The usual story. Men should physically and socially dominate women in order to defend them from being physically and socially dominated by men.
Where is my puke emoji?
My wife is valuable because she makes me a better man. These guys could stand to be better men as well.
Jeez.
I am proud to announce I made it all the way to “silverbacks”
As a guy, I wish to join the warrior lesbians. They will certainly be the most interesting warrior band. Because my eyesight is poor, I declare myself official pasta cook.
Chef’s kiss. Just perfect.
All the women get a man. All the men get a woman.
WTF is this statement?
It’s an appeal to incels and other members of the manosphere. I’m sure Xtianists are into the idea too.
So do they just queue up like old junior high dances used to be and “take the next one off the shelf”?
I also like the implied homophobia in it, because the man must have a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Yep. There’s an outsized sense of entitlement in the manosphere. They think they’re due a girlfriend or wife (and, unspoken, a mommy) simply because they’re men. It’s also why they take the creepy and weird position of opposing no-fault divorce.
They have made their status marker sexual conquest. Therefore, “having” at least one conquest is a necessity to be considered a man. So, having failed on their own, they want the state to make it possible.
I was a big fan of his early stuff, and people might remember “True Crime,” a Clint Eastwood film adapted from one of Klavan’s novels.
He still writes thrillers–and he is legit a good stylist in the commercial thriller genre–but now he also writes a bunch of “How I found Jesus” stuff as well. It’s been disturbing to see him either change, or to reveal himself–I’m not sure which.
Gawdamn there’s some fucked up people on this planet.
And Gorillas aren’t our nearest relatives, so he can’t even get his pseudoscience right…
we probably have quite different world views because i generally feel put off by ranking people’s importance in terms of what someone can do for me.
i hope at the very least you also consider she has an intrinsic value simply for being alive and for being a human being.
English being what it is*, I am going to be generous and assume you mean you value your wife because she is a partner, not a possession.
That, I feel, is the true issue here. We see it in terms like “trophy wives” and such, how they have no concept of partnership, every relationship is a question of who is in charge, and who is forced to submit. They love those nature documentaries about the old bull fighting off challengers and imagine themselves like that.
*a language so loaded with ambiguity, contradictions and exceptions that it can be both very expressive and maddeningly hard to say what you mean, that is.
The first part of my post was just the set up for the second part.
And yes, I view marriage as a partnership. In French, we speak of “le couple”, the couple as a third thing which is neither oneself nor the partner. It is a useful construct to remember that people are individuals, but contributing, each as they are able, to the couple.
Who knew that all that stuff about fishing weirs and scutage and debts was just code for “We want your wimmins…”