Dean Cook

“Most men are clueless” is just lazy and bitter. Loads of dads are hands-on… school runs, appointments, coaching, discipline, finances, long hours to keep everything running. You don’t see it, so you write it off. That’s a you problem. And this “emotional labour” line gets thrown around like it’s some exclusive burden. It isn’t. Men carry pressure too… financial strain, responsibility for the family staying afloat, making the calls when things go sideways. Just because it’s not dressed up with a label doesn’t mean it’s not real. Your whole argument relies on exaggeration. “Five full-time jobs”? Be serious. If it were literally that, no one could sustain it. It’s one demanding role with multiple responsibilities… same as being the sole earner. Different pressures, same reality: trade-offs. And here’s where it really falls apart. You say it’s “five full-time jobs”… but you also say you did it alongside a full-time job. So which is it? Because you’re basically asking people to believe you were doing the equivalent of 6–7 full-time jobs in a day. That’s nonsense. All you’ve actually shown is that it can be done alongside full-time work. Was it hard? Yeah. No one’s arguing that. But if it’s manageable next to a full-time job, then doing just the childcare side on its own isn’t the superhuman workload you’re trying to sell it as. And the “men should stfu” bit? That’s not an argument, it’s a cop-out. You’re trying to shut down disagreement because your point doesn’t hold up. Families run on trade-offs. One earns, one runs the home, sometimes both do both. Both sides carry weight. Pretending one side is clueless and the other is doing “five jobs for free” is just feminist propaganda that you have bought.

@DeanCook008 @justarando70354 Im not the lazy gatekeeper here. You are and you are clueless about parenting and should stfu and listen instead of spewing your useless fucking wall of text at me

"You're lucky your husband lets you stay home." ​No. ​He's lucky I do the work of five people for free. He's lucky I remember every appointment, every meal, every meltdown. He's lucky I run this home like a CEO with no clock-out time. ​Motherhood is labor without a paycheck, and it's time the world stopped calling it luck and started calling it what it is: work.

“No one is owed sex”... fine. But let’s not play dumb about what marriage is. When two people get married, intimacy is part of the deal. It’s not written like a contract, but everyone understands it’s part of the relationship. That’s exactly why cheating is called adultery, because sex is supposed to stay within the marriage. You can’t say “you’re not owed intimacy” and at the same time expect total sexual exclusivity. Those two things don’t sit together. If one partner shuts that side of the relationship down long-term with no effort to fix it, that’s not just a “boundary”, that’s the relationship breaking down. And pretending that has no impact is just as dismissive as demanding it. This constant framing that any expectation of intimacy = entitlement is just warped. Most normal people, including most women, understand that intimacy is part of a healthy relationship. It’s just the loud ones online trying to twist it into something it’s not.

@DeanCook008 @TheLowkeyMummy @alfkkifine Yeah because you aren’t owed anyone’s body, dipshit. That’s not a right.

The ultimate double standard in modern marriage is the unilateral cancellation of vows. A man is socially and legally expected to fulfill 100% of his traditional duties, to provide, protect, finance, and remain strictly faithful. But a woman can completely abandon the physical and intimate aspects of the marriage for years with zero societal pushback. If he complains, he is shamed as needy or predatory. If he files for divorce to escape a lifetime of forced celibacy, the courts will take his house, his kids, and his income. He is essentially trapped in a legally binding roommate contract where his utility is violently demanded, but his humanity is completely ignored.

@ainsofar @ma1ybe We see a man running after and looking for a woman. We don't know why. There is no evidence that he harmed her or was planning to harm her. That is objectively true. The rest YOU have made up. I don't have proof, I was just making up a false narrative like everyone else.

@DeanCook008 @ma1ybe So you dont have any proof of your claim. The video clearly shows a woman being chased by a man. She was rescued by another woman. This is clear. If you have counter Info, post it.

And this is why we need more women in positions of power, more representation in all spheres. Because women are the only true protectors of women. Men can claim to be protectors but all they do is protect their image & protect their brothers who harm women.

Juggling a full-time remote job and raising kids is rough. No one’s denying that. But let’s not pretend that makes you a stay-at-home dad. You were doing both roles at once. Its not the same thing we are talking about. All you’ve proven is that stacking two jobs is exhausting. That’s obvious. It doesn’t suddenly mean the stay-at-home role on its own is harder than being the sole breadwinner carrying the income, pressure, and risk. And this “if you haven’t done it, shut up” line? It’s weak. By that logic, nobody can speak on anything they haven’t personally lived... which is clearly nonsense. People can observe, use data, and understand trade-offs without needing your exact life experience. The real issue is the spin. Calling it “five full-time jobs for free” while pretending the breadwinner does nothing is just dishonest. Your situation doesn’t prove that... it proves doing both ends is hard. If your point is “I did both and it’s tougher than people think,” fine. But trying to use that to shut everyone else down is just lazy gatekeeping.

@DeanCook008 @justarando70354 I (male) did this I staid home and raised kids whole also doing a full time job from home and I can tell you for a fact the “women’s” role is much harder. Unless they have actually done this, men should stfu on this because they are blowing it out their arses

Calling facts "fat-shaming" is pathetic nonsense. Obesity hits 41% of U.S. women, driving diabetes, heart disease, and skyrocketing health costs. "Healthy at every size" and body positivity? Delusional lies that hurt people. Pearl speaks truth. Stop the gaslighting... reality isn't hate.

The debate exploded the moment Hannah Pearl Davis was accused of fat-shaming. Ava Santini: “You call women fat, you say they shouldn’t have abortions, you say they have STDs.” Pearl shot back without hesitation: “The average American woman is 170 pounds (77 kg). That’s objectively overwhelming.” Piers Morgan agreed: “We now celebrate morbid obesity as body positive and it is complete nonsense.” Hannah doubled down: “She was fat, obese and a divorcee. These things are just subjective facts. Women don’t want to live in reality.” The exchange turned raw and uncomfortable in seconds. When does “telling the truth” become cruelty — and when does refusing to say uncomfortable facts become the bigger problem?

@SharoShelbyRosa @Zoya_ki_batein @gre People don't where sportswear in day to day life? Context isn't obvious at all. She was driving back from the gym, and he was out running. What do their clothes prove? I am completely lost now.

@DeanCook008 @Zoya_ki_batein Jajajaja que gracioso!! Lástima que el contexto es evidente, traen ropa deportiva y él es un @gre$0r 🤷🏻‍♀️ más que evidente que ojalá no tengas hijas mujeres

Man chases woman down side street as she hides and escapes in another woman’s car.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ She saved her life, what a hero❤️

You haven’t refuted the double standard at all. You’ve actually conceded it: you treat the man’s traditional duties (provide, protect, finance, fidelity) as a given under the marriage contract. You never once said those expectations on men have disappeared or are now optional. Yet you double down that what most men expect in return... basic intimacy and partnership... is not expected of women. It can vanish for years as “a symptom,” with zero accountability. No parallel obligation. No societal or legal pushback. That’s exactly the asymmetry the original post described: ironclad expectations on men, none on women. You just reframed the women’s side as “understandable” while keeping the men’s side mandatory. The double standard stands.

This particular narrative skips a lot. Marriage isn't a contract for guaranterd sex on demand from women; its a partnership where intimacy reflects the health of the relationship. And if that part dissappears, its usually a symptom (resentment, stress, mental load,etc) not some free pass women get. Lets be honest, men are not universally taking up “100% of traditional duties” either and yet still expect access. And again, courts dont just take everything, it depends on whats fair for the kids, finance and caregiving roles. Also calling it “forced celibacy” as if someone owes you sex is exactly why the conversation gets shut down. The real problem is not “double standards” it's not addressing why the connection shuts down in the first place.

@_Its__sunny B: He has her phone.

Who is killer?

@jess_ann_pin @paleochristcon Low fertility stems from cultural shifts (careerism, delayed marriage, contraception, no-fault divorce, hypergamy) Women initiate ~70% of divorces and control abortion decisions. This is why the focus is on women.

@paleochristcon Then why don’t you talk about compelling men to have kids? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Note the subtext is that @paleochristcon is arguing that society should be able to *compel* aka *force* women to have kids. He is presuming that the bottleneck is women, though men’s behavior significantly influences women’s ability to have children or not. In society today, it is considered a given, according to men themselves, that it is women who seek commitment and men who try to avoid it, suggesting men are the bottleneck and main impediment to getting birth rates up. So why not focus on compelling men to have kids instead? That he doesn’t suggests that the real motive is pretext for oppressing women. x.com/jakerattlesnk/…

Jessica Pin's claim is a strawman. Andrew Wilson did not argue for compelling (forcing) women to have children... he discussed incentives for women to boost birth rates, consistent with pronatalist views. He never presumed women are the sole "bottleneck" or advocated oppression. Low fertility stems from cultural shifts (careerism, delayed marriage, contraception, no-fault divorce, hypergamy), not men's reluctance alone... women initiate ~70% of divorces and control abortion decisions. "Compelling men" ignores biology: men can't gestate; forcing commitment wouldn't raise births if women reject available partners or end pregnancies. Policies target female fertility because that's the direct limiter. Pin's "subtext" of misogyny is fabricated rhetoric, not Wilson's position.

@RealRaegus @justarando70354 Refuting a claim that it is the equivalent to 5 jobs is not the same as saying it is easy. I am rejecting hyperbole.

@DeanCook008 @justarando70354 You are definitely claiming it’s easy.

@LizzieMarbach @TCSDisciple But you know that Andrew's views do not degenerate SAHM. That is dishonest. You've taken one clip of him pushing back on a man vs. woman comparison and exaggeration, and extrapolated it into a worldview you know he doesn't hold.

@TCSDisciple I think someone would have to be dishonest to think I’m pushing egalitarianism in this video.

Andrew Wilson claims to hate feminism but yet repeatedly shows he has the same view of biblical womanhood that feminists do. He denigrates homemaking in the same fashion Chelsea Handler would. You cannot claim to be against feminism while scoffing at motherhood & homemaking as less than. You either appreciate God’s design for women, or you have contempt for it, and here, Andrew clearly had contempt for it. The burden that men carry is much greater than the burden women carry in many areas—thats true—but the same can be said in reverse. Stop making everything a competition between the sexes, otherwise it is just two sides of the same god-hating coin.

I get where you’re coming from, defending motherhood and biblical womanhood matters. But I think that Andrew Wilson clip is being taken the wrong way. He’s not mocking stay-at-home mums or saying it’s “less than.” He’s pushing back on the modern take that paints it as unpaid slavery or “the hardest job in the world” to justify constant complaining and victim status. His point is that it’s hard, yes... but it’s not the same as dangerous, back-breaking jobs men dominate. And in a stable home, it comes with real upsides: time with your kids, flexibility, and actually shaping the next generation. That’s not contempt... that’s pushing back on exaggeration. Feminism, on the other hand, has spent decades trashing homemaking as some kind of slow death. Get out the house, chase a career, don’t rely on men - that’s the message. Andrew rejects that completely. He leans into the idea that men provide and carry the external pressure, and women focus on the home and children. Different roles, both important. And it’s not just talk... his own family lives that way. His wife homeschools, they’ve raised kids with additional needs, and they’re clearly all-in on that structure. So the idea he’s secretly echoing feminist contempt doesn’t really stack up. What he actually calls out is the double standard. Claiming “unpaid labour” while expecting men to fund everything, without acknowledging the risks and pressure men take on. He’s not saying motherhood is easy. He’s saying it’s valuable, and in many ways a privileged position within a functioning family setup. This whole “who has it harder” framing misses the point anyway. It’s not a competition. Men and women carry different loads. Men take on provision, risk, and external pressure. Women take on pregnancy, birth, and raising the kids day-to-day. Both matter. Both are necessary. If he sounds blunt, it’s because he’s pushing back against a culture that’s been devaluing the home for years. But his overall message isn’t anti-motherhood... it’s the opposite.

@benonwine You can't actually disagree with him. It is the same as disagreeing that 2+2=4 I guess you can be wrong, but its not something that can be debated.

You can disagree with him that’s your right we live in a free society,but you can’t rewrite biology.

“You cannot change your sex. It is biologically impossible.” — Professor Robert Winston Is he RIGHT?

@benonwine Of course Robert Winston is right. Sex is binary and immutable... determined by chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy. No surgery, hormones, or wishful thinking changes that. It's bizarre that we're even debating basic biology in 2026.

I would if my personal situation meant it was better for the family... but this is where the narrative falls apart. It skews heavily towards women for a reason. Biology matters. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, natural pull towards the kids… plus personal choice. That’s why only about 1 in 5 stay-at-home parents are dads. It’s not some grand oppression, it’s how people actually choose to live. And I never said it was easy. It’s hard work. But this “five full-time jobs” thing is massively overcooked. Meanwhile men are putting in more paid hours, taking the riskier roles, and then still doing the maintenance stuff at home that nobody counts. At the end of the day it’s a trade-off. One earns, one runs the home... both benefit. If it was really nothing but a nightmare with no upside, nobody would choose it. But plenty do. That tells you everything.

@DeanCook008 then stay at home with kids then and take on the "easier" woman's job

False equivalence. The draft is state coercion forcing men into combat. Childbearing is biology, not a government mandate... no one drafts women into pregnancy. Men help create children; women aren't compelled to fight. Voting on war while exempt from its costs breaks reciprocity. Wilson's point stands: obligations should match power. Voluntary service ≠ forced sacrifice. Same/same? Not even close.

Yup. Andrew Wilson wants to strip voting rights because women can’t be drafted to war if we had a draft. That’s his argument. Women are still in the military and would go to war however. Well ok. If that’s the reason women can’t vote. We should strip men’s voting rights because they can’t have children. It is the same thing he is saying. If they can’t produce future offspring they shouldn’t have a say. Men get a say on women’s health when they vote, so women can also get the right to vote on all matters as well within this country. We are citizens within America. SAME/SAME x.com/ThePapaGut/sta…

Governments engineered it. They weaponised feminism to flood the workforce with women, instantly doubling labour supply and slashing real wages. Add mass immigration, which further suppressed pay while exploding housing demand and prices. Result? The traditional single-income family was destroyed. Dual-earner households became mandatory... handing the Treasury twice the income tax, National Insurance, and VAT. It wasn’t “trickle-down failure.” It was deliberate policy: use propaganda to push “empowerment,” then cash in on the expanded tax base while ordinary families paid the price in stagnant wages and unaffordable homes. One income used to buy a house, car, kids, and retirement. Now it barely covers rent. That shift wasn’t accidental...

Said this before but I’ll say it again. Just one lifetime ago in the UK, our fathers could buy a home, buy a car, have 3 to 4 children, wives could stay home, take annual vacations, and then retire… all on one middle-class salary. What happened?

Classic gynocentric cope. Women's 'earned' hate gets a pass as trauma; men's frustration is 'entitled incel rage.' Reality: misandry is mainstream... male suicide, workplace deaths, custody bias, 'men are trash' normalised.. while feminists block shared parenting & due process. Incels can be toxic, but dismissing male pain as unearned while excusing female contempt is why men are checking out. Equal grievances, equal accountability.

Women who hate men generally just hate what men have done to them. Whereas men who hate women, mostly just hate what women won’t do for them. The difference is crucial Men have earned the animus of women. Incels are just angry have-nots.

@KeruboSk One man can't impregnate 100 women without 100 women saying yes first. She's the gatekeeper... own the choice, own the outcome...

If a woman has s*x with 100 different men in a year, she can still only carry one pregnancy at a time. If a man has s*x with 100 different women, he could potentially cause up to 100 pregnancies. So why is the emphasis so often on controlling women’s bodies, when men are the ones who can scale reproductive outcomes across multiple partners?