Don’t like it? Turn it off.
Interested in the topic, but offended by the tone and colourful language? Deal with it.
Domineering is one way to describe the epidemic of women wanting it all.
Which makes me ponder… have we inadvertedly abused the good work of those before us?
By wanting our cake and eating it as well, have we distorted irreversibly the groundbreaking work of 1970s feminists?
Physiologically, men and women are fundamentally different. What us women might categorise as apathetic, disinterest and just plain stupid, our masculine counterparts might define as considered, irrelevant, or something best filed in the past.
Modern man has a new role to play. One that sees him standing up and fighting back. For not only himself, but what is fair in the name of equality.
That’s not to say, us women would welcome the pitching of a 1950s perfect woman being anchored to the home. It does however, encourage a practical articulation of the partnership as it evolves.
A descriptor that does not impeed by designating him a breadwinner, mother’s aid and primary carer for all in fear of fiscal decimation if deemed he has ‘screwed up’.
I suspect this view is neither popular nor widely accepted. I’m fine with that.
I fully anticipate I’ll be pilloried for my thinking, but I can not help ponder, that both sides of the debate and their motivators are worthy of our quiet contemplation and rigorous debate.
A debate claimed by some to be essential. Why?
For no other reason than what Bill Burr discusses. His delivery is crass, his presentation controversial. While the elements he raises for discussion, represent an articulate summary of the differences between process and practice of the sexes, that is nothing short of brilliant.