Yes, he is a bit extreme, but I think the essence of every point he makes is usually correct. His framings are just a bit... head-to-head and that tends to polarize people. But maybe that's his intended style. I'm not sure he's that mysogynistic. Like all people who try to make a revolution, you always have to be a bit loud and controversial because people don't notice you otherwise.
He doesn't style himself "D!CK MASTERson" for no reason.
And yes, men love commitment. If they believe in something, they'll go for it, will want to make it work. Why else was the world built by men? Why else were so much inventions made by men? Why else have men improved the world? Why else do men do the initiating of touching, sex and marriage (commitment!). Is it not men who provide the stability in a family? Women are turntables, insecure butterflies. Women rather talk, but it's also only men-like women go into politics or business to achieve something, not the feminine ones.
If women really loved committment, and could do what men do, they would not leave it to men to initiate everything. They've had thousands of years of ample chance to prove their ways, but the order of things shows the truth. They'll say it was circumstances, societal structures that prevented them. Really?
The truth: Women don't do things like men. And feminism is around because AFCs let them. AFCs have been around since the industrial age (and incidently, so has feminism); before that time there was no time to weazel about your life. You just died or begged if you weren't a man. You committed. To a job, life, a family. Women followed. Only now, now that times are less unforgiving, women see their opportunity. How's that for proof that men love commitment more than women? If it was the other way around, they wouldn't have waited that long with their feminism and emancipation. The world would belong to women then.
It took commitment to create what's in place today, everywhere. Who committed?
Just another extreme I sometimes put out myself.
Not necessarily true on the whole, but it does make you think. I hope. Perhaps that's what D!ck tries to achieve too. Subconsciously, for he may act in sincere belief of what he says. Yes, he's probably bitter and hateful for some reason. Nonetheless, acted or heart-felt: he's a herald of the new era; the era of anti-feminism; of male re-emancipation.
After all, a 100 years ago what he said was not controversy, it was common knowledge.
No, I'm not D!ck Masterson.
