The NoNonsense Man®

Archive for the ‘TNNM’ Category

John McCain: The Cadaverick

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

Typical of All Bad Marriages

John McCain, in his battle with Barack Obama to become 44th president of the United States, proved himself a terrible salesman and a worse campaign manager. He had the easiest products to sell — capitalism, justice, and freedom — but was outgunned by an inexperienced man who masterfully hawked socialism to the masses as a means to “fix” the economy, while spending lavishly with other people’s money.

By bashing Wall Street and Washington as sources of evil, instead of specific fraudulent CEOs and politicians, McCain inadvertently sullied capitalism, stoked the wrath of American citizens, and enabled Obama’s quest to redistribute wealth.

Competing with Obama/Biden, chief cheerleaders for the unconstitutional and pernicious Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), gave McCain the opportunity to become a unique voice for gender equality and to help right the legislative and judicial wrongs perpetrated against men. To wit: He could have pledged, for example, that all future Crystal Gail Mangums — the stripper who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape — be thrown in prison, but he did no such thing. Instead, Mangum is a free woman publishing a book about life as a professional victim.

So, through his loss, John McCain, the man who promoted himself as a maverick, ultimately became a “cadaverick.” A maverick is generally defined as a lone dissenter who takes an independent stand apart from his associates. I admire those who defy conventional wisdom — as long as they move people to produce positive, transformational results. But, to wear the maverick badge as a general strategy makes as much sense as constantly running up the down escalator, just because it can be done.

Instead of a campaign taking a bold, ingenious, and differentiated course, McCain’s was filled with chaotic, errant, and erratic decisions.

McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate. She impressed me at first. But, then, it became clear that she was not VP material — and that McCain had chosen her blindly, in haste. He staked his reputation and future on Palin, who made a big splash at the Republican National Convention, but, because of her lack of mental gravitas, quickly became an embarrassment. For example, Carl Cameron of Fox News reported to Bill O’Reilly that Palin didn’t even know that Africa is a continent.

With Palin, McCain was stuck in a bad marriage of his own creation, typical of all bad marriages: mismatched parties, joined together for the wrong reasons, replete with resentment and backstabbing.

Another example of John McCain’s erratic judgment: he suspended his campaign in the face of a financial-bailout vote on Capitol Hill and threatened to withdraw from the scheduled presidential debate at Ole Miss that Friday.

Instead of rushing to Washington to accomplish something — either to protest the bill’s passage or to markedly change it — McCain emerged from the smoke with no results. The debate was held after all, but, in 90 minutes of sparring, McCain never once mentioned the campaign-halting financial calamity that was paralyzing America. Meanwhile, Obama coolly glided through the whole mess, unscathed.

While understandable that America chose the better campaigner, it is disconcerting that America elected a man who spent only five months in the US Senate before declaring his bid for the presidency, possesses a long legacy of espousing socialist views, and has associated with left-wing America-haters like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Khalid Rashidi. Yet, Americans disregarded Obama’s alarming pedigree, and McCain was reluctant to make a huge issue of it.

Gray-Haired Executives

In his campaign rhetoric, Obama made light of experience, claiming judgment as more important. After all, what else did he have to sell? But, he was convincing because his opponent, John McCain, was always displaying such a lack of judgment, despite his experience. Where I come from, though, judgment is the result of experience.

I live in Silicon Valley, the land of technology startups created by young, green, energetic idealists. Typically, they get their fledgling companies off the ground, gain some traction, and then hit the wall. What happens next?

They bring in the gray-haired executives with experience and judgment — chosen according to their associations and records of management philosophy and results — to run them properly. Google and Tesla, the new manufacturer of electric cars, are perfect examples. So, if companies need experienced execs with judgment to run them, why is this not true of a country of 300 million people?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

America now faces a dangerous future — filled with threats from terrorists and unfriendly nations, an unstable financial industry, a heightened cry for entitlements and redistributed wealth, the risk of rising taxes, and the potential reduction of individual freedom that accompanies socialism — with an inexperienced, left-leaning leader at the helm. And, two days of precipitous post-election drops on the New York Stock Exchange prove it.

Obama and Biden would not be bound for the White House were it not for the male vote. What did men think about when electing them? Taxes? Defense? Economic opportunity? Did men vote logically, or were they totally emotional? Based on the contest between a known veteran conservative who ran an erratic campaign and a novice socialist who ran a smooth one, it isn’t clear.

One factor men did not consider in choosing Obama/Biden: personal liberty. Based on my experience, personal liberty is the last thing men care about. They just don’t care. VP-elect Joe Biden has singlehandedly destroyed the lives of thousands of American men with his unconstitutional VAWA.

Crystal Gail Mangum was able to falsely accuse three Duke University lacrosse players of rape, with impunity, because of Joe Biden’s VAWA, which gives women license to destroy men. How many men know or care about that? Few. How many women know or care about that? Fewer. That’s why Joe Biden soon will occupy the VP mansion.

Had John McCain fought to eliminate the legislative and judicial injustices against men, he could have emerged as a true maverick — because, in this gynocracy, no politician has the guts to take on the feminist lobby.

Instead of exposing Obama’s weaknesses and emerging as a unique executive, John McCain, the man with experience and judgment, dithered and dashed and was diffuse in his message. And, that is why this self-proclaimed maverick is now a cadaverick, a moniker shared by the men who voted to destroy their personal liberties.

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.

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

How Real Is Her Love?

Saturday, October 18th, 2008

Binary Property

I love you. Three powerful words. They change lives. Are they real? Unlikely. Men and women blithely utter these three words as easily as politicians promise tax cuts. Do they mean it? Odds are, no. The test below will tell you for sure.

Half of marriages end in divorce. What is a divorce, really? Besides being a legal process and a destroyer of families, it’s a biopsy on a marriage, a diagnostic evaluation of a failed union. On the altar, bride and groom pledge love as the primary component of their wedlock. As petitioner and respondent in a dissolution, which the wife initiates 70% of the time, they bicker over the loss of assets and children — not love. So, the biopsy reveals no evidence of love. What happened to it? Did it just vanish?

Unlikely. People marry for a variety of ulterior motives — money, lifestyle, loneliness, security, convenient sex, career, appearance, parental pressure, legitimate children, and Green Cards — none of which is love. In fact, in the entire history of marriage, love as a uniting force is a relatively new concept, and a weak one at that.

My contention is that love in a failed marriage or relationship was not real and never existed. To use a scientific analogy: If love is the chief component of marriage, it cannot disappear into thin air, without a trace. Think of love as having a binary property: either it exists or it doesn’t. By the same token, glass is the chief component of windows; it can’t just evaporate one day, defying all laws of physics and chemistry.

There are people who believe they’re marrying for love — but only because they don’t understand its meaning. Almost any dictionary mentions “passionate affection” in its definitions of love. But, most of us have experienced passionate affection, numerous times, with our spouses and paramours. If we’re honest, though, we’ll admit that those encounters weren’t necessarily love. So, a big problem is that, by and large, we don’t know the meaning of love. It’s a nebulous concept. Yet, we recite it, believe others who pledge it to us, and base wealth-depleting decisions on it. Total insanity.

Four Pillars of Love

What is love, then? How can one know whether he truly loves a woman or is receiving true love from her? This is a critical question, because one never should express or accept or base his life on anything he doesn’t grasp.

Allow me to offer a reliable, easy-to-remember love test. Simply, the four pillars of love are mutual and sustainable lust, obligation, veracity, and equality. For the structure of love to stand, all four pillars must be present. If one pillar is missing or deficient, the structure collapses, and there is no love. If the pillars are not mutual (supported by both man and woman) and sustainable (able to endure for years), there is no love.

Let’s examine these four pillars of love:

Lust — Lust is a powerful sexual attraction between mates. Without lust, two people are just companions. Lust is the result of mutual connection — physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, philosophical, political — manifesting as respect, admiration, and desire for intimacy. Lust cannot be sustained without the other three pillars (see below). Without lust, people get bored and stray. Women often are counseled by their mothers to disregard lust as unnecessary in a marriage (just catch a good provider); that’s why so many women cheat on and divorce their husbands. Many men find lustful women intimidating or offensive; that’s why they marry boring wives and then cheat on them. It’s a myth that lust is a short-term phenomenon. When asked why he never strayed in his 50-year marriage to Joanne Woodward, Paul Newman said: “Why should I go out for hamburger when I have steak at home?” Note: a quick way to kill lust is to eat like a pig and avoid the gym.

Obligation – Obligation is the mutual commitment to watch each other’s back, to defend each other, to speak well of each other in public and to the children, to rally each other, to be there for each other in difficult times (except in the case of self-destructive behavior like drug addiction), to consider each other in all major decisions, to be responsive to each other, to follow through consistently on promises to each other, to be faithful to each other, and to put each other first above all else and everybody else. Obligation, in this case, is meant not to be drudgery but voluntary and heartfelt. If you cannot imagine living up to or receiving these obligations one year or five years hence, love doesn’t exist in your situation. And, if one of you attempts to harm or destroy the other, at any time (including divorce court), love never existed between you.

Veracity – Veracity means truth. Two people must communicate the truth to each other — about their feelings, thoughts, likes & dislikes, intentions, agendas, and actions — and they must do so willingly, frequently, and effortlessly. Alas, most people do not live this way, and that’s why most relationships fail. If two people meet online, and their dating profiles contained lies (age, weight, photos, etc.), they’re already doomed. There’s a myth that women convey their feelings more easily, willingly, and truthfully than men. Not only is this a myth, it’s a downright lie. If two people don’t have mutual and sustainable veracity, starting with initial contact, they have no love.

Equality – Equality is the antithesis of entitlement. Equality means that neither man nor woman is treated better or regarded more highly than the other, period. With equality, neither partner has rights or privileges superior to those of the other. A woman who expects that a man will wine & dine her, “because that’s the way it’s done,” doesn’t believe in equality. No love here. Conversely, a man who expects a woman to pick up his dirty socks, “because that’s the way it’s done,” doesn’t believe in equality — if she consents, neither does she. If a woman’s attraction to a man is predicated on the carats, casas, and cars he provides her, she doesn’t believe in equality — if he consents, neither does he. No love here.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Life is simple, but people work hard to make it difficult. Love is simple to understand, as the test above proves. Either love is present in your relationship, or it isn’t. You might feel a lot of attraction for her, and she for you, but that doesn’t make it love. Only if you have mutual and sustainable lust, obligation, veracity, and equality can you have love. If one of those pillars is missing or deficient, you don’t have love.

It’s OK to be in a relationship without love, as long as both of you are clear about it. If such is the case, never say, I love you, and never accept it from her — because both of you would be living a lie.

How real is her love? How real is yours? If the test shows not real, you have some big decisions to make.

About the Author

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | 1 Comment »

Biden Exposed Himself to Palin

Friday, October 3rd, 2008

Juris Contemptus

On the evening of October 2, 2008, Senator Joe Biden debated Governor Sarah Palin at Washington University in St. Louis. This sole matchup of the VP candidates was designed to measure their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, it was yet another opportunity for Biden to expose his ideological and unconstitutional bias towards women. He didn’t disappoint.

Among other accomplishments, Biden bragged to Palin that he had authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). No response from Palin. No response from moderator Gwen Ifill. But, that’s not surprising. Have you ever heard — just once — any law professor, politician, or talkshow host publicly challenge Joe Biden on this pernicious, misandrist, unlawful legislation-turned-industry? Never: invented rights for women are off the table.

VAWA is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which mandates that no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Accordingly, there is nothing — nothing — in the Constitution, expressed or implied, giving women any preferences over men. Yet, VAWA does exactly that: it provides domestic-violence protections and benefits exclusively to women. This is hypocrisy, pandering, and juris contemptus; amazingly, Americans accept it.

Joe Biden, who teaches a seminar in constitutional law at Widener University School of Law, professes to believe in the Equal Protection Clause, as evidenced by this exchange with Gwen Ifill about gay rights:

GWEN IFILL: The next round of — pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

JOE BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair. It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

Psychological Demons

So, if Joe Biden believes the Equal Protection Clause is valid for gays, why does he not believe it valid for heterosexual men whose wives and girlfriends punch them? Because Joe Biden grew up with an abusive sister who was allowed to hit him at any time with impunity. He internalized her abuse and somehow grew to see men as villains.

Frankly, I don’t care about Biden’s psychological demons; I do, however, care about his power as a US senator to use those demons to write laws — in concert with his legislative, judicial, and executive colleagues — that destroy my rights. His desire and ability to ignore the Constitution, when he sees fit, makes him a danger to all men.

Senator Biden is not alone in turning a blind eye to female-on-male violence. Recently, I appeared on a Dallas radio talkshow to discuss this topic — because of Macy’s misguided misandry campaign. A male caller berated me for not being man enough to take punches from women. That’s what many boys, including Joe Biden, are taught. Consequently, this double standard is reinforced endlessly in TV sitcoms and movies, where it is common and acceptable for women to hit and assault men.

America perversely believes that men hitting women is tragical while women hitting men is comical — even trivial. America is wrong, and Joe Biden is wrong. The Equal Protection Clause represents that hitting is wrong, regardless of who throws the punch.

Judicial Philosophy

Joe Biden exposed more of himself to Sarah Palin in this exchange with Gwen Ifill near the debate’s end:

GWEN IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue — and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year — can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

JOE BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties. And so that — that — that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it. But I did change on that, and — and I’m glad I did.

Once again, Joe Biden exposed himself and his personal agenda of giving consent only to judicial appointments who espouse his ideology and judicial philosophy, who will write opinions he likes.

Judges are supposed to be apolitical and stick to interpreting law as written. But, Joe Biden sees the US Constitution as a political document that he can use to further his causes. So far, nobody has stopped him.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

The voters of Delaware can’t get enough of Joe Biden, and they keep reelecting him as proof. But, that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to put him in the White House.

Ask any cop who gets a 911 call for domestic violence. He’ll tell you that, regardless of who threw the punch, in most cases the man is going to jail. If the cops discover afterwards that the woman’s accusation was false, they will NOT prosecute her. When you ask yourself how that can be, think Joe Biden.

Joe Biden exposed himself to Sarah Palin and, once again, to the rest of us. Worse, he’ll get to do more of it because America likes his perversion of justice against men. Does this include you?

About the Author

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

Did YOU Marry Fannie Mae?

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

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

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

Sex and the BlackBerry

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

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

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

Why Women Bash Sarah Palin

Monday, September 8th, 2008

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

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

The Farce of 18 Million Cracks

Monday, September 1st, 2008

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

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

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:

They believe that violating NBA or NFL rules is atrocious, but violating the US Constitution to benefit women is just fine
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.

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

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

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | No Comments »

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

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

Posted in TNNM, Vox Populi | 1 Comment »

Archives

Archive for the ‘TNNM’ Category