The Roe v. Wade Tsunami

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.

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm and is filed under TNNM, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. |  Print This Post