Riding the Estrogen Express
Contrary to its intent, the United States is methodically recasting itself as a singles-oriented nation. Notwithstanding the impassioned soapbox orations from politicians about marriage as the bedrock of society, their anti-male policies and laws are, in fact, killing the family and marriage.
In my article “Will Women Halt the Death of Marriage?” I wrote that, for men, marriage is a sucker’s deal. Before you fume at me, ladies, count the number of times you’ve seen a divorced mother writing child-support and alimony checks to her mansion-dwelling ex-husband from the card-table desk of her one-bedroom apartment. Enough said.
The American Community Survey, released in October 2006 by the US Census Bureau, found that, for the first time in US history, only 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent in 2000.
Yes, folks, instead of solidifying marriage and simplifying our lives, the vote whores on Capitol Hill and in state assemblies across our great country have been catalyzing a pandemic of out-of-wedlock births and spawning costly, socialistic infrastructures to deal with them. As usual, they’ve created another fine mess where one didn’t exist. In this case, the root cause is fear of women (translation: fear of not getting the female vote).
When installing new software, the subscriber must click “I agree” on the 10-page, eye-glazing user agreement, if he expects it to function. How many times does one actually read these documents? I almost never do, because, if so, I’d still be installing Windows 95. Interestingly, when installing new women into their lives, men have a history of exhibiting similar, reflexive behavior — blindly, deferentially, and sycophantically agreeing to known and unknown caveats, provisos, clauses, and conditions. Why? Habit, conditioning, resignation, socialization, and belief that no other options exist.
The typical man, traditionally, has been so deferential to — and fearful of — women that he automatically will allow one to commandeer the dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce phases of his life. Then, he will kick himself afterwards and cry into the beer of anyone sympathetic enough to listen. Surrendering these phases to her is akin to riding a runaway train — The Estrogen Express — to Disasterville. The only question is, Will he disembark in time to avert the inevitable?
When you think about it, the traditional way of dealing with a woman is to permit her to control your life. Men mistakenly believe they will have more peace that way. This moronic behavior, based on the false assumption that men must crawl through broken glass to get laid, leads to devastating consequences. It’s quite scary to realize how much control over their lives men have conceded to women, with lots of help from misandric feminists and politicians.
But, it seems that the tide is now turning. Men are increasingly saying no to marriage and relationships, and the Census Bureau statistics prove it. Alas, the out-of-wedlock birthrate (see my article “Playing Abortion Chess”) also proves it. Men are finally realizing that they don’t have to get married and don’t want to get married. They are tired of playing a losing game against the house. To modern men, matrimony equals alimony — not safety, comfort, and love.
When I see a million women marching on the Mall in Washington, DC, demanding that our elected officials restore dignity to men and fathers and the family unit, I will become convinced that they truly believe in matrimony — not just alimony and child support. Until then, I’m not holding my breath.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
November 1st, 2006 at 11:37 pm
I understand your points, Marc.
Obviously we will continue to disagree on who’s to blame for women’s senses of entitlement.
Men are in competition with one another, just as women are in competition with one another.
As such personal veto-power has consequences proportional to the scale and scope of agreement with others’ behavior.
Too many American women enjoy those entitlements provided by American law, American courts, American businesses, and American society.
You would likely write that those entitlements were provided by American men.
I still disagree that American men should bear the blame for American women’s behavior, but you make some great points in your blog.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:56 pm
No
November 1st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Amfortas,
You are making this much too complex. Just say no. End of story.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I don’t blame either men or women, fathers or mothers for their efforts to give their children whatever advantages and privileges they can. Yes, most of us do indulge our children, perhaps too much for their moral health. This does not indicate a totality of the ‘entitlement’ cause however. Children grow up and our indulgence and protective efforts give way to need for autonomy. The modern woman’s entitlement seems to me driven by their adherence to a faux victim excuse, past faux victimhood, not of their own but of some obscure past population. The ‘you owe me, because I am like them’ drive. An ‘Indulged’ generation hardly has a complaint about their own victimhood.
I can but only agree with you Marc that we men have indulged adult women for far too long, but even that seems to be down to nature rather than nurture, though our past two generations have taken it to extremes, driven largely by – advertising; ’show and tell’ sitcoms on TV that provide toxic role models; a ’sales’ mentality; the rise and rise of ’self-help’ Gurus who pander to the women; the ubiquitous Law profession that reaps huge rents from the pain and division they encourage; and the institutional bias in treating small children in schools.
Its more complex than just indulging daddies little girl. But a start in the origins-identification game could be the exposure of future personality and behavioural trait by examining the roles and tactics adopted and refined by little girls in the playground. Most women just do not grow up.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Marc, I agree with everything you’ve said except the part about how women will eventually force the legal changes. Men are going to have to do that. At least if they want the changes any time soon.
Most women were raised in a home where their father was the primary provider for the family. That is how they were imprinted and a positive shift towards men, to equality, will only happen when men, as you said, “Take everything, (their), parents taught, (them), about deferring to women and throw it out the window.” Good women will “see it” and they will stand with you to see that the necessary changes are made.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Fourthwire,
Women can have all the expectations in the world, but the man who accedes to those expectations validates and legitimizes them. Otherwise, they are merely wishes.
When an entitled woman approaches me, I shut her down. Entitlement game over. If she then approaches another man who relents to her whims, the entitlement game is back on.
Man wines and dines woman. Man marries said woman. They produce a daughter, who becomes daddy’s little girl. Daddy can’t say no to his daughter, as he couldn’t and can’t say no to his wife. The cycle perpetuates. Little girl grows into entitled bitch.
Until I’m blue in the face and you guys get it, I will blame men for successful female entitlement.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Marc,
I see women’s senses of entitlement as beginning with their mothers, rather than their fathers.
And to be sure, many girls today don’t HAVE actual bona fide fathers, just sperm donors and walking ATM cards.
And moving ahead to girls’ teenaged years, don’t you believe that feminist-inspired mainstream media, public schools, higher education, and other aspects of society that men have been alienated or marginalized from, if not simply outvoted have played their roles in constructing a world of female entitlement?
Men are certainly guilty of continuing the outmoded and destructive forms of chivalry that lends itself to becoming accomplices to feminism.
Obviously I agree with the letter and spirit of your blog, Marc.
I just don’t see men as being much more responsible for women’s senses of entitlement than accomodating those senses of entitlement.
Women DRIVE the expectations inherent to their entitlements and privilege.
Men merely accomodate those.
While it’s true that men don’t HAVE to accomodate those, women don’t have to DRIVE those in the first place.
Obviously I agree that men ought to refuse, but that’s simply reaffirming what we already agree on – that men have a personal VETO over every relationship and potential relationship in their lives.
Very few men’s rights activists are urging men to USE that veto, and use it consistently, avoiding the “honey trap” and lure of actual or potential sex to acquiesce to women’s entitlements.
Fewer and fewer boys are growing up with fathers to teach them how to behave like men, including how to say “NO!” to women.
I hope that your books and Tom Leykis’ broadcasts reach even larger audiences.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:48 pm
KateM:
Look at the home page of MND. Mike Lasalle just posted an article confirming my prediction, although it pertains to England. The U.S. will be next, I believe. Several states are already doing this. For example, California grants alimony to formerly cohabiting couples who share a child together (usually to the woman). I believe the caviat is that a child is involved, but I predict the next step is that simply living together will be enough to initiate divorce-like procedings against the man.
Check it out:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/01/unmarried-couples-may-be-granted-divorce-rights/
John Dias
November 1st, 2006 at 9:23 pm
John Dias wrote, “The next seizure of power the feminists will be lurching for is the same advantages women have in divorce being applied to the breakup of cohabiting couples. I predict this will be the next battleground.”
I never would have thought of that John but I think you made a very important prediction.
Men are, hopefully, unwilling to marry without a pre-nuptial agreement these days. It is scary, but true, that a pre-cohabitation agreement is probably just as important.
Personally, I think a lot of things should be written down before people combine their lives. What happens if things don’t work out is extremely important to document, but each person stating how he wants the relationship to look in the future will help people decide if they want to get in to begin with.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:54 pm
I agree with John Dias: Roger’s peonage-law argument is not going to serve men well. It is not getting any traction and stirring any emotion.
I think the way to win is in the streets: change how you deal with women. Take everything your parents taught you about deferring to women and throw it out the window.
Eventually, when enough women see that men no longer have any use for them — other than sexual intercourse — they will force the necessary legal changes to make men human beings once again.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Everyone on this string is making good points, excellent points. A big bravo, all of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Please allow me to give one really FUN reason to tell women, and our judiciary, our legal system, our massive family law, welfare, public assistance, child support crusading bureaucracy, and the rest of them “hell no” by screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law:
The looks on their faces.
We seize the moral high ground. No one has the right to make anyone a slave. No one.
Having children is not an excuse.
Their legitimate needs is not an excuse and more than that, such use of children as a weapon against either parent is cruel.
And by the way, a felony punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment.
And when you demand the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. §1581 and 42 U.S.C. §1994, the fun part is:
The look on their faces.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Fourthwire,
Au contraire, my friend. Men DID make women feel entitled, and men DID hand women all their inequitable rights.
Who raises girls to feel entitled? Fathers. Who does the majority of wining & dining? Men. Who gives jewelry in exchange for sex? Men. Who believes men are more sexual than women? Naive men. So, why do women feel entitled? Gee, I don’t know.
Who gave women all these inequitable rights — Roe v. Wade, VAWA, safe-haven laws, automatic child custody, fraudulent-maternity child support, vaginamony, etc.? MALE legislators, mayors, governors, judges, justices, presidents. That’s who!
Who allowed the Estrogen Express to be built? Men. If MEN were telling women, “hell no,” entitlements, pedestals, and privileges would be NONEXISTENT.
November 1st, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Marc, I tend to disagree with your last sentence.
Men didn’t MAKE women feel entitled and have the right to execute this perfect deal.
Women do all that on their own – and they have the power of the law to back them up.
It’s true that men could OBJECT more loudly, and objecting loudly to the politicians presumably would matter.
But women have used their political power, allowed radical feminists to speak for them in order to acquire those entitlements.
Men are guilty of not catching on quickly enough to say “hell, no” to marriage.
Men are still guilty as a group of not voicing their dissatisfaction with the status quo of women’s entitlements.
But men didn’t MAKE women feel entitled.
Women managed that to handle that part, aided with their “spokeswomen” like Kim Gandy.
November 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
KateM,
May the Estrogen Express crash with no passengers inside.
You are correct: men must guard against women hell-bent on having children. These women see men only as ATM/sperm donors, the means to an end. That end is legitimate children and support for those children. After giving birth, she can jettison her husband, who was never important to her, and still take his cash. It’s a perfect deal for HER.
Who made women feel entitled to, and have the right to execute, this perfect deal? Men.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:52 pm
John Dias, are you inviting me to post my own opinion column?
Interesting proposition.
I have plenty of material already published at http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com
Feel free to read it all. Only cost is your time.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Excellent points, Malakas.
Plenty of people need The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: men who don’t know how to find the good ones; women who want to be the good ones.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Excellent article Marc!
The only quibble I might have with the comments above is this ‘good woman/bad woman’argument. I would suggest that women, like men, can be as good as they’re expected to be and as bad as they’re allowed to be. The environment dictates which way they will go.
(Take the example of Mr ‘M’ whom I know very well. He married a ‘good’ Asian woman but made the mistake of taking her west for a few years. There she was still very good (compared to the competition) but the Femovirus is insidious. On his return to Asia he discovered that his wife had a mild but stubborn infection. Since there is no known anti-viral agent, it took a couple of years of therapy before she recovered her moral health.)
Goodies and baddies, black and white, Christian & Muslim are distractions to keep men apart. Given our natural instinct for competition we happily play the game, to our own detriment.
Anybody think Muslims don’t sometimes marry bitches? Mr ‘M’ would tell you that they do – but they’d rather keep it in the family. In an environment where government does not, or cannot, interfere. Therefore his failure to control his wife is his responsibility. If he fails, what kind of man is he?
If he succeeds, even women will applaud. But while he thought he was doing the right thing, far-off governments with Smart-Alec ideas interpret it differently. Since he’s an oppressor of wymmin, he should expect a few bombs. It’s only right.(the fact that he’s sitting on a lot of oil, or might obstruct access to even more oil, is quite irrelevant)
As Marc describes, western men toil under the yoke of self-indulgent feminism. But they are men first and politicians prod and poke the most sensitive and primitive instincts for their own benefit. What unites men, all over the world, is infinitely greater than what divides them and exploiting basic instincts always backfires on politicians.
Finally, there’s a very simple question. Why do we need a ‘no-nonsense guide to women”. What women are we talking about, just the Good, the Bad and the Ugly?
November 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Dear fourthwire,
You wrote: “Interesting to note that the mainstream media… usually attributes the falling marriage rate to WOMEN’S decreased interest in marriage…..
While I’m not buying into that particular nonsense, I notice that even many career-focused women DO want to marry….. eventually.”
Women are taught, and by current law supported in their belief, they can have it all and deserve to have it all. Unfortunately, when a career-focused woman reaches the year on her schedule, which is two to three years before SHE wants to start having babies, all too often she sizes a man up based on his ability to provide HER with the babies as well as the support for them — because it is about HER schedule. As Marc commented, that man is only the means to HER ends.
More and more men are refusing to ride the runaway train, ultimately, (hopefully), The Estrogen Express will crash.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Roger,
You will never get anywhere posting comments in reply to someone else’s opinion columns. You cite the US Federal Code for the Antipeonage Act, and insist that we start “screaming” for its enforcement. I would suggest you expand on this and start writing your own opinion columns. If you don’t have access, send an e-mail to Mike Lasalle asking if you can have access to post to Vox Populii. I know you have your own Web site, but it’s just ridiculous when you keep on trolling in the Comments section of this-or-that article or column, waging your (under the radar!) campaign. Post some persuasive articles and be the leader on this at MND, rather than someone who keeps begging for men to “scream” for something they are neither passionate or knowledgable about. They WOULD be interested if you could illustrate how the antipeonage act affects them, however.
I’ve seen you post GOBS AND GOBS of copied material into the comments section of other articles; this too will not work. A relatively short and succinct opinion column is enough to capture the attention of your readers, especially if it is focused on one specific topic. Over time, a steady stream of such articles will get you somewhere.
But I find no persuasive merit in trolling the Comments section. Marc is making some valid points, and he is not doing a disservice by omitting mention of the Antipeonage Act; he just has a different focus than you do. Why don’t you take the lead on this issue (at MND) instead of appealing to others to do so?
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
November 1st, 2006 at 10:51 am
Marc, I only used the cancer analogy in response to your smoking habit analogy for those men addicted to trying to be the highest bidder for pussy.
A misunderstanding can happen when people talk about different things. I understand that there are plenty of women who love us men for who we are, and are not interested in gold digging.
I married one and fathered children with her when I thought she was like that. Unfortunately, she disappeared and in the same body was an entirely different person than the one I thought I was marrying.
“Who are you and what have you done with my wife?”
Sound familiar?
There are plenty of great and wonderful women out there, and I meet them all the time. Of course I am not completely chaste!
Now, with the protesting, letter-writing, and organizing activities so important to taking down the tyranny, a mention of the Antipeonage Act and the seizure of the moral high ground by calling it what it is: slavery and felony, might prove to be beneficial to us. Get a federal grand jury or two to indict these misandric clowns. That would be a lovely thing to have happen and it is what they fear the most.
But it ain’t gonna happen as long as we keep the Antipeonage Act a secret to the public from which the grand juries are drawn.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:14 am
Roger,
I do understand the unfairness of oppressive vaginamony and child support. You are not alone in that department.
But, I refuse to call it cancer because doing so would make me feel hopeless and defeated, causing a downward spiral that would prohibit creative ways to bounce back financially.
No matter what happens in life, one can interpret it in several ways. I never want to choose the way in which I regard myself the victim. It is self-defeating.
That said, all the anti-gynocracy protesting, letter-writing, and organizing activities are extremely important. We must turn around these misandric clowns in elected and appointed positions.
Also critical is to keep seeking man-loving babes. Life is too boring without them.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:39 am
Marc says:
“Roger,
Fortunately, the cancer YOU have is curable. All you need do is change your attitudes, behaviors, and strategies. Fighting alone? I don’t think so. You ain’t carrying the rest of us on your back.
When you disembark from The Estrogen Express, thereby permanently rejecting the entitled princesses, you will be positioned to bring good babes into your life. Then, your perspective will change dramatically.
People from all over the world buy my book and tell me how much their lives have changed. I do know what I’m talking about.”
I was talking about the unreasonable support order, and the total lack of respect for my rights, the inability to work a regular job without so much money taken out of my paycheck I have little to live on, the inability to deduct child support paid from taxable income, the permanent suspension of my license, etc, etc.
THAT cancer, Marc.
You seem to be talking about something else. To me your advice about changing my “attitudes” is extremely frustrating, as frustrating as being told I “need to find Jesus”. Or being told to go sit in a forest and beat a drum!
My frustration is that once you have been ensnared into this system of state sponsored armed robbery, extortion, and peonage, YOUR ATTITUDES MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER! The tyrants who enslave us do not give a damn how we feel or what we think!!
Now I am of the humble opinion that the nonviolent, lawful SOLUTION to our problems is available in the form of the Antipeonage Act.
Imagine if ONE MILLION ANGRY MEN AND WOMEN STARTED SCREAMING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEONAGE LAW!!!
You don’t have to like me to do that. I will LOVE you if you do that, regardless of any and all other faults you may have.
The alternative as I see it looks like a resort to the Second Amendment.
Once my American rights have been restored, I will be happy to date all the ladies you reject because they talk about gay friends. With my American rights restored, it will be safe to do so. I might even be willing to go work a regular job if I know I get to keep the part of the paycheck not deducted for income taxes and FICA.
After one million men and women scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law and refuse to take “no” for an answer, I will bet that the attitudes of the women you meet will be adjusted in a manner to your liking.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:52 am
Deep down in this misused old soul I pity the good woman. She is not evolved to fight for or support men but frankly we modern men need many who can and see the need. Men have traditionally had to prove themselves worthy of marriage. Men have had to jump through hoops to show that they can support women and be faithful contributors to the public as well as private good. Now, whatever they do, they are vilified and demeaned.
But the boot is slowly being put on the other foot and Cinderella is finding it a tight fit along with her ugly sisters. Women have to prove themselves worthy and reliable. Unfortunately, I see precious few doing it, publicly or privately. There is no going back. They have a sideways alternative of course which men don’t. The all embracing Government who will ‘take care of them’. At men’s expense, of course.
I pity the young men. Theirs is a dismal prospect, good advice or none.
November 1st, 2006 at 1:20 am
Amfortas,
This is an excellent debate point and germane to the gist of my article.
You are right that I wouldn’t bet my life on anyone, but I feel a high degree of certainty that a non-bitch will NOT become a bitch. Just because she has a peaches-and-cream demeanor when you meet her does NOT mean that a bitch doesn’t lurk beneath her surface. And, forget the Mother Theresa girl — she is for sure a fake, and you should fear her.
In the third chapter — Who is She? — of The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women, I devote a lot of attention to understanding how she was raised. If you can assess that, and compare it with the behavior she presents currently, you can predict her future behavior with a high degree of certainty. That is as good as it gets.
Find out, for example, if she has ever endured any adversity, has ever been truly tested. If she hasn’t — if her life has always been a cakewalk, with various people bailing her out along the way — you ought to run as far and fast as possible away from her. Her first challenge will make her crumble, and her incubated bitch side will emerge. I could go on and on.
By the way, she must use the same technique to assess you.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:54 am
Ok Marc. Point taken and wise advice is always good for the inexperienced. But while bitches are always bitches, (some quite unexperienced themselves at first) my point is that non-bitches CAN and DO often become bitches, (you say – “they don’t suddenly or gradually become bitches”, but I will bet that you won’t bet your next life on that) particularly when they are encouraged to and there is great incentive /reward for them. Bitches learn like anyone else does. Bitches get better at it. She may well be Miss peaches and cream, possible future Mother Theresa material, but a change in the breeze and the smoke from the Estrogen Express smoke-stack suddenly gets in your eyes and lungs.
Spot the packaging early? The package may be fresh, new, improved, primary colours to the fore but the same junk-food contents are inside.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:36 am
Amfortas,
Only a masochist deliberately marries a not-nice woman, as you put it. But, inexperienced men, who don’t fully grasp the Estrogen Express — and we’ve all been there — marry women they don’t RECOGNIZE as bitches. That’s the real issue.
Bitches are ALWAYS bitches; they don’t suddenly or gradually become bitches. I’m showing every guy how to recognize and avoid a bitch at the start — while her packaging is still fresh and his self-deception program is running at full tilt.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:19 am
Excellent points, Marc.
Fourthwire says:”The pendulum WILL swing back, most likely later – after a few more generations…”. Problem is there is unlikely to be more than one next generation as the birth rate has already collapsed beyond the point of no return. Our western society will be over-run before women wake up. Then there will be REAL mysogynists in their beds.
Marc says: “Believe it or not, there are plenty of nice women who lament that the princesses have poisoned the well for ALL women. That’s why I wrote two books about how to find the nice ones.”
Good for book sales Marc, but these ‘nice’ women are the same ones we married who then changed their minds – a woman’s right!. I mean, which man would claim he deliberately married a not-nice woman? ! How does a ‘nice’ woman prove that they will remain nice? How do they prove trustworthy enough that we poor saps can believe them when they pledge their marriage vows? They can’t. And we can’t therefore trust any of them.
Let the Muslims have them all. Serve them both right.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Marc:
Oh yes I have got up and left on dates when she mentions her gay friends. That is precisely why I used the shows I talked about as an indication of how they have warped the reality for many women out there. You can see the black hole right away once she brings up her gay friend who goes shopping and to museums with her. When I hear that I just get up, excuse myself and leave with no explanation.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:31 pm
George,
If a woman talks about her gay friends on a date with you, go home. She won’t be banging you. And, if she does, she’ll be faking her orgasms.
This is precisely the topic of my forthcoming book, “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables.(TM)” You DON’T want to waste ANY time with women who will fake their orgasms.
Read about it at: http://themansnononsenseguidetowomen.com/PopUps/UTCHpreview.html
October 31st, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Fouthwire,
You understand my points precisely!
October 31st, 2006 at 10:13 pm
fourthwire said,
Interesting to note that the mainstream media, driven according to political correctness and through feminized filters usually attributes the falling marriage rate to WOMEN’S decreased interest in marriage…..
I look to things like chick movies and many shows geared towards women which are the culprit. I often used to joke that the problem with Hollywood isn’t sex or violence, it is chick movies like What Women Want (I often joke that the long and short answer to that question is that Women Don’t Know and Men Don’t Care) Hope Floats, The English Patient, Brokeback Mountain or any assorted movies with Sandra Bullock. If anyone has any other chick flicks for the hall of shame just list them right here:___________________
The other problem is with shows like Sex In The City, Friends, Will and Grace and any other sitcom that has come out geared towards women and hides from them the truths about the differences between the sexes which leaves them in a state of discontent.
Will and Grace I have often said fuels a certain fantasy many women who have gay friends that they can turn him straight, marry him and live happily ever after. But in reality that isn’t going to happen. The worst thing about going out on a date is to hear a woman talk about her gay friends which doesn’t interest me at all. Talking about her gay friends on a date is a good indicator of how misplaced her own sexuality is.
I once heard Tom Leykis talk about Sex In The city and tell a caller that the women on the show are virtual lesbians. The characters are so co-dependent on one another that they are incapable of being in a relationship with a man. I have said that to women who have responded oh I just want to see the women get it on with one another which I respond that they are missing the point. The characters on the show perfectly demonstrate how so many women have that Princess and the Pea syndrome. They can’t break from it because they don’t want to.
And women who watch these shows buy into the con which distorts their perception of men by looking for something that just doesn’t exist.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Marc,
Thanks for providing some clarification on that particular issue.
So…… turning marriage and family back into an institutions that benefit both genders AND children demands not only that men boycott marriage while it remains a bad deal………
…….. but also that men grow a pair of stones and demand that women give up their entitlements and special privileges………
…….. and generally behave in a more man-friendly, family-friendly manner?
Or to paraphrase you: prevent women from commandeering the dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce phases of his life.
Until the politicians and courts equalize the risks in marriage, there’s no point for men to venture beyond “dating”, of course.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
KateM,
I can “pencil you in” for a stress test on Friday at 3PM. Will that do it for you? If so, contact me offline. It takes a lot to earn a gold star from me.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Yes, Marc, I would be happy to show the teacher what the student has learned from you.
October 31st, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Roger,
Fortunately, the cancer YOU have is curable. All you need do is change your attitudes, behaviors, and strategies. Fighting alone? I don’t think so. You ain’t carrying the rest of us on your back.
When you disembark from The Estrogen Express, thereby permanently rejecting the entitled princesses, you will be positioned to bring good babes into your life. Then, your perspective will change dramatically.
People from all over the world buy my book and tell me how much their lives have changed. I do know what I’m talking about.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Fourthwire,
In my experience, 30-something women in search of motherhood want to get married. Childless women in their 40s, however, while interested in marriage, are much more likely to have children out of wedlock.
Do women feel that men are necessary? Generally, no — just a means to an end. Accordingly, if men live down to their expectations, female attitudes are justified.
As long as Hollywood makes it seem cool to produce illegitimate children, and as long as family courts force that 18-year cashflow, women will regard marriage as just a lifestyle option. In fact, many women don’t even care what growing up fatherless would be like for their offspring. They simply care about having babies.
Again, all the narcissistic behavior we see from women is a result of men acting like eunuchs. When men grow balls, women will stop pushing them around.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Okay Marc. To use your analogy, I quit the smoking, but I still have the cancer.
How do I get rid of it without resorting to the Second Amendment?
Because the bastards and bitches who have perverted the Rule of Law have it coming but I don’t want to have to kill to get my rights back.
I suggested screaming for the enforcment of the Peonage Law as the one nonviolent lawful way of ending this nightmare.
But none of you who are so good at describing the problem want to do that.
God forbid that we actually pursue the SOLUTION to the problem.
They are FELONS so demand the enforcement of the felony statute. 18 U.S.C. §1581
All it takes is NUMBERS!!!
I am sick and tired of being the solo act.
Duh.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Some excellent comments pertaining to Marc’s blog from KateM, Marc, and kangaroox…….
Interesting to note that the mainstream media, driven according to political correctness and through feminized filters usually attributes the falling marriage rate to WOMEN’S decreased interest in marriage…..
While I’m not buying into that particular nonsense, I notice that even many career-focused women DO want to marry….. eventually.
I am interested in reading Marc’s, KateM’s and anyone else’s comment on that particular point.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Chivalry — false nobility based on male guilt — fuels the Estrogen Express. Don’t ever forget that.
Nobility leads to poverty.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Marc,
I agree with you that before we can hope to accomplish anything “chivalry” has to go.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pm
KateM,
I hope that, not only will you march with me, you’ll show me how you make lots of noise.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Kangaroox,
You’ve made many fine points. Where you and I diverge is that I am totally fine with, and encourage, separating conception from sex.
Being sexually liberated isn’t the problem. As I’ve now stated, ad nauseam, the problem is deference towards women. Men have been raised, literally, to value women more than life itself. So stupid. So stupid. That’s why women walk all over men — and why men tolerate it. And, that’s why male legislators, mayors, governors, presidents, judges, justices, and DAs presume men to be guilty slime and trample on their rights.
I say: Treat women like peers. Don’t give them special privileges and entitlements. Make THEM beg for sex. Problems solved.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
As always, Marc, what you write about should be front-page news.
I do wonder if is true that it is “Contrary to its intent, the United States … methodically recasting itself as a singles-oriented nation.” Are men, perhaps, simply the sacrifice for the women vote? Yes, apparently. It wouldn’t be the first time our elected said one thing and did another. Politicians please the people who make the most noise and women have been doing that for quite awhile now.
I hope men, like you, Marc, really start making some noise. Because I don’t think the women will ever march for men, but many of us will march WITH men.
The alternative, things continuing on as you wrote in “Will Women Halt the Death of Marriage?†is frightening.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I agree that under the present circumstances, marriage in contemporary American secular society is a difficult and risky proposition at best. There’s no protection of the institution under the law. Under the guise of the “gender neutral” society, the law only recognizes unilateral individual decisions rather than the competing interests of wife-mother, husband-father, and child-children in the family. The quixotic quest for androgyny, in making the individual, rather than the family, the basic unit of society, has thoroughly corrupted our laws and civil institutions.
At the same time, in my opinion, for the good of society, men should continue to vigorously fight as best we can for the restoration of marriage based not just on individual “rights” but also individual responsibilities in the two-parent family, as the central institution in society not only for the overall happiness and well-being of men and women but also for the proper socialization of children. Many children, especially sons, are alienated about the loss of their father in the home. The breakdown of the family is probably the central reason why many boys, especially from the poor, are nowadays struggling in school. Barring the absence of a strong father in the home, many girls struggle as well with an increased risk of teenage pregnancy, crime, and suicide. If the marriage contract is to have any meaning, it must be made enforceable and recognize the competing interests of all the parties in it, not just the unilateral desires of one individual that perversely reward the one breaking the contract. Individuals have to be made accountable for their actions once again under the law. I think that’s something the majority of good men and women believe is worth fighting for.
Marriage minded and family oriented men and women need to stand behind one another in this huge struggle. We also have to do a much better job in convincing law and policy makers that the “women’s vote” is not necessarily just whatever “feminists” want. For example, membership in the conservative group Concerned Women of America is double that of NOW and still growing. The moral bankruptcy and social castastrophe of nearly five decades of feminism should be obvious to any sensible individual not blinded by a fraudulent ideology. Regrettably, an alien, unnatural, and Marxist-type ideology based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism has been imposed upon all of us from the top down by judicial fiat. After all, do we want America to end up just like the former Soviet Union or a collapsing Russia today? Who wants to live under a totalitarian police state? Those are great selling points that can be made in defense of marriage and family.
At the same time, men also have to realize that we are not going to be able to have it both ways. That’s the great lie of androgyny and unfortunately, it’s cost us a great deal of prestige. If sexual license is what we value, then we risk marginalizing our crucial social roles as husband and father in marriage and family under the law. To put it bluntly, if the men of the 1960s generation had valued their sexual purity and defended marriage and the family against the onslaught of the contraceptive revolution, which violently severed the connection between marriage and childbearing, we wouldn’t be in the situation that we are now in. On the other hand, if our social roles as husband and father is what we value as men, then we also need to embrace the values that uphold and sustain marriage and family life.
Looking ahead, I believe that a potential great opportunity exists down the road for all those who desire a return for marriage as essential to a healthy society. With the rise of Islam and the coming demographic collapse as a result of the suicidal birthrates in Western Europe, Russia, and Japan due to the expansive welfare state that is required in order to sustain a “sexually liberated” society not based on marriage and family, the enormous economic advantages as well as the social benefits of bearing and raising children in an intact marriage and family instead of a bureaucratic welfare state could, in time, become to be valued and appreciated once again. Unfortunately, it may require us to “bottom out,” as it were, like Russia, Western Europe, and Japan before we can appreciate once again as a society what we have lost.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Well, guys, I am proud that I wrote this blog posting. Better than hopping OFF the trainwreck is never boarding it in the first place — by rejecting all entitled women.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of nice women who lament that the princesses have poisoned the well for ALL women. That’s why I wrote two books about how to find the nice ones.
This situation is NO different from smoking. Once you know smoking kills and you still smoke, YOU are the problem — not the cigarettes.
October 31st, 2006 at 8:36 pm
I also wish I had written this blog myself. I think we all can lament that the marriage rate is officially below 50 percent and it is because men out there are realizing that it isn’t beneficial financially to us anymore. A lot of guys I know have William Holden’s reaction in Network, “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!”
Marriage is an industry now which undermines the institution and turns it into nothing more than a glorified prom costing her parents between 20-60K so she can be “Queen for a Day.” Her parents can only pray that it doesn’t end up a divorce statistic in 5 years or less. These women don’t care that their own materialism is destroying their self esteem. I think most gold diggers would never want to be called on the carpet by a guy to tell them after an argument that they never really wanted a huge rock on her their finger and a Lexus. To quote Tony Soprano, the big insult to them would be, “all you ever really wanted is little Hyundai and a simple gold heart on a chain.”
October 31st, 2006 at 8:13 pm
The time has come for men in Amerika to hop off that future trainwreck.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Exactly, John. Nicely written, too, if I’m any judge.
With more and more states treating cohabitation as marriage with respect to providing rights and privileges to women, at the expense of men, broadcasters like Tom Leykis advise young men to:
- keep their house keys out of every woman’s hands,
- prevent women from using men’s home as their mailing address,
- and prevent women from moving their belongings in.
And you are spot-on when you write that men need not apologize for retaining control over their own lives, and that women ought to apologize for even implying that we ought to hand over control of our future health, wealth, and well-being, not to mention our homes….. to them.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:46 pm
The thing is, some state laws now treat cohabitation as de-facto marriage, and as such even living with a woman could bankrupt a man should a breakup occur. Not “playing the game” should entail keeping women completely out of your dwelling space. The issue is control, and the amount of it that you’re willing to cede to another.
In light of the Estrogen Express and the lopsided advantages women have post-relationship, men need not apologize for retaining whatever control they have. Women should apologize for even implying that we give up control over our homes. Why should we? For what benefit, a little action under the sheets? Is that what she’s worth? No thanks, count me out.
The next seizure of power the feminists will be lurching for is the same advantages women have in divorce being applied to the breakup of cohabiting couples. I predict this will be the next battleground.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
October 31st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Bravo, Marc. I could not possibly agree more.
(I only wish that I had written that blog myself…..;-))
When the game is crooked, the only way to win it TO NOT PLAY THE GAME.
And marriage has become a rigged game against men, sort of like Russian Roulette, but with 3 loaded cylinders.
Now those women, particularly the feminists who assumed that men would have to play along anyway, no matter how increased women’s rights and privileges were won at the expense of fewer men’s rights and greater financial, social, and emotional burdens are getting a rude shock.
The pendulum WILL swing back, most likely later – after a few more generations of women discover that fewer and fewer men want to risk their social, physical, financial, and emotional well-being with no better than an even chance of actually enjoying the safety, comfort, and love of a marital spouse.
I will wait to see a million women marching on the Mall, demanding that elected officials protect the rights of men and fathers.
Until then, it’s “hit it, hit it, hit it, then quit it”…….
Great blog, Marc!