Dean Cook

@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

"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.

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?

@julia_joestar Wrong. Men have 60%+ more muscle mass & 90% more upper-body strength due to testosterone-driven puberty... not 'teaching.' Humans aren't 'low dimorphism' in muscle; gaps match competitive primates. Biology, not society, explains it. Science > feelings

homem não entende que os papéis de gênero são forçados mulheres não são biologicamente “mais fracas e frágeis” Nós somos ENSINADAS a serem assim, nenhuma menina é estimulada na infância a ser mais atlética por exemplo Inclusive, a espécie humana é uma das que menos tem dimorfismo sexual Toda a diferença clara que a gnt vê entre homens e mulheres são SOCIAIS, tipo maneira de se vestir e se comportar

@JasonRolliz2bz @ABmrJutt Equating killing all men to killing pedos! If you agree with the what they are saying, Jason, as you are a man, why have you non un-alived yourself in support of these women?

@DeanCook008 @ABmrJutt Yeah I mean I agree to as a man of yall teach men to rape women and hurt them I’d kill em too , ur the type of bum to get upset they say kill pedos over why they do

“It’s not as bad as women make it sound” Stfu, men are literally teaching each other how to rape us

@Schmo0shie @ABmrJutt @grok endtodv.org/pr/misogyny-fe…

@DeanCook008 @ABmrJutt @grok Can you provide citations to back up this claim?

Or women can drop the double standards: shaming men for any expectations around physical progression, while still expecting him to fully financially support the first date. Why ignore that side of it? If a woman has zero interest in progressing romantically/sexually, she can simply decline the date upfront... that seems like the cleaner solution. A man isn't taking a woman out and paying for dinner etc. if he has no interest in that direction. Asking her out signals his intent from the start. This is exactly when she should decide if she's open to the same. If not, don't accept just for the free meal. Women who do that create the very resentment they're quick to criticise. Simple rule: Dates involve mutual risk and potential upside. If there's no genuine interest on her end, sit it out... don't turn it into a one-sided transaction, which is what it becomes.

@DeanCook008 @HazelAppleyard well it IS a risk. a risk you are taking willingly. or you could sit it out 🤷‍♂️

This is the reason I prefer to pay for myself on a date. I don’t want anyone thinking they’re entitled to my body because they bought me dinner.

Men literally put themselves in danger to protect women and society at large every day. ~86% of police officers are men. ~95% of firefighters are men. ~95%+ of front line military. They literally risk their lives for everyone Outside of jobs: If a man is beating another man, bystanders rarely rush in en masse. If a man is beating a woman? Men instinctively jump in to defend her... that protective instinct is real and one-sided in practice. Men are almost always the ones that put themselves between danger and safety.

@DeanCook008 @mat7dex @Zoya_ki_batein That’s literally what you guys do

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

@Quefish77 @Zoya_ki_batein A man! A man has arrived to share some logic.

@DeanCook008 @Zoya_ki_batein

@jkjackdon @Zoya_ki_batein Was she actually at risk of harm?

@DeanCook008 @Zoya_ki_batein Dean go on and cook ur fat ass smt

@lookatmyfrens @ma1ybe Oh... so she was never in any danger of harm, and this never happened??

@DeanCook008 @ma1ybe Well I don't know where you saw that because this is a sketch.

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.

@ainsofar @ma1ybe Post any info on the situation that proves the narrative that she was a victim and was in danger...

@DeanCook008 @ma1ybe So post the article you heard that from

@BBCSport No one in their right mind thinks is anything but a red card in the modern game with today's laws.

Gabriel received a yellow card after this incident with Erling Haaland 👀 Was it the correct decision? 🤔