Fathers Are Trivial

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 Wiehl about 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.

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

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 26th, 2007 at 10:17 am 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. |