And Dad Is Uranus
by Marc H. Rudov“Pro-Family” Politicians
In my last article, “Hillary Cannot Be President,” I asserted that no Oval Office contender — Republican or Democrat — represents the interests of men. The punishment for ignoring the male half of the population should be total failure on the campaign trail. If one of them succeeds in reaching the White House, however, it will be because men silently and sheepishly allowed it.
While you’ll hear politicians spout “pro-family” views, their speeches lack any mention of the father as an integral member of the family. Why? The feminarcissists have succeeded, to the detriment of society, in redefining the family. Traditionally, the family comprised a father and mother living together with their children. No longer. Government-encouraged divorces and out-of-wedlock births have changed that.
The new definition of the family, thanks to the feminarcissists and the Congressional eunuchs who kowtow to them, is a mother living with her children, collecting payments from a deposed, alienated father. So, when you hear a politician mention “family,” you’ll know he means the mother-centric model.
If we use the Solar System as a metaphor for the mother-centric family, Mom, about whom everything and everybody revolves, is Ms. Sunshine. And Dad? Dad is Uranus. Even though the gravitational force where Dad resides is weak, the Solar System Powers still found a way to suck from him alimony, child support, and his dignity — at warp speed. Yes, Dad is Uranus. Does anybody doubt this?
In our country, it is politically acceptable to teach children to fear — even hate — men and fathers, as the state of Virginia does. How did Clinton, Guiliani, Edwards, Richardson, Romney, Obama, Thompson, and McCain respond to this vicious, vile Virginia campaign? Total silence — even though the US Department of Health & Human Services, in 2000 through 2005, reported that mothers commit 40% of child abuse while fathers commit 18%. Do these candidates represent the family? Hell no! Hating and ignoring fathers is tantamount to hating children and the family. Which family-hater is your candidate?
Becoming Uranus
A man is not Uranus at birth. No, he works diligently, and often unknowingly, at it. The education begins in his childhood home. Then, he associates with people — men and women — who reinforce that males have no value or worth. So, how does a man know that he is becoming or has become Uranus? Here are seven tell-tale signs:
- He automatically reaches for the check when he dines with her
- He buys an extravagant engagement ring and kneels when proposing to her — because he is beneath her, and it is “her” day
- He considers his own wedding “her” day, a day that she will remember forever
- He believes that keeping her happy and comfortable is his lot in life
- He sleeps on the couch, in another room, or in a hotel after arguing with her — because he’s the culprit, no matter what
- He wants to “do the right thing” in a divorce by giving her the house, the SUV, the kids, and the largest possible financial settlement
- He knowingly votes for political candidates who hate or ignore men.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Every man must stand up, reassert himself in society, and take the 2008 election seriously. He must acknowledge that women are equal to men, and he must hold them to it. He must demand the restoration of his civil rights. He must categorically reject the feminarcissistic, mother-centric model of the family and reject every person — in his personal life, in his professional life, and on the political stage — who supports that model.
Every man must decide, today, that — until our state and federal governments reverse direction to recognize fathers as equally important to mothers, by removing all legislative and judicial advantages granted to women — he will boycott marriage, cohabitation, and procreation. He must make it known to every presidential aspirant, and every woman, that ignoring the interests of men will lead to failure.
So, what will you do? It’s your choice. It’s your life. It’s Uranus.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 60+ 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.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
How about this definition of a family:
“Two or more people, living under the same roof, recognising some relationship bonds between themselves for their mutual benefit, and providing for all their own financial and material needs from within their own resources.”
The last part of the definition is extremely important. If a “family” cannot support itself from within its own resources, how can it claim to be a family? Because if you have to look outside of the family to support it, you are immediately letting strangers - non-family members - into your family, and giving them powers over it. This breaks the family unit, loosens the bonds, and unravels the relationships. It also makes the grouping essentially parasitic, since it has to attach itself to some outside source of funding in order to sustain itself, and thus loses its independence. It can also easily be far worse that that; if its outside source of funding has to be coerced into yielding that funding without obtaining any benefit from the grouping to which it has now become an unwilling provider, then the grouping has become a source of injustice and aggravation, a running sore in society.
So mother-centric groupings without a dad living under the same roof and where mother therefore requires financial and/or material support from the state or elsewhere (including from absent dad) in order to sustain the grouping, will certainly fail the definition of a family. It will be something else, something unpleasant and parasitic, and not a family. So let’s not honour it with such a description.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Sorry, Paul. While I appreciate your point, I refuse to use a generic definition of the family. Any definition that ignores the father is no definition at all.
Diluting and eliminating the father is why the family has disappeared and why our society continues to produce the likes of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Yes Marc, I actually agree that a family without a father is ultimately a contradiction in terms.
But I was trying to take into account the argument that has become so pervasive today, that the traditional nuclear family of mum, dad and children has largely been superseded, whether we like it or not, and there are now many alternative “groupings” (for want of a better word - although I rather like it as a description because it hints at the coldness and depersonalisation that is left at the heart when dads are not there - would you rather be in a “family” or just a “grouping”?)
My attempt at a definition of family, and I am not claiming it is a perfect definition, was trying to make the point that families should also be economically independent, i.e. they must contain at least one breadwinner who will sustain all the material needs of that family. That has always been dad’s role. Nobody has yet come up with anything better - the state is a very poor substitute.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Facts are in..70% of all repeat violent offenders not only come from fatherless families, but there were no adult males around at all!!
By removeing and neutering the voice of the father, we are creating a culture of chaos!!