America’s VD

When watching certain events — the Super Bowl, NASCAR races, military battles, and joint sessions of Congress — one might get the impression that we live in a male-dominated society. Nothing could be further from the truth. America is a gynocracy, and it is plagued with a pandemic disease: VD, or the vilification & devaluation of men.

Ironically, men are responsible for spreading this VD, because they perpetuate and tolerate it at all levels of their lives, and they don’t protect themselves. It all begins with deference towards women. Last week, we witnessed the pinnacle of this phenomenon: the emasculating, obsequious stampede to do something, anything to please women on Valentine’s Day, also VD. So, what kind of rewards are men receiving for their deference?

According to a recent survey of 3,000 married women by Woman’s Day magazine and AOL, more than 50% of participants said they probably wouldn’t marry their husbands again, more than 33% said they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses again, and 39% admitted to constantly flirting. The average divorce rate is 50%, and women bring 70% of divorce actions. For the first time in US history, fewer than 50% of homes are headed by married couples, and fewer than 50% of women are married. But, 37% of children, on average, are born out of wedlock — so, that’s a lot of child support that MEN have to pay.

According to Allianz Group, women will control 60% of US wealth by 2010, 33% more boys than girls graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and women comprise 50% of shareholders. Women hold top positions in government, prestigious universities, and Fortune 500 corporations. In other words, women are doing extremely well in this country and have proven themselves to be able peers.

Yet, on the day of “love,” it is all about her — as if a woman is more important than a man, and he is reduced to passive investor in his own relationship. If the “rules” of Valentine’s Day were reversed, in 2008, whereby each woman would be required to treat her man to an all-expenses-paid night on the town, the restaurants and theaters would be empty, Vermont Teddy Bear bankrupt.

Unfortunately, the metrics and societal messages don’t provide any evidence that men are getting positive rewards for their deference. Why, then, do men so blindly subordinate themselves to women?

In most homes with fathers present, boys were taught to worship their mothers and sisters, and to think of themselves as lesser beings. Sisters were allowed, unilaterally of course, to taunt their brothers with impunity. But, boys had to restrain themselves when their sisters hit them or stole their toy trucks — an obvious double standard. In today’s fatherless homes — caused by endless divorces and rampant illegitimate births — single and unwed mothers tend to convey to their children negative messages about men.

According to telephone-industry statistics, Mothers’ Day yields the highest volume of paid long-distance calls in the calendar year, while Fathers’ Day yields the highest volume of collect long-distance calls in the calendar year. What does that say about VD America? Everything.

In almost every divorce, the father is forced to move out of the marital home, while mom stays there with the children. Such inequitable experiences crystalize for children that mothers outrank fathers, that fathers (men) have little or no value. So, it should surprise nobody that boys grow up with inferiority complexes, dysfunctionally sycophantic to women, while girls grow up feeling artificially entitled with dim views of men.

These “contaminated” kids ultimately become editors of newspapers and magazines, and producers of TV sitcoms, TV commercials, and Hollywood movies. They become police officers, legislators, judges, jurists, mayors, governors, district attorneys, defense lawyers, presidents. Accordingly, they publish anti-male articles, produce anti-male movies, and pass so many anti-male laws — all of them unconstitutional — that women now have the preponderance of reproductive rights, civil rights, child-custody rights, alimony rights, and child-support rights. In essence, men have worked side by side with women to make themselves irrelevant.

Equality may be law in the workplace but not outside of it. Sadly, in the typical relationship, the man defers to his woman through its five phases: dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce. He doesn’t feel worthy enough to assert himself. Yes, the man in our society is the default provider of cash and the default protector of our streets and borders. His reward? He will be the default scapegoat in failed relationships and marriages. But, watch him dash like a subservient, kowtowing madman to buy those overpriced roses on Valentine’s Day.

It’s Not a Big Deal

On the eve of this Valentine’s Day, I appeared on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto to urge men to boycott this farcical, female-centric retail extravaganza. It was a fun and revealing exchange for both debators, but Neil’s adversarial prodding at me, while delivered humorously, reinforced the underpinnings of male irrelevance.

To me, Valentine’s Day — compelled giving, expected generosity, female entitlement, and fear of female retaliation — is not the elevation but the denigration of women. Worse, it is an annual “celebration” of male irrelevance, symptomatic and emblematic of it. I didn’t have enough time to fully develop my arguments (see “Boycott Valentine’s Day!”), but I made enough valid points to hit my target.

Mr. Cavuto introduced the segment, which ran just under four minutes, in anticipation that it would make neither his wife nor any woman happy — a telling comment. I intend not to regurgitate the entire interview here but only to extract the salient points.

After welcoming me, Neil asked why I want to boycott Valentine’s Day. Borrowing from the Fox News credo, I rejoined: “It’s unfair and unbalanced.” Neil then inquired: “What’s wrong, really, with just buying your honey, your wife, your girlfriend something for Valentine’s Day? It’s not a big deal.”

Not a big deal? In other words, according to Mr. Cavuto, despite being a unilateral anachronism, Valentine’s Day is a female right, and men should just go along with it. Society’s pressure on men to give compulsory deference, as if women are delicate flowers, is an outmoded, divisive, insulting cliché. Also, “just going along with it,” over time, is precisely why men have seen their rights evaporate!

Notwithstanding that Condoleeza Rice is America’s top ambassador and was the national security advisor, that Nancy Pelosi is #2 in the succession chain to run the US Armed Forces, and that Hillary Clinton wants to run the US Armed Forces, most people in our society still embrace double-standard deference to women — she can be your boss at work and your helpless maiden at home. And, this double standard, what I call nonsense, is the chief reason why male-female relations are at an all-time low. Many people just don’t get the connection.

My reply to Cavuto was that “the holiday is all about the woman.” Cavuto responded: “So, what’s wrong with that? We all have women in our lives who mean a lot, right?” I then began to enumerate the high-powered women in our country, as well as stats about women having greater wealth and a higher college-graduation rate than men. I expressed my belief that, “if a woman can send our troops into combat, I think she can pick up a dinner check.” But, Neil would have none of that (his wife was watching, remember?). Now, I realize that Mr. Cavuto, a skilled and amiable host, was giving me the jazz for effect and humor, but I take this subject seriously, as you will see in subsequent paragraphs.

Continued Cavuto: “Would you acknowledge that a lot of women do a lot for a lot of men, and it’s not acknowledged or not even written, not even debated; they just do it? And, so if there’s a day in the year where they get something a little extra, what the hell?” My rejoinder: “The problem is, Neil, it’s not just one day in the year. Also, Valentine’s Day is needlessly expensive, it’s artificial, it’s compulsory…”

Well, this gave Neil his opening to suggest that I’ve had hard relationships and that I’m angry — the classical feminist ploy. There is an 11th commandment in this country for men: Thou shalt not criticize a female. Violate that and risk accusations of anger and bitterness — I get this with every media appearance. The best policy, according to most men, is to do whatever makes women happy. More male irrelevance.

Do men do a lot for women that goes unacknowledged, unwritten, or undebated? Absolutely. In addition to being the default providers and saviors, men are largely responsible for designing, building, and delivering most of the staples and luxuries women take for granted: roads, buildings, bridges, stadiums, trash pickups, automobiles, TVs, radios, stereos, jets, yachts, cruise ships, appliances, jewelry, clothes, shoes, babies, homes, furniture, stores, restaurants, courthouses, the Internet, computers, cellphones, Google, YouTube, and MySpace — to name a few. Where’s the gratitude? I never hear it. If springing for dinner on Valentine’s Day to show appreciation is no big deal, Neil, why don’t the majority of women do it for men?

Valentine’s Day is a Real Hit

Unbeknownst to me during my exchange with Neil Cavuto, there was a horrific Valentine’s Day graphic on the Detroit News homepage. Posted by that newspaper to help Detroit-area men find florists, candy, jewelry, and restaurants for women, this graphic featured a man with a black eye and a woman in front of him wearing red boxing gloves, her right fist extended to his face. The caption read: “Don’t let this be her response.” In other words, wine & dine her on Valentine’s Day or she’ll punch you. The Detroit News was overtly advocating female violence towards men. Surprised? Don’t be.

Because America has VD, people think that violence towards men is perfectly acceptable, especially if a woman is the source of that violence. Can you imagine any newspaper advocating male violence towards women? How about a TV sitcom or a movie? Yet, there are plenty of Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond episodes containing women hitting and slapping men.

In the 2006 movie, The Last Kiss, Michael (Zach Braff) is engaged to a pregnant Jenna (Jacinda Barrett). Feeling trapped into getting married too soon, Michael has a dalliance with a college girl. When Jenna discovers this, she slaps and holds a butcher knife to Michael — battery and assault with a deadly weapon. Would Hollywood, would America, allow a man on the silver or small screen to behave likewise with a cheating woman? Not a chance.

Leslie Gold, host of CBS Radio’s Radio Chick in New York City, reported on the air a few months ago that she had undergone eye surgery, which temporarily left her with a black eye. Deciding not to cover it with sunglasses or makeup, she ventured out into the streets one day. She was shocked at all the women, total strangers, who approached her to ask if her boyfriend had hit her. When Leslie explained the eye surgery, these women accused her of covering up for her abusive boyfriend. This is America with VD, where men are presumed to be violent villains — valueless, worthless, irrelevant.

The Domino Effect

Like falling dominoes, deference begets VD, which begets male irrelevance. Yes, the same attitude that compels a man to wine & dine a woman ultimately compels him to pass and interpret laws that protect her like a child, to metaphorically preserve her in a frozen state of adolescence where she has almost no responsibilities for her behaviors or choices. I will call this legislacial (legislative + judicial) cryogenics. Pathetically, these insecure men need women to remain girls. Their hangups, unfortunately, translate into my loss of rights.

Because men comprise the majority of lawmakers and prosecutors and judges and mayors and governors and presidents, I hold them responsible for a host of anti-male rights, privileges, and laws:

• Roe v. Wade, which gives women the unilateral and exclusive right to opt out of parenthood. This violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment
• The right of women to engage in maternity fraud by lying about their fertility, use of birth control, and the real father of their children — just to collect child support
• The right of teenage girls to have abortions without notifying their parents
• The right of mothers, through safe-haven laws, to drop off their newborn babies at local fire stations — no questions asked
• VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), which stipulates that women are entitled to more protection in domestic violence than men, even though women are equally culpable in DV incidents. VAWA, which has all but eliminated presumption of innocence for men, violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, women in this country illegally — felons who, technically, have zero rights – have more rights because of VAWA than male citizens. This is a double violation of the 14th Amendment! Because of VAWA, women who falsely (feloniously) accuse men of rape are almost never prosecuted.
• Michigan’s CAPA, the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act, which stipulates that a man living with a woman — wife or girlfriend — may not, upon learning that she is pregnant, move out of their residence. He is forced, by law, to continue living with her, against his will. Why? She could “interpret” his leaving as coercion to abort the child. Poor girl. CAPA violates the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865.
• In the famous Duke rape case, District Attorney Michael Nifong presumed guilty the three male lacrosse players accused of rape. By doing this, Nifong violated the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, which grant the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. At the same time, he presumed innocent the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper whose body contained semen from five different men, none of them involved in this case, at the time she accused the lacrosse players of rape. Obviously, Crystal Gail Mangum, a woman, bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. DA Nifong is currently under investigation for suppressing evidence and unethical conduct — amazing, given that he was engaging in the commonly accepted practice of American VD.
• In a bizarre case (Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland), Maouloud Baby, 16, was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to 15 years in prison because, allegedly, he didn’t withdraw himself from the accusing woman, 18, within five seconds of her request to stop the sex act, according to an insane Maryland law. He is appealing this case. As in the Duke rape case above, this female accuser also bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. She had climbed into the back seat of her car with two guys, fooled around with both at once, then had sex with the unaccused man while the accused man waited outside the car. Then, the unaccused man left the vehicle, and the accused man got back into the car. He claims he failed in his attempt to have sex with her; she claims he succeeded but didn’t pull out on time. Yet, despite her supposed resistance to him, she gave him her cell number! But, wait, a Boston College professor of nursing can explain that: rape-trauma syndrome. Wow.
• In May 2005, in Boston, Massachusetts, the state appeals court ruled that a woman isn’t legally responsible for injuries her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex. The man filed suit against the woman in 1997, claiming she was negligent when she suddenly changed positions, landed awkwardly on him, and fractured his penis. The man underwent emergency surgery in September 1994, “endured a painful and lengthy recovery,” and has suffered from sexual dysfunction that hasn’t responded to medication or counseling. Although the woman may have exposed her boyfriend to “some risk of harm,” the three-judge panel said her conduct during the sexual encounter wasn’t “wanton or reckless” and can’t support a lawsuit. The man’s lawsuit already had been thrown out by judges in Salem District Court and Essex Superior Court. “There are no comprehensive legal rules to regulate consensual sexual behavior,” Justice Joseph Trainor wrote. “In the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual conduct, a jury or judge cannot be expected to resolve a claim that certain consensual sexual conduct is undertaken without reasonable care.” The appeals court’s judges ruled against the man on slightly different grounds than the lower courts, stating that the woman didn’t owe her boyfriend a “duty of reasonable care” during consensual sex. And they didn’t find any evidence she knew her conduct was likely to harm him. Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, that the judges would have ruled likewise had the genders been reversed? There is no way.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but, because of the abundance of artistic talent in my gene pool, I can recognize patterns. The patterns are clear to me: men are constantly encouraging, tolerating, and forgiving bad female behavior and absolving women of personal responsibilities. On the contrary, they hold men responsible for their own behavior and for protecting women from danger … and from themselves. Women are not only not responsible for themselves, they’re not responsible for how they treat men, either. This is beyond lunacy.

As I’ve stated previously, deference towards women leads ultimately to male irrelevance. In my opinion, deferential men are either still pulling on apron strings or threatened by female equality, or both. These eunuchs don’t want, and can’t handle, women as peers; they prefer little girls in adult bodies. This way, they can feel manly and superior. But, this superiority is ephemeral — because there is no male power without male rights, dummies!

If women are such delicate flowers who need special protections, we shouldn’t be allowing them to run our biggest institutions. But, they are running our biggest institutions and have proven that they are competent to do so. But, men in the electorate keep voting for the politicians who, despite female equality, write laws aimed at destroying men’s rights. And on and on. Folks, this is VD America, home of the irrelevant male.

So, Neil Cavuto, this is why boycotting Valentine’s Day, with its female centricity and artificial romance, is a big deal. Valentine’s Day, like an iceberg, appears to be innocuous, but it represents a force much bigger than what the eye can see. As I wrote above, it is emblematic of male irrelevance, an annual celebration of male irrelevance. No day on the calendar makes men look more pathetic and irrelevant than Valentine’s Day.

If men want to become relevant again, they can start by killing Valentine’s Day. This will cause the dominoes to fall in the opposite direction. End deference to women; wipe out VD. The question is, How badly do men want to be relevant? We shall see next February 14th.

What will you do?

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 40+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables^TM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

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

America’s VD

When watching certain events — the Super Bowl, NASCAR races, military battles, and joint sessions of Congress — one might get the impression that we live in a male-dominated society. Nothing could be further from the truth. America is a gynocracy, and it is plagued with a pandemic disease: VD, or the vilification & devaluation of men.

Ironically, men are responsible for spreading this VD, because they perpetuate and tolerate it at all levels of their lives, and they don’t protect themselves. It all begins with deference towards women. Last week, we witnessed the pinnacle of this phenomenon: the emasculating, obsequious stampede to do something, anything to please women on Valentine’s Day, also VD. So, what kind of rewards are men receiving for their deference?

According to a recent survey of 3,000 married women by Woman’s Day magazine and AOL, more than 50% of participants said they probably wouldn’t marry their husbands again, more than 33% said they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses again, and 39% admitted to constantly flirting. The average divorce rate is 50%, and women bring 70% of divorce actions. For the first time in US history, fewer than 50% of homes are headed by married couples, and fewer than 50% of women are married. But, 37% of children, on average, are born out of wedlock — so, that’s a lot of child support that MEN have to pay.

According to Allianz Group, women will control 60% of US wealth by 2010, 33% more boys than girls graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and women comprise 50% of shareholders. Women hold top positions in government, prestigious universities, and Fortune 500 corporations. In other words, women are doing extremely well in this country and have proven themselves to be able peers.

Yet, on the day of “love,” it is all about her — as if a woman is more important than a man, and he is reduced to passive investor in his own relationship. If the “rules” of Valentine’s Day were reversed, in 2008, whereby each woman would be required to treat her man to an all-expenses-paid night on the town, the restaurants and theaters would be empty, Vermont Teddy Bear bankrupt.

Unfortunately, the metrics and societal messages don’t provide any evidence that men are getting positive rewards for their deference. Why, then, do men so blindly subordinate themselves to women?

In most homes with fathers present, boys were taught to worship their mothers and sisters, and to think of themselves as lesser beings. Sisters were allowed, unilaterally of course, to taunt their brothers with impunity. But, boys had to restrain themselves when their sisters hit them or stole their toy trucks — an obvious double standard. In today’s fatherless homes — caused by endless divorces and rampant illegitimate births — single and unwed mothers tend to convey to their children negative messages about men.

According to telephone-industry statistics, Mothers’ Day yields the highest volume of paid long-distance calls in the calendar year, while Fathers’ Day yields the highest volume of collect long-distance calls in the calendar year. What does that say about VD America? Everything.

In almost every divorce, the father is forced to move out of the marital home, while mom stays there with the children. Such inequitable experiences crystalize for children that mothers outrank fathers, that fathers (men) have little or no value. So, it should surprise nobody that boys grow up with inferiority complexes, dysfunctionally sycophantic to women, while girls grow up feeling artificially entitled with dim views of men.

These “contaminated” kids ultimately become editors of newspapers and magazines, and producers of TV sitcoms, TV commercials, and Hollywood movies. They become police officers, legislators, judges, jurists, mayors, governors, district attorneys, defense lawyers, presidents. Accordingly, they publish anti-male articles, produce anti-male movies, and pass so many anti-male laws — all of them unconstitutional — that women now have the preponderance of reproductive rights, civil rights, child-custody rights, alimony rights, and child-support rights. In essence, men have worked side by side with women to make themselves irrelevant.

Equality may be law in the workplace but not outside of it. Sadly, in the typical relationship, the man defers to his woman through its five phases: dating, engagement, wedding, marriage, and divorce. He doesn’t feel worthy enough to assert himself. Yes, the man in our society is the default provider of cash and the default protector of our streets and borders. His reward? He will be the default scapegoat in failed relationships and marriages. But, watch him dash like a subservient, kowtowing madman to buy those overpriced roses on Valentine’s Day.

It’s Not a Big Deal

On the eve of this Valentine’s Day, I appeared on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto to urge men to boycott this farcical, female-centric retail extravaganza. It was a fun and revealing exchange for both debators, but Neil’s adversarial prodding at me, while delivered humorously, reinforced the underpinnings of male irrelevance.

To me, Valentine’s Day — compelled giving, expected generosity, female entitlement, and fear of female retaliation — is not the elevation but the denigration of women. Worse, it is an annual “celebration” of male irrelevance, symptomatic and emblematic of it. I didn’t have enough time to fully develop my arguments (see “Boycott Valentine’s Day!”), but I made enough valid points to hit my target.

Mr. Cavuto introduced the segment, which ran just under four minutes, in anticipation that it would make neither his wife nor any woman happy — a telling comment. I intend not to regurgitate the entire interview here but only to extract the salient points.

After welcoming me, Neil asked why I want to boycott Valentine’s Day. Borrowing from the Fox News credo, I rejoined: “It’s unfair and unbalanced.” Neil then inquired: “What’s wrong, really, with just buying your honey, your wife, your girlfriend something for Valentine’s Day? It’s not a big deal.”

Not a big deal? In other words, according to Mr. Cavuto, despite being a unilateral anachronism, Valentine’s Day is a female right, and men should just go along with it. Society’s pressure on men to give compulsory deference, as if women are delicate flowers, is an outmoded, divisive, insulting cliché. Also, “just going along with it,” over time, is precisely why men have seen their rights evaporate!

Notwithstanding that Condoleeza Rice is America’s top ambassador and was the national security advisor, that Nancy Pelosi is #2 in the succession chain to run the US Armed Forces, and that Hillary Clinton wants to run the US Armed Forces, most people in our society still embrace double-standard deference to women — she can be your boss at work and your helpless maiden at home. And, this double standard, what I call nonsense, is the chief reason why male-female relations are at an all-time low. Many people just don’t get the connection.

My reply to Cavuto was that “the holiday is all about the woman.” Cavuto responded: “So, what’s wrong with that? We all have women in our lives who mean a lot, right?” I then began to enumerate the high-powered women in our country, as well as stats about women having greater wealth and a higher college-graduation rate than men. I expressed my belief that, “if a woman can send our troops into combat, I think she can pick up a dinner check.” But, Neil would have none of that (his wife was watching, remember?). Now, I realize that Mr. Cavuto, a skilled and amiable host, was giving me the jazz for effect and humor, but I take this subject seriously, as you will see in subsequent paragraphs.

Continued Cavuto: “Would you acknowledge that a lot of women do a lot for a lot of men, and it’s not acknowledged or not even written, not even debated; they just do it? And, so if there’s a day in the year where they get something a little extra, what the hell?” My rejoinder: “The problem is, Neil, it’s not just one day in the year. Also, Valentine’s Day is needlessly expensive, it’s artificial, it’s compulsory…”

Well, this gave Neil his opening to suggest that I’ve had hard relationships and that I’m angry — the classical feminist ploy. There is an 11th commandment in this country for men: Thou shalt not criticize a female. Violate that and risk accusations of anger and bitterness — I get this with every media appearance. The best policy, according to most men, is to do whatever makes women happy. More male irrelevance.

Do men do a lot for women that goes unacknowledged, unwritten, or undebated? Absolutely. In addition to being the default providers and saviors, men are largely responsible for designing, building, and delivering most of the staples and luxuries women take for granted: roads, buildings, bridges, stadiums, trash pickups, automobiles, TVs, radios, stereos, jets, yachts, cruise ships, appliances, jewelry, clothes, shoes, babies, homes, furniture, stores, restaurants, courthouses, the Internet, computers, cellphones, Google, YouTube, and MySpace — to name a few. Where’s the gratitude? I never hear it. If springing for dinner on Valentine’s Day to show appreciation is no big deal, Neil, why don’t the majority of women do it for men?

Valentine’s Day is a Real Hit

Unbeknownst to me during my exchange with Neil Cavuto, there was a horrific Valentine’s Day graphic on the Detroit News homepage. Posted by that newspaper to help Detroit-area men find florists, candy, jewelry, and restaurants for women, this graphic featured a man with a black eye and a woman in front of him wearing red boxing gloves, her right fist extended to his face. The caption read: “Don’t let this be her response.” In other words, wine & dine her on Valentine’s Day or she’ll punch you. The Detroit News was overtly advocating female violence towards men. Surprised? Don’t be.

Because America has VD, people think that violence towards men is perfectly acceptable, especially if a woman is the source of that violence. Can you imagine any newspaper advocating male violence towards women? How about a TV sitcom or a movie? Yet, there are plenty of Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond episodes containing women hitting and slapping men.

In the 2006 movie, The Last Kiss, Michael (Zach Braff) is engaged to a pregnant Jenna (Jacinda Barrett). Feeling trapped into getting married too soon, Michael has a dalliance with a college girl. When Jenna discovers this, she slaps and holds a butcher knife to Michael — battery and assault with a deadly weapon. Would Hollywood, would America, allow a man on the silver or small screen to behave likewise with a cheating woman? Not a chance.

Leslie Gold, host of CBS Radio’s Radio Chick in New York City, reported on the air a few months ago that she had undergone eye surgery, which temporarily left her with a black eye. Deciding not to cover it with sunglasses or makeup, she ventured out into the streets one day. She was shocked at all the women, total strangers, who approached her to ask if her boyfriend had hit her. When Leslie explained the eye surgery, these women accused her of covering up for her abusive boyfriend. This is America with VD, where men are presumed to be violent villains — valueless, worthless, irrelevant.

The Domino Effect

Like falling dominoes, deference begets VD, which begets male irrelevance. Yes, the same attitude that compels a man to wine & dine a woman ultimately compels him to pass and interpret laws that protect her like a child, to metaphorically preserve her in a frozen state of adolescence where she has almost no responsibilities for her behaviors or choices. I will call this legislacial (legislative + judicial) cryogenics. Pathetically, these insecure men need women to remain girls. Their hangups, unfortunately, translate into my loss of rights.

Because men comprise the majority of lawmakers and prosecutors and judges and mayors and governors and presidents, I hold them responsible for a host of anti-male rights, privileges, and laws:

• Roe v. Wade, which gives women the unilateral and exclusive right to opt out of parenthood. This violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment
• The right of women to engage in maternity fraud by lying about their fertility, use of birth control, and the real father of their children — just to collect child support
• The right of teenage girls to have abortions without notifying their parents
• The right of mothers, through safe-haven laws, to drop off their newborn babies at local fire stations — no questions asked
• VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), which stipulates that women are entitled to more protection in domestic violence than men, even though women are equally culpable in DV incidents. VAWA, which has all but eliminated presumption of innocence for men, violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, women in this country illegally — felons who, technically, have zero rights – have more rights because of VAWA than male citizens. This is a double violation of the 14th Amendment! Because of VAWA, women who falsely (feloniously) accuse men of rape are almost never prosecuted.
• Michigan’s CAPA, the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act, which stipulates that a man living with a woman — wife or girlfriend — may not, upon learning that she is pregnant, move out of their residence. He is forced, by law, to continue living with her, against his will. Why? She could “interpret” his leaving as coercion to abort the child. Poor girl. CAPA violates the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865.
• In the famous Duke rape case, District Attorney Michael Nifong presumed guilty the three male lacrosse players accused of rape. By doing this, Nifong violated the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, which grant the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. At the same time, he presumed innocent the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper whose body contained semen from five different men, none of them involved in this case, at the time she accused the lacrosse players of rape. Obviously, Crystal Gail Mangum, a woman, bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. DA Nifong is currently under investigation for suppressing evidence and unethical conduct — amazing, given that he was engaging in the commonly accepted practice of American VD.
• In a bizarre case (Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland), Maouloud Baby, 16, was convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to 15 years in prison because, allegedly, he didn’t withdraw himself from the accusing woman, 18, within five seconds of her request to stop the sex act, according to an insane Maryland law. He is appealing this case. As in the Duke rape case above, this female accuser also bears no personal responsibility for her behavior or choices. She had climbed into the back seat of her car with two guys, fooled around with both at once, then had sex with the unaccused man while the accused man waited outside the car. Then, the unaccused man left the vehicle, and the accused man got back into the car. He claims he failed in his attempt to have sex with her; she claims he succeeded but didn’t pull out on time. Yet, despite her supposed resistance to him, she gave him her cell number! But, wait, a Boston College professor of nursing can explain that: rape-trauma syndrome. Wow.
• In May 2005, in Boston, Massachusetts, the state appeals court ruled that a woman isn’t legally responsible for injuries her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex. The man filed suit against the woman in 1997, claiming she was negligent when she suddenly changed positions, landed awkwardly on him, and fractured his penis. The man underwent emergency surgery in September 1994, “endured a painful and lengthy recovery,” and has suffered from sexual dysfunction that hasn’t responded to medication or counseling. Although the woman may have exposed her boyfriend to “some risk of harm,” the three-judge panel said her conduct during the sexual encounter wasn’t “wanton or reckless” and can’t support a lawsuit. The man’s lawsuit already had been thrown out by judges in Salem District Court and Essex Superior Court. “There are no comprehensive legal rules to regulate consensual sexual behavior,” Justice Joseph Trainor wrote. “In the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual conduct, a jury or judge cannot be expected to resolve a claim that certain consensual sexual conduct is undertaken without reasonable care.” The appeals court’s judges ruled against the man on slightly different grounds than the lower courts, stating that the woman didn’t owe her boyfriend a “duty of reasonable care” during consensual sex. And they didn’t find any evidence she knew her conduct was likely to harm him. Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, that the judges would have ruled likewise had the genders been reversed? There is no way.

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but, because of the abundance of artistic talent in my gene pool, I can recognize patterns. The patterns are clear to me: men are constantly encouraging, tolerating, and forgiving bad female behavior and absolving women of personal responsibilities. On the contrary, they hold men responsible for their own behavior and for protecting women from danger … and from themselves. Women are not only not responsible for themselves, they’re not responsible for how they treat men, either. This is beyond lunacy.

As I’ve stated previously, deference towards women leads ultimately to male irrelevance. In my opinion, deferential men are either still pulling on apron strings or threatened by female equality, or both. These eunuchs don’t want, and can’t handle, women as peers; they prefer little girls in adult bodies. This way, they can feel manly and superior. But, this superiority is ephemeral — because there is no male power without male rights, dummies!

If women are such delicate flowers who need special protections, we shouldn’t be allowing them to run our biggest institutions. But, they are running our biggest institutions and have proven that they are competent to do so. But, men in the electorate keep voting for the politicians who, despite female equality, write laws aimed at destroying men’s rights. And on and on. Folks, this is VD America, home of the irrelevant male.

So, Neil Cavuto, this is why boycotting Valentine’s Day, with its female centricity and artificial romance, is a big deal. Valentine’s Day, like an iceberg, appears to be innocuous, but it represents a force much bigger than what the eye can see. As I wrote above, it is emblematic of male irrelevance, an annual celebration of male irrelevance. No day on the calendar makes men look more pathetic and irrelevant than Valentine’s Day.

If men want to become relevant again, they can start by killing Valentine’s Day. This will cause the dominoes to fall in the opposite direction. End deference to women; wipe out VD. The question is, How badly do men want to be relevant? We shall see next February 14th.

What will you do?

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 40+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables^TM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

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