The skills that men lack

Sorry, gentlemen, but in the surveyed opinion of women, it would appear they just don't need us for the important things anymore:

TOP 10 SKILLS MEN LACK

1.Buying clothes for partner 52 per cent
2. Remembering anniversary 41 per cent
3. Dancing 33 per cent
4. Ironing 31 per cent
5. Cooking 30 per cent
6. Domestic chores 30 per cent
7. Buying gifts 28 per cent
8. Multi-tasking 22 per cent
9. Keeping up with fashion 22 per cent
10. Picking furniture 21 per cent

1. Feature, not bug.  It means he's not latently homosexual.
2. Perhaps he's simply trying to forget.
3. The fact that all women think they can dance doesn't mean they can actually do so.  As it happens, with one exception, all the best dancers I know are men.
4. Fair enough.
5. Fair enough.
6. Being uninterested in doing them to the woman's standard does not indicate inability.
7. I would be willing to bet that men are much better at buying gifts for women than the other way around.  Raise your hand if a romantic interest ever spent more than $5,000 on you... I see a lot of hands, but not many belong to men.
8. True... but again, feature not bug.  It's called "ability to focus".
9. Seriously?  In the immortal words of Derrick Coleman, whoop-de-damn-do.
10. Again, the disinclination to select furniture that women like does not indicate inability.

Now, consider how many of these vital skills are necessary for building or even maintaining civilization in light of how  the article was reporting on "a survey finds women really don't rate men as much use at all."

But, upon further reflection, it's probably true.  Without men, women would probably find it very nearly as easy to keep up on fashion and pick out furniture for their grass huts as they do now.

Dr. Helen rocks Fox

It's great to see Dr. Helen doing what the androsphere cannot do, in bringing the revolutionary message of Men on Strike to the mainstream media:

TUCKER CARLSON: That's all true, I agree with that completely, but it still doesn't absolve men of the responsibility to stop complaining about the cards are stacked against them, and man up and become me. Because you don't become a man until you assume responsibility.

DR. HELEN: What man would take such a raw deal?  I don't consider that a man.

TC: Well, it's not, actually, it's not a raw deal.  You derive deep satisfaction, as a man, by taking responsibility for other people.  That's the only place you get deep satisfaction

DH: So, men are supposed to take a really bad deal and sign their rights away, and you call that a good deal?  Look, you don't understand economic reward -

TC: Well, I did!

DH: You did, well, that's good, maybe you have a really good wife, but a lot of men don't feel that way.

OTHER GUY: Why hasn't a man written this book?

DH:  Because men can't speak up. I'm here to speak up because people will actually listen to a woman.  It's really unfortunate, I want the next man, and I'm hoping by this book, that this next man is out there.

She's doing a fantastic job in her interviews and I'll be doing an interview with her about the book and its reception once she finishes her current round of media appearances.  She is, quite literally, giving a voice to the voiceless, because as she knows very well, the media will begrudgingly give her the microphone it will never permit the likes of Roissy, Roosh, or me, still less the men who are incapable of articulating the male case.

A right to her own facts

Demolished, for varying degrees of demolished... and methodical. I know some people like Fox's Megyn Kelly, but I've always considered her to be overrated and little more than a high-functioning feminist.  She's the classic example of the credentialed midwit who has been told too many times that she's brilliant, as evidenced by her supposed "demolition" of Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs concerning the bad news about female breadwinners:

Megyn Kelly methodically tore fellow Fox News pundits Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs to shreds on Friday for their instantly infamous comments about women in the workplace.

Both men had a near meltdown about a study which showed that more women than ever were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households. They agreed that it signalled a terrible new trend for civilization itself. Erickson even brought the animal kingdom up, saying, "When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society, and other animals, the male typically is the dominant role."

When critics, including Fox News' own Greta Van Susteren, pounced, Erickson doubled down on his radio show and in a blog post on Red State.

Kelly was loaded for bear when Dobbs and Erickson joined her on her Friday show, and she let both men have it.....

"What makes you dominant and me submissive and who died and made you scientist-in-chief?" was her first question to Erickson. Try as he might, he failed to convince her.

When he said that many in the Pew study agreed with his discomfort about the role of women, she shot back, "Just because you have people who agree with you doesn't mean it's not offensive." Eventually, she let loose with a harsh monologue:

 "I didn't like what you wrote one bit. To me you sound like somebody who's judging and then wants to come out and say 'I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, and now let me judge judge judge, and by the way it's science it's science it's science it's fact fact fact fact. Well, I have a whole list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong.'"

Kelly did what women usually do when forced to confront a reality they find distasteful: claim that she has a right to her own facts and her own reality. Kelly didn't have "a whole list of studies" to defend her position, she simply lied in the knowledge that no one was going to be permitted to call her on her false claim.  The idea that society cannot survive too many female breadwinners may be offensive, but neither societies nor individuals that find reality offensive tend to survive very long.