About 10 years ago, I drove for two hours to pay my daughters a surprise visit at their summer camp. Almost nothing was better than seeing their smiling faces every time we “visited” each other (moms don’t visit their children). When I arrived, I went immediately to see the camp director. I told him that, as a divorced father, I missed my girls very much and wanted to have a quick visit with them, even take them out to lunch. He told me he would have to get “permission” from their mother. Permission to see my own kids? He placed a call to my ex but couldn’t locate her. I felt lower than dirt but refused to leave the premises without seeing my girls. Ultimately, I prevailed. I then asked Herr Director if he could imagine how humiliating that whole exchange had been for me. He admitted, with awkwardness, that he couldn’t. Would he have treated a mother similarly? Never. In America’s eyes, mothers are noble; fathers are trivial.
My painful experience epitomizes what millions of fathers face every day — in 2008 — in custody and visitation conflicts, despite the feminist stereotype, which the media willingly perpetuate, that men are uncaring, aloof, incompetent parents. Simply put, America moronizes and marginalizes men. Nowhere is this more obvious and symbolic than in TV commercials, as I explained in “Misandry on Madison Avenue.” Many married and never-married men don’t grasp this reality, even reject it. It pains me every time men laugh at father-bashing TV commercials. In an ironic turnabout, however, their perspectives change, almost overnight, when they get divorced and face custody battles of their own.
Given the 50% divorce rate and 40% — and rapidly growing — out-of-wedlock birthrate, men get the short end of the financial stick. But, mysteriously, they keep electing and reelecting the politicians who stick it to them. Men must end this self-defeating behavior by demanding representation to justify the enormous taxation.
Isn’t it time to have a Boston Tea Party for Men? You bet it is. The original Boston Tea Party, in 1773, was a protest over the Stamp Act, which required Colonists to pay tariffs to the Crown without any representation in Parliament. Well, 235 years later, American men are getting stampeded, ignored, stripped of rights, and required to pay gynotariffs (alimony, child support for maternity and paternity fraud, ex-wives’ attorneys’ fees, financial support of anti-male legislation and organizations, etc.) — without political representation in any local, state, or federal branch of government.
Men comprise 46%, or 117.3M, of the electorate. Yet, the Republicans — ironically, most of them fathers — don’t give a damn about men’s civil and parental rights. Republicans ignore, in fact snub, men. Have you ever heard a Republican decry the presumed guilt of the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, or the presumed innocence of their unprosecuted accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum? Of course not — even though a false rape accusation is a crime. Had these Duke boys not been from families of means, able to expose the female bias in our so-called justice system, they would have sat in prison for years. Last week, a California judge, following the California Supreme Court’s ruling, ordered Tyna Marie Robertson to pay Michael Flatley $11M because she falsely accused the Riverdancer of rape and attempted to extort money from him. Again, had Flatley not been a man of means, he would have been unable to expose the female bias in our so-called justice system. How many Republicans have condemned this female bias?
Henpecked Mamas’ Boys
On January 3, 2008, Iowans will determine whether Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, or Romney is the best candidate to face the victorious Gynocrat, with all likelihood Hillary Clinton, in November 2008. On what basis will these voters make their choice? I have no idea. They watch, with fatigue, as the Republicans bash each other over regurgitated issues: who’s most Christian, who’s most Reaganesque, taxes, fiscal restraint, border enforcement, education, crime, abortion, healthcare, illegal immigration, terrorism, yada, yada, yada. Yet, there’s a perennially untouched issue — vital to the fabric of our society — that these gutless, henpecked mamas’ boys feel is too taboo to acknowledge, let alone discuss: men’s rights.
Imagine presidential candidates having the audacity to claim pro-family credentials while completely ignoring men. I fully expect the Gynocrats — Clinton, Edwards, and Obama — to snub men. It’s what they do. A gynocracy can’t thrive without Gynocrats, who blindly, reflexively, and unilaterally support women. It’s no secret that the Gynocrats are beholden to the feminists at NOW. But, what shocks me is that the Republicans, who always promise to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, are AWOL during any constitutional argument about men.
By sidestepping the 14th Amendment, which provides for equal protection under the law (meaning that no group can be preferred over another group), henpecked Republican legislators, judges, justices, and presidents have allowed anti-male, pro-female laws — such as Roe v. Wade and VAWA — to exist and flourish. For example, the Department of Justice runs the Office on Violence Against Women, with an annual budget of $400M — even though studies from Harvard Medical School and numerous other organizations show that women cause at least 50% of domestic violence. Where’s the justice here? When it comes to women, men in government ignore the Constitution. Consequently, the entire judicial system has morphed into a gynojudicial system. Instead of representing the unbiased moral underpinning of America’s legal system, Lady Justice — reconstituted as Lady GynoJustice — now rules it.
How did this happen? Easy. Most men — including Congressmen — defer to women, especially since 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision. Republicans talk tough about dealing with illegal aliens but pathetically shrink in the presence of their wives and girlfriends. To wit: In a recent appearance on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto, I debated Lis Wiehlabout why women feel entitled to receive nice Christmas gifts, while men feel “lucky” to get them. If a man’s inclination is to purchase his wife’s happiness, silence, and affection, why wouldn’t he do likewise for his female constituents, and NOW’s radical feminists, by endorsing unconstitutional Senate bills like VAWA reauthorization?
A mama’s boy moves through adolescence and then to adulthood and into his occupation believing that women are superior beings. That insecurity dominates his every thought, activity, and decision. So, it should not be too difficult, then, to fathom why the typical Republican can’t stand up to women: his back aches from placing so many of them on pedestals. The result of male politicians constantly and obsequiously currying favor with women — either to assuage their own male guilt or to collect votes, or both — is that the USA has become a gynocracy, its flag flapping proudly in the deferential breeze atop state and federal buildings all across America.
Romney’s True Colors
Two weeks ago, I published “How Mitt Can Beat Rudy,” a blueprint for Mitt Romney to differentiate himself from Rudy Giuliani and rise above the Republican pack by becoming the only candidate to champion fathers’ rights. I made sure he received this article. No feedback. Now, I know why. On December 23rd, Romney showed his true colors on a campaign stop at Nonni’s Italian Eatery in Hillsborough, NH, where a well-placed contact initiated the following exchange:
To Mitt Romney: “It’s been widely reported that the candidate leading the race for the presidency of the United States is a spousal abuser. Numerous reputable sources have reported that Hillary Clinton has thrown lamps, ash trays, and other objects at her husband’s head, and that he has been injured by his wife in domestic disputes.
“In addition, a New Mexico judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman, based on a woman’s claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic-violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly, with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial oversight is practiced in many states.
“Will you pledge to oppose reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and similar domestic-violence legislation without provisions to prevent the issuance of restraining orders based on false claims?”
Romney said he wouldn’t and then asked the questioner what he’d do about it. Answer: “I’d veto further VAWA and VAWA-related legislation unless it: 1) incorporates provisions and funding to address the way in which false claims are being used to exploit the legislation, and 2) is reformed and funded to reflect the well-documented female commission of domestic violence at higher rates than men.”
According to the account, Mitt Romney got bored, started looking around the room, and, while walking away, said: “False accusations; that’s tough.”
“False accusations; that’s tough.” This is Mitt Romney’s answer? It’s insulting … and revealing. A false accusation is a crime. Did Romney not learn this at Harvard Law School? Did he not enforce it as governor of Massachusetts? His response was akin to saying: “Men should just take abuse and get over it.” Now, if one of Romney’s sons gets nailed with a false rape accusation, I’ll bet he’ll change his I-don’t-care-about-men tune in a heartbeat. The sad part is that Romney’s rivals are no better. So, any American man who believes he has representation in exchange for his taxation is a naive fool.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
The Iowa caucus is just days away now. It’s too late to force the Republicans to address men’s rights in the Hawkeye State. But the Boston Tea Party for Men must start immediately thereafter. The era of taxation without representation is over. While throwing tea into Boston Harbor isn’t the solution, in 2008, throwing down the men’s rights gauntlet is the solution. Republicans must be forced to understand that no support of men means no votes from men.
My recommendation: overload the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romeny with e-mails, letters, and calls. And, because Fox News Channel is the only network of real influence in American politics, make your feelings known to yourcomments@foxnews.com. Encourage FNC to dog and dog and dog the Republicans, stick microphones in their faces, and compel them to articulate their stances on men’s rights. Impotent, cavalier answers like Romney’s are totally unacceptable.
Unless men mimic the tactics of feminists, they won’t create the swath of feminists. By remaining silent, men will see the gutless GOP continue to snub them, the gynocratic flag continue to fly, and Lady GynoJustice continue to rule. Instead, invite the Republicans to The Boston Tea Party for Men. Attendance is mandatory. We’ll be holding the Oval Office raffle there.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Periodically, I see an article about teen girls “surviving” after terminating their relationships with abusive boyfriends. A good example is one that appeared on 12.12.07 in the San Jose Mercury News. Not one word about why the girl entered the bad relationship, why she found her boyfriend’s abusive behavior attractive, and why she went back to him after breaking it off. No, the only message is: boys are controlling villains; girls are passive victims. And, that’s why teen girls learn nothing from such articles — namely, why they seek abuse in the first place.
Laying the blame for women’s ills at the doorstep of men is a familiar, counterproductive tool of feminism. Quite simply, a girl who is attracted to a controlling boyfriend is looking for something: control. She wants to be controlled. She is weak and insecure. The kind of boy attracted to her passivity and diffidence is also weak; that’s why he wants to control her. They are matching puzzle pieces. The need to control another person, or to be controlled by another person, is born from insecurity — the acorn that produces the oak of abuse.
Three strong factors contribute to a girl’s attitude about the role of men in her life: societal messages about males, her father’s power in the family, and her definition of self-worth. Interestingly, a girl who concludes, based on these three factors, that men are weak servants, will either repeat her mother’s domineering pattern of pairing up with a weak man or hunger for a controlling one — polar-opposite reactions, neither healthy, that we see all the time.
Empowerment
Society blasts girls with messages of misandry. One from a Sony TV commercial shows the father as a horse’s ass. Another from the Washington Post, in a comic strip, depicts the father as a buffoon. How about Littlewood’s, a British retailer, running a TV commercial that promises physical harm to any man who buys a woman the wrong Christmas gift? These messages of hatred affect how girls, in childhood and adolescence, perceive men and boys. If no forces exist at home or in school to counter such misandry, girls will accept it as reality. And, they do. They really do.
In a girl’s family, if her father is weak or noncustodial, or both, she will see her mother in total, albeit dysfunctional, control — giving her a distorted view of female power. It is common for that mother to badmouth the weak father — whether he is custodial or not. But, just because a girl views her father with contempt as a diminshed figure does not negate her need or desire for a strong man. It is natural for a girl to need a strong father. If her father is weak or not present, she will find his substitute somewhere. Alas, she doesn’t understand the real definition of strong. How could she? To her, controlling is strong.
In “If Women Were Happy,” I wrote that many girls are raised to believe that happiness is a goal, derived from externalities like clothing, jewelry, plastic surgery, money, and male attention. Parents who impart such disempowering messages to their daughters are ruining them. Happiness is not a goal; it’s a byproduct of personal achievement. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a woman exclaim: “I need you to buy me dinner, to hold doors for me, to treat me like a lady — because it makes me feel special and feminine.” How pathetic. If she doesn’t already feel special and feminine, there’s nothing I can do for her. A woman who has never treated a man to a night on the town, at her expense, at her insistence, doesn’t understand the meaning of giving, of empowerment. Insecure women, who define their femininity by how much they receive, are the ones most attracted to domineering men.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
A girl is totally responsible for the boys she attracts and the boys with whom she becomes involved. We have seen that exposing a girl to society’s negative messages about men, a weak father, and the lie of self-actualization through male attention is akin to implanting in her the acorn of insecurity, which easily can grow into the oak of abuse. If a girl pairs up with a controlling boy, it’s because she wants to be controlled. It’s that simple.
On the other hand, teaching a girl to be a strong, independent, empowered, financially reciprocating admirer of boys and men will help her attract, and be attracted to, boys and men who are likewise strong, independent, empowered, financially reciprocating admirers of girls and women. Nobody can be strong and a victim simultaneously.
The typical “victimhood” articles never discuss the root cause of why teen girls seek abuse in the first place. These articles are doing girls a giant disservice by not teaching them to take personal responsibility for their choices. Teen girls seek — and find — abuse because they’re weak and insecure, not because boys are bad. So, to give speeches and write articles about bad male behavior is disingenuous and unhelpful. It’s time for girls, parents, and the media to get it right.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
I am not against abortion, but I want our government to end women’s control of reproductive rights. Let’s be honest: the debate about pro-choice vs. pro-life is bogus; it’s really pro-woman vs. pro-fetus. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 gives women the exclusive, unilateral right to opt out of parenthood. According to the Constitution, men also have that right — the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment says so. Instead, The Roe v. Wade Tsunami, whose feminarcissist waves have washed over every aspect of American life, stipulates that a pregnant woman’s rights trump those of the man and the fetus. That’s a lot of unfettered power.
As I pointed out in “Playing Abortion Chess,” no Supreme Court nominee can survive the approval process without pledging allegiance to Roe v. Wade; no politician can get elected or reelected without declaring a position on abortion. One would conclude, therefore, that abortion is the #1 issue of women; yet, on average, 40%+ of American children are born out of wedlock. How can that be, if abortion is so important to women? Simple: abortion is not ultra-critical to women, but the NOW leaders wield it like a weapon to control the passing and funding of feminist legislation like VAWA and IMBRA. Ironically, when girls reach reproductive age, in states like California, they can legally get abortions behind their mothers’ backs. The Roe v. Wade Tsunami is so big that it both helps and supersedes women.
What are the long-term consequences of the Tsunami: every aspect of American life — from reproduction to child support/custody to divorce settlements to VAWA to presumption of innocence to political campaigns — revolves around women. The Tsunami has glorified motherhood and trivialized fatherhood, thereby eroding the shoals of men’s rights. Fathers have no rights during a pregnancy but financial obligations, with token rights, afterwards. Outrageous! Fetus ownership and financial obligation should be connected. If Roe v. Wade nullifies a man’s rights, it should likewise absolve him of responsibility. That is not the case, however. Women are allowed by law to engage in maternity fraud (lying about fertility) and paternity fraud (lying about the genetic father), forcing financial responsiblity on defrauded men.
The Silent Plurality
So, has any politician ever stepped up to right these wrongs? No way. And, that is why 117.3M men — 46% of the electorate — need an advocate. Who will fill this role? As of this writing, nobody.
A few days ago, I saw a fascinating documentary on the History Channel: 1968 by Tom Brokaw. Adapted from his new book, Boom!: Voices of the Sixties; Personal Reflections on the ’60s and Today, this two-hour program showed in vivid detail the pivotal power in American history of that tumultuous year. Two contradictory items jumped out at me: Nixon identifying and capitalizing on the silent majority; vocal women’s liberation. Nixon and his team figured out that many voiceless blue-collar whites were fed up with street violence, campus unrest, and the impotent Democrats. He reached out to them and won the election. At the same time, vociferous, placard-carrying women were marching in the streets, burning their bras, demanding equality. Today, they have more rights than men, who remain silent.
Today’s men, the silent plurality, should not expect any of the current candidates to emulate Nixon’s power of perception, to figure out their needs — 40 years later. Conversely, they will have to mimic the tactics of women’s liberation: take it to the streets. This is the antithesis of how men behave, but the alternative is to continue doing nothing. We know where that will lead.
I am well aware of how this silent plurality feels. And, by the way, many women feel as the men do: that American society has turned its back on men. So, more than 117.3M voters are pining to return men to human status. Last week, I debated Lis Wiehl on my weekly appearance on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. The topic was “Misandry on Madison Avenue,” based on my article of the same name. The international audience witnessed two women — Lis Wiehl and substitute host Terry Keenan — snicker, condescend, and deride while I railed against the moronization and marginalization of men in TV commercials. To my surprise and delight, both the silent plurality and outraged women filled my mailbox with letters of support and condemnation of male-bashing. Because the presidential candidates are unaware of such sentiment — to their discredit — I will share two representative letters, one each from a man and woman:
From a Man:
I just saw you on Fox News on the piece regarding male-bashing commercials. How horrific that those two women laughed and then defended their laughing by saying that “paybacks” and the like were okay. I am so pissed off to see these bimbos flipping you off — because in doing so they perfectly represent the view of most modern American women: hatred for, or utility use of, men, and open-season on mocking.
You are 100% right. If it were women, the feminist groups would be coming out of the woodwork. I repeat, I am HORRIFIED to see how hypocritical these bimbo women were, but I fear their behavior was not unusual. Keep up the good work, and don’t back down for a minute. There are many of us men out there who need a voice.
From a Woman:
Your appearance on the Cavuto show caught my attention. Ms. Wiehl referenced ’70s and ’80s commercials and the myth of current women making less than men. These women whining about mistreatment of women on old commercials (I haven’t seen one in a long time) are laughing now at the same treatment of their male counterparts.
She was annoying and disingenuous. Thank you for standing up for dads and men in general who ARE being chickified, emasculated, and mocked constantly on commercials, sitcoms, and movies. I’m frankly sick of it, too.
Unmet Market Need
As first a management consultant and then founder of Bain Capital — which helped launch hundreds of companies including Staples, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority — Mitt Romney knew intimately the fundamental tenet of competition: identify an unmet market need, deliver a solution to fulfill that need, and then build an image as “the unique provider” of that solution.
Using the same savvy, CEO Romney, after three years of management, salvaged the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, erasing a $379M operating deficit while organizing 23,000 volunteers to run one of the most-successful Olympics in US history. Then, as two-term governor of Massachusetts, Romney transformed a $3B budget deficit into surpluses and attracted 60,000 new jobs.
It is a mystery to me, given Mitt Romney’s savvy, that he is missing this huge unserved market: men. One can feel the anger and frustration in the letters above from those two Cavuto viewers. Why does Romney ignore this enormous bloc of 117.3M voters? In “Hillary Cannot Be President,” I opined that the Feminist-in-Chief neglects men because she has disdain for them. That’s an easy one; I get that. But, I fail to understand why the Republican candidates are so vaginized to purposely slight their own gender. This presents an opportunity for Mitt Romney.
What are the needs of men? For starters, they want to eradicate the reproductive, custody, paternity, alimony, child-support, and homestead advantages that women currently have, that previous male politicians handed to them. Men want to see the next Crystal Gail Mangum, who falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape, sent to prison for the same amount of time that a rapist would serve. They want recognition that women are as abusive or more abusive than men — something that Senator Joe Biden, father of VAWA, fails to mention as he vilifies men at every turn.
Which candidate has identified this unmet market need and proposed a unique solution? Not a one. The Gynocrats — Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich — are falling all over themselves to redistribute wealth from rich to poor and from men to women. And, they are promising to redistribute more civil and criminal rights from men to women, too. Check out their Websites: each one has a “women’s program.” Not one mentions the plight of fathers fighting for custody of their children. These Gynocrats are all about women, 24/7; they don’t represent men.
The Republican contest, unfortunately, has devolved into bickering about whether waterboarding is torture, who’s the most Christian (or the legitimate Christian), and whose state (or estate) employs the most illegal aliens. All the while, the needs of 117.3M men — a topic never broached by any news network, any print publication, or any debate moderator, or incorporated into any candidate’s platform — are languishing, unaddressed. The Mitt Romney behind Staples didn’t ignore or fail to notice unmet market needs. Why is that same Mitt Romney, the man who prides himself on having a loving, cohesive family, ignoring this unmet market need? Is it because serving, let alone acknowledging, American men is politically incorrect? Pretending that men don’t exist, even by a father of sons, is standard operating procedure in US politics.
Differentiation Is Key
Disregarding 46% of the electorate is a huge strategic blunder. Nobody can legitimately claim to be pro-family without supporting fathers. Yet, that’s precisely what is happening in America. In “And Dad Is Uranus,” I explained that pro-family in today’s feminist parlance means pro-single-mother — another consequence of The Roe v. Wade Tsunami. Accordingly, many men can’t decide which candidate to support. The vaginized ones don’t even care, but it’s time for the real men to draw a line in the sand, to force candidates to address their needs. As far as I’m concerned, any man who casts a vote for a candidate indifferent to him is a self-hating eunuch.
Without exploiting this unmet market need — men’s rights — Mitt Romney is just another undifferentiated candidate who struggles to stand out. Frankly, differentiation in this field of similar candidates ain’t that easy. So, Romney has been outspending his Republican rivals to increase his exposure. On the other hand, by hardly spending any money, the folksy, likable Huckabee is, at this writing, ahead in the Iowa polls. The former Arkansas governor has defined himself by his religious beliefs, while Romney has publicly compartmentalized his. Concurrently, Rudy Giuliani, the only “pro-choice” Republican, is riding his reputation as “America’s mayor,” based on his calming, take-charge performance during and after the 9/11 attack on New York City.
What do Steve Jobs, Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Michael Crichton, and Tiger Woods have in common? They’ve all differentiated and distinguished themselves as singular entities. When visualizing any of them, you can, effortlessly, separate him from his competitors. That’s because these people did the differentiation work for you. Likewise, Mitt Romney can rise above the white noise — to differentiate and distinguish himself as a singular entity — by championing men’s rights. The good news: his rivals will not emulate him.
Romney eloquently defended his faith; he can do likewise for fathers. Otherwise, he will be relatively indistinguishable as one of many, forcing voters to choose based on brand awareness: Rudy Giuliani. As an ex-Bain management consultant, Romney knows that’s an impotent strategy.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
On election day, trying to objectively distinguish one Republican candidate from the other will become an exercise in murky futility. Any man who votes for a Gynocrat will be engaging in self-castration. If you think America is a gynocracy now, imagine Hillary as president. If that doesn’t cause shrinkage, nothing will. So, the only choice for men is a Republican. The question is, which one? It must be the one who supports men. Alas, that candidate doesn’t exist. But, it could be Mitt Romney — if he “gets it” in time.
Just as when consumers purchase products, in situations where all seem alike, they usually go with the safe choice: the known, trusted brand. Giuliani is the known, trusted brand, but he doesn’t represent men. Giuliani is “pro-choice,” which means he is pro-woman, and he will not be a president who equalizes rights between the genders. If Romney doesn’t differentiate himself from Giuliani, by promising to end government-sponsored misandry, he has little chance to beat him.
And, that is why becoming the man’s advocate — promising true gender equality — will clearly separate, distinguish, and differentiate Mitt Romney from the nebulous pack. Such a departure from the status quo will completely change the campaign dynamics and momentum — enabling Romney to redefine himself, stop defending his Mormon faith, and return to his strength: identifying an unmet market need, delivering a solution to fulfill that need, and then building an image as “the unique provider” of that solution. In essence, it is how Mitt can beat Rudy.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Unlike gender-blind wealth and life destroyers — alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, and catastrophic illness — divorce will disproportionately eviscerate the wallets, parental power, and dignity of men. Because family courts (I call them female-ly courts) generally favor women, who have overwhelmingly unfair reproductive, custody, paternity, alimony, child-support, and homestead advantages, a man’s biggest nightmare is becoming the respondent in a divorce, especially in January.
If your marriage is already teetering when December arrives, it’s time to beware the January divorce. By the Sunday of the Super Bowl, there’s a high probability that your wife will have served you divorce papers. That’s right: women bring 70% of divorce actions, to improve their odds of taking the kids and the houses.
Starting at Thanksgiving and ending on New Year’s Eve, a husband and wife whose marriage has gone flat like bad champagne typically act out an “everything’s just fine” charade for their friends, their kids, their respective families, and themselves.
Sometimes, the charading couple naively hopes that the celebrations and festivities will revive happiness of yore. Sometimes, in deceit, the wife will tell her husband that she’s happy while secretly plotting a divorce. Whatever the case, when the ball drops in Times Square, at least one of them knows that the era of their marriage is about to end.
Divorce Season
If women cared so much about marriage and family, as they always claim when you meet them, they would lobby their elected representatives to equalize the reproductive, custody, homestead, paternity, and child-support laws. Have you ever seen this happen? Never. Have you ever heard a politician promise to make this happen? Never. Women benefit from divorce, and that’s why they are happy with the anti-male status quo.
Divorce lawyers will tell you that their phones ring more during the first week of January than at any other time during the year. Affectionately known as divorce season, January is a fitting time for a marriage’s termination, considering its etymology. It is named for Janus — the Roman god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings, and endings — who has two opposite-looking faces for simultaneously seeing the past and the future.
A man must steel — and prepare — himself for the January divorce. Imagine how it feels for an NFL quarterback to be broadsided and sacked by the opponent’s middle linebacker. Not so good, judging by the grimace on his face and the discernable limp in his gait. That’s what it feels like, emotionally and financially, to be caught unawares when a server hands you divorce papers. Don’t wait for that to happen. Get legal and financial help, now!
The Ostrich Routine
There’s no reason to be broadsided by divorce in cold January. Instead, become like Janus — in September. Look at your marriage’s recent past and decide whether it really has a future. If not, begin the exit process as soon as possible. Don’t be passive, don’t be chivalrous, don’t be a victim, and don’t engage in self-delusion. Protect yourself.
After summer vacation ends and the kids return to school, that’s when you truly know whether your marriage will last. And, that’s when you should start talking to a lawyer and an accountant. Marriage is a corporation; you, the man, are the minority shareholder. And, the more children you have, the more your minority share dwindles. Don’t compound your male disadvantage by stalling. Stay proactive.
If you pull the ostrich routine, September will quickly turn into December, and your wife will divorce you in January. She has access to Janus, too. She’s also looking behind and ahead. She wants those kids and that house — and your cash. If you are passive, she will strike first and dictate the terms and timing of your demise. She will boot you out in the cold. Ask any divorce lawyer: January is divorce month. Is that what you want?
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Nobody wants to go through a divorce. It’s a mess for the whole family, the extended families, and all the friends — who eventually will divide into his and hers camps. But, if divorce is inevitable, fight it like a war: on the offensive, on her territory, when you are prepared. I know it sounds harsh, but the alternative is obvious, isn’t it? Isn’t it?
Remember: If your marriage is dead and you haven’t filed for divorce by Halloween, and she, for some reason, doesn’t file in January, you then must confront Valentine’s Day and, two months hence, tax day — as an unhappily married couple. How much chill and self-imposed torture can you endure?
Instead, ring in the new year with good friends, have fun on the slopes, watch the Super Bowl in peace, and file your taxes as a single man — all possible when you beware, and avoid, the January divorce. To avoid divorce in the other 11 months, with complete certitude, never marry in the first place.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
There’s a bottom-line question every man must ask himself about the woman in his life: Does she view me as a phallus or a trailer hitch? If you’re on the fence about it, allow me to suggest a test query: Will she be in your bed tomorrow if you stop wining & dining her? Now, if you stop having sex with her and she remains in your bed, it means, Mr. Trailer Hitch, that her phallus sleeps across town.
When you began dating her, you acted like a trailer hitch, bragged about being a good trailer hitch — showing her photos of your cars, plane, yacht, summer home, ski chalet, and private jet — and now you’re shocked to realize that she’s been along for the financial ride from the start? Didn’t you see the dollar signs in her eyes? Give me a break. As I explained in my book, Under the Clitoral Hood, women are aroused by men, not money. Never mistake avarice for arousal.
How many times have I heard women proclaim themselves strong, tough, and smart — and not in need of men’s money — only to admit a few breaths later that they are receiving alimony? More than I can count. Perhaps that’s why so many of them carry Louis Vuitton bags: they need space, expensive space, to hold all their double standards.
The Greater Good
There exists no better example of a woman hitching herself to a man for a financial ride than Heather Mills, soon-to-be-ex-wife of former Beatle Paul McCartney. Heather wants $100M from Paul in a divorce settlement. She’s entitled to this much money why? And, to epitomize hypocrisy, Heather said the following to justify her avarice:
“Sadly, you have to mix at a certain level of people to raise the level of funds you need to bring about the greater good,” she said. “Because people are very snobby. These people who have lots of money, they’re either snobby or they’re stingy. If you have lots of money, you have to be stingy — because why would you want that amount of money?”
The greater good? Heather is referring to her own greater good and is, of course, totally full of it; everybody can see that. But, when you think about it, is Heather Mills that different from many women you enounter? Not really. It’s simply a matter of scale, determined by how much you earn. Heather Mills is greedy only because so many trailer hitches fuel her greed — in her social life as well as in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
When a woman at a bar expects you to purchase her drink, why is she behaving this way? Because she sees you as a trailer hitch. If you oblige her, she is correct. When a woman presumes that you’ll foot the bill for dinner, simply because she’s a woman, she sees you as a trailer hitch. And, if you choose to hook up, you’ll have no one to blame but yourself when your “travel expenses” escalate. The Estrogen Express is an expensive ride, but boarding it is a choice.
When you call AAA to pull your vehicle, you must pay for that haul. Why, then, does the typical man pay a woman to haul her? Because he’s insecure and knows nothing about the female libido. Wouldn’t AAA go bankrupt operating this way? Bingo. It’s no coincidence that marrying is called “getting hitched.”
How she sees you is directly connected to how you present yourself to her and what you’ll tolerate from her. So, are you her phallus or trailer hitch?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Your spellchecker doesn’t recognize misandry, the hatred of men, because the developers at Microsoft, when creating Word, weren’t conscious of it. But, they sure knew about misogyny, right? HR sensitivity programs ensured that. Bashing women is so verboten in Corporate America that people can lose their jobs over it. Excoriating men, on the other hand, is so infused — and apparently profitable — that, like breathing, most people accept it without question. And, nowhere is misandry practiced more than on Madison Avenue, the advertising capital of the world, the source of the male-bashing TV commercial.
Today’s TV spots are moronizing and marginalizing men, with impunity. Why do they persist? Quite simply, most Americans — including a lot of self-hating men — approve. The genesis of every TV campaign begins by matching an advertiser’s sales objectives with an assumption about the zeitgeist. The advertiser bets that a TV campaign’s message will resonate with its targeted customers, who, hopefully, will respond by purchasing the promoted products or services. When earning my MBA at Boston University, I obviously missed the lecture on how to boost revenues of cameras and mutual funds by alienating men and fathers.
Sony & Fidelity Investments
That explains why I was incredulous when Sony aired its “Father Is a Horse’s Ass Commercial,” believing that insulting men would boost sales of the Cyber-shot® camera. The campaign didn’t last long, but I have yet to read about any Sony marketing execs or any BBDO advertising execs who lost their jobs over it. Imagine what those child actors thought about their own fathers as they were learning their lines, reciting them on camera, and watching the finished commercial. What were the impressions on their young minds and souls?
In another misandry-for-profit example, Fidelity Investments and Arnold Worldwide, both of Boston, teamed up to produce four spots designed to lure female investors by denigrating men. When you watch them, ask yourself this question: Why would women feel good about doing business with a company that trashes men?
How do you feel when you watch Fidelity’s spots? Are you enraged? Are you indifferent? Are you amused? Are you motivated to send a check to Fidelity? Your answer reveals a lot about you and your attitudes about men.
Fidelity’s Advertising Assembly Line
For Fidelity’s misandrist TV spots to have seen the light of day, they had to move through an assembly line of steps and associated approvals:
VP of marketing has a “vision”: portraying men as marginalized morons will successfully lure female investors without alienating male investors. Time to convert this “vision” into a TV campaign
VP of marketing gets funding approval from superiors and chooses staff members to execute vision — all are “mad about misandry”
VP of marketing and team meet with Fidelity’s ad agency, Arnold Worldwide (AW). AW’s creative staff and execs love the man-as-moron angle, pitch their ideas, and can’t wait to begin
Combined Fidelity/AW team conceives, writes, storyboards, staffs, funds, shoots, produces, post-produces, and greenlights four male-bashing spots
AW buys time on TV networks to run man-as-moron spots. Network execs don’t object to or even notice spots’ misandrist content. The spots air as scheduled.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Numerous people — men and women — on the aforementioned advertising assembly line participated in, condoned, and approved the moronizing and marginalizing of men. Worse, the American public — men and women — gave it a giant thumbs-up. Corporate America, emboldened by this direct and tacit approval, takes the cue and runs with a new trend in advertising.
As a test, imagine the Sony commercial airing with the mother as a horse’s ass, or the Fidelity spot on primetime TV featuring a woman playing with toys in a doctor’s waiting room. You know as well as I do that such an “equality” test wouldn’t pass the first step in the assembly line above. Furthermore, we also know that anyone even suggesting equality in advertising would be summarily fired.
Boys seeing men and fathers constantly portrayed as morons cannot possibly look forward to marriage and parenthood — or even manhood. Moreover, frequent male denigration is encouraging girls to develop a deep disrespect of boys and men, and false senses of superiority. Alas, when these boys and girls become parents, they will repeat and continue this cycle of misandry.
Whether at home or at work, women who trash men to gain self-worth and profits are worthless. And, likewise, men who trash themselves and their fellow men to gain female approval and profits are as well worthless — and pathetic.
Men will make people conscious of, and utlimately end, misandry by refusing to tolerate it: from advertisers, ad agencies, and the women and self-hating men in their lives. Misandry on Madison Avenue will continue only as long as it does on Main Street.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
