Horse’s Behind

A few months ago, within the span of one week, a pantyless Britney Spears exposed her bare genitals four times to the paparazzi. In doing so, she violated California Penal Code, Section 314.1, which labels indecent exposure a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in the county jail, not exceeding one year.

Why did the authorities not arrest or charge Ms. Spears for these willful, lewd acts? Because women, who disingenuously complain about inequality, actually have more privileges and rights than men. Had Kevin Federline, Britney’s ex-husband, behaved in the same manner as the out-of-control mother of his children, does anyone question the severity of prosecution he would have faced? This double standard exists not only in criminal courts but in family courts as well.

Mothers are raising most of the children in this country — the average divorce rate is 50% and average out-of-wedlock birthrate is 37%. According to ABC’s John Stossel, mothers get physical custody 90% of the time. As a result, mothers dictate the attitudes, biases, feelings, morals, behaviors, and lives of American children. Consequently, the influence of their fathers is either anemic or negligible.

Not only do children learn to hate and disrespect their fathers at home, they learn it from TV as well. I’ve written extensively about the pejorative portrayal of men on TV — in sitcoms and countless commercials. The latest offender is Sony Electronics, and its ad agency BBDO, which is promoting its Cyber-Shot camera through a new commercial called “Your dad is not a horse’s behind” (CLICK HERE to view the Sony commercial). Writes AdWeek:

Indeed, it’s a clever and attention-getting way to sell “face detection,” a Sony digital camera feature that ensures faces (not background images) stay in focus. If “face detection” is the brief, we get it, with both a carrot and a stick. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. It’s not subtle, but it sells.

Clever. It sells. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. Unbelievable! Is anybody in America awake? Do people not grasp what’s going on here? The marketing execs at Sony and the creative chiefs at BBDO greenlighted this commercial. They had to say, This is good stuff! And, why do they think it is socially acceptable and “funny” to disrespect fathers? Because the viewers feel that way, too. Most divorced fathers, and many married ones, watching this perverse Sony commercial know that it reflects American attitudes towards them.

Can you imagine, in your wildest of dreams, seeing a spot like this on TV with a mother shown, literally, as a horse’s ass? Don Imus was kicked off radio and TV for offending one team of female college basketball players. Who will pay a similar price for offending tens of millions of fathers?

If Bill O’Reilly would expose misandrist advertisers and sitcoms with the same vigilance he uses to expose lenient judges, we might turn the tide. Otherwise, disrespect for men, unchecked and unchallenged, will beget more of the same.

Children raised in today’s misandrist homes, while witnessing powerful, unfettered public misandry like that in the Sony commercial, will become our next legislators, judges, prosecutors, mayors, governors, presidents, TV and movie executives, newscasters, magazine and newspaper editors, and, worst of all, parents. If you think fathers are irrelevant now, stay tuned.

“Family” Court

All of this father-bashing has been seeping, drip by drip, down the societal funnel into the so-called “family” court, which (no surprise here) favors mothers. It has culminated into an invisible crisis that few want to address — because it affects fathers. This crisis is called parental alienation, or PA. Because fathers are the overwhelming targets of PA, I call it paternal alienation (uncannily, paternal is an anagram of parental, and PA is a diminutive form of father).

PA arises in divorce and custody situations, the result of alienating behaviors by the mother, whereby the relationship between a child and his or her father is severely damaged or destroyed. The typical child affected by paternal alienation exhibits severe opposition to contact with, and/or overt hatred and disrespect of, his or her father. This happens because the mother, on a daily basis, through verbal and nonverbal means, manipulatively drives a wedge between child and father.

Shortsighted Society

On April 27, 2007, I appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor to debate Wendy Murphy, a female-rights advocate and adjunct professor of law at New England School of Law, about Alec Baldwin’s unfortunate, publicly exposed experiences with paternal alienation. Ms. Murphy, not displaying any lawyerly reason or objectivity, couldn’t accuse Alec enough for being the culprit.

In case you don’t know the situation: Out of frustration of repeatedly calling his daughter at prespecified times, each time finding her cellphone turned off, Baldwin finally lost his temper and left an angry message on her voicemail. He called her a pig and accused her of playing her mother’s game. In a spiteful action that ultimately hurt their daughter even more, Kim Basinger, Baldwin’s ex-wife, allegedly released that angry message to TMZ.com.

Soon afterwards, every news organization in the world picked it up and, purporting to care about the 11-year-old girl, played it ad nauseam. They all pilloried Alec Baldwin’s behavior. Bad man. Bad father. Only Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, refused to air it because he didn’t want to add to the pain of the Baldwins’ daughter.

Sean Hannity wanted to see Baldwin thrown in jail. Raoul Felder, divorce lawyer to well-heeled women, attempted to vitiate PA as nonexistent pseudoscience. Geraldo Rivera, self-admitted rogue, blamed all divorce and custody problems on men, who always “try to chisel their ex-wives so that they can afford to be with young chicks.”

I’ve seen only five prominent newspeople willing to examine Alec Baldwin’s outburst from his perspective: FNC’s Bill O’Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor), Alan Colmes (Hannity & Colmes), ABC’s Rosie O’Donnell and Barbara Walters (The View), and ABC’s John Stossel (20/20). Why so few? I believe Sony Electronics summed it up pretty well.

In my debate with Wendy Murphy, she railed against Alec Baldwin for not being a “real man,” for not taking personal responsibility for his actions — even though he had and has done that profusely. The vitriol was amazing. Yet, the criticism of Kim Basinger’s role in this was practically nonexistent.

The media presented neither “special programs” on the inner workings of family courts and biases towards mothers, nor acknowledgments of International Parental Alienation Awareness Day (April 25th).

Alec Baldwin’s detractors have criticized him for wanting personal sympathy and not being 100% concerned for his daughter. In other words, his pain and mistreatment are irrelevant. After all, men are not supposed to have feelings or care about them, right? Baldwin’s detractors are wrong: This issue is not all about children; it is about a system that encourages, tolerates, and condones mothers who alienate fathers from their children.

During the flight of any commercial airline, the flight attendants always instruct parents that, during emergencies, they must place oxygen masks on themselves before doing likewise on their children. Why? Because if the parents become incapacitated, they cannot help their children. Similarly, a father alienated from his children is legally, logistically, emotionally, and financially incapacitated, and he cannot help them. But, someone forgot to mention this to lawmakers, judges, and the media.

Paternal alienation exists precisely because all the focus is myopically on children, and THAT is why we will not eradicate it. Remember welfare? It was intended to help the very people it hurt. There’s a lesson here, folks. A shortsighted society is a dangerous society.

Family courts condone ignoring and hurting fathers; by doing so, they are damaging children. If PA were a crime, lots of mothers would be in jail. But, PA is not a crime — because mothers commit it and can manufacture endless excuses for doing so.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Because Alec Baldwin is a public figure, America is talking about paternal alienation — at least until the next contestant is eliminated on American Idol. Millions of men suffer the same fate in obscurity, their voices forever unheard. After appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, I received e-mails from men around the world in situations similar to Baldwin’s.

Why did Alec Baldwin lose control? I don’t know him personally and cannot comment as a friend familiar with all the facts. But, I can look at the situation that he, like so many other fathers, faces. I can examine the options of any man who experiences PA:

• He cannot talk to his ex-wife, either because she is his enemy or the court orders him not to contact her, or both
• He cannot complain to the court, because the judge doesn’t acknowledge PA and doesn’t care about fathers
• He cannot talk to his daughter, because she has become a hateful, disrespectful clone of her mother.

What happens to a father in this predicament is that he becomes so sad and depressed and feels so helpless and hopeless that he eventually explodes — and the masses call him irresponsible and selfish. These are the same people who give a pass to a mother who publicly flashes her vagina.

If mothers were experiencing PA, every news organization would be blaming men, and the problem would be solved tomorrow. There would be a federal law against it. But, because it is happening to fathers — America’s horses’ asses — nobody cares. And, children, whom everyone claims to love, are the biggest losers.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 50+ 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.

Kowtowing to Feminsists

Spring is here. Flowers are blooming. Bees are buzzing about. Tax season is over. And, I have my annual hankering for another feminist declaration of an unfair gap between male and female wages, and for federal legislation to “fix” it.

Like an oasis in the desert, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) appeared yesterday, new wage-gap study in hand, to proclaim today — April 24th — “Equal Pay Day.” Worry not: “Penis Envy Day” will be next, I predict.

Every newspaper, radio station, TV network, and news Website picked up this nonsense as if Moses had descended again from Mt. Sinai with something new. He didn’t. Not one logically and mathematically trained person reading the news release could have believed a word of it. But, who wanted to risk getting fired from a cushy media job for ignoring the feminists?

Earth to AAUW: There’s no wage gap between men and women, and, therefore, nothing to fix. Needless hysteria. The AAUW’s premise and findings are bogus, intellectually dishonest, and mathematically invalid. Alas, the eunuchs on Capitol Hill listen — kowtow — to these feminists. That’s why the rest of us, especially business owners, have to worry about the AAUW’s report.

The only way to accurately and meaningfully compare compensations is to find men and women:

• With identical educations and resumes
• With identical negotiating skills and personalities
• Performing in identical jobs, with identical workloads and requirements
• Working in identical industries AND identical companies
• Working in identical geographies
• Working the same hours for the same number of years
• Producing identical results.

Instead, the AAUW compared all men and all women, at all levels. Using terms such as “similar” and “comparable” doesn’t cut it. And, by the way, taking the arithmetic means of male and female salaries — without looking at categories, medians, and standard deviations — is meaningless. The AAUW also believes that men and women with the same degree should earn the same money. Really? That’s absurd.

Two men with the same degree don’t earn the same money. Besides, who decides what’s the “right” compensation? What is the right value of IBM stock or of your house? We live in a capitalistic country in which every person is being paid what he or she is worth, according to the deal he or she negotiated. If you don’t like your compensation, cut a better deal next round, or go work for a higher bidder.

Apples and Oranges

If we take the SKUs (shelf-keeping units) of Seven-Eleven, Safeway, and Whole Foods, and calculate an “average” price for each chain, what would those numbers mean? To someone facile with math, very little. Even a Whole Foods store in Pittsburgh won’t charge the same prices or stock all the same SKUs as the one in Los Angeles. To be cliche, we are comparing apples and oranges. Getting the picture?

One of the AAUW’s important conclusions is that more women should go into math, engineering, and the sciences. I totally agree. Not only would they earn more money, they could explain to the AAUW how to make sensible calculations.

The AAUW used data from the US Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics’ Baccalaureate and Beyond study. It covered graduating classes from 1993 and 2000 and included full- and part-time workers as well as some who had left the labor force. This is insane! Why not also include women who earn nothing while playing tennis all day at the clubs their husbands subsidize?

In reality, men and women do not work the same jobs — men are typically not dental hygienists and secretaries; women are typically not shipbuilders and Navy SEALs — and they don’t work the same hours or have the same financial pressures — men typically don’t take maternity leave, nor do women typically pay child support and alimony.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Because more women than men attend and graduate from college, they are changing the complexion, dynamics, and economics of the skilled workforce. Capitalism works well. Accordingly, businesses will be flexible when women leave to raise children and then want to return afterwards.

But, in exchange, women also must be flexible by accepting reduced pay for working fewer and more-erratic hours upon returning to their employers. To expect full salaries when not working at 100% capacity is ridiculous and arrogant — and unfair to the men and women who are working full-time.

If women appeal to Capitol Hill to force employers to pay them predetermined salaries, regardless of hours worked, they will find themselves mysteriously unemployed — employers will find every loophole possible not to hire them. And, if women object to this, they should start their own companies. When their female employees leave to start or raise families, they will understand the economic issues a lot better.

When all things are equal, men and women have the potential to earn the same compensation. That doesn’t mean they ever will or should. Are all things ever equal? No. Never. Anybody who consistently finds himself or herself earning less than his or her peers should take a negotiating course and work smarter and harder and faster.

If employers could, across the board, pay women less than their equally qualified male peers, many men would be unemployed. This is the same economic concept behind outsourcing — Indian engineers in Bangalore will work for 20 cents to the American engineer’s dollar and win a lot of contracts by doing so. I see no evidence of women displacing men in America because they’ll work for less money at the same level of competence.

Forget Capitol Hill. Anybody who tells women there is a wage gap and encourages them to protest for economic equality is doing them a huge disservice, teaching them how to become losers (read “A Girl’s Guide to Failure”). There are too many incredibly successful women in this country to believe in systematic, institutionalized wage disparities. Successful women earn; they don’t whine.

You want equality? Industry, smarts, savvy, speed, and effectiveness are the best equalizers of all.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 50+ 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.

Victor/Victoria/Victress

Can you imagine a state where a girl is allowed to use the boys’ lavatory and compete to become prom king? If you imagined California, you are correct.

A story ran on the AP wire over the weekend about a female candidate for Fresno High School prom king. That’s right, king. Planning to sport a tuxedo, Cinthia Covarrubias, a transgender sometimes called Tony, hopes to emerge victorious against six boys also vying for the crown.

You see, California has this law, called the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, that, among other things, allows a school student to assume a gender du jour — enabling him/her to choose a corresponding name, lavatory, and dress code — without facing discrimination.

At first, officials at this school of 2,700 students didn’t want to permit a girl to compete for prom king, but they heeded the district’s lawyers, who had recommended adding Covarrubias’s name to the ballot to comply with the 2000 state law. Said Vice Principal Sheila Uriarte: “We always want to do the right thing by our students. This is why we came to this decision.”

In a politically correct society, steeped in relativism, just what is the “right” thing? I thought that right vs. wrong, according to secular progressives, is an ancient concept. Fresno, knowingly or unknowingly, put another nail in the male coffin. So, how are men at large responding to this nonsense? With their typical defeatist resignation and acquiescence.

Imagine how the Fresno school district’s decision will affect boys. What will it communicate to them about a boy’s identity, his sexuality, his place in society, his purpose, his importance, his significance?

Fresno, along with the rest of the country, is telling boys — and all males — that they are irrelevant. We learned this recently from the false accusation and fortunate exoneration of three lacrosse players at Duke University. Lots of American mothers of sons watched three boys falsely accused of rape and dragged through the mud for 13 months, almost ruined in the process. Did you see one “million-mother march” protesting this atrocity against boys? Send me the videoclip.

A Boy’s Life

The typical American boy grows up in a home with no father — either because of the 50% divorce rate or the 37% out-of-wedlock birthrate — adopting his mother’s demeanor, attitudes, and biases. He knows that his father is financially ruined from alimony — if his parents were married — and child support. He doesn’t even wonder why his mommy got the house, the SUV, and child custody. That’s the way it is.

Instead of playing competitive sports (politically correct America doesn’t like the word “competitive” — too masculine), he sits in front of the flatscreen TV his father bought and once watched, bombarded daily with TV sitcoms and commercials showing men and fathers as morons and victims of “comedic” female violence. If he was paying attention to the news recently, he saw that Mary Winkler killed her husband and got only three years in jail — maybe probation and no jail time at all.

The American boy grows up hearing the twin misandric canards that women cause only 5% of domestic violence and fraudulently accuse men of rape only 2% of the time. When he becomes a police officer or DA or judge or legislator or newspaper editor or TV executive, imagine how that rubbish will affect his treatment of other men. You don’t have to imagine: presumption of innocence — in courts and in the media — no longer applies to men.

Our American boy attends a school with a zero-tolerance policy, which states that a girl’s version of a rape or sexual harassment accusation is the version of the incident. He knows that a girl has the right to enter the lavatory with “boys” painted on the door. And, now, he witnesses a tuxedo-wearing girl vying to become prom king, while hearing his vice principal blessing this modern Bizarro World.

He can’t join the Boys Clubs of America because it no longer exists; it is now the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. He can join the Boy Scouts, in which many troopmasters are mothers. He can’t play dodgeball or tag — both outlawed for being too dangerous.

So, what does he do? He listens to violent gangsta rap and plays violent video games. Totally unhealthy. When I was young, boys had numerous options, activities, and outlets for just being boys. We knew what it meant to be a boy. Ask a boy to define that today. He’ll parrot whatever his mommy told him it means.

Eventually, our modern American boy will attend college. If he attends the University of California system in September 2007, he will notice that 56.6% of the incoming class is female. Four years hence, 33% more girls than boys will graduate. By then, women will control 60% of American wealth.

If he is foolish enough to sire children or worse, get married, he will repeat the abysmal experience of his father — loss of custody, wealth, and parental influence — and his son will become androgynous, at best, or totally feminized.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I have given up exhorting men to take their fight to the legislative bodies. Elected officials — most of them men — don’t care about men. Consequently, men have to be men in their daily lives. This doesn’t mean belittling or abusing women. This means believing that they are equal in value to women — most men don’t — and treating women like equals. It means that they must delete every stored thought in their brains that even remotely resembles “deference to women.”

If a woman can talk the tough talk of becoming commander in chief of our armed forces, if she can earn $16M per year as CBS News anchor, if she can pilot a space shuttle, then she must walk the tough walk of responsibility, obligation, sacrifice, and hard knocks. She cannot claim, at once, that women are tough and equal — and also delicate and fragile and underpaid. Why don’t men get this logic?

Men must have the testicular fortitude to draw lines in the sand. If men hold themselves to tough standards, they must require the same of women. Unfortunately, to be a man in America has come to mean prostrating himself to women — even making them kings. Does this mean that the king on the chessboard soon will wear a dress? Why not — the queen already has more power.

If a man can deduce the outcome of a football game at the final two-minute warning, why can he not conclude that, unless he takes action — and fast — his fate is virtually sealed in the American Gynocracy?

It is time for each American man to decide whether he is a king or a queen, and actually know the difference.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 50+ 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.

Gynoversity

If your son attends a co-ed college or university in the United States, and he is actively heterosexual, it is likely that a female student will falsely accuse him of rape. Does your son have any clue how to avoid such a nightmare, or that such a nightmare is even possible?

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past 13 months, and didn’t hear about the fraudulent rape case at Duke University, you should be painfully aware of the danger your son faces. Because our society doesn’t value males, your son’s university will not protect him if he should, unfortunately, become the object of a female’s ire. In fact, his school will kick him under the bus. You should worry about that.

America’s institutes of higher learning are bastions of socialism and misandrist feminism. Go to the Website of your son’s university. Do a search on “rape.” Pages and pages of information, right? Lots of help and programs for female students. Now, do a search on “false rape accusations.” What do you find? Nothing, I’ll bet. That’s because he attends a gynoversity.

Does your son’s educational establishment care about his welfare? Not at all. Men and boys are expendable, built for sacrifice. Your son’s school cares about girls and date-rape, not about boys being falsely accused of rape. Also, your son’s school has a zero-tolerance policy, which states that HER side of the rape story is the whole story. And, your son’s school allows girls to have consensual sex with him and then, up to two weeks later, decide that their consensual sex was rape. After all, women are allowed to change their minds.

And, by the way, when a girl admits to lying about her rape accusation, or if the evidence ultimately shows her to be a liar, what will be her punishment? Nothing. Slap on the wrist, maybe. Campus police and prosecutors will do nothing to her. She gets a pass. Starting to worry, now?

To reflect my concern about this nonsense, I have contacted athletic directors, football coaches, VPs of student affairs, presidents, and high-level directors of fraternity organizations at major universities around the USA. Responses? Zero. These execs are hiding under their desks — afraid of feminism, afraid of the misandrist media.

On 60 Minutes last night, Leslie Stahl interviewed the three Duke lacrosse players just exonerated of felonious rape charges, as well as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, the man who freed them. They all spoke eloquently and humbly. The most chilling part of the segment, however, was when Ms. Stahl showed a clip of women marching in the streets of Durham, at the case’s genesis, banging pots and screaming for the castration of the accused boys. No evidence. No facts. Only presumed guilt, desired guilt, and blind hunger for male destruction. I guess they were showing their nurturing sides.

A Convenient Lie

Why do girls and women feloniously accuse boys and men of rape? There are two levels of rationale. First, the legal climate permits and encourages it. The rape-shield laws, which hide the identities of rape accusers, are a joke. You’ll hear women justifying them by bemoaning the embarrassment of reporting rapes. Really? Where are they to express empathy for men humiliated on TV and cyberspace after being falsely accused of rape? You can fit them into the proverbial phone booth.

Second, the typical girl is raised not to take responsibility for her actions but to blame them on someone else. Accordingly, there are five common reasons she will make felonious rape accusations:

1. Shame: When she gets drunk or stoned, or both, and fornicates with a guy she’d prefer not to be with, she awakens the next day feeling ashamed. Instead of blaming herself, learning a lesson, and moving forward with her life, she conveniently accuses the man of rape.
2. Goading: Her misandrist girlfriends hear her sordid story and browbeat her into accusing the guy of rape. Or, one of them makes the call to the campus police. Why not?
3. Revenge: She becomes enraged when, after the tryst, he never calls her. So, to avenge his “faux pas,” she accuses him of rape.
4. Parental Alibi: She needs to explain to her parents why she is pregnant. So, by accusing her partner of rape, she’s off the hook for her promiscuity.
5. Boyfriend/Husband Alibi: She cheats on her boyfriend or husband. To explain her whereabouts, and/or the misplaced aroma of men’s cologne, she accuses her partner of rape.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Here’s what probably will happen when a co-ed accuses your son of rape. First, he will be presumed guilty and arrested. Second, the university will automatically suspend him from school, pending an investigation of indeterminate length. Third, if he is an athlete, his name and face will grace every TV, computer, and video-enabled cellphone in the world — it can happen in the blink of an eye. Meanwhile, the school will protect the accuser with a big rape shield.

To help make your son safe at college, have him memorize these seven rules of survival:

1. Women have the majority of civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America
2. Never go out or have sex with a vindictive girl who blames everyone else for her problems
3. Never have unprotected sex
4. Never have sex with a girl whom you don’t trust implicitly
5. Never have sex with a girl whose girlfriends you don’t trust
6. Never have sex with a girl who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs
7. Never have sex with a girl if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Yes, by following these rules, your son’s social life will be a bit curtailed but better than the alternative. The three Duke lacrosse players were presumed, and not proven, guilty. They had to prove their innocence — an anti-constitutional requirement — and, as a result, have legal bills estimated at $1 million each. Do you have that kind of money to save your son? If so, are you sure he can prevail in his state? In these matters, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

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.

Built for Sacrifice

The thoughtless, sexist, unconstrained words of veteran broadcaster Don Imus and North Carolina prosecutor Mike Nifong produced two uncannily juxtaposed events during this monumental week in American history.

First, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ended an unjustified, fraudulent rape case by exonerating and pronouncing innocent the wrongly accused Duke University lacrosse players. District Attorney Mike Nifong, whom AG Cooper painted as a “rogue prosecutor,” had violated just about every law, procedure, and ethical rule in his haste to convict, and thereby sacrifice, three innocent men — just to win reelection. Unchecked until late in the saga, Nifong began his misguided quest, before network TV cameras, by condemning the accused and predicting the future trial’s verdicts, and ended it by being caught concealing exculpatory evidence.

Second, MSNBC and CBS Radio fired Don Imus, one of the most influential broadcasters in history, from his morning TV/radio show, after he had referred to black members of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.”

Wait. You’re confused already. You are wondering what sexist words Mr. Nifong uttered, aren’t you? That’s because you are a sexist. You forgot sexism’s definition: gender-based attitudes, conditions, and behaviors. You believe sexism pertains only to hurting and discriminating against women. As I pointed out in “Man-Hating DA Nifong Surrenders,” the rogue prosecutor thought nothing of sacrificing three  male students — because he suffers from a disease that afflicts many Americans: misandry.

The Rutgers situation, albeit unacceptable, was, in reality, about invective and derived pain. Did Imus deserve to be fired? Probably. After all, he had made a career of constantly spewing racist, anti-Semitic, sexist garbage. But, at the end of the day, he is harmless — a nuisance on the airwaves whom one could have switched off. The understandably insulted basketball players, whose names I cannot recall, were bruised but not scarred for life — as some have claimed to be. Offended? Yes. Damaged? No. Potential employers never will find these women falsely associated with felony rape charges on Google.

On the other hand, the landmark Duke rape case — a total travesty, crime, and miscarriage of justice — permanently besmirched and almost destroyed three college men and their families. The estimated legal bill for each student is $1 million. After learning of the allegations, Duke University threw them under the bus and forced the lacrosse coach to resign. Students and faculty alike lynched them with libelous posters and ads in the university newspaper. The major media organizations and feminist bloggers, in a hysterical frenzy, ensured that every human on the planet would know their names and faces.

Judging by the overwhelming media coverage this week, America considers Don Imus’s verbal indiscretion and subsequent firing the primary news item. The day after the landmark Duke decision, my local paper, the San Jose Mercury News, used page six to summarize it. What was on the front page of that issue? The impending California drought. Now, what story do you suppose this same paper used to smother the front page today, given that CBS fired Imus yesterday? I needn’t answer that.

Even though the outcome of the Duke rape case was a precedent-setting legal decision — giving a ray of hope to all men who have been and will continue to be falsely accused of rape — Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the self-appointed, self-annointed popes of the black community, were totally silent. As was Nancy Grace, who, early on, had convicted the Duke students on her CNN program. Where were all the national politicians? Nowhere to be found. In the American Gynocracy, misandry is policy.

It seems that the media complex will hover like angry hornets over any story, whether true or false, about a man wronging a woman. But, if a woman (teamed with a rogue prosecutor) harms a man — whether with her fists or with her lies — the reporters and their editors express a collective yawn.

Last week, a “shielded” woman accused three University of Minnesota football players of rape. The accused men spent a weekend in jail and were released without ever being charged. The university, automatically presuming guilt, suspended them. As in the Duke case, their names and photos became public property. Why? Because they allegedly committed crimes. Drive-by allegations against men have become acceptable. Nobody, including any reporter covering the story, cares if the rape charges are bogus, that men are destroyed. Why? In a misandric culture, men have no value and are disposable.

In 2006, when Mike Nifong was running for reelection as district attorney in Durham, North Carolina, most people in the town suspected that he had done something illegal in prosecuting the Duke students. He was an unknown prosecutor and likely to lose to his opponent, Freda Black. But, the Duke case give him instant celebrity, and the lynch-mob voters reelected him anyway. Why? Because most people fervently believe three things: 1) women who cry rape are always truthful; 2) men are built for sacrifice; 3) any politician running on a man-bad/woman-victim platform is honorable.

To illustrate the misandric disease, let’s examine the caustic words of Rachel Marsden, a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld. She made shockingly insensitive and deeply disturbing comments on that show within hours of the exoneration of the accused Duke men:

“I just love how everybody is still talking like these guys’ lives are ruined. They put themselves up there as victims … by giving a press conference. They just go about their lives and say, ‘Glad that’s over; move on.’ How is the US ever going to win a war against anybody if its citizens are so delicate that allegations and name-calling can actually ruin their lives? What about these soldiers who are out there on the front lines, fighting a real war? These guys — they’re silver-spooners. They have trust funds coming out their ying-yangs. They’ll all be just fine.”

When you really think about it, Ms. Marsden’s diatribe is significantly more offensive and dangerous than what Don Imus said. Yet, there have been no mass-protests, as there weren’t when Mike Nifong publicly executed the three Duke athletes without a trial. Ironically, Marsden is known in her native Canada as an admitted stalker — she pleaded guilty to criminally harassing a former Vancouver radio host — and for bringing questionable rape charges that destroyed the career and life of a university president. She already knew she could make such a sexist statement about the Duke men with impunity.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

When the story is man-bad/woman-victim, there isn’t enough ink or satellite time to cover it. But, if that same story suddenly shifts to, or begins as, woman-bad/man-victim, a leading newspaper buries it on page six, and people focus on American Idol.

Sexism affects men and women equally, but people don’t view it that way. As a result, men and fathers get the short end of the stick in reproduction, domestic violence, rape, marriage, divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, maternity fraud, and paternity fraud. Men are portrayed as morons and victims of “comedic” female violence on TV sitcoms and commercials. Without due process, men are publicly destroyed and thrown into jail like expendable pieces of meat.

I have one question: What kind of society have we become?

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.

Pants on Fire

Here we go, again. College campus. Three male athletes. One anonymous woman. Delayed rape accusation. Dubious circumstances. Presumed male guilt. Ruined reputations.

Last week, an 18-year-old, nameless, faceless woman leveled rape accusations against three male football players at the University of Minnesota. This woman, not a student at the university, waited two days after the alleged incident to accuse the men of rape.

Today, because no charges had been filed against them, Hennepin County prosecutors released the accused men from jail, where they had spent the weekend — even though they still are considered suspects and could be charged at a future date.

This ugly incident comes on the heels of the moribund rape debacle at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, where District Attorney Mike Nifong not only was forced to drop the rape charges but had to resign from the case and is under investigation for a host of ethics violations. Worse, Crystal Gail Mangum, the felonious “victim” in the case, has disappeared, legally unscathed, from the face of the earth.

As is the American custom, the University of Minnesota has withheld the name of the female accuser, to “protect” her from scrutiny. In other words, she, like any woman, can accuse any man of a rape felony — with her veracity presumed — while being shielded from the spotlight and suspicion.

Meanwhile, law-enforcement and news organizations couldn’t move fast enough to plaster all over TV, radio, and cyberspace the names, faces, and reputations of the accused men. Not charged. Not convicted. Just accused. An accusation is all it takes in the USA for a man to be destroyed. Tag; you’re it — for life.

Our legal system cares not. The ACLU cares not. The New York Times cares not. Amnesty International cares not. NOW cares not. In our system of juris contemptus (see my article “Juris Contemptus: The Un-American Scourge”), men accused of domestic violence or rape are automatically presumed guilty. That’s because the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has engendered a double standard, where women are always truthful victims and men lying predators.

As is also the American custom, the University of Minnesota football coach, Tim Brewster, suspended the three players until the investigation is complete. You see, most schools and workplaces have a zero-tolerance policy. This means that a mere accusation or allegation from a woman is enough to get a man suspended or fired without hearing — or caring about — his side of the story.

What if these Minnesota men are totally innocent? It matters not: they are now and will be forever tarnished. But, in the American Gynocracy, men are worthless, their interests and reputations always subordinated to those of women. You knew that, right?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

If a man accused of domestic violence or rape is automatically presumed guilty, and subsequently suspended or fired from his position pending due process, we must equitably presume mendacious — and also suspend or fire from her position — the accusing woman. Checks and balances.

If we apply the presumption of mendacity to accusing women, as we apply unconstitutionally the presumption of guilt to accused men, only a few women would ever again falsely accuse men of anything.

Furthermore, if a prosecutor, anywhere in this country, would ever have the balls to charge a felonious female rape accuser with a crime, and make her pay court costs, we actually would have a true justice system. The question is, Would anyone recognize it?

How many more innocent men have to be sacrificed to preserve the dignity of one lying woman? According to my solution, none.

Epilogue

Today, April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that his state has not only dropped all rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping charges against the three Duke University lacrosse players — Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans, and Collin Finnerty — but also pronounced them innocent. AG Cooper, furthermore, has characterized District Attorney Mike Nifong as a rogue prosecutor.

Notwithstanding his scathing rebuke of Nifong’s unlawful and unethical conduct, when asked whether North Carolina would now prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum for fabricating her rape allegations, Attorney General Cooper used the George Costanza (of Seinfeld fame) defense: because she “believes” her testimony, it isn’t a lie. Consequently, for the benefit of all, North Carolina will close the whole matter.

Wow! So, a woman believing her lie is a new excuse for lying. Incredible! This, my friends, is another example of how society gives women a pass for their MissBehavior and their illegal behavior.

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.