http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y136zBVjBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ItF0CcJBN4

That’s not how their mind works. Their reasoning goes as follows:

If the woman is gainfully employed (or has her own business), then she is independent, and so I cannot treat her however I like because if she doesn’t like it, she will leave (or kick me out if the property is hers).

If the woman never earned a cent but depends on me for her subsistence, then she won’t dare betray me, since if I kick her out, she’s doomed. And she won’t leave, since she literally can’t afford it.

That, I believe, is the mentality of men who feel threatened by the prospect of having their wives gainfully employed and independent.

I think the rule is: If it generates lots of response – publish it. Editors are fast becoming redundant.

But if the wife stayed in the home, wouldn’t she be exposed to a host of temptations: the milkman, tal-hobz, the postman, dak li jigbor ghall-festa, some randy priest on a house visit, tal-haxix… ?

I breathed a sigh of relief when my wife told me that she would continue going to work.

And what about women bloggers? They’re the scourge of Maltese families and should be banished to Mantua or wherever they’re sending them these days. I’m seriously considering sending The Times a letter about how I know for a fact the earth is flat. Just to test the system.

Oh wait just saw rest of discussion about it…

I think the British equivalent of pufta is poof. Fag is just another derogatory term. Along with queer boy, bum boy, queen, fairy, etc.

I wonder what the author thinks about gays.