Seattle, Capital of Misandria
by Marc H. RudovThis morning, I appeared as a guest on KBKS (KISS) 106.1FM in Seattle, on Jackie & Bender Mornings. Seattle, if you don’t know, is the left-wing capital of Misandria, the land of man-hating women and vaginized men.
Let me give you a little background about this show. There are four hosts of this program — Jackie, Bender, Sammi, and Jubal — two males and two females. Before I got on the air, Jubal, one of the guys, shaved off some of his pubic hair and placed it on a pizza. Then, one of the females, I don’t know which one (I was too shocked to remember), vomited. OK, now you understand the “class” of these people. By the way, Seattle Magazine apparently voted Jackie & Bender Mornings the best AM radio show of Seattle. Go figure.
This interview, which was prerecorded an hour before it aired, was chopped up, edited, and slanted to make me appear misogynistic, which is untrue and why I generally don’t agree to doing prerecorded interviews. Because of this disingenuous, unprofessional ambush, I have done my last prerecorded interview.
Inherent in KBKS’s ambush was Sammi’s accusation of me lumping all women together as golddiggers. I never said this, do not feel this way, and never felt this way. Truth be told, I believe that most women feel entitled, and I stand by that. Most does not equal all. This is exactly what I told the fab four, but that’s not what they wanted you to hear.
After KBKS played my adulterated interview, when I could not respond, Sammi accused me of being ugly — her alleged reason for my attitudes. In her reprinted screed below, she invited Seattle women to Google me for proof of my ugliness. This fomented her man-haters in the listening audience to insult me. One even sent me hate-mail (also reprinted below).
People who hurl personal, ad-hominem insults during a debate are small. A radio host who purports to know my book without ever reading it is even smaller. You read that correctly: Sammi & Company never read my book. That’s OK — the pusillanimous hosts and callers solidified my case (notice that there were zero male callers — they’re too scared in Seattle to challenge the women), which delights me to no end.
The hot babes I’ve been involved with would argue with Sammi’s defamatory comments about my looks, but they have too much class to lower themselves to contact Sammi. Now, I don’t want to get down to Sammi’s pathetic level, but I have a suggestion for her: lose the donuts and buy a gym membership.
As you know, women generally tend to attack personally when they don’t like the subject matter. This is one of the main reasons men generally don’t respect women. Instead of arguing with logic and reason, why not throw rocks? It’s easier and feels better, right? If more fathers would be tougher parents to their daughters, this wouldn’t be the case.
NoNonsense Bottom Line:
These KISS attackers had their fun, got their ratings, bashed men, bashed me, and ironically validated everything I’ve ever written about entitled women. They unintentionally enhanced the value of www.UnderTheClitoralHood.com, beyond what I could have wanted or expected. I thank them for that.
After you listen to the interview (links immediately following) and read the lovely literary works below, by Sammi and her angry listener, please feel free to contact Sammi to convey your feelings — and please offer your comments below.
================================================
Please listen to the interview and then provide your feedback:
Everything Else
================================================
Here’s What Sammi Wrote on Her Blog After the Show
Marc H. Rudov was on with us today talking about his book. We went into this interview really wanting to talk to him and thinking he’d be fun to talk to and would have some great points. Wrong. Marc has a book out that teaches men to avoid gold diggers. That’s his opinion. I’m all for someone writing a because I know there are some gold digging women out there who do nothing but hook up with rich guys. Marc says it’s all women and will not budge. He’s not willing to listen and consider that not all women are like that.
He’s judging and it’s not a “teaching men” type of book. He says, in the most simple of terms, that men shouldn’t pamper women at all! If you agree, you’d love his book. We didn’t agree with his views (including Bender), so we ripped on him. We talked about everything from him being nuts to the fact that he’s not attractive to our thoughts on why he was divorced (which he wouldn’t talk about). We got an e-mail later thanking for the opportunity to be on but not appreciating how we talked about him. He claims he gets PLENTY of women and that he’s working on a TV deal so he must not be that ugly. You decide.
Google Marc H. Rudov. That’s two guys in two days I’ve had you look up. I promise that yesterday’s man was more of a treat BY FAR!
Enjoy the weekend you are about to have. Can you believe Thanksgiving was only last week? Time is flying by although it seems like the holiday was a month away. Also, Jingle Bell Bash is one week from Sunday. Where did the time go?
Sammi
P.S. Jubal thinks that his head injury is causing him not to be funny. He thinks he’s lost it.
===================================================
Hate-Mail From An Entitled, Angry Seattle Princess
I heard you on the radio today. You know something, I’m always glad when a guy like you asks me to pay for a date. Because that keeps me from wasting any more time on him! THAT’S why you’re divorced–You’re a skinflint jerk!! AND you are WRONG! Let me explain something to you: Women measure a man by whether or not he is willing to be generous, and not just with money. However, how willing a man is to spend his money on a woman is a very telling indicator of how willing he is to open his heart.
I know men (married to very lucky women) who wouldn’t hesitate to do whatever was necessary to demonstrate their feelings for their mate. That’s the kind of man I want. Sometimes that has to do with money, other times it has to do with whether he will cook me a meal once in a while, be willing to listen to my point of view on issues, my worries and concerns, etc., or take me to an event that is more interesting to me than to him, just for companionship and supportiveness. Would you be willing to do those things? I doubt it.
You wealthy men always act like you’re being asked to donate a kidney when you have to spend money on a date. Let me ask you something: What is your purpose in asking a woman out? A woman doesn’t need a man! So what incentive do you offer for her to spend time with YOU? If all you want is sex, why don’t you just grow some balls and represent that up front? Maybe that’s all the woman wants, too. But the truth is, you’re afraid the woman might not feel the same way and burn you at go. But a date implies you’re interested in something more. DATING is a process by which two individuals get to know one another in order to find out whether they are compatible, interested in one another, share values, etc. I have dated guys with money, and they are usually the biggest jerks and tightwads (like you!) that there are. Look, asshole, even today most women don’t make as much money as their male counterparts in equivalent positions. So if a woman is at an economic disadvantage, why would you expect her to pay for a date she could not afford? Does that make her less appealing as a mate? Does it make her less able to be a loving, devoted, loyal partner in the marriage, a good mother to your children, a staunch supporter in sickness or health, wealth or poverty? You know–the things marriage are supposed to be about. I’m sorry you ended up with a “gold-digger,” but let’s be honest–you get what you give. If you bring low expectations and high demands to the table, what else do you expect?
=====================================================
In closing, I’d like to reinforce my main theme, repeated in everything I write and say: unless men and women treat each other like peers, they never will get along. Women do not deserve any rights or privileges that men cannot have, so men must stop deferring to them. This means that men must cease wining & dining women for sex. They must learn how to attract women without using cash. It’s that simple and the theme of Under the Clitoral Hood. Finally, if radio hosts in the future ever claim that I believe or said anything other than what I just wrote, they are lying.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper CablesTM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (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.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Gee Whiz!
This hate male chick just screams “BUY ME!! I’M FOR SALE!!”
Wow. She totally reduces women to commercial commodities.
Not only that, she is totally wrong about the wage statements. She must be one of those liberal arts students that gets a degree in English and then wonders why nobody will pay her $175,000 per year in some type of meaningful employment.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:21 pm
The IQ level of those “characters” quickly became obvious when they resorted to personal insults rather than debate the subject matter.
They were not worth the time to waste on an interview.
I wouldn’t bother with “radio shows” like that again. It’s kind of like going to an interview on Howard Stern or Jerry Springer. Pure tasteless entertainment only, not intelligence.
Just my $ .02.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:40 pm
It’s starting to confuse me why so many men who dismiss women pay so much attention to women.
“I want her … but she’s stupid … but I want her… but she’ll take half of my stuff after the divorce… but I want her … but she won’t sign a pre-nup…. but I want her… I always pay for everything….
WTF?
December 1st, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Well, where do we start?
“Women measure a man by his generosity”
Maybe, but what about the hot guy she met in dance club in Cabo last spring? Was he generous with his money? Doubt it.
“How much a man is willing to spend his money is an indicator of how much he is willing to open his heart”
False. Men who lead with their wallets are attempting to buy women (like everything else). It has little to do with how they feel about her. Certainly, there are some men who feel “manly” when they spend money on women. How sad.
“[Stuff about listening to women’s emotions and opinions]”
That’s great, but it has nothing to do with spending money. You can emote and share while taking a romantic walk in the woods.
“Why are you asking a woman out… a woman doesn’t need a man”
That no doubt explains the array of vibrators under the bed.
“…you’re afraid a woman may not feel the same way and burn you at go”
More misunderstanding on the part of the writer. What does wanting “more” (a serious value judgement) have to do with spending money?
“[Comments about women not making as much money as men on average]”
We all know what a canard this is. A woman will earn just as much as man if she is willing to do the work. If she went out with a girlfriend for dinner, would the higher-wage earner pay? Because the intent is sexual the man must automatically pick up the tab? What is that?
[”Does that make her less able to be a loving devoted..”]
It depends on the situation. Why is she at a lower economic status? Is she lazy? Or maybe she pursued a career that was more fulfilling and less lucrative. We have no idea. These truths will emerge once the ring is on her finger. But it really doesn’t matter anyway. Love, devotion, caring, support, mothering. All of those things can be done without getting married. Whether it’s “acceptable” or not doesn’t matter–it’s true.
“If you bring low expectations and high demands to the table…”
Lol, I guess she meant if one has little worth but high demands
Is wanting to have sex with a woman a high demand? Is it so unreasonable that this could happen in an interaction where money is not an issue? I think not.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I think Ms hate-mail has a good point. How much a woman is prepared to spend generously on a man - particularly on a first date - is an indication of how open and generous her heart is. She is right, - but let’s be honest–you get what you give - but I sense she would not reverse the genders in her diatribe. I’m sure Ms Right is out there. Somewhere.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:16 pm
I live here in Seattle.
KISS, KISW, and KZOK used to be pretty good classic rock stations. But for hosts for their morning shows, they think it is hip to hire these panels who are further left than your average Daily KOS fan.
I am not surprized Marc Rudov got treated the way he did.
Many of these commentators, when it comes to divorce and child support issues, they display the utter cluelessness of the never divorced, never burned in a paternity action, kind of fluffy-headed liberal guy.
When one of them gets divorced, and the educational affect of the process starts to register, we seem to never hear from them on the radio again.
Or if we do, they never will discuss divorce or family law related issues again, or at least not directly.
I am listening to your clip of the interview. I think you handled them very well!
It will probably be a half hour before I stop laughing!
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 am
*****This interview, which was prerecorded an hour before it aired, was chopped up, edited, and slanted to make me appear misogynistic, which is untrue…*****
Become a misogynist then. If you’re going to serve the sentence, you might as well have the enjoyment of committing the crime.
***** Truth be told, I believe that most women feel entitled, and I stand by that.*****
*****As you know, women generally tend to attack personally when they don’t like the subject matter. This is one of the main reasons men generally don’t respect women. Instead of arguing with logic and reason, why not throw rocks? It’s easier and feels better, right?*****
All of this is true, so why aren’t you a misogynist?
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 am
“I’m sure Ms Right is out there. Somewhere.”
Yes Ms. Always Right !
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:22 am
From the Privilege Princess…
“I heard you on the radio today. You know something, I’m always glad when a guy like you asks me to pay for a date. Because that keeps me from wasting any more time on him! THAT’S why you’re divorced–You’re a skinflint jerk!! AND you are WRONG! Let me explain something to you: Women measure a man by whether or not he is willing to be generous, and not just with money. However, how willing a man is to spend his money on a woman is a very telling indicator of how willing he is to open his heart.”
I really cannot understand it ?
Where is the “you have a little dick” referrence. The selfish bitches must be finally getting the message.
This is my favourite….
“However, how willing a man is to spend his money on a woman is a very telling indicator of how willing he is to open his heart.”
While the privilege princess spends every cent it earns on it’s self. Bugger anyone else.
Very good point to remember. The ” what’s yours is mine and what mine is my own” mentality reigns supreme in that same sex.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:18 am
Mr Rudov,
You should have known better. This is the type of interview pioneered by 60 Minutes. They can edit it any way they want to make you look bad from changing the order of the questions to cutting you off in mid sentence. Allways record the whole interview as well so you have a copy of the actual words that were said. You got rolled and you know better although you did a pretty good job of defending your point.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:20 am
Great comments, all of you. Believe it or not, there are women — terrific, men-loving women — getting a great education here. They are seeing, for the first time, how the majority of women behave. Birds of a feather flock together, so they never experience, first-hand, this kind of misandry and self-hatred. Yes, misandric women actually hate themselves.
To grizzlieantagonist: There are two reasons I refuse to become a misogynist:
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 am
Many of these commentators, when it comes to divorce and child support issues, they display the utter cluelessness of the never divorced, never burned in a paternity action, kind of fluffy-headed liberal guy.
An experienced man once told me, “a liberal is a conservative who has not yet been mugged”.
Sometimes it is not so funny when you finally “get it”.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:48 am
“20% of women are normal, and there is no reason to hate them”
I have seen that through life experience. Another good reason never to marry.
How hard is it to find that 20%? It’s not worth the time or expense.
Sportsex is OK though.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:08 am
Why does the hate letter bring an image of a screaming and slobbering Hillary to mind as the visual? I love the “remember women dont need men” remark. Whats strange about that is universal to any and all “minority” (and I mean real and perceived, race, gender, or orientation…whateber)claims that they don’t need the —-fill in the blank w/ the percieved majority or oppressor—– to get by. But, as a thought experiment, if one can imagine actually seperating the groups in opposition, in this case men and women, and having a place, a small country, that was uniformly all women, how would that place proceed? How would they relate commercially etc. to the “regular country” where men and women both live together? I submit we’d find out pretty fast how they do or do not need men.
Women can make that statement because the system of coddling, from government to girly-men in their lives insulates them from any and all harsh reality and allows them to think that a job in “design” or “advertising”, a home, a car and an occasional binge trip to the mall is an existence in and of itself. Stop and think where do the goods and services come from, the roads?, the homes? the cars? in a sudden absence of all men, sorry to say gals, you’d be up PMS creek w/out a paddle.
Why do the advertisers think that every freaking women in any ad, be it cars or aspirin, must be a kick boxer? Anyone else notice all the “tough furrowed brow” macho girls touting products?
Imagine using male boxers or fighters. Yea.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
I won’t waste my time or yours by commenting on some ditzy-chick suffering from golden-vagina syndrome, but I would like to comment on the old “not all women are like that” routine.
When I hear Not all women are like that, I am reminded of several things:
First of all, this tells me the person has given absolutley zero thought to “gender issues”, merrily going about life thinking exactly what they have been told to think, programmed by man-hating radical feminists coming out of their idiot box on a routine basis.
Generally, the folks who use this line are actually guilty of truly thinking this way when it comes to the less entitled gender. They gladly lump all men together, often with some dim-witted “joke” involving pain to male genitalia, and rarely, if ever, utter the words “not all men are like that”.
The line offers nothing logical at all. It just shows the comfort they have taken in their ignorance. Are they saying as long as there is at least one woman in the world who is not a gold-digger, a paternity fraud perpetrator, or whatever, that its ok? Would they then agree that as long as there is one man in the world who doesn’t do anything harmful to women that its just fine if the rest do?
Also, it relies heavily on the presumption that laws and morality should only apply to men, and that women are basically good-natured, beyond men, and if some choose to be bad apples that nothing should be done about it because female choice is more important than anything and everything. If they don’t rely on the idea that “he must have done something to deserve it”, they’ll rely on blaming him for her actions, its his fault he never sees his children and mom’s new boyfriend is having sex with the kids, because he should have known better than to get involved with such a woman.
Essentially, the use of this line is good for one thing only. It shows the person substitutes a non-sequiter feminist propaganda routine for actual thought. It does not mean the person has no capacity to think or learn, just that they haven’t bothered to think for themself, at least not yet, and they are in desperate need of some de-programming at the most basic level.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:29 pm
To DCFather,
If you want to blast me for not hating all women, go ahead. It exposes how you think about people in general.
I am not a hater, and I do not prejudicially denounce any group for the actions of some its members. Hasn’t that kind of behavior caused wars, slavery, the Holocaust, and strife on our planet? I will leave such attitudes to the feminists, who hate all men. I refuse to lower myself to their “standards.”
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Okay, I listened to the show and understand that editing can alter perception. So can you clarify what you did say rather than just tell us what you didn’t say?
I was particularly disturbed by your comment about dating a woman who works at WalMart. Although I’ve been through the hell of divorce and custody, I’ve been happily remarried for 7 years now. My wife does not have my educational attainment, but she is definitely in the 20% you identify as not having the entitlement mentality. I’m not sure about the percentage, but I recognize the type.
Was this comment edited or do you really feel that men should only look within their “class”? My experience has been that much of the most virulent man-hating comes from the class of women that you would assign to me based on my “sophistication” and education. I don’t like my odds in that class and hope that your comments in this regard were edited?
Also, while the radio show personalities did go after you a little in the listener portion of their show, they definitely let you dominate the conversation and they deserve credit. Many, if not most, radio talk shows I’ve listened to are most often dominated by the host.
I greatly admire Glen Sacks’ advocacy on behalf of children and men, but I used to listen to his radio show and while he would allow misandrists to speak with little interruption, he constantly talked over those on his side of the issues. Drove me crazy as I wanted to hear different voices on the right side of the issues. The KISS hosts asked questions and then got out of your way for the most part.
Anyway, I listened to the show expecting to hear you get run over, but you were given most of the time to speak and I think you did quite well.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:12 pm
I’d like to ask a question from a completely innocent, curious, and no agenda standpoint. It seems to one degree of another everyone here has “issues” with women, and rightly so I add. I simply wonder, what then do we do? Simple question looking for serious answers. I don’t mean what do we do about family law etc. I mean what do we as men do w/ regard to women, you know “can’t live with’em…etc”…I’ve seen the comments about “sport sex” and hiring sex and, ok I see the point, but does anyone have another answer? I know the auther would say find a good one, but I know to one degree or another most wonder if that is actually possible.
So?
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
While I was busy playing tennis, my blogger buddies hit me with new questions. I will answer them here:
DadWithGirls: You’re calling me a chivalrous romantic? Surely you jest — unless you are stoned. You obviously have not read anything I’ve written, have not heard me on numerous radio programs around the world (archived on my Website: Media & Events page), have not subscribed to my podcasts, and have not watched the TV videoclip on my Website. I am a reasonable man. If I meet a reasonable woman, I am going to treat her with the respect and kindness she deserves — just as I do with any reasonable man I meet. Yes, I claim that men should avoid the 80% of women who are entitled. How to do that? I’ve written two books and 30+ articles, and have produced 35 podcasts explaining how to do exactly that. By the way, I do not repeat in my articles what I wrote in my books. You also asked about dating within one’s class. I absolutely believe this. The best relationships are those in which the parties have a lot in common — especially money. If you date a woman who earns a lot less than you do, YOU will do the financial heavy-lifting. If you marry her and then divorce, YOU will do the financial heavy-lifting. And, if you think that only well-educated women fleece men, you are living in the twilight zone.
GladMadSadDad: I said that 80% of women are entitled and that men must avoid them. I explained to the KISS 106.1FM crew that my new book is about what really arouses women (money doesn’t arouse women), and that most men don’t know the secret of arousing women. When Sammi posited that women want to be taken care of, and that men love to oblige them, I responded by explaining that most men do not want to take care of women or wine & dine them. Most men wine & dine women out of habit and socialization, and that such behavior is totally unnecessary. Sammi tried to turn the whole interview against me and made me look cheap, bitter, burned, and misogynistic through careful editing. Now that the dust is settling, it appears, more and more, that Sammi insulted herself, her colleagues, KISS 106.1FM, reasonable women everywhere, and Seattle.
conservativation: I will give you the same answer I gave above: read my books. I’ve already written, ad nauseam, about how to deal with women — the terrific ones as well as the bitches. I just wrote a new book about this very topic: Under the Clitoral Hood. If you don’t want to buy it, live with the mystery.
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Good one Marc. What an optimist - “20% of women are normal, and there is no reason to hate themâ€Â.
We had a saying in the Air Force (the Royal one). ‘There are two kinds of pilots; those who have landed wheels-up, and those who are going to’.
Your 20% have every incentive to join their majority sistas. Given time and a chance for the money, they are likely to. Until women get a real shock to their system, by being totally ignored by good men and slapped down when they are misandric, they will not change their MO, which is to come-on nice and sucker-punch when his guard is down. They have to dismantle the plethora anti-male laws first, give up their age old sexist privileges second and agree on what eeekwaliteeee really is as a final move to a cease-fire. Sweet-talk won’t work with me any more.
At least Ms hate-mail is easy to see. You can shoot her down without even looking through the gunsight. The smart-arse radio interviewers need a paint-job though. A bucket of the stuff thrown at them. Remember the good old days when F4J used to give out free office make-overs? Take a paint-bomb with you next time for an instant performance appraisal.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
amfortas my statistically-inclined brutha –
(preply to Marc) — “Your 20% have every incentive to join their majority sistas..”
Bang on correct!
And what Marc does not yet seem to get, despite his successful sales as an MRA author, is just this —
Marc, you’re telling men to play a more strategic game in a contest that is already RIGGED for them to lose!
And, sorry to say…
Marc is a pussy-addict.
That makes his LOGIC suspect for any thinking man.
After Marc has screwed more women than an NBA playa…
he’s still a shill.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
To DadWithGirls,
Stinking thinking is what emanates from you so frequently. All of life is a rigged game; one cannot succeed in any endeavor without playing strategically. Get it?
Don’t presume to know me without meeting me. Pussy addict? You make yourself sound immature. Too bad you don’t like pussy; it’s delicious. All you want to hear is woman-bashing, 24/7. I won’t do it. Sorry. Hatred is for losers. I like women. Love women. What I dislike are little girls in women’s bodies — entitled bitches. Get the difference?
If women have made you permanently bitter, they have defeated you. Do you want pity? You’ll get none from me.
Remember something very critical: the 80% of women who are entitled became that way because of men. That’s right. Fathers allowed their daughters to become princesses. Boys in college pay anything to get laid. Grown men wine & dine women all the time. Matadormats (see my article, “How to Lure a Golddigger”) wave their cash to attract women. Men in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of state and federal governments gave away our rights. If, tomorrow, men would stop tolerating female nonsense, it will disappear. But these eunuchs won’t do it. They’re too vaginized.
Real men don’t tolerate female nonsense, and women like, respect, and have real orgasms with real men. Get it? That’s what Under the Clitoral Hood is all about.
So, how is it that you’re winning in the game of life by throwing rocks at me?
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Oh come on Marc. Don’t come the raw prawn mate. It is all too easy to blame the men for women’s sense of entitlement. Feminism is a big enough club without you joining it. Women are responsible for their own failings, thanks very much. Its called adulthood. Heck, my mum and dad bought toys and ice cream for me when I was a nipper but I haven’t been driven by it to live off women nor expect them to be responsible for my orgasms. I did the paper rounds and the lawn mowing to raise dating cash when I was a teen. I saw it as being independant and working for what I got. I didn’t intend it as an excuse for women to rip men off, nor to build up negative smarty-points for you to beat me up with.
I am happy for you that you like pussy. I like it too. I like to think there is an adult woman attached. Unfortunately they are thin on the ground.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:21 pm
POLICY STATEMENT
To guys like amfortas who just want endlessly to argue with, misunderstand, misquote, misinterpret, and blast me — just to be an attention whore: Let it be known that I will delete your posts going forward.
Make your point, debate, and then go on with your life. But, if your only perspective is, “let’s blast women and all men who like women,” please visit someone else’s blog.
Thank you,
Marc
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Conservativation asks “I mean what do we as men do w/ regard to women, you know “can’t live with’em…etcâ€Â…
I’ll leave all the answers to Marc (kidding), but here’s what worked for me. I dated like a mad man. I dated much younger women, older women, beautiful women, intelligent women…I dated and dated and dated. I lived with two…one for 3 years. I was hit, cheated on, screamed at…but I never dated one that reached the extremes of my ex wife, so I had hope.
I separated from my ex in 1994 and didn’t remarry until 2000. I was determined not to make the same mistake twice, but I too enjoyed the company of a woman too much to give up on them simply because men have every reason to be afraid.
I committed myself to two things…no pregnancies and no marriage without an overwhelming sense of security that she wasn’t a psycho in-waiting. I can’t even tell you home many women I dated. I got lucky and found a good one. If I hadn’t, I was resigned…desperation was the cause of my first catastophe and I wasn’t doing it again.
I’m not sure if my experiences are every man’s experiences, but when I was in my late teens and early twenties, I would do and put up with just about anything to have a woman in my life. When I became single again at 34, I discovered the entire dynamic had reversed. I couldn’t believe how many women were interested in being with me…still amazes me how much things changed.
I was decently employed, but a big part of my salary was going to the other parent whom the courts decided was incapable of being a fully functioning adult. Although the women I dated were never happy about this, they still seemed to see me as worthy of their attention.
My advice is to use your computer. Meet as many women as possible. Find one you think might be okay…give it some time. She exhibits one sign of being a fruitcake or a golddigger…dump her. With all my dating, except for a short period, I stuck to one women at a time. I didn’t do this for the sex…although there was plenty and I was happy to participate…I saw it as the only chance to avoid making the same mistake twice. It worked for me. Good luck.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Marc, I have not ‘endlessly’ argued with you (3 out of 26 comments) misunderstood, misquoted, misinterpreted, or blasted you. I am not an attention whore. I am one of your fans, actually. One of your readers. But if this is how you respond to reader feedback, perhaps I should broaden out to other authors.
Delete away, old son, if that is your pleasure.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I am confused as well? I haven’t seen anything resembling “blasting”? I thought amfortas was supportive with some reservations about Marc attributing women’s entitlement attitudes to men rather than laying the fault on them as adults. I tend to agree with amfortas on this one while still agreeing wtih Marc on his overriding thesis.
I make a concious effort to raise my daughter to be responsible for her own actions, just as I do with my two sons. I make sure that I do not send any signals that she can “charm” me into being any less stern when she acts badly. I think I’m doing well, but even if I failed miserably and led her to believe that she should expect men to give more than they get, I still feel that when she is an adult, she is responsible for her behaviors and attitudes…not me.
My ex’s family was as dysfunctional as any you want to meet. The father was a monster, and the mother abandoned them. The whole situation was tragic, and for years I pitied my then wife for what she had to deal with as a child.
Eventually, as she strived to make my adult life as miserable as her childhood life, I began to understand that she did not warrant my pity. She refused to take any advice or actions recommended by the “professionals” and I was forced to bear the consequences of her inaction.
There comes a time when we are all responsible for ourselves. For the women who feel entitled, they should be held accountable. Not their fathers or anyone else. I’m with amfortas and I’m not blasting anyone.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:39 am
Conservativation, to answer your inquiry, if you’re still interested in having a relationship with women beyond just sex, this involves spotting and avoiding the types of women likely to become bitches. There’s an article I really love that can shed some light; here it is:
“Dangerous Behavior Patterns”
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-125.htm#behavior
This article assumes that a woman is less likely to be volatile when her earlier life was not plagued by various calamities. By extension, those women who were well-balanced and fair-minded are likely to withstand the temptation to become entitlement queens and abusive parasites.
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:24 am
Wow, Mr. Dias thanks for the link. Great stuff.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:28 am
As one of those women who could not afford to pay for a date, there was an alternative: A home cooked meal. He ended up marrying me. She has to be willing to give to, even if it isn’t financially, and not just sex. Men also like to be pampered and fawned over.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
To Mr. Harold Zoid,
If you want to read an article about how to spot dangerous women, you might try “Will She Call 911 on You?” by Marc H. Rudov
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 am
Debi912,
It is nonsense for a woman to say she cannot “afford” to pay for a date. She gets no female discounts at the bank, the spa, the IRS, the grocery store, the gas station, or the car dealership; she likewise deserves no female discounts on dates. The rule of life: if you want to play, you have to pay.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
WHAT IS NONSENSE?
For those of you still not clear about how I define nonsense, CLICK HERE.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
debi912 wrote:
What you seem to be saying is that both sexes tend to enjoy the fruits of another person’s labor. I suppose your husband had a genuine appreciation for yours. Unlike that Marc intoned, I consider your cooking a meal to be labor and effort that you expended, and therefore worth something. In fact, it may even be worth more than a meal served in a restaurant; there’s something to be said for a home cooked meal, made by someone who loves you.
But what Marc always says, and I agree with him, is that no one should tolerate the expectation to another person’s labor, simply because the beneficiary of that labor is the opposite sex. Marc’s emphasis is on women expecting (not just receiving) special treatment and pampering, merely because they are women and they expect to be romanced and paid for by men. When a man pays, he should be appreciated for that. He should not be expected to pay simply because he’s fulfilling the “male role” of paying for everything.
Think back to the time when women were expected to provide that meal you alluded to. Imagine an “Archie Bunker” type, coming home and demanding, “Edith! Get me a beer! Where’s my dinner? You still haven’t made dinner?” How would you like it if the man you had cooked for treated you like that, simply because you’re a woman? If you wouldn’t like it (I didn’t think you would), then you have an inkling of what a man goes through when he’s expected to pay a woman’s way simply because he’s the man.
Sure, men like being pampered just like women. But men are disproportionately expected to do the pampering while women have successfully shrugged off gender roles, like the Edith Bunker housewife. The double standards that remain today are what create the entitlement queens that Marc frequently writes about.
John Dias
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
John Dias makes great points. I disagree, though, that a home-cooked meal is a permanent substitute for a restaurant meal. Some women, as a matter of principle, would not be caught dead paying in public for a man. In other words, public reciprocation is embarrassing but public consumption is delightful.
Have you ever noticed that women who demand dating discounts FROM men never offer divorce discounts TO men?
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Using words like “misandry” or “misandria” lends you the aura of a cultist speaking in his own peculiar language.
You should use words and phrases that everybody understands.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Mr. Reyes,
Don’t come onto my blog and presume to tell me what to entitle my article. If you don’t understand my title, get a dictionary.
Our culture understands misogyny well, because every man is either a woman-hater or a potential woman-hater, right? Every man who criticizes a woman is called a misogynist.
In fact, our culture worships women and hates men — yet, you did not know the word for hatred of men. Now you know. Welcome to Misandria.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Mr Rudov,
This will be the last time I comment on any of your articles. As you well know, most of the comments to my articles take great exception to what I write. I respond to most comments, but never have I implied that they don’t have a right to leave a comment.
The comments section is not reserved just for those who agree with you. It’s there for people to comment on your article and the title of your article.
Don’t be so condescending, of course I know the meaning of the word.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Without reading the book yet……
(money doesn’t arouse women)
Dude, that “thoughtful” impromptu bouquet of flowers delivered to her work station, for all her
co-entitlees to admire costs a bunch, and only serves to raise the “me-too” entitlement upmanship. Granted, this applies to the 80% ilk. I hear ya’ on what really get’s that 20% hot to
make biscuits and gravy for breakfast.
Sometimes, what makes comedy good are the truisms
lampooned. I think it was “”The Idiot” (Steve Martin’s, not Dosty’s) that produced this gem from Bernadette Peters…”I don’t care about the money, I care about all the stuuuuff!”.
I delight in the fact that your willing to use those $0.25 big triple secret “code” words, known only to us elite conspiritors, and do not follow the MSM lead in dumbing down for for the sake of those that miscomprehend euphonic nuance anyway. It let’s me exercise my brains.
Just sayin’
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Hey, CaptDMO, you can pare down that 80% to an even-smaller number by cutting off the largesse. Women do respond to real men — even if they’ve been wined & dined in the past. But, for most of the 80%, it’s waste of time. Something to do when you’re bored.
Please let me know when you’ve finished reading the book. Many more truisms in store for you.
December 4th, 2006 at 5:54 am
“It is nonsense for a woman to say she cannot “afford†to pay for a date. She gets no female discounts at the bank, the spa, the IRS, the grocery store, the gas station, or the car dealership; she likewise deserves no female discounts on dates. The rule of life: if you want to play, you have to pay.”
I’m going to have to confess to having very little dating experience. However, (prior to kids) anytime I pulled out my wallet, you’d think I cut his penis off and handed it to him.
Social cues are obviously not a strong suit of mine. Perhaps there needs to be a new’rules’ for dating in the 21st century aimed at teen boys.
“But what Marc always says, and I agree with him, is that no one should tolerate the expectation to another person’s labor, simply because the beneficiary of that labor is the opposite sex. Marc’s emphasis is on women expecting (not just receiving) special treatment and pampering, merely because they are women and they expect to be romanced and paid for by men. When a man pays, he should be appreciated for that. He should not be expected to pay simply because he’s fulfilling the “male role†of paying for everything.”
Appreciation keeps an oven ‘preheated’. My only expectation is to be treated well. “Do unto others….” and all that. I think alot of women think ‘give and take’ means Men give, Women take, you see this all the time. I told the boys that only 1 in every 100 women might be worth their time. Perhaps I was being to generous.
Do you ever wonder what planet people were raised on, i’m a navy brat, I had responsability thumped into my head from very early on. oh well.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Marc Rudov to Reappear on The Scott Sloan Show
==========================================
What: Under the Clitoral Hood
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2006
Time: 9:00PM EST/6:00PM PST
Where: WLW 700AM, Cincinnati | XM Satellite: Channel 173
Scott Sloan’s Page
http://www.700wlw.com/pages/onair_scottsloan.html
To Listen:
http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/streaming_new/index.html
“Marc Rudov is informative, passionate, and, most of all …
PROVOCATIVE! He’s like a red-hot poker in the side of
dating etiquette. One of those rare guests you’ll be looking
for a reason to rebook.” — Scott Sloan
I hope you can listen,
Marc
December 4th, 2006 at 10:00 am
I agree with most of what you have said in the past Marc, but you are starting to sound petulant and seem to be turning alot of people off including myself.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Debi912,
The only rules required in dating and marriage are no-nonsense rules: men and women are peers, period. Anything other than that will cause resentment and anger. This is what all my books and articles are about. If you don’t believe that, read the angry comments in my blog and in other blogs.
I address your quote, “However, (prior to kids) anytime I pulled out my wallet, you’d think I cut his penis off and handed it to him,” in Under the Clitoral Hood and my articles, “Her Double-D’s Can Bankrupt You,” “Riding the Estrogen Express,” and “How to Lure a Golddigger.”
Unfortunately, some men are such eunuchs, having no game, that they insist on paying for sex. They’re worse than the golddiggers who take their money.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Badger,
If you think I sound petulant, that’s the way I feel. When blog commenters have something new to say, I will have new responses.
Look at it from my perspective. There are certain men on this site who get pissed every time I say something nice about women. There are others who make the same comments no matter the topic. Still, there are those who fume because I am running a business but think my blog is their free-for-all venting forum.
Righteous indignation is one thing, caustic bitterness another. My message is simple: if men and women treat each other like peers, respect each other, and reciprocate, they will get along famously. If that irritates you, I don’t what to say.
PS — I want and encourage debate from all commenters. I do not care if people disagree with me, if they do so respectfully and intelligently. I will not, however, tolerate gratuitous personal slamming and name-calling — I dislike it equally in a marriage and on my blog.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
On Saturday night, December 9, 2006, at 11PM PST/2AM EST,
I will be an in-studio guest with Emily Morse on her radio show,
‘Sex with Emily’ — http://www.SexWithEmily.com
You didn’t think you were going to hear me make a woman
scream, did you?
If you don’t live in the Bay Area (San Francisco/San Jose),
the way to hear the show is through the Website of KIFR
106.9FM (CBS Radio) — http://www.1069FreeFM.com.
Click on “live” at the top of the page. Preregistration required.
The call-in number is 1.888.500.1069