Short Essay – “Between Men and Women There Is No Friendship Possible.”

Oscar Wilde - (1854-1900)

Oscar Wilde – (1854-1900)

Oscar Wilde was a brilliant Irish novelist (The Portrait of Dorian Gray), poet (Ballad of Reading Gaol) and playwright (The Importance of Being Earnest). His writings show his innate predisposition towards humanity’s foibles and as such he was a keen observer of people. This was a critical element of his success.

He was married and had two children before acknowledging his homosexuality, and as a result, he was a uniquely qualified observer of women in particular, and their predilections.

Mr. Wilde’s many quotes about women, and their relationships with the men in their lives, are at times, profound. Most of his observations still apply to the women of today, but only if the shroud of feminist orthodoxy is first removed.

It is very unfortunate that much of the truth about the natural interconnection between men and women is now clouded by radical, second-wave feminism’s bizarre assertions that these relationships are somehow flawed, unnatural, dangerous, don’t exist or are unnecessary.

At the very least, these claims are preposterous and ridiculous and yet, most of today’s college educated women believe some, or all, of these misguided pronouncements. At the very worst, they are outright lies which seek to inflame unnecessary turmoil between the sexes and thereby deny each, the happiness to which they are naturally entitled – happiness unencumbered by the psychotic and erroneous views of radical, second-wave feminists about Christian men, their interests, their priorities and their motivations.

The following quote by Wilde clearly states the reason why so many of today’s men and women are on a constant collision course. It debunks one of radical feminism’s most pernicious lies – their claim that men and women can be “friends.”

Unobstructed by radical feminism, Oscar Wilde instead expresses the truth on this matter when he wrote, “Between men and women there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, love but no friendship.” His view, and that of hundreds of generations of men before him, is the polar opposite of the current view held by radical, second-wave feminism. Today, radical feminism purports that “friendship” is not only possible but preferable to marital love between the sexes. This whole premise is a baseless delusion, and the reason? Simply put, men don’t want to be “friends” with women! Period. But of course, we know what radical feminists think of men’s opinions. So, as a result, millions of naive, college-educated women believe these nutty women, rather than the men who love them. Brilliant.

To make matters worse, radical, career-oriented, feminism has thrown these very same women into the environs of what were traditionally all-male institutions, such as organized religion, the military, judiciary, government, politics, academia and business.

This shift is also based on the even more preposterous premise that men and women can be “friends” at work.

Obviously, most of the radical leaders of feminism are lesbians and why young women would believe their assertions about men, rather than the men themselves, just shows how gullible young women truly are!

This entire farce has caused more problems than ever anticipated because the lesbian feminists refuse to acknowledge the strong chemistry, and love, which naturally develops between normal men and women.

Unrelated men and women, working together for most of their waking hours, provides more temptations than the limited interaction of the traditional courting parameters.

In many cases, “working together” finally trumps existing marriages, increasing the divorce rate dramatically.

Working together puts stress on established marriages because the physical attraction between the sexes is naturally agitated by close contact. And where is there closer contact outside the home, other than at work?

The chronic problems experienced by both sexes, while trying to be “friends” at work, only confirms the fallacy of the radical, feminist’s assertions. Friendship is not possible between men and women, mainly because being friends with a woman is impossible for a man.

Men, through no fault of their own, see that type of pursuit as pointless! If they wanted to hang out with a “friend”, they’d call one of their male buddies. They make much better “friends” because guys can compete with each other, on the same level playing field. They can hunt, build something, drink, play sports, drive fast, etc. without dumbing-down the challenges involved. They don’t have to worry about lowering the standards of the game, restricting their competitive edge, ignoring their need to win at all costs, holding back physically or changing the rules in order to accommodate a woman. They can just play, hard and fast!

When men want to pursue a woman, they pursue her for one reason, and it isn’t “friendship.” (And if the woman handles the situation like a lady, the results are beyond rewarding.)

The truth is that if a guy isn’t interested in a woman physically, he’s not interested in her at all, which is probably why radical feminists are always so bitchy.

“Friendship” is never a motivating factor for a guy in pursuit of a woman. That’s just the way nature works. And for good reason! Duh! Humanity would cease to exist if that physical attraction were not there.

Radical feminists deny this attraction, and the love that eventually cements the relationships between men and women, and between women and children, because it undermines everything radical feminism stands for. And, despite their rants to the contrary, they are THE most important reasons why men and women bind themselves together for life. It’s the love, stupid!

This thought traumatizes the dysfunctional, unloved, radical feminists because the unvarnished truth is that, unlike homosexual relationships, which dissolve 50% more often than heterosexual relationships, and lesbian relationships, which dissolve 167% more often than heterosexual relationships, traditional Christian monogamy works, and it makes for happy couples and happy children!

These wacky radical females deliberately choose to ignore these facts because it proves that they, and their very lives, are frauds, based on false premises and down right lies.

Men and women were designed by God to marry and love and care for each other and have children. The proof? God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Nor did He create Eve and Genevieve. And only a nut could believe otherwise.

These non-Christian, anti-Christian, radical feminists want the dishonest concept of “friendship” to screw-up normal people’s lives, knowing that it is an impossible scenario to subject men and women to, for longer than a short period of time.

These difficult women want normal people to be tempted in ways that, thanks to Christian civilization, were declared null and void just 50 years ago. The turmoil makes them happy. They enjoy watching people become as miserable as they are themselves, within their bizarre relationships.

The truth is that the natural development of respect, love, marriage and a lifetime of committment are first predicated on the physical attraction of a man for a particular woman and secondly, on that woman’s acceptance of his attention. There is nothing complicated about this arrangement  

When this type of, male/female, interaction is released from the traditional bonds of Christian courtship rituals, and unleashed in the workplace, the results are less than commendable.

Not only does the interjection of young, college educated, women into workplaces that were originally designed for men-only, make it nearly impossible for men to perform their jobs at the demanding levels they would normally expect from one another, but the adoption of the ideology of radical feminism within the workplace has given license to these intrusive females to criticize the historically successful managerial skills of men.

The rules of conflict for men CANNOT be applied to women because, unlike men, women just don’t care that much about the outcome. They just want the changes to accommodate them. “Can’t we just all get along?” NO. So what’s left? Let’s all be friends? NO!

Despite what the women believe, in the global worlds of business, government, politics, judiciary, healthcare, military, organized religion and academia, there’s more at stake than “friendship.”

Under these crazy circumstances, the tight-knit work environment will always be fraught with male/female tension, while “liberated” females pretend “friendship” is possible, and the men know it is not! While goal-oriented men want results, and sensitive women want more “friends.”

Women are just too distracting for men to be able to work at their peak performance levels. And, the radical feminists love to watch them struggle to find a balance because a “balance” is nearly impossible to find since men cannot, by nature, ignore a woman’s suggestion or demand, leading to interminable “wild goose chases!” 

Men’s desire to see women happy, worked wonderfully when it was confined to the home. But in the workplace, women’s unreasonable, or irrational, requests, and their added accusations that the workplace is “sexist” and must be changed to accommodate their female “needs”, is such an alien concept in the male world of work that it wreaks havoc with them, and the systems they created. AND, it costs a fortune to try to accomplish, with results that are abysmal.

Whether or not women want to admit it, they are a serious, and constant, distraction for men. That’s a good thing when applied under the right set of circumstances. It’s the way God designed men and women to interact physically and, it is as it should be! It was a happy path that led to love, marriage and children.

But today, in this post-radical, second-wave feminist “sexual revolution” era, the safety nets of traditional Christian courtship are all but gone, causing the workplace conflicts to generate societal, as well as personal, disasters over and over and over again. Affairs and liaisons undertaken, lies promulgated, marriages destroyed, unwanted pregnancies aborted, divorces acquired and families scattered, as children weep.

Men cannot, nor should they be expected to, ignore the very essence of their nature, in order to pretend, for appearances sake, or worse, political correctness, that women are “friends” and no different from men.

This is an asinine premise, fraught with conflict and doomed to failure. This is why men’s working  environments were devoid of women throughout most of history.

Not only is the male/female platonic “friendship” concept a preposterous notion espoused by feminism, but it is a disruptive, frustrating, and an alarmingly stressful, experience for the men involved.

This arrangement deliberately sets the young men up for The Fall because it is unfair to expect men to behave as though women are just like them, when every fiber of their bodies screams otherwise.

And, unless you are an idiot, or a brainwashed feminist, everyone knows why! Without this powerful desire to find a mate, humanity would disappear.

And, of course, radical feminism has groups of crazy females whose lives are wrapped around that same irrational premise too. These freaks actually believe that humanity’s demise is the only way to SAVE the planet. Come on! Give me a break!! Fifty years ago, they would have been committed to the loony bin.

Radical, second-wave feminists hate men and they know that by pushing more and more young women into the workforce they are setting up conflicts and temptations for healthy males, which are nearly inescapable.

Like the biblical Adam, they know, that in our highly sexualized world, millions of young men will give into temptation, allowing the radical feminists to slam those same healthy guys into oblivion, as “male chauvinist, sexist, pigs”, once again.

These warped women have the system rigged in both directions, and until the men start to shut them down, nothing will ever change.

There are days when I fully understand these wacky feminist’s twisted declarations, especially when you considered the dysfunctional upbringings from which most evolved, but what I can’t understand is the implementation, and acceptance, of their loony assertions by the men in charge of our illustrious institutions!!

Do these guys hate men too? Or, are they such pathetic cowards, that they’ve  actually been intimidated into silence by these anti-Christian loud, pushy, difficult women, and their wacky theories? Have the older Christian men opted for silence rather than standing up to feminist tyranny, and, at the same time, supporting a truly male-oriented system that releases the innate productivity, and personal drive, of working young men who are just starting out?

Either way, they better get over it!!!

The radical feminists LOVE the controversy, the agony, the misery these situations generate for men. They love seeing them eat crow just because they are behaving according to their very nature.

These women gloat over the trouble they have caused Christian men. Nothing makes them happier than to see these normal men lose their ability to lead, as they politely interact with female co-workers on ships, in police cars, in college dorms, at fire houses, in rectories, in academia, in officer’s clubs, in boardrooms, on call, on watch, on duty, etc., etc., etc.

It’s time for the older guys to speak up in defense of the younger men who want to give-it-all to their jobs. Continuing to subject them to this type of female torture will ALWAYS end badly. They will continue to disappoint themselves, and others, because the urge to mate is SO overwhelming.

They cannot, nor should they be expected to, ignore the testosterone God has rightfully invested in them. It is there for a good reason and to ignore that basic need, will be at our own peril as a Christian civilization.

Lance Corpooral Sara Castromata. Marine at center of murder/suicide at Quantico.

Lance Cpl. Sara Castromata. “Marine” at center of murder/suicide at Quantico.

It’s time to admit the truth.

This ridiculous feminist experiment of placing unrelated men and women in close quarters is not working. Cries of rape, the sting of illegitimacy, abortion, drug and alcohol abuse, the trauma of suicide and murder (including murder/suicide involving 1 female and 2 male Marines at Quantico Base in March) have all resulted from this pathetic feminist hoax. The truth is, there can be no friendship between men and women! Period. 

And so, it’s  time to remove the “friendly” temptresses, let the guys get back to work, and when their hard work is done, let them go faithfully home each night, to the wives and children they love.


It’s the Women, Not the Men!


56 thoughts on “Short Essay – “Between Men and Women There Is No Friendship Possible.”

  1. This is an interesting take on Lady Windermere’s Fan. If you’d read the play, you’d know that the guy who said the line about how men and women can’t be friends isn’t portrayed as a good guy, and he certainly wasn’t meant to reflect Wilde’s views :). Lady Windermere does have the mindset that men cannot be friends with women for much of the play, but it only does her harm, and she eventually ends up accusing her husband of having an affair with her mother!


  2. Hi, I’m 84. Here is what Boy/Girl relationships were for me. This was in early 1941.
    Bob McNally
    Things seemed to have changed.

    At the age of eight years, four months, I finally reached grade 2-A. That put me seventeen months behind schedule. I don’t know whether the lack of skills was the main cause of my problem. However, I do recall having one talent and that was to observe Carol, but there were two difficulties with that. One, there were no marks given for the observations I made, and the other, she moved away leaving her no longer visible. But I soon discovered a classmate who had a skill similar to mine. The funny thing about her was that she was observing the observer. Each morning in our new class the children knelt on their seats to say prayers. This girl, who was a recent arrival, had her back to me as she prayed. Now and again she would turn her head to take a look at me. Like Carol, she was seven, but had black hair that was straight and to her shoulders. She was obviously flirting and had a constant smile on her pretty face. For a time, she was in the first row, sixth seat, and I was in the third row, fourth seat. Under those arrangements I could not easily see her. But while kneeling for prayer, I would return her pleasant smile with funny faces. She came close to laughing, and seeing her shoulders shake made me giggle. We did this for so long a time it’s hard to believe our new Sister didn’t get wise.
    I later regretted not having fallen in love with this girl because she was so pleasant and cheerful. She was not afraid or shy, except in a coquettish way, with just the right amount of girlishness, which I found to be such a delight. Too bad I didn’t meet her in my teen years.
    My happy classmate liked me and I liked her as well. She made me see that loving someone is not always as great as liking them. During a short part of my youth, she may very well have been my best friend. She always made it easy to talk with her, which led me to believe that she loved me. I remember a day when we had our first conversation. It was during lunchtime on Bleecker Street, just outside of church. Minnie had near-normal looking ears, but they stood out a little more than those of other girls. She had a cute little nose, a fairly wide mouth and full lips. As I studied her smiling face, which was about to break into a giggle, I said, “You know, it’s amazing how much you look like Minnie Mouse.”
    “Isn’t that funny, I thought you looked just like Mickey Mouse.”
    One Saturday morning I walked around the corner to Woodbine Street. Playing outside the second building was Minnie Mouse. We spotted each other at the same moment. She laughed and then I did. What made it so amusing was the fact that we were in a remote area away from school on a day we would normally not see one another.
    We were delirious with laughter, but I said, “What are you doing here?”
    “I’m visiting my aunt. Where do you live?”
    “Around the corner.”
    “Wow! That’s strange.”
    Minnie’s aunt was Mrs. Hannigan, a friend of mine, who lived on the first floor of the second building on Woodbine. It was about two years earlier that she first met me and said, “You’re Italian.”
    “No. I’m Irish.”
    She laughed and said, “No way! Does your mother get an ice delivery?”
    It turns out that Mrs. Hannigan was Italian and had married an Irish gent. Minnie Mouse was her niece and also Italian.
    Because my classmate was so happy to see me, I hung out with her for a little while. Then a friend came by and I had to leave. I remember that my feelings told me “stay with Minnie,” but that wasn’t the way of things in those days, especially since I was only eight. Still, she was very important to me. The friend I walked off with I can’t even remember. He was inconsequential, and she was unforgettable. I don’t know why I failed to fall in love with her, especially since she was just as silly as I was. We were slaphappy kids riding on the wings of mirth, but sadly we lost each other when she moved away.


      • Hi Kathy,
        Thanks for enjoying my piece. I hope I learn how to get around on In trying to find you it seems as if I had to register with them. I’m not great with the computer. I tried marketing three books and found it near impossible. I believe WordPress has me as ridgewoodboy.
        How I discovered you was in searching for Anthony Esolen. When I did, I found a great article you wrote. When I attempted to contact you that’s when I found I had to first register with WordPress. I love what you do. My being 84 and having the memory that I do confirms everything you say.
        I wrote what I thought was a really good article for a Catholic magazine. It was published but never discussed. I couldn’t believe it. The subject was on abortion and how in my younger days it was completely the opposite of today concerning how men treated women then. I show how men took care of their rights then and with the help of the feminist movement in more recent days have fully secured them. It’s sort of a twister. I love your writing and hope to keep in touch.


      • Thank you very much Bob. I’m convinced, that anyone who graduated from high school AFTER 1968, were literally, and unwittingly, brainwashed with feminist ideology, which filled the academic void left in education after prayer in school was banned in 1964. Non-Christian radical second-wave feminism is the greatest anti-Christian, anti-American enemy our Christian country has ever suffered and yet most young people (women) foolishly believe the opposite! The farther we get from pre-1964, the less likely we will ever regain our peaceable Christian kingdom. That’s why it’s so important for us old timers to keep writing the truth about the America we grew up in, in hopes it will inspire young, strong, vocal Christian men to take up the mantle for Christ and retake our wonderful country for Him once again. Thanks for the comment.


      • I completely agree with what you said. Even when I was six I was having worrisome thoughts along those lines. Since we’re entering the Christmas season I’d like to tell you how I felt some 78 years ago.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I tried commenting but it didn’t work. My fault. I hope to learn soon. This might not work either. I was in agreement with your comment and wished to show a similar thought when I was 6 in 1938. With Christmas approaching I had such thoughts.

        On the day before Christmas, I stood on our front porch thinking about the holiday season. I felt the spirit, but wondered if we would still have the same enthusiasm for it as we did in the past. Would there always be Christmas? Might the world become so modern that the feelings for that joyous day would pass from our lives? I had fears that it might drastically change and leave it almost unrecognizable. I wished for things to slow down. In 1938 I was getting a sense of the future by witnessing the disappearance of things from the past. I was seeing fewer horses coming down our street than I did only a year earlier. If the deliverymen no longer had the need of the four-legged creatures to make their rounds, how would Mamadownstairs and I ever gather up our beloved horse manure?
        Still, some things hadn’t changed. Storekeepers were gracious towards their customers and kind to children. Here and there the little ones were handed lollipops and, in butcher shops, slices of bologna. Movie films were still depicting the past and the present, but increasingly, the future. I loved and identified with the past, sometimes the present, but never the future.


      • I think most of us old-timers understand the tremendous loses our communities have suffered as they raced blindly into the future. Most of the businesses in my small town were named after the family men who owned and operated them. These good Christian men were the glue that kept our town safe, prosperous and productive. They created jobs, cared for their neighbors and supported their families in this way too. The “future” held Walgreens, which put our local pharmacist out of business. Home Depot which put our century old lumber yard family out of business. A and P which put our local grocer, fish monger and butcher men out of business. And all this was happening as our government was regulating, restricting, licensing and literally strangling young entrepreneurs out of business opportunities before they could even get them started! Very, very sad and just plain stupid.


  3. Wow! All I can say is that this article hit another home run. There is very little writing about this topic which is desperately needed. This has been a hot button topic for me personally for years as it has been a CONSTANT struggle with the women at my husband’s work. And it isn’t just “sexually”. The women have made his work life (and my life as a wife) just miserable. However, I’ve tried to use the opportunity to work on myself, our marriage to seal any cracks, and pray for the best—and pray for these women out there as they’re hurting and acting out poorly.

    Early on, I tried to go along with the “men and women can be friends” lie as I trust my husband, so my husband went out skiing with a female from work a few times. It wasn’t long before we got a message on our machine from her asking him to go watch a sunset with her…she did know I was in the picture and we were married. We tried to do things all three of us, but ultimately she wanted HIM as a “friend” and not me. That’s when I realized, so he’s not interested but she is. This is NOT good. One or the other will most likely be attracted…or the attraction COULD grow if they aren’t, or a spouse could get jealous. Why would a sensible married person create unnecessary chaos in their life not have any decent boundaries?

    Most of the women are desperate for male validation, so they see a decent guy and play on him or whine to him. I can tell it’s exhausting for him. It’s not just “work” it’s constant emotional drama.

    The above has prompted me into searching for answers and how to deal with this and why this is happening. It all comes back to “Feminism” and the destruction of Christian values. I can honestly say that it seems as if 99% of the people are brainwashed into this “men and women can be friends” lie.

    If you’ve ever watched Downton Abbey, you know that way back these attractions were normal and most likely one person would say, “no.” Not so much today. Boundaries have been removed!

    I’m thankful that some of the male commentors here say it’s “not like them” to commit adultery (by thought or deed) with one of their friends. Bravo! They have decent values. And that’s great—we need more men like this. My husband would say the same thing. But then again, he only looks at his side, not thinking about the ramifications of these “friendships” down the line on HER side or how his wife feels about such relationships. Even as a married woman, I would not want to give any sort of outwardly impression that I was interested in another man, for my husband’s sake, for my neighbor’s sake—and for marriage’s sake.

    The degradation of marriage started YEARS ago. And this lie of “men and women can be friends” has been part of the chiseling away at the value of marriage. People don’t value marriage enough to protect it from harm and stick some male/female boundaries in where appropriate

    Thank you for providing such a great resource for those of us struggling to swim against today’s strong, feminist current.


  4. I’d like to open this post by apologizing first and foremost if I come off as particularly harsh; this essay pushed some buttons of mine and I might have a hard time reigning in my emotions as I write this. If I offend in anyway, please do forgive me, for it is not my intention.

    As a man, I have one major question: What position are you in that you can presume to know what _I_ feel? We have never met, and you’ve no idea who I am — how can you say in full confidence that you understand the internal machinations of the relationships I have with people whom you’ve also never met?

    “Not only is the male/female platonic ‘friendship’ concept a preposterous notion espoused by feminism”
    And yet I’ve had these friendships. Some of my closest platonic friendships lasting many years have been with women (some of whom are happily committed to existing romantic relationships), and I honestly take a good deal of offense to the implication that I’ve had _any_ kind of ulterior motive or any motive of any kind other than good friendship. Again, you’ve never even HEARD of me, so who are you to tell me that I only wanted to hang out with a friend because I sought her romantically? And I’ve several good female friends; are you telling me that I’m trying to get with _every one of them?_ On what grounds can you make that judgement call about me? How can you — again, without *ever having heard of me* — make ANY sort of accusations about how I feel about anybody?

    “Men cannot, nor should they be expected to, ignore the very essence of their nature in order to pretend, for appearances sake or political correctness, that women are ‘friends’ and no different from men.”
    The implication here that I’m in a constant battle to try not to romantically pursue every woman I come across is insanely demeaning. As though I’m some kind of animal and these base, feral desires are what drive me? And that women need to stay out of the way lest I cave and relapse to the “very essence of my nature” in some sort of blind fever?

    WHO ARE YOU to tell me that this is what I am? To tell me what I feel? To spread as gospel the idea that “this is what all three-and-a-half BILLION men are” as though you have seen and assessed each of them personally? What are the specific thoughts / verses that led you to feel so confident in these statements?

    Thanks for your time, and I genuinely anticipate your response.


      • I’ve had time to cool down, and I’d like to again apologize for the harsh tone of my previous post. You certainly don’t deserve it, and I do regret it.

        I do stand by the message, though. And I have to disagree that this post isn’t in some way directed at me; as a man, when one says that “all men think [x]”, then by extension one is saying that I think [x]. Maybe I was not your target, but by saying that “men believe this” or “men feel that”, you’re misrepresenting not only myself but every other man who ISN’T like that, which is… probably not an insignificant number of men.

        I just feel that it’s somewhat dangerous to make such blanket statements about so many people. But I suppose we may have to agree to disagree about that.


      • Just because you can’t relate to the issues I raised does not mean that it doesn’t resonate with millions of other men and therefore should not have been written. My assertions are not “blanket statements” concocted out of thin air. They apply to the majority of young men born after 1974, when non-Christian radical second-wave feminism began to rear its ugly head. Our culture was awash with feminist ideology based on their abject hatred of Christian men, their motivations and their priorities, and was widely promulgated by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I primarily write my blog to educate those young men, who were born after 1974, about what the country was like when their fathers and grandfathers ran it. It was a far more civil society and these young men should know, that as opposed to the life-long brow-beating they have received during their entire lives, that their contributions are sorely missed. Please read my, “About” and “10+ Tenets of Christianity vs. 10+ Ideal of Radical Feminism.” Also read, “Short Essay – Female, Feminist “Friendship” Fraud”, as well, because the young women haven’t gotten off scott-free either. Please keep reading my archives. You may be surprised to find answers to questions you did not know to ask because the smoke screen of radical feminism is very thick.


    • Andrew, I’ll openly apologize as well up front as I speak to you bluntly . . . not to offend you, but to help you get past rhetorical cobwebs in your mind, i.e., the memes and the slogans, obscuring your line of vision to the realities beyond.

      When K. Q. Duane writes that “the male/female platonic ‘friendship’ concept [is] a preposterous notion espoused by feminism” the context is the competitive, result-oriented environs of education and the workplace.

      It’s as if you and I read two different essays.

      It’s not about you personally or about the anecdotal, platonic friendships that both you and I have with a handful of women in our lives. She’s not accusing you or any other man of having ignoble, ulterior motives in these kinds of friendships, let alone suggesting that the natural, sexual or romantic inclinations of masculinity are “base, feral desires”.

      On the contrary, she’s indicting the feminists who incessantly harangue the natural inclinations of masculinity in the environs of education and the workplace, and not merely the sexual or romantic inclinations of masculinity, but masculinity itself, because what women have either instinctively or consciously come to realize is that masculinity is incompatible with the cooperatively collectivistic inclinations of femininity in environs that are not about friendship, but about results that should be based on the ethical and competitively entrepreneurial imperatives of excellence.

      But instead of conceding that their social theories are vile and destructive, in truth, all about setting up and tempting masculinity, contrary to everything naturally beautiful, necessary and best for humanity: they insist that men be socially castrated by their sociopathic artificialities so that they can, ultimately, get their filthy paws on the women and children that men are born to cherish and protect.

      That’s not an overstatement, by the way, but an ontological fact that men of God who put on the armor of God and take up their swords everyday as they attend to the responsibilities of inspired masculinity know all about.

      In order to accommodate the subversion of the nurturing and maternal instincts of femininity in the workplace, men are expected to confess their guilt of violating the feminista law of double standards and plea bargain out their sentences by agreeing to succumb to the alternate standards of the lowest common denominator in the environs of education and the workplace.

      Emboldened by this, third-wave feminists now openly declare their genocidal hatred for men without censure from any quarter of the academic or political establishment as they openly conspire to sabotage the careers of men who refuse to go along with this humiliation in order to get along. This is the stuff of the exclusionary solidarity of the Sisterhood: the rape culture hysteria and its assault on the inalienable rights of men and their constitutional protections of due process under the rule of law in collegiate tribunals based on mere verbal accusations; the mythical wage gap and the income redistribution thereof; affirmative action quotas; an endless list of entitlements, subsidies, mandates and social services not afforded to men; the emotional and psychological abuse of sensitivity training; and the systematic institutionalization of misandria predicated on the rank insanity of things like mansplaining, manterrupting, manspreading, male privilege checking, the supposed bigotry of cisnormativity and an endless list of supposedly pathological ableisms. . . .

      (By the way, if we agree on nothing else, can we agree that the mindnumbingly vulgar and lifeless jargon of feminism is the gibberish of Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World, a pox on human expression? I say again that feminism is where the arts of love, passion, romance, drama, music and poetry go to die. Feminism is the decline of the sciences of philosophy, theology, discovery, politics and law.)

      And don’t get me started on the tyranny of public accommodation codes aimed at the destruction of the familial constructs of nature, predicated on ideological and behavioral characteristics in violation of the inalienable rights of natural and constitutional law regarding the prerogatives of free-association and private property.

      These hateful, feminazi pigs and their homofascist/heterophobic allies know very well they can’t compete with normal men and the familial constructs of nature on a level playing field.

      Not surprisingly, the result is the withdrawal and decline of boys and men in every sector of society and in every societal endeavor.

      To add insult to injury, everywhere men turn now they are told that they are predatory, brutishly competitive or weak and unruly little boys encumbered by the fragile male ego and need to change their ways or else. Worse, both boys and girls are conditioned to believe by the state schools and popular culture that the inherent biological inclinations of gender and gender roles are mere social constructs; this is the means by which this poison is seeping into the liturgies of the synagogues and churches of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

      Questions. Food for thought.

      Are men incapable of competing with women or are they penalized for competing with women?

      Do most women really want to be in the workplace or are they bullied into the workplace?

      Do most men really thrive in the cooperatively collectivistic environs of our gynocentric society of today, or must they either suppress the natural inclinations of masculinity in order to get by or take their natural inclinations and get out in order to preserve their sanity?

      (Personally, I and my best male friend in the world, my brother in Christ, the best man at my wedding, my business partner and, like me, a combat veteran, chose to build our own business and marry sexually virtuous women.)

      Are men who are contemptuous of unrepentant, sexually promiscuous women and refuse to have them for wives and the mothers of their children misogynists or decent men who will not be cuckold in any way, shape or form; misogynists or decent men who will not compromise the dignity of their masculinity?

      Are they misogynists or decent men appalled by the prospect of having their offspring tossed into dumpsters or reduced to mere extensions of the lives of narcissistic princesses?

      Are they misogynists or decent men who are tired of fathering children to be abused and neglected by absentee wives and mothers?

      Are they misogynists or decent men fed up with divorce-happy, spoiled brats, verging on sociopathy, incapable of love and fidelity, unfit for the work and the responsibilities of marriage and motherhood?

      Finally, are you overcompensating for some subliminally induced sense of being a brutish, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal driven by “base, feral desires . . . that women need to stay out of the way lest [you] . . . cave and relapse to the ‘very essence of [your] . . . nature’ in some sort of blind fever” in your gross misunderstanding of Duane’s thesis, or are you ready to stop groveling at the feet of feminist idolatry and take back your manhood?

      Personally, I and tens of millions of other men of faith and men of discernment in the West are not going to pretend to be something we’re not in order to accommodate the demands of princesses pretending to be something better than what they are.


      • Thanks for the in-depth response, Michael. I do agree that the extreme over-the-top feminist ideals that you’ve described here are pretty ridiculous. But it almost seems to me like the views presented here as the appropriate ideal are just as extreme, but in the opposite direction? I don’t know, I’ll not pretend to be an expert in this field, haha. But I feel like the best place has to be SOME sort of middle ground — surely the world does not operate in such absolutes?

        “the context is the competitive, result-oriented environs of education and the workplace.”
        I guess I just don’t really understand how this is separate from any other situation where male-female relationships can grow. Unless one does buy into the whole “women are a distraction to male productivity” idea, but… I don’t really see that as being true. At the very least, I’ve seen no significant evidence of it, or that it’s indeed detrimental enough that it needs to be addressed.

        “she’s indicting the feminists who incessantly harangue the natural inclinations of masculinity”
        Perhaps I did misunderstand the target of the essay, but I guess even in that light I still take issue with the essay because I disagree with the assessment of what the natural inclinations of masculinity are, and those ideas are driving the core of the argument, no? Two different parties saying that “masculinity is [x]” or “masculinity should be [y]”. Perhaps I disagree both with the Ms. Duane and with the people she’s arguing against. 😛 Maybe I should just stay out of this one, hahaha.

        You do present some interesting questions that honestly I don’t have any answers to, haha. Interesting to think about, though.

        Based on the majority of what I’ve seen here, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree, but I do appreciate your taking the time to respond, especially in such a thorough manner.


      • Thought-provoking. If that’s all my essay, and Michael’s excellent response, does for you Andrew, than I am pleased. I think that you will be surprised, with this new awareness, that you’ll find more situations in your life, that mirror my assertions about women you know, than perhaps you were, at first, aware. And that is an important realization to undergo. Good luck.


  5. K. Q. Duane. I read that essay of yours in the past. It’s excellent. Thanks for your dedication to this important work.


    • Did you hear the latest feminis assault on masculinity? Two guys got ARRESTED in NYC subway for “man spreading”!!! The lunatics are definitely running the asylum in NYC, starting in the crazy mayor’s office.


      • I did. In fact, I read an op-ed on that earlier today written by a feminist dingbat.

        Wait a minute.

        Feminist dingbat?

        Is that redundant?

        The thing about this is that those gentlemen were arrested after midnight, so they were manspreading in a fast moving echo chamber. The NYPD is totally out of control and has been for some time under Bloomberg and that flaming red despot de Blasio.

        This hatespreading feminist predictably starts out telling us how annoying the nonexistent epidemic of manspreading is, then unwittingly divulges what’s really got her highness’ ovaries in a twist as she sits on her throne in her daily commute with that shopping bag in the seat beside her: it’s the unsightly specter of all those men spreading their legs when they sit in correlation with the exaggerated size of their . . . egos. Right. That’s the only reason that not just a few, but all men need more space than women to sit comfortably. It‘s not like the acetabulum faces laterally in men and faces anteriorly in women.

        Physiology? Nah! That wouldn’t have anything to do with it.


        But she does step outside of the scientific dead zone of the feminist Twilight Zone long enough to concede that perhaps the metro authorities overreacted, not because it was after midnight, not because this is yet another calculated humiliation of men by third-wave feministas, but because the men arrested . . . wait for it . . . had brown skin.

        Ah! So the notion that men should sit like little girls in correlation with the physiological ignorance of man-hating feminazis with sewers for minds isn’t the problem. In this instance, the problem is racial profiling.

        This is yet another outrage of brown-men-hating policemen of unchecked white male privilege over-zealously manhandling Hispanic manspreaders.

        That’s the ticket! That’s the lesson that men need to take away from all this: the spread of institutional racism.


      • It’s all so obviously a sign of totally insane behavior, and thinking, and yet even the psychiatric and psychology professions have
        been intimidated into total alignment with these crazy women. Of course today, most in those 2 professions are either non-Christians and/or feminist women. Until that changes at the academic level, I’m sure we will see more of the same insanity, very soon. Influential Christian men must begin to FIGHT BACK, at all levels of society, before we all go insane. Thanks for your commentary.


  6. I find this completely absurd. You imply that women are responsible more or less because men should not be expected to control their base urges? That women shouldn’t be allowed the option to work in an environment with men because it’s “distracting” and men can’t perform their jobs optimally?
    How is none of this a man’s responsibility as well? If a man cannot control himself and chooses to act inappropriately on his “urges” (I.e. commits adultery, rape, can’t focus at his jobs for some reason with women around) it’s somehow a woman’s fault for being present? A man who loves his wife shouldn’t be tempted into acting on an attraction to someone in the first place, by his own self control and respect for himself, his wife and the other women/people involved.
    The accusation that all “radical feminists” are “man hating lesbians who just want to watch others in misery” is completely ridiculous.
    This entire article blanket coats so many issues with generalizations and accusations that it’s baffling.
    Guess what? Some women like to and want to work. We’re not out to destroy your marriages and the productivity of the workplace. We want to feel productive and fulfilled, and be able to take care of ourselves and be self reliant. For some women the “blessing” of sitting at home raising some kids and keeping a house for “our man” is not fulfilling. Additionally, some men choose to be stay at home dads and their spouses work.
    If a man can’t function in a workplace if women are present without divorcing his wife and sleeping with the women in his office… Maybe he shouldn’t be in the workplace. Don’t deem men guiltless because “God” gave them testosterone.
    People are people and should be treated as such; equally to blame for poor decisions and responsible for their own actions, lives and happiness.


    • My dear Bewildered, you are unwittingly drowning in radical feminist ideology and unless you escape, it will destroy you. You are deliberately choosing to lead an “independent” life which will doom you to abandonment and loneliness. Read my post, “Short Essay – Radical Feminism’s True Legacy – Being Single, Sidelined and Sixty Sucks!” You have ingested every BS dictum dreamt up by the non-Christian female radicals who created second and third-wave feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Women who do NOT want you to see through the smoke screen of lies with which they have enveloped you. Do yourself a big favor and stop defending the indefensible. Try to look beyond their BS and a good place to start is by continuing to read my blog. In particular, read all of the “Current EVEntS” so that you have a better idea of who you have naively aligned yourself with and what your future holds if you stay on the feminist path. Then read all of my “Short and Longform Essays” for the truth about the origins, betrayals and the blatant lies behind the creation of radical feminism. And, finally, read the single topics under Vol. 1,2,3 and Essay #’s. They are all in the index in the right column of my blog.
      You are in dire need of another point of view, another opinion on life. Trust me, returning to your faith is an excellent place to start – read my post, “10+ Tenets of Christianity vs. 10+ Ideals of Radical Feminism” to grasp the calamity you have on your hands. When you finally realize what a dead end ideology feminism truly is for women, and jettison the irrationality, negativity, defensiveness, contentiousness and unhappiness inherent in trying to live a feminist lifestyle, you will no longer feel bewildered, but instead, feel blessed.
      I wish you well on your life’s journey and will pray that God opens your eyes to the truth about feminism’s destructive influence on women and their behavior. God bless and good luck.


  7. How dare you use the tragic death of a young Marine to push your nonsensical rant? How dare you use her blood for your pretentious, unfounded, illogical and psychotic spew of hate. Obviously, you have no knowledge of history, science or cultures other than your own. You push Christianity to prove your point but Jesus himself had friends that were women and so did other Biblical people from the Bible, such as the Apostle Paul, which were instrumental in spreading Christianity. Try researching Mary, Joanna, Susanna, Lydia, and Priscilla. If you don’t even know your own religion how can you preach it? You scream about how feminists degrade men, well there is nothing more degrading then basically preaching that men are naturally sexist jerks and can’t help their behavior. That is total nonsense. Men are not born to molest or harass women or objectify them and it’s deplorable that you would demean men in this manner. Christians and hate do not go together. It’s a shame that people have forgotten the true message of Christ and abuse him to push their evil intentions, particularly those on the far right.


    • Lady, you are so far off base I couldn’t begin to get your thinking back on track. Not one thing you said makes sense. You’ve obviously drunk the non-Christian, radical, second-wave feminist kool-aide until you’ve become totally inebriated. When you sober up, come back, and we’ll talk.


    • Utter madness! And it’s coming into the church. Talk of double standards of modesty by Christians sisters, for example, carried away by feminist tripe that confounds and shames men: their brothers! The egalitarian fallacy. Do these sisters in Christ, with absolute fidelity, respect and love, in that order, their future husbands’ hearts and the dignity of their masculinity or not? Or must Christian men share their wives with the admiration of other men and be left with the scrapes now too?

      Men and women cannot be friends, because men don’t want women for friends, but romantic companionship and sexual love, in that order, Ms. Feminist.

      Men are not into the friend zone or haven’t you heard? Ah! Of course you have. That’s the complaint that feminists sneer at as they spurn the marriageable men for their bad-boy flings. But the realty these women are waking up to now is that marriageable men are no longer willing to be soft cuckold and settled for when these feminists are reading settle down after their contemptible behavior in their 30s.

      The marriageable men have moved on and won’t be spit on again. No women actually respects a feminist man, so the leaves them with slim pickings. .

      We are not equals in intellectual and spiritual authority.

      The more emotional and empathetic feminine heart loosed from the latent brutality and indifference to mere feelings in the face of the stark realities of a very dangerous world gives way to the sentimental emotionalism of intellectual relativism. Irrationality. It’s the downward spiral from the rugged individualism of liberty to the collectivistic dependency on government as the institutions of marriage and family dissolve.

      Don’t you know what the bedrock of a free civilization is? Put down that heretical rag “The Feminist Mystique” and pick up your Bible.

      I just got through reading a clueless conservative feminist Christian assailing masculine sexuality as something to be confined and domesticated so that she can have it all at men’s expense, as she defended her feminist credentials in response to the criticism of a blatantly heretical liberal feminist who holds that virginity is not an actual thing and a state of existence at the same time!

      I kid you not.

      Teaching Virginity is anti-Christian –Samantha Field

      There is no such thing as just a little feminism. In small bites or large, it’s rank stupidity and poison.

      Virginity is a myth, Field tells us . . . except when it’s a state of existence. I guess that means that the mother of God was the mythical virgin Mary and a virgin at the same time too.

      And of course this self-negating lunacy is the set up for the teaching that willful and unrepentant fornication and the process of sanctification are compatible.

      Men are to accept sluts for wives and the mothers of their children or they’re misogynists.

      Feminism: a collection of inherently contradictory slogans.

      K. Q. Duane expounds what so very few women understand anymore regarding the natural order of things as she honors the sexual and romantic inclinations of masculinity, the authority of the rational absolutism of the masculine intellect and the sacrificial love of the masculine heart that cherishes and protects. And this goes through the misandric sewer of your mind and comes the other side as “preaching that men are naturally sexist jerks and can’t help their behavior.”

      Dear, Lord, help us.

      In the meantime, men are turning their backs on marriage, family and society, and walking away. They’re turning their backs on Western Woman even for sex now.

      Yes, Ms. Feminist, men can control their sexual drives, but it’s actually the suppression of decline and fall. But K. Q. Duane is talking about the suppression of the romantic inclinations of masculinity! That’s what flies right over your head.

      If you think that women are more passionately romantic, put down the Kool Aid and listen up.

      Masculine love does not merely compel a man to love his woman’s heart, but to protect her with his very life.

      Does that sound like mere friendship to you? And do you not know the difference between the spiritual relations between brothers and sisters in the service of Christ and the competitive realm of familial provision?

      The former is not a friendship either. It’s a spiritual kinship between siblings.

      Regarding the latter, do you not understand the ramifications of Genesis of 3:16?

      The decline in men in Western society is not due to the fragile male ego. It’s due to the broken heart of Adam abandoned by his mate and a lack of inspiration.

      “Man up!” the Feminist says. “Why are you so insecure?” she says, adding insult to injury.

      Men just don’t care anymore as there’s nothing left of value for them to live or strive for. Men are committing suicide at rates today that are historically unprecedented as women in their late 30s, 40s and 50s are lonely and miserable. Ironically, the rest of the men on average are happier than women.

      Irony on top of irony: in survey after survey the vast majority of men tell women that they’re romantically attracted to modestly attired women who are demure in their manner, as this inspires the poetic tenderness of masculine love, while women overwhelming believe that men want sexually promiscuous women.

      Men are exasperated.

      It’s women who don’t listen or understand when loosed from the intellectual and spiritual authority of masculinity.

      But wait. There’s more. Women instinctively understand that men are not keen on marrying women with sexually adventurous histories, so they lie to their husbands-to-be, and men now know they’re being lied to and are less and less willing to put up with it.

      Feminism can’t explain any this, while those who are careful observers of human nature and behavior, especially those who know their Bible, are not surprised by any of it.

      And it doesn’t matter what you think men are or what you want them to be, what is being called the Sexodus will only get worse and worse in you gynocentric world.


      • I applaud your every word and pray that more and more young Christian men verbally, visibly and decidedly reject radical feminist ideology, and the young women, who foolishly adhere to it. These young men should never be intimidated into silence by these irrational feminist freaks because, as Christian men, they are Christ’s disciples. And what better justification for their efforts to save young women from the evil lifestyle espoused by feminist ideology could they find? None. Thank you very much for your thought provoking commentary. God bless you and your ministry to men.


      • Thank you for your kind words. I apologize for the typos. I wrote that in a rush after being up all night with a brother whose marriage is in crisis. I had him look at your blog that he might understand why things are in disarray. I thought it wiser that he see it for himself from a women who knows the truth. This brother was raised by a feminist.

        By the way, I’ve recommended Wilde to brothers in the past whose initial reaction is doubtful given Wilde’s sexual orientation. He’s a rarity to be sure. Historically, homosexuality has aligned itself with the misandry of feminine rebellion and oppression: Eve is always striving to throw off Adam’s intellectual and spiritual authority, not to run free but to dominate Adam. Homosexuality, whether expressed as the very rare “butch” of historical Nazi fascism, for example, or in the more common effeminate form, tends to align itself with feminine rebellion and attacks the integrity of the sacrificial love of inspired masculinity, the last line of defense against despotism.

        There’s nothing more vicious and tyrannical than feral females and effeminate males. But then Wilde was not an effeminate intellect.

        These brothers are initially shocked when I tell them that the Hebrew term translated in Genesis as “desire” regarding Eve’s inclination toward Adam is actually the same term used to denote the desire that sin had for Cain, and that Wilde understood this reality better than they do. Men must guard their hearts against that threat and hold women accountable as they crucify their flesh and submit their hearts to the sacrificial love of Christ rather than punitively oppress women, which is the correlatively sinful inclination of masculinity in the flesh.

        In the past when I’ve told Christian sisters that their feminism is showing and warned them that they have more to fear from men who kowtow to them than from men like me, they’re incredulous. Then I tell them to repent and obey God’s word, that they must submit to the rational absolutism of the masculine intellect and hold the sacrificial love of the masculine heart in high esteem. I don’t mince words with females who claim Christ. I speak to them gently, but firmly. There’s no such thing as equality in authority in the Body of Christ and in marriage. Men must submit to the imperative of sacrificial love, and women must submit to the authority of that love with reverence.

        This only works in Christ, and sisters who fear this are not walking in the faith of obedience. They do not appreciate the fearful responsibility that men of God must bear, the struggle, the difficulty of it without their help, and would unwittingly oppress their husbands . . . or nag them to death. All women crave the sacrificial love of men, including the feminist. The latter demands respect and equal authority. In other words, she sees it as power, not the fearful responsibility that it is. She wants the power, but not the responsibility. That dynamic reduces the husband to a slave.


        Respect for humanity, male and female, the image bearers of God, is a given. Neither rebellious Christian sisters nor infanticidal feminists who kill or condone the killing of image bearers is going to lecture me about respect.

        No, Sister! Your dynamic invariably ends in divorce or decades of misery and defeat. In marriage, you respect your husband above all else so that your husband can trust and effectively love you.

        Men must stop coddling this nonsense in women. It’s the narcissistic sentimental emotionalism of adolescence. Either the woman of interest is bearing her cross and obeys, or the man must turn his back on her and walk away.

        When Adam does this, Eve will eventually follow! Adam must dominate rebellious Eve, that is to say, by actively, not passively, withholding from her what she craves most in order to lead her back to sanity: attention. All alpha males either instinctively or consciously understand this about women. When she submits with respect and affection, Adam needs to respond by cherishing and protecting her with all his heart.

        I’ve recently come to understand, however, that men are either what I call poet warriors, poet philosophers or a combination of both. This is God’s intent for all men, and they have their female complements. I’ve divested myself of the alpha male-beta male dichotomy, as I’ve come to realize that it’s a lie that has been fed to me all my life by our gynocentric society. It’s an insult to both, really, most especially to the poet philosopher. Feminism vies to beat the masculinity out of both.

        Moreover, there is only one true form of patriarchy: biblical Christianity. The rest are actually the brutality of feminized societies. This seems counterintuitive at first, but it’s absolutely true. Feminists have torn down the patriarchy of Christianity in the West, which is the stupidity of women assailing that which advances their own best interests. Christian patriarchy civilizes men and holds them accountable. Matriarchy reduces the poet warrior to a barbarian and the poet philosopher to a servile dog that is more subtly vicious. Both give way to the collectivistic dependency of statism. When it all collapses, women will rue the day if there’s not enough genuine poet warriors and poet philosophers around to hold off the animals and rebuild.

        But, then, I believe we’re in the end times.

        A friend of mine wrote something profound just recently. He’s not a Christian, so he doesn’t entirely get it right, as what he expects to come in the end never fully materializes in history. Rather, women are punitively subjugated and the rebuilding of civilization begins again. But he does accurately describe the intent of the elites as he expresses his contempt for the servile dogs:

        “When you have gone as far as you can go and the psychologically and emotionally stunted, post-adolescent spoiled princesses that you feign reverence for are startled to discover themselves the moronic termites of a totalitarian nightmare state, for you there will be no reward. There won’t even be a cage, just a pit, for you nothing; also it will be your mistresses who deliver you there.”

        Brothers in Christ, we don’t have time to waste on this nonsense. The mission of the church is the perfection of the saints and the preaching of the gospel of reconciliation as we raise up our children in the faith. The wife is either going to put her husband and her children first as she regards the flanks or she’s not. The husband must bear the greater burden of the whole as he leads. The calling of Christ is not about the materialistic pursuit of having it all in this world, but about the high love and the romance with which Christ loves His Bride.

        We are all feminine in that regard.

        I’m disgusted by those who downgrade the most important job in the world: nurturing God’s most precious gifts. This is especially disturbing to hear from Christian women. This does not mean that women can’t share their God-given gifts and talents in addition to managing their homes and caring for their husbands and children. It means we have higher priorities that have nothing to do with the world.

        In my opinion, the most pernicious form of feminism is that of conservative Christian feminists walking right in through the front door of the Church. It’s more subtle but no less deadly.

        It denounces abortion and sexual promiscuity. It tells women to stop acting like men sexually (misandry) and tells men they need to man up and be more responsible for the children they father (more misandry). It calls for businesses to provide governmentally mandated childcare and maternity leave.

        These policies are said to support the institutions of marriage and family.

        What a lovely message!

        It’s the heretical rot of legalism, hypocrisy, misandry and governmental tyranny that will encourage more sexual promiscuity and further undermine the institutions of marriage and family. It’s “conservative” woman effectively bullying men just like their leftist sisters to accept sluts for wives and the mothers of their children, when that is the very last thing that men should be doing. Rather, men need to stop being ruled by their gonads, turn their backs on these women and walk away.

        Men of God are to be poet warriors and/or poet philosophers. Men are the right brain of humanity. They are not to be ruled by their gonads. Men of God are called to love with passion like the mighty men of old, not grovel at the feet of biological sex. Men of God are called to be wild men of passion, not the tamed denizens of false civility in the face of evil. They are to take up their swords. Men of God who think of themselves otherwise have had the masculinity beaten out of them by feminism. They have been lied to. Men are called to be the leading diviners of the mind of God and the dividers of God’s word, the only true philosophy for man derived from the only true theology of origin.

        Men of God are called to defend it.

        These conservative women don’t merely mean that men need to be more financially responsible for the children they father, but to be “more supportive at home,” caring for the children and attending to the domestic chores of the household. So in addition to mostly doing the more dangerous and labor-intensive jobs, working longer hours on average and dealing with the infrastructural maintenance of the home: men must change more diapers and wash more dishes so women can have careers. There’s also a veiled threat against men turning their backs on Western Woman, marriage and family. Ultimately, that’s what’s really got them all het up beneath their blouses, because if men aren’t marrying or having children with women, the green that funds the feminist Ponzi scheme of government spending and national debt. . . .

        Why are these “good” feminist Christians boring us to tears with the rank heresy of social justice moralizing like cackling hens regarding the affairs of this world as they lecture the lost souls of masculinity. Christians don’t lecture unbelievers, but lovingly invite them into the Kingdom of God. We are to be attending to the eternal concerns of the Church.

        Men are already more financially responsible for the children they father than women. The rest of us pay for the consequences of the feminist’s sexual liberation of my-body-and-my-sexuality-but-not-my-responsibility-because-big-sugar-daddy-government-is-my-man-now when impoverished fathers can’t.

        Understand this truth. God is not mocked. Genesis 3:16 stands.

        There’s the liberty of personal responsibility or the tyranny of false security.


        There’s no such thing as an independent woman. In raw nature, women are utterly dependent on men. Feminism didn’t liberate women from that dependency. All feminism did was divorce women from men and marry them off to the state. It’s the technology of modernity built by men that permitted Eve to adulterously abandon Adam and bed down with the state.

        This isn’t Christianity. This is the statist oppression of taking what belongs to God and giving it to Caesar. We are to have no part in that.
        Feminists in response to the general Sexodus in parts of northwestern Europe, the UK, Sweden and Canada, most especially, are advocating that men’s incomes be taxed at a higher rate than those of women to fund institutionalized childcare and education. They want to just do away with the institutions of marriage and family altogether. Relics. We’ll all just be drones for big business and government, while institutions raise and educate the human resources of biological sex. Women can even have a career as stay-at-home prostitutes and mothers, not as wards of the state, but as employees of the state. This is the dystopia of the Brave New World.

        So much for supporting the institutions of marriage and family.

        Do these preachy Pollyannas of Christian feminism on the right apprehend the end of what they’re pushing? Do they apprehend the dangers of empowering the government regarding the private concerns of the family? Do they apprehend what the government will invariably do with that power?


        But then they’re women loosed from the authority of the rational absolutism of the masculine intellect and the sacrificial love of the masculine heart bottomed on the rugged individualism of the same.

        Where are their husbands?

        Also note that it’s assumed that men are more sensual than women and that masculine sexuality is inherently degenerate in and of itself. Stop being like men!

        That’s not scriptural.

        Women are more sensual than men, and all sexuality is degeneracy in the hands of fallen human nature. Women today are doing precisely what women have always done throughout history sexually when loosed from the intellectual and spiritual authority of men and relieved of their natural responsibilities. They’re not acting like worldly men. They’re acting like worldly women.

        These ninnies don’t know their history, and they don‘t appreciate how the Christian patriarchy of women and children first restrains the baser sexual inclinations of men. They’re thinking about female sexuality in terms of pre-feminist America, and have bought into the feminist lie that women are morally superior to men. Rather, they tell themselves that women have simply been mislead by secular feminism.

        Feminism has no peer in naiveté.

        (By the way, see how feminism never holds women directly responsible for anything? Feminists are perpetual adolescents.)

        It’s their end of obedience which calls for their submission to the patriarchic authority of Christianity that they want no part of as they demand that men submit to the imperative of sacrificial love. I have a news flash for these ladies: there’s nothing on Earth or in heaven that will ever overthrow the dynamics of Genesis 3: 16. Men are not going to build homes for absentee wives and mothers.

        These conservative women would have us double down on government entitlements, subsidies and mandates to finance their lifestyle at the expense of the patriarchic lifestyle of Christianity. They’re helping the government attack the church and the saints who are living their lives according to scripture, trusting and depending on God.

        The government would steal even more from the lifestyle of traditional households to finance the lifestyle of feminist households. The result, of course, is that even more women will be forced into the workplace due to higher rates of taxation and the increase in the price of goods and services.

        And why are these “good” Christian feminists turning their children over to strangers who would abuse and subvert the hearts and minds of their children?

        Oh, wait! My bad.

        These Ivy Leaguers won’t be turning their children over to strangers. They have the like-minded nannies and the teachers in private schools to attend to the needs of their children.

        It’s the Christian parents of the middleclass and the poor who will lose their children to the world!

        Men are already on tilt emotionally and financially under the feminist, no-fault-divorce legal system, that is to say, under the it’s-all-his-fault-divorce legal system. This is the leading reason why men are walking away from marriage and family.

        The policies of these idiots will only fuel more of the same. In fact, everywhere you turn on the Internet, actualized men who understand what is at stake hear these women on the right of feminism loud and clear too and are scornfully doubling down on their determination to walk away!

        Great witness, ladies! You’ve just turned more men away from the gospel of reconciliation with your gospel of touchy-feely social justice.

        In the meantime, all decent men really want is peace and the romantic companionship of decent women. But no, these shrews wag their fingers at men, shame them for their sexuality, tell them to man up and stop being losers. Oh, yeah, their policies will bring men to heel and running back to marriage.

        Men are tired of being lectured, abused, cuckolded and abandoned.

        It’s the spoiled princesses of the first world who need to woman up and stop stealing from the families headed by good men!

        The lies that the world tells us and the truths that all men and women of God should know from scripture:

        1. Women are more complex than men, i.e., men’s needs are simple.


        Women are more emotionally and sensually complex than men. Men are more intellectually and spiritually complex than women. The love of emotional and sensual intimacy is respect to women. Respect and sexual intimacy is love to men. Indeed, men crave these things from women, but men are more than the biological urges that the state schools have conditioned them into believing about themselves while feminists mothers beat the masculinity out of them as boys.

        Men need to dream, risk and create.

        This is a hard truth for a lot of women today who have been conditioned to believe that men are bumpkins and sexual adolescents, disrespected by their wives and children on TV sitcoms where wives rule the roost and husbands are relegated to the basement.

        I tell women with this attitude that they need to make sure they put the toilet seat back up when they’re done.

        Even some Christian women reduce men to the needs of mere respect and sex. This is Eve doing the bear minimum of what she needs to do to get what she wants from Adam. Men are more romantic than women. Women who understand this about men and give them the full measure of honor they deserve in the home inspire the most resoundingly passionate response from men.

        Even the latent brutality of masculinity is intellectual, not emotional as feminist morons believe. As any Marine like myself can tell you, the ruthlessness with which men steel their hearts in battle is merely abetted by the emotions of enmity. Masculine brutality in the defense of civilization is ultimately bottomed on the intellectual determination to check the craven inclinations of human nature and destroy the enemy before the enemy destroys you. You do the job you were trained to do as chaos and death fly all around you.

        2. Men think in black and white. Women are more nuanced in their thinking.


        Women (and effeminate men, by the way) loosed from the authority of the rational absolutism of the masculine intellect are dingbats blathering the relativistic gibberish of sentimental emotionalism. This is not the stuff that apprehends the imperatives of first principles, let alone their ramifications. It’s the ashes of circular reasoning, contradiction and self-negation. Dead end.

        In the meantime, the beginning of wisdom is understanding that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are absolute, and the recognition of that is the beginning of understanding just how staggeringly complex and nuanced reality is. This isn’t chaos, but order. Men grapple with the syntheses of rational and mathematical dichotomies. This is the adventure of exploring the Mind of God, and the journey never ends.

        It’s right-brained men who do the heavy intellectual lifting in philosophy, theology, logistics, mathematics and the sciences of infrastructural and technological innovation, not women. It is men who build, sustain, defend and advance civilizations, not women. And it’s men who do the dangerous, labor-intensive jobs in society, not women.

        After fifty years of feminism, men still overwhelmingly dominate these fields, and they will always dominate these fields until they don’t. And when they don’t, as is the design of the third-wave lunatics of feminism, the gynocentric society of left-brained intelligentsia will collapse. Eve is the helpmate, not the leader.

        Girls learn by the rote assimilation of information. Boys learn by thinking, risking and doing. Third-wave lunatics think it’s a good thing that boys are falling behind in education. It’s a good thing that boys are doped with Ritalin and boredom so they can sit like girls in classrooms all day in the state schools? These monsters want boys dumbed down. They celebrate the decline of boys in education.


        Because their agenda is to reduce men to laborers.

        These lunatics don‘t even appreciate the intellectual necessities of most labor-intensive jobs. They think all smarts are intrinsically academic while they spout banalities as if they were profundities.

        In fact the now greater overall achievement level of girls on average in education is still below the previously greater overall achievement level of boys. Boys require a competitive environment bottomed on the dynamics of individualism free of the distractions of femininity. The collectivistic, coeducation system of the state schools, touch-feely conformity, is child abuse. Both boys and girls would achieve more if they were educated separately.

        How long do these lunatics of second- and third-wave feminism think they can sustain civilization with their left brains? The academia of the junk social sciences of womanish studies, the politics of womanish studies, the law of womanish studies and the jobs at the service/managerial level of business do not advance societies. Societies that do not advance cannot sustain themselves.

        To be fair, there are some feminists who are otherwise classical liberals and are appalled by the misandry on both the right and the left of today’s feminism. They are alarmed by the decline of men knowing that this is disastrous for civilization. But they are too little and too late as we are not going to reverse the bottom and the top of this decline with policy alone, which is the entrenched curse of the state schools at the bottom and the entrenched curse of family law at the top. We are going to experience a period of dramatic decline at the very least, and this entails men turning their backs on marriage and family with these women. Men must walk away from the women of the West who scorn virtue.

        That is the hard, painful reality of the worst to come before things can get better.

        3. Women always have the last word.

        No they don’t.

        Men always have the first and the last word in civilizations. Women have the last word in between.

        Men build civilizations for women. Women turn the benefits of civilization on men. The marriages and families of civilizations dissolve. The benefits of civilization decline as men turn their backs on women and walk away. Men pull the plug on civilizations in the end and then drag women by their hair back to sanity and start all over again.

        All of history comes down to Genesis 3:16. Men dominate women, and women rebel against men. This is the vicious cycle of the rise, decline and fall of civilizations.

        4. Men are more prone to the sin of pride.


        All men feel the sting of emasculation when corrected by women, especially when corrected by girlfriends or wives in front of others. So why do women tend to belittle men and correct them in front of others, tempting men to emotionally withdraw from the truth and from women with the hurt feelings of pride, rather than correct men in private with the respect and tender love that protects the sacrificial love of their hearts?

        5. Women are more prone to the sin of self-righteousness.


        Rather, a women are deeply wounded by the emotional and physical withdrawal of the men they love. So why do men more commonly use women for sex and then abandon or neglect their hearts, that is to say, why do men awaken the love of women with no intent of loving them? I can’t think of a more cowardly act that a man can commit. When Adam takes Eve’s heart for granted rather than cherishes and protects it, he foolishly tempts Eve to sin against him with hatred and rebellion. .

        Do you see the vicious cycle of four and five in the hands of fallen human nature?


      • A STANDING OVATION!!!! You are 110% accurate on every point!!! If you haven’t already read my post, “Longform Essay – How Did “Patriarchy” Become a Dirty Word?”, please do. It reinforces your assertions. Thank you again for your very intuitive commentary and your direct involvement in what may prove to be the defining issue of our day. I pray our grandchildren will survive the destructive ideology of radical feminism, and the foolish and brainwashed baby boomer women who have spent their lives irrationally trying to destroy the tenets of Christianity in America, when the truth is, that it is their, and our, ONLY hope for a safe and happy future. I’m glad to have lived long enough to know that influential Christian men, like yourself, are finally FIGHTING BACK against the insanity of radical feminism! Thank you!


      • Wow! I’m in complete awe of this gentleman, Michael. I enjoy coming to this sites as there I belief there is strength in numbers here and people such as this (and you, K.Q. Duane) give me hope and tools to better the lives of those around me.

        Regarding this statement: “When Adam does this, Eve will eventually follow! Adam must dominate rebellious Eve, that is to say, by actively, not passively, withholding from her what she craves most in order to lead her back to sanity: attention. All alpha males either instinctively or consciously understand this about women. When she submits with respect and affection, Adam needs to respond by cherishing and protecting her with all his heart.”

        In my personal case, as a woman: Early on in my marriage things were a bit “out of control” so I took the Biblical approached and backed off “my will” to submit to him. I started relying on HIM being the head of the household and authority on issues and trusted in HIS decisions whether good/bad (of course nothing sinful condoned and I married a man I deemed “Good Enough” so what was MY problem here?). I treated him with more respect, too and tried to act as one who “helps” him in his daily battles in life. Whether it was getting food ready or being a listening ear, I changed my “role” around a bit to be that of “helper” to him.

        …and I have to report, amazing things happened in HIM!!!! The way he treated me got better, we started becoming “in sync” with each other. We balanced each other much better. And he is a more calm, satisfied man over all. Unbelievable! But try to tell another woman this, that they have to try giving up control (not directing, shaming, nagging spouse) for a while and see how it works? Impossible…even when talking to my “Christian” friends and family.

        My point is this: It can also work well when a wife decides to submit to her husband, even if her husband appears weak and isn’t stepping up to the plate in her book. Somehow submitting will naturally bring about the positive male masculinity that’s hidden in there. One last caution on women submission. Her submission is to Christ FIRST, so one cannot submit to anything sinful.

        Let’s say that husband fails in his role as husband in some way (and husbands always will, we’re all sinners). Does that give the wife permission to take over HIS role? By no means no. We have to TRUST our spouse and maybe deal with the poor consequences for a while. And where our spouse fails, Christ is perfect and steps in to care for us. So why do us women constantly feel the need to take over our husband’s role? The curse I suppose! So watch it ladies when you’re tempted to “do it better” than your husband and take on his role too.


      • Women constantly feel the need to take over their husbands role because they have been deliberately brainwashed by radical, second-wave academia to do so. Here in lies the troubled waters. Avoid substituting the ideology of radical feminism for the tenets of your Christian faith and the planets will once again fall into alignment.


      • Mr. Michael, whoever you are, I think in virtually all of your posting, you are on the money. And how to implement your advices in third world country like mine (Indonesia)?

        Radical feminism like you mentioned were also targeted third world countries. Yes, we are less advanced than the Westerners or the Japanese or the Koreans or the Chinese and many of problems prevalent in the third world such as corruption and sexual violence and religious tension (particularly in Islamic world) were addressed by feminists, but they also have ulterior agendas almost the same like you mentioned, sir.

        Pray for the Christian men and women there, too.

        God Bless!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Reblogged this on Biblical Gender Roles and commented:

    We need more Christian wives like you who do as Proverbs 31:26 says and open their “mouth with wisdom”.

    I have maintained this thought for 20 years, that it is utterly ridiculous to think men and women can be friends. You are spot on when you talk about how women are a distraction to men in the work force, and we would be more productive with an all male work force.

    It is a fact that children do better in all boy schools and all girl schools for the exact reasons you state in this article.

    Many affairs have happened because of “work place” friendships between men and women, because people try and believe the lie that men and women can be friends.

    I think there is another angle to this “friendship” thing as well. I women online all the time saying they are “looking to marry my best friend”.

    While I do believe that sometimes marriage can feel like friendship when we are close to our spouses(as we should be), we must never forget that neither friendship, nor partnership are ever mentioned as purposes for marriage.

    Companionship – yes, friendship and partnership no. Instead of a woman looking for her “best friend”, she ought to be looking for the best Christian leader, provider and protector she can find, a man of integrity. If she wants a friend, she can call one of her girlfriends. As I say on my blog all the time – “your husband is not your girlfriend”.


  9. Great post! Men just can’t be friends with women, without at least thinking of something more. And all the casual sex attitudes, the friends with benefits mentality makes it harder for a man to not be distracted from work or whatever activities happening.
    What is even more perplexing is when you add in to the equation all the sexual harassment stuff that is ongoing now. Sexual harassment and rape are wrong, and should be dealt with…BUT, with all the women that cry “wolf” and make false claims now, all that is needed is for a woman to just say something like that, and the man is guilty until proven innocent. And his record / reputation becomes forever tarnished- Guilty or not. I have seen women complain because the guys won’t ask them out, or even look at them. I want to tell them the truth, but I could probably get in trouble for that, also!With me being a married man, I find it better to just avoid women completely, go the other direction, or whatever it takes. I guess you can’t even tell a woman she is pretty, or compliment them at all! I have even been yelled at for opening the door for a woman! When I was a security guard, I used to open the door & greet everyone. But, some women got “offended” at such a simple, common courtesy that I did for all…..Uggh!
    That’s why I agree with you so much about the evils of feminism! I even think all women are beautiful, because God gave them the ability to create life………..


    • Unlike Chistianity, which encourages men and women to lovingly and kindly interact with one another (even when they don’t know each other personally, such as the women entering your doorway), radical, second-wave feminism has deliberately promoted the reverse and has therefore twisted men and women’s natural affinity towards each other into a contentious knot! What amazes me even more, is that women chose to believe the BS, and as a result, destroyed their opportunity for ever living a truly happy life surrounded by loving husbands and families of their own.


    • Mr. Sailordale, pray for my country because several highly educated and influential feminists, often in opposition with the government, attempted to built awareness to so called sexual harassment (yes, there such thing as it and it’s heinous) but their hidden agenda were relatively the same as you describe, sir.

      If they have their way in Indonesia, many men will be forced to kept their mouth due to complementing can be considered harassment. My Indonesian friend of mine who now studied in Australia describe the phenomenon you mentioned as “doxxing”

      Liked by 1 person

  10. I have friends who are men but one in particular,I would prefer to be my lover. He isn’t going there but we meet and chat regularly. There are feelings on both sides. For me it is like un-requited love ie. romantic, he says that he loves me. We both enjoy each other’s company and are close. Someone said to me, he clearly likes you but not enough to ‘go out’ with you. We are both in our early 50s with grown up kids, perhaps that is a clue to his reticence. Anyway, why cant we just be friends, even with the difference of feeling, without people commenting that its not going anywhere or that it will etc, etc. It is valuable to both of us so we continue as it is and I guess we will always be ‘friends’ with me always holding a torch for him…


    • Lover? You may be expecting too little from him and he may sense that. Perhaps he wants more than just being a “friend with benefits” and you are signalling that the status quo is preferable. (Interestingly, you seem conflicted. How can you desire him as a “lover” but want to, at the same time, “just be friends”?)
      Is he a Christian? If so, my initial suspicions may be more justified.
      As to the second issue, concerning others expectations, despite what radical feminism espouses, when a man and women spend “time” together, the real world still expects the relationship to proceed to a conclusion, whether that means marriage or breaking up. Most people realize, again, despite what radical feminism espouses, that men and women cannot remain just “friends.” Please read my post, “Short Essay – Feminism’s Female “Friendship” Fraud.”
      I wish you good luck with your relationship. But more, honest, discussion about your future together needs to take place, before you discover one day that you’ve “wasted” 10 valuable years of your life on this “friendship”, have nothing to show for it and many fewer dating options when it ends and you’re then 60.


  11. I used to work at a lumber yard in Iowa years ago. On two occasions, a lady who worked in the office came out to the lumber yard to watch the men work. I asked the one lady to go back in the office, because she was a distraction to me. They were both very attractive.

    Feminists are not feminine and most feminists are ugly—on the inside and on the outside.


    • I agree about ugly women but I also know that pretty women are just as annoying for men working but for different reasons. Either way they muck things up because they either don’t take their jobs seriously or they take them too seriously. See my post- Why do Men take Things Seriously and Women Don’t? Thanks for your comments.


      • Yes…and here’s my take on the pretty woman at work: Male judgement gets extremely skewed and it becomes poor judgement. I’ve seen normal logical men, make the worst decisions regarding the “cute, pretty” girl at work. Now these men I know would never cheat or try anything sexually but there is no doubt it affects them on SOME level here. And as a result, by their NATURE (that we ignore) the men start giving them “special” treatment.
        This creates more hostility then when the other women see this preferential treatment and it also costs the company money when they keep making excuses for the pretty female who’s job performance is poor.


  12. Great post! It’s true that a man and woman can have fun as friends, eg. hang out, talk, etc., but it’s kind of like play-acting. “Today I’m going to play the role of a guy who’s just your friend!” Something sexual is always there. Besides, the proverbial dagger is dangling over the friendship the whole time – the man and woman must end their friendship sometime. It will end either when they marry each other and thus become no longer platonic, or when they stop seeing one another because one or the other gets married to someone else, thus making further contact inappropriate. What man would want his wife to hang out with an old male buddy, and vice-versa?

    With a man and woman who are ‘just friends’, other people always wonder, speculate, question. Why wouldn’t they? And look, put a man and a woman of about the same age group together for any period of time and it’s romantic. Feelings blossom out of nowhere. That’s just how it is with men and women.


  13. I have always felt that it is very difficult for a male and female to be friends with no romantic feelings on at least one side. I’ve been married for almost 9 years now and my husband and I have no close friends of the opposite sex. I am friends with some of his close male friends but I would feel uncomfortable hanging out with them without my husband.
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts 🙂


    • Your husband is indeed blessed that he has a wife who understands this reality. Men know this reality. That’s why men are not keen on their wives being alone with other men as “friends.” It’s not a matter of trust. It’s a matter of the temptations that are very real. But also even in those instances where it really may not be a problem, men still feel uneasy. We can’t help it. There is a strain of possessiveness inherent to masculine love. Understand that I’m not talking about crazy or overbearing possessiveness. I’m talking about that romantic strain of possessiveness that women naturally want and respond to. It’s the possessiveness at the core of a man’s drive to cherish and protect. Feminism would have us believe that this natural inclination in men is evil. They even belittle men for it . . . by further attacking masculinity. “Stop being insecure!”

      Men simply cannot be at ease when their wives spend prolonged time with other men alone.

      That is God-intended nature. The sad thing is that too many men have allowed themselves to be talked out of it, and the results more often than not are disastrous for marriages. It hurts a man’s heart. That should be all a man needs to tell his wife. Whose heart and peace of mind comes first? It will undermined his sense of security in her love. It will erode his trust. Why in the world would a loving wife put her man through that or risk the destruction of the marriage?

      Feminism is where love and romance go to die.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.