Lol yep. It doesn't help that new babies in TV are usually portrayed by 3-month-olds unless they're going for extreme accuracy like in a medical drama. Most tweens are probably kind of spooked by how tiny new babies are. Also the middle of trick or treating is obviously not most people's idea of the right time to negotiate a new babysitting contract.
I wonder have our social skills atrophied *that* much, so that someone might actually think that a couple of tweens who are there to show off their costumes and get candy, are also going to sit down and talk about when they can babysit? (And three *days* old? Does that baby even have an immune system yet?)
Depends on what you mean by "immune system". All the needed components are there, but the system is still learning what's a threat and what isn't. So technically yes, functionally no so much.
As for the social skills atrophying, I think you have to put this down to "new mother". I'd bet that new moms have THOUGHT this about insufficient swooning over the new baby forever. Just our luck we now have a way to broadcast that incredulity to the world...
Exactly. 3 days old is basically an inert blob that eats, shits, and screams. There’s no real *interacting* with a stranger’s baby (or even a family baby!) until they are old enough to respond to you.
Passing out candy three days after birth is pretty damn stoic so I'll give that mom a lot of credit, although the random teens are probably still wondering what that was all about. Also, three day old babies vary a lot in looks, so I often use my husbands go-to when complimenting them. "The baby was very alert!"
We've all been confronted by something so strangely unexpected that we didn't know how to react - like the time a cop stopped me for speeding and then forgot to ticket me because he got distracted describing the four raccoons in traps in his back seat. I mean I was glad to escape a ticket but I still think of that interaction with a little wonder.
If she wanted people to fawn over her baby and offer to babysit, she's got the wrong demographic. She should go to a retirement community where no one has seen anyone under 40 for way too long. It's usually old women who fawn and coo over babies and CNAs/nursing students who are looking for a babysitting side hustle.
OK, forgive my lesbian ignorance, but don't straight men see their wives/girlfriends with actually no makeup at home at least sometimes?
I did have one friend who talked about sleeping in her makeup so her boyfriend would never see her without it but I hoped she was an outlier. At a minimum that seems hard on the skin.
i think many of them simply don't pay attention to their wives' makeup routines in the way that most straight women don't pay attention to their husbands' COD kill counts. It's not that they're totally ignorant, it's that it isn't really relevant to their day-to-day.
Yes, if you live with them then all the time - but almost never photographed. However when dating it is hugely dependant on the woman and fairly common to not see them without.
And there are deffo women who put on a face within 10mins of waking up everyday even when married - like a lot of this generalising it really ignores individual differences.
Sure, but men are incredibly inattentive to that most of the time. Also depending on the woman, if she is the type of person who wears at least some makeup every day, she's probably usually putting it on when she gets up and only wiping it off to go to bed, so there's very little time to actually notice the "no makeup" face, and the time that does exist is in the dark.
Yes! I remember seeing that evening/morning routine and thinking "wow, being a woman in the 50s was so much work!" And then her husband leaves her for his secretary, which sets up the comedy club stage takeover...
To fully appreciate the makeup you have to watch her do it once. Watch the process. Cause yeah, otherwise it's someone who always looks good to you and now looks extra good but you have no idea exactly why - especially if this is a special occasion and she's wearing a nice dress, jewelry, the shoes, etc. What you see is the total presentation, and it would be rude to pick that apart for its details, right?
I think there's an argument that a guy shouldn't know, or doesn't have to. What he SHOULD know is that it's a process - it takes time and effort, and money to make that angel appear. Your woman doesn't just magically transform into this. It's an art, it's work, and she does it. If you're lucky, mostly for you. Show some appreciation, which - to be fair - is what the Scott who started all this was trying to do.
I saw the tweets about car seats being child abuse on my timeline and genuinely thought the person was just trolling, when I looked at some of her other tweets I was sure it was a whole troll account. I still can’t believe she’s serious-lol
I hate to admit it, but she kinda had a point about the whole car vs house fire/stranger molestation thing. You're only more likely to die in a house fire because you spend significantly more time at home than in a car.
Yeah I thought she was serious until I read the "birth control is child abuse" tweet. Like there's no way that's real. There's no way she's serious about that lol. (I mean... I hope not...)
Unfortunately I find that believable, as there have a long been a weirdly high number of people in the extremes of the anti-abortion side (including an unusually high number among people who run a lot of mainstream anti-abortion orgs) who believe literally all birth control is an abortion. Which they see as murder, so…
Like to be clear it’s an insane statement, but one I find pretty plausible that a tradwife believes it compared to some of the other stuff. (“Children shouldn’t leave the house until 5”… even to go to church?)
Yeah I'm sure that will go well for their social and immune development... 🤦♀️
Also these people really need to work out their definition of abortion, because if it's anything like the definition we all know, then it's literally impossible for birth control to be abortion since the whole point of birth control is for there to be nothing to abort in the first place.
Oh yeah, but obviously the real problem is that women are making choices to have sex without having babies in mind as an end goal, so a weirdly expansive idea of “abortion” helps with that.
I don’t think most people who are anti-abortion believe this, tbc. I think the people who believe this are pretty far gone — but that movement also has long had a problem with those being the ones with the most power to determine their policy. The inmates running the asylum, if you will. (This is one of the big reasons they’ve been really bad at understanding how unpopular their agenda is with most voters post-Roe.)
I also think a lot of tradwifey types have a really poor understanding of biology that this exploits. A lot of them genuinely seem to buy into “every sperm is sacred” type thinking, or that standard birth control pills are the same as the morning after pill (and also not knowing that even what the latter does is something that can happen on its own in about a third of cases where an egg is fertilized anyway, which is why the medical definition — not religious — of when a pregnancy begins is implantation, not conception.)
The day my first daughter was born, my wife asked me to go buy her a proper coffee. I drove downtown, then proceeded to tell every single person I saw about the incredible occasion, friend, stranger or foe. Eighteen years later, that feeling hasn't really diminished, but at least I've mastered it enough to have an adult conversation about a few other topics.
My only comment is that there are indeed a great many guys who say, "my wife looks better with no makeup" and actually mean that literally. Not minimal makeup, not a "natural look", actual zero makeup.
This is like and oddly specific pet peeve of mine, because ever since I was old enough to start dating as an adult, and I mention that I think my partner looks better with no makeup, some lady always jumps in to explain to me that, 'no actually, you think you like her with no makeup, but you like her with minimal makeup.'
And it's like no, I know what she looks like with zero makeup on, and I prefer that, and it's a little annoying but apparently everyone thinks guys can't tell the difference IN-PERSON.
I think there's a difference between saying *women* look better with no makeup (which from a guy almost always means minimal makeup) vs saying *his wife* looks better with no makeup (which means he loves his wife, who he has almost certainly seen with no makeup and with minimal makeup, and can tell the difference)
I'm gonna disagree with this. I think most guys that are married or in a relationship have probably been in *other* relationships before that one...so if they say they prefer women's looks with *no* makeup, we should take them at their word on that and not jump to the assumption about what they *really* mean.
Now, the exception I will make to that is guys who fawn over IG pictures of ladies as being makeup free, when clearly they are not. Those guys are clearly showing a preference for women who are wearing a minimal enough amount of makeup to look makeup free in a social media photo.
The seriousness with which I regard a man's statement that he prefers the way women look with no makeup is proportional to his age. I assume men too young to rent a car have no idea what they're talking about but that retirees have had a lot of time and experience to come to a conclusion on the matter.
I get it though. When there'll enough dudes who do the thing like the guy here it's hard for women not to wonder. They shouldn't correct you on your own opinions though.
As a no makeup lady i often have people mention they/their spouse don't wear makeup when that is...untrue
This I agree with. Many men show their favorite photo of their lady and it’s often when she’s looking like a hobbit. Nothing wrong with that. When women disapprove of this they often mean it in an intrasexual competition way because very few women are secure enough to have an actual no-make up or less make up preference for themselves. But they should know that the wives of those husbands themselves hate their no make up selves so they have no need to fear anything.
I think this is pretty definite small minority POV though. Unless you're talking about awful Jersey mob-wife face masks, nearly all women look "better" with at least some makeup. It's like a woman saying she likes her husband more when he let himself get a beer gut and switched his tailored suits for NBA gear.
So just to be clear here, your assertion is that a woman without makeup is the equivalent of a badly dressed guy with a gut? I think you are in the minority on this front.
No, but my analogy was meant to convey that there are certain things men and women do to make themselves more attractive, and it's not barbaric or retrograde to admit it.
To be honest, yes, they would. The reason women mostly won't say so is that while they would look aesthetically better, most straight women don't want to date a guy who's vain enough to wear makeup to make himself look better. It's absolutely a double standard.
Though not one universally held. Koreans are famous for doing face masks and using BB cream regardless of gender.
I read your "let's retire toxic masculinity" piece with some mixed opinions.
I totally agree with the proposal - I think 'toxic masculinity' as a phrase has become such a football to be kicked around in the gender discourse that it's not doing anything useful. It polarizes people into an argument about what is and is not masculinity, whether that's important, and who gets to decide, without actually serving as a useful agreed-upon place-holder for a very specific set of behaviors that warrant examination.
"And that kind of gave away the game, didn’t it? Toxic masculinity was masculinity."
I'm trying to figure out if this was always true based on the structure of what was being condemned, or the discourse just went this way and that's how we all ended up where we are today. Someone says "non-toxic masculinity is being strong enough to be caring" and then someone else says "that's just being feminine, why do you men need to put a "man" label on everything to be okay with it, you just hate women" and then the men go "stop trying to take being a man away from us" and then everyone is cranky AF.
Was there ever a world where someone said:
- Being brave and taking action even when you feel scared is masculine. (Surely claiming that courage is masculine isn't a redefine??)
- Denying your sadness so thoroughly that eventually it explodes out of you as uncontrollable blinding rage and you murder someone is toxic masculinity.
Could we ever have cut up "traditional masculinity" and said "there's some things we'd like to keep and some things we'd like to chuck"?
I wonder if where the discourse went sideways was an assumption that power dynamics were the defining problem. If we go back a decade ago, you get things like "non-whites can't be racist toward whites because whites have all the power", e.g. there's an oppressing group and an oppressed group, and the power differential is what defines it, and therefore all of the problem is with the higher power group, punching up is fine, bla bla bla.
In that world, the problem with men was never that their behavior was sometimes really really bad; it was that they had the power, and therefore the solution was not to have men "stop doing the bad stuff", it was to have them stop having the power.
Once you see it in that lens, the "non-toxic man has to be a passive agreeable people-pleaser with no spine" (massive exaggeration, but I think we went in that direction) 'antidote' is inescapable.
What makes the "toxic" in "toxic masculinity" is the poisonous anti-feminine enforcement mechanisms. Especially the ones that start really early. Even my husband, who cares not at all if any of his interests are considered girly now, was unwilling to admit how much he loved The Little Mermaid to his friend when he was in elementary school. I also get very annoyed when I tell people that my late father was my best shopping buddy and people wonder if he was gay just because he liked picking out clothes for me.
There's nothing wrong with masculinity in and of itself. Strength, courage, stoicism- these are all fine qualities. They also don't need to be engendered by discouraging everything feminine.
Riding in a car is child abuse is an obviously insane take, but it seems like the logical conclusion of that hyper safety focused intensive mothering philosophy.
I swear these Twitter moms (the ones with the car takes and similar) just need to go to a doctor already and get diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It's okay guys, you don't have to live like that! You can get help! The world really isn't as scary as you think it is! Of course though, the same moms who desperately need that are also the ones who are least likely to take it. They think doctors are fake, that anxiety isn't real (they're just being safe and responsible after all, it's everyone *else* who's reckless and dangerous!) they *definitely* won't take any medications for it, and they probably think therapy is fake too. Yikes, because some of those women really desperately need it.
3 day old babies aren’t that cute. People start fawning over babies when they’re at least 3-4 months old and can laugh and smile
Edit: babies they’re not related to
Lol yep. It doesn't help that new babies in TV are usually portrayed by 3-month-olds unless they're going for extreme accuracy like in a medical drama. Most tweens are probably kind of spooked by how tiny new babies are. Also the middle of trick or treating is obviously not most people's idea of the right time to negotiate a new babysitting contract.
I wonder have our social skills atrophied *that* much, so that someone might actually think that a couple of tweens who are there to show off their costumes and get candy, are also going to sit down and talk about when they can babysit? (And three *days* old? Does that baby even have an immune system yet?)
Depends on what you mean by "immune system". All the needed components are there, but the system is still learning what's a threat and what isn't. So technically yes, functionally no so much.
As for the social skills atrophying, I think you have to put this down to "new mother". I'd bet that new moms have THOUGHT this about insufficient swooning over the new baby forever. Just our luck we now have a way to broadcast that incredulity to the world...
Yeah, they start all smooshed
Yes, that or they have a bit of a naked mole rat vibe
Exactly. 3 days old is basically an inert blob that eats, shits, and screams. There’s no real *interacting* with a stranger’s baby (or even a family baby!) until they are old enough to respond to you.
They can be pretty cute if you had a C-section with a breech baby. Unsquished face and round head! 🙂
Everyone who has a newborn baby, both mothers and fathers, is the very first one to ever do it. My wife and I were no exceptions.
I know I certainly felt that way!
Passing out candy three days after birth is pretty damn stoic so I'll give that mom a lot of credit, although the random teens are probably still wondering what that was all about. Also, three day old babies vary a lot in looks, so I often use my husbands go-to when complimenting them. "The baby was very alert!"
We've all been confronted by something so strangely unexpected that we didn't know how to react - like the time a cop stopped me for speeding and then forgot to ticket me because he got distracted describing the four raccoons in traps in his back seat. I mean I was glad to escape a ticket but I still think of that interaction with a little wonder.
That made me laugh a little too hard, but there is a real possibility that it is true.
If she wanted people to fawn over her baby and offer to babysit, she's got the wrong demographic. She should go to a retirement community where no one has seen anyone under 40 for way too long. It's usually old women who fawn and coo over babies and CNAs/nursing students who are looking for a babysitting side hustle.
OK, forgive my lesbian ignorance, but don't straight men see their wives/girlfriends with actually no makeup at home at least sometimes?
I did have one friend who talked about sleeping in her makeup so her boyfriend would never see her without it but I hoped she was an outlier. At a minimum that seems hard on the skin.
Ignorant dudes (like myself in the past) perceive it as random fluctuation, like a good hair day, without any earthly causation
Yes, many men look at a woman who usually wears makeup and think she's tired or sick if they see her bare-faced one day.
i think many of them simply don't pay attention to their wives' makeup routines in the way that most straight women don't pay attention to their husbands' COD kill counts. It's not that they're totally ignorant, it's that it isn't really relevant to their day-to-day.
Yes, if you live with them then all the time - but almost never photographed. However when dating it is hugely dependant on the woman and fairly common to not see them without.
And there are deffo women who put on a face within 10mins of waking up everyday even when married - like a lot of this generalising it really ignores individual differences.
Sure, but men are incredibly inattentive to that most of the time. Also depending on the woman, if she is the type of person who wears at least some makeup every day, she's probably usually putting it on when she gets up and only wiping it off to go to bed, so there's very little time to actually notice the "no makeup" face, and the time that does exist is in the dark.
Yes! I remember seeing that evening/morning routine and thinking "wow, being a woman in the 50s was so much work!" And then her husband leaves her for his secretary, which sets up the comedy club stage takeover...
To fully appreciate the makeup you have to watch her do it once. Watch the process. Cause yeah, otherwise it's someone who always looks good to you and now looks extra good but you have no idea exactly why - especially if this is a special occasion and she's wearing a nice dress, jewelry, the shoes, etc. What you see is the total presentation, and it would be rude to pick that apart for its details, right?
I think there's an argument that a guy shouldn't know, or doesn't have to. What he SHOULD know is that it's a process - it takes time and effort, and money to make that angel appear. Your woman doesn't just magically transform into this. It's an art, it's work, and she does it. If you're lucky, mostly for you. Show some appreciation, which - to be fair - is what the Scott who started all this was trying to do.
I saw the tweets about car seats being child abuse on my timeline and genuinely thought the person was just trolling, when I looked at some of her other tweets I was sure it was a whole troll account. I still can’t believe she’s serious-lol
I hate to admit it, but she kinda had a point about the whole car vs house fire/stranger molestation thing. You're only more likely to die in a house fire because you spend significantly more time at home than in a car.
For sure - I can only read her assertion that “arguments based on data are inherently invalid” as trolling
Yeah I thought she was serious until I read the "birth control is child abuse" tweet. Like there's no way that's real. There's no way she's serious about that lol. (I mean... I hope not...)
Unfortunately I find that believable, as there have a long been a weirdly high number of people in the extremes of the anti-abortion side (including an unusually high number among people who run a lot of mainstream anti-abortion orgs) who believe literally all birth control is an abortion. Which they see as murder, so…
Like to be clear it’s an insane statement, but one I find pretty plausible that a tradwife believes it compared to some of the other stuff. (“Children shouldn’t leave the house until 5”… even to go to church?)
"Kids shouldn't leave the house until 5"
Yeah I'm sure that will go well for their social and immune development... 🤦♀️
Also these people really need to work out their definition of abortion, because if it's anything like the definition we all know, then it's literally impossible for birth control to be abortion since the whole point of birth control is for there to be nothing to abort in the first place.
Oh yeah, but obviously the real problem is that women are making choices to have sex without having babies in mind as an end goal, so a weirdly expansive idea of “abortion” helps with that.
I don’t think most people who are anti-abortion believe this, tbc. I think the people who believe this are pretty far gone — but that movement also has long had a problem with those being the ones with the most power to determine their policy. The inmates running the asylum, if you will. (This is one of the big reasons they’ve been really bad at understanding how unpopular their agenda is with most voters post-Roe.)
I also think a lot of tradwifey types have a really poor understanding of biology that this exploits. A lot of them genuinely seem to buy into “every sperm is sacred” type thinking, or that standard birth control pills are the same as the morning after pill (and also not knowing that even what the latter does is something that can happen on its own in about a third of cases where an egg is fertilized anyway, which is why the medical definition — not religious — of when a pregnancy begins is implantation, not conception.)
The day my first daughter was born, my wife asked me to go buy her a proper coffee. I drove downtown, then proceeded to tell every single person I saw about the incredible occasion, friend, stranger or foe. Eighteen years later, that feeling hasn't really diminished, but at least I've mastered it enough to have an adult conversation about a few other topics.
My only comment is that there are indeed a great many guys who say, "my wife looks better with no makeup" and actually mean that literally. Not minimal makeup, not a "natural look", actual zero makeup.
This is like and oddly specific pet peeve of mine, because ever since I was old enough to start dating as an adult, and I mention that I think my partner looks better with no makeup, some lady always jumps in to explain to me that, 'no actually, you think you like her with no makeup, but you like her with minimal makeup.'
And it's like no, I know what she looks like with zero makeup on, and I prefer that, and it's a little annoying but apparently everyone thinks guys can't tell the difference IN-PERSON.
I think there's a difference between saying *women* look better with no makeup (which from a guy almost always means minimal makeup) vs saying *his wife* looks better with no makeup (which means he loves his wife, who he has almost certainly seen with no makeup and with minimal makeup, and can tell the difference)
I'm gonna disagree with this. I think most guys that are married or in a relationship have probably been in *other* relationships before that one...so if they say they prefer women's looks with *no* makeup, we should take them at their word on that and not jump to the assumption about what they *really* mean.
Now, the exception I will make to that is guys who fawn over IG pictures of ladies as being makeup free, when clearly they are not. Those guys are clearly showing a preference for women who are wearing a minimal enough amount of makeup to look makeup free in a social media photo.
The seriousness with which I regard a man's statement that he prefers the way women look with no makeup is proportional to his age. I assume men too young to rent a car have no idea what they're talking about but that retirees have had a lot of time and experience to come to a conclusion on the matter.
This is a completely reasonable take, supported by nuance, experience, and wisdom.
It doesn't belong on this internet, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I get it though. When there'll enough dudes who do the thing like the guy here it's hard for women not to wonder. They shouldn't correct you on your own opinions though.
As a no makeup lady i often have people mention they/their spouse don't wear makeup when that is...untrue
This I agree with. Many men show their favorite photo of their lady and it’s often when she’s looking like a hobbit. Nothing wrong with that. When women disapprove of this they often mean it in an intrasexual competition way because very few women are secure enough to have an actual no-make up or less make up preference for themselves. But they should know that the wives of those husbands themselves hate their no make up selves so they have no need to fear anything.
I think this is pretty definite small minority POV though. Unless you're talking about awful Jersey mob-wife face masks, nearly all women look "better" with at least some makeup. It's like a woman saying she likes her husband more when he let himself get a beer gut and switched his tailored suits for NBA gear.
So just to be clear here, your assertion is that a woman without makeup is the equivalent of a badly dressed guy with a gut? I think you are in the minority on this front.
No, but my analogy was meant to convey that there are certain things men and women do to make themselves more attractive, and it's not barbaric or retrograde to admit it.
To be honest, yes, they would. The reason women mostly won't say so is that while they would look aesthetically better, most straight women don't want to date a guy who's vain enough to wear makeup to make himself look better. It's absolutely a double standard.
Though not one universally held. Koreans are famous for doing face masks and using BB cream regardless of gender.
Thanks for the shoutout! Also, I am now obsessed with Keturah Abigail and hope we haven't heard the last from her.
I think she's a good writer, and she's definitely lived a different life from most of us.
When I say no makeup I mean glowing from morning sex.
I read your "let's retire toxic masculinity" piece with some mixed opinions.
I totally agree with the proposal - I think 'toxic masculinity' as a phrase has become such a football to be kicked around in the gender discourse that it's not doing anything useful. It polarizes people into an argument about what is and is not masculinity, whether that's important, and who gets to decide, without actually serving as a useful agreed-upon place-holder for a very specific set of behaviors that warrant examination.
"And that kind of gave away the game, didn’t it? Toxic masculinity was masculinity."
I'm trying to figure out if this was always true based on the structure of what was being condemned, or the discourse just went this way and that's how we all ended up where we are today. Someone says "non-toxic masculinity is being strong enough to be caring" and then someone else says "that's just being feminine, why do you men need to put a "man" label on everything to be okay with it, you just hate women" and then the men go "stop trying to take being a man away from us" and then everyone is cranky AF.
Was there ever a world where someone said:
- Being brave and taking action even when you feel scared is masculine. (Surely claiming that courage is masculine isn't a redefine??)
- Denying your sadness so thoroughly that eventually it explodes out of you as uncontrollable blinding rage and you murder someone is toxic masculinity.
Could we ever have cut up "traditional masculinity" and said "there's some things we'd like to keep and some things we'd like to chuck"?
I wonder if where the discourse went sideways was an assumption that power dynamics were the defining problem. If we go back a decade ago, you get things like "non-whites can't be racist toward whites because whites have all the power", e.g. there's an oppressing group and an oppressed group, and the power differential is what defines it, and therefore all of the problem is with the higher power group, punching up is fine, bla bla bla.
In that world, the problem with men was never that their behavior was sometimes really really bad; it was that they had the power, and therefore the solution was not to have men "stop doing the bad stuff", it was to have them stop having the power.
Once you see it in that lens, the "non-toxic man has to be a passive agreeable people-pleaser with no spine" (massive exaggeration, but I think we went in that direction) 'antidote' is inescapable.
What makes the "toxic" in "toxic masculinity" is the poisonous anti-feminine enforcement mechanisms. Especially the ones that start really early. Even my husband, who cares not at all if any of his interests are considered girly now, was unwilling to admit how much he loved The Little Mermaid to his friend when he was in elementary school. I also get very annoyed when I tell people that my late father was my best shopping buddy and people wonder if he was gay just because he liked picking out clothes for me.
There's nothing wrong with masculinity in and of itself. Strength, courage, stoicism- these are all fine qualities. They also don't need to be engendered by discouraging everything feminine.
"A man was a good father. Must be gay."
What a sad reaction people have.
Your GQ piece is very good. Congratulations on the publication!
The people who fawn over newborn babies the most are parents whose kids are long out of diapers, not teenage girls.
Also, I've seen a lot of Ben's bad takes, but wow. That one is something else.
I think he's joking. I'm like 94% sure Ben Dreyfus is gay.
Those comments would seem to be solid evidence that he is gay, but he's talked about dating women too. I have no idea.
As subscribers to both, Lana Li’s article was reaaaalllllly good!
Riding in a car is child abuse is an obviously insane take, but it seems like the logical conclusion of that hyper safety focused intensive mothering philosophy.
I swear these Twitter moms (the ones with the car takes and similar) just need to go to a doctor already and get diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It's okay guys, you don't have to live like that! You can get help! The world really isn't as scary as you think it is! Of course though, the same moms who desperately need that are also the ones who are least likely to take it. They think doctors are fake, that anxiety isn't real (they're just being safe and responsible after all, it's everyone *else* who's reckless and dangerous!) they *definitely* won't take any medications for it, and they probably think therapy is fake too. Yikes, because some of those women really desperately need it.