March 25, 2012, - 4:49 pm

Mad Men: Written by Chicks to Defame American Men, War Veterans

By Debbie Schlussel

Tonight is occupied with the much-awaited two-hour cable debut of the much-awaited fifth season of AMC’s “Mad Men,” the series about a Manhattan advertising agency in the early 1960s.  As I’ve noted on this site before, while I’ve followed the show (on DVD mostly from my public library–I don’t have cable), I recognize it for what it is:  a fictional soap opera (with more high brow trappings and fanfare) in which American men are defamed as unethical, serial cheaters who are also racist and anti-Semitic.



Jon Hamm as “Mad Men’s” Don Draper/Dick Whitman

Oh, and every single bad guy on the show is a war veteran–Jon Hamm’s “Don Draper” is a Korean War veteran (who dishonestly assumed the persona of a dead fellow soldier), “Roger Sterling” (John Slattery) is a World War II vet, and “Bert Cooper” (Robert Morse) served in World War I, where he met Sterling’s late father. That all of these guys who served are creeps, should trouble Americans. But no one cares. Several million sheep will watch tonight and not even notice, just as they haven’t for the previous four seasons.

Sure, people cheated in the early ’60s, but not as rampantly as this show portrays.  In fact, most men were faithful, something this show doesn’t really want to portray accurately.  I’ve previously noted that the show is basically “Desperate Housewives” with men playing the wives, and an early ’60s setting, clothing, and props. 

The women, though, are always the victims and always sympathetic, even though many of them are cheaters and very conniving, too.  We’re supposed to feel bad for them, like hard-working Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss), repeatedly put down and doubted by the men because of “sexism.”  Yet, we’re supposed to look the other way when she slept with a married man who works at the firm and had his baby.  It’s not exactly like she was raped, but in the “boy’s world,” she’s the victim.   (I’m not sure why, though.)  The same goes for office manager Joan (Christina Hendricks), who cheated on her husband who is serving in Vietnam, and who is pregnant with married boss Roger Sterling’s baby.  She, too, is sympathetic and her cheating is looked upon as one of frustration, rather than the lecherous cheating of Roger and Don Draper.

And all of this is no coincidence because, as I’ve pointed out, almost all of the show’s writers are women, women who clearly have a feminist agenda for their carefully-coifed male actor puppets to play.  And that’s to portray the men of the late ’50s and early ’60s–especially war veterans who served America–as louts and scumbags.  Yay, grrrlpower!  Even the show’s creator, Matthew Weiner–though he is married with four kids–certainly sounds like he’s gay (with a very, very feminine voice).  And who knows?  Maybe he is.

There is a strong, not-so-veiled theme running through the show:  that times before now were very bad because men were creeps and women had no power, but that they deserve it.  It’s kind of annoying, especially when, today, women in their 20s are out-earning men, and vastly outnumber them in colleges and grad schools; and men are more and more relegated to 30-something slackers living with their parents or stay-at-home dads.

Is that such a good thing–the way it is today?  Nope.  But the writers and producers of “Mad Men” want you to think it is.  They don’t want you to believe that the early ’60s–before the sexual revolution and the counter-culture anti-war protesters–was a better time or had better values and family and sexual dynamics.  They want you to think that the men were the same, but just the women were tamped down and that this needed to change.

Now, we have the change:  42% of kids born out of wedlock, most of them to the younger generations where the rate is much higher;  fewer marriages and more couples just living together; fewer and fewer nuclear families.  And, during all of this, our country is dumber and economically more behind than ever.

Yes, the early ’60s were a much better time in America than the “Mad Men” wants you to know.  In fact, the only accurate things on this show are the decor, cars, and couture, all of which are window dressing to the storyline.

On Twitter (follow me on Twitter), I recently created a new word: MadMenophila. It’s definition: the illness of liking a highly stylized soap opera written by chicks and gay men to vilify traditional men of the early ’60s.

Yup, that’s about right. It’s well past time to see “Mad Men” as the left-wing, feminist soap opera that it is, albeit entertaining. It’s Occupy Wall Street fantasy parading as anthropologist history.

If you can’t watch “Mad Men” with a critical eye and know better, you should probably stick to the Kardashians.

Tags: , , , , , ,

38 Responses

I’m pretty sure many men watch this just to see if Christina Hendricks shows some cleavage!

Spearheadsgt on March 25, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Actually, the rate of infeditlity was very high back then and that is reflective in the huuuuuuge increase of divorce rate as soon as the divorce laws became much more loose in the 60s. Women and men just stayed married more bc of the fact that “no fault divorce” did not exist yet and it was much harder for women to file for a divorce. Also, ppl were more racist. Furthermore, this show is to depict the lifestyles of these “types” of men in this time. Just like no days. The very rich and powerful men cheat more. Finally, your comment about the bad guys all being veterans… nearly everyone in this time was a veteran genius.

    Joshua Wright on March 26, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Bravo! I have not watched this show (I also do not have cable) but always wanted to because I love the fashion and style of the 50s and 60’s. I did read a 4th season synopsis on TDB and it made the show seem just as you described it. Maybe I will not be so interested.

Being as former feminist, I can smell the smallest hints of feminism these days and it annoys me. That women can still fall for the lie boggles my mind as I have had a rude awakening. It irks me because feminism is NOT something great to be celebrated but they won’t stop trying to give it legitimacy.

Some people are like me and have found Conservatism BUT they are still feminists. I can surgically pinpoint where they go wrong when it lifts its fraudulent head and it annoys me.

I’m glad to be free from it. I was pretty militant, too.

Behind every Bashir al-Assad there is an Asma Assad.

Behind every “Whitey” Bulger there is a Catherine Grieg.

Men, take back your masculinity and status and don’t let the feminazis hijack it because it’s not truth, sustainable or even feasible!

Skunky on March 25, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Speaking of morons, the Hunger Games posted a record opening $155 million in box office profit in its first weekend.

Yup, there will be sequels coming. Ka-ching. Probably for the same reasons Mad Men has lasted so long on the wide screen.

NormanF on March 25, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Oh, also another rude awakening for me…the misogyny of gay men.

During my fun, “fag hag” days I never would have recognized the misogyny. Back then, I didn’t want to think gay men did ANYTHING wrong.

Now the misogyny is alarming and off-putting. If I were on the jury, I would have voted for Nicolette Sheridan to WIN her lawsuit against the angry and inappropriate gay male she sued. Also, the gay males on Tyra Bank’s “America’s Next Top Model” (a horrible guilty pleasure of mine when I come across it) are atrocious. Jealous Queens!

And in the fashion world, NO ONE is more disgusting than Tom Ford. His ad campaigns for his perfumes are pornographic. Google image his perfume ads. The ones for Europe are even more vile.

Skunky on March 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm

My theory is people without a critical eye watch it for the fashion sense: the beautiful stylish clothes and couture of the 1950s and 1960s. It never looks “dated” as any one who has seen old movies can testify.

NormanF on March 25, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Alot of my friends watch the show. I tried getting into it but I always found it boring since I couldn’t stay awake for some reason while watching the two episodes. BTW, I disagree Skunky, I think the case should be dismissed because it seems like a frivolous lawsuit since Sheridan and Cherry are both egomaniacs who butt heads with eachother.Sheridan was difficult to work with regardless of her gender.

Matthew on March 25, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Skunky and Debbie:

I stopped my cable, too. The Boss and I noted that we don’t watch Fox News and have no interest in the garabage of HBO, Lifetime, and Skinemax (I know it’s spelled with a “c.” Joke)or any of the other pieces of garbage, and it was running about $100.00 a month. That’s the cost of roundtrip tickets for the kids to somewhere interesting.

We watch Riff-trax videos (MST3K guys do satirical commentaries on today’s crap and crap of the past, plus insanely funny short “educational” films) and download streaming nature videos from Netflix for the little ones. We homeschool both of the kids. I work, and the Boss minds the home. Kind of traditional, and our kids are noted for the pleasantness and intelligence of their behaviors.

I’ve never watched Mad-Men or Desperate Housewives or any of that stuff. I did read “The Hunger Games” but won’t see the movie. My kids are interested in learning chess, so I will need to devote more time to reading Kasparov’s kids books on the subject—a much more useful use of time.

Occam's Tool on March 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm

It’s been many, many years since I last saw anything on AMC – back when the initials stood for American Movie Classics, and the host who introduced each vintage 1940’s and ’50’s movie was Bob Dorian. But as for the agenda being promoted on “Mad Men,” I only have this question: Why am I not all that surprised?

And apparently another of the “chick shows” to cop a “vintage look,” ABC’s “Pan Am,” is stick-a-fork-in-it done – albeit replaced by a show called “GCB” which routinely defecates on Christians (and has thankfully had lower ratings than even “Pan Am” had gotten in that time slot).

ConcernedPatriot on March 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm

I noticed the same anomalies when I caught the show in reruns (especially regarding military men). Co-workers were raving about it. But they were much younger than I, so they didn’t know to much about that era. When I told them what I saw in the show they just laughed and said jokingly that I was being paranoid. I was a little kid around the era depicted but I do remember the fashion styles, the cars, the furniture (especially the telephones), and most notably the smoking. When I was a kid almost everyone smoked.

@Skunky: I will have to agree with you 100 percent on the misogyny of gay men. When I was younger I had a gay uncle and I listening to what he and his gay friends would say about women. Since women were their competition they said some vile and very sexist things. You can fill in the blanks.

Chief Pontiac on March 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm

I’ve always found fag hags to be repulsive as well as feminazi’s who should be garbed in burkhas.

Patrick on March 25, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Matthew, I really agree with your assessment of the Cherry/ Sheridan debacle but Cherry did inappropriately hit her and someone has to put the gays on notice that just because they are filled with flying estrogen does NOT mean they can go around slapping women. Someone has to put them in their place.

OT, I love the life you described! It sounds lovely and your kids will know that their Mum and Dad love them. I have been TV free for 10 years now and I don’t miss it. I have friends who have cable so I can catch shows I like at their homes (like “Dexter” and “Angry Boys” and “Nurse Jackie”). Your home schooling is the BEST coup and I wish more women would be stay-at-home Mums and home school.

CP, I remember when AMC had zero commercials and their original show was “Remember WENN”…I loved that show! I just found out IFC has commercials now! I love IFC because I like foreign and art house films but trying to watch “Kill Bill 1 and 2” sucked!! (I love those movies even though women kick arse in it because it is more like a kung fu comic and I must admit that even thou’ I detest Tarrentino as a person I LOVE his films. Daryl Hannah as “Elle Driver” is an all-time favourite!)

Chief, yes, the realization of the misogyny of gay men was a shocker for me. Now it’s something I don’t put up with. The jealousy is mental and inherently unhealthy!

Skunky on March 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    My gay male friends relate well to women and have many close female friends. Yes, there are some who display misogyny without even realizing it similar to the way limousine liberals are racists towards minority groups without realizing it as stated in DS’s post about “The Help” last summer.

    Matthew on March 25, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Oh, I meant to mention that I hope DS does a review or critique of a new HBO show by Lena Dunham called “Girls”.

It’s supposed to be even crazier than “Sex And The City”. I’ll admit sometimes I found the show funny but after a while it just made me sick. Women didn’t come off too well in it I thought and in real life they don’t either.

DS did a great review of Dunham’s “Tiny Furniture” and how I wish I didn’t watch it and listened to DS’ review. I was so angry after seeing it and I had no one to blame but me. This Dunham is a strange, strange chick. She seems to revel in depicting herself and other women in very humiliating situations BUT instead of listening to her experiences and very low self-esteem and learning from them she powers forward to even GREATER humiliation…almost as if she were saying “Gee, I am selling myself out dirt cheap and it’s humiliating but I am gonna do it until I am empowered and treated like a goddess”. You just wanna slap her because she is too stupid to see how soul crushing her humiliations are.

Even when I was Liberal I hated broads like that. I had such disdain for them.
Their desperation is pathetic and they are the last to know. So stupid.

S: Spot on about Lena Dunham, who is untalented, not funny, and so way overrated as to be beyond belief. Her “product” is crap. More proof that s— rises to the top in Hollywood. DS

Skunky on March 25, 2012 at 7:48 pm

Skunky and Debbie
I would prefer that Debbie critique Guns, Ranges, Self Defense Techniques, etc rather than critique movies and television.
I wish that there would be a way to get a hold of Navy Seal Training films or Ranger Training films. Those guys know how to work.

CS: The last time the SEALs made a movie, it was the lousy “Act of Valor,” which was hokey, stupid, and defamed Jews as worldwide jihadist masterminds. No thanks on that front. DS

Confederate South on March 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm

It is an entertainment effort to scrub and rewrite the past. As noted by Debbie, the flandering, married women getting pregnant by other men, secretaries getting knocked up by bosses, and other such tidbits represent projections of the present into the past. The raw statistics from the era would show this sort of behavior to be more than rare. You would just have to look at the out of wedlock births from say the late fifties to the early sixties in comparison to today’s figures to see the radical difference. Out of wedlock pregnancies would have led to being shown the door with most businesses, rather than simply hanging on. In this era before stringent civil rights acts and privacy laws, getting a divorce would black ball you from clubs, social events, and perhaps even your employment. Characters like Draper would have been considered to be borderline criminals even back then, and would not have held positions with respectiable firms. The problem is that this concocted fantasy world is an emanation from the present, and not a reflection of the past. If you destroy the past, you control the present and the future.

Worry01 on March 25, 2012 at 8:49 pm

I had forgotten about Act of Valor which I did not go see nor do I intend to watch. I watched the Raid On Entebbe a while back and enjoyed that one. I wish that Israel would do more of those and really kiss some ass and make a fortune off the movie.
Israel knows how to kick butt when it wants to.

Confederate South on March 25, 2012 at 9:10 pm

Debbie, you take no prisoners and are a stone cold baaaadass.

I gotta feel guilty now watchin this show, but I am still gonna watch it.

But don’t fret, I am IN your Foxhole with ordnance ready.

Here is my comment on a local blog re: the Afghan “16”.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

chuck on March 25, 2012 at 9:39 pm

I can honestly say I’ve never seen a second of Mad Men, and now I am very glad I haven’t.

The one and only thing I knew about that show was seeing pics of Christine Hendricks and them saying she was on it. Goodness!!!, she is a mighty babeulicious boobylicious babe.

I think sheep watch this because there is always an audience for soap opera trash. The trashier the better. It’s been going on a long time with daily soaps, Dallas, and even the so called “reality” shows are just scripted soap operas. It’s safe porn since most people are voyeurs.

If I could find a way to watch cable sports without cable I’d cancel cable, too.

Jeff_W on March 25, 2012 at 10:03 pm

I’m still devastated… what’s that sluts name? Wait, who’s that whore? Hmmmm, Gosh who’s that strumpet that got famous for making a porn? OH YA!!! Kim Kardashian!!! Ya, I’m still upset she got floured. HA HA HA HA!!!!!! 🙂

Hollywood on March 25, 2012 at 10:45 pm

For years I have kind of wondered why conservatives liked “Mad Men”. I want to say “Mad Men” is not “basically ‘Desperate Housewives’ with men”. “Desperate Housewives” has a conservative viewpoint (and it also always showed church and pastors in a positive light–it has seemed like that was the only network show to do that).
“Mad Men” is something I haven’t had much interest in as the stakes were not all that high–are the characters in danger of death (as in “The Sopranos”, etc)? No, it is about people running an ad agency. That is an another area in which the shows differ–“Desperate Housewives” often involves a murder mystery (which it solves).

MH on March 25, 2012 at 11:14 pm

It’s a minor point but most of Mad Men is written by a man,Matthew Weiner at 65 episodes, so in the common vernacular he would be a girly man.

Also, don’t confuse fag hags with feminatzis. Fag hag are fun and enjoyable, feminatzis are pretty much the opposite.

petebone on March 25, 2012 at 11:15 pm

If you hate it so, why do you watch? Also, how does one “sound” gay?

GWA: Wow, you have a serious reading comprehension problem. RIF–Reading Is Fundamental. Try it, before engaging in premature articulation. Clearly, I wrote that he has an effeminate voice. Um, that’s how one “sounds” gay. I watch plenty of things I don’t like, so I can keep up with pop culture and write about it. Only a moron watches only what they like. How can I critique it if I don’t see it? Where did I say I hated it???? I only hate its message, but I’m smart enough–unlike you–to see it for what it is, a guilty pleasure soap opera that’s simply not accurate. DS

Gina Wilhelm Actress on March 26, 2012 at 2:04 am

Another show I won’t watch ( is it even still on?) is Men of a Certain Age. I was starting to watch one episode and in the credits I saw it was written by a woman. How can a woman have any real experience of what it is like to be a middle aged man?

Oscar on March 26, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Come on Oscar, are you telling me you are afraid to watch a show about men that is written by women? The three main actors, Romano, Bakula, Braugher, would probably not go along with something that was unrealistic.

    Fight to Save Men of a Certain Age on March 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm

I watched the season opening yesterday. We’d eagerly anticipated it. The various social justice themes in the past seasons hadn’t been too prominent to tip the balance, but in the show we watched yesterday it was thickly slathered. Consequently, my husband fell asleep half-way through and, in the morning, said that he won’t watch it again. I, too, found it boring and lacking dramatic tension.

The creators failed to ignite a conflict big enough to sustain interest in the upcoming season.

Russian Jewish Chick on March 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I personally couldn’t care less about this stupid, dopey show….to me it’s yet another piece of left-wing propaganda Hollyweird trash dressed up as a soap opera. But Debbie is definitely right in her article where she shows how there is a clear double-standard between the sexes by the writers….the level of hypocrisy here is outrageous!!…maybe because the writers here are all radical left-wing feminist extremists and homosexual activists!!

Dave on March 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Could Rod Serling, if he were alive today, get a job as a writer in Hollywood? Remember, he’s not a feminazi nor a homo, just a damn good writer.

FrenchKiss on March 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Oh, yeah, one more thing. The show in the first season, 1960, showed an IBM selectric typewriter that first appeared in 1961. Oooops.

FrenchKiss on March 26, 2012 at 6:13 pm

Rod Serling was something of a leftist, and his heavy-handed “message” stuff (as evident all through the original “Twilight Zone”) would have felt at home. It was his butting heads with Hollywood “suits” that ended up souring him on that town towards the end of his life (especially his experiences with the 1970-73 series “Night Gallery”).

ConcernedPatriot on March 26, 2012 at 8:40 pm

I am a conservative, and usually agree with DS on most domestic and foreign policy issues, but I must take issue with her Mad Men “review”. If you have truly watched all the episodes (up to the current Season 5), you would not take away such simplistic views of Mad Men disrespecting war veterans or saying that men are always creeps and cheats, and yet women–of any time period–can do no wrong. The characters are far more shaded than that…indeed, Weiner (the creator and head writer) is saying precisely that people, both past and present, are far more complex. Weiner is not nostalgic for a fantasy past, nor is he any happier with current man-woman dynamics..he’s saying that essentially, change is difficult and you always get mixed results. People are people. It’s more about how social mores have changed, especially public vs. private modes of behavior. A major theme last season was the dichotomy of “What I want” vs. “What’s expected of me.” Clearly, individuals in society are becoming more youth=oriented and narcissistic..not a good thing. The writers aren’t judging the past in favor of the present–it’s simply a window into an earlier time period, for better and worse. The mixed feelings about this nostalgia are what they’re getting at. Peggy, Joan, Betty and the other female characters are not portrayed as “victims”, any more than Don/Dick, Roger or Pete are only portrayed as jerks…they are all mixed characters, and the writing on the show is consistently stellar. They can be flawed, but also sometimes even noble. No one character is entirely predictable. The audience gets to see all sides of the characters each episode, much is revealed, much is hidden/speculative, and there is as much truth in also reading between the lines. The show is not as plot-driven, but rather about snapshots in places and times–it plays more like a novel than a TV show or movie. The world of advertising is the lens, but it’s about much more than that. That’s the fun for the fanatical Mad Men devotee, of which I am guilty. It’s a niche show, and clearly not for everyone.

nailsagainsttheboard on March 27, 2012 at 2:27 am

I watched the season premier on Sunday night and thought it sucked. I was kind of mad that I stayed up until 11:00 p.m. to watch that garbage. I won’t be tuning in to any more episodes. Don’s new wife is a moron and she can’t sing!

MRobs on March 27, 2012 at 10:50 am

Not only did the season premier suck it was so bad many people will never watch again but the thing that really gets me is it took these morons 17 months to come up with this drivel. All of those writers should be fired if this is the best they could come up with after all that time.

MRobs on March 27, 2012 at 10:57 am

Hey boys and girls-
Matthew Weiner had a problem growing up suburban rich with a dad on Madison Ave. He has said MANY times this show is his way of “getting even” with his dad and all of his associates from this era of the 60’s…poor spoiled rich kid. All that money cannot buy little Matty any happiness as an adult.

Show rocks if you read BETWEEN the lines..early feminists, men who have TESTIES and MAKE DECISIONS..not scared of who they are. Creative folks making money, sounds commie lest your Obaummer is approving of and funding it.

BillyD1431 on March 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm

I began my working life in the era of Mad Men, and in Manhattan, too. For the most part, it is an eerily accurate portrayal of the style of those days in an “avant garde” industry. Most offices were more conservative, but remember that advertising was considered very artsy and freewheeling in those days. I never worked in an office where the personnel, even the executives, had bottles of liquor out in the open. Two martini lunches, yes. Drinking in the office, no.

The constant smoking is quite accurate, one of the few blessings of our age is that we no longer have to choke on smoke in offices and restaurants. I really enjoy the show, but once in a while they make a real clunker just because the writers are too young to viscerally understand the culture of the day, and they assume that people were unhappy with elements of daily life that have been “improved” in the intervening years.

Divorce as portrayed in the show was very uncommon among regular people until the seventies, but I think the higher income folks were the leading edge of that trend, so in that sense it is accurate.

We have completely lost the sense of formality of dress and demeanor that was common in the past, the delineation between work and private life.

LBD on March 27, 2012 at 9:33 pm

You are right, it is a well written soap opera but calm down! A drama series is suppose to have characters who make poor moral choices; how else would you write a drama series?

Kim on March 28, 2012 at 7:33 pm

Actually, there’s something to be learned from Mad Men (Watched probably all of season 1 so far), and it is in fact BOLSTERED by the fact it’s written by (and essentially FOR) women:
Men can learn how to ACT like Alpha-Male characters. We’ve spent YEARS growing up with GRRL-POWER… Women kick @$$ EVERYWHERE, yet are always the victims. Men who have been told to never stare, which translated into “don’t even make eye contact, that’s staring, and will make her uncomfortable” are now growing up, and they see attractive young women running around the “c*ck carousel” with the losers, junkies, “bad boys” (Sons of Anarchy types), etc.
Truth is, MALE sexuality has been surpressed. MALENESS has been surpressed. To the point that women who want some masculinity in their lives turn to TV, because they have ALSO been badly socialized – demand everything because “you’re worth it”. “Of course men have feelings, but who cares?” And the old favorite, “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”

So, men who watch Mad Men and note the behaviors will see the reactions of the women on screen, AND IRL, and realize what they’re doign wrong: They’re actually buying into the BULLSHIT, the female “Shit test”, and (even though it’s scripted), they can learn to UNDO the social programming. Act more like (how women imagine) men act. AND get the “enjoyment” that goes along with that.
And they will have more dates than they know what to do with, especially if they keep their mouths SHUT about what they actually DO IRL. (I’m in IT and earn 6 figures, for example. Boring, fairly stable, little advancement beyond current level possible, no mystery, and requires high IQ. I’m not just tech support.) But buy a motorcycle, get the jacket, and be a self-absorbed A-hole, and get dates.

Also, please note, I did NOT say get a WIFE. The women we are evaluating aren’t worthy of that honor. Besides, tons of men have laready been and left, so there’s little value in a …
In used merchandise.

I hope the ladies listen to that. (Although, “Ladies” implies I’m preaching to the choir. Ladies are refined and would be wife material. “Women” en masse went the route of the town bicycle instead… Out of wedlock birth rates, STD rates, abortion rates, Numbers of partners, all point top the same thing I’ve said. And you can look up PLENTY of blogs tackling this, though the rawest (Most honest yet also most misogynistic – concerned with “notches”) is still Roissy in DC.

Women, you can be a Lady, or you can be a Wench. One gets married; one gets a ride. And that door swings ONE way.

We are meant to be COMPLEMENTARY. Remember that, choose accordingly, and protect what will attract a long-term partner. Or, accept the costs, enjoy the short-term joys, and the long-term loss. It’s YOUR choice – AND your consequences.

Jean on December 14, 2012 at 10:49 am

Right again, Debbie. I saw through this show from the beginning.

Eben on September 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field