Any creature that periodically and copiously bleeds but does not die, and fails to exhibit any other stigmata of sainthood, should be considered demonic!

              The true story of the birds and the bees is that avian males are adorned with decorative plumage to compensate for not having penises, and male bees are either sexual prisoners or asexual workers and warriors for an omnipotent queen. Drones merely manage the queen's resources of spermatheca and royal-jelly in thankless toil.

              The Naked Mole, being Nature's paradigm of the barefoot and pregnant drudge, labors underground for a queen ruling over a polyandrous society, without dignity or respect.

              The dual shadow-dance of the wooing Medfly male is both a duel of hierarchal privilege and a duet of subordinated courtship, regulated for and by the female; who is drawn to the victor, patiently waiting under a translucent leaf, by the orchestrated scents generated from successful competition, and who lights atop the leaf so as to inspect her suitor's appearance and technique, before joining him beneath the leaf for procreation. Due to the inverted posture of their coupling, she may instantly interrupt or terminate the act, if displeased in any way, by simply dislodging their precarious perch and falling apart.

              When the pheromone receptors in female mice are experimentally altered, the females become belligerent and aggressive, territorial and sexually assertive, which "unnatural" behavior intimidates male mice, causing them to become withdrawn and defensive, sexually disinterested, if not entirely impotent.

              The female Kestrel selects her mate, regulates copulation, is fed and spelled on her nest, and then she teaches the fledglings to hunt; thus usurping all prerogatives, except physical reproductive function, from the male.

              The male Bowerbird attracts a mate with a beautifully constructed and brightly woven nest, from which he is then evicted.

              Acting like surrogate parents exploiting foster families in a universal welfare program, the Brown-headed Cowbird and the Afro-EurAsian Cuckoos scout appropriate nests, mate, deposit their eggs, and abandon their offspring. The parasitic nestlings not only compete with the natural offspring of the host parents, but reflexively destroy them.

              Although the male Penguin feeds his mate during nesting and relieves her from time to time during incubation, if the Magellanic Penguin lays two eggs during a time of food shortages, the mother will allow both chicks to hatch ... whereupon she will compare them, selecting the healthiest, devoting all efforts to its survival, while entirely neglecting the other.

              If the Panda (Ailuropodidae) bears twins during a period of food shortages, the mother will select the larger and stronger offspring to nourish into maturity, neglecting the less robust progeny unto death; however, under similar conditions of deprivation, a Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes) mother will not deliberately endanger her own offspring, but will murder the frail descendants of other families in the band.

              Spotted-hyena society is matriarchal, with males inferior to offspring. The female is aggressive, with pronounced genitalia, and frequently cannibalizes her young. Most hyenas bear twins, but are so precocious that the daughter of a dominant female will typically eat her sibling while still in the womb. Excess males of the pack are expelled into solitary and celibate existence.

              Pigs are born with baby teeth ... side-pointing tusks ... which they use to attack their littermates so as to obtain more nourishment for themselves when competing for food; the mother, of course, will not intervene during her post-partum lassitude, except to eat the runts.

              Some species, like homosocial birds and frogs, are functionally transsexual. A dominant female will permanently transmutate into the opposite sex to enable procreation for group preservation. Such transmutation is complete, and should not be mistaken for imitation or surrogation.

              Oysters are reversibly ambisexual, and seem almost impulsively transsexual, because their form switching between maternal and paternal phases within the culch is cyclically unpredictable and unresponsive to population pressures.

              The male spider's reproductive organ is located on one of his legs, which enables the female spider to seize and entangle him in her web; where he's stored for later consumption.

              The male balloon fly initiates courtship by bringing a gift of prey to the female, who is then so engrossed with this enticement that she doesn't realize that she's being mated while she's preoccupied.

              When mating, the male paper nautilus leaves his penis inside the female at the end of his performance, and cannot mate again until he grows a new one!

              A female ferret will die if she goes into heat and cannot find a mate.

              Due to the male Banana Slug's disproportionately large genitalia, the mating pair is sometimes irrevocably joined post-coitally, compelling the couple to alternately gnaw upon the attached tumid penis until separated. This might possibly be the origin of the phrase: "going bananas", implying both enthusiasm and insanity!

              When the male Octopus detects a female, he signals his amorous interest by changing color and pattern. If the female permits him to approach, he will caress her body with his several prehensile tentacles ["feeling probes"] until she is receptive to coupling. The male octopus mates by growing a special arm (hectocotylus), just for passing the spermatophore to the female, who then deposits it in her own body, whereupon the modified arm falls off, and the male dies.

              The male Anglerfish initiates symbiosis by clinging to the female with his mouth, and remaining attached until their nervous and vascular systems unite. Eventually the female can compel the subjugated male to ejaculate, so as to control fertilization.

              The male Praying Mantis engages in prolonged foreplay with the female, who is indifferent to his claspers until aroused enough to pull-off his head, whereupon he becomes frantically passionate, and they consummate. In scientific experiments, the female displays much more ardor and activity when her head is also removed.

              The ejaculate of the Ground Squirrel not only serves as lubricant and conveyance for fertilization, but also as a glue to seal the vagina, so as to prevent further copulation or insemination.

              The female Bedbug has no genitalia, but endures "traumatic penetration" by the male's "armored penis" thrust through her skin at random; whereupon the flood of ejaculate finds her reproductive organ to fertilize her.

              Laboratory rats that have been induced to be romantically attracted to tennis balls are statistically indistinguishable from those rats that are attracted to each other, but those that are sexually fulfilled are only slightly less satisfied by tennis ball substitutes ... there is no data on comparative offspring.

              As an animal, the snake is shunned, not for its role in sweet talking Eve into a betrayal that evicted them from Paradise, but for the fact that male ophidians are possessed of two functional penises ... which is every man's wish and every woman's fantasy! This may, in fact, be why these tetrapods lost their limbs! The ancients, who knew womanly wiles more accurately if not better than moderns, attributed female characteristics to mythic creatures, like lamia and amphisbaena, regardless of herpetology.

              Lions copulate more than fifty times per day. Swine orgasms last for about thirty minutes each time. The male Seahorse assumes the female's pregnancy by transfer. Like the prospective bride seeking the best suitor from a blend of cultural typicalities and national characteristics, so Neo-Suffragettes seek to blend the genes of lion, pig, and seahorse with human to create a surpassingly superlative ecstasy.

              If men are akin to the filthy flies that indiscriminately light upon both sugar and shit, then women must be those attractive objects of fleeting desire which impel men's flights of fancy!

              Women without men would be ruthless, and men without women would be scarce.

              Why is seduction by men usually so inconsiderately exploitative and offensively corrupt, but by women is so often defensively accommodating or sweetly unselfish? Why is indecent exposure by men considered to be criminal, but by women is considered entertainment?!

              If men had babies, then birth control and abortion never would've been crimes; and if women had penises, then perversions and sex crimes never would've been conceived.

              When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always different.

              Before political-correctness, men thought a prepaid date entitled them to some consideration as repayment, and they assumed that contraception was the woman's responsibility. Since women's liberation, the female believes that abortion is her right because her body is the repository for gestation, but that paternity is both the man's fault and his obligatory responsibility. Motherhood remains inviolate, but fatherhood has become incidentally fiduciary.

              If a Pro-Choice femachismo "womb-man" can decline the honor of viviparous 'motherhood' by aborting her fetus at will, can her milksop spouse or mollycoddled mate of the Pro-Life persuasion demand apomixis?

              If placental and fetal tissue is a valuable by-product of pregnancy for research and therapy, then shouldn't specialty groceries offer an exotic cheese made from the otherwise useless milk of "almost mothers" who've experienced abortions, miscarriages, and still-births? ... a true humanist will never waste anything! ... but surely not as uncommon as llama whey or goat curd, nor as rare as testicle transplants!

              Some primitive cultures permit husbands to simulate menstruation; and to sympathize pregnancy by indulging in dietary cravings and morning sickness, and extending to empathetic labor pangs and actual male lactation. But according to Feminist Doctrine, no mere man can fully appreciate the spiritual suffering of passing a ten-pound kidney stone or excreting a football-sized turd! According to an antique adage, men must labor from sun to sun, but woman's work is never done; because men were born to toil and women were born to suffer. This is why "motherhood" is not a biological function or a familial role, but a true vocation deserving the highest status and greatest compensation.

              If the fantastic portrayal of luscious cheesecake in men's magazines is incredible, and the unrealistic depiction of sturdy beefcake in women's magazines is improbable, then either the stereotype or the imagination is defective. If the advice and attitudes represented in these periodicals do not reflect normative philosophies, then either ethics or identity is distorted.

              The conventional wisdom posits that women prefer thoughtful and sensitive partners, but warm and fuzzy isn't as exciting as torrid and reckless, so many women long for and fall for brutes who use and abuse them. A woman may excuse enforced attentions, but will never forgive missed opportunity!

              Both men and women have found that it's best to keep one's idealized companion safely tucked away in their fecund imaginations, where such sterling qualities cannot be insulted, because whenever this exemplary archetype escapes into the chaos of everyday reality and must contend with the disagreeable facts of life, they tend to become profoundly unfriendly, extremely threatened, and terribly disappointed in the broken promises of unsullied romanticism.

              Men feign intimacy so as to engage in sex, while women feign sexuality in order to engage in intimacy; women so engaged have learned to interpret sex that leads to intimacy as a personal escape or psychic release, while men interpret such as personal confinement and spiritual imprisonment!

              Women will give love to get sex, and then feel compelled to give sex to get love. Men give sex to get sex, and give love to get love.

              Men think that a woman's love is for her companions, but women know it's for themselves!

              No matter what the conventional mythology promulgates, men do NOT seduce women. At best, men can sometimes intercept a woman's mood or place themselves in the way of her motives as she is preoccupied with her own seduction. The love and desire that a woman feels for her own fulfillment is so powerful that it usually attracts others to her, such as prospective mates or dependent children. The attraction only becomes mutual when the interaction is sympathetic. Post-coital departure isn't indicative of a symptomatic lapse, since her seductiveness is entirely volitional.

              The post-coital dyadic escape, with men withdrawing and women departing from the synthetic bond, tends to emphasize the illusion of "togetherness" and concentrate on the mutually exploitative nature of such consensual consummation, is exacerbated by sex-linked physiology ... in that women are pacified by arousal and stimulated by sex, while men are stimulated by arousal and pacified by sex. The communication-gap cannot be bridged when one partner is descending while the other is ascending!

              A man's sexual prime occurs during his youth, while a woman's peaks in her midlife. The only problem with these physiological changes is that while a man's vigor is diminishing and his strength is waning, his libido is shrinking and his aggressivity is subsiding, a woman's contrary nature is becoming obversely lubricious and violent! Aging seems to have a deleterious effect upon both sexes, causing women to complain that as a man's muscles weaken and his sex drive declines, it is the most inappropriate and inconsiderate time for his penis to wither! ... just when she (finally) wants a good hard workout with it! A woman's perennial whine is that she never gets what she wants when she wants it ... which is just an echo from the earlier gripe voiced by every man who's ever lived! The problem is not that females are aggravating, because girls are always aggravating, even when concocting seduction, but that unlike men, their innate aggravation never abates! ... it seems to increase by some unearthly design!

              Anytime there's a problem, anywhere with anything, there's always a woman involved ... somehow, someway ... men attribute it to sexual tension, and women blame sexual jealousy. Even if the sexual component is resolved, the problem is never solved ... it's only redirected.

              If people were boxes, filled with complicated circuitry and electronic components, women would be the refined version, featuring lots of meters and dials that would take a genius to operate ... and even then it would lock up and break down most of the time, requiring a great deal of adjustment and maintenance, doing a few things well, but most things not at all! Masculine boxes would be the original version that had been kludged together as an experiment, being without refinement or complication, and featured in a basic no frills package that gets the essential job done. Everything the boy box was designed to do, it did without fuss or muss, working any time, any where, any way! ... and its only control is a simple on / off switch!

              Women need a reason to have sex; men just need a place.

              The gender-gap is more than the arousal-gap. Men see themselves as role models, and seek empowerment to define their principles and enforce their logic. Women see themselves as enablers, and seek empowerment to define their control and enforce their will. Women's Rights may be a universal movement for liberation, but it is not synonymous with human rights.

              Women understand that men can be controlled by love, so women love men enough to control them. Men do not understand that women may not be controlled by love, so men love women too much, and are unable to control anyone. Women are unhappy with their success, and men are unhappy with their failure; but no one will change the pattern as long as the results can be controlled.

              Feminists are usurping credit for the evolution of human bipedalism, based upon women's responsibility for both child care and her role as food gatherer; which ostensibly required that she balance her burdens in upright mobility, to accompany the nomadic band. Any anthropologist can emend this hypothetical conjecture with evidence garnered from social surveys of projected primitivism upon the modern era, wherein men have obviously initiated the bipedal posture so one hand holds his weapon and the other hand holds his beer! ... besides, men can piss farther when standing erect, and so don't foul their own nest, as women always do.

              The basic problem between the sexes is that their physiology is out of sync or phase. Each morning, men must ascend the evolutionary progression into modern humanity, and each evening, women must descend the evolutionary continuum into primal desires. Reprieved from her devolution, the sophisticated lady encounters the male as savage brute; and restored to his evolved status, the civilized gentleman encounters the female as consumptive maw, as bestial fundament, as yawning abyss. The fact is that each is seeing the other at their worst!

              Women tend to be reared with one of two preponderant misconceptions: either the classic Freudian penis-envy, or the equally traditional genital gold-mine ... the one feeling cheated, the other cheating, and both unfulfilled. Perhaps the intersexual gynandromorph or bisexual hermaphrodite has the best of all possible options, and virilism should be a compulsory mental health therapy, but that doesn't address all their frustrations. Apparently, even among the "silent screamers", there exists a desire, if not a craving, for a more demonstrative expression of valid orgasmic fructification; perhaps not dissimilar to the evidentiary ejaculate of males. Perhaps if frustrated and hostile women were retrofitted with ovipositors, they might then become contented and satisfied!

              A woman is the life-support system for a vagina. The only reason that a woman has both a mouth and genitals is so she can piss and moan at the same time!

              God gave men pubic hair as a cushion to comfort her ordeal; and God gave women pubic hair to hide the hook when he goes after the bait!

              While availing themselves of man's attentions and ministrations, women have complained about male impositions upon their style and invasions of their privacy. Women allege that men have directed their fashions and regulated their medical care ... so a burned bra became symbolic of liberation. While men were the professional scientists and physicians who developed tests and treatments, as divided-labor gave women other responsibilities, the health care was for the female patients, and boasted a greater success than treatments for males ... as examples, the most successful are Pap-smears and mammograms. Perhaps an emotional dependency upon the Great Mammary, with its sustaining teat and its comforting bosom, has distorted everyone's perspective of the female form. The homosexual males involved in fashion design are not the stereotypical masculine oppressors, and are not suitable for wily entrapment. Women have concealed their nipples with pasties to avoid obscenity charges. The garter or suspender-belt for hosiery is another masochistic appliance. Women invented the brassiere (including a nursing bra which exposed their dugs) as an armored brace of support, which was both more comfortable and more attractive. Women act like the Barr-body was imposed upon them by men, instead of by nature, and that they compensated with rigid stays, corsets, and girdles ... finding these contrivances a male imposition. The nuisance is of their own making, but the result is enjoyed by both.

              According to women, any technological change that benefits men, harms women; and according to men, any technological change that benefits women, harms men ... as if they not only occupy different societies, but different spheres.

              With a beautiful woman there are many ugly moments; but with an ugly man there are many beautiful moments!

              Attractive people want to be adored by everyone. Women will not be nice to their competitors, but will be kind to the ugliest man. Men will admire every beautiful woman, and will befriend any plain person, but they reserve scorn for those who believe that good looks and charm can substitute for practical skills.

              The happiness of women depends upon their ability to sustain an illusion; while the happiness of men depends upon their ability to sustain a bluff.

              Little boys go off to do dangerous things so little girls won't follow them, but they always come back to brag about what they've done so the girls will admire them. Little girls play with dolls and other housekeeping games, but the boys are disinterested ... until they get hungry and thirsty, and eventually need some woman to bear them a son.

              There's a bit of woman in every little girl, and alot of little boy in every man.

              Women would rather be attractive than intelligent, and men would rather be successful than courageous, which is why most people are miserable. Beauty is evanescent and fashion is ephemeral, but intelligence, like a host of other skills and traits, is meliorative and salutary. Competition is quixotic and attainment inconstant, but virtue, like a host of other skills and traits, is meliorative and salutary. Because civilization is (and has been) rewarding artificial values, the concomitant decline in coherent heuristic traits is affecting racial survival, portending an extinction of the species ... just because little girls want to grow up to become unrealistic Barbie dolls, and little boys to become conformist Ken figures. There is no evolutionary niche for matching metrosexuals!

              Women believe that most men would be tolerable if their raging hormones didn't make them so hostile and competitive, and men believe that most women would be tolerable if their raging hormones didn't make them so inconstant and unreasonable ... but since it ain't gonna happen, we are left with men trying to impress disinterested women and women using intuition to detect a man's lies!

              When a woman wears far too much rouge and far too little clothing, it signals her desperate dispair. Although a man's face is his autobiography, a woman's face is her greatest work of fiction. Only as long as a woman can appear to be a decade younger than her own daughter will she be at all contented. The husbands of beautiful women comprise a criminal conspiracy to collude in the magnificent deceptions of womanliness.

              Women are irresistibly fascinated by wealth and influence, while men are fascinated by beauty and integrity ... which means that women get stuck with either rich boors or abusive brutes, while men get stuck with either fickle dolls or tyrannical harridans!

              People choose the pattern of their sexual behavior while still prepubescent ... if they can influence situations or acquire their desires with an exhibition of charisma or magnetism while immature, then they are more likely to employ their sexuality as their primary talent after maturation. Among the beautiful people, women will use seduction and men will use charm to enhance their power and obtain rewards, and are unreservedly bereft when their ploys fail. Children who are shy, or who cannot (or will not) deliberately manipulate others, tend to develop better character traits and learn to acquire skillsets that will make them valuable in their society ... a power that bestows a different kind of attraction. So the lure of becoming a sex goddess or Prince Charming drives hordes of acolytes and imitators into voluntary abasement, while a few of the most notorious glamourati are ridiculously recompensed, leaving the vast majority of people to discover the extent of reality ... perhaps that's the fascination of fantasy, the attraction of illusion, the enticement of make-believe.

              A man sees what he wants to see in a woman, while a woman sees what she wants in a man ... neither sees all, neither wants all ... but when they select the best of what's presented, they also get the worst of what's available.

              While everyone has limitations, we tend to willingly impose the most egregious upon ourselves. Women want men to release them from their own grievous shackles, and then blame them for shattering their chains; while men want women to hold the key to their own desperate shackles, and then blame them for imprisoning them.

              Men go into marriage with their eyes closed, because they are focused on a vision deep inside that they believe will somehow materialize in the home; while women go into marriage with their eyes open, because they are focused on a vision far beyond what exists before them. Each is blind to reality and envisions something else ... something they hope the other will provide, so they will never need to wear corrective spectacles.

              Because the gods first elevate those who will be destroyed, it is understandable that both men and women have worshipped pulchritude on a sacrificial alter ... Adonis on a telamon pilaster, and Aphrodite atop a caryatid pedestal. We venerate our ideal of physical perfection and contrast it with a blemished and mundane reality. The beauty contest, the meat-market display, and the porno show are only variations upon our adoration. Her nubile body has the allure of the Promised Land, and her groin is likened to an earthly paradise; while his potent body promises stalwart vigor, and his groin is likened to an entertaining theme park. Our appreciation is always transient, as our attraction is always temporary; and we tend to recognize other virtues much too late.

              Men always destroy what they love best, while women always love best what they destroy.

              Regardless of why it was initiated, or how it persists, there is a predilection toward innocent women and experienced men. Callow males will do almost anything to acquire the requisite scars denoting manhood; even if their judgement persists in being flawed, and they remain perennially immature. Contrarily, women must not only strive for the appearance of eternal youth, but are also deemed most alluring when able to project virginal sensuality. This cross-cultural tendency is not just an exercise in sexual dynamics or in fashionable cosmeticizing. These are not just the pathetic efforts of misguided adherents to wave the bloody shirt or to bedeck the bloody sheet, to preserve a monument to precocious Glory Days, to create a false impression of lubricious vitality, to project an illusory humanoid tableau. The issue is philosophical; and has nothing to do with indulging the Last Hurrah of aging crones before desiccated ovaries rule the beast. This is a determination that womanly suffering and female experience is both more unimportant and more unappealing than men's. This trend asserts that women's emotions are superficial, that their interests are trivial, and that all they have to contribute is their vaunted sexuality; so plaster that genuine countenance with feminine camouflage, and keep the real portrait of Dorianna Gray secreted in the attic!

              The femifascists allege that the deity must be female because of divine creativity and caprice; but this only shows their ignorance of the scornful and vengeful powers of Dame Destruction and Woman Warrior goddesses. The dirty little secret that really proves that God is feminine is the fact that all of the attending priests are male, all the temples include alter beds, and gifts or sacrifices must be regularly offered ... now that's a woman!

              Being God's gift to creation, the fair-sex insists upon specious inequality! The double-standard consists of men thinking that women will never change, and of women believing that men will change; and each convinced that the other is wrong! There is no point in having a double-standard, unless we try to live both of them.

              A good wife is a married woman who does her best to hide the fact of her extramarital affair from the discovery of her cuckolded husband so as to spare him hurt feelings and insulted pride; while a good husband troubles to check in periodically with his dutiful wife when debasing himself with an alluring mistress so that his stay-at-home wife won't worry about him getting hurt or being late. In the realm of scratch it if it itches, the most honorable thing to do is not to keep one's promise, but the best that we can manage is not getting caught!

              Everyone blames love for being as unfair as war, but the true culprit is the implicit or explicit contract, which is supposed to govern the behavior of couples, but is as ineffectual as the laws of combat. An illicit dalliance is more exciting than mundane routine, so the potential for hanky-panky enlivens normalcy. Prospective encounters and other speculations enrich the potential of an affair, and increase expectations. In the marketplace of emotions, distributing love according to one's need tends to devalue the product; so women have learned to enhance their investment by generating artificial scarcity. If possible, women would adopt eternal virginity with hymen restorations, because they're convinced that the golden sun shines directly out of their stingy nethers! And, when dispensing love according to one's ability or worth tends to endow the product with superior (if not supernatural) traits; so women have learned to exploit their wealth by devaluing or debasing other competing standards. It takes an economic crisis for most people to realize that they can't survive with money, and the legal tender is cold comfort. Likewise, revelations about the mythic goddess tend to restore sexual sanity. There are no good girls gone wrong, just bad ones found out!

              When a woman is widowed, after a period of mourning, she more or less recovers and continues to love others; but when a man loses his family, he's more or less halved, disoriented and embittered, such that life loses its appeal and remembrance becomes burdensome ... her manner of survival is to move on, while his method is entrenchment.

              Women, in their vaunted consciousness raising, have not elevated their standards for discrimination, but they have changed the basis for that judgement ... their former dissembling, qualified by passion and compassion, has evolved into a quest for Mister Right, for Mister Perfect ... and having discovered the idol's feet of clay, they haven't the wit to compromise, to accept some instead of none, to value a part that's greater than the whole. This categorical rejection of the once accommodating double-standard now results in every man being inferior ... except for the ineluctable fact that all people are wanting in some regard and disappointing in some condition. Imperfection is the defining state of humanity! So while prospective partners once anticipated their mate's deficiencies, they also anticipated some compensatory or complementary traits sufficient to beguile them through life's adversities ... however, such consideration and latitude is now only extended to the weaker sex. Ah, thou selfish bitch, thy nature is fickle!

              Eve's crime was promising Adam a finer paradise as they dwelt in one; and Adam's crime was accepting that seduction ... so they exchanged heaven for hell, with all of Eve's daughters promoting glory, and all of Adam's sons believing her lie.

              It has been said that the perfect marriage is between a deaf man and a blind woman, but that's a little too permissive. By eliminating the detectors, the ostensibly bad behavior persists; so the better solution to innate traits would be to squelch the allegedly offensive characteristics ... "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out!" So a better marriage would be a blind man with a mute wife ... but we all have examples of randy gropeing blind male parts and evil-eyed stiff-necked nags waving their arms around in the earliest form of sign language! So it seems that the only perfect union is between people who've been relieved of all temptations and attractions, and are absent of any parts or appendages to gratify any of those vagrant passions should one happen to transpire. Ah, the bliss of being an animated perambulating vegetable! ... that's surely a goal of queen bees, subsisting as a blob on royal jelly and served by drones.

              If you want criticism, then marry; but if you want praise, then die ... because women always search for men's broken promises, while men always prefer to believe women's enticing lies.

              Telling lies is a fault in a boy, an art in a lover, an accomplishment in a bachelor, and a duty in a husband. Telling lies is second-nature in a girl, a stratagem in a woman, and a reflex in a lady.

              Little girls need security, and grown women need to indulge their fancy or fantasy; while little boys need protection, but grown men only need the truth.

              Mommies rear adorable little boys, and then these nasty little beasts grow-up to become the very jerks that women abhor; and daddies rear sweet little girls, and then these precious little darlings grow-up to become the very bitches that men abhor! ... where did it all go so disastrously wrong?!

              Little boys spend their time concealing the truth from their mothers, and grown men spend their time hiding the truth from their wives; little girls spend their time concealing the truth from their fathers, and grown women spend their time hiding the truth from themselves.

              Men usually save their honesty for their friends; but women will lie to their intimates, while saving the truth for their enemies! ... in domestic affairs, honesty is not the best policy, while in foreign affairs, honesty is never the best policy!

              Men tend to tell big lies in the belief that they are the only ones that really matter, and their telling lends them a potent aura; Women tend to tell little lies in the belief that they don't really matter, and their telling lends them an exotic charm; but the big problems are insolvable, such that all of life is composed of little things, each done one at a time.

              It's always easier to accuse, than excuse, the other sex.

              When a woman criticizes MEN to a man, he will usually agree with her out of an innate sense of honesty; but when a man criticizes WOMEN to a woman, she will usually cavil or excuse her sisterhood out of an innate sense of solidarity. When men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; since their reasons are always different.

              A woman will always criticize others more than herself, and a man will blame circumstances more than himself, but no one ever accepts full-responsibility for anything.

              They are fickle, hear them roar, and amassed reason they'll ignore! Contrary to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, women want to have their 'cake', eat it, and make men responsible for both the cake dishes and the cake diet. While men would be willing to have it their way sometimes, women want it both ways all of the time!

              Women regard vehicles as necessary transport, and apparel as essential personal expression. Men regard clothing as necessary or protective covering, and automobiles as personal expressions of essential symbolic style. From observing what a woman wears and a man drives, one may deduce their respective income, occupation, avocation, recreation, status, habituation, pet-ownership, cleanliness, house type, and conventionality.

              There are two types of women: those who imagine superiority, and those who pretend inferiority. A woman with an inferiority-complex wants security, latitude, associative status, and her husband's money. A woman with a superiority-complex wants autonomy, power, acquired status, and her own money, so she can eventually obtain security and latitude.

              If a man notices someone else wearing identical attire at a social gathering, he commends the other's good taste with wry wit; but if a woman encounters another similarly dressed, she's offended enough to leave the party! Women claim that they must be preoccupied with fashion and appearance to attract male attention, but Poor Richard pointed-out that even a blind man's wife paints her face. While flocking to all the latest convolutions and contortions, women busily contrive more accouterments and embellishments, such as the bra/brassiere, corset, girdle, teddy, chemise, sark, merry-widow, slip, crinoline, garter-belt, g-string, d‚collet‚ and any other apparatus attributable to men.

              The beauty-parlor and shopping trip, including complete bathroom facilities, is as rewarding and refreshing to women as the hunting or fishing trip, without superfluous toilet, for men.

              If you throw a dog a bone, then you own him. Throw a man a bone, and you own his productivity. Throw a woman a bone, and she owns you!

              It's important to differentiate between the sexes, because talking tenderly to each woman inspires her to imagine love, and speaking scornfully to every man inspires him to conceive authority, which discriminating conduct will garner a reputation for unsurpassed discernment. On the whole, men are always confounded by compliments, but women are never disarmed by flattery ... so by such manipulations, one can never be undone.

              Women are born judges ... of everyone else! Men are born prosecutors ... of everyone else! Of the few defenders, those who are not apologists, are asexual neuters.

              Women judge men by their talk, and men judge women by their silence.

              Women believe that men huddled together for a raucous session of boy talk is boring and rude ... unless women can participate, whether they know anything about the subject or not. On the other hand, women believe that a huddle of females who are engaged in a lively session of girl talk is not impolite, regardless of how boring and meaningless the topics may be to the men who are compelled to endure it by virtue of having escorted these selfish women to a mixed gathering. Of course, any opinion on etiquette expressed by a male is instantly dismissed, and if the men abandoned the women, adjourning to a more salubrious rendezvous, it would truly be an unforgivable transgression against good manners.

              A woman's success depends upon her selfish single-minded persistence, which enduring strength must be perceived as a weakness, so her power consists of her ability to manipulate (by any method or means) a man into doing her bidding ... not by taking, but by being given. A man's success depends upon his qualitative skillsets, his strength of mind and body, and his ability to induce (by any method or means) others to do his bidding ... accepting what is given and taking what he wants.

              Men can sometimes predict what women will say or do, but they can't change it. Women can usually predict what men say or do, and can often change it, but they like to let men pretend to be in control.

              Women believe that their hearts regulate their sexuality, but that men are driven by their hormones. Men believe that their minds regulate their sexuality, but that women are driven by their hormones.

              Women often sacrifice their minds for a man's ego; and men often sacrifice their hearts for a woman's ego.

              Women believe that men cease to think and become instinctual when confronted with a sexually appealing specimen, but normal life is so insipid that it can proceed routinely, on automatic pilot so to speak, such that an unusual presentation of great stimulation is actually the only time that men, brought dramatically out of their customary torpor, are sufficiently alert to think! ... to scheme! ... to devise a strategy of attainment! ... to contrive a method for conquest!

              When confronted, a woman's smile is her first defense mechanism, and then a pout, before she finally takes some protective action; while a man's initial response is puzzlement, then anger, before responding ... so while she is amused, he is bemused, and the aggressor always has the advantage, compelling the defender to withdraw or counter. In other words, civilization has made the gender of the attacker and defender immaterial, since uncivilized hostility, while provoking different reactions, generates inappropriate actions that do not ensure survivability. Civilization has ritualized the threat interplay, which only permits certain outcomes. Harm is the intrusion of real life upon the artificial world of social interaction, where the endurance and agility of a woman can counterbalance the strength and speed of a man.

              Women think that men should be strong enough to be hard and smart enough to be soft. Men think that women should be soft enough to be weak and hard enough to be smart.

              Just as the contest between brains and brawn inevitably devolves into applications of power (or power substitutes), the dispute over sex-linked intelligence ultimately depends upon interpretation. Women acknowledge intelligence in the opposite sex when men exhibit conclusions that women agree with, or when men display behavior that women approve of; but men recognize intelligence in the opposite sex when women exhibit unemotional decisions, or when women display rational behavior. Men know that this distinction is tautological, but women must suppress their femininity before they can discover this logical insight.

              The lesson of Beowulf is not that our powers fade with aging, but that after a couple of tough guys knock heads, then mommy will take her whack at the winner who bested her precious baby boy!

              Research has documented the fact that men are both more and less intelligent than women; and while women have no difficulty believing the latter, they dispute the former with allegations of cultural bias or gender programming in order to excuse their deficiency without a complementary explanation of their attainment. Men on both sides of the putative intellectual divide are not threatened by such a measurement because they find fulfillment at their own level, taking satisfaction in a job well done. Furthermore, men are not surprised by the reaction of women, who are never satisfied with anything, because they know that even if a woman is smarter about some things, she is incompetent and dependent in so many other ways that demand the assistance or intervention of a (mere) man ... that great big ugly, hairy old beast for whom the sweet brilliant ladies have so much contempt!

              Men are considered shallow because they have defined boundaries; but women are considered deep because their limits are still undiscovered.

              Every woman has been kissed by a fool, and every man has been fooled by a kiss.

              Men may only think with their genitals, but, unlike cunningly seductive women who're merely driven by their hormones, at least they THINK! The principal distinction between their thought processes being that men can think and act on their feet, while women can only muse and contemplate on their backs ... as if the cogitations of a connoisseur of ceiling patterns could ever draw a valid conclusion from a hug or a kiss!

              Because of their orientation, women will need a gynecologist to perform brain surgery; and men will require a proctologist to attempt exploratory psychotherapy.

              It is a compliment, if not a virtue, to both sexes if a man is 'well hung', has a "big banger", or has a "lethally large zipper-snake"; however, it is tactless, if not insulting, to both sexes for a well-endowed woman with an over-active libido to be considered a "big pussy". Notice the contradictory implications between "Big Boner" and "Gigantic Gash", "Tiny Twat" and "Micro Member", "Mega Muscle" and "Super Snatch", "Mini Muff" and "Petite Probe", "Long Dong" and "Deep Meat", "Cute Quim" and "Precious Prick". The whole history of cross-cultural conflicts may simply be reduced to jealous and envious contention: under-equipped males resenting those more endowed, and every man seeking the tightest possible fit, while their women (victims of the same genetic circumstance) alternately brag and complain!

              If oysters act as an aphrodisiac to increase men's sexual desire, then women's sex-drive is diminished by wedding-cake.

              The modern woman thinks that a meat loaf, a muff burger, a wedge of hair pie, a honey pot, a lickety stick, and other T&A convenience foods are essential cuisine for her mandatory move up the food chain ... where status will insulate her from hunting-and-gathering, and security will enable her to visit fashionable foreign places, like the exotic Chinese cities of Shopping and Buying, while avoiding disagreeable places, like the Chinese slum districts of Sewing and Typing, Wiping and Scrubbing, Cooking and Fucking. The modern woman thinks that "eat your heart out" is a grave promise, "you wish" is an oath, "in your face" is a creed, "sisters know best" is a pledge, and "I did it my way" is an anthem. The modern woman believes that ploys, moods, plaints, tantrums, conspiracies, inconsistencies, excuses, and exceptions are inalienable rights. The modern woman won't feel truly liberated until parthenogenesis replaces pregnancy.

              Women have a characteristic tendency to be precautious and preemptive, as evinced by their anticipatory admonitions and accusations; while men tend to be reactive, responsive, and retaliatory whenever seemingly provoked into a conditioned reflex. Eating habits may illustrate this dichotomy in that men will feed their hunger, but women will seek to prevent any hunger at all.

              Gender-based malnutrition: females tend to eat their dessert first, their salad next, and then claim to be too full for the protein-rich entree; males usually ruin their meal with snacks, over-indulge at mealtime, and claim to be too full for unwanted foods. Both are preoccupied with alimentary or digestive functions; and both attempt to compensate for ingrained bad habits with excessive or stressful exercise. Foods are classified as pleasing or unappealing, sexy or disgusting by gender-linked cultural conventions, and part of building a relationship id dependent upon the mutual sensitivity displayed toward one's potential partner ... oysters on the half-shell versus ice-cream garnished with pickles, or steak tartare versus asparagus quiche, barbecued pork versus chocolate cheesecake, or stew versus consomm‚, or Moon Pies versus Petit Fours. Perhaps the mere possession of an intricate fourchette causes hypersensitivity and complexity; and its converse absence, instills blunt and protrusive simplicity.

              College is an institution where pure women, who are above the domestic chores of cooking and sewing, may go for an opportunity to marry a good man with prospects, so they may spend the rest of their lives cooking and sewing for him. While the major degree for women is the MRS, men are pursuing the MS and MA majors. Marriage is the arrangement that makes a housekeeper think that she's a householder.

              The old fashioned woman accepted courting by declaring her serious intent, her marital goal, her manipulation of the man's prospects, and her willingness to negotiate gratification for domestic security ... it was a forthright proposition that challenged male ingenuity. When beginning a new relationship, the modern woman proclaims a prohibition against serious involvement, her disinterest in marriage, her insistence on separate but equal spheres of activity, her promise not to interfere with his work or impose upon his lifestyle, and her assertion of mutual autonomy and individual liberty ... all of which dissimulation is false propaganda compounded by bad acting! ... not only does she borrow clothes and redecorate without permission, clutter the bathroom and monopolize the kitchen, leave stray hairs and tissues in random locations, but she believes herself too adorable to ever be deemed rude or intrusive, and pouts when so designated! The modern woman, allegedly liberated from ostensible suppression, has made a disaster of mating without learning to build her own nest ... women have been usurping the male abode for so long that it's not just their right of preemption, but now it's a genetic trait!

              The way to a man's heart has traditionally been through his stomach, but men have also tried to sweeten a woman's disposition (re: "sour-puss") with confectionery gifts ... making them "sweet enough to eat". The sexual analogy to foods and consumption focuses on both appearance and function in pleasurable gratification. Good sex, like good food, is delicious, scrumptious, delectable, and succulent; and bad sex is dull, distasteful, unsavory, insipid, and unsatisfying. Cooked meat is good, and raw meat is bad ... which is why good sex is always hot, and cold "leftovers" remain after bad sex. Sexual relations may be euphemized as "hiding the salami", "stab the pork sword", "sink a beef injection", or "parade the pants python". Masturbation has been referred to as "beating the meat", "flogging the flesh", and having a "taffy-pull". Pregnancy is often called "rising dough", having a "bun in the oven", and getting the fetus "cooked just right"; with the placenta called a "cake", "loaf", "tart", or "biscuit", and the new born's skin called a "crust". The act of eating is often a prelude to or representative of sex; therefore, male genitals symbolize a "crowned homunculus" or "little man on his pillow throne", while the female genitals are a face: with the mons being the forehead, the clitoris being the nose, the labia being cheeks and lips, and the vagina being the mouth. Due to the symbolic imagery of a "lower face", many men in primitive cultures fear that their parts will be gobbled and lost during sexual-intercourse ... some even claim that the vagina conceals vicious teeth!

              The hot pepper is reputed to have evolved its spiciness as a defense mechanism that would promote its survivability, but masochistic humans sought its fiery tanginess as a savory indulgence, and so perversely cultivated it, which positively guaranteed its persistence ... and so it is with other piquant extravagances, like impudent women and precocious children. The only problem with this speculative hypothesis is that the bland pepper has also survived, and it too is cultivated, just like the reserved lady or the polite progeny, who have no need to advertise their attractions.

              Aphrodisiacs, by imitation, are alleged to arouse sexual desire and enable sexual capacity. These substances are derived from phallic or swollen shapes, from viscous or succulent objects, from fecund or fertile sources, and then ingested, with hope of similar results. Some substances, like Spanish Fly and ginseng, actually produce physiological effects, but aphrodisiacs are primarily autogenic. Ginseng has experimentally increased blood-pressure, stamina, and endurance. Ginseng causes hens to lay more eggs, frog ovaries to develop faster, female rats to be more sexually responsive, and male rats to ejaculate faster. Ginseng is obviously perfect for the modern relationship!

              Wherever food symbolizes or substitutes for sex, the tongue serves as a knife and the hands as a fork when consuming one's partner. Female breasts are variously characterized as melons, grapefruit, oranges, apples, and fried-eggs. Women are variously depicted as a ripe-fig, stuffed-date, bread-basket, hot cross-bun, dish of pudding, bowl of sauce, kumquat, peeled-grape, hot-tamale, tomato, mushroom, stuffed-pepper, dumpling, peach pie, cherry cobbler, cookie, honey-pot, piece of cake, tart, turnover, sugar-plum, doughnut-hole, meat loaf, bit of mutton, plucked-chicken, spare-rib, piece of fish-tail, snapping-turtle, and bean-snapper. Men are variously limned as a sausage, hot-dog, tuber with radishes, broad-bean, sea-slug, shrimp/prawn, celery-stalk, asparagus-spear, cucumber, banana, prairie-oysters, frog/frog's-leg, and toad-in-the-hole.

              Is sperm measured with femtograms?!

              When a man wants a cookie, he finds a place that sells them, selects one, buys it and eats it. When a woman wants a cookie, she first has to decide what kind of cookie she wants, then consider whether she has the resources to make it, then determine where this special confection might be purchased, then do some comparison shopping, debate with herself about her initial selection after reviewing all the other choices, go back to where she thinks she found the right cookie, keep looking until she finally remembers, and then arrive at the right place after the cookies are sold out or the store is closed, and ultimately return home without any cookies at all! ... having spent a hundred times the price of the cookie on shopping for it, she will rationalize her deprivation by congratulating herself on avoiding the temptation of sweets while titillating herself with the appearance and smell of cookies. She will then be very upset when she learns that her man had a cookie, and that he has not noticed how her abstinence has made her attractively gaunt and wan ... at least in her own schema.

              The great green-eyed monster actually has a function in the natural selection process of survival of the fittest, but not with women, who ostensibly manifest this state more often than men. A woman's temperament may be affected by jealousy, but with women being such emotional creatures, anything might affect them! ... and aside from psychosomatic reactions to all psychogenic stimuli, women do not exhibit a consistent physiological response to jealousy ... however, men do. Sperm samples taken from men committed to a long-term stable relationship show that the number and motility of sperm diminish over time ... just as if the actual sperm were as bored by staid monogamy as the contented lovers themselves! Other sperm samples show that if a man suspects his female partner is having sex with other men (regardless of whether or not she truly is adulterous), his sperm will not only be more numerous and active, but will also develop specialized "assassin" sperm that will search and destroy any "alien" sperm! ... so as to impregnate the egg with the "best" sperm. The woman, of course, regardless of her promiscuity, must simply be sufficiently alluring to attract the "best man" so that she may host the "right stuff"! ... everything else is just entertainment.

              Just as masculine kindness is inversely proportional to penis size, so female mental capacity is inversely proportional to breast size, factored by nymphomania, compounded by avarice, multiplied by the square-root of shopping time, and divided by nagging or gossiping speech rates, for an inevitable and invariably subnormal quotient.

              The priorities of interest in the human visual hierarchy are:

• children notice women first, then other children, and finally men;
  
• men notice women first, then other men, and finally children;
  
• women notice other women first, then children, and finally men.

              In an ideal world, every man wants a son to propagate his best qualities, and every woman wants a daughter to inherit her finest traits, but in reality, boy children are God's reward for saintly motherhood, and girl children are God's punishment for being an evil lustful man, impregnator of virgins and head of the household!

              Children grab dolls by the neck, pets by the waist, and parents by the ears. Women grab children by the waist, men by the ears, and pets by the neck. Men grab children by the ears, women by the waist, and bottles by the neck! ... men's pets don't have to be grabbed at all, since they willingly follow their masters.

              Every date with a woman is a covert operation with clandestine objectives, while every encounter with a man is a siege with the objective of conquest! ... men want to plant the flag while women want to furl their banner.

              Women want to be pampered on their perfect date, while men want to be tantalized ... such that a woman thinks that the perfect end to a romantic evening of soothing caresses is a variable speed vibrator with a twenty word vocabulary of compliments! ... while a man thinks that the perfect end to a boisterous evening of raucous entertainment is a compliant dummy that cheers his every achievement, as if he invented each act and were its foremost practitioner!

              Women romance men on the job while men pick-up women at parties, then they're surprised by the "unrevealed aspects" of their selections. For best results, women should recruit lovers at the loan department of banks, and men should solicit mates in the toilet-paper section of grocery stores ... then they can build "meaningful" relationships from explicit truths. Without pretenses, men will no longer need the disguise of being a bountiful Santa Claus, and women will no longer need the deception of being an elaborately decorated Christmas tree, because clinquant mirth is as ephemeral as tawdry lust is impermanent. Perennial adornment is worse than a boring obstruction or bothersome interference ... it's unrefined and unsophisticated.

              Women want men to choose between home and office, between work and family, between nurture and nature; and then blame them for their decision to prefer one over the other at any given time. Men want women to choose between homemaking and sex; and then blame them for abandoning both!

              Little girls dream about marriage when they grow up, and little boys dream about work when they grow up. Grown women try to combine their relationships with their work, and are frustrated by the conflict; while grown men try to separate their work from their relationships, and are frustrated by the conflict. Women seek satisfaction in togetherness, in sharing with someone special; but men seek fulfillment in job satisfaction, in finding a place where they can be left alone. When women retire, they expand and extend their social network, and when men retire, they retreat from all the pestiferous nagging into the attic or basement, the garage or hunting cabin.

              The professional gender-gap is marked by a rat-race cluttered with intersecting "mommy-tracks", by the "glass-ceiling" in the "up or out" promotional pattern, and by the equal pay for work provisions of affirmative-action for preferred females. The distingu‚e dragon-ladies, who are chartering their reactionary old-girl network and establishing their petticoat imperialism, are also instituting role-reversal cotqueans and contractual house-husbands to restructure the cultural dynamic. Because men have been tied to apron-strings since time immemorial, and skirts have swept-away to concealed too many male foibles, women are insisting upon their version of "riding coattails" into prominence. Matriphobia will not be transposed into matriarchy, but a distraite gynecocracy is plausible. After they've transformed their discredited patriarchy, and transmogrified all the former oppressors into eunuchs and berdaches, they won't be able to restore Humpty Dumpty, and retrieve what they've discarded.

              The only problem with women moving into the world of men is that they don't think that there should be consequences for their (adorable little) mistakes. The only problem with men moving into the world of women is that their priorities change along with their deportment. Men who succeed at woman's work become petty and temperamental, while women who succeed at man's work become crude and insensitive. The sexes do not meld or amalgamate, creating a new epicene being with unisexual traits, but exchange characteristics ... typically the worst of both ... so the distrust and animosity is perpetuated. In human affairs, the other side of subordination isn't anti-subordination or contra-subordination, but is reverse subordination, perpetually vindicated. Liberation is a cosmic joke ... a rather unamusing one.

              Women exhibit their satisfaction with success by smiling, patting their hairdo, and giggling, or if feeling particularly triumphal, by mindlessly jiggling and squeaking! And men exhibit their satisfaction with success by grinning, shrugging, and scratching their balls, or if feeling particularly triumphal, by mindlessly swaggering and grunting! Both responses are social displays learned from our primate antecedents, with the males exhibiting strength and dominance, while the females exhibit immaturity and charm ... the male being threatening and the female non-threatening.

              Behind every successful man is a determined woman, behind every disgraced man is the "other (ambitious) woman", behind every successful woman is herself, and behind every failed woman is an interfering man!

              Most men know that just showing up at the right place, at the right time, ready and willing to do the task at hand is half the job, and that this commitment almost guarantees success ... while women, who are chronically tardy or absent, offering excuses instead of results, complaining instead of producing, never understand that failure is not about them, but because of them! ... they think it's an evil plot perpetrated by men, when it's simply negligence, delinquency, or dereliction. Women think that performance is a chance to fulfill their vanity, but men know that it's an opportunity to demonstrate their competence.

              Women claim that they have to work twice as hard to get half the credit; but they always find a way to include men in their efforts. Men never confuse hard-work with success, never mistake aspirations for accomplishments, never misconstrue attempts for achievements. The biggest part of women's work is supposedly remaining calm, but the major part of men's work is hanging tough!

              Men exert influence and dominance by personal discipline and masterful organization, which often becomes disorganized and dysfunctional with increased complexity. Women assert control by imposing personal confusion onto illogical structures, which becomes more confusing with entropic devolution, for which they always have some plausible excuse.

              Even when women are gross slobs, regardless of economic status, they like things nice and clean, neat and tidy, even if someone else has to maintain it for them. They like pretty clothes, attractive hairstyles, shiny cars, bright crystal and silver; they like a clear view through a window, a taut bed with sweet smelling linens, uncluttered carpets, and cakes decorated to perfection. They can squat in ruins enthralled by fashion or decorating magazines; they can live in squalor while gazing fixedly at fantasy television. Fairy tales were invented for them, and love songs have been composed for them. They imagine themselves to be so adorable that the messy evidence of their minor imperfections will always be overlooked. They know the consequences of their indolence and irresponsibility, but it neither curbs their lust nor inhibits their seductive entrapment. They want their perfect cake and to eat it too ... and the only reason why they can't have it all is because some man somehow interfered at one time or another.

              Women don't accept irresponsible behavior ... they transform it into emotion ... which is perceived as a way of preserving their integrity. Men don't accept irresponsible behavior ... they reinterpret it as challenge ... which is perceived as a way of preserving their pride.

              Women believe that men have made such a mess of everything that they, with their different point of view, with their atypical reasoning, should be placed in charge ... arguing that they couldn't possibly mess things up any worse! Men believe that everything is a mess precisely because they haven't been as dominant and ruthless as they should have been, being rather too polite and accommodating, too sensitive and considerate, in that they desired the adoration and approbation of their womenfolk. And while the female leaders have no intention of sharing their command with men, men note with Biblical authority and historical accuracy that they have always been unevenly yoked ... tied to ostensible helpmates who are resistant and reluctant, obstructive and destructive. To which women respond: "We don't want to be better than men, but only the same as men ... just as lazy and stupid, as base and greedy, as arrogant and incompetent! It's our turn to rule."

              Women say that going through the motions isn't the important part, because anyone will eventually find justification or meaning in the accomplished act. Men identify the inspiration or impulse, and then find a way to accomplish the intended act. Since women act in ignorant and irrational ways, they focus on a detail, isolate a part, delimit any of the non-sequitur processes in order to identify a truth, or to discriminate a falsity. Men focus on the results of progressive entailments in order to discover a defect, or to identify errors. Although both sexes reason from the general to the specific, and vice versa, men find meaning in the patterns, while women find patterns in the meaning. It's the same distinction between art and science, between preparation and improvisation, between diagnosis and divination, between perception and extrasensory perception/ESP, between cognition and precognition ... as between astronomy and astrology.

              Men prefer to take a linear approach in order to achieve the complexity of a fractal flux, while women prefer taking a non-linear approach to achieve the vortex of spastic chaos ... in the former, a line is taken into a pattern, while in the latter, the center is taken out of a pattern. Men are probably unintuitively logical because they address patterns from the outside, and women are probably illogically intuitive because they approach patterns from the inside ... with the external giving a perspective, and the internal giving none. Both are distorted interpretations, and neither affects the pattern.

              Men imagine that, because they think vertically, they can over-come the fact that they don't know what they're doing by rising above it; and women imagine that, because they think laterally, they can get-around the fact that they don't know what they're doing by moving past it.

              Whether in government, business, or sexual appraisal, young men start at the bottom and work their way upwards, while old men start at the top and savor the delights of going down; but women always finish in the middle wherever they begin!

              When women want to be seductive, they put-on a style; and when they want to be successful, they take-off their clothes. When women want to be sincere, they put-on a persona, and when they want to be serious, they take-off their make-up.

              Gender differences extend to competitive strategies, in that women assess the field and then imitate or embellish the winning methodologies (ie: "You gotta offer what they want!"); while men appraise the goal and then arrange or enhance the winning methodologies (ie: "They gotta want what you offer!"). The essential difference between the sexes is that women "get what they want", while men "want what they get"!

              A man will compliment a woman in order to complement her; but a woman compliments a man in order to complement herself.

              Women are miserly in their self-adoration ... resenting any contrasts and all competition. Men are profligate in their admirations ... welcoming any contrasts and all competition. Women think that the benefits of genetics should transcend caste and class to allow abilities to fulfill aspirations. Men believe that caste and class exist, following extensive hereditary development, to maximize the established genetic potential. If somethings are too expensive to be budgeted, then others are too priceless not to be acquired.

              Men bestow accolades for sexual appetites to compliant and accommodating partners; while women reserve their plaudits for spectacular performance!

              The feminist preoccupation with aerobic calisthenics is just another instance of attempting to prove that men are unnecessary. With a strict regimen of diet and exercise, they hope to sublimate their fantasies and acquire the agility to perform autoerotic cunnilingus. Now that's something to get the pulse over-oxygenated about!

              If, as is purported, older women are more grateful for good loving, then it can be posited that older men are more appreciative. They both know that it may be their last venture into ecstasy, so they want to enjoy it before they lose the ability to perform, or even forget why it used to be so important!

              Although most languages are gender-specific, kitchen apparatuses and utensils are most representative and explicit. Obviously, knives are male, and forks are female. The refrigerator, with top or bottom freezer, is characteristically female. The sink, especially doubled with a long central faucet, is characteristically male. The toaster is typically male, because it gets hot and springs-forth its contents. The oven or stove is typically female, because it gets hot and waits for something to come onto it or into it. The coffee percolator is functionally male, with its rich spurting cycle; and even old men can relate to the drip-brew machine that quietly produces a great cupful. The yoghurt and bread-making machines are functionally female because their mix will go sour or flat, and may produce monsters if the starter is too old or inadequate. Rolling-pins are female, but cookie-cutters are male. Mixing bowls are female, but icing applicators are male. Hard-edged spatulas are male, and scooped spoons are female. Skillets and pots are male, but lids are female. The stringy floor-mop is female, and the bristle broom is male. Food is another subject!

              Men ask questions either to elicit information while educating themselves, or to intimidate the interlocutor with his obvious ignorance; and women ask questions either to relieve their boredom while entertaining themselves, or to intimidate the interlocutor with his obvious guilt ... with the consequence of these interrogations being that men learn to ignore women's questions, and women learn to ignore men's answers!

              In the 'bad old days', when everyone pretended that father knew best, and mothers conspired to enact workable solutions from behind the scenes, everything was controlled insanity! In the 'bad new days', when everyone knows that mother's solutions are not only unsuccessful but inconsistent, and no one ever asks father anymore because he can't even control mother, much less reality, the result is that everything is chaotically out-of-control! We've gone from tedious lectures and boring homilies, interspersed with explosive outrages and unwarranted punishments, to the 'kinder and gentler', the 'warm and fuzzy' approach to every situation ... illogical double-talk and contradictory advocacy, interspersed with hysterical resignations and spastic bathos! ... "Don't start that again now!" and "If you don't get it, then I can't explain it!".

              The women who hate men, such as prostitutes and feminists, begin their animus by resenting or detesting their fathers; and the men who loathe women, such as gigolos and pimps, eunuchs and rapists, begin their antipathy by resenting or detesting their mothers ... and like every prejudice, it is endlessly reinforced by every minor transgression, but never dispelled by any contrary anomaly.

              Men believe that every woman is a whore, except his irreproachable mother, who is, of course, a saint! And women believe that every man is a beast, except her irreproachable father, who is, of course, a god!

              Whenever a man plots something, he always searches for the best angles; but when a woman schemes, there are no angles ... just curves!

              No man ever assumes that what a woman says means exactly the same thing to her as it does to him; and no woman assumes that what a man says ever means anything to her, much less that it includes her in its meaning.

              Traditionally, little boys are colored blue and little girls are pink. Males are conditioned to be loyally true blue and courageously valor blue; while pink females are characterized as blushingly modest and fashionably bright. If reversed, the imputations are male embarrassment, and female depression; and if extended into adulthood, men are florid with frustration, while women are cyanotic from suppression. A once innocent association with innocuous colors, which probably stemmed from a marketing ploy, is now representative of empowerment! ... the electric blue of men symbolizes energy, and the hot pink of women symbolizes liberation ... she's no longer just a girl, limited by custom and restricted to acceptable sex roles, but has become superwoman! ... she thinks she can do it all!

              Beware the vitriolic chewed cud of militant cows and malcontented nanny goats, who utter defenses of precious brats and bleat offenses against exploitative pornography. It may be unthinkable to oppose both motherhood and home-cooking, both mixed-doubles sports and duplicate latrines; but a man who detests little kids, toy pets, model mates, and tokenism CAN'T be ALL BAD!

              If Feminism is a new religion, then stylish fashions are their communion, menstruation and lactation are eucharistic components, abortion is their sacrament, and complaints are their testamentary antiphon ... surely confession is just another form of penitential gossip!

              All religions differentiate the sex roles ... those with male pantheons tend to favor men, and those with female gods tend to favor women ... but egalitarian humanists dislike this discrimination, with its confusing litany of inappropriate rules, so they have idealized human perfectability, often in the form of cheesecake and beefcake, which has eliminated any need for gods; henceforth all the rites and rituals performed in the here and now Paradise are directed toward our everlasting pleasure ... or, at least, indulgence. Happy days are here!

              It's an article of faith among women that the Ideal Man should talk to us as if we were goddesses, and treat us as if we were children. He should refuse all our serious requests, and gratify every one of our whims. He should encourage us to have caprices, and forbid us to have missions. He should always say much more than he means, and always mean much more than he says.

              Women treat men like horses ... large strong animals that can be trained and directed, but which occasionally break into episodes of wild turmoil that are as thrilling as they are dangerous! Women enjoy riding horses, find them stimulating and refreshing, but obtain complete satisfaction elsewhere ... somewhere that doesn't reek of equine sweat or horse manure. And men treat women like dogs ... small sleek animals that can be trained and directed, but which occasionally snarl or snap with their sharp fangs as thrilling reminders of their dangerous lupine past! Men enjoy working with dogs, find their loyalty and dedication rewarding, but obtain complete satisfaction elsewhere ... somewhere that doesn't reek of dog hair and doggie breath, dog slobber and doggie farts, dog doo-doo and dog's breakfast! In the end, when the horse is swaybacked and knackered, she finds a new mount for her galloping excursions; and when the dog is too arthritic and enfeebled to ramble, he adopts a new puppy, bright eyed and alert, curious and lighthearted, for their shared companionship.

              Women don't like to talk about sex ... unless it's to criticize the performance of their partner ... but they'd rather talk about it than do it. Men would rather do it than talk about sex, but if there's no opportunity to do it, then they'll talk about it endlessly ... without criticism, because all sex is good!

              Men only talk to women so that women will have sex with them; and women only have sex with men so that men will talk to them. Women are usually talking when they should be acting; and men are usually acting when they should be listening.

              Men believe that they should rule the world; and women believe that they should rule the men who rule the world.

              Once women sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving for their protected status, but now their "joyful noise unto their lord and master" has become a chorus of chants and slogans that "sing the body politic". Songs are now declarative credos or mantras of converted faith. Their mottos incite independence and inspire defiance ... except for the lyrics which persist in preaching the commandments of love and devotion. Not only is it difficult to discern consistent meaning from the crosstalk noise that subordinates any theme or tune, but the battle of the bands seek to out-perform each other with outrageous excess. Like seductive sirens luring victims to their destruction, baby-dolls and beauty-queens beckon frenzied chaos by melodious contradictions. And then men serenade truth to induce love to develop wisdom.

              Wandering minstrels may croon romantic tales and itinerant troubadours may conjure mythic ideals, but real men must also sing their medicine songs to inspire everyone, and their war songs to mourn the tribe's unsung heroes. Women make music to imitate nature and cultivate their talent; but only men can chant in harmony with thunder and lightning.

              Music moves everyone. Women dance to the tune, and men dance to the lyrics.

              A polite social fiction implies that "broadcast" derives from 'widely thrown', but men know that as broad-cast it's the female version of loosely 'tossing bull' around!

              Why are stories and lies called "old wives tales"? Why is the "old boy" network considered a patriarchal system, but the "old girl" network is a coterie or clique, a body of whiners or a clutch of gossips? Why is "mother of God" a profanation, but "son of God" is an oath or prayer? Why are "son of a whore" and "son of a bitch" such common defamations, but "sister of satan" and "daughter of a bastard" are unusual epithets? Why is a challenge to a woman's probity or veracity considered insultingly 'sexist'; but the same challenge against a man's credibility is a violation of his 'honor', an imputation of defective character? Why is a man ugly but a woman grotesque, a man mean but a woman cruel, a man disciplined but a woman illogical, a man proud but a woman practical, a man thrifty but a woman stingy, a man unfaithful but a woman promiscuous, and a man cleaver but a woman calculating? Why is a woman reserved but a man timid, a woman refined but a man weak, a woman reluctant but a man cowardly, a woman martyred but a man incompetent, a woman nude but a man naked, a woman brusque but a man rude, a woman mannerly but a man oafish, a woman indelicate but a man vile, a woman gentle but a man effeminate, a woman dotting but a man sycophantic, and a woman conforming but a man intimidated?

              If a woman writer is an "authoress", a typecast method actress is a "tragedienne", and a lady negotiator is a "mediatrix", then is a female staff officer a "majorette"?!

              With the advent of women's liberation from male dominance and oppression, the term 'wife' is no longer politically correct or socially acceptable; so functional approximations and euphemisms for that ambiguously uxorial 'relationship' have had to be substituted ... including "little woman", "little lady", "pillow pal", "cuddly companionate", "main squeeze", "bed warmer", "sex slave", "love connection", "sexy sidekick", "other half", "better half", "homemaker", "domestic partner", "house mate", "roommate", "bed mate", "yokemate", "life mate", "soul mate", "star-crossed companion", "support system", "significant other", "caregiver", "conspicuous exception", "spousal equivalent", "mother of our children", "partner", "trainer", "keeper", "ol' lady", "ball-and-chain", "she who must be obeyed" ... we've obviously made alot of progress by redefining "couplehood"!

              Thesaurus:

abbess, accoster, actress, administratrix, adulteress, adventuress, affiance, aficionada, alderwoman, alewife, almswoman, alumna/alumnae, amah, amazon, ambassadress, ancestress, anchoress, anchorwoman, ancilla, androgyne, anile, antiheroine, apron, arm-candy, assemblywoman, aunt, authoress, aviatrix, babe, baby, baby-doll, bacchae, bacchante, bachelorette, badger, bag, baggage, bag-lady, ball-and-chain, ball-breaker, ballerina, balloon-smuggler, bambi, banshee, barbe, bar-girl, barmaid, baroness, baronne, bathing-beauty, bat-mitzvah, battle-ax, bawd, beatrice, beauty-contestant, beaver, beetle, begum, beldam, belle, belly-dancer, benefactress, betrothed, b-girl, biddy, bimbette, bimbo, bint, bird, birth-mother, biscuit, bit, bitch, bit-o'-stuff, blonde, blood-mother, bloomer, blue-rinser, bluestocking, bobbysoxer, bobtail, boinkette, bondmaid, bondswoman, bonne, boob, bosom, bottle-blond, bourgeoise, brahmani, breast, bride, bridesmaid, broad, brooder, brownie, brunette, brunhild/brünnhilde, bulldagger, bulldike, bulldyke, bun, bunny, busgirl, businesswoman, busybody, bust, butch, cadette, cafe-trotter, calico-queen, call-girl, camp-follower, canary, candy-striper, canoness, cantatrice, carline, cat, chairwoman, chambermaid, chanteuse, chaperone, charwoman, chatelaine, cheesecake, chicana, chick, chicken, chippy, chit, chola, chorine, chorus-girl, churchwoman, cinderella, clanswoman, cleaning-lady, clergywoman, clitty-kitty, cocotte, coed/co-ed, coiffeuse, colleen, comedienne, come-on girl, committeewoman, concubine, conductress, confidante, confricatrice, congresswoman, consort, contessa, contralto, cookie, copygirl, coquette, cotquean, cougar, councilwoman, countess, countrywoman, courtesan, couturiŠre, cover-girl, coverture, cow, cowgirl, craftswoman, criolla, crone, crumpet, cunt, cutie, cut-nose, cyprian, dairymaid, daisy, dam, dame, damsel, dancehall-girl, danseuse, darling, daughter, deaconess, dear/dearie, debutante, demimondaine, demimonde, demoiselle, den-mother, dictatress, diesel dyke, dike, dildo-darling, dillydally, directress, dish, distaff, diva, divorc‚e, doe, doll, doll-baby, dolly, dolly-bird, dolly-mop, dominatrix, domestic, dona, donna, dotty dear, dowager, dowdy, doxy/dachsie, doyenne, drab, drag, dragon, dragonlady, dryad, duchess, duck, duds, duenna, dyke, earth-mother, ecdysiast, egg, emerita, empress, enchantress, enamorata, enlisted-woman/EW, equestrienne, escort, everywoman, ewe, executrix, eye-candy, fair, fair-sex, fairy, fallen-dove, fancy, fancy-woman, fanny, farmerette, fellatrix, fem, female, femme, femme-fatale, fere, fianc‚e, filly, first-lady, fishwife, flame, flapper, flirt, floozy, flower-girl, fluff, forelady, foremother, forewoman, fornicatrix, fortune-huntress, fox, frail, frau, fr„ulein, freedwoman, freemartin, fricatrice, frill, frump, fury, fussbudget, gal, galatea, gal-Friday, gal-pal, gamine, gammer, gash, geisha, gentle-sex, gentlewoman, giantess, Gibson-girl, giddy-girl, giglet/giglot, gigolette, gill, gilt, girl, girl-Friday, girlfriend, girl-guide, girlhood, girlie, girl-scout, girly, goddaughter, goddess, godmother, gold-digger, goodwife, goody, goose, gorgon, gossip, gossiper, governess, grandam, grande-dame, grandmother, granny, grass-widow, gravida, Gray Lady, grimalkin, gringa, griselda, grisette, groupie, gynecoid, gypsy, hag, half-sister, handmaid, harem, harlot, harpy, harridan, hatcheck-girl, headmistress, heart-breaker, heiress, hellcat, hellion, hen, her, heroine, herself, hetaera, hind, hinny, ho, homemaker, honey, honey-pot, hooker, hooter, horsewoman, hostess, housemaid, housemother, housewife, hoyden, hun, huntress, hurdy-gurdy girl, hussy, hustler, hypergamist, hysteric, inamorata, incognita, ing‚nue, inheritrix, instructress, iron mistress, jade, jailbait, jane, Jane Doe, jennet, jenny, jewess/JAP, jezebel, jilt, jinniyah/jinnyah, jo/joy, joy-girl, jugs, juliet, junior-miss, jurywoman, juvenile, kept-woman, kinswoman, knocker, kvetch, lady, lady-bountiful, lady-in-waiting, ladykin, Lady Luck, lady-of-the-evening, ladyship, lamia, landgravine, landlady, lanner, lass, lassie, latina, laundress, lay, lay-sister, laywoman, leading-lady, leopardess, lesbian, lez, lezbo, lezzie, light-o'-love, light-of-love, lilim/lilith, limousine-lady, lioness, lipstick, little-woman, longshorewoman, loose-woman, love-pie, lover, madam, madame, mademoiselle, madonna, madwoman, maenad, maid, maiden, maidenhead, maid-in-waiting, maid-of-honor, maidservant, majorette, malkin, ma, mama, mamma, mammy, manageress, marchioness, mare, markswoman, marquise, masseuse, materfamilias, matriarch, matrix, matron, matron-of-honor, mayoress, mediatrix, m‚dousa, memsahib, menstruater, mermaid, mestiza, meter-maid, m‚tisse, midwife, milady, milkmaid, milliner, millionairess, minx, miscegenater, miss, Miss Fortune, missy, mistress, mistress-of-ceremonies, modiste, moll, mom, mommy, moppet, morphodite, morphodyke, mother, mother-in-law, mother superior, mouse, muchacha, mulier, multipara, murderess, nag, naiad, nanny, needlewoman, negress, newsgirl, newspaperwoman, newswoman, niece, nightwalker, nixie, noblewoman, nookie, nullipara, nun, nurse, nursemaid, nut-cracker, nut-crusher, nymph, nymphet, nymphette, nympho, nymphomaniac, odalisque / odalisk, ogress, old-girl, ol'lady, outdoorswoman, painted-lady, panderess, pandora, paphian, para, paramour, parlor-pro, parturient, patootie, patrolwoman, patroness, peeress, pen, petite, petite-bourgeoise, petticoat, picara, piece, piece-of-ass, pigeon, pinafore, pink-collar worker, pixie, placket, playgirl, playmate, poetess, policewoman, pollyanna, polyandrist, poontang, poppet, popsy, portia, portress, postmistress, prairie-flower, premiere, premiŠre-danseuse, preteen, priestess, prima-donna, primipara, princess, prioress, procuress, profligate, prophetess, proprietress, pross, prostitute, protectress, prot‚g‚e, psyche, puerpera, punch, punk, purdah, puss, puss-in-boots, pussy, pythoness, quean, queen, quiff, quim, rani, rip, romper, rubster, salesgirl, saleswoman, sapphira, sapphist, sapphomorph, scarlet-lady, schoolgirl, schoolmarm, schoolmistress, scold, scrub, scrubwoman, scullion, sculptress, seamstress, second sex, seductress, seeress, senhora, senhorita, senora, senorita, sensualist, sequencer, servicewoman, sex-kitten, shady-lady, shakti, she, sheba, she-devil, sheila, shepherdess, shiksa, shopgirl, shopping-bag-lady, showgirl, shrew, shrill, shrinking-violet, sibyl, sidemeat, sidewalk-solicitor, signora, signorina, siren, sis, sissy, sister, skag, skank, skirt, skivvy, slag, slapper, slattern, slavey, slick, slip, slit, sloppy-joe, sloven, slut, snapper, snatch, sob sister, soiled-dove, sola, soldier, sole, soliciteur, solicitress, songbird, songstress, soprano, sorceress, sororitarian, soubrette, soul-sister, sow, spacewoman, sphinx, spinster, spitfire, splay, split, spokeswoman, sportswoman, spouse, spread, sprite, squaw, starlet, stateswoman, stepdame, stepdaughter, stepmother, stepsister, stewardess, streetwalker, stripper, strip-teaser, strumpet, stunt-woman, subdebutante, subteen, succubus, suffragette, suffragist, sugar, sultana, superwoman, surrogate-mother, sweater-girl, sweetheart, sweetie, sweetie-pie, sybarite, sylph, tabby, tail, tainted-lady, tart, taskmistress, taxi-dancer, taxi-date, teaser, teat, teenybopper, temptress, termagant, testatrix, thrush, tigress, tinderbox, tit, tittie, titty, toastmistress, tomato, tomboy, tommy, toots/tootsie, townswoman, tradeswoman, tragedienne, traitress, tramp, tribads/tribades, trick, trollop, trophy wife, trot, trull, tutrix, twat, twist, twit, undine, usherette, ux, uxor, valkyrie, vamp, vampire, vane, venus, vestal, vestal-virgin, villainess, virago, virgin, virtuosa, viscountess, vixen, voluptuary, votaress, wahine, waif, waiting-maid, waitress, wallflower, wanton, war-bride, wardress, washerwoman, wayward, wench, wet-nurse, white-slave, whore, widow, wife, wimmin, witch, woman, womanhood, woman-of-the-world, women, womenfolk, womyn, working-girl, workingwoman, workwoman, wyf/wif, xanthippe, yachtswoman, yenta, yogini, yoni, zaftig, zenana.

Billy, Buck, Charlie, Chubby, Chuck, Dick, Eric/Erik, Felix, Frank, Guy, Harry, Jack, Jake, Jimmy, Jock, Joe, Joey, John, Johnson, Lance, Mark, Mickey, Oscar, Peter, Randy, Rod, Roger, Roscoe, Sam, Tom, Willie, Winnie/Wienie, Woody.

              First they name us, and they claim us, then they shame us and they blame us. After aiming and complaining all those years, they eventually out-live us! If egalitarianism was a true motive, then feminists would be petitioning for an "equality of insurance premium rates" so everyone's payments will be fair and unbiased. It's always acceptable to handicap men, but never permissible to off-set women as compensation.

              Most women won't admit their age; and most men won't act their age!

              The male age cycle progresses as at 20 he's young, at 40 he's middle-aged, at 60 he's old, and at 80 he's dead. The female age cycle progresses as at 15 she's young, at 30 she's available, at 45 she's experienced, at 60 she's mature, at 75 she's older, and at 90 she's still clawing at life! The fact that her sex drive is maximized when her seed withers only compounds or contradicts her longevity ... fruitless for twice as long as she's fertile, while he is potent to the end.

              Women can bestow their favors whether aroused or not, while a man's libido must direct his automatic physiological responses, such that men are sexually regulated by inverse esteem. A woman will have sex if she feels good about herself or if she detests herself, with the former being a proof of her beauty or allure, and the latter being proof of her unattractiveness or unworthiness. Unlike a woman's charity or grudge fucks, a man's penis is a reliable barometer of his emotions ... if depressed or dejected, he cannot perform, and that failure usually compounds and complicates his cycle of decline. So while the feminist mantra avers the primacy of female gratification, the best way for a woman to satisfy herself is to satisfy her man.

              The basic difference between the sexes is that men put their furnace in the basement, while women put their furnace in the attic; and the thermostats are too distant to regulate the temperatures. With "cold hands, warm heart", a feminist needs a solar-collector to warm her frigid heart, and a macho-man needs an iced-beverage to chill his aggressive clutches; but real people keep their thermostats out of their stomachs, out of their genitals, out of their hearts, out of their rectums, and inside of their heads!

              There is a romantic myth that love is selective, that "every pot has its lid", that couples are eternally matched by cosmic omniscience; but the truth is that love will flourish wherever it's nourished, and opportunistic sex needs no cultivation at all. While brutish exploiters of fair and dowdy innocents exercise their double-standards, by being companions, consorts, suitors, escorts, gallants, walkers, cicisbeos, lovers, paramours, gigolos, deflowers, and despoilers, the fair-sex accepts courting, wooing, and rushing attentions in order to bestow her cherished favors upon Mr Right or Mr Goodbar. The gentle-sex dreams on Saint Agnes's Eve, with their concealing step-ins, confining bloomers, revealing undies, delicious scanties, hot-panties, of their proper role in the sewing-circle, quilting-bee, hen-party, harem, zenana, purdah. The resulting accommodation is a compromise that functions in its context: monogamy, bigamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, miscegenation, intermarriage, concubinage. Like her vagina, her morality stretches or constricts to fit her need.

              Bigamy is defined as having one wife too many ... and so is monogamy. The punishment for bigamy is having two mothers-in-law!

              A marriage is the state or condition of an incompatible community consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two. We brand unmarried women with the title of Miss to indicate that they are in the market. Miss, Missis, and Misster are the three most distinctly disagreeable words in our language, in sound and sense. Two are corruptions of Mistress, the other of Master. If we must have them, let us be consistent and give one to the unmarried man. We venture to suggest Mush, for its plastic and insipid connotations.

              A man can't describe his wife to somebody else unless he dislikes her, since there's nothing like enmity to make a character appear vivid. But the very things in a woman that make a man love her escape language. Women seem able to recognize with perfect candor the flaws in the man they love, but men lack this ability. A man can describe the finest points of a dozen women and they are indistinguishable. A man can describe his ideal woman and she is embodied by each woman of his affections. Contrarily, a woman's ideal will remain ethereal and insubstantial. The manifestations of a woman's affections will be unrecognizable in their presumed commonality, but similar in their deviation.

              Girls always get the first lick on life's lollipop, and boys are always the suckers! Women don't want a husband with an odometer on his zipper or a calculator in his heart ... they want Mr Fix-It and Mr Mom, the Golden Goose and the White Knight combined into one perfect spouse. Men would be entirely satisfied to marry a woman who owns a topless bar, whose father owns a sporting goods store, whose mother owns a pawn shop, whose uncle owns a car dealership, and whose aunt owns a restaurant ... men aren't hard to please!

              The basic difference between men and women is that a woman wants one man to satisfy her every need, while a man wants every woman to satisfy his one need!

              When a woman marries again it is because she detested her first husband. When a man marries again it is because he adored his first wife. Women try their luck; men risk their's.

              Men usually marry because they're tired of resisting the seductions against their reason and vigilance; women because they're curious ... and when they're both disappointed, they often try again, and again. For a man to remain single is an afront to womankind, who perceive him as an attractive nuisance of potential harm, or of permanent public temptation.

              Women are only dangerous to the men who adore them, while men are dangerous to themselves!

              Society has regulated the privilege of potentially hazardous activities, such as driving and hunting, by requiring training and permits; so while men could care less about registering a dangerous firearm, they will meekly comply with the requirement for a marriage license ... so she can regulate cohabitation and permit intimacy. No wonder the male credo is "I'd rather be fishing!".

              Marriage is supposed to be a young couple's promise and an older couple's comfort; but it is actually a young woman's triumph and an older woman's glory, a young man's disaster and an older man's regret.

              By all means, men should marry ... if he gets a good wife, then he'll be happy; and if he gets a bad wife, then he'll become philosophical.

              The potential for a perfect marriage ended with Adam and Eve ... since he didn't have to hear about all the other men she might have wed, and she didn't have to hear about how well his mother cooked!

              Women are just like roadway traffic signs ... not just SOFT SHOULDER and CURVES AHEAD, but also REDUCE SPEED and YIELD, STOP and DO NOT ENTER, WILD ANIMAL CROSSING and ONE WAY ONLY. License penalties and restrictions apply.

              When a woman encounters an untamed beast in its natural habitat, she's immediately aware of its suitability and presence; she knows that it belongs in the wilderness, and was aware of her long before she became aware of it. If the encounter is near enough to alarm or frighten her, she'll be thrilled by the portent and potentiality inherent within that confrontation. If she feels unthreatened, she will have leisure to admire its magnificent characteristics. She'll be stimulated by its power and prestige. Its inhuman brutishness will make her feel weak and vulnerable, and she'll yearn for the psychic comforts of familial protection and societal defenses, be they organizational or technological. And when the beast departs, perhaps in pursuit of other prey, she will feel much more secure, even if a little less intensely alive. Although she is impressed, and even titillated, by such an attractive beast, she will abjure and repudiate the very same traits in a man! ... he must be civilized to win her favor!

              When a boss discharges his employee mistress, other women think it's an injustice, and other men think that justice has finally happened, albeit for the wrong crime.

              Women enter the professions in pursuit of the cult of pure womanhood. They don't acquire professional status to extend their essential natures or to augment their basic nurturing, but, as alleged by sexual-displacement theory, to enhance their symbolic carnivorous consumption and to acquire surrogate scepter. This is not the crude sexual frustration of lonely women substituting compliant dildos for absent penises in their hungry wombs, or the castrating temptress using her feeding nether orifice to chew along the hierarchal food-chain of influence. Rather, more in the sense of penis-envy, these brittle maws seek to violate the integral integument of others; as in a parody of rape, to enter the secret spaces of another's privacy, to willfully insert ideas, to arrogantly thrust concepts, to violently penetrate into resistant areas as justified reciprocity or warranted recompense for all their suffering. For the indignity of having been born female, for all of the bloody corruptions that they've endured, for all the psychic pain and mental abuse, they're eager to do unto men what men have done unto them! They seek power as a blunt instrument to bludgeon society into a new and terrible matriarchy, where femininity is only another option, and masculinity is only a necessary function.

              Men tend to organize in a consistent and coherent manner, based upon some logical system, and make adjustments to reinforce or restore that system. Women administer in a disintegrated and stochastic manner, based upon the presumption from child-rearing that everything will be interrupted before completion or will become chaotic before fruition. The male model presumes the imposition of some type of functional discipline; while the female model presumes dysfunction, indiscipline, and inconsistency. Females can imitate and thus replicate male standards, but all feminine professions are based upon artful guile and imaginative manipulation, upon willful distraction and subtle diversion, upon revisionist definition and sympathetic reinterpretation. That many women beat men at their own game is due to inattention and under-estimation, to jealousy and rivalry, to chivalry and co-optation. Only women can turn their demonstrable sexuality into a profession, while men are required to manifest qualifying skills.

              Women always get into trouble whenever they try to think like men; and men always get into trouble whenever they don't try to think like women!

              Women are offended by men acting like they own the whole world ... even when they really do! ... so men try to appease them by indulging their influence, which is fulsomely praised. Men are offended by women acting like they know better ... even when they really do! ... so women try to appease them by indulging their willfulness, which is courteously disregarded.

              Men like to play the game, but women like to keep score. Everybody knows who wins, but nobody agrees whether it was fair.

              Poker game rules are royally flushed straight when female logic determines that an autonomous one-of-a-kind is psychosocially better than four-of-a-kind, and when male logic determines that two-pairs are morally superior to a perverse full-house!

              Being women unsuited for conventional competition, feminists aspire to emulate masculine traits as a synthetic symbol of genuine achievement ... such as smoking, drinking, cursing, and standing to micturate, so as to avoid the 'indignity' of the natural posture which has the virtue of not filling their own shoes with urine! Modern men and old-fashioned women are the only ones who ever blush anymore.

              In general, men seem to be so uncivilized at first meeting because they are so forthright and bizarre, but after longer association, their predictable crudity and baser instincts make them seem almost normal ... something like a housebroken beast. By contrast, almost all women tractable and amenable at first meeting, with their superficial differences lending a touch of piquant exoticism to their delicate acculturation, but after longer association, their inexplicable unpredictability and vicious jealousy make them seem terribly abnormal ... no one to be trusted behind a man's back or vested with child rearing.

              There can be no respect between the sexes, no mutual dignity based upon innocence or intimacy, no aloof autonomy or abstract authority derived from disciplined conditioning or inculcated courtesy, no recognition without awareness since each recognizes the vulnerability of stark nakedness in the miserably cold light of truth. The significance of the shameful expulsion from the Garden of Eden is not the sheer revelation of nudity, but the unlovely fact of our insatiable ambition to be other than imperfect and mortal!

              Because women never snore, belch, or fart, they absolutely need to bitch, or else they'll explode! Because men, with their savage appetites and crude manners, already lack restraint in these areas, they insist that their glands must be milked to prevent their brains from exploding!

              The sexual-orientation of the contents of a body-bag is immaterial, but women should not be in combat ONLY because they cannot follow orders ... they must either question or argue! ... even during horizontal drill and ceremonies. Men should not be nurturing homemakers because they are too aggressive and orderly, too compulsive and intolerant to convert a dwelling into a home ... they don't project warmth, comfort, cheer, or style. Too many men are sex-linked color-blind! ... a brown meal in a brown house looks too much like the final egested product of infantile fixation.

              After some extensive analysis, it has been discovered that a woman's gait changes in concert with her menstrual cycle, being the most provocative when she's most susceptible to fertilization, and least demonstrative when she's actually menstruating. It therefore comes as no great surprise (except to scholars wasting grant money) that the style of a woman's walk serves as a signal of her sexual availability. Researchers have not bothered to study the different gaits of men because they're so obvious: he's tired or energized, he's hurt or healthy, he's weak or strong. Asking a man why he's limping or staggering is never as interesting as asking a woman if she's ready to have sex!

              Boys learn to stand hip-shot and walk with their hips thrust aggressively forward; while girls imitate backward tilting hips. Young men walk bow-legged due to embarrassment about enlarged or protruding genitals; and old men persist so as to accommodate a swollen prostate. Young women are pigeon-toed out of shyness over bodily development; and mature women persist so as to advertise their secondary sexual characteristics. Women 'wiggle' to enhance excitation, and men 'waddle' to cope with tumid engorgement.

              Mismatched emotional relations between the sexes:

she:         sympathetic,
he:           defensive,
he:           sympathetic,
she:         protective,
he:           frustrated,
she:         sullen,
she:         frustrated,
he:           angry,
she:         hurt,
he:           sullen,
she:         angry,
he:           hurt.

              Women don't have many defenses, but they are used so often and so variously that they seems superfluous. Women prefer indirect offenses because they favor defensive conversions and strategic reversals or retreats, with the objective of surviving to fight another battle at a later day. Men have few defenses, which are mostly ineffectual because they're not practiced; but men also have few offenses, which are direct and efficient. While women use their weakness as a weapon, men are strong enough to survive, and soft enough to make survival meaningful.

              It's not the explicit act of sexual encounter which defines "rape" ... but rather it's the lack of consent or the denial of permission ... as evidenced by the gross disparity of claims of sexual assault between the sexes. Even the instances of reported "statutory rape" are skewed and biased by interpretation. A young boy is introduced or educated about the wonders of physical love, but little girls are prematurely abused and insensitively ruined by indecent or abnormal contact. Every survivor of sexual assault reports that any touch is offensive until new bonds of trust can be mutually established beyond protective self-defense. The simple fact is that women can run faster with their skirts up than men can run with their pants down!

              Rape is, according to men, the crime of trespassing upon another man's property, and, according to women, the crime of being violated when they are not interested; it is, in short, the offense of indiscipline ... of wanting what one cannot have, of taking what one should not have, of responding to an allure that is withdrawn or prohibited, of being seduced beyond restraint, of getting an erection at the wrong time. The woman wants to be sexy and her men want her to be admired, but not that much, not that way! It doesn't matter if she's too young or too old for childbearing because she's supposed to be perpetually attractive. Putting a lock on a man's groin is the same as enslaving his brain or his heart or his tongue ... it's part of his cultural maturation to learn when the switch can be flipped on or off. If he doesn't learn, then he's a brute or beast; but no woman is ever held to the same standard of self control, of self restraint, of self discipline. That's why everyone says that rape isn't about sex but about power! ... it's all about power, and she knows it.

              A marriage of convenience is more inconvenient than either concubinage or polygyny ... and almost as stupid as an uncommitted affair. Unlike lying and stealing, rape and murder, incest is universally condemned in one form or another; so whoever defined the obligation for endogamous protection and exogamous license, thus ensuring cross-fertilization of the gene pool, not only saved humanity from imbecilic extinction, but also introduced the concept of sport into the marriage game! ... the only problem is that it's not evolved far enough to become a true blood sport. There would be a bounty on them if they didn't occasionally give necessary service and pleasure!

              Women don't know what they want, and they don't like what they get. Men know very well what they want, but become disinterested after they get it. Men usually want friendly sex that's uncomplicated by emotion or obligation. Women most often want emotional obligation that's uncomplicated by sex or friendship.

              Many formal religions mandate marital counseling and instruction, but women have been attending their own bride's school for generations ... often mothers instructing daughters, but frequently collective coteries form a class for mutual benefit. The subjects include how to convert the stupid acts of love into credits toward more useful goals, how to instill guilt and compliant remorse, how to deal and trade to get the upper-hand or controlling interest, how to cooperate in the advantageous art of seduction, and how to bargain economically for feminine rewards. The bridal shower is a token of graduation, with the promise of more gifts to come.

              Like specious syllogisms with fallacious elements, each marriage partner represents, and is thus responsible for, all other members of their sexual division of the species; and so contests and conflicts, patterns and particulars, excuses and exceptions are individually negotiated for the race. Only one person in the marriage needs to be sane at any given time, so they can take turns recovering their partner from the extreme edge of context and rescuing each other's perspective. The only complication is that, as with strangers, the necessary levels of care change from situation to circumstance, from period to interval, and the successful coping mechanisms are discrete to each type, so the probability of sustained accomplishment diminishes with accrued motivation. Unlike most experiential phenomena, no one acquires mastery with more practice.

              Men and women regard each other as if they were elephants. Men like to look at women, but don't want the responsibility for their elephantine appetites. Women automatically seek to be in control of all that bull elephant power, but then discover the curse of owning a white elephant.

              A man simply wants his woman to become a part of his life, while a woman wants her man to, or be willing to, simply sacrifice himself for her life!

              Women always want more from men than they can get; and men always get more from women than they want!

              Divorced men tend to remain emotionally attached to their former spouse, which may involve extending consideration and affection to their erstwhile partner. The liberated whilom wife tends to be more tolerant and considerate toward the uxorious husband who no longer shares her life than she ever permitted during their mutual bondage. The quondam quagmire confronting post-modern couples is how to inject this civility and love into the relationship while it's still viable! ... because even since ancient times, Eve has displaced Lilith (characterized as a female demon) as Adam's only true wife, and notice the trouble she brought into the Garden of Eden! Humanity was spawned from a broken home, and choosing sides has never helped or resolved anything.

              Just as adultery was traditionally punished by disfigurement so disloyalty could not be concealed from public disgrace, so the ancient ritual of divorce seeks to shame the incapacity or incompatibility of the sundered marriage. The word 'divorce' is derived from the archaic practice of ripping-off a man's genitals through his wallet!

              Just as nobody can know how a well-made pair of shoes will pinch until they're actually worn, so it is with discovering the deficiencies of properly endowed and suitably functional wives by their ignorant husbands ... until it is too late!

              Whenever a woman decides that a man is vital to her life, it's considered to be an addiction; but whenever a man draws the same conclusion, it's considered to be a common sense acknowledgement of reality.

              Relations between men and women are supposed to be about love ... or at least friendship and companionship ... but the most important thing for men is respect, which will even be accepted when it's faked; and the most important thing for women is not being offended, which will even be accepted when it's faked. Honor, courtesy, and love are indispensable illusions.

              Women want a commitment from men before they'll reciprocate by returning loyalty to them; and men want loyalty from women before they'll reciprocate by returning a commitment to them ... it's this eternal impasse that makes the Leap of Faith so dangerous.

              Chastity and fidelity are womanish hoaxes perpetrated upon male physiology ... young men want to be faithful, but cannot subdue their natural responses; and old men want to be unfaithful, but cannot overcome their natural responses! The loyalty contest bespeaks a failure of imagination, a failure of opportunity, a failure of courage to actively explore the vast variety of uncharted conquests. After the initial infidelity, the frequency of intimacy is immaterial to females ... one more (or less) douche-bag really doesn't matter.

              Unless men precipitate the break-up, they are surprised by a woman's decision to separate; and women resent men's ignorance, because they believe a man should be more sensitive and aware. Contrarily, women are never surprised by a man's inconstancy or infidelity, because they know how easily men are manipulated ... despite suspicions, what usually surprises them is who, among their traitorous accomplices, steals their deceptive commitment.

              Women believe that loving a man limits and inhibits them; while men believe that loving a woman enables their possibilities and expands their potential.

              Men act strong so that others will be unafraid, and they act unafraid so that others will be strong; but women act weak so that others will give them an advantage, and they act fearful so that no one will know that their advantages are sufficient.

              Men are more foolish than villainous, but would rather be thought otherwise; while women are more villainous than foolish, but would rather be thought otherwise.

              Women believe that men are a necessary evil, that men can be induced to perform essential functions and render appropriate services, but are annoying interferences when women are not in the mood to be distracted or comforted, sheltered or pampered, rescued or worshipped. Men, on the other hand, believe that they are the dominant beasts in the zoological parks wrenched from the wilderness kingdom of an unsympathetic natural selection, and that survival of the species is contingent upon their relentless talents. In consequence, men expect a modicum of appreciation from their dependent women and children, based upon the power that radiates from successful men. Men trade on the presumption of manifest power, in the same way that women trade on the assumption of idealized and perfectible sexuality ... most men have it, while a few must pretend; but only a few women have it, so most must pretend!

              All men are happy in the same way, but each woman has been made miserable in different ways. Her desperation in confronting the infinite variations of the "good spouse" compels the creation of plastic purgatories and insipid perditions. Each woman is happy in her own special way, but she knows that it won't last ... some unhappy man will surely ruin it in short order, because all men are miserable in the same way, so it must be some woman's fault!

              Wedlock is the solemn rite which unifies a couple, and prescribes them as a single legal entity: the husband. Marital bonds have evolved into binding marital contracts, which have become martial combats! Spite is inversely proportional to the level of TLC rendered from spousal betrayal, and convertible to the apportioned settlement morganatically excised from commonwealth by paternalistic litigation. In the bad old days, the basis for severing the plighted troth was adultery, bigamy, desertion, impotence, imposition of personal indignity, cruelty, drunkenness, infamous or felonious conviction, but has evolved into a no fault quagmire with a Solomonic partition of the spoils. Digamous divorce courts should accept the sacred oath, "...until death do us part...", as a valid instrument of assignment for relational resolution. Henceforth, when 'marital' becomes 'martial', let the winner take all, and may the best man win!

              In the eternal war between the sexes, where mating games are the conjugal front-lines of combat, and the nuptial fighting commences as soon as the bells ring and the knots are tied, every nubile maiden, intent upon exchanging her n‚e name and hope-chest for the prize of a husband's estate, intends to espouse hypergamy. Every gold-digging hetaera is patrolling for a sugar-daddy to convert her trousseau into bountiful jointure and respectable legacy. Matrimony is the flanking maneuver which invalidates the salic law, while converting a dowry into a fortified coverture and a tocher into unassailable paraphernalia. Every veteran knows why connubial contentions are known as mortal wedlock.

              Women would like to have the wedding ring without the man; and men would like to have the woman without the wedding ring ... alas, even when they get what they want, they don't want what they've got!

              Men don't stand a chance when disputing the selfish inflictions of self-righteous women. Both parties attribute logic and principle to their declarations; but men are simplistically straight forward, while women are oblique, convoluted, and tangential in their debate. Each party accuses the other of missing the point, of temporal irrelevance, or of being unrealistic, while the other contrarily seizes the opposite proposition. Because women argue from the convictions of ignorance, and contest from the certitudes of hypothesis, men will always lose any trial that impugns feminine judgement!

              Men resent women for their trivial preoccupations, while women resent men for making them aware of their trivial preoccupations when they wish to be otherwise ... when they wish them to be otherwise.

              Women always have the last word in every argument, even if it's non-verbal. Anything that a man says afterwards is the beginning of a new argument.

              Women save their wedding-dress so they can prove just how much marriage has changed them for the worse! Men rent their wedding-apparel because they don't want to be reminded of the agonized formalities imposed as a preliminary to regular sexual congress. The bogus giveaway of premium values begins with the father of the bride, extends to wedding presents that cannot be returned, and concludes with a throwaway relationship. Anyone who marries for financial gain or acquisitive security pays for their decision many times over ... and over again.

              Is there a difference between a "bride-price" and a "stud-fee"? ... between a gigolo and a whore? ... between wet-nursing and patronage? ... between "living in sin" and "living on sin"?

              Marriage is the triumph of love over reason. Divorce is the triumph of vengeance over compassion. Re-marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.

              Taking vengeance on a woman is wasted, because they're their own worst enemy. Man is born of woman, but only a fool returns to the womb to die. If a man doesn't take pleasure from a woman, then she'll give him pain.

              Men tend to go for new wine in old bottles, and women tend to go for old wine in new bottles, and so it goes for sex, love, marriage, politics, and economics. Only connoisseurs prefer antique authenticity, and only novices prefer the unknown novelty ... and they don't matter to the mismatched majority.

              The best way for a woman to get over a man is to get under another man! ... and the best way for a man to get next to a woman is to get next to as many women as possible!

              Every normal woman needs to marry, but no man ever should; because it is unreasonable for a man to make one woman miserable, when he can make so many others happy.

              Does nymphomania or satyriasis generate more lustful and lurid heat? Is lascivious prurience sex-linked? Is lecherous iniquity gender-based? ... and will they remain discrete (if not already indiscreet), or shall they coalesce? ... or will everyone remain covetous?

              If a woman's orgasm can be analogized to 'fire', in that it may spontaneously combust into a fearsome firestorm, or suffocate in the absence of appropriate fuel, or smokily choke from improper circumstantial mixtures, or fail to ignite her tinderbox full of lavish resources for lack of a spark, but always requiring precise conditions and specific elements; then men may be analogized to either arsonists or firefighters, depending upon their techniques.

              Because women fake orgasms, men retaliate by faking relationships.

              Men fake foreplay to engage genuine family jewels; so Catholic women have real orgasms with fake jewelry, and Jewish women have fake orgasms with real jewelry.

              The rooster says: cock-a-doodle-do!, and the hen says: any-dude'll-do!

              Men with callused hands and rough minds attract women with callused knees and rough tales ... and they both have scarred hearts.

              Women believe they have an innate, if not a divine, right to everything they want. It is the magic of their sexuality, which conveys or bestows anything they desire upon them without any more compensation, than the necessary tolerance of the opposite sex, who willingly sacrifice on their behalf. Men have always had to pay their dues so as to earn whatever is wanted most. Female teleology entails men as the essential conduit for deserved treasures, whether vital or cosmic or otherwise.

              A successful man is someone who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is someone who marries a successful man.

              A woman always worries about the future ... until she gets a husband. A man never worries about the future ... until he gets a wife.

              In any assessment of worth, there must be a consideration of relative values, which, when evaluating the assets of men and women usually degenerates from arguments over birth-rights to ad-hominem attacks. Contrasts of style or poise, status or power, intellect or wealth, appearance or physique, shortly devolve into procreative prowess, sexual performance, or the size of breast and penis, until epithets are bandied ... limp-dick versus titless-wonder, mushroom-nub versus sagging-bag. Her heart is alleged to be colder than a witch's tit in a brass-bra, while his blood is colder than a eunuch's balls in a brass-codpiece. The petty barrage of childish taunts eventually scar the edifice to the point that the persona is impaired or dysfunctional; thus reinforcing the rules of evaluation. The ability to endure punishment is far more important than dispensing it.

              Have you noticed that all the coins that feature busts of prominent women are all of the higher denominations? The only difference between money and honey is the initial letter ... representing men and husband respectively. Alimony is just alot of moaning about money ... when it ought to be an alibi for mourning.

              A man will over-tip to make an impression or under-tip to make a statement, but a woman will tip exactly to express economical money-management or will over-tip to express solidarity. If a man throws-down money and abandons a woman at their table, she will ignore his financial contempt and concentrate on his rude departure. If a man casts-down money and leaves another man at their table, the man will recompute the check and pocket the difference in retaliation. If a woman pays and departs, the other women will share the compromise; but a man will add to the total sum before following.

              Never get your meat and your bread at the same place; and never foul the nest where you sleep. Men are the bread-winners, but women knead it.

              Unlike men, who're represented by their vocations, women are defined by their fragility, by their uselessness, by their self-absorption. Women risk degradation and vilification each time they attempt to prove competence; but enhance their allure every time their helplessness or intuition is validated. Whenever a precocious or meddling woman is restrained for her own good, her whimsical defiance is indulged as another manifestation of her immaturity, her incapacity, her ineptitude. She knows that everything must be done to accommodate her, because without the promise from her Womb of Time, then all the legacies nested into the Tomb of Time are hopeless dreams.

              The sex-linked role models endemic to each culture are satisfying opportunities for martyrdom, such that when the passive-aggressive woman confronts the super aggressive man, they can each play out the character designated for them by their society ... each obliged to suffer expectations not of their choosing. So when the feminist adopts the novel new shtick of hyper-aggressive ball-busting bitch, they unwisely anticipate a complementary role-reversal from men, whom they imagine are anxious to adopt the posture of a cowed follower submissive to new leadership, but are surprised ... even amazed ... by the escalation of masculine aggressivity into stubborn resistance and maddened violence! ... well, what did they expect would happen when the playscript gets changed in the middle of the performance?! Traditions exist for a good reason.

              In hypothetical role-reversal games, most women would like to be less sensitive and more aggressive, more domineering and ruthless. Because women perceive men as irresponsible, they would gladly exchange all of their domestic chores for the (denied) onerous executive obligations enjoyed by men. Men, on the other side, usually don't seek a change in personality or status. Men most often desire interpersonal permission to act out of character; and their greatest ambition is to be excused from all of their burdensome responsibilities. Men are usually willing to forsake a lifelong vocation or promotion for deeper personal relationships; but women usually believe that love is not enough when a family has denied them a satisfying career or gratifying achievements. If roles were reversed, then women would be tyrants, and men would be whores ... or, in other words, nothing essential would change, except who's on top.

              Women declare that they sleep to recover from their horrendously toilsome chores, and to escape from their enormously stressful superhuman efforts, into a delightful dream world of luxurious fantasies; but that men only sleep because they're lazy. Men declare the exact opposite.

              In ritual anthropophagy, the acquired magic serves a social function which must be kept in balance for cultural norms to persist. Following a natural death in New Guinea, as part of the obsequies and as an expression of mourning, women of a cannibalistic tribe devour the body of the deceased man, and acquire his spiritual powers by this act. The male relatives then give each woman pieces of animal flesh corresponding to the parts of the man that they just ate, which permits the captured spirit to be released into the world, and withdraws the male-power from the women. This cycle of spectral men rehabilitating eminent women restores and reinforces the roles by re-establishing normal cultural relations.

              Those formal terpsichorean rituals, which comprise part of the courtship promenade, are just a public exhibition of foreplay, because dancing is simply the vertical expression of some horizontal desires. With some people, this driving passion entirely substitutes for what cannot be expressed or enacted in any other way.

              Women have more euphemisms for intimate relationships than Arabs have words for sand; and men have more dysphemisms for sexual intercourse than Eskimos have words for snow!

              If "fuck" is a bad word but not a bad thing, and "rape" is a bad thing but not a bad word, then why is 'man' both and 'woman' neither?!

              When men refuse to communicate, they remain essentially human by giving the impression that they would share anything with anyone given the proper inducement, but lacking such, they must decline their cooperation. When women refuse to communicate, they remain essentially perverse by giving the impression that they would share anything with anyone if they so desired, but lacking such desire, they must decline their cooperation.

              The derivations of 'hysterical' and 'cunning' makes us wonder if the root of 'hostile' is "host", so then "coy" is probably the root of 'coyote'. The sisterhood's unanimity and empathy extends to non-verbal communications, wherein a sympathetic look or compassionate pose can say it all! Attempting to redefine 'history' as "herstory" only displays their ignorant prejudice for justified ridicule. Men also practice a universal language, but their rough "linga-franca" presumes a preoccupation with copulatory conquests and unassailable projections; as if they needed to personify the etymological root of 'male' as "evil" (eg: malediction, malevolent, malefactor), least anyone forget its origin.

              Could a simpering FEMme-fatale be substituted for a PENILized MALEfactor in a MALEstrom/maelstrom?

              Although 'misandry' is the obverse of 'misogyny', there doesn't seem to be equivalent terminology for "dildo" and "pessary" ... despite the fact that lustful and irrepressible brutes have always sought vaginal substitutes or copulatory surrogates.

              Women don't mind a man's bad grammar and poor arithmetic as long as these deficiencies favor them; and a man doesn't mind bad grammar or poor arithmetic from a woman as long as she's attractive.

              When the 'fair sex' heard about masculine formulary "rites" they misunderstood the homonym and presumed that they should enjoy female "rights" without comprehending them. Women think that grammatical rules extend to relationships, so 'lied' and 'lying' must be conjugative forms of 'laid' and 'laying'; but men obey the "cad code" instead, which directs "find 'em, fool 'em, feel 'em, fuck 'em, forget 'em!" ... so the result is the same under "equal rites", even if the attribution is different.

              Men believe that life is only about 10% how you make it, and about 90% how you take it; while women believe that life is only 10% how you take it, and 90% how you fake it!

              Because women do whatever they want, they perceive men as acting out of the same motive; but men will do things they don't want to do so that their women will also comply.

              Whenever anything bad happens to a woman, from rape and battery to neglect and abandonment, it is perceived as undeserved and happening, at least potentially, to all women! But anytime that anything bad happens to a man it's perceived by everyone as well deserved, and many women think that it should probably happen to more men! Whenever anything good happens to a woman, from graduation and promotion to raise and inheritance, her adulation and triumph is well deserved, and many women think that it should probably happen to more women! But anytime that anything good happens to a man it's perceived by almost everyone as undeserved and happening, at least potentially, at the expense of someone else, someone just as good, someone even better ... and for most women, such was stolen from a long-suffering, harder-working, more deserving woman, such as his unacknowledged wife or unappreciated mother, not to mention the female coworkers he's exploited, who will never receive the credit they've earned!

              If it weren't for the love of a good man, a woman could live her entire life without learning of her many charms; and if it weren't for the love of a good woman, a man could live his entire life without learning of his many faults!

              Women believe, as an article of true faith, that it's always the man's fault ... they truly believe that men should know what they've done wrong without being told, and should also understand why they're not told. Men believe that it's never their fault, but they understand that they'll always get blamed, no matter what they do ... so it's easier to just accept the abuse, and act sympathetic.

              The one thing that a woman cannot be forgiven is aging; and the one thing that a man cannot be forgiven is impotence ... everything else, from addiction and insolvency to adultery and infanticide, can eventually be excused.

              Nobody wants to be reminded of their transgressions or failings; but when men err, women always expect them to apologize, and when women err, they always expect men to forgive them.

              A man is perpetually thoughtful, except when mating, whence he's reflexive and paranoid; while a woman is perpetually reflexive, except when mating, whence she's calculating and paranoid. In other words, a man squanders a lifetime of clear insights for some brief interludes of crazed lust, while a woman squanders a lifetime of self-indulgence for some brief interludes of desperate lucidity. It is said that a post-coital man is most vulnerable to a woman's persuasion, as a pre-coital woman is most vulnerable to male blandishments, but this is only because the opposite sex is(finally) communicating in the mode of the other ... a woman rational and a man sensuous.

              Women would rather be right than reasonable ... but since men are reasonable by their very nature, they're automatically right!

              We are told that women are not supposed to be understood, but simply loved for themselves; and since men insist upon being understood ... in fact, emphatically demand that they be clearly and completely and unequivocally understood ... then they alone are responsible for being unloved, even unlovable.

              It's often proclaimed that a woman's character is like a tea bag, which only shows its strength when in hot water; but only a man exhibits the subtilty and robustness of his flavorful tastiness after many scaldings and dunkings and squeezings!

              Women cry at the least provocation ... when they're sad or lonely, hurt or sentimental ... until the shedding of tears becomes a normal response to any situation, and there is no way to differentiate a tragic or devastating moment. Women are so overly dramatic and bathetically wasteful that they have to resort to exaggeration whenever something serious impels a justified response, because they've lost credibility by squandering their store of emotions, trading authenticity and reliability for comforting affection ... they have learned to cry wolf in order to receive some petting. Men have cultivated a demeanor of never crying so that when they finally express their deepest feelings with wrenching sobs, their broken hearts won't be mistaken for something unimportant.

              The human animal's threat response of "fight or flight" is caused by the autonomic nervous system; but acculturation has conditioned women to shriek, weep, or swoon. Denied such hysterical vents, men are socially compelled to ignore, capitulate, or resist provocations. There's an essential visceral truth about the different ways that people deal with their problems, which has nothing to do with muscles or tears. Women show their strength by talking about their problems, and men show their strength by not talking about them. Our only commonality is our ability to laugh at ourselves.

              Alexis de Tocqueville noted the paradoxical tendency of individualistic and independent Americans to congregate into multifarious special-interest groups. As manifest joiners of ulterior motivation, women associate with the Worshipful Society of the Goddess, while men associate with Friends of the Beaver; women affiliate with the Shelter for Victims of Sexual Abuse, while men affiliate with the Triumphantly Tumescent Tricksters. The explanation for such dichotomous motivation of voluntary membership remains mysterious.

              Women believe that every time a woman loses, all women lose; and that every time that a man loses, all men lose ... and so it is for winning ... which is why women sympathize with every other woman, and delight in the humiliation of any individual man ... since he, all alone and in the privacy of their bedroom, represents all men. Men, by contrast, believe that a man succeeds or fails on his own merit (or lack thereof), and that a group of men only change their status if they all participate ... and strangely, believe the same of individual women as well as groups of women. So when he works ... or eats or sleeps or whatever ... it is for himself, but whenever she does anything, it's for the world!

              Women scrutinize things so they can magnify problems, making the insignificant into the monumental and making the significant into the horrendous, in order to justify the excess of worry and bother expended upon fixing these otherwise routine matters; while men interrupt their normal routine to fix things when they can no longer be ignored ... which is women demand repairs at the first sign of trouble, while men make do until repair is essential. Women claim that dismissing their urgent demands discredits their judgement, that essential is just a matter of interpretation; but since they don't make the repairs and have never tried to improvise, the postponement model is more realistic. Women aver that such procrastination only pertains to their desires, that there is always time for in a man's schedule for whatever he finds most important; but that's just magnified paranoia ... the proper analogy is not to timing but to maturity, as in hunting or fishing at the right place, or harvesting at the right time. What women don't understand about small problems is that most of them resolve themselves, and men appreciate the fact that only major problems require special attention.

              When men get lost, they won't request guidance and resent unwanted advice that interferes with independent and individualized problem-solving; but women will readily seek assistance, and then will disregard it! Women will read a manual and misunderstand the directions; but men work on the task, retain the left-overs, and then check their accomplishment in the book!

              Curiosity may have killed the cat, but most women operate on the principle imitative of the ostrich: whatever they don't become aware of, doesn't exist. This isn't cultivated ignorance as much as deliberate agnosticism ... they cannot be expected to understand anything that they don't already know! This philosophy contrasts markedly with the male of the species, who is no more competent, but much more adventurous. Men tend to operate by the "take a look" syndrome, even when they're incompetent or impotent to affect the situation. A man will closely examine a malfunction, as if it will display a label identifying the problem, while a woman will admit defeat and immediately arrange for professional repairs. Although a man can do absolutely nothing about natural disasters and massive catastrophes, he will seek the experience (if not the knowledge) of introductory exposure as a gesture of faith, as a token of reassurance, as a symbol of intrepidity and mark of distinction. This willingness to confront the perilous unknown distinguishes him, not as "superior", but as worthy of confidence and trust; and therefore, the appropriate leader of his dependent group. The woman will curse his fallibility and mourn his impetuous loss, but he is all she has to rely upon in an uncertain and confusing world.

              Now that science has linked risk-taking behavior with the neurotransmitter dopamine, and disproved the alleged link to the hormone testosterone, it hasn't dissuaded women from their prejudices against adventurism ... because both substances are higher in men, and evince their domestic unsuitability: "Sorry honey, but my genes made me do it!" It's not that men can't be trained to be lap dogs, but why should they be when they're naturally better suited to be hunting and guard dogs, rescue and service dogs?!

              A woman accepts a man's flagrant inferiority ... selectively; while a man accepts a woman's flagrant inconsistency ... unselectively. Each indulges the other, but while a man finds a woman's foibles endearing, a woman finds a man's foibles maddening.

              In a matriarchal world, men are to blame for everything because they are the underclass, and women are always right, due to their superiority. In a patriarchal world, men are at fault for everything because of their dominant position, and women are always right, due to their superiority. Women nag men into doing something, and then blame him for doing it; or women complaint that their contributions are ignored, and that they could have done a better job than the men. Most of all, no matter what happens, women are never responsible for any mistakes or failures, because there was always some interference. When men succeed despite the interferences, then they've cheated on acknowledging the critical aid of some contributing woman who enabled their achievement. The only thing women are ever responsible for is success ... and most of that has been stolen by selfish men.

              Men and women have at least one thing in common: they don't trust men. Consequently, women are betrayed by their trust in girl friends, and men are betrayed by their trust in mechanisms.

              Experts disagree, in a continuation of the nature/nurture controversy, on whether people are born or become untrustworthy; but the coefficient is that men do not take women seriously, and vice versa. Each projects inferences and imposes deductions upon the other, thus inhibiting and exacerbating their interaction, and contributing to mutual exploitation. The only problem that arises from these misconceptions and misunderstandings, these exaggerations and under-estimations, these misjudgments and miscalculations is that the violated trust is perpetuated upon the next generation, ad infinitum. Stereotyping is just another toxic byproduct of intercourse, or dangerous side-effect of love.

              It is a woman's privilege to be impulsive and inconsistent; and it is a man's to abandon such instinctual inconsonance to its own entanglement.

              Although each sex accuses the other of duplicity, almost no one says what they want to hear. Women blame men for what they say, for what they don't say, for what they do, for what they don't do, and inexplicably, even for what they're thinking! ... women even hold men responsible for their dreams, because they know that if the dream were real, men would act in the same way! Men, of course, being rational creatures, only wish that women would keep a quarter of their promises and fulfill a tenth of their implications!

              Remember when men gladly doffed their hats, surrendered their seats, and politely stood-up for women? ... until the fairer-sex stood-up to piss, cursed or swore inarticulately, and demanded laissez-passer to every man's privacy. Women were once as fresh as dawn, and men would screw the crack of dawn if it would hold still long enough, but in the arid atmosphere created by torrid ambition, the penumbral respite is only a precursor of doom.

              Women fall in love only after they get to know you, but men want to leave when they know you too well. Women are always calculating the angles, but men are always figuring the curves!

              It is said that God permits Satan to exist so people have something to blame for evil. It is also said that men were created so Satan wouldn't get blamed for everything. And, it is also said that women were created to take all the credit and keep God humble.

              While women hope that every man's model gent will become normative and constant, men hope that every woman's inner slut becomes manifest and overt. A pessimist believes that all women are evil; and an optimist hopes that they're all bad!

If little girls are sugar and spice and everything nice; then women are part queen-bee and lady-bug, part milch-cow and blowfish, part powder-pigeon and muskrat, part pig and mink, part sow-bear and turtle, part wild-cat and mermaid, with a sponge for a heart, and a cash-register mind.

If little boys are sticks and snails and puppy-dog tails; then men are part hornet and cockroach, part stud-bull and jellyfish, part vulture and rat, part boar and weasel, part armadillo and alligator, part goat and snake, with a penny-bank heart, and a steel-trap mind.

              One of the few things that both men and women agree about is that if a woman can't have intercourse then it's her fault ... of course there's an inevitable debate about the cause, even when the result doesn't change. However, when a man can't get an erection, women blame the man, and men blame the woman! If a woman emasculates a man then it's his fault, and if a man is unmanly then it too is his fault. The female temptress, being nothing more than a yawning gash, a receptive abyss, a vacant cavity, is always womanly (even when torpid or comatose), while the male of the species (as usual!) must actually perform.

              If a fox can shoot a beaver, then can a rat walk the dog, can a weasel track a wildcat, can a skunk erect a worm?!

              With most sex-linked ('holandric') congenital conditions, like hemophilia, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and albinism, women are the carriers so men can be the inheritors ... "Typhoid Mary" was a mother!

              A woman's malady, from bunions to migraines, sciatica to dropsy, always requires a consultation with her gynecologist; while a man's ailment is always denied, even when he's bleeding in the emergency room or confined in the intensive care unit ... a woman believes that everything that's wrong has to do with her sexuality, while a man believes that nothing is ever wrong, even when it's undeniable.

              When children are ill, women are nurturing and men are awkward; when men are sick, they act like babies and women are supportive; and when women are sick, men become childishly impatient and children become independent.

              There is nothing a woman enjoys so much as doing what she doesn't like for someone whom she does like. There is nothing a man enjoys so much as doing whatever he likes with whomever he likes! The perversity of women consists in making others responsible for their defiance and contrariness. The perversity of men consists in making situations responsible for their inconsistencies.

              Men believe that "boys will be boys" and that girls will be perfect. Women believe that men are just over-grown little boys, and that neither boys nor men should act like "real men".

              Men believe that little boys are lovable but harmless, that young men are irresistible and dangerous, and that old men are harmless but lovable. Women believe that males are never harmless; but men know that there's never been a female who's completely helpless or totally harmless!

              Women believe that all men are beasts, but some can be trained as useful protectors and pets. Men believe that all women are animals, but some are too wild and selfish to ever be tamed.

              The primeval beast exists in a state of grace within its essential nature, while primordial man exists as a profanation within his essential nature, such that the wild animal is awesome, but the wild human is merely outrageous.

              Women think that everything is (or should be) about them, their feelings and desires, their tastes and opinions, their appearance and sexuality ... and if it isn't, then they either want to change it or banish it! Men, on the other hand, being reasonable creatures, only think that most things are about them ... and if it isn't, then they either adapt it or ignore it. When frustrated by disappointment, most men tend to suck it up and most women tend to spit it out! It hasn't always been this way, with men formerly talking trash and women suffering in silence, but it probably won't stay this way for much longer, as women become more ruthless and dominant while men become more caring and sensitive.

              If men are such churlish fiends, who are bent upon the utter enslavement of innocent women, then why is there no 'female' equivalent for the male conditions known as: "tied to her apron-strings", "hen-pecked", "pussy-whipped"?!

              Women believe that men are dangerous, but that alluring admiration turns contemptuous when the captivated beast is so easily tamed. Men believe that women are vulnerable, but that alluring admiration turns contemptuous when the implacable intransigence is revealed beneath the camouflaging veneer. Notably, the effeminization of virility doesn't conclude with unmanly impotence, but proceeds to the emasculation of weaklings; such that male roles are typified as infantile models, of wimp, fraidy-cat, scaredy-cat, cry-baby, cream-puff, softy, namby-pamby, pantywaist, milksop, Milquetoast, mollycoddle, mama's-boy, sissy, pansy, and nancy-boy. Ironically, the denigrating conversion of the female roles doesn't imitate the presexual or asexual male, probably because women already fulfill the baby-doll persona, but transfers to the dominant or masterful model, of bitch-queen, ball-breaker, bull-dagger, and iron-maiden. Deception is a useful strategy, but these guarantee mutual defeat.

              Females claim to be tougher than males because women were designed to endure pain and suffering, while men, they assert, are vulnerable, and were only designed for pleasure! Males righteously contend the exact opposite. Each defends their claim to stoicism with anecdotal specimens, and alternately points out features on one another's bodies that prove their allegations. Women argue, as a sisterly act of faith, from the surety of the childbed just as vehemently as men proclaim, as a brotherly act of faith, from the surety of the level playing field ... each is convinced, but neither is convincing. Both are impatient with the physiological details of comparative anatomy or anthropology, so they have reached an accommodation: manic exercise for honeyed contestants and ritualistic couvade for expectant fathers ... our hypersexuality has made us more ignorant than ever!

              The "testosterone rush" which gives insensitive males gut-feelings for tough-love and real-gusto is equivalent to "estrogen pumping" through the veins of hypersensitive women, whose intuitive feelings blend tender-heartedness with maddened moxie. Men's most powerful appeal is their stolid gravity and staunch dependability; while women's secret weapons, often augmented by scientific miracles and merciless indoctrination, are amazing anti-gravity and alluring dependency.

              When times are at their worst and men are not at their best, the challenge will usually inspire them to do better than anyone expected; but even when at their best, most women won't make a difference in anything important or meaningful.

              Everyone should give men credit for not being as bad as they could be, when women are no better than they ought to be.

              When a man is angry, most women deal with it by trying to ignore it; and when a woman is angry, most men deal with it by trying to evade it ... only idiots confront it and only fools attempt to counter it, both of which alleged solutions only escalate and exacerbate the situation. The anger management solutions that are most successful in heterosexual relations are almost never used in homosocial or interracial conflicts, which is why these constitute the majority of cross-cultural human violence.

              It is alleged that not only do the sexes differ philosophically but they don't even share the same problems ... with both claiming the qualitative distinction as favorable to themselves. The serious problems confronting women include: emotional dependency, humiliatingly impersonal medical examinations, physical imperfection, menstrual cramps, cyclic bloat, pre-menstrual syndrome, birth control, pre-/post-copulatory hygiene, pregnancy hemorrhoids and varicose veins, post-partum anxiety, stretch marks, depilatory treatments, d‚cor dependent, shopping stress, style ala mode induced cognitive dissonance, logic impaired, mechanically challenged, tool/device incompetent, manually awkward, mathematical ineptitude, creatively disorganizational, neurotic preoccupations, pathologically fearful about violence, obsessive/compulsive infantile fixations, analyzes from general to specific, quests for adequacy, envisions option-development pilgrimages. The authentic problems confronting men include: emotional dependency, humiliatingly impersonal medical examinations, physical imperfection, social awkwardness, literary embarrassment, cuisine challenged, bodily dysfunction, lust induced cognitive dissonance, sexual inadequacy, impotence, relational immaturity, urinary versatility, underwear stains, baldness, refractory pelage, compensatory facial hair management, color-blindness, cleanliness deficient, recreationally stressed, d‚cor impaired, wardrobe monomania (identical for work, play, and burial), mechanical aptitude, manual dexterity, tool/device competence, math/science preoccupation, logical mind-sets, fearfully violent about pathology, neurotic preoccupations, obsessive/compulsive infantile fixations, analyzes from specific to general, quests for ultimates, envisions problem-solving pilgrimages. Women will not condescend to validate men's "problems", and men will not deign to acknowledge the womanly "hardships".

              If it weren't for the romance that blurs everyone's judgement, procreation would probably be abandoned as a consequence of all the improbable attributions and impossible disclaimers. There must be something about women's essential biological function which causes them to be so eminently practical and ultimate fact-facers ... but it takes men to find the facts that women inevitably face. So the contending juxtapositions get perpetuated unto yet another generation.

              Humanity has no future unless the past can be passed on ... women do this by procreative inheritance, and men do this by inherent creativity. The act is not as fulfilling as the achievement. The attainment is not perfection, but wisdom.

              If men are single-minded, exclusive, manipulative, and progenitive, then women are broad-minded, inclusive, accommodating, and procreative; which directs male creativity into professional arts and skill crafts, and female creativity, except for transference and sublimation, into reproduction. Perhaps this is why women are unstable, erratic, fickle, inconstant, mutable, capricious, and changeable ... labia must mean labile.

              Feminists bemoan male inefficiency so they propose a monopolistic solution that sets men "free" to do whatever they do best, allowing women to take over the bureaucracies of government and business ... except that even with a conceded monopoly, women are so changeable and incompetent that they will run things worse than men! But, feminists argue, that's the whole point ... women are not supposed to be "better" than men, since that's a sexist attitude, but are now able to prove that they can be just as stupid and corrupt as men have always been! ... and this "new mess" is supposed to be a valid alternative to the "old mess"?! ... ah, progress! But since men don't want to "give up" their terribly inefficient competition, and they really do enjoy beating the hell out of the losers, then there never will be a feminist paradise, except in the addled brains of some truly unpleasant females who can't lure success by any other means than pure insanity!

              The classic female contradiction is: "this case is an exception to the rules"; and the classic male contradiction is: "there are no instances of exception to the rules".

              Women tend to be personable, specific, and exception oriented; while men tend to be impersonal, general, and universal in orientation. Women tend to focus on money more than honor; and men tend to focus on pride more than charity. When men make the rules, they usually find that their rules apply to everyone, except themselves; but when women make the rules, they find that their rules apply to no one, except themselves.

              Women express their loyal concern as possession; while men express their loyal concern as responsibility. For each, love is a form of psychological-manipulation, and sex is a form of physical-manipulation ... although their methods may be similar, their goals are different.

              Men say: I'm going to get something; can I get you anything? Women say: Would you like anything? I'm thinking about having something. Whether referring to an object or a function, the contrast persists ... with men being positively decisive in the invitation, and women being changeably indecisive in their accommodating invitation. Men will lead, but women may switch.

              Although both sexes shop to sustain life, and decorate to embellish their existence, they do so from different motives, and with very different results. Their "core values" may be deduced from an array of their major concerns; which are essentially contrapositive, if not obversionally contrary. As a case in point, both sexes are more interested in play than in work, but disputes arise when trying to define those terms. Women tend to be more concerned about sympathetic communication in a relationship; while men are concerned about sublimating their empathetic non-verbal bonding through confrontational banter. Men tend to be more concerned about sex than about their sex-partner. Men are more concerned about eating junk-food than about the fine cooking of a wholesome cuisine. Men are more concerned about drinking adult-beverages than about laundry and hygiene. Men are more concerned about sports and recreation than about ecology, except when it affects their leisure activities. Men are more interested in tinkering and puttering than in social occasions and ceremonies. Men are more concerned about being merged and tailgated in heavy traffic than about tailgating or yielding to others. It's not that men are barbarians, and women are aliens, but that everybody needs some autonomy and latitude to develop deeper dimensions; and socialization can be negotiated without being internalized. The fact that what usually grows in the dark recesses of concealment often escapes to infect and distort the greater community is an inadequate justification for declaring a truce and imposing sanity upon the sexes.

              Marriage is the most expensive and inefficient method for obtaining regular sex, savory meals, salubrious companionship, and hygienic domestic services. If it weren't for the regenerative legacy, the free lunch and free sex and free laundry wouldn't be worth it!

              Women think that men are dumb enough to require regular watering if they are to survive; and men hope that their frequent pruning and other domestic cultivations will improve them.

              The problem is that women think that chocolate is a vegetable, and men believe that fermented wort produces a liquid vegetable. How many liberated women does it take to open a can of vegetables? ... none, because they've all gone to live with their mothers and complain about their selfish partners! How many macho men does it take to open a can of cold beer? ... none, because the stupid bitch should've already had it open for them!

              Dwellings are subdivided into gender-preference zones, such that interaction in any given area tends to favor one party or reinforce the sexual distinctions. Women prefer the bathroom, kitchen, and bedroom; while men prefer the garage, basement, and den. During domestic violence, women are most often murdered in the bedroom, and men are most frequently murdered in the kitchen.

              According to ancient mythology, the sexes were originally equal in every way. After a time, the man got tired of not surpassing, of never triumphing over his mate, so he asked God to give him more power. Because he was the first to ask, God granted his request. When the woman discovered that she could no longer hold her own, and was doomed to lose by this unfair treatment, she went to God to protest. God explained that He could not withdraw what had been granted, but that He could balance things by also granting her a request. She noticed some keys and asked what they were. When God explained that they locked the doors to the bedroom, kitchen, and nursery, she asked for them. Ever since that time, men have had the power, but women have had the control.

              Could it be that women use the toilet with greater frequency and duration because they're more full of shit?! ... and, that women get hemorrhoids more often because men are perfect assholes?! And, if a man speaks in a distant and trackless forest, without being overheard by any woman, will he still be wrong?!

              When a woman says that she's as good as any man, what she really means is that she's better than most and not much worse than the rest; and when a man says that he's better than any woman, what he really means is that he's managed to successfully ignore or evade each woman who's ever humiliated him during unfair competition.

              In any heterosexual organization, from marital relations to corporate dynamics, the woman believes that she should be, by right of natural law, the manager of stronger men, because she is more intelligent and creative, more adaptable and intuitive; while in those same organizations, the man believes that he should be, by right of natural law, the leader of weaker women, because he is more agressive and determined, more consistent and reasonable. So although they both contribute to the household and share domestic chores, they still struggle for dominance; and although they both work and earn benefits, they still dispute primacy ... the problem is not authority, but respect, since neither values the essential other!

              Whenever a woman uses her femininity or sexuality, by acting girlish or sluttish, it is not sexist! ... but if a man notices, then that is sexist! It is amazing (if not marvelous) how the female of the species manages to attain her ambitions by dint of dexterous contortions, such as climbing the promotion ladder on her back or striding into the winner's circle on her knees ... it's unbelievable how a huff and puff blow-job can shatter the imaginary Glass Ceiling!

              If the vainglorious female symbol is a jealous dagger terminating in a vanity hand-mirror, then the priapic male symbol must be a bold erection extending from an asshole!

              Men are roundly condemned for being too simplistic ... and women for being too complicated ... needlessly so in both cases, because when men attempt to compensate for this deficiency, they almost always over-think and over-emphasize, while women compensate by under-thinking and under-emphasizing. It's not a matter of estimating the Aristotelean Golden Mean or splitting the calculated difference, but of self-actualizing a persona other than the doctrinaire stereotype.

              Men with large complicated wrist-watches are compensating for inadequate genitals. Women with immature and dependent pets are compensating for an empty womb. It's alleged by the opposite sex that men can't nurture anything without an engine or blueprint, and that women can't nurture anything that isn't inadequate or feeble. The epicene ideal for humanity will exist when women can love independence and autonomy, and when men can love irrationality and spontaneity. The old adage remains true: you can't live with them, and you can't live without them!

              The fact that more than half of the population is female proves that there's no lifeguard at the gene pool! By definition, that which is precious is rare, and that which is rare is valuable ... thus women, being a glut on the market, are excluded! Since goodness is the scarcest commodity, being neither sex-linked nor genotyped, it's the one most often falsified. So every woman seeks to enhance her status and advance her reputation by showing that she is too good to ever be the other woman; while each man seeks distinction by demonstrating that nobody is as good (or bad) as he ... each attempting to reduce a plurality to a majority of one!

              When a man says yes he means yes, and when he says no he means no ... unless sex is involved, then anything he says means persuade me. But when a woman says yes she means maybe, when she says maybe she means no, and when she says no she means no ... unless seduction is involved, then anything she says means persuade me! No matter what a woman says, she means my way or no way; and no matter what a man says, he means my way or any way at all!

              While some women are parading nude, others are concealing themselves in costumes; while some are having casual sex, others are being chaste; while some are having abortions, others are seeking fertility treatments or adoptions; while some are cultivating careers, others are cultivating husbands; and while some are exercising their franchise, others are exercising their opinions about anything and everything. As long as women, who've always been in the majority but never in control, can't find commonality on anything, from fashion and sex roles to morality and autonomy, not even concordance on their fickle detestation of men, then the putative sisterhood will never be united. Women are too selfish and possessive to ever unite! At least men are honest in their competition; their alliances may always be changing, but they're always effective. A bunch of men can build or destroy something together, but a clutch of women can only comfort each other's crying!

              Only in the realm of revisionist double-think can the numerical majority, with the aid and consent of some rehabilitated or converted other-gender-persons, be declared a deprived and dispossessed legal minority deserving advantage and protection!! The hand that rocks the cradle may shape and shake the world, but affirmative-action by FemiNazis cannot invalidate history's principles. Thus injustice becomes intolerable, and unjust civilizations do not endure. Such a proud evolutionary achievement for productive womanhood! Such a fructifying legacy endowed by the double-X mind-set!

              Accounts of horrific and awesome violence are a caution to women, and are an inspiration to men ... women will try to avoid repetition, but men will try to imitate these idiotic acts. Men will surpass them quantitatively, but women will surpass them qualitatively ... and each will blame the other for unwarranted excesses.

              Men ardently believe that a satyriasistic rutting episode staged at some lek/lekst„lle, replete with macho displays and redolent with blood, sweat, tears, urine, froth, ejaculate, and pheromones, as a profound demonstration of their ineluctable virility, has more to do with competition than with egoism. Women arrogantly believe that because this maniacal masculine indulgence is for them that it is about them!

              If a woman doesn't manipulate the males in her life, then she'll be dominated by them; and if a man isn't obsessed with the females in his life, then he's perverted!

              Everything in life, whether good or bad, begins with a woman; and everything in life, whether good or bad, ends with a man.

              Women, who're oriented to the hope of the future, believe that they have always run things from behind the scenes, have always conducted the affairs of society from the kitchen and bedroom, and now simply want recognition for their manipulative achievements ... with the overt power to continue their reorganization of the world! Men, who're oriented to the hope of the present, based upon standards and patterns set by evolved trial-and-error empiricism, are reluctant to denigrate the glory days of noble scions for the sake of whimsical or moody innovation. Men, with their ruptured ideals and gross generalizations, with their phallic cognition and childish aggression, are content to relegate women to appropriate supportive and ancillary roles. Women, with their sagging finesse and girdled secrecy, with their prolapsed morality and pudendal rationalization, with their conditional pheromones and monoclinous opportunism, attribute their radical ineffectiveness to uncooperative resistance and recalcitrant reluctance by envious saboteurs. If everyone cooperated, then champion leadership would be unnecessary!

              Women may imagine themselves vital and essential and indispensible, but the proof of their unimportance is revealed by the fact that most women's names are adaptations of men's names ... Charlene, Petra, Samantha, Michelle, Adriana, Danielle, Edwina, Olivia, Emily, Laura, Georgia, Antoinette, Henrietta, Thomasena, Alexis, Claudia, Julia, Denise, Erica, Carla, Stephany, and so forth. Being such an unwanted afterthought, it's no wonder that an excess of female infants in ancient cultures were commonly starved and strangled and drown.

              If the prototypical nemesis is either the "wicked witch" or the "heartless mother-in-law", then the archetypal protagonist is the "knight in shining armor"! The distinction between a fluffy grandma and a professional widow, between an angelic consort and a cunning gold-digger, between a secret seductive sharer and an ignoble gelding partaker, between cultural heroine and assassins of tradition. Her role models and protagonists include: Alcmene, Alice in Wonderland, Amphitrite, Andromache, Andromeda, Aphrodite, Ariadne, Artemis, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Ate, Athena, Aurora, Beatrice, Bellona, Brunhild/Brynhild/Brunhilde, Cassiopeia, Ceres, Cinderella, Corday d'Armont, Cybele, Dana‰, Delilah, Demeter, Devi, Diana, Dorothy of Oz, Electra, Eos, Eris, Evangeline/Evangelene. Eve, Fates, Freya, Frigg, Gaea/Gaia, Graces, Gudrun, Guinevere, Hathor, Hebe, Hecate, Hecuba, Hel, Heloise, Hera, Hestia, Horae, Hygieia, Iris, Iseult, Ishtar, Isis, Juliet, Juno, Kali, Kriemhild, Lamia, Leda, Lilith, Luna, Medea, Medusa, Minerva, Mnemosyne, Moira, Molly Pitcher (Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley), Naiad, Nemesis, Nike, Norns, Ops, Oread, Pandora, Persephone, Phaedra, Philomela, Phoebe, Pleiades, Pomona, Portia, Procne, Rhea, Sarasvati, Selene, Semele, Semiramis, Shakti, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Tyche, Venus, Vesta, and others. From the ancient ideal of bonded lovers enduring circumstantial tests, through the manipulative evolutions of deceitful and duplicitous partners, the race has finally presented the ultimate competition of faithless mates vying for supreme personal autonomy ... with self-love and private loyalty being the greatest achievement of human fulfillment.

              Since women have replaced "hot-flashes" with "POWER-SURGES", men have had to adopt the "male menopausal mystique"! Probably due to diminished testosterone [C19H28O2] levels, researchers have declared that men's brains begin physically shrinking from age twenty, with cumulative loss of cognitive and memory function, and deterioration of the "sense of humor". Preventing the "Grumpy Old Man" syndrome may not be possible, but men should exercise their spearside minds by expanded interests and diversified thought patterns. As with distaff degenerative dysfunctions (too numerous to enumerate), male inattention and irritability is not a monolithic "disease", but simply the "Male Mystique"!

              At one time, womanly traits were embodied by the Graces, entailing a demure and comely mien, mannerly deportment and magnificent presence, a limited cognizance and refined sensibility; but these civilized constraints are too restrictive for modern feminists, who prefer license to conformity, and liberality to principle. Virtue, on the other hand, is just an old Latin word for manliness and excellence.

              Now is the time for all GOOD MEN to come to the aid of their fellow Male Chauvinist Pigs! ... OINK!!