He’s Giving and Loving, But Takes No Garbage

 Email This Post

Anna wants to know how to differentiate between weak and strong men as she negotiates the dating pool:

Or watch other videos at youtube.com/DrLaura.

Read transcript here.

Guys Brag About It

 Email This Post

You’ve heard me talk about the differences between men and women (beyond the obvious physical ones).  One of my listeners has come smack up against the one where guys talk about their sexual prowess, and she now questions her own position that intimate details are private matters.  I have an answer for her:

Or watch other videos at youtube.com/DrLaura.

Read transcript here.

Unbelievable Feminista Hogwash About Quality Husbands

 Email This Post

A female professor from Oxford University in England, in an article published in the Journal of Population Economics, has decided that American and British men (who don’t mind lending a hand when it comes to housework), make the best husbands, while Australian men are the worst.  She’s also “decided” that Norway, Sweden, and Northern Ireland, where men “lend a hand in housework,” are egalitarian countries which produce better husbands.

I say:  unbelievable feminista hogwash!!  The professor’s definition of a good husband is ridiculous.  Men who are sexually faithful, who work hard to provide for and protect their families, who take care of the plumbing and the lawn are not good husbands, because they don’t do what used to be called “women’s work.”  This is just one more salvo in the war against masculinity, in which men are completely emasculated because they’re told that they’re neither good men nor good husbands unless they fold the laundry.

When women call me complaining about such things (usually women who are at home), I ask them if they drive their husband’s route in traffic every day, or if they deal with difficult bosses or co-workers, or if they aren’t able to take breaks whenever they choose or take care of all the car and house repair issues.  They say “no,” but expect him to do housework in addition to all his other responsibilities.

In those situations where both husband and wife have full-time jobs, and there’s a “war” about who’s going to take care of household chores, I say they should budget and pay for part-time housecleaning help, or one of them ought to reassess their life and decide if having no one at home to make a nest is worth the money they both make.

There are biological and psychological imperatives in females for nesting/child care, and in males for conquering/protecting.  When these are turned inside out, there is usually (but not always) a reaction in the female to feel less respectful and sexual toward her mate.  Women don’t stare at skinny guys with spectacles when they walk by, but they do stare at Bowflex-toned commercial male actors with huge pecs and biceps.  Why?  It’s the animal attraction of a male who, potentially, is sexually healthy enough to produce offspring and then provide and protect.

Women who want emasculated men generally have huge hostility issues with masculinity (which they got from their mothers or the feminist teachers of their women’s studies courses), and want to be able to control the man (never as much as their mother could) or are just too scared of their normal natural dependency on a real man.

A better study would be to find out what household situations make MEN happiest, because those are the ones which, overall, are going to attract the men who make the best husbands.  Happy husbands spend more time with their families, and would swim through shark-infested waters for them.  This particular study?   Just another piece of feminist propaganda flotsam.

Empowering Men on Campus

 Email This Post

A news headline from last week that said “Power Move By Male Students Ruffles University of Chicago” caught my eye.  It seems a group of University of Chicago students think it’s time the campus focused more on its men.  The Chicago Tribune reports:  “A third year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men In Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally.  But the group’s emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic.”

That is purely laughable.

Recent job losses hit men harder - women earn far more bachelor’s and Master’s degrees than men.  There is a huge imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interest of women and girls (often to the direct detriment of men), like Title IX, which eliminates men’s school sports when there aren’t enough women interested in having a women’s team of the same sport.

The University of Chicago has nine women’s advocacy groups on campus.  This group would be the first male advocacy group - and it welcomes women!  Get a feminist group to do the same - HA!  The group would host pre-professional groups in law, medicine and business, foster ties with alumni, bring speakers in to discuss masculinity, and mentor local middle school students as part of its “Little Men in Power” initiative.

I read most of the 1,440 or so comments that followed this article in the Chicago Tribune, and saw exactly what I expected:  paranoid, hate-filled rhetoric, demeaning and dismissing men and masculinity, with no compassion whatsoever for what men have to confront in contemporary society (which is “angry minority orientation against the male - especially the white male.”).  It should be noted here that this organization is pulling in men regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sexual persuasion.  It is just about men.  It’s not about forming small, angry little groups that demand entitlement.  This is a group helping men succeed and regain a respect for their masculinity - something current culture and feminism has worked double time to destroy.

You go, guys!