You're in No Nonsense Territory





MailingListButton.jpg




You are currently browsing the The NoNonsense Man® weblog archives for August, 2008.

Archives

  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • Archive for August, 2008

    Will YOU Elect GynObama & VAWA Joe?

    Saturday, August 23rd, 2008

    Biggest Setback to Men in US History

    Attention all men: do a quick testicular self-exam. That space you feel between your legs means that Barack Obama and Joe Biden — both on record as ballbusting misandrists — will easily convince you to send them to the White House. If you enable their victory, you will cause the biggest setback to men in US history.

    It is Saturday morning, August 23, 2008. All the networks are atwitter about Barack Obama choosing Joe Biden to be his veep. Fawning reporters are camped outside Joe Biden’s “compound” in Wilmington, Delaware, awaiting his appearance at the door, while the Secret Service is ready to whisk him to the airport. From there, Biden will fly to Springfield, Illinois, to join Barack Obama for the formal announcement.

    Despite the numerous debates amongst TV’s talking heads, pundits, and partisans about the qualifications Obama and Biden may or may not have to run our country, these pontificators never mention the presidential aspirants’ disdain for men. Never. They never mention VAWA, a four-letter word on TV. That’s because violating the US Constitution, to the detriment of men, isn’t as important a topic as, say, how many homes the candidates own — or the sizes or colors or locations of those homes.

    This attitude that men are trivial and irrelevant, and deserve no rights, is precisely why lawmakers, judges, jurists, governors, and presidents continue to ignore the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I guess that female tears smudge the Constitution’s ink, rendering it impossible to read.

    Can’t read the Constitution? Ignore it. In California, domestic violence is still defined as “man hitting woman,” according to Health & Safety Code 124250, even though women commit domestic violence up to 70% of the time. Who cares how many men’s lives are ruined? They’re just disposable tools.

    Autophobic Men

    Many people believe that misandry, the hatred of men, emanates only from radical feminists. Wrong. Most man-haters are autophobic men. Barack Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, squarely established his misandrist credentials on Fathers’ Day 2008, when he unilaterally railed against men as the culprits of fatherless homes. Yet, he failed to lay at least equal blame at the doorsteps of unwed mothers on Mothers’ Day. If he truly respects women as equals, he would have done that.

    Recently, pregnant Minnie Driver announced that she will create a fatherless home with this gem, “Today you don’t need a man anymore. In the old days, a baby without marriage and people would put you out. Today you speak about it on talk shows.” Where was Barack Obama to condemn her irresponsibility?

    When the divorcing Lara Logan of CBS News “announced” that she had gotten herself knocked up in Iraq up by a married military man, GynObama was nowhere to condemn her irresponsibility. Coddling women is a sign of disrespect for them — and a sign of disregard for men.

    Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s new ballbusting partner in crime, is also known as “the father of VAWA.” If you don’t already know about this pernicious law — and shame on you if you don’t — VAWA is the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act, born in 1994 from the loins of Joe Biden.

    The senator from Delaware, who teaches a seminar on constitutional law at the Widener University School of Law, believes — unconstitutionally — that violence against women trumps violence against men. Not only did Biden’s jihad against men result in an unconstitutionally funded ($500M/year) Office on Violence Against Women, he recently proposed that US taxpayers fund 100,000 free lawyers to help women file domestic-violence claims against men. And the law students at Widener are paying to hear Biden’s seminars?

    The pundits constantly praise Biden’s expertise in foreign policy, and they’re right: VAWA Joe made it permissible for foreign-born wives of American men, going through divorces, to get automatic Green Cards by falsely accusing their ex-husbands-to-be of domestic violence. No proof, no due process required. This isn’t justice; it’s ballbusting gynojustice — and men living in Delaware keep reelecting its promulgator.

    The Ballbusting Duo

    An Obama/Biden administration would be a huge disaster for men, and I worry that, as always, they will bury their heads in the sand, ignore the perils, and blithely vote for the ballbusting duo.

    Let’s look at how our gynocracy — where women have rights but no responsibilities, and men have responsibilities but no rights — will look after these two misandrists take the helm:

    • More PSAs on radio & TV accusing men of being the sole culprits of domestic violence
    • More acceptance of sitcoms like Everybody Loves Raymond, in which women hit men for laughs
    • More acceptance of comedy skits in which women hit men for laughs
    • More acceptance of women like Mary Winkler, who killed her husband in cold blood, with virtual impunity, by using the unprovable abuse excuse
    • More misinformation from the American Bar Association about men as the sole instigators of domestic violence
    • More condoning of female-on-male violence, as shown by ABC News
    • More freedom for women, without prosecution, to falsely accuse men of rape, as Crystal Gail Mangum did to three Duke University lacrosse players
    • More freedom for women, without prosecution, to falsely accuse men of domestic violence — as Brooke Hogan did to her father Hulk Hogan, just to please her mother.

    The NoNonsense Bottom Line

    Anyone with a brain and a pair of eyes knows two things about most American men:

    1. They believe that violating NBA or NFL rules is atrocious, but violating the US Constitution to benefit women is just fine
    2. Although the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing proved, without a doubt, that women are strong, powerful, and aggressive, we must continue to pretend that they’re delicate, weak, fragile victims.

    If you want to perform self-castration and ruin your manhood, please do so in private. But don’t render the rest of American men impotent by sending the country’s top-two ballbusting misandrists — GynObama and VAWA Joe — to the White House. Their victory in November is impossible without the male vote. So, if you elect them, we’ll know that you failed your testicular self-exam.

    About the Author

    Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 and The O’Reilly Factor.

    Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

    Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

    Why Hillary Chose Victimhood

    Sunday, August 17th, 2008

    Both Ends of the Spectrum

    Hillary Clinton blamed the demise of her 2008 primary campaign on sexism and misogyny, while simultaneously bragging about receiving 18M popular votes — a US record. This is transparent hypocrisy on its face: Hillary’s it’s-all-about-women campaign was the epitome of sexism. Hillary was the sexist.

    So, why did Hillary play the victim? Easy answer: she wanted pity, which she somehow confuses with compassion and respect. The real answer is that female victimhood sells in this gynocracy, and sells big-time — despite women comprising 54% of the electorate, 60% of college graduates, 70% of divorce filers, and 90% of child custodians. In addition, women control 60% of American wealth and make 80% of consumer purchases. This is victimhood? I’d like some of that, with fries.

    In reality, female whiners are fake victims. They’ll alternately use victimhood and power, depending on the situation. To wit: When Hillary competed to become commander in chief, she was powerful. In defeat, she was a victim. Why, then, can women exploit both ends of the spectrum? Simple: men fall for it every time.

    Men are afraid of women, as I explained in “Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her.” How else can one explain mayors, governors, legislators, judges, jurists, and presidents bending and mutilating the Constitution — unilaterally for women — to effect such bear traps as VAWA, IMBRA, rape shields, abortion, safe havens, and instant restraining orders?

    Fear not, however, for Senator Clinton’s pity-wallowing was not in vain. She had many helpers stirring the victimhood stew, including Elton John, Geraldine Ferraro, and NOW. Yes, they all blamed Hillary’s narrow loss to Barack Obama on the hatred of women. Gawker and Jon Stewart’s Daily Show even blamed me somewhat for her loss, because of my famous “take out the garbage” quip on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. Give me a break!

    Managerial Incompetence

    Too bad Hillary’s protestations, and those of her supporters, were fallacious and disingenuous. In the September, 2008, issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Joshua Green wrote a detailed investigative portrait of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign — replete with internal documents and e-mails — called “The Front-Runner’s Fall.” Here are two critical paragraphs from Green’s article, which proves that incompetence and high negatives sank her campaign, not sexism:

    Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence — on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.

    The effect of these choices in Iowa became jarringly clear when [Clinton’s pollster Mark] Penn conducted a poll just after Clinton’s Senate reelection [in November 2006] that showed her running a very distant third, barely ahead of the state’s governor, Tom Vilsack. The poll produced a curious revelation: Iowans rated Clinton at the top of the field on questions of leadership, strength, and experience — but most did not plan to vote for her, because they didn’t like her.

    I have no reason to critique, delve into, or expand on Mr. Green’s eye-opening treatise, which taught me a lot; it stands on its own merits. You can read it for yourself, and you must. My objective, in including Green’s piece, is to present evidence that the sexism and misogyny charges of Hillary and her friends were bogus and dangerous. Because American men are reluctant to criticize women, women rarely hear it. So, when the rare man criticizes a woman, he’s automatically labeled a misogynist.

    The NoNonsense Bottom Line

    When a woman calls her detractors sexists and misogynists, she’s displaying true weakness. The fact is, Hillary Clinton ran an inept campaign, was unpopular, and deserved to lose. Carelessly and cowardly playing the sexism card, to mask incompetence or for any other reason, is as pernicious as capriciously playing the racism card. In the end, false accusers diminish themselves.

    Hillary chose victimhood because she could. That choice rallied a lot of female support, and many men gave her a pass for it. Alas, Americans easily and willingly see women as victims — a sign of disrespect, not compassion. Until women reject this dysfunctional pathos, the irony will be lost on them.

    If Hillary runs a competent and successful presidential campaign in 2012, it will mean that choosing victimhood was a good strategy. It also means that a victim could be answering that White House phone at 3AM. Is that what you want?

    About the Author

    Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 and The O’Reilly Factor.

    Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

    Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

    Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her

    Sunday, August 3rd, 2008

    Money and Children

    Nothing symbolizes spineless deference more than a man on bended knee proposing marriage to his girlfriend. When he utters to her that timeless four-word question — “Will you marry me?” — he is taking the biggest risk of his life: disappointing her. Through this emasculating act, he’s really asking her to bury him.

    And, if he should, G-d forbid, disappoint his delicate flower, one only wonders how she might retaliate. Americans, who hate to see their women disappointed, will give her lots of latitude — whether she throws his clothes out the window, slaps him in the face (as Teri Hatcher, out of petty anger, did to Pierce Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies), or kills him with virtual impunity, as Mary Winkler did to her sleeping husband, using the abuse or bipolar-disorder defense.

    Upon receiving marriage proposals from their boyfriends in front of live TV cameras, women typically jump up and down, shriek, and shed tears. Yet, given that the divorce rate hovers at about half, that women seek at least 70% of all marital dissolutions (an accurate barometer of female disappointment), and that the inevitable court battles will destroy lives, one must suspect the ebullience women exhibit when first sliding on their sparkly engagement rings. Clearly, they’re not atwitter about the men they’ve betrothed. So, why the fuss?

    Billions of men throughout history have initiated the proposal ritual, for a variety of reasons. Supposedly, the basis of marriage has changed over time — evolving from parentally arranged unions focused on property, wealth, station, and lineage to modern ones in which the fiancés freely choose each other out of love and compatibility.

    In reality, the more things have changed, the more they’ve stayed the same. Marriages, in 2008, still are about money and children, as their dissolutions ultimately prove. When a baseball unravels, one can see its innards; a marriage is no different. Ironically, divorce documents don’t mention love, allegedly a marriage’s core ingredient but a concept few people understand or practice.

    Perpetual Childhood

    Disappointment, defined as the gap between expectation and reality, is an immutable part of life. True adults — those who are mentally and emotionally mature — accept, manage, and move past disappointments, and they don’t expect others to prevent them.

    Children, on the other hand, whether 5 or 35, do not and cannot deal with disappointment. Despite all the talk about feminism and equality, Americans, via outmoded chivalry and unconstitutional reproduction, child-custody, rape, and domestic-violence laws, keep women in perpetual childhood. Yes, American women have grown accustomed to being spared risk, pain, and disappointment.

    Because most men have been raised to make women happy, to close that painful gap between expectation and reality, the penalty for failing is tremendous. To help clueless men navigate these risky waters, AOL published a compass called “5 Things You Should Never Say to a Woman.” Imagine the retaliation against any man who violates even one of these rules.

    I appeared the other day on Fox Business Network to debate Alexis Glick and Tracy Byrnes about a new study citing an increase in female unhappiness at age 48. I opined that misery for women begins in childhood, when they’re taught that happiness derives from shoes, jewelry, boob-jobs, and pedestals. Naturally, the Fox women reacted with outrage, accusing me of knowing the “wrong” women and living in the dark ages. Dark ages? How do Alexis and Tracy explain the PMS (princess mentality syndrome) demands of their competitor at CNBC, Erin Burnett, who penned “8 Ways to Impress Me” on MensHealth.com? Her aim: to teach men how not to disappoint her. The top brass at CNBC weren’t impressed.

    Women just don’t like to admit that feminarcissism is the rule, not the exception. Why is this? Most men tolerate and enable it out of false necessity: they naïvely believe that women have weak libidos. Such ignorance about female sexuality drives all irrational male behavior, as I wrote in Under the Clitoral Hood. In fact, the opposite is true: women are more lustful than men. Until men grasp this, they will continue to grovel and please — and women will continue to demand, and get, it.

    Have you ever heard the slogan, If Mom’s happy, everyone’s happy? Of course you have. This nonsense is practiced in many families, as if Mom is the “special” parent whom everyone must please, and Dad, the man, is superfluous. That’s why feminism is so successful, and men’s rights almost dead, in all Western countries. Men aren’t just automatons designed to please women; they’re willing automatons, eager to please women!

    I appeared a year or so ago as a guest on a radio program in Massachusetts. The male host asked me what’s inherently wrong with men that they always screw up relationships. I was appalled. “Why do you think women are relationship experts, perfect little angels who have no faults? Why do you automatically assume men are the culprits?” I shot back. He had no response because he’s the typical self-hating man who believes that men are scum. Alas, there are many like him in our midst.

    On a radio show in DC, the male host asked me what men’s rights are and why men need any rights — I kid you not. Other male hosts have robotically repeated the feminist mantra, “women haven’t even voted for 100 years, and we men should cut them a break.” Dennis Miller’s wife warned him, via text message during our exchange, not to have me back on his show. A few other hosts admitted that their wives had cut off sex for a week after hearing them agree with me on the air.

    It’s sad that American men have reduced themselves to living in fear of women, causing women to feel that not being disappointed is an unalienable right. Consequences? On Fathers’ Day, when Barack Obama unilaterally criticized men for the plight of fatherless homes, he received praise. Yet, by completely giving women a pass on Mothers’ Day — for the same issue — not one journalist or TV anchor challenged, has challenged, or ever will challenge him.

    Why is it that women who falsely accuse men of rape or domestic violence are never prosecuted? Why is it that Hollywood and Madison Avenue continually portray men in sitcoms and TV commercials as moronic, impotent servants to their wives? And, why is it that, when women drop off their unwanted newborns at local fire stations, no questions asked, society looks the other way? More coddling and shielding them from risk, pain, and disappointment.

    After Hillary Clinton conceded to Barack Obama, on June 7, 2008, she began her victimhood campaign, blaming members of the media for engaging in sexism, which, she claimed, derailed her nomination. At the same time, Senator Clinton bragged about receiving 18M primary votes, a US record. If sexism is so rampant, how did she amass 18M votes, many from men? In fact, Clinton is a hypocrite. Her presidential campaign and Website were all about women, women, women — which is overt sexism.

    Perverse Coddling

    I made the point earlier that most men are raised to elevate women on pedestals and to avoid disappointing them. Let’s see an example. In this well-known video, a father surprises his daughter, Mackenzie, with a red sports car on her 16th birthday. Instead of thanking him, she whines and stomps her feet — because she hates the color. Why the ungrateful behavior? Because Mackenzie’s pathetic, appeasing father has kissed her ass since birth, shielding her from disappointment. Is there a Mackenzie in your home? Is she your daughter, your girlfriend, or your wife — or all three?

    In wimpy America, Mackenzie will find many men to follow in her father’s tiptoes. And, I guarantee that the masochist who eventually proposes marriage to Mackenzie will bow before her on bended knee, because he, like Mackenzie’s father, views women as superior beings. Unfortunately, he will have lots of like-minded company across our country: husbands, cops, DAs, judges, jurors, politicians, journalists, and producers of movies, commercials, and sitcoms.

    Tell a woman she’s too weak to be an executive in your company or commander in chief of the US Armed Forces, and see how fast you get a call from the EEOC. Now, tell her she’s too strong to require special protection from VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden, the US Senate’s biggest woman-pleaser, created. Now, watch her victimhood side emerge to explain her vulnerabilities. Basically, women are strong when it suits them and weak when it suits them, and men, suffering from vaginaphobia, just go along with it.

    This perverse coddling of women is rooted in the fear of disappointing them. It is, in reality, a blatant disrespect for them, a fundamental belief that they’re weak, defenseless victims. But, if women were so insulted by condescending coddling, they would protest, right? Have you ever heard one woman complain about getting special privileges?

    Like Cinderella

    A friend of mine recently recounted an incident where his ex-wife had violated their custody agreement. He took her to court, where the male judge ruled, illegally, in her favor. Said the judge to my friend: “I don’t want to disappoint her.” Who cares about laws when a woman’s fragility is at stake? I encounter men all the time, just like this judge, who kowtow to their girlfriends and wives out of fear of disappointing them.

    Two weeks ago, I debated Lis Wiehl on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto about a jilted woman who won a $150K settlement from a Georgia jury because her fiancé had broken their engagement. He did this because, after paying $30K of her debts, which he was not required to do, he then discovered that her debts are greater than she initially had revealed. In other words, marriage was her ticket out of debt. So, he decided not to marry her. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. Engagement is a risk-free trial before making a lifelong commitment, right? Wrong. This man had committed the sin of disappointing a woman. Even though she had no legal basis for bringing this action, the 12-person jury, half male, felt sorry for her. Had the situation been reversed, can you imagine a jury awarding $150K to a jilted man?

    A casualty of TV’s highly intellectual show, The Bachelor, 22-year-old Shayne Lamas, daughter of Lorenzo Lamas, broke off her engagement to Matt Grant. Yet, she wants to keep the ring and encase it in a glass box, like Cinderella. It is customary, and legally required in most states, that, when an engagement ends, the woman return her engagement ring to the man who gave it to her. But, because Shayne lives in a country that hates to disappoint women, she believes she’ll prevail. If she is forced to return that ring, I’ll be surprised.

    Last month, Cynthia Rodriguez filed for divorce against Yankee great Alex Rodriguez, also known as A-Rod, after reports surfaced that he was involved with Madonna. A-Rod and Cynthia live in Florida, a no-fault state, where infidelity is not grounds for divorce. In 2002, they signed a prenup, a binding contract detailing how their assets would be split in case of a divorce. Throughout their marriage, A-Rod, who now earns an annual base of $27M, has been spotted publicly with numerous women. Knowing this, Cynthia stayed with him and also had a second child. Because contract law apparently doesn’t apply to disappointed women, Cynthia is illegally using charges of infidelity to persuade the judge to set aside their prenup and award her much more money. A-Rod is fighting to have the judge ignore the infidelity charges (which the law dictates) and respect the prenup (which the law also dictates). Cynthia will try to claim that she signed the prenup under duress — because girls, you know, don’t understand, like, contracts. If she doesn’t prevail, I will be surprised.

    The NoNonsense Bottom Line

    To coexist with a woman in a land that loathes female disappointment, a man now needs a conversation contract, a date contract, a sex contract, a coworker contract, a cohabitation contract, an engagement contract, and a marriage contract — none of which is guaranteed to be enforced. A bonanza for lawyers!

    A man’s welfare, in this gynocracy that men built, depends on a woman’s mood, her ethics, the state in which she lives, and the reluctance of an unknown future judge or jury to “disappoint” her. The playing field is unlevel because men — afraid of being called misogynists and afraid of not getting laid — allowed it to happen, continue to tolerate it, and won’t fight it.

    Had Peter Cook been the aggrieved party in his divorce from Christy Brinkley, and elected to open their proceedings to the public, the judge, the media, and women’s groups would have universally vilified him as a cad and a terrible father. Yet, when Christy did just that, she got a pass. In fact, Brinkley’s oldest daughter was “proud” of her mother’s public circus. Society accepts irrational, ruinous emotions and behavior from women as just compensation for their disappointments.

    You don’t think women expect to be coddled, to have the upper hand in life? Look around in a restaurant, the next time you go out; count how many women are buying dinner for men. Then, listen to politicians speak, on both sides of the aisle; count how many are promising to prosecute women who falsely accuse men of rape. Women demand and get coddling. And, as long as caped men keep rescuing women from their disappointments, this manipulation game shall continue.

    The desire to coddle is as immature and dysfunctional as the desire to be coddled. Such codependency leads to upwardly spiraling expectations and disappointments — as the relationship between Mackenzie and her father epitomizes. The courage to disappoint women is a sign of respect for them. Accepting disappointment as part of life, and that men are not responsible for preventing it, is a sign of self-respect for women.

    If you’re a man whose mantra is Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her — with the “wrong” dinner, conversation, joke, diamond, car, house, vacation, divorce settlement, salary, or legislation — you need to grow a pair.

    About the Author

    Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 and The O’Reilly Factor.

    Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

    Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.