Profit via Failure

Men finally have figured out how to enjoy life like Heather Mills, the unjustly and grossly overcompensated ex-wife of Paul McCartney. They grew tired of watching women get bailed out of failed marriages, collecting obscene payouts and lifetime salaries called alimony. So, they developed a brilliant plan: become CEO of a teetering company, leave it in tatters, and exit with a golden parachute.

Here are examples of men living off divorce settlements like spoiled ex-wives, engaging in profit via failure:

• Franklin Raines earned $90M in his five years as Fannie Mae’s CEO, from 1999 to 2004, while cooking the books. One of his successors, Daniel Mudd, collected $11.6M in 2007 compensation. Fannie Mae — a quasi-governmental corporation created by Congress to support FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed secondary mortgages — failed so badly in late 2008 that, to prevent total collapse, the feds bailed it out for $200B+ (along with sister organization Freddie Mac) and took control of it
• In August 2007, Bank of America bought failed subprime-mortgage peddler Countrywide Financial for $2B — after CEO Angelo Mozilo sold $121M in company stock and the feds bailed it out for $51B
• In October 2007, the board of Merrill Lynch fired CEO Stanley O’Neal, who collected a cool $160M bonus payout on his way out the door. His successor, John Thain, earned $17M for one year — before selling Merrill to Bank of America for $50B
• James Cayne, as CEO of Bear Stearns, “earned” $49.31M in the last two years of his firm’s pitiful existence — before collapsing, receiving a $29B government bailout, and becoming part of JP Morgan Chase
• Richard Fuld, CEO and largest shareholder of Lehman Brothers, collected $354M in total compensation in the past five years — before declaring bankruptcy and melding into Barclays Financial
• Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke orchestrated an $85B withdrawal from taxpayer coffers to save insurance giant AIG from bankruptcy
• Alan Fishman, CEO for just 17 days of Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest S&L, floated out the door on an eye-popping $20M parachute — as it became the largest bank failure in US history, taken over by FDIC, and handed to JP Morgan Chase for the bargain price of $1.9B

Total cost to the taxpayers of these Wall Street divorce settlements: over $600B. Rationale: financial stability. Actual result: more turmoil and the need for another bailout.

By the way, these bailouts are unconstitutional because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the federal government from selectively helping businesses or people. But, let’s not allow the Constitution to interfere with politics.

Now, the American taxpayers are further enraged as President Bush and Congress have completed a rescue bill that will require them to pony up another $700B, on top of the first $600B+, to stabilize the US financial system. Cries of socialism abound. Let weak companies fail! they demand. How dare those Wall Street bandits clean up when we folks on Main Street are sucking it up!

Ignoring Jurassic Park

The main cause of this near-meltdown is socialism. That is why the only solution — a bailout — is also socialism. We can trace all the chaos back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed during the Carter Era and buttressed during the Clinton Era, to help the have-nots own homes, to make home ownership an inalienable right.

Social engineers like Barney Frank imposed pressure on banks to put people of little means (many of them illegal aliens) into homes. The availability of easy cash and the weight of political correctness compounded to reward these unqualified borrowers for assuming home loans they couldn’t afford.

From there, the lending banks packaged and sold these “subprime” mortgages to the likes of Bear Stearns, which created tradable paper (mortgage-backed securities) linked back to said unqualified borrowers. Even worse, the financial system provided lax regulatory oversight of the whole mess. This scenario is akin to building a house with termite-infested wood.

Each member of this financial gravy train — unqualified borrower, greedy banker, and avaricious mortgage reseller — pursued undeserved wealth, exhibited massive entitlement, and enjoyed total lack of accountability. Any system functions according to the incentives and disincentives underlying it.

As mentioned before, the socialistic goal was to put have-nots in houses. The real outcome? A sea of foreclosures, people out of homes and on their asses, venerated financial institutions dead, sold, or on the verge of disappearing — and an economy Warren Buffet calls the financial equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

All the players ignored the simple lesson of Jurassic Park: defying the laws of nature effects calamity. Giving advantages to people who haven’t earned them always results in the whole of society paying a calamitous price.

American taxpayers have been livid about Bush’s bailout, verbalizing their anger via radio talkshows, letters to newspaper editors, comments on blogs, and the switchboards of Congress and the White House. As a result, the final bailout plan differs significantly from the original one proposed by Secretary Paulson, who wanted to be solely in control of managing $700B. Citizen outcry does work.

When we close this chapter of US history, CEOs no longer will be able to profit via failure, to act like ex-wives. Will the same be true of ex-wives themselves? It depends on you.

Main Street Sirens

If men were so motivated to protest bailing out a system that rewarded failure on Wall Street, why are they not equally outraged to revolt against rewarding unwed motherhood and failure in marriage? Why not? Is the principle of eliminating injustice not a universal one? Apparently not when women are involved. In fact, men — especially male gynocrats — are afraid of women and will kowtow to them endlessly. That’s why the party is over for Wall Street barons but in full swing for Main Street sirens.

I coined the term merchant maureen to describe a woman who drops her anchor into a man’s wallet, with his consent. When that merchant maureen becomes pregnant and/or adds a wedding ring to her finger, she rises in status to Fannie Mae.  To me, Fannie Mae represents fraud, entitlement, and lack of accountability — a perfect metaphor for a woman who seeks to profit via failure by taking advantage of the financial incentives society offers her to marry, bear children, and divorce.

Too many women enter marriages with this attitude: Hey, if it doesn’t work out, I’m protected. And, that is why so many marriages fail: rewards for failure beget more failures.

If your wife is Fannie Mae, remember that you chose her — despite knowing that she fully agrees with and condones the following nonsense:

• Women receive at least 90% of all child support paid in the US
• Women receive at least 90% of all alimony paid in the US
• If a woman marries and/or gets pregnant by a wealthy man, she is entitled to be maintained in his upper-crust lifestyle after they part company
• If a woman isn’t financially qualified, in her own right, to indulge in her husband’s lifestyle before becoming part of it, she is entitled by law to do so after exiting it
• A woman is not only allowed to take more capital and property out of her marriage than she put into it, she is allowed to draw a salary for life — alimony — tantamount to indentured servitude for her ex-husband.

The social engineers — most of them men — believe that, by incenting women to marry, divorce, and bear children, they create societal stability. The reality? A revolving door in female-ly court, where women bring 70% of divorces; an out-of-wedlock birthrate approaching 50%; rampant paternal alienation; hordes of financially ruined fathers; and a rising crop of undisciplined children (e.g., California’s highschool dropout rate is almost 25%).

Any system functions according to the incentives and disincentives underlying it. This one is, appropriately, failing — and we are paying a calamitous price.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Does your “Fannie Mae” differ from the unqualified borrower who bought a home he couldn’t afford or the CEO who fled a broken company with a taxpayer-subsidized payoff? No, she doesn’t. And, she would leave you broken without a second thought. The system of “profit via failure” encourages and incents her to do just that.

If men would exhibit as much outrage to their elected officials about abolishing marital fraud as they did about abolishing Wall Street fraud, we would see action. But, I suspect they won’t: too afraid of not getting laid and being labeled misogynists.

I, however, want action and propose the following policies to eliminate profit via failure in American homes:

• Abolish all welfare and child support for unwed mothers, gutting the unwed-mother movement. Women who bear children out of wedlock will be totally responsible for supporting them, just like women who adopt children.
• No monthly child support in equal-custody situations. Extra expenditures like summer camp must be mutually agreed and negotiated, or it doesn’t happen.
• In unequal-custody situations, the child-support obligation of the noncustodial parent (almost always the father) will be no more than 5% of gross pay. Extra expenditures like summer camp must be mutually agreed and negotiated, or it doesn’t happen.
• Abolish all alimony, no exceptions.
• All couples must have prenups approved in advance before states let them marry.

By instituting the aforementioned policies — thereby removing all financial incentives to marry, bear children, and divorce — marriages will be entered into slowly and thoughtfully, decisions to bear children will be made cautiously and judiciously, and divorces will be approached rationally, objectively, and in the best interest of all concerned.

Imagine this new setup where women must actually love men before “committing” to them. No more “strategic” marriages or “accidental” pregnancies. I know one thing: If you married Fannie Mae, she won’t like it. I know another thing, too: Unless you force your pols to scrap the old system, accept life with Fannie Mae.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ 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, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” 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.

Bedroom Boredom

Nobody was less shocked than I to learn that 87% of workplace professionals bring PDAs into their bedrooms and that 35% of them would choose these devices over their spouses. This is the finding of Sheraton Hotels & Resorts in a survey of 6500 execs from Australia, China, Germany, the UK, and the US.

Why are so many people literally in love with their BlackBerrys? Dysfunctional relationships and bedroom boredom abound, and people are choosing inanimate objects for companionship. Essentially, men and women loathe talking directly and frankly to each other and, consequently, become sexually entangled for the strangest reasons and in the wrong ways.

If you don’t believe me, just sit in the back row of a divorce court one day. Listen to the parade of parties, allegedly once in love, excoriate each other. This all-too-common downward spiral occurs when spouses cohabit without ever experiencing emotional intimacy, from avoiding more issues than they discuss.

When boys are raised never to ask women their ages, ask them to pay, or tell them off-color jokes, they are, in essence, taught avoidance. Correspondingly, girls are trained never to challenge men directly, never to pay, and to be demure and indirect. So, it shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone when, as adults, men and women possess no ability to establish trust or open communication with each other.

It’s no wonder, then, that the BlackBerry — a communications device totally dedicated to its owner, who can program and switch it on or off at will — is more appealing to an uncommunicative person than another human being he cannot predict or control.

Designated Pursuer

Ask your friends why they became involved with their significant others; you will hear some bizarre answers such as, “I don’t really know; it just kind of happened.” Or, “We met online and started seeing each other and never questioned it.” Hookups often are pursued because of convenience: “She was ‘there’ when I was looking.” How about, “He was so aggressive in asking me out, I couldn’t say no.”

Can you articulate clearly and in great detail why you are with your paramour or spouse? I’ll bet you can’t; I say this because of e-mails from disillusioned readers, calls from radio audiences, and clients of my relationship coaching. Most men and women never give much thought to what brought them together. So, the first problem with relationships is why they formed.

Next, let’s examine how these lovebirds got together. Despite all the talk about equality and powerful women, especially with the rise of Sarah Palin,  men and women, in most situations, prefer old-fashioned courting, where the man pursues, wines & dines, and “lands” the woman — the first stage of the Estrogen Express.

There is no rational reason, no financial excuse, and no sexual justification for the man to be the “designated pursuer” of the woman. Worse, everything about this unbalanced, inequitable scenario leads eventually to anger, resentment, and emotional distance on both sides.

No man ever will respect a woman he had to chase and purchase, and no woman ever will respect a man who emasculated himself to endure such nonsense — even though she was happy to benefit from it. Yet, this mating dance is precisely how most relationships are formed, and that is the problem.

Given that 50% of marriages end in divorce, that women bring 70% of those divorces, that at least half of all men and women cheat on their spouses, and that 35% of participants in Sheraton’s survey choose their PDAs over their spouses, let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the relationship mill is broken.

Psychotherapists would urge spouses to put away their BlackBerrys and talk to each other, face to face. Unfortunately, these mental-health professionals are missing the point: PDA-addicted people don’t like their spouses and never will, and they are unskilled in the dialog of human intimacy — the chief reason they chose their undesirable spouses. Their preferred companions have LCD screens and lithium batteries.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In an age where women have the freedom to pursue whatever educational, professional, and personal endeavors they wish, men must insist on full equality — both benefits and costs — in relationships with them, or nothing at all.

If a man feels unilaterally required to make his woman happy through dating, the engagement, and her wedding day, he will find himself subordinated and unhappy in marriage. Then, he will cling to his trustworthy BlackBerry for companionship — and, unfortunately, for communicating with his divorce lawyer. Instead, by simply rejecting chivalry and all female entitlements, he can spare himself this pain.

If your life boils down to a choice between sex and the BlackBerry, pick the latter: it’s all you’re equipped to handle.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ 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, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” 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.

Fascist Feminism

Ever since Alaska governor Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, she’s been the object of merciless, vicious attacks — mostly by women. This intragender war marks the official unmasking of fascist feminism.

Feminism, which took root in the late 19th century as an equality movement for women’s suffrage, has evolved into a militant, totalitarian train of entitlement, misandry, superiority, and privilege. To maintain the façade of pursuing equality, the National Organization for Women, self-designated voice for the “slighted” gender, presents a neverending, monolithic image of female victimhood. To achieve this monotony, NOW mandates that its badge-wearing acolytes talk, think, and act according to the the NOW playbook. I’m sure that Mussolini is smiling, wherever he is.

Buttressed by state and federal codes, statutes, acts, court decisions (case law), and blatantly anti-male judges — all in complete violation of the Equal-Protection Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment — women living in America enjoy the exclusive rights to commit maternity and paternity fraud, falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence (VAWA), commit paternal alienation, fraudulently get Green Cards (VAWA), dump their unwanted newborns at local fire stations (safe haven), and claim ownership of their babies (Roe v. Wade) while forcing men to support them.

All of these illegal rights and privileges for women were and continue to be made possible by eunuchs in public service — both Democrat and Republican — and the impotent male voters who put them there.

Women have amassed such unequal power since getting the right to vote in 1920 that they will destroy anyone attempting to remove said power or expose its fraud. Sarah Palin is guilty of the latter: she rose from hockey mom to state governor without affirmative action, whining about Alaska’s 10:1 male-to-female ratio, or complaining about glass ceilings. In other words, Palin proved publicly that women can succeed without being victims. That was her error: she violated the NOW playbook, has undermined NOW’s fascist power, and is experiencing the consequences.

Patently Inexperienced Female Fresh Face

So, what are the so-called feminists saying about Sarah Palin? What exactly do they have against her?

Let’s start with NOW itself:

Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.

We recognize the importance of having women’s rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women’s rights.

Rudov’s Reaction 1: So, by setting goals and achieving them, Sarah Palin was not exercising her rights? Unless she adheres to the NOW agenda, she is not a supporter of women’s rights? Here’s the problem: NOW continues to suggest that women have special rights that are different from men’s rights. That’s nonsense and purely unconstitutional, but it is a ploy that has been successful in America. Palin has shattered the victimhood creed and “special rights” mantra, and feminists are running for cover.

Rudov’s Reaction 2: Joe Biden is the candidate who appeals to women? Gee, why is that? Could it be that Joe Biden is the father of VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act, the passport for female-on-male violence and false claims of male violence? Yes, that’s the same Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden who admitted in a 1990 Senate Judiciary hearing (Serial No. J-101-80; pp. 171-172), the precursor to VAWA, that he grew up with an abusive sister who was permitted to hit him with absolute impunity — no retaliation allowed, even in self-defense — and he still has the bruises to prove it.  Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. This is the VP candidate who appeals to women? If that’s the case, women find victims appealing because they identify as victims. Pure disempowerment.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

In an article purposely containing an image of Palin with her right hand extended in Hitlerite fashion, Boxer said about Palin: “She’s an extremist. She’s way out of the mainstream.”

Rudov’s Reaction: Considering that NOW is a fascist organization, a so-called feminist like Boxer portraying Palin as a dictator is laughable. Out of the mainstream? Palin is more like the mainstream than Boxer wants to admit, and the post-RNC poll proves it.

Sally Quinn, Washington Post reporter:

Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? I’m the mother of only one child, a special needs child who is grown now. I know how much of my time and energy I devoted to his care. He always had to be my first priority. Of course women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Yes, other women in public office have children. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she didn’t get heavily involved in politics until they were older. A mother’s role is different from a father’s.

Rudov’s Reaction: Sally Quinn is violating the NOW playbook with her comment. Women are supposed to be able to make their own choices, manage their own schedules, right? I can’t imagine Sally Quinn making the same comments about a man. Because Sarah Palin has achieved without victimhood, any means to tear her down is justifiable.

Maureen Dowd, Op-Ed columnist, New York Times:

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

Rudov’s Reaction: This diatribe comes from the proud author of a book called Are Men Necessary? Again, because Sarah Palin has achieved without victimhood, Dowd believes any means to tear her down is justifiable.

Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe columnist:

Talk about rolling the dice. The idea was to connect to the Hillary supporters. These women, dismayed by the idea that the experienced female was passed over for a fresh male face, were supposed to be won over by a patently inexperienced female fresh face. Never mind that this feisty working mom leans — no, falls — right on social issues. You go, Clara Thomas. Oops, I mean you go girl.

Rudov’s Reaction:  Unless a woman falls “left” on social issues, she’s disqualified as a representative of women? This is pure NOW fascism. Fall in lockstep, or face excoriation.

Gloria Steinem, feminist organizer:

But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

Rudov’s Reaction: Unqualified woman? A female governor in a macho state, with an 80% approval rating, is unqualified? Opposes everything most other women want and need? Sorry, NOW doesn’t speak for most women, and the post-RNC poll proves it. Making life more fair for women everywhere? Women already control civil and reproduction rights and can become anything they want. What more “fairness” would Steinem like her victimhood crusade to accomplish?

Conservative Women

Women are bashing Sarah Palin because her no-victimhood success is a threat to their “downtrodden” agenda. Many believe that only liberal women have a problem with Sarah Palin. Wrong. So far, only they are vocal in opposing her. I’ve received numerous e-mails over the years from staunchly conservative women who lecture me that my belief in gender equality and neutrality is misguided and that, according to G-d, a woman’s place is in the home.

Plenty of conservative women have benefited from the handiwork of liberal feminists. Joe Biden could not have succeeded in his mission to villanize American men, via his unconstitutional VAWA, without the overwhelming support of his Republican colleagues in the Senate and House — both genders — and in the Oval Office, both Clinton and Bush.

Finally, it is ludicrous to think that only liberal women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence, fraudulently get their husbands to raise and support children fathered through extramarital affairs, and exercise their Roe v. Wade rights. In fact, conservative women do all of those things.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Women bash Sarah Palin because she has shattered the farce of the glass ceiling, and now there’s no place for them to hide. Sarah Palin is living proof that women derive their power through guts, brains, raw talent, and achievement — as true equals to men — not through victimhood. Moreover, Sarah Palin has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.

Sarah Palin has exposed the truth about feminism, which has for decades kept women dysfunctionally addicted to victimhood and viciously cast men as their enemies.

Instead of disempoweringly “pursuing” equality through whining and lobbying, women, who already enjoy more rights and privileges than men, can emulate Sarah Palin to demonstrate it. Will they?

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ 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, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” 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.

Women Under Glass

Within minutes of Senator John McCain introducing Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his vice-presidential running mate, the talking heads on radio & TV were consumed with one question: Will Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s choice for veep, be able to debate her with his trademark brusque, adversarial manner? The answer was, universally, no. Why? She’s a woman.

Nothing is more condescending to women than kid-glove treatment, yet most men reflexively provide it and few women protest it. Such hypocritical deference, in a country where women “claim” to want equality and men “claim” to honor it, is tantamount to keeping them under glass — like Barbie Dolls arrayed on a toystore shelf.

Ironically, women who desire to be coddled and placed in a protected class — where they receive free wining & dining from men; are allowed, with impunity, to falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence; get automatic child custody; benefit exclusively from Roe v. Wade; and are encouraged, with EEOC endorsement, to wear cocktail wardrobe at work — actually wish to be encased in glass.

The result is the so-called “glass ceiling,” an imaginary boundary that many women believe men built to prevent them from advancing into executive positions. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: boundaries exist only if one believes they exist. Ask Michael Phelps, the Olympic swimmer who this year won eight gold medals by believing anything’s possible. Beginning any journey with the belief in failure will, in itself, cause failure. And, blaming others for failure, as the glass-ceiling adherents do, is also failure.

If you’ve ever watched me debate women on Fox News, you know I refuse to participate in this anachronistic but still-popular custom of deference. Instead, I treat them as equals, focusing on their words — not their genitalia. Secure, fair-minded women appreciate obeisance-free discourse, and the men with the balls to engage them in it.

Vintage Victimspeak

Everything I’ve read about Sarah Palin indicates that she’s one tough cookie who will easily withstand and counter the in-your-face salvos of VAWA Joe. If that’s not the case, she’s unfit for the VP job. Trust me: Putin,  Achmadinijad, Asaad, and Chavez won’t put Governor Palin under glass.

When Hillary Clinton conceded to Barack Obama on June 7, 2008, she bragged about having received 18 million primary votes, a US record. Quite an accomplishment, right? Not after she diluted it by equating each vote to a crack in “the glass ceiling.” Clinton didn’t come clean to admit that her campaign was rife with problems. No, instead, she bloviated with vintage victimspeak: Ladies, men are the reason we women fail.

As I listened to Sarah Palin accepting John McCain’s invitation to join him on the ticket that historic Friday in Dayton, she instantly impressed me with her intelligence, style, gravitas, strength, vision, independence, and energy … until she transparently pandered to Hillary’s voters:

“It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

What glass ceiling? If it exists, how did Palin, with virtually no experience, ascend from mayor of her small town to governor of Alaska — a very macho state?  She did it with brains, guts, hard work, sharp elbows, and no victimhood whining. Despite being antithetical to her own experience, she felt that the “glass ceiling” would resonate with Hillary’s acolytes. Frankly, I think she blunted her otherwise powerful message.

The Wage-Gap Crap

Another form of the farcical glass ceiling is the oft-mentioned wage gap between the genders. It’s crap. At the DNC in Denver, Barack Obama said: “And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.” Senator Obama, your daughters have more opportunities than our sons. Stop your nonsense.

In American universities today, 42% more women than men graduate. Women in their 20s outearn their male peers in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas. Women on corporate boards of directors outearn their male peers.

If men in similar jobs aren’t paid equally — and they’re not — how is it possible to mandate equal pay between genders? It isn’t. Everyone is paid what he or she is worth, and that compensation is determined by job skills, job requirements, personality, geography, industry, company size, and negotiating skills. When a company offers a woman a salary, and she accepts it — without negotiating a better deal — she is agreeing to the amount. She can’t later complain that some man outearns her.

People often cite, and blindly accept, a mysterious “statistic” indicating that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man earns. Surprisingly, few ask how that figure was derived. It’s meaningless. Moreover, it does not factor in child support and alimony, which women receive in at least 90% of cases. And, let’s not forget the imputed income to women when men pay for their entertainment and travel. All told, according to Allianz, the financial-services behemoth, women control 60% of American wealth.

Take a man earning $2M per year and another living under a bridge, earning nothing. Lump them together: each has an average annual salary of $1M. Makes sense on a calculator but not in reality. Men and women, in general, have different jobs. In addition, more women than men are in low-paying, part-time jobs. Yes, there are men and women with equal jobs in the executive ranks. But, rarely do you find women welding steel atop bridges or men changing diapers in daycare centers. So, if you take a group of women, ranging from CEO to secretary, and a group of men, ranging from CEO to Navy SEAL, the arithmetic averages of their wages will not be equal. But, because most men feel guilty for being alive, let alone walking upright, they easily succumb to this glass-ceiling wage-gap crap.

Biden’s VAWA Trap

In an amazing twist of fate, Joe Biden may fall into his own misandrist trap. Biden created the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act in 1994 to vilify men and encase women in glass. Ironically, if he attacks Sarah Palin in the presidential debates, she would, according to VAWA, be justified in calling 911 to have him arrested.

That’s right: by making Governor Palin fearful with his hostile tone, Joe Biden will be breaking his own hateful law — thereby cutting himself on a shard from one of the cracks in the proverbial glass ceiling. What sweet justice. So, it remains to be seen whether Biden will assail Palin or keep her under glass. I guess we’ll have to wait a few weeks, won’t we!

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In the short term, victimhood sells the feminist cause, but in the long term, it fells the feminist cause. Men never will respect women who want special treatment. The “glass ceiling” and victimhood are synonymous. Never confuse deference with respect: they are mutually exclusive.

If women want to shatter that so-called glass ceiling, all they need do is drop their desire to be kept under glass. Then, they will discover, magically, that there is no glass ceiling — only the myth of a glass ceiling, which is both a farce and a crutch.

Women have two choices: Either stay home to bake cookies as unequals, with reduced rights and deferential treatment, or compete and coexist with men as equals, with equal rights and equal treatment. Trying to have it all by cherry-picking the best features of each is a blatant attempt to be kept under glass — engendering disrespect and resentment among men.

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard — all in the John McCain circle — made it to the top. How was this possible? Because they didn’t let boundaries, glass or other, stop them. Do they have bruises? Of course: that’s life in the fast lane.

The glass ceiling is a farce, as are the 18 million cracks in it. In fact, the only ceiling on your success is the one you put there.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ 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, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” 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.