Many of you wonder why so many anti-male laws, like the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), sail through our legislatures and become enacted so easily by governors and presidents. Actually, there is little mystery involved — a pernicious double standard is at play.

I just received a disturbing videoclip from a female friend. It is circulating cyberspace as we speak and is intended as comedy. The “skit” in this videoclip, from British television, shows a woman assaulting a man and then making his demise appear to be his fault. For you law and law-enforcement students, this videoclip is a textbook enactment of a fraudulent 911 call.

It sickens me that so many people deem women hurting men to be funny. To my chagrin, the female sender of this videoclip prefaced her e-mail with “Please watch this. It’s very funny.” Then, I jumped all over her in protest. Only because of my reaction, she now sees it differently. Her visceral response to the clip, though, speaks volumes and represents most of America. Can you imagine an analogous skit, roles reversed: a man striking a woman followed by audience laughter? Not in a million years.

Lawmakers, policemen, judges, DAs, governors, presidents, and TV producers don’t take female-on-male violence seriously, either. That’s why they refuse to believe that women commit 50% of domestic violence. That’s why our society marginalizes, ridicules, and demeans men. That’s why men are considered disposable, valueless, second-class citizens. That’s why women who confess to falsely (feloniously) accusing men of physical violence are never prosecuted. That’s why, in almost all domestic-violence and rape cases, men are unconstitutionally presumed guilty and forced to prove their innocence.

NOW (National Organization for Women) always teaches females how superior and virtuous they are. If that were true, how could they allow the destruction of men? Do NOW leaders not care about their brothers, fathers, husbands, boyfriends, and sons? Apparently not.

Over and over again, ad nauseam, women bemoan the death and dearth of chivalry — endlessly obsessed with taking, taking, taking. They will protest the depletion of the rainforests, which give them oxygen, but never the destruction of men, who give them children and money. I guess that’s because, without oxygen, they would be unable to take the childen and the money.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 29 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

My local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, today editorialized (CLICK HERE to see editorial) that, by defeating Proposition 85, the voters can allow the State of California to eclipse and usurp parental rights with governmental power and agencies.

Writes the Mercury News editor: If Californians want to reduce the number of girls who have abortions, then they should lend even stronger support to the public and private agencies working so hard to further reduce the number of teen pregnancies.

What about parents? This is pure socialism, even communism. In other words, parents are irrelevant. Appalled? Newspapers all over California support this left-wing view. Worse, a lot of liberal parents I know agree with this crap.

Proposition 85, up for vote on November 7, 2006, would preserve the inalienable right of parents to be notified when their minor daughters seek abortions. But, the far-left doesn’t like parents to be in charge. They want to defeat Proposition 85. Why? As I wrote in “Playing Abortion Chess,” abortion is the #1 issue of feminists. It keeps them in power. They don’t care about pregnant teenagers or their parents. They care about abortion.

If parents don’t maintain the right of notification — if they stupidly give it away — are they parents? No. They are liberal lemmings. The aim of socialism is to transfer power from individuals to the state. This is what’s happening in California. The “state” is taking over, and the people are allowing it to happen.

The people get only the government they deserve. The people get only the rights they fight for. What people become is a function of what they tolerate. Today’s liberal voters fight for nothing and tolerate everything, in the process marginalizing themselves and the rest of us.

When I give this more thought, the Proposition 85 fight exemplifies an underlying problem: many parents don’t want to be parents. Look around. How many times do you hear parents saying “no” to their whining brats? Rarely. They actually wish for the state to take over their jobs. Because an increasing number of homes are run by mothers, this attitude is a sign that women are the culprits. Pathetic.

If parents increasingly allow — no, ask — the government to fire them and subsume their roles, they will have nobody to blame but themselves. Imagine a day when the state permits “parents” to visit their offspring at official child centers. There will be a sign on the wall that reads: “Pay the child support at window #2. Move to the left. You have 25 minutes to view your child through the glass.”

Perhaps the Mercury News should invite Mikhail Gorbachev to write the op-ed piece. Time for a wake-up call from someone who knows.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 28 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Potent Feminist Weapon

In the Seinfeld episode called “The Couch,” there’s a famous scene in which Elaine and Jerry are sitting in Poppie’s restaurant, awaiting the duck Jerry ordered days in advance. Elaine expresses great anticipation about partaking of the vaunted fowl, while ever-cynical Jerry grumbles that he would be just as happy eating a Paccino’s pizza at home. In disgust, Elaine promptly announces her boycott of Paccino’s — because of its anti-abortion owner. To test Elaine’s policy, Jerry summons Poppie to their table to opine on the matter. Upon hearing Poppie vociferously denounce abortion, Elaine storms out of the restaurant, followed by the other outraged female patrons — with their annoyed husbands and boyfriends, still eating the meals they had purchased, in tow.

The imagery of this restaurant scene — strident feminists dictating the lives and destinies of men — is an accurate metaphor for life in the USA. And, no issue galvanizes feminists and gives them more power over men than abortion. Far more than a medical procedure, abortion is a potent feminist weapon in the political game of chess. Let me state for the record that I support abortion but reject “pro-choice,” a misnomer, as the way to characterize it.

Pro-choice is a politically correct, feminist term that really means pro-woman. It conveys upon women all reproductive rights and choices. The Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court gives women the exclusive power to opt out of parenthood. Accordingly, because Roe v. Wade violates the equal-protection clause of the US Constitution’s 14^th Amendment, the National Center for Men, on March 9, 2006, filed a lawsuit called Roe v. Wade for Men^TM — asking the federal government to recognize and uphold a man’s equal right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. The National Organization for Women (NOW), of course, immediately repudiated this lawsuit — equality for men is the last thing NOW wants.

In any American election, a politician must avow his “pro-choice” stance to get elected or reelected. A nominee to the US Supreme Court must articulate his acceptance and support of the Roe v. Wade decision, if he expects the US Senate to consent to his nomination and the feminists not to pillory him.

Then, there is the matter of parental notification in cases when pregnant minors seek to have abortions. As parents in many states have learned, if, through special elections or referenda, they demand such notification, NOW will fight them. State supreme courts, such as the one in California, have ruled that a girl’s right to privacy supersedes her parents’ right to be parents. Yet, this same minor needs her parents’ permission to take medication in school or to get her ears pierced. This insanity illustrates that it is abortion NOW cares about, not the lives or traumas or families of young, pregnant girls.

From the aforementioned Seinfeld episode, elections, Supreme Court nominations, and parental-notification battles, one might get the impression that: 1) feminists control the national agenda, 2) feminists speak for all women, and 3) abortion is the number-one issue for all women. Are these points true?

Let’s compare NOW bosses to union bosses, whose main agenda is job-preservation. Union bosses formerly controlled both the national agenda and the players. NOW still controls the national agenda and the players — it delivers female votes by scaring women and blackmailing “skeletons-in-the-closet” senators into passing anti-male legislation.

NOW leaders, like their union brethren, to this day wrongly believe that they speak for the rank and file. Hardly. If women were so fanatical about abortions, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would be zero, wouldn’t it? Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood — out of narcissism and for the child support.

The Road to Fraudulent Maternity

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 744,600 US abortions in 1973, 1.6 million in 1990 (the peak year), and 1.3 million in 2004. Yet, the US population rose 45% in that 31-year period, from 203 million to 294 million. The Brookings Institution claims that, in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrates were 24% and 3.1% for blacks and whites, respectively. Those figures grew by 1990 to 64% and 18%, respectively. Now, they are 70% and 35%, respectively. Abortions, relative to population growth, are decreasing, while illegitimate births are rising. Creating fatherless homes is trendy!

In the course of everyday life, tort laws provide remedies to protect us from those who would mislead and defraud us, such as unscrupulous bankers, retailers, realtors, car dealers, and contractors. If, however, a woman makes false claims about her fertility or use of birth control, tort law hides under the proverbial desk, with family courts offering men this warning: caveat fornicator.

For those who don’t grasp that, in the US, women own most of the civil rights, have little regard for men, and are likely to choose child support over abortion, allow me to expose their three-phase path to “legalized” fraudulent maternity. Yes, thanks to feminist sycophants, family courts everywhere permit and encourage women to become unwed mothers, and reward them — at the expense of men — for their irresponsible behavior, as follows:

Three “Twisted” Phases of Legalized Fraudulent Maternity

1. DisTORTION: twisting the facts of her fertility and use of birth control
2. ConTORTION: twisting her body into amazing positions during sex
3. ExTORTION: twisting his wallet through 18 years of child support.

Male Guilt

To fathom the genesis of American misandry, I look to Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Dr. Steele authored White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Steele claims that, because of history, whites are forever stigmatized as racists and accused of “blaming the victims” if they encourage blacks to engage in hard work, self-reliance, and moral responsibility. Because of “white guilt,” blacks continue to play victims, receive deferential treatment from whites, and make excuses for not growing.

Strident feminism has analogously stigmatized men, also effecting a destructive outcome: lawmakers, governors, presidents, judges, and jurists have “male guilt.” They erroneously view women as “victims,” defer to them, and tolerate their excuses for not growing — perpetuating the endless cycle of unwed motherhood and blaming men for their mistakes.

I fantasize about the governor of a prominent US state, pen in hand, in front of microphones, journalists, and cameras at this bill-signing ceremony:

“It is my honor to sign into law today the Responsible Mother Act of 2008. We are ending the disgraceful pandemic of fatherless homes and fraudulent maternity. From this day forward, unwed mothers-to-be have two choices: abortion, a critical female right, or raising and supporting their children alone without child support. Women choosing single motherhood will sign certificates of selfishness, a copy of which each child, upon attaining the age of 16, will receive. The era of rewarding miscreant moms for their irresponsibility, anti-male fraud, and selfishness is hereby terminated.”

When writing my book, I coined this marketing tagline: Life with her needn’t be an endless game of chess^TM. Originally, I meant it to warn men not to waste time and energy with women whose actions, words, and thoughts must be anticipated five iterations in advance. But, I now see another parallel. First, the objective of chess is to debilitate the king by cornering him and removing his options. Second, the queen is the most-powerful piece on the board. Third, the least-powerful pieces, the pawns, resemble children whom mothers bear and sacrifice solely to gain child support. It’s as if NOW invented chess!

NoNonsense Bottom Line

Abortion is a critical option to prevent unwanted children, ruined lives, and destroyed livelihoods. Yet, women do not universally use this option, as it is not their number-one issue — despite what NOW says. Not to worry: feminists created the child-support industry, too. They covered all the bases, but they never use child support as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Only abortion. When feminists claim to speak for all women, they are lying. Abortion, for the feminists, is a powerful means to checkmate men. It’s worked so far.

Before having sexual intercourse, men and women must discuss what they will do in the case of an unintended pregnancy. Keep in mind that the woman can lie in this discussion. If you don’t trust her answer, or if she desires to bear a child you don’t want, put your pants back on and leave.

When men gain the equal right to opt out of unintended pregnancies, women who unilaterally choose motherhood will become solely responsible for raising and supporting those children. Then, the out-of-wedlock birthrate will plummet, and abortion just may peter out as a useful weapon in political chess.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 27 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Reflections

Why do so many women hate Tom Leykis? Because he holds up a mirror to them, on a daily basis, and they don’t like what they see. But, given the $11.3 billion¹ American women spend annually on cosmetic surgery, that’s no surprise. Yet, they do have an endless supply of mirrors and infinite desire to consult them, do they not?

Accordingly, I believe this familiar incongruity explains why women, who comprise 35% of Tom’s audience, repeatedly subject themselves to the tenets of “Leykis 101,” such as avoid marriage, never cohabit, spend no more than $40 on a date ($0 is optimal), dump any woman who won’t “put out” by the third encounter, and, in general, treat women like crap—because, allegedly, that’s what they want.

Last week, a 23-year-old woman called the show, screaming at Tom, accusing him of ruining her boyfriend. “What do you mean?” Tom asked. “Ever since he started listening to your show, he’s stopped being sweet and romantic, and it’s all your fault,” was her riposte. “Really? How’s the sex?” Tom queried. Said she: “Oh, the sex is still good.” Incredulous, Tom wondered, as we all did, how on earth sex could be good with a rogue. Not only was her answer illogical, because she wanted to keep Mr. Rogue, she ranted on and on for 15 minutes! Tom gleefully exclaimed that this young babe had proven his point.

On the flip side of the coin are the many women who love his show—because of his perspective, honesty, candor, and ability to entertain. Hell, you’d be amazed how many of them want Tom to autograph their breasts.

Every weekday at 3PM in Los Angeles, on KLSX 97.1FM as well as on 100 stations around the country and BlowMeUpTom.com, The Tom Leykis Show beams four hours of life advice to guys in their 20s and 30s, the targeted demographic. Leykis is a master marketer: he knows his listeners and what they need, and he delivers it to them. In return, his “sons” unfailingly catch his show and fondly refer to him as “the professor” and “Dad.”

After a stint as his in-studio guest two months ago, I learned that Tom Leykis reaches people far outside his narrow demographic. As I expected, lots of his “sons” who had heard me on his show bought my book and contacted me personally. Surprisingly, so did men and women two decades older—including a business owner who claims my book and articles have changed her life, and a television producer who wants me to host my own TV show.

The Dad They Never Had

What exactly is The Tom Leykis Show, and why does it succeed? I believe it is a 12-year-old forum that transcends radio: a sociological phenomenon, a collective group-therapy session, and a vicious response to our totalitarian gynocracy. Tom Leykis, who freely admits having been married and divorced four times, now rejects the traditions of society that once made him romantic.

Leykis articulates frequently that his demographic is the first generation of males predominantly raised by women, either because their divorced fathers were not around enough, or because their mothers never married. The result: wimpy boys who became subservient men. Leykis bills himself as “the dad you never had,” and there is a lot of merit to this. These young men are literally clueless about being men. Many of them are in their early 20s, already fathers, and paying child support and alimony, or, as Leykis calls it, vaginamony.

While Tom and I are simpatico on most issues, we aren’t 100%. For example, I won’t treat women like crap and don’t espouse the pump-‘em-and-dump-‘em lifestyle. I’m not trying to get more ass than a toilet seat and don’t believe women should stay at home. First, I treat women the way I want to be treated. Second, the laws of unintended consequences are alive: especially, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Third, women have more civil rights than men. I never forget that points two and three compound each other.

Moreover, I don’t fit Tom’s demographic; many of his tenets don’t apply to me. Essentially, Tom operates a boot camp, or basic training, for guys in their 20s and 30s. Much of his advice is crass and strident and simplistic—exactly what young, inexperienced recruits need. Men my age need officers’ training, which has more nuance and sophistication than what Tom teaches. On the other hand, my peers keep tuning in to Tom’s show because many of them never received basic training, or they need a refresher course, or they want a great laugh.

Tom’s “sons” have come out of school, and out of their homes, hearing nonstop messages that girls are great and boys are shit. They see girls all around them manipulating double standards. They see their bank accounts depleted from useless expenditures on wining & dining and jewelry. They see how men are ridiculed and marginalized on TV. They see their divorced fathers living in squalor. They feel totally emasculated, letting their girlfriends call the shots.

So, Leykis teaches these guys to take back their lives, to reverse the situation, by showing women just as much disrespect as women exhibit to men. And, women hate seeing their own hostility coming back to haunt them. They have never been sensitized to how much society beats men down. Now, they know how it feels. This is the power Tom Leykis has given to young men. This is The Tom Leykis Show.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I said at the outset that women hate Tom Leykis because he exposes and embarrasses them. Big deal—embarrassment doesn’t solve problems. Action does! Because of Tom, young men are taking action, and it isn’t pretty.

To the women who whine about the payback-is-a-bitch environment Tom Leykis has created, I typically say: If you don’t like it, contact your state and federal legislators, governors, and President Bush. Ask them to rescind all the anti-male laws, all of them. Then, get your female friends to respect men, love men, stop fleecing men in family court, and cheerfully buy men dinner. Their usual response: dead silence. Tom, I think your show is safe for a long time.

¹The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

 

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 26 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719), which is distributed by BookWorld Companies (http://www.bookworld.com/).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

According to Marc H. Rudov, author of The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women, Katie Couric’s ascendancy to the CBS Evening News throne is more proof that women are equal to men and chivalry is dead.

Read the news release.

Crutch for Inadequacies

I have vivid childhood memories of celebrating holidays, seated at the dinner table with my extended family, balanced on telephone books. Back in the days before booster seats, when my siblings, cousins, and I made the culinary leap from the children’s table to the “adult table,” we had to sit atop a stack of telephone books to reach the food. Twenty-five years later, when my children and their contemporaries outgrew their highchairs, they graduated to sturdy, comfortable booster seats—no telephone books for them.

In essence, a booster seat is a “crutch” that compensates for a child’s inadequacies during an interim period of his early development. One of the proudest milestones in the life of an emotionally healthy child is forsaking her booster seat forever, to sit in a chair like her parents.

Two unrelated but uncannily connected events occurred in the past week, giving me an epiphany about the booster seat. I was in the breakfast aisle of my local Safeway, where a little boy, seated in a shopping cart, whined his father into near-hysteria over cereal choices. The father was unwilling to put down his foot, say no, and show the kid who was boss—a pathetic but all-too-common sight. I had such a strong urge to grab this politically correct wimp by his collar and give him his first pair of balls.

Then, I had a phone conversation with a potential paramour—a beautiful woman earning a six-figure salary and, as a Google search proved, quite accomplished in her field. Yet, after learning about the premise of my book and my recent appearance on The Tom Leykis Show, her ebullience quickly devolved into indignation: She didn’t share my men-and-women-are-peers philosophy, instead asserting her female right to “feel special” as my dinner guest.

“You are asking me to change the way I was raised!” she exclaimed. My rejoinder: “What about a man feeling special, or is that only the woman’s turf?” No answer from her. I continued: “You and I were ‘raised’ in an era when society frowned on women becoming CEOs, judges, and surgeons, and earning big money. Yet, you overcame that ‘upbringing’ to succeed in business, right?” She agreed. I further queried: “How, then, can you cling to this disempowering, hypocritical belief that women need deferential treatment from men, as if they are uneducated, helpless, and unaccomplished?” Again, she had no answer.

How are these two events connected? Each one was a display of childish, immature behavior. The boy did have an excuse: he is a child. But, by tolerating it and not laying down the law, the father unwittingly encouraged many repeat performances. The grown woman, who is my professional peer, had no excuse for her behavior, and I didn’t tolerate it. With her narcissism, she had reduced herself to a little girl, and I did lay down the law: No soup for you!

Her Barely Veiled Canard

My epiphany hit me like a lightning bolt: chivalry is a booster seat for girls in adult bodies! A woman demanding chivalry is really a girl saying: “I’m inadequate. I need a booster seat.” Such self-denigration occurs for two reasons: 1) the woman thinks little of herself and of men; 2) most men carry booster seats—unilateral wining, dining, vacationing, and bejeweling—insisting that women sit on them. Such dysfunction speaks volumes about both parties.

A chivalrous man will pay a HUGE price for his largesse: a lifetime of carrying her booster seat, from dating … to the engagement … to the wedding … through the marriage … and all the way to, through, and after divorce court.

In past articles, I defined chivalry as benevolent sexism, or BS. And, in this article, I show that the booster seat, a metaphor for chivalry, is also BS. What an amazing correlation! No matter how you slice it, chivalry is BS, and it demeans both the man and the woman.

My recent article, “Women to Rule Men by 2010,” further exposed the entitled female’s hypocrisy. It cited a new study by Allianz, the world’s 16^th-largest financial-services firm, which forecasts that women will control 60% of US wealth in four years. Allianz concludes that American women are doing extremely well professionally and financially—far from being inadequate.

Despite unambiguous evidence of her earning power—Allianz found that 33% more females than males graduate from college and 60% of women with MBAs outearn their husbands—the typical woman still feels entitled to a man’s money, to sit on his booster seat. And, when asked to justify her nonsense, she’ll reflexively regurgitate illogical, anti-male, duplicitous propaganda. Study her eyes, though, for they will betray her barely veiled canard.

Look in the Mirror

You can continue to blame women for this dysfunction, but there is a larger issue at play here: your role. Time to look in the mirror. The obvious question becomes: Why do you continue to carry around a booster seat like a Boy Scout always prepared for the current or next femme? Answer: You’re still emotionally tied to it and haven’t yet decided to bury it. You’re on autopilot. You think the booster seat gives you power. You think it makes you a gentleman. In fact, that booster seat deflates your manhood and your wallet.

As a frequent guest on radio talkshows, I’ve had the fortunate experience to interact with callers from all over North America. In addition, I get e-mails from guys all over the world who have read my book and articles, and listened to my podcasts. And, I can tell you that, because of their socialization, men struggle with eliminating chivalry—it’s so ingrained. My advice is antithetical to everything they’ve ever been taught. But, the sooner men realize that today’s male/female game is rigged against them, the faster they’ll change.

No-Nonsense Bottom Line

1. Women control society’s power points: media, wealth, reproductive, legislative, judicial, and law-enforcement. Don’t pretend it isn’t so.
2. Reject women’s definition of romance as YOU treating them!
3. A woman who’s not your peer is your dependent—or potential dependent.
4. Women are more sexual than men; don’t use chivalry to get laid.
5. Her booster seat is actually your emotional hangup; it has caused and will continue to cause you significant pain.

Solution: bury her booster seat. It belongs in a grave with your wistful, self-defeating notions of chivalry. In your next encounter with an entitled female, direct her to the sale on booster seats at Toys-R-Us. She’ll never mention chivalry again—and likely won’t see you again, either. Lucky you.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 25 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719), which is distributed by BookWorld Companies (http://www.bookworld.com/).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.