Celebrating Male Irrelevance
by Marc H. RudovAmerica’s VD
When watching certain events — the Super Bowl, NASCAR races, military battles, and joint sessions of Congress — one might get the impression that we live in a male-dominated society. Nothing could be further from the truth. America is a gynocracy, and it is plagued with a pandemic disease: VD, or the vilification & devaluation of men.
Ironically, men are responsible for spreading this VD, because they perpetuate and tolerate it at all levels of their lives, and they don’t protect themselves. It all begins with deference towards women. Last week, we witnessed the pinnacle of this phenomenon: the emasculating, obsequious stampede to do something, anything to please women on Valentine’s Day, also VD. So, what kind of rewards are men receiving for their deference?
According to a recent survey of 3,000 married women by Woman’s Day magazine and AOL, more than 50% of participants said they probably wouldn’t marry their husbands again, more than 33% said they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses again, and 39% admitted to constantly flirting. The average divorce rate is 50%, and women bring 70% of divorce actions. For the first time in US history, fewer than 50% of homes are headed by married couples, and fewer than 50% of women are married. But, 37% of children, on average, are born out of wedlock — so, that’s a lot of child support that MEN have to pay.
According to Allianz Group, women will control 60% of US wealth by 2010, 33% more girls than boys graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and women comprise 50% of shareholders. Women hold top positions in government, prestigious universities, and Fortune 500 corporations. In other words, women are doing extremely well in this country and have proven themselves to be able peers.
Yet, on the day of “love,” it is all about her — as if a woman is more important than a man, and he is reduced to passive investor in his own relationship. If the “rules” of Valentine’s Day were reversed, in 2008, whereby each woman would be required to treat her man to an all-expenses-paid night on the town, the restaurants and theaters would be empty, Vermont Teddy Bear bankrupt.
Unfortunately, the metrics and societal messages don’t provide any evidence that men are getting positive rewards for their deference. Why, then, do men so blindly subordinate themselves to women?
In most homes with fathers present, boys were taught to worship their mothers and sisters, and to think of themselves as lesser beings. Sisters were allowed, unilaterally of course, to taunt their brothers with impunity. But, boys had to restrain themselves when their sisters hit them or stole their toy trucks — an obvious double standard. In today’s fatherless homes — caused by endless divorces and rampant illegitimate births — single and unwed mothers tend to convey to their children negative messages about men.
According to telephone-industry statistics, Mothers’ Day yields the highest volume of paid long-distance calls in the calendar year, while Fathers’ Day yields the highest volume of collect long-distance calls in the calendar year. What does that say about VD America? Everything.
In almost every divorce, the father is forced to move out of the marital home, while mom stays there with the children. Such inequitable experiences crystalize for children that mothers outrank fathers, that fathers (men) have little or no value. So, it should surprise nobody that boys grow up with inferiority complexes, dysfunctionally sycophantic to women, while girls grow up feeling artificially entitled with dim views of men.
These “contaminated” kids ultimately become editors of newspapers and magazines, and producers of TV sitcoms, TV commercials, and Hollywood movies. They become police officers, legislators, judges, jurists, mayors, governors, district attorneys, defense lawyers, presidents. Accordingly, they publish anti-male articles, produce anti-male movies, and pass so many anti-male laws — all of them unconstitutional — that women now have the preponderance of reproductive rights, civil rights, child-custody rights, alimony rights, and child-support rights. In essence, men have worked side by side with women to make themselves irrelevant.
Equality may be law in the workplace but not outside of it. Sadly, in the typical relationship, the man defers to his woman through its five phases: dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce. He doesn’t feel worthy enough to assert himself. Yes, the man in our society is the default provider of cash and the default protector of our streets and borders. His reward? He will be the default scapegoat in failed relationships and marriages. But, watch him dash like a subservient, kowtowing madman to buy those overpriced roses on Valentine’s Day.
It’s Not a Big Deal
On the eve of this Valentine’s Day, I appeared on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto to urge men to boycott this farcical, female-centric retail extravaganza. It was a fun and revealing exchange for both debators, but Neil’s adversarial prodding at me, while delivered humorously, reinforced the underpinnings of male irrelevance.
To me, Valentine’s Day — compelled giving, expected generosity, female entitlement, and fear of female retaliation — is not the elevation but the denigration of women. Worse, it is an annual “celebration” of male irrelevance, symptomatic and emblematic of it. I didn’t have enough time to fully develop my arguments (see “Boycott Valentine’s Day!”), but I made enough valid points to hit my target.
Mr. Cavuto introduced the segment, which ran just under four minutes, in anticipation that it would make neither his wife nor any woman happy — a telling comment. I intend not to regurgitate the entire interview here but only to extract the salient points.
After welcoming me, Neil asked why I want to boycott Valentine’s Day. Borrowing from the Fox News credo, I rejoined: “It’s unfair and unbalanced.” Neil then inquired: “What’s wrong, really, with just buying your honey, your wife, your girlfriend something for Valentine’s Day? It’s not a big deal.”
Not a big deal? In other words, according to Mr. Cavuto, despite being a unilateral anachronism, Valentine’s Day is a female right, and men should just go along with it. Society’s pressure on men to give compulsory deference, as if women are delicate flowers, is an outmoded, divisive, insulting cliche. Also, “just going along with it,” over time, is precisely why men have seen their rights evaporate!
Notwithstanding that Condoleeza Rice is America’s top ambassador and was the national security advisor, that Nancy Pelosi is #2 in the succession chain to run the US Armed Forces, and that Hillary Clinton wants to run the US Armed Forces, most people in our society still embrace double-standard deference to women — she can be your boss at work and your helpless maiden at home. And, this double standard, what I call nonsense, is the chief reason why male-female relations are at an all-time low. Many people just don’t get the connection.
My reply to Cavuto was that “the holiday is all about the woman.” Cavuto responded: “So, what’s wrong with that? We all have women in our lives who mean a lot, right?” I then began to enumerate the high-powered women in our country, as well as stats about women having greater wealth and a higher college-graduation rate than men. I expressed my belief that, “if a woman can send our troops into combat, I think she can pick up a dinner check.” But, Neil would have none of that (his wife was watching, remember?). Now, I realize that Mr. Cavuto, a skilled and amiable host, was giving me the jazz for effect and humor, but I take this subject seriously, as you will see in subsequent paragraphs.
Continued Cavuto: “Would you acknowledge that a lot of women do a lot for a lot of men, and it’s not acknowledged or not even written, not even debated; they just do it? And, so if there’s a day in the year where they get something a little extra, what the hell?” My rejoinder: “The problem is, Neil, it’s not just one day in the year. Also, Valentine’s Day is needlessly expensive, it’s artificial, it’s compulsory…”
Well, this gave Neil his opening to suggest that I’ve had hard relationships and that I’m angry — the classical feminist ploy. There is an 11th commandment in this country for men: Thou shalt not criticize a female. Violate that and risk accusations of anger and bitterness — I get this with every media appearance. The best policy, according to most men, is to do whatever makes women happy. More male irrelevance.
Do men do a lot for women that goes unacknowledged, unwritten, or undebated? Absolutely. In addition to being the default providers and saviors, men are largely responsible for designing, building, and delivering most of the staples and luxuries women take for granted: roads, buildings, bridges, stadiums, trash pickups, automobiles, TVs, radios, stereos, jets, yachts, cruise ships, appliances, jewelry, clothes, shoes, babies, homes, furniture, stores, restaurants, courthouses, the Internet, computers, cellphones, Google, YouTube, and MySpace — to name a few. Where’s the gratitude? I never hear it. If springing for dinner on Valentine’s Day to show appreciation is no big deal, Neil, why don’t the majority of women do it for men?
Valentine’s Day is a Real Hit
Unbeknownst to me during my exchange with Neil Cavuto, there was a horrific Valentine’s Day graphic on the Detroit News homepage. Posted by that newspaper to help Detroit-area men find florists, candy, jewelry, and restaurants for women, this graphic featured a man with a black eye and a woman in front of him wearing red boxing gloves, her right fist extended to his face. The caption read: “Don’t let this be her response.” In other words, wine & dine her on Valentine’s Day or she’ll punch you. The Detroit News was overtly advocating female violence towards men. Surprised? Don’t be.
Because America has VD, people think that violence towards men is perfectly acceptable, especially if a woman is the source of that violence. Can you imagine any newspaper advocating male violence towards women? How about a TV sitcom or a movie? Yet, there are plenty of Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond episodes containing women hitting and slapping men.
In the 2006 movie, The Last Kiss, Michael (Zach Braff) is engaged to a pregnant Jenna (Jacinda Barrett). Feeling trapped into getting married too soon, Michael has a dalliance with a college girl. When Jenna discovers this, she slaps and holds a butcher knife to Michael — battery and assault with a deadly weapon. Would Hollywood, would America, allow a man on the silver or small screen to behave likewise with a cheating woman? Not a chance.
Leslie Gold, host of CBS Radio’s Radio Chick in New York City, reported on the air a few months ago that she had undergone eye surgery, which temporarily left her with a black eye. Deciding not to cover it with sunglasses or makeup, she ventured out into the streets one day. She was shocked at all the women, total strangers, who approached her to ask if her boyfriend had hit her. When Leslie explained the eye surgery, these women accused her of covering up for her abusive boyfriend. This is America with VD, where men are presumed to be violent villains — valueless, worthless, irrelevant.
The Domino Effect
Like falling dominoes, deference begets VD, which begets male irrelevance. Yes, the same attitude that compels a man to wine & dine a woman ultimately compels him to pass and interpret laws that protect her like a child, to metaphorically preserve her in a frozen state of adolescence where she has almost no responsibilities for her behaviors or choices. I will call this legislacial (legislative + judicial) cryogenics. Pathetically, these insecure men need women to remain girls. Their hangups, unfortunately, translate into my loss of rights.
Because men comprise the majority of lawmakers and prosecutors and judges and mayors and governors and presidents, I hold them responsible for a host of anti-male rights, privileges, and laws:
- Roe v. Wade, which gives women the unilateral and exclusive right to opt out of parenthood. This violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment
- The right of women to engage in maternity fraud by lying about their fertility, use of birth control, and the real father of their children — just to collect child support
- The right of teenage girls to have abortions without notifying their parents
- The right of mothers, through safe-haven laws, to drop off their newborn babies at local fire stations — no questions asked
- VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), which stipulates that women are entitled to more protection in domestic violence than men, even though women are equally culpable in DV incidents. VAWA, which has all but eliminated presumption of innocence for men, violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, women in this country illegally — felons who, technically, have zero rights – have more rights because of VAWA than male citizens. This is a double violation of the 14th Amendment! Because of VAWA, women who falsely (feloniously) accuse men of rape are almost never prosecuted.
- Michigan’s CAPA, the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act, which stipulates that a man living with a woman — wife or girlfriend — may not, upon learning that she is pregnant, move out of their residence. He is forced, by law, to continue living with her, against his will. Why? She could “interpret” his leaving as coercion to abort the child. Poor girl. CAPA violates the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865.
- In the famous Duke rape case, District Attorney Michael Nifong presumed guilty the three male lacrosse players accused of rape. By doing this, Nifong violated the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, which grant the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. At the same time, he presumed innocent the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper whose body contained semen from five different men, none of them involved in this case, at the time she accused the lacrosse players of rape. Obviously, Crystal Gail Mangum, a woman, bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. DA Nifong is currently under investigation for suppressing evidence and unethical conduct — amazing, given that he was engaging in the commonly accepted practice of American VD.
- In a bizarre case (Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland), Maouloud Baby, 16, was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to 15 years in prison because, allegedly, he didn’t withdraw himself from the accusing woman, 18, within five seconds of her request to stop the sex act, according to an insane Maryland law. He is appealing this case. As in the Duke rape case above, this female accuser also bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. She had climbed into the back seat of her car with two guys, fooled around with both at once, then had sex with the unaccused man while the accused man waited outside the car. Then, the unaccused man left the vehicle, and the accused man got back into the car. He claims he failed in his attempt to have sex with her; she claims he succeeded but didn’t pull out on time. Yet, despite her supposed resistance to him, she gave him her cell number! But, wait, a Boston College professor of nursing can explain that: rape-trauma syndrome. Wow.
- In May 2005, in Boston, Massachusetts, the state appeals court ruled that a woman isn’t legally responsible for injuries her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex. The man filed suit against the woman in 1997, claiming she was negligent when she suddenly changed positions, landed awkwardly on him, and fractured his penis. The man underwent emergency surgery in September 1994, “endured a painful and lengthy recovery,” and has suffered from sexual dysfunction that hasn’t responded to medication or counseling. Although the woman may have exposed her boyfriend to “some risk of harm,” the three-judge panel said her conduct during the sexual encounter wasn’t “wanton or reckless” and can’t support a lawsuit. The man’s lawsuit already had been thrown out by judges in Salem District Court and Essex Superior Court. “There are no comprehensive legal rules to regulate consensual sexual behavior,” Justice Joseph Trainor wrote. “In the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual conduct, a jury or judge cannot be expected to resolve a claim that certain consensual sexual conduct is undertaken without reasonable care.” The appeals court’s judges ruled against the man on slightly different grounds than the lower courts, stating that the woman didn’t owe her boyfriend a “duty of reasonable care” during consensual sex. And they didn’t find any evidence she knew her conduct was likely to harm him. Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, that the judges would have ruled likewise had the genders been reversed? There is no way.
NoNonsense Bottom Line
I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but, because of the abundance of artistic talent in my gene pool, I can recognize patterns. The patterns are clear to me: men are constantly encouraging, tolerating, and forgiving bad female behavior and absolving women of personal responsibilities. On the contrary, they hold men responsible for their own behavior and for protecting women from danger … and from themselves. Women are not only not responsible for themselves, they’re not responsible for how they treat men, either. This is beyond lunacy.
As I’ve stated previously, deference towards women leads ultimately to male irrelevance. In my opinion, deferential men are either still pulling on apron strings or threatened by female equality, or both. These eunuchs don’t want, and can’t handle, women as peers; they prefer little girls in adult bodies. This way, they can feel manly and superior. But, this superiority is ephemeral — because there is no male power without male rights, dummies!
If women are such delicate flowers who need special protections, we shouldn’t be allowing them to run our biggest institutions. But, they are running our biggest institutions and have proven that they are competent to do so. But, men in the electorate keep voting for the politicians who, despite female equality, write laws aimed at destroying men’s rights. And on and on. Folks, this is VD America, home of the irrelevant male.
So, Neil Cavuto, this is why boycotting Valentine’s Day, with its female centricity and artificial romance, is a big deal. Valentine’s Day, like an iceberg, appears to be innocuous, but it represents a force much bigger than what the eye can see. As I wrote above, it is emblematic of male irrelevance, an annual celebration of male irrelevance. No day on the calendar makes men look more pathetic and irrelevant than Valentine’s Day.
If men want to become relevant again, they can start by killing Valentine’s Day. This will cause the dominoes to fall in the opposite direction. End deference to women; wipe out VD. The question is, How badly do men want to be relevant? We shall see next February 14th.
What will you do?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ 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).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Ummm….I think not. Killing Valentines Day will ultimately play into the hands of those who support CEDAW. It is NOT the way to make men relevant again. It is, however, a way to surrender what little say men have in life to the extreme global feminists.
Do yourselves a favor and not follow that advice.
That, just like any other well intentioned plan, can and WILL be hijacked by those can use it as a vehicle to further their own agenda and you men will be left scratching your heads, much like original womens rights champions as their own neck-bolted creature walked off with out them.
If a man truly wants to regain equality, then it must be fought for by not tolerating the unfair laws. Sue on your own behalf. If you have rights, sue to regain them. Enter the courts and the law.
Sue to make women studies unfair, or at least make sure we have mens studies.
Sue to gain entrance into womens groups. They may make your head explode…but the intent is the important thing.
Sue for the mental distress todays TV, movies, cartoon (for corns sake!!) make all men look like morons, idiots, total buffoons.
Hey, if it works for women, it can certainly work for you.
And when you get home, apply a little McClintock attitude ajuster.
And for the record…I love my man and I adore my son. They are men, hunters, they are the other half of what makes me (and my daughter) complete and they KNOW it.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
mr: last week i e-mailed 4 major poobaas at the detroit news and expressed my disatisfaction with their vd advertisment depicting a women hitting a man, that you discussed in your article. as of monday, 1:15pm 2/19/07 i have no received no response.
melissa: with all due respect, trying win in our court system as man is like taking a butter knife to a gun fight. ” sue for the mental distress todays tv, movies…………” you have got to be kidding? men cannot sue for any kind of stress. we’re men for gods sake. we work or we die!
February 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
DonnieBoy57 is correct. Men can’t begin the fight in courts — odds are too unfavorable. And, men keep losing in court. MelissaTX lives in the Twilight Zone.
Roe v. Wade for Menâ„¢ was thrown out of federal court in July 2006, because the mangina judge hates men. Pure and simple. How can men go to court with so many eunuch judges presiding?
The best way to turn around this misandric Queen Mary is at the cash register — stop wining & dining women ASAP!
February 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
If Michigan’s Coercive Abortion Prevention Act prohibits a man from moving out the minute he learns the lady is pregnant, what happens if she gets a restraining order requiring him to move out?
Damned if he do and damned if he don’t?
February 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Lol maybe I was right about Cavuto after all. Change, like charity begins at home and yes it starts w/ the wining and dining. I used to live in Durham, and I can tell you the Nifong thing was more about his re-election than bashing men, but the same would not have happened to a woman.
I heard about the 5 second lawsuit on the Leykis program with Mel Feit. Parents probably found out and so she accused the guy of rape, but of course I wasn’t there.
I was listening to the clips of you on various radio shows and I noticed something very interesting, epecially on the Covino/Rich and Tiffany Granath programs. As an investment banker I’m sure that you’ve given people advice on emerging markets, how and when to invest in mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc. If you were giving a radio lecture about cashing in on China’s increasing demand for oil spurred by a (slow) transition to capitalism, I’m sure most of the guys would agree with you and thank you. When you talk about relating with women, there isn’t much difference it seems.
Instead of building a stock portfolio, you advise men to put stock in their personal portfolio. Instead of throwing money away, you tell them to save it and demond reciprocity. Yet, the resistance to these ideas is staggering, especially from men who supposedly take pride in managing their money and growing wealth.
Funny huh?
–and btw the Michigan bill is outrageous.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Certainly one of your best pieces, Marc, in my humble opinion…………
Thank you for summing up so much of the legal and civil misandry facing America’s men and boys today.
And you are spot-on with respect to the futility for men of using women’s strategy of using lawsuits to force legal changes - it simply will not work since men likely will not be provided with a level playing field anytime in the forseeable future.
From a legal and civil perspective, gender apartheid in America is growing.
Men’s constitutional rights are growing increasingly meaningless, as anyone who can read the words of your article can see for themselves.
Men have been surrendering their rights and their freedoms in America…… for what?
Michigan, Maryland, North Carolina………… are raping men’s rights.
Truly the only way that men can be safe from the depradations of out-of-control judicial, law enforcement, and legislative systems is to not marry, not allow women to move in, not have children, and even then a woman can simply falsely accuse a man of rape without fear of retribution.
Keep talking and writing, Marc. More men must understand the nature of the vaginocracy that they live in…… and learn how to take their own steps against it.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hey man; Marc - you have your thumb on the pulse. And fourthwire - you aren’t close behind. I think that is the answer, don’t marry em, don’t feed em and don’t breed with em. And for God’s sake stop putting up with their crap, especially as described above. Sure sex is great but what the hey, all the pain and hardache for a life time of what? Most of them can’t even carry a conversation unless it’s complaining or whining. Generally about you.
Cavuto is assuredly just garnering media ratings and appeals to his female audience for it. Ever watch that Oprey Windbag or her clone Dr. Silly (or is he a clunt)? Talk about pandering to the female audience. And why would some guy go to this idiots “Man Camp” where a largely female man-hating audience (sorry, being redundant here) watches him berated and belittled by another white guy? God almighty. Then he takes his wifey’s “lil” hand and they (starring into each others eyes and wilst going offstage) share small talk as they walk with eyes for each other only).
Errrrrp. Sorry.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Hey man, sorry, but one last goober: “EARTH TO CAVUTO: I WOULD NOT HAVE MARRIED MY EX WIFE EITHER IF I HAD IT TO DO OVER.” NOT AT GUNPOINT.
(ahem)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
You see it all the time…husbands who are resigned to accepting the edicts of their wives, who make unilateral decisions and issue pronouncements concerning everything from getting a pet to who they will socialize with to everything about the kids to what needs to be done around the house (and when it needs to be done). You hear it in their voices when you’re driving together to get some lunch, or relating at the office how the wife decided that the family was going to get a dog. He says that he doesn’t want one, but says, with a sigh, “Ah, what are you going to do…?” They already have a cat, and he has to take some pill due to an allergy to it. Or when another guy tells the story of buying a tie or a shirt, and the wife criticizing his choice, and you can sense the veiled resentment as he meekly accepted it. I see this more and more. This typical guy is a husband in his 30’s to mid 40’s with young kids, whose wives are long accustomed to being in charge. I find myself wanting to grab these guys by the collar, scold them and tell them to retrace their steps until they find where they dropped their balls, or to retrieve their testicles from their wife’s purse, and reinsert them. Sometimes I do, but not even that elicits any response but more shoulder shrugs. Good god, that they would at least get pissed!
But then I remember that that used to be me when I was in my 30’s and early 40’s, afraid to confront my wife, fearful of establishing limits to her acceptable behavior due to the conflict that would result, while the marriage slowly deteriorated…Until it got to the point where I didn’t give a shit anymore, then let it fly…and the marriage exploded. I’ll bet that a number of you guys reading this can relate…
Now I have no problem telling a woman what I expect from her and what I won’t accept from her. And I’m training my sons to do likewise. I’m absolutely convinced that the only way things can and will change for men is when individual men change the way they relate to women, refuse to get married, demand reciprocity, and otherwise stop pandering to them. Appealing to the courts will only bring ridicule from both women and men.
these men need to know that they are not alone.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I don’t live in the Twilight Zone.
I live in the real world. And though you all don’t want to admit it, the real world doesn’t work according to the older precepts.
The law is there to use…how in Gods name do you think Fathers rights are gaining the ground they are?
Just because “a man doesn’t sue” (which is bs) and “we work or die” doesn’t mean you cannot gain ground and move on from there.
You all just don’t want to admit to having to resort to such a tactic to get back what you have readily surrendered, been stripped of, or given up for the sake of peace with the ex or your kids.
Bought time ya’all got damn good and mad and quit bitching and started doing.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Melissa,
Your inane postings here prove that you didn’t read my article and know nothing about this subject matter. You’re just an attention whore who has nothing better to do and is the kind of woman to avoid.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ed, thank you for your kind words.
For your information, I learned quite a bit about the nature of American women and how to minimize my risks with respect to those women.
Certainly by living as an expatriate in multiple nations, I was able to get a better perspective about the rapacious, egotistical, and generally unsympathetic (to men’s rights) American women often are.
I should hasten to add that my “education” was tempered and refined by reading and listening to men such as Marc Rudov, Tom Leykis, Denis, Zed, Dave Usher, The Gonzman, and more.
Those individuals are men who not only are still in charge of their own testicles, they share their insights with others into how men have lost their own, not to mention how they can get control of them again.
Melissa, regardless of your good intentions, your advice to men to take feminist-plagued organizations to court may very well be relatively pointless, at least from an effectiveness perspective.
As Marc pointed out, the cards are stacked AGAINST men in most courts. Men have relatively few organizations willing to underwrite their legal endeavors against institutionalized misandry.
Changes are coming, all right…… but not as a result of men’s lawsuits (which seem to function mostly to hearten those men who see striking back (however ineffectively) as a small triumph against feminism, in itself.
Dave Usher seems to be one of those particular individuals.
Changes are coming because greater numbers of men are refusing to marry, impregnate, or cohabit with women, leaving greater numbers of women to fend for themselves.
I sure as hell haven’t surrendered.
I just refuse to play in a rigged game, that’s all.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Shameful typo: “Certainly by living as an expatriate in multiple nations, I was able to get a better perspective about the rapacious, egotistical, and generally unsympathetic (to men’s rights) nature of most American women.”
February 19th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
talk about typos: i checked my post and “still” made 2 errors. actually, i am an ok speller, just a lousy typist! judging by the other posts, i stand by my mine.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
emarel,
Here are some lines of dialogue from a scene in the Seinfeld episode called “The Opera.” This exchange between George and Jerry exemplifies how men defer to women without protest, and it is pathetic. But, it is the reason we have the current VD situation.
I hope men will identify with this dialogue and vow never again to allow it again in their lives:
——————————
Knock at door.
JERRY: (cautiously) Who is it?
GEORGE: It’s George.
George enters wearing a very small tuxedo.
GEORGE: What, are you locking the door now?
JERRY: Well, well, look at you. It’s a little skimpy there isn’t it?
GEORGE: Do you know the last time I wore this thing? Six years ago, when I
made that toast at Bobby Leighton’s wedding.
JERRY: Ooo, that was a bad toast.
GEORGE: It wasn’t that bad.
JERRY: I never heard anybody curse in a toast.
GEORGE: I was trying to loosen ‘em up a little bit.
JERRY: There were old people there, all the relatives. You were like a Red
Fox record. I mean, at the end of the toast nobody even drank. They were
just standing there, they were just frozen! That might have been one of the
worst all time toasts.
GEORGE: Alright, still her father didn’t have to throw me out like that, he
could have just asked me to leave. The guy had me in a headlock! Susan’s not
going tonight you know.
JERRY: What do you mean not going? why not?
GEORGE: I don’t know, she said she had to pick up a friend of hers at the
airport. It cost me a hundred dollars this ticket.
JERRY: Why doesn’t she pay for hers?
GEORGE: That’s a very good question. You know she and I go out for dinner,
she doesn’t even reach for the check. That’s all I’m asking for is a reach.
Is that so much to ask for?
JERRY: It’s nice to get a reach.
——————————————
The objective is not to get a reach. The objective is for her to reciprocate by actually paying.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Well, Gentlemen, it’s clearly time for men in Amerika to stop marrying women altogether. If you are going to get married, I suggest emigrating first, and remaining outside of the US legal jurisdiction.
I don’t even recognize v-day and I still get laid when I want. Why should you?
After all, the sportsex is free. In fact, one doesn’t even need to date to get that.
Also, I think we should open up a can of Anti-Peonage Law!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
melissatexas,
Ours is a dysfunctional system that favors women. As Marc made clear, men are not given equal rights or protection. We women must stand up for men in support of true equality by refusing to be part of any unequal practice.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Marc, its not often I get to praise you. That article was Pretty Damn Good. Forthwire expressed my sentiments well.
MelissaTX just hasn’t quite got it yet. Sure she can want the attention of VD but the encouragement to men to keep bashing their heads against the court-house wall is akin to a WW1 General sending another 10,000 men into machine gun fire.
But simply refusing to cater to the women’s ‘entitlement’ complex isn’t going to change things either. It might make us feel better but it won’t change the law. All those mangina men you describe, who revel in making other men’s lives a misery are the ones who have to go. No use trying to convert them either. It is they who should walk into our field of fire. They won’t march in of course, so we need to go in and get them.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:25 am
The US, the UK, Canada, Australia & just about every western society today has indeed degenerated into gynocracy. Gynocracy is the new slavery. Malcolm X used to describe the pre-Civil War slavery system as dividing slaves into 2 groups: house slaves & field slaves. The house slaves lived in the big house, ate good food & wore good clothes in return for keeping the field slaves in check. The field slaves (the majority) lived in shacks/huts & got the worst food/clothes; they were whipped every day from sunup to sundown, & prayed their master would die.
The parallel today is: the women are the slavemasters; the legislators, judges, etc, are the house slaves; while the rest of us males are the field slaves. While I don’t pray for the swift death of anyone of either gender (except convicted murderers), I do fight back the best way I can, by embracing the single, unattached life, by avoiding dating, r’ships, marriage & sex.
When truth is spoken, society first is shocked by it, then violently opposes it, but eventually comes to accept it. Almost 40 years ago, messenger M.L. King was literally shot, yet the racial barriers did eventually break. The gender barriers are next.
Perhaps when those of us who are currently under 40 wrest the reins of this country from the older generation–by being elected to office ourselves–we will be able to implement various badly needed reforms such as replacing VAWA with a SAFE law (Stop Abuse for Everyone). But in the meantime, we can & must:
1. (Individually) Stay single & childless;
2. (Collectively) March in the streets for repeal of unjust anti-male laws, just as King used to march for repeal of unjust anti-black laws.
May we overcome!
February 20th, 2007 at 3:12 am
I am with Fourthwire and Amfortas, well done Marc. Excellent article.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Outstanding job, Marc. Thanks for facing into the wind, breaking the ice, and saying what needs to be said but has been ruthlessly suppressed for the past 40 years.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Hey Marc — Once again, great job on the Neil cavuto interview. I thought it was great.
Just curious… Did you know what questions Neil was going to ask beforehand, or were your reactions extemporaneous? Also, from where was the show broadcast?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:45 am
roxtar:
I completely disagree that men are slaves to women. My article says the opposite: men choose deferential treatment. True, the eunuch politicians pass misandric laws, but WE vote these A-holes into office and then keep them there.
Last week on Tom Leykis’s show, Mel Feit, exec director of the National Men’s Center, was the guest. Leykis asked him why men keep getting the shaft from male politicians. His answer: men — unlike women — are lazy, unorganized, and unfinanced. Feit said that men will complain and blame but won’t do the hard work to fix the situation; they expect Santa Claus to arrive on the scene to solve all their problems. He and I spoke about this in more detail by phone. Basically, the situation is bleak because men won’t take massive action; men fear women.
By the way, Feit’s Roe v. Wade for Menâ„¢ was thrown out of federal court in July 2006 by a eunuch judge. I got this from Feit’s Website: On July 17, 2006 United States District Court Judge, David M. Lawson, summarily dismissed Matt Dubay’s lawsuit. In a decision that reeked of unnecessary and inappropriate sarcasm, Lawson chided Dubay for not wanting to support “his” daughter. “[Dubay] had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct so the state came to his assistance,” wrote Judge Lawson, with smirking and childish penmanship.
Read my article carefully. I am advocating the complete boycotting of Valentine’s Day — the first domino in a bad chain. Closing your wallet is the EASIEST, FASTEST, and MOST-EFFECTIVE action to take. Lawsuits in a gynocracy are not effective at this time. Saying no to women in dating is EASY. Yet, next Valentine’s Day, watch to see how many eunuchs kowtow to women. If they can’t stop Valentine’s Day, they are not slaves; they are lapdogs. If they can’t say no to Valentine’s Day, they can neither bring nor win lawsuits.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Great point, KateM — if only more women would think like you.
Thanx for the kudos from amfortas, christianj, zed, and KRS.
Also, KRS, my interview with Cavuto was NOT rehearsed. The whole thing was extemporaneous. By, the way, Neil LOVED the interview, and I was a hit at Fox. Neil was in NYC; I was in San Diego.
If men boycott Valentine’s Day, it will make national news and get the attention of the politicians. But, most men are eunuchs, incapable of standing up to women. THAT is why women rule today. THAT is what my article is all about.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Marc, while men do indeed have the freedom to resist slavery, roxstar is closer to the truth than you give him credit for.
While American men cannot literally become slaves, child-support, vaginamony, and ………..
……..”Michigan’s CAPA, the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act, which stipulates that a man living with a woman  wife or girlfriend  may not, upon learning that she is pregnant, move out of their residence. He is forced, by law, to continue living with her, against his will”……
……. do infringe upon men’s fundamental liberty and freedom to the point of quasi-slavery (enforced by state, county, and local law enforcement).
The cost of avoiding such quasi-slavery by most men involves avoiding those conditions (such as marriage or impregnating women) under which men can be financially enslaved (or not permitted to move out of his home).
I understand your point that men enable women’s entitlement/empowerment by behaving deferentially.
But as you know, the reproductive, marital, and other laws are rigged against men, in favor of women.
The quasi-slavery that has turned so many American men’s lives into hell IS avoidable……… but until men have equal civil, legal, social, and reproductive rights, the only way that men can totally avoid losing is to refuse to play women’s game: by refusing to engage women in relationships that MIGHT lead to quasi-slavery for those men.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Fourthwire,
Inaction leads to loss of power. That is what men have brought upon themselves.
If men view themselves as victims and interpret their loss of power as slavery, the battle is over.
It is critical NOT to use disempowering language. While CAPA is slavery, men are not slaves — unless they enslave themselves by taking zero action.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I am not arguing that inaction by men…. and misguided chivalry led to loss of power. In fact I could not agree more, Marc.
But for those men who venture out into the minefields of relationships with women, they must choose carefully, and STILL require luck, simply not to become a quasi-slave.
Those men being forced to pay, pay, pay with their money, their freedoms, their emotional health and more ARE victims…… of a social system that methodically stripped them of their rights.
Mind you, men MUST take their freedoms back themselves, as you point out.
And until a sizeable enough percentage of men do precisely that, refuse to marry or willingly reproduce, refuse to defer to women, and stand up for their own rights, men will continue to be treated as second- or even third-class citizens by American society.
We are close to agreement, but not quite.
It’s far more important for America’s men to receive your wakeup call than for you to try to pound through semantics with me, in my opinion.
You are, in my opinion, helping to move the men’s rights movement toward critical mass through your writing and guest appearances.
And congrats on your latest guest appearances, especially in Neil Cavuto’s interview.
Peace.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Looks like my post was deleted.
In my opinion, women stripped men of rights they gave up either voluntarily or did not fight for.
All I am saying, and Marc you can bet damn well I do get it…again I will say:
You all just don’t want to admit to having to resort to such a tactic to get back what you have readily surrendered, been stripped of, or given up for the sake of peace with the ex or your kids.
Sitting around and bitching about it gets you no where. Action….you wanna say your all men, then grow a spine and do what needs to be done rather than complaining and saying “We don’t do that…after all, we have testosterone..”
Stand up to women. Isn’t that what you said, Marc?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
MelissaTX,
If your posting adds no value to my blog, I will delete it.
Standing up to women is one thing, but arguing with them about the obvious and repeating my already-made points are a waste of time. Been there, done that.
If you read my article, really read it, you would not be writing what you do and did. I made my points quite clearly. My article speaks for itself.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
And what will you do when your drum beating plays right into the hands of feminists? What then?
Do you look beyond what you advocate? It is easy to play on mens emotions and hand out recriminations, but don’t dismiss what I say and reject it out of hand without even looking at the facts.
WHEN YOU ADVOCATE A BOYCOTT OR DISMISSAL OF VALENTINES DAY, MOTHERS DAY OR ANY OTHER DAY THAT IS SET ASIDE FOR WOMEN you become just another useful idiot. Read more about CEDAW and the UN push for irradicating said days AND defining the PUNISHMENT FOR CELEBRATING THEM and you can clearly see your push will put you squarely into the pocket of the global feminists.
But you do as you wish, at your own peril.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Valentine’s Day set aside for women?
MelissaTX has finally revealed herself as an entitled bitch — who has nothing to do all day. This is your last posting here.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
Valentine’s Day set aside for women?
MelissaTX has finally revealed herself as an entitled bitch  who has nothing to do all day. This is your last posting here.
Actually, Marc, I would suggest letting her post to her heart’s content - the more and better to reveal to men far and wide her sense of entitlement and fundamentally self-serving position. I believe that it is an abominable and detestable crime against nature to not give someone all the rope they need to hang themselves.
For far too long men have allowed women to play the game of “ignore that woman behind the curtain” and hoodwinked them into focussing instead on the great, smoking, weeping, sniveling head of the victim which is the mask they wear when the rest of the world is watching. I think that inviting MelissaTX to post here all of her random and self-serving thoughts is the best way to show your male readers the truth of what you write.
Behold the face of American womanhood. Now you know where the legends of the Harpies, the Gorgons, and the Medusa came from, and that they are far more than myths of a long-forgotten time.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Shameful typo (which changed my meaning completely!).
Should read: “I am not arguing against your point that inaction by men… and misguided chivalry led to loss of power. In fact I could not agree more, Marc.”
February 20th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Thanks, Marc, for the Jerry Seinfeld/George dialog. George was truly a wonder, and I used to marvel that people like the characters in that show could have survived to adulthood.
Anyway, I’ve been seeing a woman for about 9 months now who, during this time, has made reservations and paid for our hotels while visiting Washington DC, Baltimore, and next month in Boston (I’ll do the driving and handle most, not all, of the meals), and who, while having dinner in D.C. told me that all she wants from me is me; who picks up the check for dinners as much as I do, even when one or both of my sons are with us (she has no children of her own); who cooks from scratch; who works out; and who loves sex. A woman who understands reciprocity. But to be with this kind of woman…she is strong, and professionally accomplished…a man has to be stronger, and has to lead.
February 20th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
emarel,
Based on your description, your lady leads as much as you do — which is GREAT.
You can’t have reciprocity and equality, and also have one party who is stronger and the “leader.” That is oxymoronic.
The problem most men have is that they are weak — not even close to parity with a no-nonsense woman. That is why they prefer to protect little girls in adult bodies, but, in doing so, they ultimately lose themselves and all their assets.
There are only three kinds of male-female relationships:
Which one do you want? Which one do you have?
February 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I dunno, it sounds like emarel has a good thing going for him. Are you considering marrying this woman? Just wondering.
–Harold
February 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
40 year test tube example of Failed feminism:
Every major city has a neighborhood where there has been 40 years of free food, free housing, free medical, low cost public transportation and free public education: The only stipulation is that men are not allowed to live with the mothers of their children.
Result: Open air drug markets, outragous crime an d murder rates, about 50% of all of the children never graduate from high school, teen pregancy, and a very large percentage of the boys enter the criminal justice system before they can enter the job market.
This place is called public housing in America. Women rule there, and adult men are not allowed to father as leaders in their children’s lives.
You can usually go about 5 blocks away from this area, where there are fathers that have survived the no-fault divorce scam, and there are no open air drug markets, many more high school graduates, and a few college grad kids, the crime is much lower, and the children have a much lower criminal justice system involvement.
The next politician who ponticificates about all the work that they are doing to protect children, tell him or her that the best protection in a family is a dad.
We now have a few generations were young ladies have no idea what is expected in a successful family because they have been taught that if a man is in the home, he is supposed to do 100% of his traditional role, and 50% of her traditional role. She is taught that her traditional is mostly optional or slave work, but she still requires that the Man in the House do 100% of his traditional role or she will leave with the kids.
Have the politicians explain why the women run society known as the projects has failed our children worse than any other family model, even after mothers were given almost every necessity.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Well said, rayc1.
I have remarked in several of my articles that (male) politicians always claim the family to be the bedrock of our society. Yet, they can’t pass anti-male (translation: anti-family) legislation fast enough — at both the state and federal levels.
Politicians care about one thing: votes. Men don’t stop voting for anti-male candidates. Women DO STOP voting for candidates who don’t support “female” issues (100 US senators voted to reauthorize VAWA 2006). Women comprise 51+% of the electorate. So, duh, figure it out. The vote whores go for the votes.
If men can’t boycott Valentine’s Day, how can you expect them to boycott anti-male candidates?
Watch men when women enter any room. Watch them behave like a bunch of sycophantic, obsequious, deferential pussies. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why men have become irrelevant.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
If men can’t boycott Valentine’s Day, how can you expect them to boycott anti-male candidates?
Watch men when women enter any room. Watch them behave like a bunch of sycophantic, obsequious, deferential pussies. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why men have become irrelevant.
I think it is worth raising the question whether men were ever “relevant”, or were they merely considered “useful.”
Forty years ago when a woman entered a room men were every bit as deferential as they are today, in fact moreso. Today, they are at least openly competing for her attention and the remote possibility of gaining some of her sexual “favors.” Back then, she was simply treated like aristocracy. And then, as now, it was men who enforced this conduct on other men.
I think when you look at the outright hostility toward women expressed in things like rap music, that without fathers to enforce and transmit chivalry the overall status of women has gone down rather than up. Most boomer men were raised in intact families and were trained (and in some cases beaten) into deference to women by those same fathers who also enforced discipline in other areas of life.
The difference between then and now is that women have declared men no longer even useful - as long as the courts continue to give women eminent domain over men’s wallets.
The question that remains is whether in addition to being irrelevant, and declared useless, are men also stupid? Or will they adapt? My guess is that the simple and weak ones will die off, as 18,000 of them do every year, and the ones which are not destroyed will adapt and get smarter and meaner. More and more younger men are saying they will demand DNA tests immediately upon being told by a woman that she is pregnant - even if they are married to her. The more anti-male laws which get passed, the more that at least some men will realize that they have to protect themselves because no one else will.
For all their apparent short term gains, in the long run I think women will lose even more than they have gotten, because their pool of fools is slowly drying up, or dying or being killed off.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:45 am
MelissaTX - appreciate your posts - good points
lack of balance is what this whole mess is about.
simple: let’s practice what we preach
I’ve been angry for 30 yrs and looking for a way out - looking to find that way out with fellow men.
Fellow men = men I can look up to, whether the street person I need to learn from or the smartass college kid I need to spar with - but lets keep our dignity. No way a real man would ever let that be stolen.
If nothing else, that’s a beginning.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:01 am
Quoting Zed: “The more anti-male laws which get passed, the more that at least some men will realize that they have to protect themselves because no one else will.”
Right on, Zed; to again paraphrase MX, once we realize that all branches/levels of gov’t have failed us, we stop turning to them & turn to ourselves.
Again quoting Zed: “For all their apparent short term gains, in the long run I think women will lose even more than they have gotten, because their pool of fools is slowly drying up, or dying or being killed off.”
Another good point. The younger a man is, the more likely he is to have had enough of the nonsense of which Marc speaks. Although a few boomer men (including Marc) have had enough, the rest of the boomers are currently running the gov’t & are too set in their ways for us to ever change their minds. That’s why I speculated earlier that once those of us who are now under 40 start running for office ourselves, we will then be able to reform the system.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:33 am
While calling for action is reasonable, the specific action that MelissaTX calls for ignores the contents of the article. The courts are not currently the appropriate venue for men to pursue fair treatment because the courts as they currently exist bend over backwards to find reasons to support women against men instead of doing what they are supposed to do.
Any venue which could deny a man the right to sue because: “The appeals court’s judges ruled against the man on slightly different grounds than the lower courts, stating that the woman didn’t owe her boyfriend a “duty of reasonable care†during consensual sex is not an appropriate venue for men to pursue equal treatment.
The case in which a woman seriously injured a man during sexual intercourse may or may not be one where his injury was a result of her recklessness: The problem here is not her recklessness or lack of recklessness, it is the fact that he was not even permitted to put the facts before a jury. The legal system today is hopelessly biased against men and calling for men to use it is not just foolish, it is counterproductive. Case law lasts people, decisions made today can and will continue to be applied for decades or centuries to come. Voluntarily petitioning todays court system to influence our future and the future of our children is insane.
Just as a car with a bad transmission must be repaired before setting out on a 1000 mile journey, we must fix the courts before attempting to use them to fix vilification and devaluation of men. Failing to do so invites disaster.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:04 am
DrDamage,
You are 100% correct, and this is the point of my article. I advocate that men fight, and can win, this battle against irrelevance in the streets — in their daily lives with women.
If men would abruptly change the way they deal with women on a daily basis, they would have better lives. Boycotting Valentine’s Day is a visible way to start. I have met some women recently who now refuse to talk to me because I am against V-Day — that’s how I know I am ON THE RIGHT TRACK. Eliminating this V-Day entitlement will piss off a lot of women; it will make THEM change.
If men ignore enough women — the worst punishment of all — WOMEN will see that we have turned the tables on them, earned their respect, become relevant. Then, THEY will demand that the legislatures and courts become friendly to men.
Women always act selfishly. Currently, they see men as wimps who can be easily manipulated; they are right. Stop deferring to them; watch how quickly they change.
From now on, starting today, treat EVERY woman — in the workplace, in bars, at parties, at family gatherings — as a peer. No deference. No kowtowing. No ass-kissing. No chivalry. Observe her INSTANT change. You’ll never get results like this in court.
I’ve written two books for men about how to change their dealings with women, per the above. The men who have read them and followed my advice constantly send me letters of thanks — with proof that my advice works. I’ve made every mistake in the book, and I know what I’m talking about. If you want to change your relationships with women today, I’ve provided the tools that work. You know where to get them.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
RIGHT ON MARC !!!!
I have followed your advice and it does work. All of my relationships with the women in my life have changed … for the better. Except for my mother … she’s a saint.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
Preach it, Brother Marc, Preach it!!
I’d like to make one tiny change/addition -
Marc: I advocate that men fight, and can win, this battle against irrelevance in the streets  in their daily lives with women.
If men would abruptly change the way they deal with women on a daily basis, they would have better lives.
If any man changes the way he deals with women on a daily basis, he instantly begins to have a better life. Sorry, we can’t save all the pig-headed fools who want to keep doing what they want to do and have been doing but have the entire world change to start giving them the results they want. Let them lead their lives of fearful servitude.
The heart and soul of the slave is that he waits for someone else to come set him free.
Remember, we are all Spartacus.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
The difference, zed, is that Spartacus didn’t elect to become a slave. The American male elected subservience to women. Worse, he’s addicted and refuses to kick the habit.
In fact, voluntary castration also has occurred in Canada, England, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand. Al Gore’s global warming must be melting testicles everywhere.
Watch an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Notice how effectively Marie (Doris Roberts) and Deborah (Patricia Heaton) manipulate the men on the show. THIS is an accurate portrayal of the typical American mangina. Watch the new CBS show, Terms of Engagement. Same thing. Simply pathetic.
Until men regrow their balls, nothing will change. You are right: every man is responsible for his own plight. Chris Gardner, author of Pursuit of Happyness, said it best: “The calvary ain’t coming [to save you]. You must save yourself.”
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Here’s another example of how Madison Avenue shows its hatred for men. It’s a TV commercial for Pella window treatments.
Imagine a TV commercial with the roles reversed — woman as total moron. Not in a million years.
WATCH THE CLIP
Only an irrelevant human being is portrayed this way, over and over and over again.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
mhr: some one should do an hour long special just on male bashing advertisements. make that 2 hours. get your tv contacts going and presto, you have visibility. follow that with the sit-coms and other inane tv shows. hammer home the idea of boycots against the advertisers. ford, progressive ins. etc etc etc. one would think there would be one, just one, influential man of means who would be willing to get involved and do something. talk talk talk. hell, i am as guilty as anyone else. bla bla bla. j..s..s f..k..g christ. sorry! i need a vacation.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Yes, DonnieBoy57, I could make quite a video collage of misandric TV sitcoms and commercials.
If you can find me that new Liberty Mutual commercial where the husband can’t remember the home-alarm code (because the code is his wedding anniversary), please give me the link — I’ll post it here.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
[…] I laud Mr. O’Reilly’s first two points. But, just having written “Celebrating Male Irrelevance,” I am finding O’Reilly’s third point problematic. First, Bill implies that mothers (women) lack the power and the responsibility to save their own children — even though Hillary Clinton wants to command America’s armed forces. Second, O’Reilly is ignoring a basic reality in this country: fathers (men) are irrelevant, and children know it. […]