Men, Modern Relationships, and the Feminine Crap

FWC Author Pictures 005Regarding the challenges for men in modern relationships, I wrote the book.

Literally, I wrote it.

And as to the aggravating and frustrating challenges men endure for, uh, femininity, who’s telling men’s story?  Who’s describing their troubles?  For that matter, who cares to listen to men’s story, much less tell it?

In fact, whenever men do try to communicate their frustrations, women say things like: “Women—they’re sooo awful.  Pooor you. The world would be better off without us.”  Or, “Oh, I’m sorry you’re in a relationship and have to tolerate another human being.”

Women can be very sarcastic.

The point is, women say everything but, “I hear you; and I understand.”  Everything but, “I never realized,” and “Perhaps I need to improve on some things.”

Women don’t say those things, because they’re too busy demanding that men say them.

If men want someone to listen to their story, men have to pay someone—as in, a couple’s therapist.  Yet even in the counselor’s quarters men are merely listened to, are more or less tolerated, but not heard—

“Mr. Warren, do you hear what your wife is saying?  I mean, what she’s really saying?”

“Uh, does anyone hear what I’m saying?  What I’m really saying?”

“There it is, doctor—the defiance, the anger.  See what I was talking about?  It’s my life, day-in, day-out.”

“Yes, yes.  Indeed I do see, Mrs. Warren.  Much worse than you described, too.  A very deep-seated defiance and anger.”

“I thought we were paying you to listen to us both, doctor.”

“Yes, well.  I think we’ve heard all we need to hear from you, Mr. Warren.  We get the picture, and it tells the story.”

And then the good doctor spends the next 2 years debriefing Mrs. Warren every week as to my progress, while they both construct a better Mr. Warren, a more compliant Mr. Warren—the tolerated and unheard counseling participant, who’s cutting the checks, no less.

Nobody is telling men’s story, and nobody really cares to hear it, either.

Nevertheless.  The challenges for men, and me having written the book on it—I could have summarized the manuscript this way, and perhaps I should have summarized it this way:

Men don’t have to tolerate the feminine crap that comes with modern women and relationships.

I actually did outline the feminine crap in the book’s epilogue—rather thoroughly, in fact.  I just never directly told men they didn’t have to tolerate it.  Maybe the point was implied, I don’t know.  But I should have communicated it directly.

The point about toleration has to be made to men because they remain traditional-minded in their view towards women, towards relationships, and towards their role in relationships, while women have largely abandoned traditional ideas and roles.

For example, women are working.  And they want to work—if nothing more than for the income that affords them independence from men, which is ultimately a mechanism of control over men.

Interestingly, women complain about not feeling needed and thus wanted by their men, and claim they want to feel needed and wanted.  Yet, here women are wanting their own income and independence, and essentially telling men they don’t need them, by financially arranging it so they don’t need them.

Like I said, it’s interesting.

And of course, women have become exhausted and angrier and more resentful for having to work so hard to overcome their dependence on men.  And for all this effort at independence, women also fancy themselves more entitled—entitled to being served, to being heard, to being accommodated, and so on.

I mean, they do all that extra work, and all.

Naturally, this fresh female perspective towards men and relationships comes with relational acrimony, the likes of abundant criticism, accusation, bitterness, resentment, defensiveness, and uncontrolled emotion.  Otherwise known as the feminine crap men tolerate for remaining traditional-minded in their views toward women and relationships.

Frankly, I’ll never understand why men tolerate the crap.  Yet, they do indeed.

But, why?  There’s no rule in the nuptials dictating that men tolerate it.  Even if there were, who wants to be involved in an acrimonious relationship?  Who wants to live such a miserable existence?  Further, who deserves to live it?

And there’s this:  when all the acrimony finally comes to a head, it’s men being held accountable and severely punished.  The accused, men are alcoholics and drug addicts and various themed abusers.  It’s men, not women, who are the general, all-around assholes that made the marriage a nightmare, and who pay handsomely for the nightmarish ordeal via child support and alimony.

And all of this after enduring years of criticism, accusation, emotional tongue-lashings, and soul-crushing acrimony.

How do you like them apples, big boy?

Why would men want to endure all that?  What man wouldn’t look back on such an ordeal and say, “Gosh, I’d have rather avoided that woeful chapter of my life.”

Trust me.  Men have said it.

And women have said it, too.

Only, women are the ones with the fresh, conventional perspective on men and relationships.  They’re the ones defensively and bitterly and resentfully dishing out the criticisms and accusations, the ones rendering the emotional lashings, and the ones responsible for the acrimony.

Most importantly, they’re the ones refusing to acknowledge their role in the “woeful chapter” that all involved would’ve rather avoided.

The bottom line is men are made ultimately responsible for making relationships and marriages work, and thus, for them failing.  It is an expectation slowly imposed on men for the never ending female need and subsequent demand for multi-faceted security.

In other words, the success or failure of relationships is dependent upon male conformity to the rules women, however slowly and subtly and incrementally, set forth.

Women want good relationships, too, mind you.  They just don’t want to be responsible for the work that makes relationships good.  They don’t want to perform all that outdated, traditional protocol formerly expected of women.  They want men to do the work, and they expect men to do the work.   The traditional work, too.

Women are victims, a role they take to quite naturally and readily.   Why so naturally and readily?

Well, in what aspect of modern society are women not “the victimized?”

Precisely—in every aspect.  Thus, women take to victimhood quite naturally and readily, and even warmly.  Why?  Because it’s advantageous and beneficial.

Here’s how victimhood works relationally:  women are the abused, the undervalued, and the underappreciated.  They make men their victimizers.  Disproving the status, men become the relationship’s employees, doing all the relationship improving work.  Women get used to men doing the work, and to men making concessions.  And ultimately, women come to expect men to do the work, and to carry the relationship bags.

That’s precisely how it works.

Of course, the baggage transfer isn’t something that happens overnight.  It’s a process, slowly evolving, one that gets worse and worse, and more onerous.  Women don’t expect men to carry their bags in the prenuptial phase.  No.  It’s when the documents are signed and the vows are spoken—that’s when women start demanding, and start offloading their bags.

Men aren’t romantic enough.  They aren’t attentive enough, aren’t paying enough attention to the children, and thus aren’t committed enough or involved enough.  They aren’t trying hard enough, aren’t ambitious enough, aren’t sophisticated enough, aren’t fill in the blank.

The process slow and subtle, men never realize what is happening to them—that they’re being held responsible, that they’re conceding, that they’re subject to soul-crushing acrimony, and that they’re the only ones lacing-up relationship work boots to improve things.

Women tend to get angry when this reality is exposed.  They don’t argue that it isn’t reality, mind you, and that these things don’t occur.  Rather, they get defensive and start pointing out men’s flaws.

Only, there’s the reality—the slow and subtle process to establish dominion and the related expectations, which actually does occur.  And rather than getting angry and defensive, women should acknowledge that it occurs, and should simply rid themselves of the bitterness and resentment, stop the criticisms and accusations, end the acrimony, and take responsibility for their own bags.

Yet, women refuse to recognize themselves as merely a part of the problem, much less the problem in total.

It proves the point:  women want good relationships.  They just don’t want to be responsible for the work that creates good relationships.  They want men to do the work, and they expect men to do the work, and to carry their bags.

Being responsible for a relationship’s failure?

Doing all the improvement work?

Expected to do all the improvement work?

Forfeiting my life and desires and happiness, and living a miserable existence in exchange?

I can’t speak for every man but, personally, I can’t love a woman that much.

I don’t have that kind of love in me, in fact—whatever kind that is.

It’s a new age.  Men are living in a fresh relational paradigm, one that has them carrying the bags.  Yet, men are stuck in the past, stuck in traditions that have been largely abandoned, and that are no longer applicable.

Hence, men must be told they don’t have to tolerate the feminine crap—the acrimony—that comes with modern women and relationships.  Men must be told because there seems to be a switch that’s flipped or a button pressed that makes men feel they have no alternatives relationally, and that they are obliged to endure whatever feminine crap is thrown at them.

Men come home from work to their suburban homes like zombies:

“Hi, Jim.”

“Hi, Bill,” they say to one another deadpan, and listless.

Then men go inside their respective dwellings to be griped at by women and disrespected in so many ways.

And how do men respond to the acrimony?

Subordinately.  Compliantly.

Men tell themselves:  It’s part of the deal.  It’s my job as a husband.  I need to be patient and understanding.  I need to be more attentive and involved.  I need to be more sensitive, more sensitive to her needs.

Men justify their women, too:  She’s exhausted.  She works all day, too.  She has a difficult job.  The kids are rambunctious.  She needs a break.

Once in relationships, men turn into mindless zombies.  Brainwashed worshipers at the altars of:  I have No Choice and This Is Life for Me Now and I Must Endure This Feminine Crap.

Once in a relationship men are like never-before-caged Bengal Tigers.  They anxiously pace the fencing of their confinement—back-and-forth, back-and-forth.  They hiss defiantly when their captors bring them food—Hissss!  Only to pace some more.

Pretty soon they just accept the bars and their fate and, well, they lay-up.

No more pacing.

No more defiance.

No more vigor.

Resolved and listless, it’s:  “Hi Jim.”  “Hi Bill.”

And when their food is delivered they purr with contented satisfaction and lick the hand that feeds them.  And once fed, they’re responding to the captor’s whip and are poised like ballerinas on their hind quarters.  After which, they return to their comfy straw bed to lay-up, until the food bucket arrives again, and until being commanded to perform.


Women won’t recognize their role in any relationship problems, or that they need to improve in any particular area.

And why would they?

Women have willing, traditional-minded, zombie-like men taking all the blame, doing all the relational work, making all the relational adjustments, and who then head back to the straw to … lay-up.

Men don’t have to lay-up.  They don’t have to take any feminine crap, either.

What is a relationship, anyway?  That’s the idea men need to rethink.

Let me help:  a modern relationship is a business venture—that’s what it is.  And if men think it isn’t, they should visit the courthouse and learn how the legal system views relationships, particularly those acrimonious and that haven’t fared so well.

It’s untraditional thinking, to be sure.  Yet, unfortunately, it’s the conventional type required to manage feminine crap, and for modern relationships.

©JMW 2018 All Rights Reserved


How ‘Bout Giving Men A Little Credit?

JMWGender equality.  Given it is women who feel they aren’t treated equally, who are demanding equal treatment, and who have gender equality as their objective.  Which gender is then destined to not only concede to the other until this objective is achieved, but to ultimately lose in every conceivable aspect of life, particularly relationship life?

Right.  Like, there’s another gender.

And, it’s worse.

Somehow, I managed to find my way to a television show a while back involving a couple of famous, or rather, infamous, feminists who were discussing the world’s problem:  men.  Of course, feminists never actually say, “Men are the problem,” because they’d sound like bitter, contentious nags.

No-no.  That isn’t how it’s done.

Feminists describe how women are mistreated and taken advantage of in every segment of society, leaving the oppressive villain and the subsequent problem implied, which is of course men.

And being the oppressive villains, men are then the equality-denying foe who must concede to everything and all the time, and who need to ultimately lose in every conceivable aspect of life, particularly relationship life, until the objective of gender equality is achieved, which will of course never-ever be deemed achieved.

I mean, why forfeit the power to control men and to dictate gender relations?

Nevertheless, among these two infamous feminist icons was an adolescent high school girl—the indoctrinated.  Finished with their indictment of men—it left implied, of course—the icons looked to the immature 15 year old girl for comment, who, with palpable hostility said, “Men and women are just, equal.  That’s all there is to it.”

And all present grinned with delighted satisfaction.

So, despite having virtually no experience with men on any level, this adolescent girl is already angry, embittered, and resentful toward men.  And trust me when I say, her feelings are widely embraced by women in general, and particularly women her own age.

In other words, there’s a built-in resentment among women toward men—the enemy.  And it’s a premise that has been developing and intensifying and establishing itself for quite some time.

And in terms of courting, and particularly marriage, what does this resentment mean to men?

It means everything is driven by inequality, is seen through a lens of inequality, and is an ultimate fight about gender equality.  It means women will disregard whatever inequities, natural or otherwise, that exist between themselves and men, to both ensure and maintain gender equality—albeit, equality of the manufactured and forced variety.

It is to say, women aren’t going to acknowledge any inadequacies or incompetency in themselves that might render them unequal to men.  Which means women aren’t going to acknowledge their dependency on men for their inadequacies and incompetency, either.

Moreover, women aren’t going to give men credit for anything that proves men superior, and that actually makes them superior.  To do so would prove that men and women are indeed unequal, and that men are indeed superior in certain respects, which would then nullify the entire gender equality premise.

Hence, men must never be given credit for their superiority, natural or otherwise.

And how does this manifest relationally?  How does it work practically?

Like so:

Jeff owns quite the collection of properties; investment property is Jeff’s life and career.  Exceptionally skilled and experienced in multiple trades, Jeff remodels the properties he buys, and performs all his own maintenance and repairs.  And not only is Jeff an expert tradesman.  He runs the office, too.

Finding properties, negotiating, banks, lawyers, renters, problems, billing, accounting, and so much more—Jeff does it all.  He’s a rather formidable business man, in fact, having fashioned quite the luxurious lifestyle for himself and his wife of many years.

Jeff’s wife, on the other hand, has no appreciable involvement in the business, which is the way Jeff prefers it.  In fact, all he wants his wife to do is to enjoy herself, and to be supportive.

Given his abilities and talent, Jeff is obviously far superior to his wife.  Anyone on the outside looking in would certainly think so.  And in fact people do look-in from the outside, and they’re totally impressed.  Jeff is a man of considerable reputation, respected not only for his accomplishments, but for the professional way he comports himself.

In short, Jeff is a superior business man and individual to those who know him.

Yet, Jeff’s wife doesn’t think he’s superior in anything!  Despite his obvious skill and his clear success, she contends with Jeff over everything.

For example, when purchasing property, she feels it compulsory to advise Jeff on the deal—the property is overpriced; it’s too much work; it’s in a bad location, and so on.

Finances—she says Jeff is spending too much money and isn’t being thrifty.

Remodeling and repair projects—she knows better than Jeff how the project needs to proceed.

Jeff’s wife knows nothing about property value, and wouldn’t recognize a financial opportunity if one were to walk-up and bite her backside while wearing a nametag.  And she can’t hammer a nail, either.  Yet she has the unmitigated gall to challenge Jeff, who actually does understand property value and financial opportunity, and who actually can hammer a nail—things his success clearly validate.

In other words, Jeff’s wife is a lost ball in high weeds, comparatively.

It’s interesting.  Everyone else in Jeff’s life stand in awe of his skill and ability and success.  Yet, Jeff gets no respect at all from his so-called “loving companion” along life’s journey—and no credit, either.

When discussing business matters with his wife—any matter, actually—nothing should prevent Jeff from saying, “I’m sorry but, you’re not in my league.  You’re an amateur!  You need to do less talking and more listening and learning.”

Incidentally, I get annoyed at women who take offense at such remarks, saying they’re domineering and demeaning and disrespectful, and whatnot.  As if, what Jeff’s wife and women like her do to men isn’t domineering, demeaning, and disrespectful.

Give me a break.

Nevertheless, the statement is incontrovertibly true.  Jeff’s wife is the amateur, and isn’t in Jeff’s league.  And Jeff could point this out to his wife, but does he?

No.  What does Jeff do instead?

He does what most men do:  he patiently endures the questions and the ultimate disrespect.  He explains everything in vast detail so as to validate and justify his decisions and actions:  This is why you do this, honey; this is why you do that.  And in doing so, Jeff not only ends-up subordinating his proven superiority to someone eminently unqualified.  He ends-up arguing with someone eminently unqualified, too.

It’s one thing when women want to actually learn something.  Men love to teach women about the things they know, particularly the things for which they have a passion.   But that isn’t what this is.  This is making someone less superior and not giving them any credit.

So basically, Jeff doesn’t receive any credit from his wife for his proven talent, skill, business acumen, instincts, intellect, or for his ultimate contributions to the relationship.  One would think all this a source of pride to his wife, and that she would appreciate his success—the fruits of which she enjoys, no less.

Yet, that isn’t the case at all.  She acts as though Jeff doesn’t know what he’s doing, and as though she’s actually the one with superior experience and expertise.

Predictably, Jeff grew weary of this crapola, long though the exhaustion was in developing.  Over beers, we had an impromptu discussion about it.  I gave him some insight, er, direction.

“So, what?  Being superior to your wife is too uncomfortable to admit to yourself?”  I asked.  “That you’re the expert and the success seems too egotistical to openly say?”

In a humble gesture, Jeff shrugged.

“Your problem is you’re a nice guy,” I said.  “You’re bent on being respectful, while your wife clearly has no interest in it.  Ask her how much respect and credit she deserves from you and see what she says.”

He grinned.

“In fact, when you challenge her, what’s the first thing out of her mouth?” I asked.

“That I’m disrespecting her.”

I smirked.

“Whatever,” I said, annoyed.  “Look, the reality is you’re superior.  And what are you supposed to do?  Pretend you don’t know what you know, and that you can’t do what you can do, all so she feels better about herself?  So she can pretend she’s not inferior?”

No answer.

“Excuse me,” I said, “but, the life she lives?  She should be hugging your hairy bean-bag every night—giving it a warm tongue-bath and laying it on a silk pillow.  That ought to be a nightly ritual.”

Jeff laughed.  “Bean-bag,” he muttered.

“It’s true.  Something breaks, you fix it.  Dragons show up, you kill them.  Luxurious vacations, sports car, a palatial estate, hair and nail appointments?  Dude,” I said, half-eyed for the gall.  “Bean-bag.  Silk pillow.  Nightly ritual.”

More laughter.

“Laugh all you want,” I said, “but why doesn’t that happen?

A reflective pause.

“Because you’re too nice, that’s why.  You allow the disrespect,” I said.  “When you’re the star of the show, for chrissake.  Can your wife lay carpet?  Does she know anything about property investment?”

He shook his head no.

“So what’s she bringing to the relationship table, exactly?  Clean laundry?  A few cooked meals?  That makes her equal, gives her standing?  Provides the authority to challenge you?”

“She doesn’t cook,” he said, behind a sheepish grin.  “She’s too tired to cook, she says.”

“Too tired to cook,” I muttered.  “Well, she’s never too tired to challenge you, is she?  Has plenty of energy for that.”

Jeff chuckled.  “She complains about the laundry, too.”

I was speechless.

“And if I complain about cooking or laundry, she calls me a misogynist,” he added.

I remained speechless.

Jeff might be many things, but he is by no stretch of the imagination misogynistic.  Incidentally, “Misogynist jerk” is a caricature women perpetuate to dissuade men from bearing any sort of resemblance.  And women have expanded the definition of misogyny to include men being honest and direct with them.  Men don’t have to actually hate women, as would be misogyny properly defined.  They can merely tell women the truth and be labeled misogynists.  It’s merely a designation used to intimidate men, to control them, and to give women the upper hand in disputes.

“So let’s get this straight,” I said.  “You bend over backwards to accommodate your wife.  To spare her feelings, you aren’t as direct and honest with her as you could and should be.  Knowing she is totally unqualified, you nonetheless explain things to her patiently, trying to win her over to your ideas.  You both endure and overlook her criticism and BS, too.  I’m sorry,” I said, “but that seems like love of women to me, not misogyny.”

“I guess it is, now that you explain it.”

“And what do you get in return?” I asked rhetorically.  “Disrespect for what you know, for what you can do, for all you contribute and provide.  Pfft.  Misogyny?” I said dismissively.  “Sounds more like misandry.”


“Hatred of men.  I mean, women certainly don’t love those they undervalue, underappreciate, and disrespect.  Do they?

“No, I guess they don’t.”

“You’re the reason your wife lives like a queen and doesn’t have to worry about anything.  And not only don’t you get any credit, you get disrespect.  That make sense?”


“Sure as hell doesn’t to me, either,” I said.  “You need to start handing out ultimatums.”


“Indeed.  Ultimatums.”

In terms of ultimatums, women are pros.  They say to their men, “Well, I’m not going to tolerate this or that.  So, you need to decide what you’re going to do!”  It’s a very effective tactic.

Men are forced into response, forced to address and solve a problem.  They’re left to make the decisions and the ultimate concessions, like, forfeiting golf and fishing and beers with the guys.

The ultimatums are so common and subtle, men don’t even realize how often they are responding to them or how much they are conceding.  Whenever women are dissatisfied they simply complain, and demand that men change.  Basically, there’s an ultimatum for men in every single argument.

It’s:  Do this so I’m happy with you, and not angry.

Do this so I’m more secure.

And even, Do this so I don’t end the relationship.

“It’s true,” Jeff said.  “So what do you do?”

“Simple role reversal,” I said.  “The ultimatum model is predicated on the notions you’re wrong; that you’re the bad guy; that you’re the troublemaker who needs to change, and who will change—which is exactly what men do, by the way.  Thus, women aren’t prepared when men say, ‘Well, I won’t have any ultimatums handed to me.  So now, you need to decide what you’re going to do!’

“Leaving women with the ultimatum, that ends that,” I said.  “Now they’re forced into response.  They have to figure out how to solve the problem.  They have to decide and concede.  Leave-stay-get happy, they have to choose.  Men never do that.  To end the squawking and to keep the conflictual dust down, they concede.”

“There’s a chance they might call your bluff,” Jeff said.

“It isn’t a bluff—at least, it wouldn’t be with me,” I said

I eyed Jeff significantly, “Do you honestly think your wife’s going to leave the plush life she lives and enjoys?  Leave an attractive, fit guy as hardworking and successful and as big-hearted as you?  Dude.  Please,” I said, my nostrils flared for the apparent insanity.

“And if she does leave, good!  You’ve freed yourself from a disrespectful and contentious nag, relieved yourself of relational baggage you don’t have to carry anymore.”

Jeff laughed.

“The real question is, why would you want to be in a relationship with someone like that, anyway?”

Contemplative silence.

“You’re too nice,” I repeated.  “The fact is, the ultimatums never cease and men can’t concede enough to satisfy women.  Is your wife satisfied?” I asked.  “You getting any credit for anything?”

Chuckling, “No.”

“No.  The dissatisfaction continues and the ultimatums keep coming.”


“Start issuing your own,” I said.  “Trust me, you have the leverage.”

So, as to men never getting any credit, this is precisely what it looks like relationally.  Frankly, I’ll never understand why men resist not only acknowledging their superiority, but openly professing it when required.

Further, being obviously superior in so many demonstrable ways, natural and otherwise, I’ll never understand why men tolerate the disrespect of that superiority from women, either.

There’s no problem acknowledging and openly professing superiority, really, other than men being robustly rebuked for it.  And rather than endure the grief, men spend their entire relationship lives trying to get credit for their contributions, and trying to prove themselves acceptable, worthy, and of all things, equal.

Women not issuing men credit keeps men under control, keeps them striving, and continues the ruse that is gender equality.  Only, considering men are superior in so many demonstrable ways, natural and otherwise, why don’t women ever rise to meet the higher standard of superiority, instead of working so hard to make men less superior?

It’s because superiority can’t always be bested.  Mainly it’s because making men less superior is easier work.

An acquaintance, Madison—or Maddy as she is called, is extremely attractive.  The kind of “attractive” women think men want and would never abandon.  That kind.  Maddy had a terrific husband, too—ambitious, hard-working, loyal, himself attractive—whom she never gave any credit.  She was arrogant, contentious with him, always acted superior.

Her husband walked in one day and said, “I’m leaving you; I found someone who appreciates me.”  And not only did he walk out.  He was right; he wasn’t appreciated, and was never given any credit.

Suddenly, Maddy was alone.  Suddenly, she had to get a job.  Suddenly, she realized everything her husband actually did, all that he took care of, all that he contributed, and all things for which she never game him credit.

Suddenly, she realized her age, and that her dating pool had shrunk considerably.  Suddenly, she found the humility and appreciation she’d always lacked, which had thrust her man into the arms and bed of a woman who was herself not lacking.

To her credit, and much to the extraordinary, Maddy took the blame.  Rather than call her ex- a rotten, disloyal asshole.  Rather than manufacture a narrative to exonerate herself and to convict him.  She said, “I realize now all the things my husband did, and was.  I didn’t value it.  I should have.”

It was the result of newfound humility and appreciation, too late though it was being discovered.

Maddy is a much different person—humble, more appreciative, more sincere.  It’s a transformation that didn’t have to happen.  But then again, it did have to happen.  And then again, it doesn’t have to happen.


Get my meaning?

©JMW 2018 All Rights Reserved

JMWs latest:  New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside







Liberals: The 21st Century Nags

FWC Author Pictures 005What aren’t liberals griping about?   Racism, social justice, inequality, male oppression, gun control, the environment, climate change, losing an election, Russian collusion—pick a subject.

No, seriously.   Pick a subject, any subject.  Then turn on the television or the radio, open the newspaper, or surf the internet.  To what are you exposed?

Griping liberals.

They’re The 21st Century Nags.

And sing the phrase like Morrison:  “They’re the—bump, bump—21st Century Nags … They’re the—bump, bump—21st Century Nags.”

It totally works.

And incidentally, nagging is something traditionally ascribed to women.  Women are the nags who do all the nagging.

Well, not anymore.

Nagging can now be ascribed to men, specifically liberal men, and particularly millennial liberal men.

Look at these pillars of manhood—weeping over an election loss, totally distraught, and looking for safe spaces.  And nagging?  Well, tune-in to cable news and watch one of these male liberal political pundits throw a hysterical fit.

Nag, nag, nag.

It’s like, C’mon guys.  Reach down, grab a handful of sack.

Theeere it is.  The ol’ manhood.  Feel familiar?

Let’s pull ourselves together, now.  Women and children need some damn strength and leadership, for chrissake.  Some emotional stability.

These liberal men—just the type every woman is looking for, right?  Weepy and inconsolable over an election loss.  Totally irrational and unhinged.  Just the sort of emotional incontinence with which every woman wants to share a relationship.

Women are like, Yeah, these are Thor-like centurions we want guarding the palace gate. 

It’s embarrassing.  Bile rising in my esophagus, that’s all I dare say.

And women know it’s all true, too.

So, men and women alike, liberals are The 21st Century Nags.  And being perpetual nags, it’s absolutely no fun having them around.  Take news media liberals, for example.

Turn on the news and a liberal host or political pundit is vomiting accusation, criticism and complaints.  And there’s the ever-present sense of impending doom and the totally unappealing dark cloud that follows them around, too.

It’s like:  Yet another day of endless nagging and doom and gloom brought to you by liberals.  Terrific.  Everybody have a nice day!

 Oh sure, that’s possible.

And late night television.  It used to be fun, relaxing, entertaining.  A pre-turn-in respite from your crappy day.  Carson’s Carnac the Magnificent—late night was lighthearted, inoffensive, and actually funny.  You laughed a lot, and went to bed with a relieved smile on your face.

Now late night is one big liberal complaint fest.  An hour-long nag session that only liberals can enjoy—in a sadistic sense.

And Hollywood.  People want to sit down on the sofa and watch an awards show, to watch the grandeur, to hear actors and actresses talk about their lives and their accomplishments.

And what do viewers get instead?

A political lecture.  Or, lectures—about the poor, the starving, about sexual abuse, inequality, racism, about pollution and our suffering oceans and planet, about the need for cleaner energy, about opioid addiction.

Nag, nag, nag.

Liberals—The Misery Makers.

And the misery makers aren’t just in the media.  They’re right there in your office, in your neighborhood, in your social circle, perhaps even in your home—nagging about inane and totally unfounded crises nobody cares about, and about some injustice somewhere.  Harping about the disappearing bumble bee population and rain forests, about plastic bottles, inorganic food, and dirty coal.

Again, pick a subject, any subject.

And of course, liberals themselves are never responsible for any of these problems.  It’s the rest of the world.  It’s You!  Asshole.

Know why liberals complain about so many things?

It’s because they’re miserable people.  Well, that and because they like to attach themselves to causes for the image-related public relations benefits:  I’m for clean water and air!  I’m for starving children!  I’m for rain forests and bumble bees—look at me!  Look at how caring and compassionate I am!  Yes, yes!—heap your adulation upon me!!

 In terms of cost-effective PR it’s a pretty economical strategy, actually.

Stay around liberals long enough, however.  Get past the social layer, the public protocols that force them to pretend happiness and to say nice things.  And it isn’t long before you’re exposed to the real them—pissed-off, unhappy, victimized.  The real person comes out.

And as to their misery, everybody else is responsible.

Liberals—they’re one big miserable indictment waiting to be issued on anybody and everybody.

Men, women who like and appreciate men, white people, police officers, the wealthy, Republicans—basically everybody that isn’t a liberal is to blame.  Everyone but liberals are greedy.  Everyone but liberals are racist.  Everyone but liberals abuse women.  Well, every liberal but Matt Lauer, that is, who presses a button and locks women in his office where he bangs them into unconsciousness.

Only, Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, and every other female abusing liberal gets a pass.

Why do liberals get a pass from fellow liberals?

Because miserable people stick together, that’s why.  Because misery loves company—needs company, actually.  And because miserable people can’t allow themselves to be honest for it revealing the self-inflicted nature of their misery.

Liberals don’t want honesty or personal responsibility either one.  That’s why they’re headline readers and believers.  Liberals can read “Tax cuts for the rich!” for example, and that’s their mantra for the next 18 months until election time.  Questioning the headline’s veracity?  Gaining more insight into the country’s taxation system to know how “Tax cuts for the rich” might actually transpire?

No interest whatsoever.

The headline is sufficient.  All liberals have to see is “Tax cuts for the rich.”

Why the uninquisitive, unintellectual, knee-jerk reaction?

Because liberals are miserable, and intellectually lazy for their misery.

A headline, a talking point—it’s red meat for elite liberals.  They dish it out to their equally miserable voters, and then the collective sits and complains.  Why?

Because they’re collectively miserable, that’s why.  And they don’t want to improve their condition, either.

Dealing with liberals is intellectual childcare.  There are those who care about the country, about freedom, about the rule of law, and who ask questions.

Hence, they’re the ones doing all the intellectual work—deciphering all the lies and mischaracterizations and distortions of a deceitful liberal media.  They’re the ones putting the pieces to truth’s puzzle in their proper place.

And most annoyingly, they’re the ones having to inform and convert a bunch of intellectual toddlers, aka liberals, who don’t know anything but headlines and talking points, and who don’t want to hear anything the informed adults have to say.

Liberals would rather sit in their misery than hear anything that might inform them, that might elevate their opinion of things, that might amend their perspective, that might lift them from their state of misery, and that might ultimately change and improve their lives.

That’s liberals—The 21st Century Nags.

And not only are liberals nagging everybody to death.  They’re locking women in their office and banging them into unconsciousness.  They’re luring women into their hotel suites and offering film roles for peep shows.

They’re telling everybody, namely children, and specifically innocent little girls, how “Naaassty” women are, while wearing vagina suits and hats, no less.

And they’re organizing marches over a “grab ‘em by the pu**y” remark—a remark, for chrissake.  Meanwhile, liberals Lauer, Weinstein, John Conyers, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken and a host of others are actually treating women like hand-me-down luggage.

Locker room remarks?  Please.

Liberals don’t waste time with remarks.  They actually take action!

And to that abhorrent action, where are all those angry liberals who are so offended by everyone else?  Why aren’t they taking to the streets against their own ideological kind?  Where are the protests?  The signs?  The chants?  The condemnation?

There is no time for that because liberals are too busy condemning everybody else, too busy chasing a Russian collusion fallacy.  Yet another red meat headline and talking point swallowed whole.

Why pursue Russian collusion?

Because that’s a headline liberals want to believe, an idea they want to be true.  And when it isn’t true—and in fact, when anything liberals believe turns out to be untrue—do liberals amend their perspective?  Do they adjust?  Do they say, “Maybe that was a load of BS I shouldn’t have believed?”  Or, “Maybe the voices I listen to are liars and frauds?”

No.  Hell no!  They move on to the next issue, to the next thing they want to believe, and to the next reason to be pissed-off and miserable.  Where they can then jump on board with that idea and continue vomiting their misery on everybody else.

That’s liberals.

That’s all they do.

That’s all they want to do.

That’s all they know to do.

Meanwhile, everybody else is out there trying to make sense of things, trying to solve problems and to get things done, all in an effort to be ultimately happy, at peace, and more secure.

And in that effort they have the continuous, burdensome task of both bringing and keeping intellectual toddlers, aka liberals, informed and up to speed, people who only want to be miserable all the time and to nag everybody to death.

Complaining, debating, ignoring the facts, ignoring truth, ignoring reality, ignoring the obvious—whatever it takes to continue the misery, to continue the dysfunction, and to continue to ensure everyone shares their gloom and despair.

Think about it:  environmental desolation, climate crisis, rising ocean tides, disappearing forests and wildlife, a starving and thirsty planet … again, pick the subject, any subject.

Given all these liberal beliefs and the dire circumstances associated.  Given the subsequent and ceaseless fear and anxiety.  What do liberals wake-up to every day?

Misery.  That’s what they wake-up to.  Deep, overwhelming, abiding misery.

And they want it shared by everyone.

Ergo, liberals:  The 21st Century Nags.

©JMW 2018 All Rights Reserved

Domestic Violence of the Ignored Variety

JMWDomestic Violence.  The phrase implies a villain.

Whom might that villain be?

Not women.  Never women.

Men are the relationship abusers.  In fact, not only are they the abusers.  Everything that isn’t right and that goes wrong in relationships is their fault.

This isn’t true, of course—not even close.  Yet, one can’t deny the abuse of women at the hands of men.  It’s true; men can be and have been abusive towards women.

But one doesn’t have to deny the abuse of men at the hands of women, because it’s never really been proposed.  Something must be proposed to necessitate denial.

Who admits to lying without being first called a liar?

No one.  Denial and defense aren’t required.

So, that’s what we’re officially doing here:  proposing it—“it” being the relational abuse of men at the hands of women.

And to this proposition is to be applied good ol’ Rule Number One, which is:  the accuser is almost always guilty of doing the very thing of which they accuse.

In other words, it’s the accuser, not the accused, who deserves some serious side-eye, which is particularly true in this case.

So then, as to this domestic abuse, how bad is it for men?

Well, open up a newspaper, turn on the television, or surf the internet.  The evidence is certainly out there to support the abuse of men at the hands of women.  Again, it’s just that no one makes the men are victims of domestic violence proposition.  Hence, women aren’t then implied in the “domestic violence” phrase, and don’t have to deny the accusation for not being charged.

See how it works?  It’s a wonderful arrangement, is it not?

Nevertheless, our question:  how bad is the abuse for men?

Let’s begin with this above-the-fold headline from my local paper:  Domestic Violence Victims Are Not Alone.*

“In Indiana last year,” the article began, “63,671 Hoosiers called domestic violence crisis lines, 10,531 women and children were housed in the domestic violence shelters, and 67 people died from an act of domestic violence in our state.”

It was Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  The article was raising awareness.

“The roots of domestic violence run deep, cutting across social, economic, religious, and cultural boundaries,” the article noted.  “Too many Hoosiers are being victimized and many of them are suffering silently.  We must spread the word that help is available, and empower victims to end the cycle of abuse.”

Let’s cut to the chase:  the article mentioned women and children were being housed in domestic violence shelters, and that 67 non-descript “people” died from domestic violence.  Also, that Hoosiers in general were suffering in silence.

So what’s missing?

Men.  There was not one mention of them or male victimhood in the entire piece—not one.

Why was there no mention?

Because men are the ones committing all the domestic violence.  That men are the reason for Domestic Violence Awareness Month is implied.

Be that as it most certainly is, the following from the article is what should be the most troubling for men:  “Domestic violence is usually thought of as physical abuse, but it can also be financial, emotional, and sexual abuse.”

So, we have moved beyond defining domestic violence by mere physical violence and subsequent abuse.  Included now in the domestic violence line-up are financial, emotional, and sexual abuse.

Why, that’s quite the range of abuses.  Cruelties that offer quite the range for subjective definition, too.

In other words, how do we define domestic violence of the financial, emotional, and sexual varieties exactly?

Perhaps this way:

If for affordability men say “no” to a particular vacation destination, or “no” to brand name items in favor of generic items.  The decision can be classified as domestic violence of the financial abuse variety.

If men make their women cry or angry either one.  If men generally upset women with their practical, hardline recommendations.  Then that can be classified as domestic violence of the emotional abuse variety.

And if men complain about how much sex they aren’t getting.  If they put too much pressure on women to fulfill their sexual obligation to the relationship.  Then that can be classified as domestic violence of the sexual abuse variety.

“No” means “No,” gentlemen.  And it’s a standing “No,” too.

And in fact, what does nearly every woman say about their defunct relationships?  They say they endured every sort of abuse—physical, verbal, emotional, financial—at the hands of awful men, of course.

Abuse—the contemporary and universal female excuse for failed relationships.

Women would scoff at the previous abuse classifications, would say they are silly, and blown way out of proportion.  Of course, women can scoff because they don’t have to live with the domestic violence stigmata.

See how it works?  It’s a wonderful arrangement, is it not?

Women certainly commit domestic violence and abuse, however.  They just get to high-heel their way past the stigmata:

Why, lil’-o-vulnerable me?  Commit the heinous acts of domestic violence?  Why I neva’!  That is so ungentlemanly of you to suggest such a thing.  Whack!  You quite deserve that slap across yoah face!  Whack!  And there’s anutha!

What.  Women don’t commit domestic violence?

Please.  Eye-rolling so hard, I just sprained my eyes.

The Center for Disease and Control (CDC), a federal agency under the United States Department of Health and Human Services, released data from its 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

A few highlights for non-believers, and notice the italics:

  • By the study’s definition of physical violence—including slapping, pushing, and shoving—roughly 5,365,000 men had been victims of intimate partner physical violence in the previous 12 months, compared with 4,741,000 women.
  • More severe threats like being beaten, burned, choked, kicked, slammed with a heavy object, or hit with a fist were also tracked. Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men.
  • The CDC repeated the survey in 2011, publishing the results in 2014. The numbers were almost identical, with the percentage of male severe physical violence victims slightly rising.

Commenting on this apparent revelation of female abusiveness was Karla Ivankovich, PhD, an adjunct professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

Ivankovich acknowledged the decline in women reporting abuse, and the increase in men, but admitted there wasn’t much buzz about the changing statistics or the implications because, simply, nobody knows how to handle intimate partner violence against men.

“Society supports that men should not hit women,” she said, “but the same is not true for the reverse.”

Along with not knowing “how to handle intimate partner violence against men,” Ivankovich’s comment is interesting.  Considering the line in the newspaper article stated clearly, “Our message to victims is simple:  You are not alone, and help is available.”

Oh really.  We don’t know “how to handle intimate partner violence against men,” and society doesn’t support that women not hit men.  Yet men “aren’t alone” and “help is available” for them?

I think men are indeed alone, and I think there is no help at all available for them.

That’s what I think.

Actually, men need to just, shut-up and play the villain, so as this problem of not knowing “how to handle intimate partner violence against men” goes away.

That’s what men need to do—crybabies, momma’s boys.

Nevertheless, men should not commit domestic violence against women, right?  So, shouldn’t the same standard apply to women?  Why doesn’t society support men as it does women?

A retired professor of family law, Anne P. Mitchell, has the answer.  She said that woman-on-man violence is often turned into onscreen amusement, such as on a slew of reality shows.

In other words, whatever abuse women dole-out to men is fun and entertainment—good fun and entertainment, in fact.  Because of course, those abusive bastards deserve it.

Being a retired professor of family law, and one of the first fathers’-rights lawyers in the country, this isn’t how Mitchell sees it.  She believes domestic violence towards men is neither fun nor entertainment, and that men no more deserve abuse of any kind than women.

Mitchell mentioned the Lorena Bobbitt incident, Bobbitt having cut off her husband’s penis, and having been acquitted by reason of temporary insanity.

Mitchell pointed out, “If something remotely similar had happened to a woman, there would have been a very different response.”

And men can bet their penis on that!

Nevertheless, the one-way street view of domestic violence of the physical variety can be laid to rest.  It is indeed a two-way street.  The so-called experts may not know handle “intimate partner violence of the physical variety” toward men.  But there is no doubt intimate partner violence of the physical variety is being performed on men!

Yet, unlike women, men have to endure intimate partner violence of the physical variety until the so-called experts figure out how to handle it.

Well, the experts need to get on the stick, because it isn’t just intimate partner violence of the physical variety being performed on men.

In another article, a woman explained how ground beef inspired an awakening to the fact she was emotionally abusing her husband.

The wife had asked her husband to pick-up some dinner items from the grocery store on his way home, one of those items being the infamous ground beef.  She began pulling the items from the grocery bag after he arrived, only to learn he’d purchased 70/30 ground beef—which means 70% lean and 30% fat—instead of the 80/20 she preferred.

Displeased with the 10% crisis in leanness, a displeasure I’m sure most rational people can understand, eh-hm, she launched into him.

The wife berated the husband for not being smarter, for not reading the labels, and for not being trustworthy.  She yelled at, criticized, and demeaned him in such a way that, having been the recipient of the same treatment herself, would have prompted a call to the domestic abuse hotline.

To the attacks and to the demeaning disrespect, the husband responded as most modern men have learned to respond:  “I never noticed.  I really don’t think it’s that big of a deal.”  And, “I’ll get it right next time.”

His affability was of no benefit, however.  To his abuser, it was like blood in the water.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time the wife had scolded him.  Admittedly, she had done it for years.  It is why domestic violence of the emotional variety came so natural and easy to her.

“I scolded him for not doing something the way I thought it should be done,” she admitted.  “He was always putting something away in the wrong place, or leaving something out, or neglecting to do something altogether.  And I was always right there to point it out to him.”

Let’s reverse this situation.  Imagine if women were being treated this way.

Hmm.  Seems vaguely familiar, like we have already been there.

Why yes, of course!  We have been here!

These sorts of things happening to women is why we have Domestic Abuse Awareness Month and the Domestic Violence Hotline.

It appears we are back at square one.  Only, with a different victim this time.

The self-described “hamburger meat moment” was this woman’s wake-up call to the fact she was abusing her husband emotionally.  It was a reckoning that, I’m sure, came too many abusive and misery-filled years late for one guy:

Glad you saw the light, honey.  It’s been terrific living with you all these years.

The wife seemed genuinely embarrassed and remorseful, and she made one comment that stood out.

She said, “Too many women have fallen into the belief that Wife Always Knows Best. There’s even a phrase to reinforce it: ‘Happy wife, happy life.’”

Then she added this, “That doesn’t leave a lot of room for his opinions, does it?”

Nope.  It does not.

And women wonder why their men end-up banging other chics—other women who merely listen to them, appreciate them, value them, respect them, and who actually pursue them.  Well, initially, at least.  Long enough to bang the newness off, anyway.

The newness banged off, they’re ranting about hamburger meat, and are themselves abusing men, too.

Unlike this poor guy who had become “resigned” and “demoralized,” I’m not one to sit around for years waiting on an abusive woman to see the light.  When she began pointing out my faults and abusing me, she’d have gotten a rather curt “Screw you” of the profane variety.

Upon which, the question would surely be:  how could you be so, abusive?

Well, let’s make a comparison.

Issuing a curt “Screw you” of the profane variety would be deemed both verbal and emotional abuse.  Curtly issued, it would draw gasps and incredulous expressions, and would incite accusations and threats.  It may even prompt an EPO (Emergency Protection Order), followed by mandated anger management courses.

And of course it would not matter to women, or even register, that their never-ending and demeaning criticism prompted the well-deserved “Screw you” of the profane variety.

“Screw you” in the profane is disrespectful, intolerable, and will not stand.

Yet, when it comes to years and decades of berating men over hamburger meat, and for not doing things in the ways women think they should be done, and for putting something away in the wrong place, or leaving something out, or neglecting to do something altogether.

Well, that’s just an emotional tendency of women that, for their undying love and reverence for the female condition, men are supposed to understand, supposed to find endearing, and are supposed to tolerate until women finally see themselves as abusive.

Well, screw that, I say.  It clearly takes too long for women to recognize—if they ever do!—their abusiveness, which clearly isn’t just emotional abuse.  It is also provably physical.  And considering women conceal their spending habits from men, and get monetary favor in the divorce, they are financially abusing men, too.

It’s all domestic violence of the ignored variety.

Men aren’t going to complain about abuse in whatever form, at least not publicly, because they look weak and unmanly.  So what do they do instead?

They put-up with the abuse, and deal with it.

Women aren’t worried about looking weak.  In fact, they can complain about abuse and become strong, courageous heroes.  Thus, they can dish-out all the abuse they want and be justified.

Women are perpetual victims, heroic survivors insulated from the villainous implications in the phrase Domestic Violence.

So, what is the end-game in this gender war, and with this domestic violence and abuse business?

It’s to permanently dethrone and subordinate men.

And what do men think will ultimately happen?  A state of gender equality will finally be reached that will make women content?

That’s not going to happen.  In fact, it’s never what happens.

Whatever the disputed issue, one party continues conceding and giving up ground, until the other party takes over.  That’s exactly what happens—exactly what will happen.  So the war is not going to end.

Totally domination of men—that’s the endgame in this gender war.  And if one thinks it isn’t the endgame, look at racism.  Racism will never be put to rest until blacks or Hispanics or whichever minority has complete power and is dictating everything.  No matter how much ground is gained, it will never be enough.  There will always be a little more racism to eradicate.  Hence, the fight must continue.

The gender war is no different.  It will never be put to rest until women have complete power and are dictating everything.  And in that war, the claim of domestic violence and abuse is a tool.  Both fairly and unjustly, women level the various abuse charges at will—and the charges stick.  Or, they work.

And the charges aren’t inconsequential anymore.  They have teeth—life-altering teeth.

Thus, women are playing with a stacked deck, relationally speaking.  Being clearly immune to charges of abuse themselves, women can behave however they wish, can be as abusive as they want, and for as long as they want.

Men, on the other hand—if they get out of line in the slightest degree—which should be interpreted:  if men don’t behave like women command they behave—then women can really do a legal number on them.

And for this modern reality, I’m asked, “What are men supposed to do?”

Here’s my answer:  Leave!

Forget the misery and aggravation of female domestic violence.  Forget anger management courses and mediation.  Those things are small potatoes.  We’re talking genuine danger for men.  We’re talking career-ending accusations and real, personal legal jeopardy.

It’s a new ballgame, gentlemen.  One in which virtually everyone believes in men’s abusive guilt, and one in which nobody bothers with the truth behind allegations or due process either one.

And then, men get hammered legally.  Severely hammered.

Former NFL running back, Ray Rice, by all accounts, was a wonderful human being.  That is, until his fiancée provoked him in an Atlantic City hotel.  They had been drinking, and were arguing.  After entering the hotel elevator, Rice decked her.

Did anyone care about her contribution to the incident?


And where is Ray Rice?

Well, he’s here.  Er, nowhere.

He’s a pariah with no profession.

Should Rice have struck his fiancée?


Rice should have grabbed his bags, and left; Rice would still be playing football in the NFL.  And his fiancée would have been an ex-fiancée, a woman dreaming about the luxurious future she once had within grasp.

The point is, this domestic violence and abuse business is nothing to play around with any longer.   It’s a genuine danger for men—with real teeth.  It’s a tool with which to control and to punish men, and both an accusation and a stigmata with which women don’t have to concern themselves whatsoever.

So, forget the houses and finances.  Forget love.  Forget the kids.  Forget all the things that keep men in relationships and enduring the abuse everyone ignores.  When the abuse starts, grab the bags.

Otherwise, it’s a whole lotta’ one-sided trouble.

Trouble of the singularly and extraordinarily punitive variety.

©JMW 2018

*Clarion News Opinion, Laura Berry and Greg Zoeller, Oct.28, 2015 ed.

JMWs latest book:  New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside


The Masculine Principle

FWC Author Pictures 014Neither the need nor the desire for masculinity is dead.  Given the attack on men and the feminization of the culture, however, men might not get that impression from women.  Yet, both the need and desire for masculinity are very much alive, and provably so.

Proving it—that’s exactly what we are going to do.

Exhibit A: 

My friend Marlon is a young, beautiful, modern woman.  I add modern because she is of an era that appears not so fond of masculinity.  Meaning, Marlon isn’t so fond masculinity, presumably.

Only, such presumptions would be wrong.  Marlon knows exactly what she wants in a man.

Next to a flattering, full-body selfie, in which she was the essence of female perfection, Marlon said, “Of course I am not worried about intimidating men. The type of man who will be intimidated by me is exactly the type of man I have no interest in.”


So what kind of man does Marlon want?

She wants the kind every woman wants:  Don Draper.

Women could do without the Draper philandering, of course.  Still, they like the Draper confidence and control.  They like the daring.  They like the toughness.  They like men who won’t be kept on a leash.  They like men who won’t tolerate excessive drama, and who won’t be trifled with, and who’ll get dead in their ass when necessary and required.

Basically, women want men that won’t be pushed around, and who are willing the cut them loose.  Such men are attractive, titillating, and challenging.  They engender desire.  And more importantly, respect.

In other words, women want men to be masculine.  The same as men want women to be feminine.

It’s simple, really.  Men don’t want women acting like butchy lesbians pretending to be men.  Men want women to be feminine and genteel and vulnerable.  Men want the coquettish glances, and shy grins of excitement and approval.  Men like lace and soft scents and smooth skin.  They want demure women, women of self-respect and class.

Likewise, women don’t want men to act like emasculate wusses.  Women like confidence and decisiveness.  They want men to be somewhat unpredictable, dangerous, and exciting.  They want men to be tough, determined, self-assured, and unflappable.  They want men to be direct, honest, principled, and fair.  It all represents security to women.

These are human principles—fundamental, longstanding, unchanging.  And when women roll their eyes at all this.  When they laugh condescendingly, and say, “Ha!  You don’t know women at all!”  They’re all lying through the teeth.

So, ignore them.  Dismiss them.

Because it’s all true.  And they know it’s true.

In fact, leave those cackling broads and go find a woman who knows what’s up, and whose unafraid admit what she wants and to be herself—her real self.  That’s the one you want, gentlemen.

Cackling posers only bring men misery.

In the feminist era, women deny what they truly want from men because it makes women appear weak and vulnerable and incapable, and because it makes them unequal.  Mainly, women deny what they truly want from men because it casts them in a subordinate role, which is a role they actually prefer, incidentally, but is yet an appearance they must avoid as a matter of image.

Politics.  They make a nightmare of a wet dream.

So women deny what they truly desire, and thus deny themselves.  By doing that, they then lie to themselves, and lie to men.  And all to cater to their need for security and to a feminist image, which leaves men not only confused, but trying in vain to figure out what women want.

Thus, the point:  men need to stop trying to figure out what women want.

Do they want masculine men, sensitive men?  Should I become this, or that?

 The indecisiveness is precisely what makes men feminine, and thus unattractive to women.

Women need to be worried about what men want, not the other way around.

Besides, I just told you what women want.  So did Marlon—and she’s hot.

Women want masculine men—bad-boys if you will.  Be that.  Be yourself, and whatever form of masculinity that takes.

Despite their wet dream ruining politics, masculinity is the counterbalance to femininity that women both desire and need—still.

Exhibit B: 

Famously-moustached host, John Stossel, of the ABC television network’s news magazine, 20/20, explored the issue of masculinity in a roundabout way.  He wanted to know if a man’s height mattered to women, if it made men less masculine and attractive.

In an experiment, Stossel arranged several men – both short and tall – in a line-up behind a two-way mirror.  He then asked groups of women to choose a date.

The result?

Women always chose the taller men, and despite the curb-appeal of the shorter men being artificially enhanced.

For example, Stossel made one man, five-foot-three, a doctor.  One was made a best-selling author.  One a champion skier who had just built his own ski house.  And one a wealthy millionaire.

Yet, despite the added curb-appeal, the feminine window-shoppers still deemed the smaller men “too short.”

Asked what it would take for the women to date one of the smaller men, one woman responded brutally, “Maybe the only thing you could say is the others are murderers.”

Murderers—a no-go.  Interesting.  Keep that in mind.

Now.  This is key, is central to the point of masculinity:  during an interview, the women were asked about their preference for taller men.  One woman said flatly, “I just want to look up in those dark-eyes, and feel those strong arms around me.”

And as she delivered the remark, the other women were smiling dreamily and nodding their agreement.

And what does the comment and the collective agreement demonstrate?

It demonstrates that, one, women prefer “looking up” into the eyes of their champion in an implied position of vulnerability and submission.  And two, it demonstrates strength and masculinity have incalculable value in making women feel safe and secure.

 In other words, for all their feminist bluster.  For all their demands for equality.  Women still want to be taken, sheltered, and secured by strong, masculine men.

And there is this uncomfortable and thus unspoken truth:  as matters of vanity and image, women don’t like being seen socially with shorter men—even if those men are prestigious doctors, best-selling authors, champion skiers, or wealthy millionaires.

Why?  Because they must look down upon the dark eyes of their champion, whom they must also stoop down to issue a hug.

It’s a vain miscalculation, certainly.  But it’s nonetheless true.

The point is the women in the experiment were being honest about their vulnerability, and about their desire for strong masculinity to offset that sense of vulnerability.

So, there it is:  more proof.

Women mock other women as being “trophy girlfriends and wives,” and they mock men for both wanting and having “trophy girlfriends and wives.”  Well, women want—tall, dark eyes, strong arms to hold them secure—trophy boyfriends and husbands, too, obviously.

And they want them to be masculine.

Exhibit C:

Writer Benjamin Percy, the epitome of the modern, feminized male, decided to wear a pregnancy, or “empathy,” suit for nine weeks.  The suit, made of thick nylon, sported a fake belly and breasts to simulate pregnancy, which Percy wore over his regular clothes for the nine week duration.

He explained his motive to comedian Steve Harvey, a substitute host on NBCs The Today Show:

Percy:  “The idea behind [the experiment] is that, our grandfathers never even held babies.  Our fathers never changed diapers.  And these days that’s grounds for divorce.  So there’s sort of shifting gender relations going on now in this country.  I’ve got a lot of pals who are stay at home dads.  I’ve got a lot of pals who are really involved with their kid’s lives—coaching and volunteering at schools, and I feel a little inadequate in that regard sometimes.”

 Harvey:  “So you wanted to accomplish what by doin’ this…?”

 Percy:  “To make up for my mouth-breathing, hairy-chested, caveman deficiencies…”

Yes.  It’s beyond embarrassing.

Nevertheless, modern women should appreciate Percy’s sensitive male attempt to relate, shouldn’t they?  They profess that men don’t care about their feelings or what it’s like to be a woman.  So this nine week effort at prenatal empathy should go a long way in improving gender relations, right?


During the interview with Harvey, Percy said he “expected to get a nice pat on the back” from women, but found that “women were fixated on the suit’s inadequacies.”  He was shocked to learn that women wanted him to have heartburn roiling up his throat; and varicose veins rising like garden hoses up his legs; and the every-five-minute urge to pee; and constipation for a week; and that they wanted him to endure being jabbed full of hormone-oozing needles.

In other words, this little feminine exercise of Percy’s was as useless as teats on a boar hog.  Not only were women irritated at the attempt at empathy.  To Percy’s totally unmanly olive branch, they said, “Nice try, wuss.”

Women are clearly unaffected by these kinds of unmanly overreaches, and are incensed and repulsed by men who attempt them.  Why are women incensed and repulsed?

Because it isn’t masculine.

Exhibit D:

Exhibit D is a not-so-flattering contrast with Exhibit C.  It is to begin this way:

In his book Prison Groupies, crime-writer Clifford Linedecker wrote about notorious men finding female favor.  Men like Scott Peterson, for example.

After being convicted of murdering his wife and child, and upon spending little more than an hour on San Quentin’s death-row, the infamous Peterson received his first marriage proposal from a smitten young woman.

Satanist, Richard Ramirez, is another example.  Ramirez went on a home-invasion crime spree that terrorized greater Los Angeles residents.  The diabolical bender included a shockingly brutal string of rapes, murders, and mutilations that, like Peterson, earned Ramirez a seat on San Quentin’s death row, too.

Yet, despite Ramirez’s merciless brutality—toward women, no less.  According to Linedecker, Ramirez “had women falling all over him” and “fighting one another for his attention.”

John Wayne Gacy is yet another example.  He buried 26 of his victims in the crawl space of his home.  Three more were buried elsewhere on his property, while the bodies of his last four known victims were discarded in the Des Plaines River.  Yet, both an unattractive guy and a homosexual, Gacy “had all kinds of women after him.”

Now.  No doubt “normal” and “self-respecting” women would take a dim view of the women pursuing these notorious ne’re-do-wells.  Refined women would call these bad-boy chasers skanks, groupies, sluts, and women of low quality and self-esteem.

Be that as it may, which it surely is, men should consider this:

These raving, convicted and incarcerated lunatics couldn’t have treated women worse.  Yet, they have more female attention than they can manage.  In prison, no less.

Clearly Moody, The Barstool Prophet, has a point:  “No man should underestimate his ability to attract women.”  In attracting women, there is obviously hope for every man—even the worst of men.  As in, say, diabolical murderers and whatnot.

So, contrasting Exhibits D and C, let’s get this straight:  while these lunatic prison outlaws are with women kicking ass and taking names.  The good guys are wearing fake bellies and breasts for nine weeks to empathize with women, and are being viewed as wussies and treated with contempt.

I say again:  it’s beyond embarrassing.

Considering the female success of the notorious, perhaps the good guys should consider adopting a more sinister edge.  Or at least something less, empathetic.


Because women will find them more masculine, and will more likely fawn over them and fight for their attention.  That’s why.

Like I said, neither the desire nor the need for masculinity are dead.  They’re very much alive. However, in the era of gender competition and equality, it is need and desire modern women feel compelled to conceal.

The problem with masculinity is, one:  it is dominant by nature.  And two, it is refuge.

In other words, in a feminist culture bent on achieving and maintaining equality among the sexes, masculine dominance is a standard which cannot stand.  And given women naturally look to men for refuge and safety, the female desire for masculinity is a reality which cannot be recognized—at least not openly.

Therefore, for women to acknowledge a desire for masculinity is to acknowledge a desire for security, which is to acknowledge masculine dominance, which is to acknowledge at least a level of dependency.  All of which an equality-driven culture frowns upon.

And there you have it:  the problem.

On the hunt for men, women do exactly as men do.  Men notice the overall attractiveness of women, and their gender specific traits—breasts and buns and figures.  Likewise, women notice men’s overall attractiveness, and their gender specific traits—muscular physiques, hairy chests, scruffy beards, and firm buns.  It’s a primal, innate examination.

So, it’s clear:  women desire physical masculinity.  It is only within relationships that women develop sudden reservations with masculinity.

Basically, men use masculinity to attract women, because that’s what women like and want.  Once in a relationship, however, women attempt to temper and redefine masculinity so as to enhance both their feelings of security and their emotional comfort.

In other words, women begin emasculating men for their insecurities, and for their own selfish purposes.

Only, the practice stands in direct opposition to the masculinity women genuinely and actually want and need.  Meanwhile, it supplies men with confounding directives.

And how do men respond?

Instead of being the masculine men they were initially, and that women want and need.  Men allow themselves to be emasculated, and to become caricatures who take to wearing fake bellies and breasts, to then become emasculated imposters women both loathe and disrespect.

It’s an unfortunate sequence of events—for which men are responsible.

Now.  There is one other facet of masculinity that needs to be addressed.  Masculinity is a subjective term.  Meaning ultimately, masculinity can be demonstrated in various ways.

Frankly, I don’t want my social sphere to be dominated by a bunch of alpha males.  I rather appreciate masculine diversity in this respect.  I have male friends and acquaintances who are robustly masculine, and I have others who are less so, and even effeminate.

Naturally, the robustly masculine A-types project strength and traditional manliness, and thus have no problem attracting women.  The others are gentler, less competitive, and aren’t the sorts one would necessarily term:  ladies men.

Yet, they are all decent, strong, masculine men at their core.  For some, their competitive strength and drive and determination make them masculine.  For others it’s their calm demeanor.  For others, their patience and understanding and compassion.  I value not only masculine diversity, but what it brings to my life via my social sphere.

In fact, I tell women all the time that the gentler, less competitive, and even effeminate men are a largely untapped relationship market.  In terms of relationship partners, the gentler sorts are strong in their own way, and moreover, very steady and reliable.

Masculinity isn’t just confined to height, dark-eyes and strong arms.  It comes in various forms, and is just as sexy.  Women just need to look past the standard for strength and masculinity, to a standard behind the scenes and less visible.

The masculinity women want and need doesn’t always look like the standard, and everything below isn’t substandard, either.

Far from it.

©JMW All Rights Reserved.

Project: Projecting

JMWPsychological Projection:  a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying the existence of those impulses in themselves, while attributing them to others.

Only, psychological projection isn’t a theory.  It’s a genuine phenomenon.  In terms of relationships and relationship conflict, it’s both a tactic and an art women have perfected.

Masters of the projection art, I give women credit.  I’m actually fascinated by their projection skill, and grin in admiration watching them perform.

Of course, I try not to grin when women are projecting on me, because they are usually very emotional and angry and serious.  Feeling they aren’t being taken seriously, grinning only makes them angrier.

Nevertheless, I realize the performance is part of the accusation game women play.  Emotional and irrational, women criticize and accuse and provoke, saying whatever comes to mind without thought or hesitation.  Cruel, cutting, inaccurate—it doesn’t make any difference to them.  Accusing, and in the throes of emotional projection, women deal straight off the top of the deck.

Most men, poor souls, get lost in the melee.  Confused and incredulous, men are like, Why, this is totally outrageous!  They become angry at the unfairness, and set to setting the record straight and to clearing their name.

The difference with me is, I don’t accept the accusations.

In other words, I don’t get caught up in the projection game.  Which is to say, the accusations against me are likely attributable to the issuer, and are a projection of the issuer’s own guilt in whatever regard.

It’s a pretty reliable assumption and approach, actually.

For example, I’m not a rude person.  Direct?  Sometimes, yes.  Rude?   No.  Regardless of how many times I am accused of being rude.  Regardless of the vigorous and relentless effort to convince me I am rude.  I don’t accept the premise, the accusation, the guilt, or the projection.  I defy it all.


Because I am not a rude person.

As it usually happens, a woman has said rude things to and about me, to provoke me.  It also happens that a woman is rudely yelling at me that I am rude when, normally, yelling is considered rude by that same woman.  It also happens that, in process of yelling at me that I am rude, a woman is actually herself saying rude things to and about me.

In other words, while this particular woman is demonstrating actual, manifest rudeness in every possible way herself.  She, in classic psychological projection, is projecting her penchant for rudeness onto me:  I am rude.  While she is not rude, and hasn’t the capacity for rudeness, both of which she is clearly demonstrating to be false.

That’s psychological projection.

My approach to this tactic is simple.  Accused of being rude, I know I am not a rude person by nature.  As a general rule, I know I am not comfortable being rude to people.  In fact, I prefer people to be comfortable and at ease around me.  I am an encourager by nature, and understanding.  I prefer to work things out amiably, and to get along rather than bicker.

Therefore, characterizing me as a rude person is not only inaccurate, but ludicrous.  Thus, nobody is going to convince me of being something I definitely know I am not.  I reject the accusation out-of-hand and exit the conversation.

The accusation does not apply to me.  So why argue a false premise?

Doing so is a waste of time—my time.  Thereto, arguing only gives my accuser legitimacy.

Anger is another issue of which women commonly accuse men—men are always angry, and are thus verbally, physically, and emotionally abusive.

Say my wife is angry at me for one reason or another.  I’m not angry; she’s angry.  The proper and constructive course would be to, one, assume my innocence. Two, to calmly explain the problem.  So as to, three, try to peacefully resolve the matter.

Only, that idealistic approach is never what takes place.

My wife is angry.  She’s hurling accusations, yelling, projecting her anger onto me.  Although I’m the accused being unfairly condemned, I’m not angry initially.  The verbal assault continuing, however, and my justifying rebuttals continuously dismissed, I become angry.  I start hurling accusations, yelling, and condemning, too.

At which point my wife says, “See?  You’re angry.  Talk to me when you can be rational and calm.”

“Rational and calm?!” I say fuming.  “You were the one with the problem—not me!  You were the one angry and accusatory and yelling—not me!  I was calm!”

“I can’t talk to you when you’re angry,” she says, with sudden and remarkable composure.  “And you’re always angry,” she adds, walking away and in control.

And this is successful psychological projection:  become angry, project your anger, start the fight, make the other party angry, deny your angry impulses, deny responsibility for the fight, accuse the other party of having the impulses, and make them responsible for the fight.

Projection is an art.  And like I said, women are masters.

And here’s the kicker:  in the end, after this altercation has raged for hours or days, men are not only expected to apologize for being rude and angry—for being made rude and angry, no less.  They are expected to share culpability for the altercation, too.

Men hear, “I think we both should apologize for being rude and angry, and for the awful things we both said.” 

To which men dumbly say:  “Okay dear.  I’m sorry.  Let’s not fight anymore.”

Men say this instead of what they should say, which is, “If you hadn’t been emotional and angry.  If you hadn’t been attacking and accusing me falsely.  Then none of this would have happened in the first place.  This conflict is the result of your actions, which makes it your fault, not mine.  So stick sorry up your projecting ass!”

Of course, most men are wiser than me in this regard.  They hold their tongues so as to get on with a more peaceful life, which is a mistake.

Why is it a mistake?

Because the projecting BS continues.  That’s why.

I operate in emotional reverse.  Trying to solve a problem, I am usually calm, reserved, and emotionless in the initial stages of an altercation.  There’s a problem; it needs to be understood.  I’m calmly weeding the argument, trying to understand the crisis, while attempting to diffuse the immediate anger.

I know my mission in life isn’t to wrong people or to treat them poorly.  So I don’t approach accusations and altercations with a guilty conscious.  I see them as misunderstandings that need to be cleared up, which is what I attempt to do.

If you keep pressing me, however.  If you are irrational and thereby unwilling to acknowledge base inaccuracies in your argument against me.  Then I get pissed-off.  Once pissed off, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me what happens or whose feelings get hurt.

And not only will I rudely get in your ass.  I’m indifferent to charges of verbal and emotional abuse.  And reeling me back in from my pissed-off state is virtually impossible, too.

And as for this 50/50 apology rule?  As for getting me to apologize for a conflict I did not incite?

Why, there’s a phrase for such an attempt:  an effort in futility.

If any apologies are going to be made, they’ll be made to me.  That’s how that deal is going to work, or there won’t be any deal.

Why is it important that appropriate apologies be made?

Because the projecting BS continues.  That’s why.

We hear all of this therapist-speak about managing relational conflict effectively and progressively and curatively.  As couples we are supposed to assume innocence; we’re supposed to calmly make our concerns known; and we’re supposed to approach disputes in in a spirit of gentle inquiry and ready, impending absolution.

Well, when these fundamental ideas were communicated by therapists in session, women must have been in the ladies room:

 Woman, upon her return:  “Okay.  I’m back.  What did I miss?”

Counselor:  “Oh, nothing that will concern you—just some rules specifically for him.  Let’s move on…”

What is really taking place in these altercations is the denial of responsibility.  In fact, relationship conflict is most often one big denial of responsibility, which is nothing new.  Denying responsibility is as old as Adam and Eve.

That’s right—it’s that longstanding.

God told the first couple to enjoy the entire garden, but to leave one tree alone.  Forewarned and thusly aware, Eve was seduced to eat of the one, lone, forbidden tree.  After which, she seduced Adam.  Then, God came-a-calling.

In modern parlance, the conversation went something like this:

God:  “Adam, where are you?”

“I’m hiding, because I’m naked and afraid.”

“Naked?  Who told you that you were naked?”

“Uh, that woman you gave me, she tricked me into eating the apple.”

“Woman, is this true?  Did you trick Adam?”

“Well, um, like—it was the serpent; it seduced me.”

Genesis 3:8-13.  Go ahead, read it.

As I said, denying responsibility is as old as Adam and Eve.

And incidentally, this is the first recorded incident of psychological projection—guilt projection, to be precise.

Women also project their insecurities.  It is to say, while women are themselves fiercely insecure, they attribute their thoughts and feelings of insecurity to their men.

For example, concerning men’s love and their commitment to a relationship, women are insecure.  The problem isn’t women’s own thoughts and feelings enabling those insecurities.  The problem is men causing those thoughts, feelings, and insecurities.

Hence, women accuse men of not loving enough, of not being committed enough, and thus continually demand romance and affection as reassurance of both.

Women having just returned from a passionate two weeks in Cancun?  Having just enjoyed a cozy dinner the previous evening?  Why, that’s yesterday’s proof of love, affection, and securing commitment.

Today is a new day!  Women need fresh assurances!

And women project guilt for their insecurities, too.  They accuse men of noticing attractive women, for example.  Yet, taking notice of attractive men, women do the same thing.

It is to say, women have the natural impulse to notice attractive men—an impulse they indeed follow.  Yet, they deny the existence of that impulse in themselves, while making men feel guilty for not only having the impulse, but following it.

See how it works?

Psychological projection.

It suffices to say that, whatever the accusation from women, men can be sure of, one, a double standard.  And two, that women are making men responsible, when men aren’t responsible.

Again, it’s a pretty reliable assumption and approach.

Psychological projection isn’t a complicated practice by any means.  It’s actually quite fundamental.  It’s essentially accusation and blame by the guilty, and by those responsible for the upcoming mess.

And relationally speaking, who does most of the accusing and blaming and projecting?



Men aren’t nearly as rehearsed as women in the skill of psychological projection.  For being accused, blamed, and projected upon all the time, men don’t get the chance to rehearse.  Thereto, they simply don’t have the inclination.  Unrehearsed and uninclined, men don’t realize they’re being victimized.

So, here’s one last example to illustrate the victimization, one to which men will surely relate.

A particular woman hasn’t had sex with her man for a week, two, or perhaps a month.  In her mind she is fat and hideous—a totally absurd assessment.  Or she’s comfortable and secure, and thus lazy and unmotivated.

Whatever the case, there has been no sex.

She has been the one secretly avoiding sex.  Yet, she knows sex is important to men, that it is particularly important to her man, and that it is also important to the relationship.  Primarily, she knows it’s important to controlling his wandering eye and to keeping him on the porch.  So for avoiding sex she’s feeling parts guilt and obligation.

“Have you been avoiding me,” she asks coquettishly, moving in with that unmistakable grin.  “It’s been too long, and mama needs some, lovinnn’.”

Suddenly engaged and enthusiastic, he man says, “Of course I haven’t been avoiding you.  We can do this deal right now, baby!”

As he moves in, however, she resists.  To soften his impending disappointment, she lewdly caresses his thickening package and says gently, “Not right now, baby.” Then, with significant eye-contact, she purrs, “Laterrr…”

It all sounds great, of course.  Only, “Laterrr” never comes.

Why does “Laterrr” never come?

Because there is no intent for it to come.

Unbeknownst to him, loverboy has been the target of psychological projection.

Subtly, he was the one accused of evading sex—“Have you been avoiding me?”—when it was actually her.  And feeling guilty for her secret neglect, she projected her guilt onto him.  Excited by the unusual attention and initiation, loverboy didn’t realize he’d been made responsible for the absence of sex, or that he’d been the victim of psychological projection, either one.

In other words, the lack of sex is loverboy’s fault!

Women know they are avoiding sex, and that they are denying their men sex.  Women feel guilty ultimately and, at a point, become concerned about their particular men’s interest in them, love for them, and commitment to them.

Guilty and concerned, women then test the sexual waters to make sure they are still warm—and not because they are interested in sex, necessarily, but because rejection and infidelity are a rather painful alternatives.

With an assurance of “Laterrr,” men are hopeful.  As for them, good times are on the agenda, are on the near horizon.  Most importantly, men are pacified for a few more days.  So by merely initiating, women learn the sexual waters are yet warm, while they alleviate their concern and guilt at the same time.  And making men responsible for the dearth of sex, psychological projection is a success.

Data claims that women are the emotional center of relationships.  It claims couples are more attuned to the women’s emotional regulation, and that that agreement feeds both spouses’ perceptions of relational quality.

This being incontrovertibly true, one might ask how women manage to encourage relationship men into such subservience and ease of management.

It’s called psychological projection.  And like I said, women are masters of the art.

Now.  As for women realizing they are projecting, and as for them doing it purposefully—I don’t think that’s the case.  I don’t believe most women want to mistreat their men, or to do them ill or wrong, no more than men want to do those things to their women.  I think women care about their men, and that they’re genuinely concerned for their men’s well-being.  Again, the same as men.

The reason for the phenomenon is simple.  Women are emotional—more to the point, sensitive.  It means they’re worrisome and defensive, and not to exclude envious and jealous and vindictive—parts of the emotional base, too.  Thus, women often think and respond emotionally, which lends itself to irrationality and to reflexive reactions, which lends itself to unfair accusations, criticisms, and to psychological projection.

It’s really no more complicated than that.

And then, having invested themselves in a position, women are stuck for reasons of ego, pride, and for the embarrassment of being emotional and foolish, and for those things, wrong and unfair.

Hence, the unending relational wars, which are nothing more than fight to avoid accepting responsibility.

Psychological projection and the ability to project aren’t exclusive to one gender.  Men and women both can engage in the practice.  For their emotional tendencies, however, projection is natural to women, who then practice it more readily, if unknowingly.

The problems is, projection becomes a habit that takes a toll on relationships.

It’s a subtle practice, certainly, one that occurs naturally and without premeditation.  Yet, knowing what’s happening, and why it’s happening, it’s a practice and habit that seems pretty easy to stop.

©JMW 2018  All Rights Reserved



New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside

Winning at Weight Loss

JMWIt’s that time of year.  Four words:  before and after pictures.

All year long people eat like Professor Klump after an embarrassing night of Reggie-styled fat-shaming.  Then, long about December, here come the before and after pics calling them to task, and to new beginnings.

And the before and after strategy works!  Let the guilt and shame and vanity purchasing begin!

And how well does it work?

Well, check out these numbers.

Weight loss—a $20 billion dollar a year industry?

Why, that’s a rather significant demonstration of shame, guilt, and vanity.

A hundred and eight million Americans are on diets, and make four or five attempts a year?

Oh great.  So along with the shame and guilt and vanity, we can add failure to the emotional mix.

And celebrities get paid $500,000 to $3 million dollars to endorse major weight loss programs?

Well, for $3 million dollars, who couldn’t choke down one of those green, broccoli/cucumber frappés, lick their lips, and smile convincingly for the camera?

Deee-licious!  This is the best unnaturally colored, visually appalling, foul smelling shake I’ve ever had! 

 I could do it.

And what’s this statistic?  Of the customers consuming weight-loss products and services, 85% are … female?  Oh boy.  Not good.  This has to imply something bad.

Why, yes.  Yes it does imply something bad!  It’s sexism!

The weight loss industry caters mostly to women!  And rest assured this particular statistic isn’t going to go over very well with men.  Everyone knows how offended men are by female dominance—in any area.  Tisk-tisk.

I foresee a maleism protest.  Men in the streets, with boy-blue penis-hats and all.  Little furry testicles tied underneath their chins.  Carrying signs.  Talking about being “Naaasty men,” and about being disrespected and cheated by a matriarchal culture.

Yeah, no.  I don’t see it, either.

Makes sense the number is 85%, though.  Shame, guilt, vanity—women have the market cornered on those issues.  The numbers pretty much bear it out.  And these statistics are from a 2012 report, for chrissake!  You know there has to have been at least another $2 or $3-billion worth of additional shame, guilt, and vanity profitability since then.  Right?

There must be.

So in view of all this, there’s this question, which, is aimed mostly at women evidently:  is there a bigger mental and emotional burden in the modern human experience than weight loss?

The fact is, weight loss is a nightmare—a genuine, ceaseless nightmare.  Largely a female nightmare, mind you, but a nightmare nonetheless.

And here’s the truth about it:  everybody is willing to help people with weight loss—as it pertains to their wallets, at least.  Yet nobody prepares people in the ways that matter, or in the areas that will more likely facilitate weight loss success, which are matters and areas mental, emotional, and practical.

So, got your attention?  Good.

Sound like something different?  Something a little more substantive than before and after pictures?  Like an idea that might be of real benefit?

Indeed, it is something unique.  Trust me, I won’t let you down.

Basically, I sat at my desk and started jotting down some of my own thoughts on food and weight and weight loss.  Some are brief.  Some are more detailed.  I believe most people want to succeed at losing weight.  I just don’t think they grasp all that is involved in that success.

So, beginning with the two most important aspects to success, the issues are as follows:

Rule Number One

When it comes to weight loss, most people don’t realize the forces aligned against them.

Try this scenario:  You’re determined to lose weight.  So, in compliance with the goal, you begin a regimen, and have a half a grapefruit for breakfast.  You feel good about yourself, proud of your choice, your discipline.  You feel thinner, even:

Look at me!  My pants fit better! you think, getting dressed.  And this after but one breakfast on the new diet.

As you walk out the door for work, what is that you see sitting on the counter?

Glazed donuts!  The kids love them.

Full of early success resilience, you think, Nope!  Defiantly, you turn-up your nose in visual protest, and exit.

Good for you—you’re an oak.

In the car, you turn on the radio.  Leaving the neighborhood, you hear:  “… so, come on in to Dan Tana’s tonight!  Mouthwatering steaks, mahi-mahi, and of course our award-winning desserts…”

I’m hungry, you think.   Then, coming to your senses:  Nope!

You change the channel.

Only, a few moments later you hear:  “… so, come on in to Dan Tana’s tonight!  Mouthwatering steaks, mahi-mahi…”

You turn off the radio.

Driving down the road—in silence, the voice in your head says like a mental tour guide, “Ladies and gentlemen, if you look to your right you’ll see Wesley’s—a premier southern-style eatery…”

An invisible force tugging your chin, you glance at Wesley’s, start recalling the scrumptious Chicken Marsala you had there just last week.  And those to-die-for scones, you imagine, biting your lower lip.

Stiffening, you think, Nope!  Sorry Wesley.  You’re not getting in the way of my terrific new body.

Arriving at work, you walk past the coffee counter and, what’s this?

Oh no.  Bearclaws!  Somebody brought bearclaws!  Damn you…whoever!  Damn you!!

But wait!  Next to the bearclaws, some conscientious fellow member of the struggle brought a vegetable tray!  Whew!  Thank goodness—something healthy.

Relieved, you make your way to your desk, thinking about the “Battle of the Bearclaw” to come—maybe just a half of one.  That’s not so bad, is it?  I only had half a grapefruit for breakfast, after all.  I’m ahead!  Aren’t I?

On your way, you pass Julie’s desk and her large, ever stocked to the brim container of Hershey’s Kisses.  You see them and, oh Lord—you’re on your period.

Your gait slows as you approach the conveniently placed, community container.  Julie is obese, and wants everyone to share her pain.  You’re sweating now.

But, Nope!  You look away, and continue to your desk.

And then, Jeff—sitting at the desk next to yours.  You can’t believe your eyes. You think:  what asshole eats miniature Snickers bars in the morning?!

An ovary barks angrily; you sneer at him.  And not only for his breakfast choice, but for the boy-blue penis hat he’s wearing and the furry testicles tied underneath.  And there’s the sign leaning against his desk:  “Weight Loss Is Sexist!”

He sees you glance.  “Going to a protest later,” he says, the words muffled by Snickers melt.

You roll your eyes in disgust, throw you briefcase on the desk.

The bearclaw, you think.  It’s calling …

As a distraction you turn on the radio, click

“…so, come on in to Dan Tana’s tonight!  Mouthwatering steaks, mahi-mahi, and of course our award-winning desserts…”

You throw your hands up and head for the bearclaw.  And you’re having a whole one, too, dammit!

The point is, this is the level of food temptation people face all day, every day.

Turn on the television—food.

Turn on the computer—food videos.

Turn on the car radio—food advertisements.

Roll down the car window for some air—Five Guys is pumping hamburger aroma straight off the grill and into your car.

Billboards, bus signs—food.

The quick mart for gum, to quell the hunger pangs—not only are there foody impulse buys on every step of the strategically constructed pathway to the counter.  They’re grilling hot dogs.

Food is everywhere.  Literally everywhere!  And the senses are being constantly overrun.

So as I said, when it comes to weight loss, most people don’t realize the forces aligned against them, and against their success.

Hence, Rule Number One:  to be successful at weight loss, people have to realize they are more than just tempted by food.  They’re immersed in food temptation.

This is, in fact, the most important aspect of the weight loss game.  In this contest, food is everything.  And not only is it everywhere.  In terms of marketing, it’s being made to look irresistible.  Advertised apples are vaselined to look shiny and delicious.  Donuts are warm and gooey.  When has a hamburger in a box looked as well put together and fresh as those on a billboard?

They never resemble the billboard.

Ergo, the accessibility of food and the relentless sensorial temptation are realities for which people must be both acutely aware and prepared.

Rule Number Two

The entire weight issue is the result of a standard.  In other words, bodies are only attractive and desirable if they look like “X,” and are unattractive and undesirable if they do not.  So, modify yourself to look like “X,” or be seen as an unacceptable and undesirable slob.

Imagine it:  a room full of people of diverse body-types.  Someone walks in and says, “To be physically acceptable and desirable, you all have to look like me.”

That’s literally what we’re talking about with this standard business.

Of course, someone isn’t actually saying it.  It’s implied—implied visually, through cultural media, via super models and hunky men with abs, via people of elite attractiveness, and through before and after pictures, too.  Those sorts of things.  And having their mediocrity implied every moment of the day, and everywhere they look, how do people respond?

Why, they awake every day to a substandard existence.

Hence, in the weight loss game, this standard business is as important to recognize as food temptation, and is just as onerous.

And as to that standard, consider this:  most of these standard-bearers can’t maintain relationships for being philanderers and narcissists.  They have addiction problems, broken homes, and ill-behaved children.  And when the cameras are off, they’re smug, condescending assholes no one but their parasitic posses can stand to be around.  And that they have zero body fat and ripped abs—that’s the important standard?

Uh, please.

So here’s the message:  set your own standards and your own goals.

It’s Rule Number Two.

Eating—that’s the problem 

So stop with all the political, scientific BS.  Food going in the mouth equals weight gain and fatter bodies.  Rather, too much food going in the mouth equals weight gain and fatter bodies.

Don’t believe it?

Go to Sub-Saharan Africa.

The visible rib cages?  Not enough food going into mouths there.

And food isn’t the enemy, either.  The constantly bending elbow is the enemy, which food manufacturers want to encourage, naturally.  Not maliciously so, but profitably so.  Manufacturer’s want people opening their mouths and shoving-in their products as frequently and as liberally as possible.

Solving any problem starts with identifying the problem, which in this case is a lack of discipline.  To which there are these two truths:  one, people are rarely as hungry as they think.  And two, exposed to food at every turn, people are being conditioned to hunger, and to thinking they are hungry.  In other words, Rule Number One:  people are being constantly provoked to eat.

We could come up with a load of Pavlovian data as to how the senses and the brain respond to the sight, smells, and the mentions of food.  But, is that really necessary?


People are made hungry for profit.  So to win at weight loss, they simply have to be mentally and emotionally prepared for the ubiquitous assault on their senses, prepared for the associated hunger feelings, and steeled in their resolve to disjoint the constantly bending elbow.

Winning at weight loss really is that simple.

Advertising Fraud

Manufacturers will say anything to entice consumers.  What advertisers are saying now is already intellectually insulting.  At the current rate, a package of bon-bons will soon read:  “Special Formula:  Gets rid of muffin-top and dimpled thighs.  The more you consume, the better the effect!  So eat all you want!”

There’ll be 17 year old, bikini-clad super model on the package shoving bon-bons in her mouth, too.  Only, for the sinless flavor experience she’ll only allow the bon-bons to melt, upon which she’ll spit the entire mess out.

And why spit the mess out?  To avoid muffin-top and dimpled thighs, of course.

The perfected visual is for all those suckers who believe there’s a “Special Formula.”

And the super model—she’ll make $3 mil, incidentally.  A not-so-sinless $3-mil, perhaps, deceiving consumers and all.

The Downside of Prosperity

There is nothing at all wrong with prosperity, except that it has the tendency to make people comfortable, lazy, undisciplined, and fat—pretty much in that order.

The American experience—awesome though it is—would have people confined to the sofa.  Its goal is to cater to people, to make things easier for them.  So much so, that people actually have to move less.

Got a remote?  Check.

Got an Echo Dot?—“Alexa?  Turn on the robotic vacuum.”  Check.

Got the robotic vacuum?  Check.

The marketplace says to people:  “Relax.  Let us make your life easier.”

Why this approach?

Because human beings tend toward laziness.  Thus, the “Relax” strategy is an extremely seductive marketing approach.  Therefore, people have to resist the seduction.  Else they become comfortable, lazy, undisciplined, and fat.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

People can look at themselves approvingly in the mirror one minute:  Not so bad.  I’m looking pretty good!  And for “looking pretty good,” they can then travel straight to the kitchen and eat a donut.  And returning to the mirror immediately after the donut, they have a completely different self-perception:  Ugh.  I’m so fat.

There is no way eating a single donut can change one’s physical appearance a single degree—not a single degree!  So, what changed?  The change occurred mentally, emotionally.  Driven by guilt and vanity, the mind simply created a new perception.  A fatter perception.

In the weight loss/body image battle, the perception change not only underscores the power of the mind, and its less than encouraging nature.  It highlights the need for positive mental and thus emotional reinforcement.  The mirror isn’t the enemy, no more than food is the enemy.

The mirror merely reports exactly what it sees.  People apply the feelings and ultimate perception, which should be positive, which then requires an unnatural human response, which should become natural, which can only become natural through continual practice.

Self-approval and promotion—that’s how people stay optimistic and motivated, and how they succeed at the weight loss game.

Friends Like These, Right?

Your friends—and family, too—will sabotage your weight loss efforts.

It’s true!  Particularly for women.

Men say to each other, “You lost some weight, Jim.  Good for you.  So, are you going hit the ball, or are we just going to stand here?”  Men couldn’t care less about their friends losing weight.

Women on the other hand—85% loathing their bodies and dieting, they don’t like other women succeeding at weight loss.  Women say they’re happy and supportive, but they aren’t, really.  They’re jealous, envious.

Thus, women are waaay more subject to having their weight loss efforts sabotaged.  And by other women, no less—specifically their so-called friends and their family members.

The answer?  Secrecy.

“My goodness, Barbara!  Are you dieting?  You look so much thinner!”

“I do?  Nope.  Eating like I always do—a few less sweets maybe.  Girrrl, I abhor dieting.  I’m opposed to it.”

With the secrecy approach, there’s no saboteurish jealousy and envy among Barbara’s girlfriends.  It isn’t to say there isn’t jealousy and envy over Barbara’s new luster.  It’s to say there’s not the type that necessitates sabotage.  Barbara isn’t disciplining herself or making any efforts.  Her weight loss is inexplicable and fortunate, instead of resulting from self-discipline and dieting, which would then be irritating and worthy of sabotage.

Oh c’mon, Barbara!  Try one of these scones.  They’re from Wesley’s and, oh-my-gosh!, they’re sooo delicious.  Just one bite.  C’mon.  Just one.  Try it.  C’mon …

Friends like these, right ladies?

Two points:  one, nobody cares about someone else’s diet.  Two, talking about dieting is just an effort to get attention.

So, shut-up about it, and secretly do what you have to do.  Given the human tendency towards jealousy, and the tendency of the jealous to dull the luster of those who achieve, the less people know the better.

Atonement Takes, Like, Two Seconds

Russell bounced around at 260 pounds for twenty years, a weight and subsequent appearance he sorely disliked, but did nothing about.  He had a health crisis, ultimately.  Alarmed, and with consequent purpose, he began a stringent diet and started exercising.

He was a svelte 190 pounds within 6 months.

Three points:  one, twenty years of self-loathing and emotional misery, versus, six months to a new body, a new appearance, happiness, and self-confidence.  Twenty years is a long time to suffer physically, mentally, and specifically emotionally over 70 pounds that can be lost in six months.

In other words, you can sin like a heathen for twenty years and atone in six months, or so.

What a bargain.  And it’s true.

End the suffering

Two, that it requires crisis to motivate people is a sad commentary.

And three—okay so, people end the suffering in six months and reach their “goal weight.”  Then what?  The weight struggle is over?  No more worrying about food and calories?  No more self-discipline?

Weight control is a lifelong challenge.  Get used to it.

Invest six months, accomplish the goal, and live your life in a healthier and happier way from then on.


The only exercise people need when trying to lose weight is cardio.  Burning calories and raising metabolism is what facilitates weight loss, along with disciplined eating, of course.

Walking, jogging, treadmill—dedicate to cardio.  Achieve the desired weight, and then incorporate muscle training and toning.

When people decide to lose weight they bite off more than they can chew mentally, emotionally, and particularly physically.  A vigorous workout approach is defeating.  Formerly unchallenged muscles aren’t ready for the physical trauma of strenuous exercise.  And when their muscles and bodies revolt for the trauma, people quit.

It’s no way to approach weight loss.

It’s not a sprint to your weight and fitness and health goals.  It’s a marathon.  Like I said, it’s a lifelong challenge.  Treat is as such—approach it that way.

Start casually, comfortably, and continue the cardio routine and pace for a few months.  The leisurely, virtually pain-free approach will not only help maintain motivation and desire.  More importantly, it will serve to develop both every day consistency and the exercise habit.  As the body acclimates, it will also strengthen.  Endurance will increase, too.

Ergo, results.

Ultimately, people will feel better.  Their confidence and desire will increase.  They’ll feel disciplined and successful.  And to continue feeling physically better, and to continue the successful vibes, they’ll feel more like exercising.

None of which occurs when a body is traumatized and in angry revolt, incidentally.

They talk about the fitness lifestyle—it’s habit, that’s all it is.  And if people are going to make it a habit, then they’re going to have to enjoy it.  They’re going to have to feel the benefits, without so much of the discouraging burn.  By taking this approach, and by making fitness a marathon as opposed to a pain-ridden sprint, people will get to a point where they have to exercise or feel otherwise crappy.

Then, it’s an addiction.  Then, it’s a lifestyle.  Then, it’s sustainable.


For working out in a public setting, there’s this little nugget:  nobody is looking at you, and judging you.  Everybody is too self-absorbed, too aware of their own flabby flaws.  So stop being so self-conscious.  Most people don’t give a damn.  They’re too busy giving a damn about how they look.

Step One

In losing weight, start with mental and emotional fitness.  That’s right—get your head right.  Set down all the baggage and get yourself in the right place emotionally.  It’s the precursor to success in the physical realm.

People spend so much time and energy on the cosmetic outer.  Well, what about the inner?  The inner is the furnace.  Determination, will, focus—it’s where all the good and necessary stuff comes from.  People can have the bodies everyone is supposed to want, yet they are still miserable.

Why?  Because they haven’t invested in their mental and emotional fitness.

Vanity:  fix the outside because it’s visible, neglect the inside because it isn’t.

To win at weight loss, people have to start with the inside.  Otherwise, they’re in for a bumpy, inconsistent journey to virtually assured failure.

UCLA’s legendary John Wooden said, “People usually know what they should do to get what they want.  They just won’t do it.  They won’t pay the price.”  He said, “Understand there is a price to be paid for achieving anything of significance.  You must be willing to pay the price.”

Weight loss is largely vanity- and thus image-driven.  It lays on people’s mind because they don’t like the way they look as compared to a fitter standard.  And as to that standard, consider this:  if everybody in a culture was fat, the culture would look down on thinness and skinny people.

Basically, and except for health-related issues, the entire weight loss thing revolves around a whole lotta’ nothin’.  That’s why people don’t want to pay the weight loss price—because they aren’t really achieving anything of significance, wanting only the ego-warming admiration and envy of others.

In other words, weight loss is based on desires and pretenses that aren’t going to provide sustaining motivation.  And even if they do provide motivation, when people achieve their goals they still have to maintain that new position.

Thus, it only makes sense that weight loss be driven by something more substantive and motivational.  And what is that something more substantive and motivational?

Personal excellence—that’s the answer.

People can say to themselves:  I’m not happy with where I am mentally, emotionally, physically.  I don’t like my attitude, my lack of discipline.  I don’t like the way I feel about myself or the image I’m presenting.  Ultimately, I don’t like where my life is headed.  I want to be a better, more complete version of myself—the best version of myself.

 Nobody places more demand and pressure on us than ourselves.  So, make it the right kind of demand and pressure:  the demand for personal discipline and the pressure of excellence.  We just get used to compromising, and to letting ourselves down.  The habit perpetuates, which ultimately kills the demand for discipline and excellence.

And then—the rut of mediocrity we fall into.

The best pep-talk ever given can’t get people out of that rut, either.

Rescue comes from within.

©JMW 2018









Conflict Resolution 101

JMWWhen asked, “How many relationship fights do you start?”  Men stare vacantly.

Why the blank, uniform stares?

Initially, they are a result of being caught unprepared by a never-before-asked question.  With a little reflection, however, and a little prompting, the blank stares give way to a realizing grin.

The revelation?

Women start a lot of damn fights!

In my latest book New Rules, I wrote:  “Involving themselves in relationships is the beginning of sorrows for modern men.”   Proving the claim, I listed some researched complaints from men as to why their women get mad at them.

A few of my favorites:

  • “She got mad at me over a situation that she completely made up in her head and hadn’t even happened. It was a three day fight.”
  • “She asked if she ever gets mad over stupid little things. I said she has.  Guess who got mad.”
  • “She got mad because my feet were pointed away from her [in bed]. To her, it meant I didn’t love her because of my ‘body language.’  I was sleeping.”
  • “I called her my little pumpkin-butt and she didn’t talk to me for two days.”
  • “Woke up to a slap in the face. I should not have cheated on her in her dream.”

And this is but a small sample from a much larger, equally as insane collection.

So, because men are subject to these sorts of insane provocations, and to the constant arguments and fights these provocations incite.  Like I said, involving themselves in relationships is for men the beginning of sorrows.

To hear women tell it, men are selfish and inconsiderate.

They’re insensitive.

They’re poor communicators, always saying things the wrong way.

They are insufficiently committed and complimentary.

Basically, men are everything except correct.  They’re never bestowed that honor, clearly because they’re such awful creatures—banging other chicks in women’s dreams, and all.

Being such awful creatures, the criticisms and accusations—the provocations—from women are routine, which of course demonstrates that men are always saying it wrong, doing it wrong, and getting it wrong.  And because men are always getting it wrong, they need to be corrected, which of course manifests as the fruitful, if insane, criticisms and accusations from women, which of course provokes the fighting, which then demonstrates that women start a lot of damn fights.

Now.  Claiming it was they who were provoked—You shouldn’t have called me pumpkin-butt, asshole!—women aren’t likely to agree with the charge.  Yet, in humble disagreement I would render this clearly observable evidence to the contrary:

  • Men closely monitor what they say and do around their women.
  • Men are calculating in what they say and do.
  • Men strategize before addressing matters verbally.
  • And men do all to prevent emotional, defensive, and insane eruptions.

Clearly, men want to avoid fights.


Because they’re provoked into too many as it is!

And examining these circumstances, this isn’t a relationship.

It’s a prison!

Like walking around a prison yard, keeping your mouth shut, minding your own business, staying on your own turf so as to avoid getting shanked—this is prison life!

The only things missing are orange coveralls, razor-wire, and guard towers.

The fact is men aren’t prepared for all the petty and illogical drama modern women bring to relationships, or to deal with the incessant fighting that results.

And for that matter, who would be prepared for such insanity?

I mean, seriously.  The term pumpkin-butt invites two days of silence?

Mentally concocted things that never actually happen result in a three day fight?

A man’s feet pointed the other way in bed is an unloving gesture?

Women giggle and finger-twirl their hair as if this insanity is cute, as if their feminine kookiness is somehow adorable.  And perhaps it is to an extent.  That extent being where the insane becomes reasonable, and where men should agree and comply or get themselves shanked!

Men aren’t prepared for such insanity.  And it’s a major handicap.

The insane accusations and criticisms begin—and worsen.  Unprepared and under attack, men respond poorly, if naturally, with self-defense and pacification.  And as a result, a pattern and strategy emerge.

A pattern in that men endlessly defend themselves and pacify women.

A strategy in that women use criticism and accusation to both control disputes and to get what they want.

Like I said, this isn’t a relationship.  It’s a prison.  And unprepared for relationship life, men become inmates as opposed to respected relationship partners.

To be fair, I don’t think men or women either one receive adequate preparation for relationship life.  However, given it is men who become the criticized and accused, and who must contend with the illogical and even insane provocations of women.  It is men who desperately need preparatory training.

So, beginning with a few fundamental ideas, principles one might equate to warm-up calisthenics, following is that training …

The Question is:  Why?

Men don’t involve themselves in relationships with women to become perpetual villains living under constant suspicion, or to be recipients of consistent criticism and condemnation for that perception, either one.

Men don’t involve themselves to become a relationship’s sole, perpetually sub-par problem, or to bicker and fight all the time for women’s emotion-driven BS, resentments, and eternal discontent.

Men don’t involve themselves to become interpreters, deciphering what women don’t mean and actually mean.

And men certainly don’t involve themselves to become orange-clad inmates who, to avoid shanking in the prison yard, keep their mouths shut, mind their own business, and keep to their own turf.

Yet, when men do involve themselves with women, this, to varying degrees, is exactly what they experience.

And what do the circumstances inspire?

A lot of damn fighting.

The question men need to routinely ask themselves is:  why?  As in:  why am I in this relationship, anyway?

Do men sign-up for this sort of experience?

No.  No they don’t.

And why must men ask themselves the “why” question routinely?

Because men become accustomed to prison life.  Because a subordinate, dictated way of life becomes normal.

It isn’t normal.  It’s abnormal—prison-yard abnormal.

The Premise

Women expect their needs and desires to have supremacy.  If unspoken, this is both the premise of modern relationships and, more significantly, the female expectation.

It used to be different—more, balanced.  In the era of male oppression, however, everything women do for men is now a subordinate act and a challenge to equality.  So goodbye service to men and subservient acts, and hello women expect their needs and desires to have relational supremacy.

And what happens when men fail to meet this expectation?

A lot of damn fighting.

Women claim compromise is crucial to successful relationships.  That’s because they—head-flick to the premise—expect men to do all the compromising.  And if men don’t compromise, there’s a fight, which then trains men to compromise.  And, of course, it is through these concessions that men are being subtly introduced to their orange jumpsuits, and to prison life, to which they are also being slowly and methodically accustomed.

See how it works?

So in terms of preparation, men need to recognize, one, the premise and related expectations for modern relationships, which is, again, women expecting their needs and desires to have supremacy.  And two, that they don’t have to abide by that premise or meet those expectations.

Men’s needs and desires are no less important, and those needs need to be met and those desires fulfilled.

It’s the new premise.

Dictated Happiness

Researchers at University of California-Berkley came to this not-so-profound conclusion:  “If the wife is happy, then so is her husband. And as a result, so is the marriage.”

It’s a long-winded version of the age old aphorism, “Happy wife, happy life.”

And what does this conclusion imply?

Essentially, that men aren’t allowed to be happy unless their women are happy.

And if you think women aren’t warm to the idea, quote the aphorism to them:

“Hey, ladies!  Happy wife, happy life.  Right?”

They’ll grin and say, “That’s right, buddy!”

And they mean it.

So, men aren’t allowed to be happy unless their women are happy?

Well, men can be whatever they want—happy, sad, indifferent.  Including free—free from women who demand and expect their happiness to reign relationally supreme.

Besides, as Draper said, “Happiness is the moment right before you need more happiness.”  The line pretty well describes the problem for men, relationally.  Make women happy today, and they wake-up tomorrow wanting and expecting more happiness.  And considering modern women are loath to make men a sandwich for the act implying subordination and inequality, the duty-bound manufacturing of happiness is a one-way street.

Female unhappiness is what most relationship conflict is about.  Evidenced by their abundant criticisms and accusations, women are constantly unhappy about something.  It is displeasure and discontent they attribute to their men, who then set to rectifying the unhappiness, which usually means men subordinating and sacrificing their own happiness, which creates but temporary happiness for women, which then necessitates the manufacturing and reestablishment of more happiness for women tomorrow, so as to rectify that day’s unhappiness.

And what takes place for all this discontent, and during all this happiness engineering?

A lot of damn fighting.

Women like to believe they “deserve” relational happiness, that they are entitled to it—because that’s what they tell each other.  Girrrl, you deserve to be happy!

Naturally, this provokes women to demand happiness not only be supplied by their men, but at their men’s expense.

So in response, men need to understand this principle:  it’s not their job to keep their women happy.  Women need to keep themselves happy.  Further, they need to make a few sandwiches and relearn how to keep men content.

The happiness load evenly distributed, there’s nothing to fight about.


I’m a decent guy—honest, fair, responsible, of good moral fiber.  I try to do things the right way, and have no desire to treat people poorly or unfairly, particularly women, and certainly not the woman with whom I’m sharing a relationship.

I’m certain most men are like me.  And indeed, more men should recognize in themselves these virtuous qualities.


Because via their criticisms and accusations, women would have their men believe otherwise.

Want proof?

Well, what are criticisms and accusations exactly?

They’re claims of disapproval and of wrong doing.

And issuing plenty of both, what are women then implying?

Well, they certainly aren’t implying that men are virtuous!

Ergo, it is vitally important that men not only recognize their virtuous qualities, but the good intentions associated with those qualities, too.  Because via their criticisms and accusations, women would have men believe they haven’t any virtue or good intentions at all.

Simply, men need to realize they aren’t the evil of which women routinely imply and would have men believe.  Thereto, men should recognize the genuine evil, which is the inconsiderate criticisms and accusations routinely hurled at and leveled against them, and the unjust effort to convince them of their ill-intent and wickedness.

That’s the real evil.  And incidentally, it’s responsible for a lot of damn fighting.


Emotional fights are a loser—guaranteed losers.


For one, nobody’s listening.  For another, there is no critical thinking taking place.  Conflicts absent both, nothing gets accomplished or solved.

And which gender is intensely, hair-trigger emotional?

The female gender.

So relationally, which gender is destined for the loser’s bracket in emotional fights?

The other gender.

So, gentlemen.  Here she comes, spoiling for a fight.  The subject matter is insignificant, really.  Angry, feelings hurt, feeling threatened, irritated, PMSing, and thusly emotional—she launches into her indictment.  And what can men say that will satisfy?

Absolutely nothing.

Emotion can’t be satisfied.  That’s all there is to it.  It’s like, Rule Number One.

Exhibit A:

“You don’t care about us!  When’s last time you took me on a date?!”

“Uh, last week, dear.  Del Quavos.  Cocktails, dinner—a movie after.  Remember?”

“Oh please!  That was just, stopping for a bite to eat.  When’s the last time you planned anything?!”

“Uh, the trip to San Francisco last summer.  Remember?  Booked the entire thing—hotel, flight, theater tickets.  Surprise!”

“Well, when’s the last time you brought me lunch at work?!”

“Well now, that I haven’t done in quite a while, dear.  You work across town now and it’s impossi …”

“Ah-ha!  See, you don’t care about us!”

This dispute continues this defiant and disagreeable course, why?

Because emotion can’t be satisfied.

Women feel a certain way, and they aim to have those feelings validated no matter how deep and illogical the accusations must run, and despite how routinely their feelings are shown to be unwarranted and unjustified.

So, the question:  if emotions can’t be satisfied, then why try to satisfy them?

It’s precisely what men do wrong.

Women aren’t interested in logic or fairness in these circumstances.  They are interested in their feelings being validated.  And there is but one acceptable outcome:  men validating those feelings by confessing their sins—having sinned or not.

So screw date night at Del Quavos and the arranged weekend in San Francisco.  Women are going to continue with the emotional accusations until they find one that allows them to say, “Ah-ha!  See?!  You don’t care about us!”

The problem with men in these situations is they get hung-up on the blame.  They feel attacked, wronged—feelings often justified.  They take offense and become angry, start defending themselves.

Except, Exhibit A.  Any response merely invites the next criticism and accusation, and continues to escalate the fight.

Simply, emotional women aren’t going to allow men to be correct or to win either one.  Therefore, emotional arguments are for men guaranteed losers.

So when the attack begins, rather than be provoked to the loser’s bracket, here’s the line for men:  “I’m sorry.  I don’t do emotional attacks and arguments.  Try me when you’re reasonable.”

Men aren’t the one’s emotional.  Hence, they don’t have to match emotion, or even become emotional at all.  They don’t have to fight, either.

I like winning.  And winning in an emotional fight is remaining unprovoked, unemotional, and non-participatory.

The Contention Strategy

The Contention Strategy is a rather effective tactic.  Here’s how it works:

If women propose something to their men, say like, “Let’s go to the movies.”  It isn’t really a proposal.  Women have decided they want to go to the movies, and that they are indeed going to the movies.

Women want what they want.  And as with virtually every desire they have, they fully expect to get what they want.  And then there is the nightmare of disappointing them.

And if you don’t believe me, ask their daddies.

So if men say, “Not tonight, honey.  I don’t feel like it.”  Or, “… the game is on and I want to watch it, instead.”  Women can simply turn this desire-denying result around with contention, or with the Contention Strategy.

“The game is always on!” they say condemningly.  “All you do is watch the game!”

And then in dramatic exasperation:  “The Game!  The Game!!’”

And there’s the guilt projection, too:

“You never take me anywhere!”

“When do I-eee fit into your schedule?  When am I-eee as important as, The Game?!”

And, voilà!  Men set the DVR and start getting dressed for the movies.

Now.  Women see the result and think:  Hmmm.  Now this tactic gets results!

So thereafter, women open-up the ol’ manipulation toolbox whenever necessary for a quick, contentious fix.

In other words, the contention strategy becomes for women desire fulfillment protocol.  Just make men the bad guy, the problem, the obstacle.  Whenever they say “No” or disagree.  Whenever they don’t comply with desires.  Criticize them sharply.  Accuse them.  Ladle them with guilt.  Yell at them.  Basically, become immediately contentious so that men say “Yes,” agree, and comply.

And that the strategy works so well is the reason the criticisms and accusations become so abundant and freely issued.  And the criticisms and accusations becoming more abundant, men start to expect a fight every time they say “No” or disagree.  Thus they stop disagreeing, stop saying “No,” stop resisting, and basically stop communicating all together.

Initially, men just want the attack and the drama to stop.  Eventually, they don’t want the attack and drama to take place altogether.  So what do they do to prevent it?

Subject themselves to prison life.

Like I said, it’s a rather effective tactic.

The answer?

Put an end to it.

When the initial assault is over, men should say:  “So.  You want something.  From me.  Why, I believe we’ve entered what’s called the negotiation phase, dear.  Let’s try to be civil, shall we?  In regards to this trip to the movies you so desperately seek, I think courtesy will perhaps work in your favor.

“Now.  Let’s begin our negotiations with what you might be wearing underneath that exquisite frock.  I’d very much like to have a peek at that—for starters.  And to my proposal you say…?”

Who’s running the show now?

Guilt or Innocence

The attack from women full-throated and the charges flying, the immediate question on every man’s mind should be:  am I guilty of this charge, or innocent?

Collected and unaffected amidst the verbal assault, men should ask themselves that exact question.  Nothing else matters—not the feelings, not the implied blame, not the discomfort or embarrassment.  Just—am I guilty of this charge or not?

The accusation—did I do it?

Fess-up.  “Yes.  I was checking her out.  She’s rather attractive.”

The Criticism—is it an accurate criticism?

Acknowledge it.  “Yes.  I do watch The Game.  I like sports.”

Men shouldn’t deny what they did, or who they are characteristically, or what they feel or don’t feel.

What’s the truth?  Tell it.  Immediately.

Honesty progresses the fight.  Progressing the fight, men control the fight.  Otherwise, they find themselves languishing in an emotional ordeal that not only can’t be satisfied, but that has no direction or conclusion.

The accusers and aggressors, women get to indict.  They don’t have to have a direction or a conclusion in mind, other than getting the answers they want and, warranted or not, an ultimate confession.

When they get neither?

Why, they issue more criticism and accusations, and project more guilt.

Thus men controlling and advancing a fight is infinitely better, and actually necessary.

Women want honesty?  Men should give it to them—instantaneous and full throttle.  Because honesty and directness are a major ingredient in …

Nearly Perfect Problem Solving

Relationship conflict is mostly political.  Meaning, men and women obfuscate issues and avoid the truth, because neither one want to admit the facts or to acknowledge their responsibility.

Both of which they escape by what means?

Confusing the issue and avoiding the truth.

It is precisely why couples end-up paying relationship counselors to help them have a basic conversation.  I type again:  to help them have a basic conversation.

A result of which raises this question:  if two people can’t have dialogue and solve their own disputes, then why the hell are they in a relationship?

“I think we need relationship counseling.”

Me:  “No we don’t, baby.  We need to start dividing up the stuff.  So, do you want the coffee pot?  Or can I add it to my things?”

Paying! someone to help me communicate with my relationship partner, for chrissake?

Why, I’d rather use the money for a new coffee pot—a deluxe edition, with a timer and all.

A new coffee pot purchase is necessary because men and women can’t be individually honest and take responsibility.  And both look at the last sentence and say, “Yes, precisely!  That is sooo true!”

Only, they say this thinking the remark applies to their partners and not to themselves!

See the problem?

As Crichton said, “Self-awareness—the most difficult awareness of all to achieve.”

Nevertheless.  There is a remedy to the political nightmare that is relationship conflict:  honesty and directness.

If couples are interested in good communication and thus genuine understanding.  If they are interested in keeping conflict to a minimum and fomenting mutual respect.  Honesty and directness afford the surest and quickest path to those things.

Try this:  the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  So then, to get from a problem—point A, to a solution—point B, the quickest path is a straight line.  The line in this example represents the truth.

So then, provide honest answers, stay on the straight line, and resolution comes more quickly and leaves the least carnage.  Stray from the path for feelings and politics, and arguments can rage endlessly, and can cause significant and often irreparable damage.

Honest communication is difficult because feelings and the resulting politics make it difficult.

Who likes to admit they are emotional, and that they are being unreasonable?

Who likes to admit they’re selfish, and that they’re being manipulative for a selfish agenda?

Worse, who likes to admit they are wrong, and that they have been subsequently unfair?

Politics make it possible to avoid all that.  And the feelings make it easy to justify the politics.

Political conflict is much easier, natural even.  It’s easier on the ego, too.

Only, it doesn’t solve problems.  It only makes them bigger, and to last longer.

Taking to political conflict, couples take a disagreement off its point A, point B, straight-line, quick resolution trajectory and wander off into the conflictual wilderness for hours, days, weeks, and longer.

If couples ever want an issue resolved, they will have to return to the truth eventually.  And if they don’t return on their own, they will return in counseling sessions where, what occurs?

A stranger forces them to be honest with one another, for chrissake!

So.  Rather than confuse an issue.   Rather than avoid the truth, and lie.  Rather than generate all those hurt feelings, and create resentment and dysfunction.  Rather than waste time and energy.  Rather than pay someone to forcibly extract honesty, for chrissake!  And rather than buy a new coffee pot—the deluxe edition, with the timer and all.

Why not be honest and direct?  Deeply, unflinchingly, vulnerably honest and direct?

It seems worthwhile.


“When I was working at a hospital someone would ask me how becoming a doctor would affect my future family.  You would never ask a man that question.  People think women can be one thing or the other—beautiful or intelligent.  But we can be everything.  That is what I’m most passionate about.”

So said a young woman, 22.  She’d won a beauty contest and was suddenly a celebrity with a platform, which she then frequently used to communicate this particular message to women.

And the subtle, if inescapable, undercurrent in this message?

Male resentment.

And to be clear—Resentment:  a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as wrong, insult, or injury.

And that “something” regarded as forever wrong, insulting, or injurious?

It has a penis.

The question is:  does this young woman’s remarks represent the feelings of every woman?

To varying degrees and extents, they do.  And despite the certain protestations of some, it is easy to momentarily prove.

So given the resentment, for what are women then “most passionate?”

Well, it isn’t convincing women they can be ‘everything,’ as the young woman’s remarks suggest.  It’s ending perceived male dominance and sticking it to men—the obvious enemy.

And both socially, and more specifically, relationally, what does the resentment create and the objective entail?

Conflict.  Lots of damn conflict.

Women like to pretend they don’t view men as the enemy, specifically the men with whom they share relationships.  Asked if they see their own men as enemies, women make That’s absurd! faces, claim they don’t agree with feminism and that they don’t like feminists, and so on.

Yet, look at the things women conclude about their men, and actually say to them—that they are selfish and inconsiderate, insensitive, verbally and emotionally abusive, cold, heartless, disrespectful, and not to exclude supremacy-minded, patriarchal assholes.

Do men sound like friendlies?  Like trusted allies?  Like supporters and defenders?  Like well-intentioned partners interested in women’s happiness and well-being?

No.  And like I said:  despite the certain protestations of some, the young woman’s remarks representing the feelings of every women is easy to prove.  I mean, there it is—cold, condemning verbal evidence from virtually every relationship.

Men sound like ill-willed adversaries!

And despite the That’s absurd! faces and the pretending, it is exactly how women view them—if only subconsciously.  And despite the point—men being the enemy—continuing to be made by women in so many subtle ways, men seem reluctant to acknowledge the reality.

Men are like the frightened, middle-aged cancer patient who continued refusing surgery he desperately needed.  A group of young, diplomatic doctors finessed and coddled him, went to great lengths to inform him thoroughly, and to assure him everything would be fine.  Yet, despite their comprehensive and delicate efforts, the patient refused.

Finally, a tough veteran physician, irritated at the lack of progress, walked authoritatively into the man’s room and said, “Mr. Smith, you have cancer.  And I’m going to take it out.”

The patient burst into tears and agreed to the surgery, which, incidentally, was performed successfully.

As to being viewed as women’s enemy, men need the same authoritative approach, apparently.

Someone needs to say to them:  “Women see you as the enemy—and if not the enemy, the problem.  So before involving yourselves in a relationship with them, you’d better come to terms with that fact, and understand what it means to a relationship and to your subsequent lives.”

So, there.  It’s been said both authoritatively and clearly—and yet again.

Of course, men could just believe the routine messages they hear delivered by women from every public platform.  In fact, being called selfish and inconsiderate, insensitive, verbally and emotionally abusive, cold, heartless, disrespectful, and supremacy-minded, patriarchal assholes by their own women, men could just believe their own ears.

The dirty little secret is women like feminism’s power, and find it useful.  While they make That’s absurd! faces and pretend to loath feminism and feminists.  While they pretend not to view men as their enemy, yet define men as such with so many adversarial characterizations.  Women still employ feminism’s muscle against men whenever necessary and beneficial.

Men doing a little too well in an argument—emotional abuse.

Speaking a little too authoritatively—verbal abuse.

Men saying “No,” not conceding, and not giving women what they want—patriarchal supremacy.

Again, do men sound like enemies or allies?

Precisely.  And this is what the enemy gets to look forward to in modern relationships—the beginning of sorrows.

Simply, women bring their insecurity issues and resentments and the related drama into relationships.  They slowly, methodically project those issues onto men, which creates conflict.  And totally naïve and unprepared, men try to manage the drama and conflict, eventually tire of the drama and conflict, and ultimately concede to avoid the drama and conflict.

And, voilà!  Prison life for men—a lifestyle occurring in a so-called “loving relationship,” no less.

“Now then” women say with a satisfied grin, maternally straightening men’s collars and whisking their shoulders.  “Don’t you look handsome in your orange jumpsuit?  We’re going to be sooo happy together.”

As long as men are behaving like model boyfriends and husbands and fathers—the relational standards being determined by women, of course—then women approve and remain content.  Let men slip out of line or fall below standard, however, and … BAM!

Conflict.  Lots of damn conflict.

It seems a terrible way to have to portray relationships.  Yet, given the adversarial circumstances of modern gender relations.  Given women’s insecurities, their resentment, the resulting competition, and the need for self-securing dominance and control.  A conflictual struggle for supremacy is precisely what relationships eventually become.

It’s inevitable.

Michael Crichton wrote a terrific piece for Playboy Magazine in the 90s entitled How to Fight, in which he not only expertly explained the dynamics of gender conflict, but advised men on how to survive—which is basically all men ever do in conflict with women:  survive.

It is an insightful piece—helpful even, and worth a read.

However, Crichton was married five times.  That’s:  five times.  So, men learning to fight and to merely survive doesn’t seem all that, effective.  It is to say I thoroughly enjoyed both Crichton’s perspective and piece, which was a perspective derived from and a piece written in a much different social era, incidentally.  I just think his approach is a loser, ultimately, which the piece and the divorces collectively and clearly prove.

Crichton’s and elite writer, and perhaps an elite filmmaker.  He just never achieved such status romantically, apparently.

It’s one thing when men are lying, philandering, disrespectful jerks who can’t be trusted.  Such men deserve the conflict—deserve to be kicked to the curb, actually.  Only, there are plenty of men who aren’t lying, philandering, disrespectful jerks, one.  And two, those sorts of issues aren’t what most relationship conflict is about.

In fact, what most relationship conflict is about leads to those sorts of issues.

Conflict occurs because women are emotional and insecure.

It occurs because women manufacture situations in their heads that never happen, and turn those fabricated beliefs into three day fights.

It occurs because women get mad over stupid little things, like men’s feet pointing the other way in bed being an unloving gesture.

It occurs because women are spoiled, and because they expect their needs and desires to have relational supremacy.

It occurs because men say “No,” and simply disagree.

It occurs because women become an emotional juggernaut incapable of reason and objectivity and fairness, and because they’re determined to be correct, to have their way, and to get what they want.

It occurs because men are viewed as the enemy for always “wronging, insulting, and injuring” women, who nonetheless manufacture the wrongs and insults and injuries for their emotional bent and insecurities, and who then harbor considerable and often times unjustified resentments.

There is no winning for men in this scenario, which they eventually realize sitting on the counselor’s couch and at the respondent’s table in court.  Fighting—and even learned, improved fighting—is merely delaying the inevitable.  Meanwhile, men endure the unnecessary dysfunction and abuse.

And how long should men relationally endure?  Two years?  Five?  Fifteen?  Forty?

Teaching men How to Fight isn’t the answer.

The answer is:  men not participating.

It is men saying:  “I’m not involving myself in this insane BS,” and sitting it out.

And if that strategy doesn’t curb the conflict, men need to then save themselves the years and decades of misery, not to mention the counseling fees, and exit the relationship.

Just, get out!  Write the last few lines of that relational horror story and close the chapter.

Because, in regards to the conflict, are women taking any responsibility and amending their behavior and expectations?

Are they being less insecure, less emotional, and exhibiting more emotional control?

Are they being more honest?  More direct?  More reasonable?  Less insane?

Are they being less critical and accusatory?  Less demanding?  Less resentful?


Women keep the conflict going so that men take responsibility, so that men amend their behavior, and so that men fulfill women’s expectations and demands.  And all so women can feel less vulnerable, more secure, and in control.

And that is a “relationship?”

Well, it is if you like prison life, and orange jumpsuits, and having your collar maternally straightened and shoulders whisked.

Conflict is a strategy—a self-serving strategy.

I take a lot of heat for my views on relationships.


Because they threaten women and the current feminist order.

When you can criticize and accuse your way to keeping relationships in order, and to keeping men in line, as women do, life becomes quite comfortable.

Therefore, whenever you criticize women.  Whenever you point out the things they do wrong and their responsibility in relational distress and failure.  You disturb life in the relational hammock, and women get upset.  It’s discomforting, disconcerting.  Women don’t like it.

Why the unease?

Because women have worked long and hard to wrestle power away from men, and to relegate men to subordinance.  And women have been so successful that they’re now able to relax and doze in the relational hammock.

And modern gender relations being so femininely advantageous, does anyone think women are going to take kindly to having their new lifestyle challenged or taken away?

Does anyone think women are going to welcome the insecurity, vulnerability, and the comparative powerlessness of the past?—not that the powerlessness aspect was ever true.

Does anyone think women are going to relinquish the control and dominance they have secured?

Women aren’t going to take kindly to any of that.  And justified or not, when you start pointing out their relational flaws and failures, and their ultimate responsibility, they’re going to raise holy hell to maintain the current order and their hammock lifestyle.

Which means there will be conflict.  Lots of damn conflict.  On top of the already existing conflict.

And relationally speaking, what are men supposed to do?

Endure the insanity, the conflict, and a miserable relationship indefinitely?

Remain obliged and loyal for their commitment, and as matters of love, duty, and honor?

Women wouldn’t.  In fact, they didn’t.

They took to feminism and resentment and fighting.

In terms of conflict, the problem is people are lazy.  They don’t ask enough questions of themselves to understand what is beneath their superficial feelings and subsequent complaints.  They don’t move enough rocks, don’t drill down deep enough.  And for the laziness, they neither contact nor understand the deeper, more substantive and consequential feelings and ultimate truth.  Thus, they can’t then be honest about those feelings for their own benefit, much less articulate them for the benefit of someone else.

In other words, people live on the emotional surface where things come much easier—the criticisms, the accusations, the feelings of right now and the corresponding grievances.  People live on the emotional surface where they don’t have to self-evaluate; where they don’t have to do any honest, soul-searching, intellectual work; where they can dismiss their own short-comings and responsibility and blame everyone else.

It’s a human problem, certainly.  Yet in terms of relationships it’s predominantly a female problem.  Women are highly emotional.  Attacking men, women cause men to become emotional, too, which causes conflict—lots of damn conflict.  Lots of unnecessary conflict.

This isn’t to suggest that men never do anything wrong, or conflict-worthy.  It is to point out that women set a relationship’s emotional tone, one.  It is to suggest that women acknowledge that reality, two.  And three, it is to suggest they be a little more thoughtful, move a few more rocks, dig a little deeper, be a little more honest, be a little more in control of their feelings, be a little less resentful, and that they be a little more invested in keeping the tone reasonable, and the conflict reserved for the real problems.

It’ll make a tremendous difference.

©JMW 2017






It’s The ‘Lord’s Prayer,’ Not The Pope’s

JMWPope Francis believes the Bible needs revising, specifically the Lord’s Prayer.  He doesn’t care for the phrase “lead us not into temptation,” thinks it should read, “do not let us fall into temptation.”

“That is not a good translation,” he said in Italian, during a television interview.  “It is not [God] that pushes me into temptation and then sees how I fall.  A father does not do this. A father quickly helps those who are provoked into Satan’s temptation.”

Oh really.

The pope suffers from a common religious illness.  It’s wanting to make the scriptures more commercially acceptable, more pleasing to the suffering soul, by making them more palatable and pleasing to the ears.

In other words, there is what the Bible actually says, and means.  And then there’s what one wants it to say and mean, for what it actually saying and meaning not being all that pleasing to the ears, palatable, and ultimately attractive.

More importantly, there is what one wants it to say and mean, for the new meaning—the revised meaning, the more attractive meaning—casting the instructor in a warm, likeable, glorifying glow.

Suffice it to say, the truth is hard and uncomfortable.  Thus, few want to hear it, and even fewer want to communicate it.

That said, the pontiff, all due respect, needs to do a little reading.  He should begin in the Bible’s first book of Samuel, with King Saul.

King David, Saul’s eventual successor, killed Goliath, a menacing giant all in Saul’s army feared to challenge.  For his courage, David, handsome and valiant, immediately became Saul’s lead military man.

The Jewish people adored David, particularly the Jewish women [I Samuel 18:6-7].  This did not please Saul, who quickly came to view David as a threat to his power, and sought to kill him for the threat he posed.

Like so:

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul … Saul cast a javelin for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it …” [I Samuel 18:10-11]

What’s this?  An “evil spirit from the Lord” came upon Saul?

God?  Issuing evil?

Defying the pontiff’s assertions, are we to understand that God was pushing Saul toward temptation of the murderous variety?

Why, it certainly appears that way.  But before passing judgement, consider Job’s story.

In the book’s beginning, Satan had a meeting with God.  Actually, coming to “present” himself before the Lord, Satan had been summoned by God—as in, subordinately summoned.

As to hierarchy, a rather instructive distinction, indeed.

Nevertheless, God asked Satan where he’d been.

In modern parlance, Satan replied, “I’ve been walking the earth looking to wreck human lives.”

God said, “Well, what about my servant Job?  He’s perfect—none like him.  He fears me, and avoids evil.  I bet you can’t turn him.”

Basically, Satan said God was protecting Job, and that, were God to give Satan a crack at him, Job wouldn’t prove so loyal and pure.

So God did precisely that.  He gave Satan a crack at Job—two cracks, actually.  The first, Satan took away everything Job possessed, even killed his children.  Only, the attempt to turn Job’s faith failed.

So God allowed Satan a second try, in which Satan struck Job with grievous boils over his entire body.

Remarkably, that attempt failed, too.

Go ahead, read it.  The book of Job contains 42 chapters.  Satan was present for two of those chapters, the first two, which are followed by nearly 40 full chapters of unimaginable misery and ultimate temptation—unimaginable misery and ultimate temptation both initiated and allowed by God, no less.

Incidentally, God turned Job’s affliction in the end, and restored double all that he had lost.

Now.  For a more prestigious example of Divinely inspired temptation, there’s the Son of God.

“Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” [Matthew 4:1]

And by whom was Jesus led?  “The spirit.”

And who is “the spirit?’  God.

There it all is—right there in the scripture.  And the pontiff can’t read and interpret the same thing for himself?

Well, he could.  It just lacks commercial appeal, and that warm, likeable, glorifying glow.

So despite the pontiff’s claim, the evidence is clear:  God does “push” or “lead humans into temptation.”  Although, it isn’t to see humans “fall,” necessarily.  It’s to test them, so as to build their trust in their creator, which will ultimately strengthen their faith in the same.

And why would God do this to his children?

Well, it’s to improve them, ultimately.  To perfect them.

And there is this purpose:  “But without faith it is impossible to please [God].  For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” [Hebrews11:6]

And those “rewards” come at a cost.

The cost?


In fact, grievous and incredibly seductive temptation.

Not to exclude, endured temptation.

And to the point, Divinely initiated temptation.

So the Lord’s Prayer doesn’t need to be improved upon or changed—by the Pope or anyone else.  Christ’s mountainside instruction in regards to prayer was, one, accurately expressed.  And two, it was meant to be a humble, acknowledging plea for God’s protection and mercy.

As in:  “…and lead us not into temptation, as is your ability and tendency to do, but keep evil from us, instead.”

Think Christ related to that sentiment?  Job?

Of course they did.

Therefore, in terms of the Lord’s Prayer, I’m certain Christ was clear on his messaging.  Furthermore, I’m convinced that if God can create the universe, then he can get a book transcribed the way he wants it transcribed, so that it says and means exactly what he wants it to say and mean.

It’s the human translating that tends to muck-up the message, even when it’s done from the Vatican.

©JMW 2017





America’s Newly Exposed Enemies

I want abortions to stop.  And if they aren’t stopped, I certainly don’t want my tax dollars used to pay for them.  I don’t feel I should be responsible for the sexual indiscretions of others, or for murder in the womb.

I think climate change is a total fraud, too, meant to line the pockets of science, scientists, political figures, and celebrities both at home and around the world.

It’s a scam.

I’m tired of paying for the scam.

I’m tired of regulations born of this environmental fraud making the things I purchase more expensive.

I want it stopped.  Not dialed back or reigned-in.  Stopped.  I want the fraud exposed, and the people responsible for perpetuating it, punished.

As for marriage, I want it reserved for a man and a woman.  I want homosexuals to be officially united, and living happy lives together.  But I don’t want the union to be called marriage; I want it to be called something else.

That’s all—call it something else.

Given it is the gay community imposing on the tradition of marriage, I think it’s a reasonable request.

And if homosexuals want a cake upon the blessed day of this something else, I’ll bake the most beautiful rainbow-themed cake ever to meet the human eye.

And this item is rather fundamental:  I want immigration law enforced.

Enforcing the law—now there’s a novel idea!

I don’t care who migrates to the country, or from where, as long as they do so legally.  If they don’t, I want them rounded-up and thrown out.

It’s a privilege to be a United States citizen—earn it the correct way:  the lawful way.

In regards to healthcare, the last thing I want is a bunch politicians and government bureaucrats running healthcare and making decisions about my health.  I mean, they can’t even manage border security.

And healthcare?  Why, that seems infinitely more complex.

So, no thanks.  I want free-market healthcare.  I want regulations removed and health insurance made more competitive.  And I want to make my own decisions about my health and healthcare.

So these are my agenda items, or at least a few of them, enough to make my point.  What do the items have in common?

They are in direct opposition to the prevailing cultural agenda.

Go ahead, review the items.  I promise; if you hold these views, why, you’re a bigoted fundamentalist.

And who controls the daily narrative used to set this prevailing cultural agenda?

The news media—and the media culture at large.

And of what ideological persuasion is the news media by predominance?


And lastly, which political party shares the same agenda as the news media?

The Democrat Party.

So then, who’s setting the country’s agenda?  Better stated, which political party’s ideology and subsequent ideas are being advanced by the media?

The Democrat Party’s ideology and ideas are being advanced.

And given the ideological kinship and the collective effort, what does this mean?

It means the news media and the Democrat Party are in collusion.  It means they want to control political policy and the country’s direction.

For comparison, let’s reverse the roles.

If the news media were predominantly conservative, all of my agenda items would be the agenda.  The news media would be anti-abortion, and demanding that both the practice and taxpayer funding be stopped.

They would refute climate change with science and the scientists who oppose it.  They would demand the fraud be discontinued on behalf of the American taxpayer and consumer, and that those responsible for perpetuating the deceit be prosecuted.

Were the news media predominantly conservative, homosexuals would be deciding on a legal term for their new union.  Immigration law would be enforced, instead of being ignored.  And taxpayers wouldn’t be funding an imploding universal healthcare scheme called Obamacare.

But of course, this isn’t the agenda inforce.

And why not?

Because liberals are setting the political agenda, which is clearly not a conservative agenda.

Take your pick:  abortion, gay marriage, universal healthcare, gun control, climate change, open borders, et al.  Oppose any of them and you are on the wrong side, the unpopular side, the compassionless side, the unsophisticated side, and are in the proclaimed minority.

This is the beauty of media control.  Controlling the daily narrative, you not only set yourself up as the authority on issues.  You control the political agenda on the authoritative basis, too, and by the ability to publicly mock, impugn, mischaracterize, and lie about any opposition to that agenda.

The news media and the Democrat party, and even liberal forces around the world, have thrown into together to destroy the United States as it was founded, and to transform it into something less esteemed and less powerful.

Don’t believe the charge?

Well, consider what liberals have tried to destroy:  the idea of American exceptionalism.  Pride for military personnel, and in military supremacy.  The belief in and support for capitalism and the American way of life.  The sanctity for human life.  The will of the people in elections.  Respect for the constitution and rule of law.  Christians and Jews.  The spirit of unity for the shared cause of freedom, for the flag, and for the national anthem.  And via the removal and desecration of its statues and monuments, liberals have tried to destroy American history.

So indeed, liberals have thrown in together to destroy the United States as founded.  Worse, they no longer feel it necessary to conceal their ideological kinship, or the fact they are working together to achieve liberal objectives.

Thus, modern America is in the throes of a political war, one which has been brewing for quite some time.  Essentially, the Democrat Party and liberal media have been exposed in recent decades by a competing conservative media with an opposing agenda.  Losing control of the daily narrative for this competition, and control of the political fight that was once so easy, liberals have grown more and more desperate, which has exposed both their political bias and aims.

Making matters worse, liberals were oh-so-close to the things they always wanted during the Obama years—government-run healthcare, the end of capitalism, and of military dominance.  Liberals were oh-so-close.  Yet for their giddy eagerness, supremely exposed.

And being so close and exposed, they had no choice but to unify under the genuine threat of Donald Trump, who was calling the entire liberal political apparatus—Democrats, news media, the Republican establishment—to the campaign carpet.

Hence, unify liberals did, indeed.

So naked and exposed is the entire liberal political apparatus that there is no retreat.  So for Trump-defeated liberals, it’s the final stand.  Thus, America—the American people—face what has long been brewing:  an ideological fight for the very heart and soul of their country.  A genuine war with political elites none too keen on giving-up what they have enjoyed for decades:  political power, and control of the cultural agenda.

An agenda aimed at controlling and ruining yet another civilized society of people.

Make no mistake, a fight long in the making is here.  The curtain hiding Washington corruption has been fully drawn, and the entire liberal machine has been exposed.

Desperate, and with so much to lose, liberals will now do whatever is necessary to win the fight and to maintain their control, as anyone paying attention can clearly see.

Russian collusion.


Endless attacks on the president and his cabinet and his voter-approved policies.

Attacks on the flag, the national anthem, and American history.

The political exploitation of every national and international event.

And in all, liberals are clearly willing to lie, which makes the daily dissemination of information a cesspool of deceit requiring constant filtration and correction.

Simply, the American people no longer have the luxury of trust as it concerns liberals and the political establishment.

If American’s want to remain owners of their country, and pilots of their own futures and destinies.  Then they’d better recognize their newly exposed enemies—America’s newly exposed enemies.


—Clarion News October 25, 2017

©2017 John Mark Warren