Ask your woman why she chose a Louis Vuitton bag or Manolo Blahnik shoes. She’ll talk endlessly and enthusiastically about these possessions. Impressive, huh? Has she told you, to your face, with similar enthusiasm, why she chose you? If not, there are three possible reasons, each unacceptable: 1) you never asked her; 2) she doesn’t adore you; 3) she’s guarded and unexpressive. Whatever the case, your relationship is already dead and headed for dissolution.
If you continue this relationship, however, without hearing her glowing testimonial about you, do so at your peril — and prepare for her scathing testimony about you in court. By the way, if you fail to communicate likewise to her, you are just as culpable for your eventual breakup. Being able to talk ad nauseam about why you love fishing or hunting or football, while unable to express specifically why you’re living with or married to her, is a HUGE red flag.
Lack of conviction and inability to communicate it are two harbingers of failure — in politics, in relationships, in business. One of my most searing political memories is from November 4, 1979, three days before Senator Ted Kennedy officially announced his candidacy for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination. On that pivotal night, CBS News correspondent Roger Mudd asked him why he wanted to be president. Kennedy, shocked by Mudd’s insightful question, stumbled, fumbled, and uttered a convictionless, passionless policy-speak response, precipitating a sharp decline in his popularity. Jimmy Carter ultimately defeated him 50%-38%. Kennedy really didn’t want to be president, and it was obvious.
Dumbfounding
Marriage in America is an institution in decline: divorce continues to ravage parents (especially fathers) and children; for the first time in history, only 49% of women are married; and the ever-climbing out-of-wedlock birthrate now averages 40%. Why is this? First, family law encourages acrimony and single-mother households. Second, misandrist feminists like Rosanna Hertz condone and celebrate fatherless homes. Third, men and women join forces for all the wrong reasons and can’t even explain why they’re together. It’s dumbfounding. If you don’t believe me, ask your best buddy why he’s with his current girlfriend or wife. You’ll be amazed at his answer. Or, maybe you won’t be.
Last week, singer Enrique Iglesias announced to the press that, for at least three years, he’s been with girlfriend Anna Kournikova, who has ignored his countless marriage proposals. Says Iglesias about his unrequited attempts to betroth Anna: “I always try, but she pays me no attention.” Ignoring him is abusive, disrespectful behavior: she owes him an answer, one way or the other. But, his tolerance of her abuse and disrespect is proof that he has no self-esteem. Why on earth are these people together? And, what keeps them together? Besides unhealthy inertia and individual self-loathing, I haven’t a clue. Yet, you may identify with their dysfunctional dynamic and wonder why it’s a problem. If so, you need serious help.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Become Roger Mudd: Get to the “heart” of your relationship; determine why your woman wants to be with you. Ask her this simple, revealing question: Why did you choose me? If she’s not as obviously excited, animated, passionate, specific, and forthcoming about you as she is about her new shoes, give her the boot.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
We really didn’t like each other, but our sex was good; that’s why we stayed together so long. Does this dysfunctional comment sound familiar, perhaps describing one of your relationships? Is it possible to resent your girlfriend or wife outside of bed, yet enjoy her in bed? Many succumb to this “bad-blood/good-sex” delusion, but, given the general misunderstanding of good sex, that doesn’t surprise me.
There’s an old axiom about women: “crazy in the head, crazy in the bed.” It’s true; believe me. But, crazy and good are not synonymous. Good sex requires that both partners have healthy attitudes about themselves (which is rare) and that they mutually share emotional connection, vulnerability, trust, respect, and lust—inside and outside the bedroom (which is rarer). Most foreplay occurs in regular conversations, with playful teasing, between two people who truly adore and enjoy each other. So, if you struggle to gaze at or talk to her at breakfast, your sex isn’t good—her screaming and sweating notwithstanding.
Emotional Insulation
We live in a detached, desensitized world, as evidenced by the plethora of voicemails, text messages, IMs, and e-mails dominating our lives. The art of, like, intelligent conversation has, like, you know, vanished. Moreover, we have become a hostile society, where, without shame or remorse, people—even kids in elementary school—post embarrassing photos and libelous comments about each other on the Internet.
It is no wonder, then, that people navigate and survive their relationships using this mantra: Avoid intimate connection at all costs. To wit: How often have you received an e-mail from—or sent an e-mail to—a paramour addressed to “hey” … or addressed to nobody? To include the recipient’s name in the greeting is the sender’s way of communicating warmth and intimacy. Not to include it is to communicate coldness and avoidance, and to insult the receiver. Yet, most people ignore this common courtesy—a sign of our detached, desensitized times.
Wearing layers of emotional insulation prevents people from knowing or feeling the difference between a true sexual connection and what occurs between two hissing, screaming cats outside the bedroom window. And, this ignorance is the greatest reason people callously treat each other like discardable newspapers. It also gives them the power not to feel anything—to shut down, withdraw, cheat, and split. How convenient and tidy.
Women, we were socialized to believe, are nurturing, emotive, hugging, kissing, cuddling, attentive angels, while men are uncaring, cold, closed, distant, unaffectionate troglodytes. This is a HUGE lie. Gender doesn’t determine one’s generous nature; upbringing and attitude do. When I meet a nurturing, emotive woman, I know she is an exception—not the norm.
Most women, especially American women, are raised to be selfish takers. The paucity of women in bars buying drinks for men proves my point exactly, as does the female-centric emphasis of Valentine’s Day. It is impossible to have good sex with a taker. But, so many men feel “lucky” to have sex that they’re blind to, or don’t care about, this critical rule of life.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Watch a batter approach homeplate at the next baseball game. He’ll execute an autopilot ritual of settling in before facing the pitcher: big swings with the bat, digging into a comfortable foot position, spitting, and maybe grabbing his crotch. In fact, he performs this repeatable, predictable ritual regardless of venue, time of day, or opponent.
More likely than not, you are the same way in relationships: Without thinking, you execute a repeatable, predictable mating ritual, regardless of venue, time of day, or “opponent.” Such patterned behavior will draw you towards mates with similar flaws—especially selfishness—and then lead you to endure those familiar grooves, ruts, frustrations, resentments, and dynamics. What you may not realize is that your autopilot behavior will prevent you from establishing a solid emotional connection with any paramour. Bad blood, yes; good sex, no.
To engage in the self-delusion that loud sex with a lousy partner is tantamount to good sex merely prolongs your agony—and is a compound error. If your relationship contains bad blood, end the delusion and get a transfusion. Only with a good partner will you experience good sex.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Whether a man purchases sex on a date, in marriage, or through an escort service, the dispensing woman is a prostitute, a merchant. Ashley Youmans, aka Ashley Alexandra Dupré, aka Kristen — famous whore of Eliot Spitzer — earns between $3K to $5K per hour spreading her legs. Heather Mills McCartney, while married to Sir Paul, earned $33,562 per day spreading her legs. Had Heather collected the $250M divorce settlement she was seeking, instead of the $49M she got, her daily fee would have tallied $171K! Poor tramp will have to make do with the lower sum. So, if merchant Kristen can turn six tricks per day, at her highest fee, she can join merchant Heather’s league: The Merchant Maureens.
Is your woman a Merchant Maureen? If so, don’t forget one minor detail: you recruited her. Why? Because you don’t know how to sail your ship in her waters without paying a fee. You didn’t even know that it’s possible. You assume that bribing your way through her canal is the rule. She knows that about you and charges accordingly, based on the value of your cargo.
You cannot claim shock and awe at her mercenary behavior. She signaled it in your first conversation — right about the time you bragged about your luxury car (your cargo) and offered to buy her something or take her somewhere. Dummy. In tennis, the first time you display a weak backhand, your opponent begins hitting lots of shots to your backhand. Duh! Likewise, Merchant Maureens sense your manhood insecurity — money is your manhood — and sell sex to you, charging you for passage. And, once you acquiesce to this prostitution, you’re booked and hooked — forever.
Learned Behavior
Men learn this behavior in childhood. Every time a female teacher is caught having sex with a male student, most people think the boy is “lucky” to get laid. Yet, when a male teacher is in the same situation with a female student, she’s a victim (the favorite female word), and he’s a predator — a perverse double standard. What happens if the female teacher spreads an STD to the boy or gets pregnant? His life is ruined. But, nobody cares — he’s a male; he’s disposable.
Society has total disregard for the psychological pains of boys and doesn’t even think boys feel anything at all. Boys are children, not adults. Such an attitude is precisely why men behave as Eliot Spitzer did — with self-loathing and immaturity about women and sex. Boys who feel “lucky” to get laid grow up with low self-esteem and become men who feel “lucky” — and will pay any price — to get laid. That’s why men are attracted to Merchant Maureens, why Merchant Maureens exist.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I receive dozens of e-mails every day from men whose lives have been ruined by Merchant Maureens. These men all say the same thing: “Marc, if I had known about you 20 years ago, I wouldn’t be in this mess.” We all learn tough lessons. But, what amazes me is the number of men, in 2008, who will ignore the severe weather warnings of the high seas — will put their fortunes and careers on the line — to pursue the Heathers and Kristens of this world, to recruit Merchant Maureens.
If parents don’t start imbuing their sons with self-respect and educating them about women — instead of perpetuating the lie from their own lives about female sexuality — boys and men will know women only as whores and will continue buying drinks, dinners, jewelry, vacations, cars, and houses for sex that should be free. When men and women respect and like each other, sex is never about money.
They won’t admit it, but many parents are raising future Kristens and Heathers — Merchant Maureens — to scour the globe in search of self-loathing, insecure men who will finance their lifestyles. We all see this happening, even in the homes of our best friends. Merchant Maureens are everywhere, as present in escort services as they are during ladies’ night at your local pub. The question is, Will YOU be recruiting them?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
A man’s sophistication about women is inversely proportional to the size of his sex budget: the more he disburses, the less he knows. Whether he spends lavishly for sex on his girlfriend, mistress, wife, or prostitute, his mere purchasing of sex is proof of ignorance about the female libido. Given what we’ve learned about the magnitude, complexity, and logistical deployment of Eliot Spitzer’s sex budget, it’s clear that the ex-governor of New York is sexually naïve.
I got my first clue about Mr. Spitzer when he resigned publicly and tragically, on March 12, 2008, from the governorship. He displayed no emotion whatsoever. All that he had built, personally and professionally, was in tatters. Yet, with his disgraced wife by his side, cold as stone, he informed the world that he would step down from office. Contrast that with Brett Favre’s 20 minutes of blubbering while resigning from professional football just the week before. I’m not saying that Eliot Spitzer should have wailed uncontrollably like that — thank you for sparing us — but, to show zero emotion suggests, in fact defines, repression.
Why Eliot Spitzer saw infidelity as his only solution to sexual gratification is anyone’s guess. Perhaps his wife no longer satisfied him. Perhaps, like many men, Spitzer suffered from the Madonna-whore complex, where a man is unable to view his post-childbirth wife as a sexual being. Actually, I don’t know or care why he chose to stray. In my view, if any aspect of one’s marriage breaks down, he should fix it. If that becomes impossible, he should end the marriage, not betray it. But, if a man sees cheating as his only option, his style of pursuing sexual conquests implies much about his view of himself, of women, and of sex.
Positions of Servitude
In Under the Clitoral Hood, I teach that women are more sexual than men — and that men needn’t ever pay for sex. Men who pay for sex never learned this fact of life. Why? They were raised with immature, idealized, glorified views of women, and to believe that men are more sexual than women (a lie). They put women on pedestals and never know them — in fact, are unable to know them — as peers. Such men find highly sexual women threatening and won’t get involved with or marry them. Instead, they will marry sexually bland, virgin-like women — perfect as controllable moms and wives — while pursuing hot extramarital sex. This behavior is a sign of deep insecurity.
Observe some men around women, and you will notice puerile, sycophantic, deferential behavior. Always from positions of servitude, their pickup lines are in the vein of What can I buy you? Where can I take you? How can I make you happy? They would — and do — crawl through fire and broken glass, and pay any price, to get laid. Pathetic. The more money a man is willing to pay a woman for sex, and the more he brags to her about his possessions, the less he values himself.
Eliot Spitzer — real-estate scion, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, Manhattan district attorney, New York attorney general, New York governor — has to pay to get laid, with hookers and wire transfers? Give me a break! Nonsense. Women throw themselves at desirable men. Women are dying to get laid. Do you think they buy vibrators to mix concrete?
Given that, according to Susan Shapiro Barash, more than 60% of married women cheat on their husbands, Mr. Spitzer could have found many discreet, high-profile, unhappily married female counterparts for his trysts. Furthermore, these unfaithful women, who are hornier than the men they find, are not paying for sex! Let this be a lesson, gentlemen. Instead of hooking up with one of them, Spitzer chose high-risk, high-priced, low-esteem sex from whores. How sad. It’s bad enough that he devalued his marriage by cheating. But, he compounded that devaluation by unnecessarily enriching his female accomplices.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
A man who truly understands the power of the female libido pays nothing to get laid, ever. Eliot Spitzer, by purchasing sex, proved he doesn’t understand the female libido and has low self-esteem. As a result, he destroyed a career, a family, and many friendships.
Eliot Spitzer humiliated himself at that news conference on March 12th, when he resigned as governor of New York. But, prior to that fateful day, Eliot Spitzer did something worse: he humiliated himself every time he paid for sex — and that is his lesson for every man.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychiatrist and contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, was, by most accounts, the first to associate birth order with personality. In 2007, Time magazine devoted an article, “The Power of Birth Order,” to this subject. One cannot choose the pecking order within his family — his parents do that — but, in a romantic relationship, he can. Relationship ranking, like family ranking, affects one’s personality and demeanor. Why, then, do so many men choose relationships in which they won’t be numero uno?
The simple answer is, these men don’t feel worthy of being top dogs and, therefore, don’t insist on supreme ranking when choosing their girlfriends and wives. Worse, they don’t even think they’re permitted to demand it.
In the past two weeks, I had separate conversations on this subject with a man and a woman, each romantically involved with a parent of children who are his or her top priority. My question to each was, If you want to be #1 in your paramour’s life, why did you choose one who cannot or will not treat you that way? This query hit them like a hammer between the eyes, forcing each to examine his self-worth and choices.
The aforementioned man, like so many people I’ve met, told me that a chief reason he fell in love with his girlfriend is that she’s such a great mother, and he admires her for that. My response: “Terrific! What does her motherly devotion have to do with you?” Of course, the answer is absolutely nothing. I saw an expression on his face redolent of someone just zonked on the head with a can of V-8. In other words, he was thinking, That’s right! It has nothing to do with me. Why did I choose her?
Cut Those Umbilical Cords
To be fair, I’ve met or encountered just as many women who fell in love with men because they are good fathers or good sons. And, I asked them, What does this have to do with you? Same answer: absolutely nothing. Never equate a good father or son or mother or daughter with being a good boyfriend or husband or girlfriend or wife.
In fact, I assert that a woman overly devoted to her children or parents will be a terrible girlfriend or wife. Now, if she is a bad mother, you don’t want her, either. Part of being a good mother, though, is teaching her children to become independent and to respect her private life. If she refuses to impart this to her children, she is doing them — and herself — a disservice; she is the kind of woman you must avoid. The only reason to bring a woman into your life — and this is criticalto remember — is that she’ll be good for YOU.
How do you know what priority or ranking a woman places or will place on you? Ask her! If she says, “I’m sorry but my children must come first,” you know where you rank. If she often states, “I’d like to spend the weekend with you, but I have to help the kids with their homework,” she is giving you a low ranking. This does not make her a bad person; it makes her a bad girlfriend. If you ignore her honesty, don’t blame her down the road for making you second, third, or fourth in her life.
Alas, many of you will do just that. Your only choice is to walk away, to find another woman. If being first is important to you, find a woman who can and will make you first. She must be able to separate motherhood from womanhood. She must be able to cut those umbilical cords, both upstream (with her parents) and downstream (with her children). If she can’t or won’t do that, she’ll be an endless source of frustration to you. By the same token, if you can’t cut your umbilical cords, you’ll be a terrible boyfriend or husband.
If you choose to get involved with a woman who can’t or won’t make you #1, it means you place a low value on yourself, your wishes, and your needs. To rationalize her inadequate, unsatisfying devotion to you with thoughts of accommodation, compromise, being a good guy, and admiration of her mothering skills is to reduce your own importance, significance, relevance, and ranking. It means, with all honesty, that your esteem tank is low. It’s that simple.
Nobody forced you to be with the woman in your life. Ultimately, if she accords you a low ranking, you’ll harbor feelings of resentment and self-loathing. Why hurt yourself that way? Perhaps, based on your upbringing, you think this is what a relationship is supposed to be. If you want to be depressed, it’s easier and cheaper to buy season tickets for the San Francisco Giants.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
I am a big advocate of communication. It bewilders me how many men and women don’t or won’t or can’t talk to each other about critical issues — money, equality, birth control, unintended pregnancies, intended pregnancies, sexual styles and appetites, and relationship ranking. And, then, they are “astounded” in a few months or years to discover infidelity, abandonment, or divorce petitions. Why?
Nothing in your relationship ever should be a surprise — if you are paying attention, expressing your wishes, receiving reciprocal communication, and compatible with your partner.
To be number one is to be the most-important person in your partner’s life. It is not to be more important than your partner. Critical distinction. It is not selfish to want to be your partner’s numero uno; it is essential. Why else have a partner? When you live alone, you are number one in the house, and it feels great. Why, then, elect to become anything else but first?
Today’s kids don’t know their place. Why? Because too many parents put kids above each other, and everything else. Moreover, female-ly courts require that children and mothers come first; that’s why the entitled generation of “millennials” exists.
Men and fathers aren’t on the radar screens of any politicians or any legislation; so, they already have two strikes against them. Becoming involved with a woman who placed her kids above her ex-husband and everything else, therefore, is an automatic strikeout — because she’ll do the same thing to you. Moronic masochism. You’d be amazed how many men willingly sign up for that.
If you’re in a relationship with a woman, are you her number one? If not, you’re number two — and that stinks.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
About 10 years ago, I drove for two hours to pay my daughters a surprise visit at their summer camp. Almost nothing was better than seeing their smiling faces every time we “visited” each other (moms don’t visit their children). When I arrived, I went immediately to see the camp director. I told him that, as a divorced father, I missed my girls very much and wanted to have a quick visit with them, even take them out to lunch. He told me he would have to get “permission” from their mother. Permission to see my own kids? He placed a call to my ex but couldn’t locate her. I felt lower than dirt but refused to leave the premises without seeing my girls. Ultimately, I prevailed. I then asked Herr Director if he could imagine how humiliating that whole exchange had been for me. He admitted, with awkwardness, that he couldn’t. Would he have treated a mother similarly? Never. In America’s eyes, mothers are noble; fathers are trivial.
My painful experience epitomizes what millions of fathers face every day — in 2008 — in custody and visitation conflicts, despite the feminist stereotype, which the media willingly perpetuate, that men are uncaring, aloof, incompetent parents. Simply put, America moronizes and marginalizes men. Nowhere is this more obvious and symbolic than in TV commercials, as I explained in “Misandry on Madison Avenue.” Many married and never-married men don’t grasp this reality, even reject it. It pains me every time men laugh at father-bashing TV commercials. In an ironic turnabout, however, their perspectives change, almost overnight, when they get divorced and face custody battles of their own.
Given the 50% divorce rate and 40% — and rapidly growing — out-of-wedlock birthrate, men get the short end of the financial stick. But, mysteriously, they keep electing and reelecting the politicians who stick it to them. Men must end this self-defeating behavior by demanding representation to justify the enormous taxation.
Isn’t it time to have a Boston Tea Party for Men? You bet it is. The original Boston Tea Party, in 1773, was a protest over the Stamp Act, which required Colonists to pay tariffs to the Crown without any representation in Parliament. Well, 235 years later, American men are getting stampeded, ignored, stripped of rights, and required to pay gynotariffs (alimony, child support for maternity and paternity fraud, ex-wives’ attorneys’ fees, financial support of anti-male legislation and organizations, etc.) — without political representation in any local, state, or federal branch of government.
Men comprise 46%, or 117.3M, of the electorate. Yet, the Republicans — ironically, most of them fathers — don’t give a damn about men’s civil and parental rights. Republicans ignore, in fact snub, men. Have you ever heard a Republican decry the presumed guilt of the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, or the presumed innocence of their unprosecuted accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum? Of course not — even though a false rape accusation is a crime. Had these Duke boys not been from families of means, able to expose the female bias in our so-called justice system, they would have sat in prison for years. Last week, a California judge, following the California Supreme Court’s ruling, ordered Tyna Marie Robertson to pay Michael Flatley $11M because she falsely accused the Riverdancer of rape and attempted to extort money from him. Again, had Flatley not been a man of means, he would have been unable to expose the female bias in our so-called justice system. How many Republicans have condemned this female bias?
Henpecked Mamas’ Boys
On January 3, 2008, Iowans will determine whether Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, or Romney is the best candidate to face the victorious Gynocrat, with all likelihood Hillary Clinton, in November 2008. On what basis will these voters make their choice? I have no idea. They watch, with fatigue, as the Republicans bash each other over regurgitated issues: who’s most Christian, who’s most Reaganesque, taxes, fiscal restraint, border enforcement, education, crime, abortion, healthcare, illegal immigration, terrorism, yada, yada, yada. Yet, there’s a perennially untouched issue — vital to the fabric of our society — that these gutless, henpecked mamas’ boys feel is too taboo to acknowledge, let alone discuss: men’s rights.
Imagine presidential candidates having the audacity to claim pro-family credentials while completely ignoring men. I fully expect the Gynocrats — Clinton, Edwards, and Obama — to snub men. It’s what they do. A gynocracy can’t thrive without Gynocrats, who blindly, reflexively, and unilaterally support women. It’s no secret that the Gynocrats are beholden to the feminists at NOW. But, what shocks me is that the Republicans, who always promise to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, are AWOL during any constitutional argument about men.
By sidestepping the 14th Amendment, which provides for equal protection under the law (meaning that no group can be preferred over another group), henpecked Republican legislators, judges, justices, and presidents have allowed anti-male, pro-female laws — such as Roe v. Wade and VAWA — to exist and flourish. For example, the Department of Justice runs the Office on Violence Against Women, with an annual budget of $400M — even though studies from Harvard Medical School and numerous other organizations show that women cause at least 50% of domestic violence. Where’s the justice here? When it comes to women, men in government ignore the Constitution. Consequently, the entire judicial system has morphed into a gynojudicial system. Instead of representing the unbiased moral underpinning of America’s legal system, Lady Justice — reconstituted as Lady GynoJustice — now rules it.
How did this happen? Easy. Most men — including Congressmen — defer to women, especially since 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision. Republicans talk tough about dealing with illegal aliens but pathetically shrink in the presence of their wives and girlfriends. To wit: In a recent appearance on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto, I debated Lis Wiehlabout why women feel entitled to receive nice Christmas gifts, while men feel “lucky” to get them. If a man’s inclination is to purchase his wife’s happiness, silence, and affection, why wouldn’t he do likewise for his female constituents, and NOW’s radical feminists, by endorsing unconstitutional Senate bills like VAWA reauthorization?
A mama’s boy moves through adolescence and then to adulthood and into his occupation believing that women are superior beings. That insecurity dominates his every thought, activity, and decision. So, it should not be too difficult, then, to fathom why the typical Republican can’t stand up to women: his back aches from placing so many of them on pedestals. The result of male politicians constantly and obsequiously currying favor with women — either to assuage their own male guilt or to collect votes, or both — is that the USA has become a gynocracy, its flag flapping proudly in the deferential breeze atop state and federal buildings all across America.
Romney’s True Colors
Two weeks ago, I published “How Mitt Can Beat Rudy,” a blueprint for Mitt Romney to differentiate himself from Rudy Giuliani and rise above the Republican pack by becoming the only candidate to champion fathers’ rights. I made sure he received this article. No feedback. Now, I know why. On December 23rd, Romney showed his true colors on a campaign stop at Nonni’s Italian Eatery in Hillsborough, NH, where a well-placed contact initiated the following exchange:
To Mitt Romney: “It’s been widely reported that the candidate leading the race for the presidency of the United States is a spousal abuser. Numerous reputable sources have reported that Hillary Clinton has thrown lamps, ash trays, and other objects at her husband’s head, and that he has been injured by his wife in domestic disputes.
“In addition, a New Mexico judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman, based on a woman’s claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic-violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly, with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial oversight is practiced in many states.
“Will you pledge to oppose reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and similar domestic-violence legislation without provisions to prevent the issuance of restraining orders based on false claims?”
Romney said he wouldn’t and then asked the questioner what he’d do about it. Answer: “I’d veto further VAWA and VAWA-related legislation unless it: 1) incorporates provisions and funding to address the way in which false claims are being used to exploit the legislation, and 2) is reformed and funded to reflect the well-documented female commission of domestic violence at higher rates than men.”
According to the account, Mitt Romney got bored, started looking around the room, and, while walking away, said: “False accusations; that’s tough.”
“False accusations; that’s tough.” This is Mitt Romney’s answer? It’s insulting … and revealing. A false accusation is a crime. Did Romney not learn this at Harvard Law School? Did he not enforce it as governor of Massachusetts? His response was akin to saying: “Men should just take abuse and get over it.” Now, if one of Romney’s sons gets nailed with a false rape accusation, I’ll bet he’ll change his I-don’t-care-about-men tune in a heartbeat. The sad part is that Romney’s rivals are no better. So, any American man who believes he has representation in exchange for his taxation is a naive fool.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
The Iowa caucus is just days away now. It’s too late to force the Republicans to address men’s rights in the Hawkeye State. But the Boston Tea Party for Men must start immediately thereafter. The era of taxation without representation is over. While throwing tea into Boston Harbor isn’t the solution, in 2008, throwing down the men’s rights gauntlet is the solution. Republicans must be forced to understand that no support of men means no votes from men.
My recommendation: overload the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romeny with e-mails, letters, and calls. And, because Fox News Channel is the only network of real influence in American politics, make your feelings known to yourcomments@foxnews.com. Encourage FNC to dog and dog and dog the Republicans, stick microphones in their faces, and compel them to articulate their stances on men’s rights. Impotent, cavalier answers like Romney’s are totally unacceptable.
Unless men mimic the tactics of feminists, they won’t create the swath of feminists. By remaining silent, men will see the gutless GOP continue to snub them, the gynocratic flag continue to fly, and Lady GynoJustice continue to rule. Instead, invite the Republicans to The Boston Tea Party for Men. Attendance is mandatory. We’ll be holding the Oval Office raffle there.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Periodically, I see an article about teen girls “surviving” after terminating their relationships with abusive boyfriends. A good example is one that appeared on 12.12.07 in the San Jose Mercury News. Not one word about why the girl entered the bad relationship, why she found her boyfriend’s abusive behavior attractive, and why she went back to him after breaking it off. No, the only message is: boys are controlling villains; girls are passive victims. And, that’s why teen girls learn nothing from such articles — namely, why they seek abuse in the first place.
Laying the blame for women’s ills at the doorstep of men is a familiar, counterproductive tool of feminism. Quite simply, a girl who is attracted to a controlling boyfriend is looking for something: control. She wants to be controlled. She is weak and insecure. The kind of boy attracted to her passivity and diffidence is also weak; that’s why he wants to control her. They are matching puzzle pieces. The need to control another person, or to be controlled by another person, is born from insecurity — the acorn that produces the oak of abuse.
Three strong factors contribute to a girl’s attitude about the role of men in her life: societal messages about males, her father’s power in the family, and her definition of self-worth. Interestingly, a girl who concludes, based on these three factors, that men are weak servants, will either repeat her mother’s domineering pattern of pairing up with a weak man or hunger for a controlling one — polar-opposite reactions, neither healthy, that we see all the time.
Empowerment
Society blasts girls with messages of misandry. One from a Sony TV commercial shows the father as a horse’s ass. Another from the Washington Post, in a comic strip, depicts the father as a buffoon. How about Littlewood’s, a British retailer, running a TV commercial that promises physical harm to any man who buys a woman the wrong Christmas gift? These messages of hatred affect how girls, in childhood and adolescence, perceive men and boys. If no forces exist at home or in school to counter such misandry, girls will accept it as reality. And, they do. They really do.
In a girl’s family, if her father is weak or noncustodial, or both, she will see her mother in total, albeit dysfunctional, control — giving her a distorted view of female power. It is common for that mother to badmouth the weak father — whether he is custodial or not. But, just because a girl views her father with contempt as a diminshed figure does not negate her need or desire for a strong man. It is natural for a girl to need a strong father. If her father is weak or not present, she will find his substitute somewhere. Alas, she doesn’t understand the real definition of strong. How could she? To her, controlling is strong.
In “If Women Were Happy,” I wrote that many girls are raised to believe that happiness is a goal, derived from externalities like clothing, jewelry, plastic surgery, money, and male attention. Parents who impart such disempowering messages to their daughters are ruining them. Happiness is not a goal; it’s a byproduct of personal achievement. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a woman exclaim: “I need you to buy me dinner, to hold doors for me, to treat me like a lady — because it makes me feel special and feminine.” How pathetic. If she doesn’t already feel special and feminine, there’s nothing I can do for her. A woman who has never treated a man to a night on the town, at her expense, at her insistence, doesn’t understand the meaning of giving, of empowerment. Insecure women, who define their femininity by how much they receive, are the ones most attracted to domineering men.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
A girl is totally responsible for the boys she attracts and the boys with whom she becomes involved. We have seen that exposing a girl to society’s negative messages about men, a weak father, and the lie of self-actualization through male attention is akin to implanting in her the acorn of insecurity, which easily can grow into the oak of abuse. If a girl pairs up with a controlling boy, it’s because she wants to be controlled. It’s that simple.
On the other hand, teaching a girl to be a strong, independent, empowered, financially reciprocating admirer of boys and men will help her attract, and be attracted to, boys and men who are likewise strong, independent, empowered, financially reciprocating admirers of girls and women. Nobody can be strong and a victim simultaneously.
The typical “victimhood” articles never discuss the root cause of why teen girls seek abuse in the first place. These articles are doing girls a giant disservice by not teaching them to take personal responsibility for their choices. Teen girls seek — and find — abuse because they’re weak and insecure, not because boys are bad. So, to give speeches and write articles about bad male behavior is disingenuous and unhelpful. It’s time for girls, parents, and the media to get it right.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
I am not against abortion, but I want our government to end women’s control of reproductive rights. Let’s be honest: the debate about pro-choice vs. pro-life is bogus; it’s really pro-woman vs. pro-fetus. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 gives women the exclusive, unilateral right to opt out of parenthood. According to the Constitution, men also have that right — the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment says so. Instead, The Roe v. Wade Tsunami, whose feminarcissist waves have washed over every aspect of American life, stipulates that a pregnant woman’s rights trump those of the man and the fetus. That’s a lot of unfettered power.
As I pointed out in “Playing Abortion Chess,” no Supreme Court nominee can survive the approval process without pledging allegiance to Roe v. Wade; no politician can get elected or reelected without declaring a position on abortion. One would conclude, therefore, that abortion is the #1 issue of women; yet, on average, 40%+ of American children are born out of wedlock. How can that be, if abortion is so important to women? Simple: abortion is not ultra-critical to women, but the NOW leaders wield it like a weapon to control the passing and funding of feminist legislation like VAWA and IMBRA. Ironically, when girls reach reproductive age, in states like California, they can legally get abortions behind their mothers’ backs. The Roe v. Wade Tsunami is so big that it both helps and supersedes women.
What are the long-term consequences of the Tsunami: every aspect of American life — from reproduction to child support/custody to divorce settlements to VAWA to presumption of innocence to political campaigns — revolves around women. The Tsunami has glorified motherhood and trivialized fatherhood, thereby eroding the shoals of men’s rights. Fathers have no rights during a pregnancy but financial obligations, with token rights, afterwards. Outrageous! Fetus ownership and financial obligation should be connected. If Roe v. Wade nullifies a man’s rights, it should likewise absolve him of responsibility. That is not the case, however. Women are allowed by law to engage in maternity fraud (lying about fertility) and paternity fraud (lying about the genetic father), forcing financial responsiblity on defrauded men.
The Silent Plurality
So, has any politician ever stepped up to right these wrongs? No way. And, that is why 117.3M men — 46% of the electorate — need an advocate. Who will fill this role? As of this writing, nobody.
A few days ago, I saw a fascinating documentary on the History Channel: 1968 by Tom Brokaw. Adapted from his new book, Boom!: Voices of the Sixties; Personal Reflections on the ’60s and Today, this two-hour program showed in vivid detail the pivotal power in American history of that tumultuous year. Two contradictory items jumped out at me: Nixon identifying and capitalizing on the silent majority; vocal women’s liberation. Nixon and his team figured out that many voiceless blue-collar whites were fed up with street violence, campus unrest, and the impotent Democrats. He reached out to them and won the election. At the same time, vociferous, placard-carrying women were marching in the streets, burning their bras, demanding equality. Today, they have more rights than men, who remain silent.
Today’s men, the silent plurality, should not expect any of the current candidates to emulate Nixon’s power of perception, to figure out their needs — 40 years later. Conversely, they will have to mimic the tactics of women’s liberation: take it to the streets. This is the antithesis of how men behave, but the alternative is to continue doing nothing. We know where that will lead.
I am well aware of how this silent plurality feels. And, by the way, many women feel as the men do: that American society has turned its back on men. So, more than 117.3M voters are pining to return men to human status. Last week, I debated Lis Wiehl on my weekly appearance on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. The topic was “Misandry on Madison Avenue,” based on my article of the same name. The international audience witnessed two women — Lis Wiehl and substitute host Terry Keenan — snicker, condescend, and deride while I railed against the moronization and marginalization of men in TV commercials. To my surprise and delight, both the silent plurality and outraged women filled my mailbox with letters of support and condemnation of male-bashing. Because the presidential candidates are unaware of such sentiment — to their discredit — I will share two representative letters, one each from a man and woman:
From a Man:
I just saw you on Fox News on the piece regarding male-bashing commercials. How horrific that those two women laughed and then defended their laughing by saying that “paybacks” and the like were okay. I am so pissed off to see these bimbos flipping you off — because in doing so they perfectly represent the view of most modern American women: hatred for, or utility use of, men, and open-season on mocking.
You are 100% right. If it were women, the feminist groups would be coming out of the woodwork. I repeat, I am HORRIFIED to see how hypocritical these bimbo women were, but I fear their behavior was not unusual. Keep up the good work, and don’t back down for a minute. There are many of us men out there who need a voice.
From a Woman:
Your appearance on the Cavuto show caught my attention. Ms. Wiehl referenced ’70s and ’80s commercials and the myth of current women making less than men. These women whining about mistreatment of women on old commercials (I haven’t seen one in a long time) are laughing now at the same treatment of their male counterparts.
She was annoying and disingenuous. Thank you for standing up for dads and men in general who ARE being chickified, emasculated, and mocked constantly on commercials, sitcoms, and movies. I’m frankly sick of it, too.
Unmet Market Need
As first a management consultant and then founder of Bain Capital — which helped launch hundreds of companies including Staples, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority — Mitt Romney knew intimately the fundamental tenet of competition: identify an unmet market need, deliver a solution to fulfill that need, and then build an image as “the unique provider” of that solution.
Using the same savvy, CEO Romney, after three years of management, salvaged the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, erasing a $379M operating deficit while organizing 23,000 volunteers to run one of the most-successful Olympics in US history. Then, as two-term governor of Massachusetts, Romney transformed a $3B budget deficit into surpluses and attracted 60,000 new jobs.
It is a mystery to me, given Mitt Romney’s savvy, that he is missing this huge unserved market: men. One can feel the anger and frustration in the letters above from those two Cavuto viewers. Why does Romney ignore this enormous bloc of 117.3M voters? In “Hillary Cannot Be President,” I opined that the Feminist-in-Chief neglects men because she has disdain for them. That’s an easy one; I get that. But, I fail to understand why the Republican candidates are so vaginized to purposely slight their own gender. This presents an opportunity for Mitt Romney.
What are the needs of men? For starters, they want to eradicate the reproductive, custody, paternity, alimony, child-support, and homestead advantages that women currently have, that previous male politicians handed to them. Men want to see the next Crystal Gail Mangum, who falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape, sent to prison for the same amount of time that a rapist would serve. They want recognition that women are as abusive or more abusive than men — something that Senator Joe Biden, father of VAWA, fails to mention as he vilifies men at every turn.
Which candidate has identified this unmet market need and proposed a unique solution? Not a one. The Gynocrats — Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich — are falling all over themselves to redistribute wealth from rich to poor and from men to women. And, they are promising to redistribute more civil and criminal rights from men to women, too. Check out their Websites: each one has a “women’s program.” Not one mentions the plight of fathers fighting for custody of their children. These Gynocrats are all about women, 24/7; they don’t represent men.
The Republican contest, unfortunately, has devolved into bickering about whether waterboarding is torture, who’s the most Christian (or the legitimate Christian), and whose state (or estate) employs the most illegal aliens. All the while, the needs of 117.3M men — a topic never broached by any news network, any print publication, or any debate moderator, or incorporated into any candidate’s platform — are languishing, unaddressed. The Mitt Romney behind Staples didn’t ignore or fail to notice unmet market needs. Why is that same Mitt Romney, the man who prides himself on having a loving, cohesive family, ignoring this unmet market need? Is it because serving, let alone acknowledging, American men is politically incorrect? Pretending that men don’t exist, even by a father of sons, is standard operating procedure in US politics.
Differentiation Is Key
Disregarding 46% of the electorate is a huge strategic blunder. Nobody can legitimately claim to be pro-family without supporting fathers. Yet, that’s precisely what is happening in America. In “And Dad Is Uranus,” I explained that pro-family in today’s feminist parlance means pro-single-mother — another consequence of The Roe v. Wade Tsunami. Accordingly, many men can’t decide which candidate to support. The vaginized ones don’t even care, but it’s time for the real men to draw a line in the sand, to force candidates to address their needs. As far as I’m concerned, any man who casts a vote for a candidate indifferent to him is a self-hating eunuch.
Without exploiting this unmet market need — men’s rights — Mitt Romney is just another undifferentiated candidate who struggles to stand out. Frankly, differentiation in this field of similar candidates ain’t that easy. So, Romney has been outspending his Republican rivals to increase his exposure. On the other hand, by hardly spending any money, the folksy, likable Huckabee is, at this writing, ahead in the Iowa polls. The former Arkansas governor has defined himself by his religious beliefs, while Romney has publicly compartmentalized his. Concurrently, Rudy Giuliani, the only “pro-choice” Republican, is riding his reputation as “America’s mayor,” based on his calming, take-charge performance during and after the 9/11 attack on New York City.
What do Steve Jobs, Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Michael Crichton, and Tiger Woods have in common? They’ve all differentiated and distinguished themselves as singular entities. When visualizing any of them, you can, effortlessly, separate him from his competitors. That’s because these people did the differentiation work for you. Likewise, Mitt Romney can rise above the white noise — to differentiate and distinguish himself as a singular entity — by championing men’s rights. The good news: his rivals will not emulate him.
Romney eloquently defended his faith; he can do likewise for fathers. Otherwise, he will be relatively indistinguishable as one of many, forcing voters to choose based on brand awareness: Rudy Giuliani. As an ex-Bain management consultant, Romney knows that’s an impotent strategy.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
On election day, trying to objectively distinguish one Republican candidate from the other will become an exercise in murky futility. Any man who votes for a Gynocrat will be engaging in self-castration. If you think America is a gynocracy now, imagine Hillary as president. If that doesn’t cause shrinkage, nothing will. So, the only choice for men is a Republican. The question is, which one? It must be the one who supports men. Alas, that candidate doesn’t exist. But, it could be Mitt Romney — if he “gets it” in time.
Just as when consumers purchase products, in situations where all seem alike, they usually go with the safe choice: the known, trusted brand. Giuliani is the known, trusted brand, but he doesn’t represent men. Giuliani is “pro-choice,” which means he is pro-woman, and he will not be a president who equalizes rights between the genders. If Romney doesn’t differentiate himself from Giuliani, by promising to end government-sponsored misandry, he has little chance to beat him.
And, that is why becoming the man’s advocate — promising true gender equality — will clearly separate, distinguish, and differentiate Mitt Romney from the nebulous pack. Such a departure from the status quo will completely change the campaign dynamics and momentum — enabling Romney to redefine himself, stop defending his Mormon faith, and return to his strength: identifying an unmet market need, delivering a solution to fulfill that need, and then building an image as “the unique provider” of that solution. In essence, it is how Mitt can beat Rudy.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Unlike gender-blind wealth and life destroyers — alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, and catastrophic illness — divorce will disproportionately eviscerate the wallets, parental power, and dignity of men. Because family courts (I call them female-ly courts) generally favor women, who have overwhelmingly unfair reproductive, custody, paternity, alimony, child-support, and homestead advantages, a man’s biggest nightmare is becoming the respondent in a divorce, especially in January.
If your marriage is already teetering when December arrives, it’s time to beware the January divorce. By the Sunday of the Super Bowl, there’s a high probability that your wife will have served you divorce papers. That’s right: women bring 70% of divorce actions, to improve their odds of taking the kids and the houses.
Starting at Thanksgiving and ending on New Year’s Eve, a husband and wife whose marriage has gone flat like bad champagne typically act out an “everything’s just fine” charade for their friends, their kids, their respective families, and themselves.
Sometimes, the charading couple naively hopes that the celebrations and festivities will revive happiness of yore. Sometimes, in deceit, the wife will tell her husband that she’s happy while secretly plotting a divorce. Whatever the case, when the ball drops in Times Square, at least one of them knows that the era of their marriage is about to end.
Divorce Season
If women cared so much about marriage and family, as they always claim when you meet them, they would lobby their elected representatives to equalize the reproductive, custody, homestead, paternity, and child-support laws. Have you ever seen this happen? Never. Have you ever heard a politician promise to make this happen? Never. Women benefit from divorce, and that’s why they are happy with the anti-male status quo.
Divorce lawyers will tell you that their phones ring more during the first week of January than at any other time during the year. Affectionately known as divorce season, January is a fitting time for a marriage’s termination, considering its etymology. It is named for Janus — the Roman god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings, and endings — who has two opposite-looking faces for simultaneously seeing the past and the future.
A man must steel — and prepare — himself for the January divorce. Imagine how it feels for an NFL quarterback to be broadsided and sacked by the opponent’s middle linebacker. Not so good, judging by the grimace on his face and the discernable limp in his gait. That’s what it feels like, emotionally and financially, to be caught unawares when a server hands you divorce papers. Don’t wait for that to happen. Get legal and financial help, now!
The Ostrich Routine
There’s no reason to be broadsided by divorce in cold January. Instead, become like Janus — in September. Look at your marriage’s recent past and decide whether it really has a future. If not, begin the exit process as soon as possible. Don’t be passive, don’t be chivalrous, don’t be a victim, and don’t engage in self-delusion. Protect yourself.
After summer vacation ends and the kids return to school, that’s when you truly know whether your marriage will last. And, that’s when you should start talking to a lawyer and an accountant. Marriage is a corporation; you, the man, are the minority shareholder. And, the more children you have, the more your minority share dwindles. Don’t compound your male disadvantage by stalling. Stay proactive.
If you pull the ostrich routine, September will quickly turn into December, and your wife will divorce you in January. She has access to Janus, too. She’s also looking behind and ahead. She wants those kids and that house — and your cash. If you are passive, she will strike first and dictate the terms and timing of your demise. She will boot you out in the cold. Ask any divorce lawyer: January is divorce month. Is that what you want?
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Nobody wants to go through a divorce. It’s a mess for the whole family, the extended families, and all the friends — who eventually will divide into his and hers camps. But, if divorce is inevitable, fight it like a war: on the offensive, on her territory, when you are prepared. I know it sounds harsh, but the alternative is obvious, isn’t it? Isn’t it?
Remember: If your marriage is dead and you haven’t filed for divorce by Halloween, and she, for some reason, doesn’t file in January, you then must confront Valentine’s Day and, two months hence, tax day — as an unhappily married couple. How much chill and self-imposed torture can you endure?
Instead, ring in the new year with good friends, have fun on the slopes, watch the Super Bowl in peace, and file your taxes as a single man — all possible when you beware, and avoid, the January divorce. To avoid divorce in the other 11 months, with complete certitude, never marry in the first place.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
There’s a bottom-line question every man must ask himself about the woman in his life: Does she view me as a phallus or a trailer hitch? If you’re on the fence about it, allow me to suggest a test query: Will she be in your bed tomorrow if you stop wining & dining her? Now, if you stop having sex with her and she remains in your bed, it means, Mr. Trailer Hitch, that her phallus sleeps across town.
When you began dating her, you acted like a trailer hitch, bragged about being a good trailer hitch — showing her photos of your cars, plane, yacht, summer home, ski chalet, and private jet — and now you’re shocked to realize that she’s been along for the financial ride from the start? Didn’t you see the dollar signs in her eyes? Give me a break. As I explained in my book, Under the Clitoral Hood, women are aroused by men, not money. Never mistake avarice for arousal.
How many times have I heard women proclaim themselves strong, tough, and smart — and not in need of men’s money — only to admit a few breaths later that they are receiving alimony? More than I can count. Perhaps that’s why so many of them carry Louis Vuitton bags: they need space, expensive space, to hold all their double standards.
The Greater Good
There exists no better example of a woman hitching herself to a man for a financial ride than Heather Mills, soon-to-be-ex-wife of former Beatle Paul McCartney. Heather wants $100M from Paul in a divorce settlement. She’s entitled to this much money why? And, to epitomize hypocrisy, Heather said the following to justify her avarice:
“Sadly, you have to mix at a certain level of people to raise the level of funds you need to bring about the greater good,” she said. “Because people are very snobby. These people who have lots of money, they’re either snobby or they’re stingy. If you have lots of money, you have to be stingy — because why would you want that amount of money?”
The greater good? Heather is referring to her own greater good and is, of course, totally full of it; everybody can see that. But, when you think about it, is Heather Mills that different from many women you enounter? Not really. It’s simply a matter of scale, determined by how much you earn. Heather Mills is greedy only because so many trailer hitches fuel her greed — in her social life as well as in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
When a woman at a bar expects you to purchase her drink, why is she behaving this way? Because she sees you as a trailer hitch. If you oblige her, she is correct. When a woman presumes that you’ll foot the bill for dinner, simply because she’s a woman, she sees you as a trailer hitch. And, if you choose to hook up, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself when your “travel expenses” escalate. The Estrogen Express is an expensive ride, but boarding it is a choice.
When you call AAA to pull your vehicle, you must pay for that haul. Why, then, does the typical man pay a woman to haul her? Because he’s insecure and knows nothing about the female libido. Wouldn’t AAA go bankrupt operating this way? Bingo. It’s no coincidence that marrying is called “getting hitched.”
How she sees you is directly connected to how you present yourself to her and what you’ll tolerate from her. So, are you her phallus or trailer hitch?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
