losers. The hunky, dominant Alpha winners, who often humiliate the beta males (something the female audience LOVES), and the effeminate/gay rest of the male universe.
I think for the most part, women will be quite happy with the turn of events. Most women, will be delighted to share even just a bit with dominant Alpha males, have an illegitimate child or three, and trade-off excitement and dominant Alpha male sex/thrills now for being alone later. If their sons are beta losers, well it’s their fault for not just being Alpha enough!
Marriage as Novaseeker points out, will become the province of highly educated, wealthy, but not uber-wealthy people who wish to keep the Hamptons beach house and so tolerate discrete affairs and such. The rest will be Single Mothers and un-attached and resentful beta males. Who will quickly Chav-it-Up to retain parity with the natural and Game induced Alphas.
18 Welmer // Sep 11, 2009 at 2:08 am
I will have a post on this (sort of) soon…
Looking forward to it, Whiskey.
19 Angry Man // Sep 15, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Now that women have what they want, everything men have, the will no longer respect us for it. In fact these shows really belittle, humiliate and make fun of men for it. It is a kind of in your face, we don’t need you anymore and now your worthless and pathetic weaklings…..
Just how us men knew it would be when we tried to defend ourselves but only succeeded in revealing “our fragile male egos” and were labeled “male chauvinist pigs” for it.
Just leave us alone and let us go our own way.. Don’t expect money, chivalry or any type of commitment from us….Simply…..LEAVE US ALONE NOW…..LET US BE……STAY AWAY…….
20 Ryan // Sep 15, 2009 at 11:58 pm
To tell you the truth, I like many men no longer watch TV. Only Discovery Channel, History Channel and things like that…..
21 Angry Man // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:03 am
“Already happening. America is going off the deep end economically in large part thanks to feminist inspired policies. Right now men are being hit the hardest. But when, not if, government budgets finally implode women will find themselves laid off in droves.”
LOL yes and the majority of the stimulus package was devoted to women READ “No Country for Burly Men” if you have not already… The only thing left is daddy government and women……
Society is built on the backs of men, the very group that is being marginalized to the hilt……IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME before the matriarchy collapses..
UNFORTUNATELY it will be the men who will have to fight it out, sweat, bleed, fight and die to rebuild from the rubble……
22 joel // Dec 29, 2009 at 8:20 pm
In my son’s generation, I don’t know of any well off men who are marrying girls they will have to support. (Upper middle class.)
I know a number of cases where the guy knocks up the girl but won’t support her or the kid. (Lower middle class.)
I know of cases where the wife is making more than her husband. (middle class) The husbands seem to have no problem with this, and have no intention of redoubling their efforts so their wives can stay home someday and raise children.
In my youth, men would work double shifts to support their wives and children if necessary.
The old time attitude of a man supporting his family is fading very fast, if for no other reason than globalization has made this impractical for many men. But, we know there are other good reasons, the divorce and child support issues being very real. Women just don’t honor their vows like they used to, so why invest in them?
The govt is taking over the traditional role of men regarding the support of women and children.
Prostitution is easily available.
The only real losers (males) are the ones who marry and repent of it.
The revolution is already here.
So, why so serious?
Leave a Comment