It’s basically saying that the more attractive a woman thinks she is, the more likely she is to demand more from a man. Perhaps they should commission a study to determine if women like shoes…

What’s incredible is that it’s my and other men’s experience that the study is probably wrong. I see plenty of plain looking women with wealthy husbands. I found that the easiest women to talk to, and didn’t feel like they needed to “prove” something, were ultra attractive women. It was the plain janes that felt a need to get the best man they could to show all their women friends that they were important.

Women telling the truth about women, and apparently we’re much too nice about it.

Circumcision keeps men from fighting each other? Less than stupid.

I guess today anyone can call himself a “scientist”, as long as his “science” follows the lib/fem agenda.

still waiting to see an honest (read not feminist related/funded) study on the subject, actually comparing apples to apples. they do allow studies on things that make women look bad these days, don’t they?

It was a dark and stormy night when Kathleen Parker, maven of the dark, noisy but vital press-room, dressed only on a topcoat of brushed velvet over a long brocade gown, brought for her by her rich Uncle Charles, whose business interests in the Bahamas, resting as it was on the backs of black slaves, transported by his nephew Archie in the Clipper Nantucket Herringbone…..

HOGWASH…..if anything, this nation would once again become great.

There are two reasons for this

1: The nations that have had the most freedom throughout history were based upon Biblical principals.

2 Corinthians 3:17b
“and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

Also we can see our country is having more and more problems. Many are a result of fatherless homes which our nation is creating at an alarming rate thanks to misandric laws like the Violence Against Women Act. There is however one hope:

2 Chronicles 7: 14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Her ‘emotions’ are flit-by sensations that are, for him, instantly forgettable while the reality of the moment has his fuller attention.

He doesn’t ‘open up’ because experience - generally painful - has taught him that she doesn’t respect his vulnerability - it frightens her - and uses any disclosure - even the minor - as a future weapon, to be trotted out as evidence for conviction long after the event.

Some of the feelings he has are dark and painful. He is often hurt and dismayed, especially by her words and action. When he expresses that, she goes for the blame and the accusation and tried to force his denial of his own feelings. “You are wrong”.

Her ‘expert’ communication style, often learned at the feet of relationship Gurus full of sancimonious sexism, mendacity and trickery, is subtle and betraying. She will say “When you say that I feel…” and every damned time it indicates with lightning bolt clarity that HE is responsible for what she feels. Its HIS fault. She can blame her friends’ feeling on him too on a really good day.

Then the final nail in his heart. She tells her friends!! His private feelings, his behaviours, his likes and dislikes, his sexual yearnings, his deeply personal self is paraded around as proof that SHE is an ‘expert communicator’. Despite this almost automatic tendency amongst women to emotionally RAPE her loved mate, there’s always some smartarse who overlooks that and praises her friggin’ openess and communication ability.

Now, Mr Smartarse men’s magazine Editor, why haven’t your readers told you any of this? Maybe they just see you as just as thick and friggin’ untrustworthy.

And the Judge has to consult her books too, it seems! Even she can’t seem to recall the ‘Ramming is a nono’, part. Maybe they went to the same College. Same professor perhaps? Wasn’t the MacKinnon Feminazi a Law Prof?

It is so easy to make post hoc conclusions from ad hoc assumptions. I’m pretty sure the hunting men didn’t think themselves expendable and I am pretty certain that the future of the human race was not a frequent topic around the fire. I would imagine (not assume or build a thesis to set in concrete) that fertility was an unexpected bugger rather than a godsend and every new mouth in a dependant tiny body was an immense burden rather than a new opportunity and a ‘happy families’ sitcom. But that would be non-PC to say. The cave guys AND the cave gals would more likely say “How the frig did THAT happen?”

Ain’t hindsight wunnerful?