Formula for Success

Do you want to succeed? Advice books — from the likes of Messrs. McCormack, Covey, Robbins, Trump, and Kiyosaki — can guide you, offering variations on timeless axioms: do what you love, be unique, be proactive, hone your radar, constantly improve, outflank and outwork your competitors, build respect, manage costs, negotiate skillfully, exceed customer expectations, and learn from failure.

Success is generic — blind to race, religion, age, and gender. Stephen R. Covey’s famous book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, doesn’t contain separate chapters for men and women. Why? Effectiveness is effectiveness. Success is success.

There is a definable can-do, never-make-excuses attitude that successful people possess. In her 2005 book, I Don’t Believe in Failure, Oprah Winfrey, America’s first self-made female billionaire, embodies that mindset. It is no coincidence, then, that many of Oprah’s female peers, using the same success precepts, have risen to top positions in academia, government, and business.

Formula for Failure

As there are many women who hope to lose weight by ignoring the immutable rules of fitness — eat less and move more — an equal number, at least, believe they can achieve success by ignoring its immutable rules. Would it not be reasonable, then, to assume that such behavior is the formula for failure? I think so. In fact, to simplify, let’s just take the precepts of success and do the opposite.

For women who want to fail, allow me to suggest three basic rules:

1. Whine and complain incessantly that, despite women owning the preponderance of rights, privileges, and wealth, they deserve more
2. Always seek others and the government to do your bidding, because you’re too timid and insecure to assert and apply yourself
3. Refuse to accept that you’re being paid what you’re worth, according to the deal you negotiated.

If my rules for failure only whet your appetite, and you’d like a more-detailed treatise on the subject, one has just surfaced: The 51% Minority by Lis Wiehl. Wiehl is a legal analyst at Fox News Channel and an associate professor of law at the University of Washington. Her book, which I would entitle “The 51% Absurdity,” is disempowering and counterproductive, has victimhood woven throughout its pages, and does a disservice to women everywhere.

Read the curious contradictions of power and helplessness in Wiehl’s words:

“Enough! Women are not equal in our society or under our laws, and the remedy is quite simple: Besides being the majority of the population, we also control the economy, spending 80 percent of every discretionary dollar. And, given that 54 percent of voters are female, we can swing an election. With our numbers, we can do something about it.”

Do something about what? Not equal in our society or under our laws? Is Lis Wiehl kidding? This is disingenuous, farcical nonsense at its finest. It makes women look whiny, greedy, and unreasonable. Wiehl’s thesis resembles nothing that appears in success books and is totally devoid of Oprah Winfrey’s take-personal-responsibility-and-make-it-happen message.

America the Gynocracy

In fact, America is a gynocracy — a big sorority house where women have more rights than men, enjoy more privileges than men, own more wealth than men, and graduate college at a higher rate than men, yet still expect men to pay for their dinners and their babies.

To say that women need more rights, as Lis Wiehl claims, is akin to saying that fish need more water. In fact, women, by hijacking the Constitution, are swimming in rights and consequently:

• Own reproductive rights
• Get presumed child custody, child support, and alimony
• Are rewarded for fraudulent maternity
• Can falsely and feloniously accuse men, with impunity, of domestic violence and rape
• Are legally protected when assaulting and injuring men.

Ms. Wiehl never addresses these issues and, by these omissions, tries to justify more protection for women. Throughout her book, she levels many complaints about a society unfair to women, and she makes many claims, including these standard chestnuts:

• A woman earns seventy-three cents for every dollar a man makes
• Domestic violence remains the single biggest threat of injury to women in America.

Let’s talk about these two claims. Citing the paychecks of men and women as average figures has little mathematical meaning. First, their job descriptions do not identically match up: men typically are not receptionists and dental hygienists; women typically are not bridgebuilders and steelworkers. Second, women are equal to or surpassing men in professional, nonmanufacturing categories: 60 percent of female MBAs outearn their husbands. Third, it is a myth that a given job pays a set salary: the highest compensation always goes to best negotiator, man or woman.

On the domestic-violence (DV) front, women are equal-opportunity offenders (see MediaRadar.org). Yet, Lis Wiehl and most feminists never mention that. Moreover, when magazines and newspapers write about DV, they typically portray men as evil and women as victims.

Female-on-male violence, on the contrary, is rarely reported because men know that police officers will ridicule or disbelieve them — even though any street cop will admit that women are often more violent than men. Why the double standard? The media make it acceptable, politically correct, and funny for women to strike men. Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond, and The King of Queens featured abundant examples of women hitting men for laughs.

A current Sprint-Nextel/Blackberry commercial shows two men with bags of ice on their heads after a woman hit them in retaliation for hiding her Blackberry as a joke. Countless other commercials from Volvo, Ikea, Capital One, Pella, and Liberty Mutual portray men as bumbling morons.

Recent movies The Last Kiss (DreamWorks) and The Holiday (Sony Pictures) show women slapping men for cheating on them, even though men and women are unfaithful in equal numbers. In The Last Kiss, the offended woman held a butcher knife within inches of her philandering boyfriend and forced him to sleep and eat on the front porch. Would a movie studio or TV network ever show a man demeaning a woman like this, for any reason, let alone infidelity? Not in a light-year.

Again, Lis Wiehl doesn’t mention female-on-male violence, how it slips under the radar, and its destructive implications in our society. She chooses instead to project an ever-worsening plight for women.

Such unfair and unbalanced characterizations, and such unrelenting and repetitive distortions of the truth have been the culprits in creating a societal climate in which three innocent male students of Duke University could be falsely accused, and presumed guilty, of rape in Durham, North Carolina. When Duke suspended these men, because of its zero-tolerance policy (translation: we only care about her side of the story), nobody batted an eye.

Victimhood

Ms. Wiehl shared two personal anecdotes about her life that established the “victim” foundation of her entire book. In one, she was a federal prosecutor in a case. According to Wiehl, the male defense attorney kept making untoward remarks about her femininity. Instead of challenging this man, face to face, she asked the judge to intervene. A disempowering choice.

In the second situation, Wiehl regales us about a recent vacation with a few other couples. She was having a drink at a bar, when a husband from her circle began hitting on her. Repeating her pattern above, instead of cussing him out, on the spot, she did nothing, left the scene, and “felt dirty” afterwards. Then, she discussed it with her girlfriends. Another disempowering choice.

To Lis Wiehl, these anecdotes are proof that men behave badly, women are victims, and the government has failed to rectify the situation. To me, they indicate her insecurities, and that is the danger. She is, after all, asking women to follow her example. Knowingly or unknowingly, however, Lis Wiehl is encouraging women to be victims and to seek rescuers.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

True success is based on a woman’s ability to use her internal tools of competitiveness, education, savvy, talent, street smarts, work ethic, courage, self-reliance, recoverability from setbacks, and superior communication skills.

A woman can choose one of two paths, from two extreme examples. She can travel the risky, bumpy, hilly, pot-holed but well-marked path of success, exemplified by Oprah Winfrey — and gain credibility, respect, and marketability.

Or, she can cruise along the prepaved superhighway of disempowerment, while whining, complaining, and blaming her unsuccessful, unfulfilling journey on men and the government — as Lis Wiehl would have her do. Alas, she will be a token of fiats and quotas, and, consequently, viewed with suspicion, disdain, and resentment.

The alternatives are clear. Which path will you choose?

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.

She’s Mad About Money

Do you remember the term mad money? More common in the vernacular of 50 years ago, mad money is cash a woman carries on a date so that, if she and her escort quarrel and separate, she has the means to return home. Ask any woman about this, and she’ll reminisce about her formative years and her mother’s insistence that, while with a man, she must have enough money for an emergency—not for generosity.

Consider the impact on male-female relationships of mothers teaching their impressionable daughters to equate money with mad: it has socialized women to spend money, in the context of men, only in times of anger and self-preservation—and only on themselves. Evidence abounds that this value remains deeply embedded in our culture.

A woman’s expectation that a man would be her primary provider was logical in the days when she was mainly a babymaker and had no chance to become a self-made billionaire (Oprah Winfrey), CEO of Xerox (Anne Mulcahy), president of MIT (Susan Hockfield), or speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi). So, in those times, it was widely accepted that a woman’s sole duty on a date was to be ready on time.

When you think about traditional dating customs, they instruct women in how to be takers. Women always worked as secretaries, nurses, teachers, librarians, and receptionists. So, for them to have felt entitled to fully paid nights on the town, with no obligations to reciprocate—in proportion to their incomes—with treats to movies or softdrinks or hotdogs, is total nonsense. But, reciprocation was taboo. The thinking was: if a woman ever opened her wallet in public, with a man present, she was considered a loser, he a cad.

Men Are the Enablers

Fast-forward to 2007. Women, according to Allianz Group, now control the lion’s share of American wealth (Allianz projects 60% control by 2010). Also, 33% more women than men graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and 50% of shareholders are women.

In addition to professional earnings, women boost their portfolios by becoming widowed, divorced, and unwed mothers—especially when the fathers of their out-of-wedlock babies are star athletes. Finally, add the free meals, jewelry, and vacations women enjoy during dating—wow, do they have a solid path to wealth.

So, in our era of unprecedented female power and wealth, mad money seems obsolete, doesn’t it? The phrase may be passé, but not the concept: most women still expect the man to pay for dinner. Even Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist and pseudo-feminist who questions the necessity of men, expects it. This double standard, this hypocrisy, this female nonsense should outrage all men. It doesn’t. With resignation, these men are the enablers.

Why do most men still choose to be voluntary default financiers of dating, marriage, and divorce? Three reasons. One, they are largely unaware of female-wealth statistics. Two, they find “the female as peer” to be very threatening. Three, they are ignorant about and/or uncomfortable with the lustful female libido. Reason one is easily cured through education. Overcoming reasons two and three, however, require both education and complete attitudinal changes.

Cash Kills Arousal

Last weekend, I made a repeat guest appearance on The Deborah Rowe Radio Program, broadcast from ABC Radio’s WLS in Chicago. Ms. Rowe is a well-known luminary in the City of Big Shoulders and an engaging host who attracts a loyal audience. I enjoy the hunger Deborah’s listeners have for my way of thinking, as evidenced by the e-mails they send me.

The show’s callers, however, are a different story. Most of them seem to feel conflicted about the emancipated woman. To wit: Here is the comment of caller Vicky, a Chicago wife whose attitude about sex and money underscores the chief reason for relationship dysfunction:

“Where I think Marc takes it too far is where you get to the intimacy between a man and a woman. I think that, to respect the capability of women, to be equal, is perfectly fine. But, he’ll be great buddies with whoever he pairs up with. But, when you get to intimacy, women need to be encouraged or enticed into sexual intimacy, and a man always wants it. So, it’s a man’s job to woo the woman.”

Wow! So much useful information packed into her words. First, Vicky claims to like equality for women—until the dinner check arrives. That’s nonsense, not equality. Second, Vicky is not attracted to her husband. If she were, she wouldn’t need him to encourage, entice, or woo her into sex, and she wouldn’t abdicate to him sole responsibility for the mating ritual.

Finally, Vicky equates a reciprocal relationship with friendship, bereft of intimacy. In other words, Vicky provides “intimacy” in exchange for meals—a transaction known as legal prostitution. To Vicky, intimacy is a service, deliverable within the “mart of seduction.” One problem: in the mart of seduction, there is no seduction—only solicitation.

As I’ve written extensively in The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women and Under the Clitoral Hood, seduction has nothing to do with money. In fact, money behind the wining & dining inhibits seduction and sexual arousal. This is why Vicky isn’t attracted to her husband, and she doesn’t even realize it!

Recently, Woman’s Day magazine and AOL surveyed 3,000 married women. According to this survey, more than half of these women were unsure they would marry their husbands again—with more than a third saying they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses. Also, more than 75 percent of them fantasize about other men, and 39 percent constantly flirt with other men.

This survey has Vicky’s name all over it. Even though women are the libido champs, a lot of men don’t want to believe it—frequently grousing that women are uninterested in sex. To each disbeliever, I say: Women aren’t uninterested in sex; they’re uninterested in sex with you—because you pay to bed them. They disrespect you for your lack of game and feel obligated to share your bed. How exciting and erotic can that be?

NoNonsense Bottom Line

In Under the Clitoral Hood, I assert that women go to bed with men for two reasons: raw attraction and wining/dining obligation. Because most women demand to be wined & dined, they will continue to be sexually unfulfilled, fake their orgasms, and flirt with and fantasize about other men. Therein lies the paradox: wining & dining, traditionally tantamount to romance, predetermines that women will end up with men to whom they are not wildly attracted. And, consequently, men will lose two-fold: in the wallet and in the bed.

Yet, as fundamentally flawed as this dynamic is, as emotionally and financially destructive as it is, men and women are not rushing to alter it. Any man who believes that dating is all about entertaining her, about buying her like a hooker, is begging to be taken and will, obviously, attract takers.

Men always have believed that money gives them power, because it helps them attract the hottest women. Big deal. For the right price, anyone can buy a woman—most of them are for sale.

Why, then, does a man feel proud and virile when a woman just wants his money, not him? Because he’s unaware that money, ironically, doesn’t give him power. In fact, the more he flaunts his money, the more women will view him, disdainfully, as an unskilled and easily manipulated target.

If you’d prefer to engage in the art of seduction, rather than the mart of seduction, remove the M (hint: M is for money). If you don’t take away the M, she’ll take it away for you.

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.