Will Bill O’Reilly Save Children?
Why Children Are In Danger
On Wednesday, February 21, 2007, Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, appeared via satellite on a special Oprah show about the pandemic of abused children and tepid prosecution in some quarters of the perpetrators.
O’Reilly is on a respectable, admirable mission to save the children from this deplorable, embarrassing danger in our society, and he displays amazing passion and emotion in his quest. Bill recommends a three-pronged strategy for achieving his goal:
- Pass Jessica’s Law in all 50 states — it requires that any adult who abuses a child get a minimum of 25 years in prison. According to O’Reilly’s Website, only 21 states (including DC) have passed the law or its equivalent.
- Teach children to be aware of their surroundings, to distrust strangers, and to fight back with full force if abducted
- Admonish all fathers to reassure their children that, no matter what danger they may face, their fathers will rescue them.
I laud Mr. O’Reilly’s first two points. But, having just written “Celebrating Male Irrelevance,†I am finding O’Reilly’s third point problematic. First, Bill implies that mothers (women) lack the power and the responsibility to save their own children — even though Hillary Clinton wants to command America’s armed forces. Second, O’Reilly is ignoring a basic reality in this country: fathers (men) are irrelevant, and children know it.
There are two anti-male commercials currently running on television, sponsored by Pella Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, respectively. Allow me to provide brief synopses:
- Pella: a wife demonstrates her new Pella in-window shades to her female neighbor. These shades, embedded between the window panes, don’t take up space on the room’s wall, and they never need cleaning. While the wife is raising and lowering the shade for her friend, her idiotic, bumbling husband is visible — through the window containing the Pella shade — in the back yard, barbecuing and minding the dog simultaneously. Because he is a typical incompetent husband, he ends up knocking over the barbecue grill, falling on the ground next to the grill, entangled in the dog’s leash. In accordance with America’s low opinion of men, Pella felt comfortable demeaning men in its aim to sell more window treatments. Would Pella ever show an incompetent woman in its commercials?
- Liberty Mutual: a husband is trying to enter the security code into his home-alarm system. He can’t remember the code, so he yells to his off-camera wife for the code. She responds by yelling back that the code is their anniversary date. Naturally, as a typical man, he doesn’t know their anniversary date. He stares at the keypad, quizzically, then enters the wrong number thereby tripping the alarm. Would Liberty Mutual ever show an incompetent woman in its commercials?
Children watch these commercials, too — their messages consistent with what children see in everyday life: divorced mothers badmouthing their fathers who got hammered in family courts. Also, children watched three innocent male lacrosse players, from Durham, North Carolina, get unfairly and unconstitutionally skewered in public, while the felonious rape accuser faded into obscurity, with impunity. Where are children going to get the impression that fathers (men) are worth calling in an emergency? Where, I ask you?
When flying in an airplane, the flight attendant always reminds parents, in an emergency, to place the oxygen masks on themselves first, BEFORE helping their children. Why? Because, if the parents become incapacitated, they are powerless to help their children. The same is true in life, is it not?
On March 9, 2006, the National Center for Men (NCM) filed a lawsuit (Roe vs. Wade for Men™) in the US district court in Michigan, to gain for men the right to make reproductive choice, to decline parenthood in the event of an unintended pregnancy — the same right that women have.
On that day, Bill O’Reilly had Mel Feit, NCM’s executive director, on The O’Reilly Factor. Bill predicted that the lawsuit would be thrown out (it was, four months later) and told Mel that, regardless of a woman’s fraudulent behavior in getting herself pregnant, the man should step up to take ultimate responsibility. In other words, the man belongs in the shovel brigade of a woman’s parade. This is just another example of male irrelevance. Again, children are aware of this imbalance.
The reason, Bill O’Reilly, that American children are in danger is that our so-called legal system has rendered the father — more fundamentally, the man — irrelevant. Society has cut the man’s oxygen supply. Women own the preponderance of reproductive rights, civil rights, child-custody rights, alimony rights, paternity rights, and child-support rights. Again, children are aware of this imbalance.
NoNonsense Bottom Line
If we want to save our children, we must make the father — the man — relevant, once again. We must allow men to have the same rights and privileges that women enjoy. By cutting off the man’s oxygen, we have destroyed his ability to be effective, respected, and relevant.
Many mothers make it impossible for fathers to see their children in non-emergencies; how can these fathers rescue their children in emergencies?
What children see is a country of ineffective, ridiculed men with no rights, and entitled women with too many rights. They know the system is unjust, unfair, and unbalanced. Unless and until children view their parents as equal partners with equal rights, who mutually support each other, they will NOT feel safe trusting them in emergencies.
Instead of admonishing irrelevant fathers to save the day for children, Bill O’Reilly, I recommend that you work as tirelessly as you do to pass Jessica’s Law to restore legal oxygen to men. Men do not deserve the horrific treatment America gives them, and you have the power and the platform to help them.
When fathers have rights equal to those of mothers, when parents fight together to keep their children safe, child abusers will be afraid to harm children. Right now, predators have no fears — because they face a system that, in many quarters, gives more rights to them than to fathers! If you can help fix this, Bill O’Reilly, instead of unfairly supporting mothers’ rights, you can accomplish your mission to save children.
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 CablesTM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
February 26th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Put some teeth into a Jessica’s law. Make child sexual abuse a capital crime. Lw/oP is not enough.
More innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Funny I always thought the basis for the American justice system as set fourth by the founding fathers was the “its better to let 10 guilty men go free than to see one innocent man punished”
February 26th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Now you are coming around, Marc!
Perhaps we can scream for the enforcement of the Law That Dare Not Speak Its Name?
If we cannot enforce child support and alimony, then we have an incentive to allow the father to stick around, don’t we? That way he can actually protect the children or die trying, rather than have half of his paycheck deducted to give to the mother without any accounting for how the money is spent to benefit the child.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Roger Knight,
I am not “coming around” at all. I haven’t changed my mind or philosophy one iota, about anything.
My appeal to Bill O’Reilly, to help fight for men’s rights, does NOT absolve men from doing their own fighting in their own lives. Every man is responsible for his own behavior, and every man must learn to stop tolerating and enabling entitled women.
O’Reilly can bring a bully-pulpit hammer to the issue — from the top — but, if the typical man keeps kowtowing to women — at the bottom — all O’Reilly’s efforts on behalf of men would be for naught. Moreover, I doubt O’Reilly would take on this cause, despite my challenge to him — he is very old-fashioned about women.
On Saturday, I was a guest on WLS radio in Chicago (archived interview on my Website). The sole male caller was a eunuch who believes that women are delicate, little flowers who deserve more rights than men. Guys like this eunuch are responsible for creating the misandric gynocracy we have.
If you are waiting for the cavalry to save you, you are wasting your time. Women and eunuchs will stop hurting men when men stop permitting it.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
If you’d like to view the Pella commercial, mentioned above, CLICK HERE.
If you want the name, address, and telephone number of Pella’s ad agency, write to me.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Marc, you will be happy to know I do not kowtow to any woman.
I just have a slightly different approach to what looks to me like the same problem.
You take Bill O’Reilly for demanding fathers move to protect their children while ignoring how the legal system keeps fathers away.
Since the problem is manifest in the legal system, I suggested a legal solution.
Of course, an attitude adjustment of the manginas such as you suggest would certainly help!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Roger Knight,
As I have written ad nauseam, the legal system became misandric, over time, because manginas are in the legal system and because the manginas in the electorate allowed it.
Bill O’Reilly’s attitude is that men must take care of women — giving women a pass on fraud. Bill is plain wrong. I am urging him to change.
The problem is now so big and lopsided that we need Bill’s assistance: he has the power to shake up the legal system at the top. Bill has proven that he can make a difference.
As someone who appears on radio and TV with great frequency, who receives calls on the air, I can tell you that most men are VOLUNTARY doormats to women. Even when I go into the supermarket, I see obsequious men with their wives and girlfriends.
The “system” won’t change until we ants force it to change. If every man, starting tomorrow, refuses to tolerate female nonsense, the “system” will begin to crumble. The “system” is predicated on wimpy behavior from men. Men continue to be wimps; the “system” continues to expand.
Pella showed a misandric ad. Why? Women laugh; men won’t complain. And on and on. You underestimate how vaginized and fearful of women men are in this country.
There are men afraid — afraid — to follow the principles in my books, because they cannot and will not stand up to women. These wimps are the reason the “system” works so well. Think about it.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:02 am
(Quoting Marc): “Pella showed a misandric ad. Why? Women laugh; men won’t complain. And on and on. You underestimate how vaginized and fearful of women men are in this country.”
And in Canada, Australia & the UK as well. Just like AIDS & global warming, misandry is not just an American problem–it’s a GLOBAL problem!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Hello Mr. Rudov,
Thank you again for all your efforts to help powerless men achieve equality in the family, courts and society. Do not be discouraged by the likes of Mr. Knight, his words mean nothing to those who know the truth of “the misandric system.”
February 27th, 2007 at 3:05 am
SAM, have I ever expressed disagreement that there is a “misandric” system? Does anyone seriously believe that I would purchase a Pella product because of the offensive ad? I merely suggested a solution to the problem we all agree we have. I agree that a large part of the problem are men being willing doormats to women.
Perhaps the dominatrix theme might be fun for a weekend, but I would find it getting old after a while. If you must know, my marriage fell apart pretty much because I felt that racking up thousands of dollars in credit card debt at 18% interest was not a good idea and I was not allowing it!
Marc said:
“The “system†won’t change until we ants force it to change. If every man, starting tomorrow, refuses to tolerate female nonsense, the “system†will begin to crumble. The “system†is predicated on wimpy behavior from men. Men continue to be wimps; the “system†continues to expand.”
I agree.
And Marc said:
“There are men afraid — afraid — to follow the principles in my books, because they cannot and will not stand up to women. These wimps are the reason the “system†works so well. Think about it.”
No argument there, Marc. I am not surprized, too many men are afraid to plead their rights in the courts and to enter politics and fight for our rights. They are so afraid that some will commit suicide without taking any of the tyrants with them.
Not every man is a wimp, though.
Robert Stevenson, a lawyer, has his petition for writ of certiorari on behalf of Greg Amunrud before the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 06-1092. Greg is the taxicab driver whose license was permanently suspended for child support. The issue he raised is that as payment or nonpayment of child support has zero to do with his competence as a taxicab driver, to suspend his license for it is to deprive him of his property interest in his license without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment.
THREE justices of the Supreme Court of Washington AGREED!!!!
The Amunrud petition is now distributed for conference March 16, 2007.
Marc, SAM, and the rest of the MND audience, NOW is the time to make MAXIMUM noise in support of Greg Amunrud and our rights under the law. It is time to stop tolerating “female nonsense” and give Robert Stevenson and Greg Amunrud a chance to make a big part of this system crumble!
February 27th, 2007 at 3:12 am
I feel like I am caught up in an argument where one party insists that there are six feet in a fathom and that a yard is one half of a fathom. The other guy says “You, sir, are completely wrong. There are three feet in a yard and two yards in a fathom!”
And yet I cannot convince anyone that we are in complete agreement!
February 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
“1. Pass Jessica’s Law in all 50 states — it requires that any adult who abuses a child get a minimum of 25 years in prison. According to O’Reilly’s Website, only 21 states (including DC) have passed the law or its equivalent.
“2. Teach children to be aware of their surroundings, to distrust strangers, and to fight back with full force if abducted…
“I laud Mr. O’Reilly’s first two points.”
Considering the preponderance of injustice you wrote about in one of your recent articles against a high number of innocent men, Mr. Rudov, how on earth do you think such a corrupt state is going to properly apply a law such as Jessica’s Law? North Carolina gained infamy long before the Duke Non-Rape Case, when they put numerous adults in prison for pretended child abuse at a day care center, crimes concocted by the police and the media simply to gain popular favor.
O’Reilly’s appearance on “Oprah” doesn’t help matters either, considering that this is the woman who years ago set up a crafty situation on her program to convince her viewers (using “experts”) that SPANKING is child abuse. There are bills being submitted by the Nanny state right now to make spanking a form of child abuse.
What I understand about Men’s Rights does not seem to jibe with a severe law like this. It will only be misapplied. Child abuse is already outlawed. Adding another law on top of it won’t stop a single abuser, and I can assure you all that a great many innocent fathers will go to prison as a result.
The state does a lousy job of protecting children.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Gentlemen,
I continue to be misunderstood; so, I will try harder to be clear. Let’s begin with the basics.
The “system” — the legal/media complex — is misandric because men are wimps in their PERSONAL lives. When Tip O’Neil was speaker of the House, he was famous for saying that all politics is local. He was accurate.
Accordingly, I am saying that all misandry is local, too. Want to wipe out misandry? Do it one woman at a time. Taking on the “system” is a job for a guy like Bill O’Reilly, and he probably won’t help. The rest of us must focus on the LOCAL problem.
Forget about victories in court. Trying to win there is futile. The fight is in the streets. The fight is in your home. The fight is in bars. The fight is in restaurants. The battleground is in your personal life — where you have power, where you can be effective, starting TODAY.
The way to destroy any system — any system — is to make its foundation crumble. The foundation of the misandric “system” is comprised of millions of building blocks — each composed of one entitled woman and one wimpy, chivalrous, obsequious man.
It is so simple, yet too many men are afraid to try. Why? They’re afraid they won’t get laid. That’s right. They’re afraid they won’t get laid. That’s why I wrote Under the Clitoral Hood. It explains that women are more sexual than men, giving men the power. But, most men don’t realize they have that power, and, consequently, they don’t have it.
Every man must end nonsense. End NONSENSE. Let’s use an analogy. The water company’s biggest nightmare comes during each Super Bowl commercial, because millions of people are simultaneously flushing their toilets. This wreaks havoc on the “system.”
I am urging all of you to flush nonsense down the proverbial toilet, at once! If all of you would do this, the foundation of misandry will begin to crumble immediately. Like dominoes, each successive component of misandry will fall down. But, if men will not push the first domino — wining & dining — the last domino — anti-male laws — will NOT fall.
The problem is, most of you will read this, agree with it, and then go back to wining & dining women. Result: Women conclude that men are wimps, and MISANDRY WINS.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I think there’s some confusion here with regard to Jessica’s Law. It takes discresion away from judges who might otherwise give only probation to sexual assaulters of children. A 25-life sentence may be difficult to get but it sends a message that if you do this, your life will be over.
Interestingly enough, Bill’s frequent Radio Factor co-host, Lis Wiehl, recently has a book out called the 51% minority. Basically it says that women still get the short end of the stick when it comes to pay, pregnancy issues, standards of attractiveness, etc.
As you know, Bill will have her on to discuss this and will probably praise the book. Part of that is professional courtesy, but also I’m sure he agrees with a lot of it.
If you ever needed more evidence that he won’t take part in this movement, there it is.
*BTW, I like both Bill and Lis, but you know, don’t agree with them on this issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“I think there’s some confusion here with regard to Jessica’s Law… A 25-life sentence may be difficult to get but it sends a message that if you do this, your life will be over.”
No, I don’t think there is any confusion in my mind over this law. The argument is not, “How tough should we be on sex offenders?” It’s, “How many innocent men are going to be targeted by an overzealous and increasingly police-like state? How many children are truly going to get adequate protection from sexual predators, and in exchange for how much more loss of freedom?” If anyone who supports such a law thinks it is not going to be misused by a thoroughly corrupt state, I think he is kidding himself.
The media pounce on these stories as if a mother needs to be concerned at all hours of the day as to exactly where her children are, yet they completely ignore the fact that government factory schools abuse children mentally, emotionally, and spiritually for 6-7 hours a day, and that mothers are misled into believing that their children are fine in these institutions.
Why, if you do this to a child, is your life not over? Sexual abuse is usually dangerous at an emotional and spiritual level, not physical. Why is the emotional and spiritual abuse of children in government factory schools tolerated, then?
A minimum of 25 years for a conviction of sex offense will land innocent men in prison for 25 years, as California’s “three strikes” laws has landed some men in prison for offenses as light as shoplifting. God- or rather the State- save us from shoplifters, and suspected child molestation.
And after a minimum sentence of 25 years is served by a truly dangerous criminal, he is then free to rape, molest, and/or kill again. Whom are you really protecting? And at what cost? And who gave O’Reilly the ability to speak on behalf of all 50 states???
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Oh, the irony. I first saw Mr. O’Reilly on TV a few years ago when he was reading the mail at the end of the program. He responded to one writer who had said something about the children being taken away (I think) by saying “A man who does not take care of his children is not a manâ€
I was hooked from that point on. I’m even a billoreilly.com Premium Member, lol. What he’s done for the children is excellent, as many in the public arena won’t even discuss this issue. However, I can tell you from someone who has been listening and watching his program for years, it’s unlikely that he will jump aboard the MRA bandwagon.
While libertarian about many issues, he takes a very old-fashioned view when it comes to things like this. It’s my opinion that he views the man’s role as the protector while the mother is the nurturer. I could be wrong of course.
I saw that interview with Mel Feit and it was very telling. One of the main reasons people resist tough legislation on child abuse is the idea of “restorative justiceâ€. It’s the idea that the abuser must be held at nearly the same level as the victim in terms of rehabilitation. It’s contrary to the “punishment fits the crime†system that we have in this country. Also remember that children don’t vote.
I wonder though, what would happen if a woman (18+) was raped (for real) and the judge only gave the perpetrator probation.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Thx for moving my post over Marc. For the rest: I wrote #16 before #14.
First, I’m not sure how you can equate the brutalization of children in a rape or molestation situation to a school system which you feel does not teach children adequate morals or whatever. That’s outrageous.
Second, realize that the 25 (or 15 or 10) year sentence is a mandatory minimum. It could be a life sentence. The perpetrator could be chemically castrated afterwards and/or monitored for the rest of his life. Every year behind bars is another year he (lol, I keep saying he) is kept away from children. The power in Jessica’s Law is the message it sends to the would-be predators.
Third, it’s true that some people will be wrongfully accused, but remember: the severity of the sentence will also make it harder to get a conviction, meaning more evidence will be necessary. And even now, people are certainly accused falsely.
Again, I think it’s a stretch to go from shoplifting to molestation, and the people of California went around the legislature to get their form of Jessica’s Law passed.
O’Reilly is a news analyst, and has a right to talk about the national issue as he sees fit. Also understand that if people did not agree with him, this effort would not be as successful as it has been.
What cost? Personally, I would like to see these guys in labor camps, but that’s not going to happen.
Many in the national “media” aren’t pouncing at all, in fact they’d rather ignore the story.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Until men retake their power, child predators will continue to strike.
While it is true that left-wing states (like Vermont) and left-wing organizations (like NOW and ACLU) give aid and comfort to child predators, I see no difference between the left-wing and the right-wing in one regard: both are content to sell men down the river. And, there is one reason for this: men don’t rebel.
You guys can post 500 more responses about the unfairness of the “system” — and you would be right — but being right solves nothing. Only one thing solves problems: taking action.
Unless and until men stop their pathetic chivalry — which I have been calling benevolent sexism, or BS — NOTHING will change in our society. In fact, I have a new name for chivalry: snivelry. Yes, you can attribute this word to me.
As long as women and eunuch politicians see men engaging in snivelry, they will continue to steamroll them. Flush nonsense down the toilet.
Like charity, manhood begins at home. Prove it.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Like many of us, all my life I’ve heard the views of from men who push for traditional modes of conduct when dealing with women.
I understand where many of them are coming from, as the old frames CAN feel so comfortable. But I also maintain that the man who takes joy in unilaterally wining and dining is probably more interested in posturing and ownership than forming a genuine connection.
My two cents.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I do NOT equate sending your child to government factory schooling with sexual molestation, but they are both indeed forms of emotional and spiritual abuse. Nor would I equate repeatedly screaming at you child with sexual molestation, although that is another form of emotional and spiritual abuse. None of these things should be tolerated.
You are again arguing about wanting tough sentences for people who hurt children, and I am again arguing that your desire to see justice in this world (and there will NEVER be justice for the girl whom the law is named after, not in this world) comes at the expense of innocent men. This, to me, is unacceptable. And your brand of justice will not prevent or stop sexual molestation.
I find Mr. Rudov’s contention that taking the battle to the streets, as it were, in the face of an unjust system, is an intriguing one. I do not take issue with men standing up to women in private. If men and women are truly to be in a peer relationship (whether platonic, familial, or romantic), then that makes sense.
What does not make sense to me is one more draconian law at the Federal level that will undoubtedly be used by corrupt officials, feminized or not, to put innocent men behind bars out of political or popular expediency.
And “the severity of the sentence” making it “harder to get a conviction” will, I believe, end up being one more tool of the corrupt, feminized system against the phantom threat of male power. There is no more severe sentence than the death penalty, and how many innocent men have been found on death row? Male power is not the threat. Naked power wielded by any faulted, flawed, mortal individual is. That is why the Founding Fathers created a government that was supposed to be off our backs.
So perhaps the fight does indeed need to be taken to the streets and kept out of the courts. I do not see how passing a law in all 50 states that will put some innocent men behind bars, a law meant to prey upon the mostly phantom fears of misled moms, can be part of that fight. It seems like more angry, feminized legislation to me.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Two new take-aways for myself and others, Marc:
- your new term “snivelry” (which I put right up there with such gems as “vaginamony” and “reproductive rape” as identifying a men’s rights issue succinctly and articulately).
- “Like charity, manhood begins at home.”
Thanks for providing both…….
February 27th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I have to hand it to Bill O’Reilly: He stood up very well to Lis Wiehl tonight, on The O’Reilly Factor, as she tried to keep a straight face while hyping her new book, The 51% Minority.
Even Bill, who usually defers to women, couldn’t take Wiehl’s nonsense — claiming that women are clawing their way to equality in the USA. Give me a break.
Lis: If women were to gain any more rights in this country, they would have all the rights and would have to become hermaphrodites.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
It seems that South Africa has metamorphosed from a country that hates blacks to one that hates white men.
Misandry has become the national sport of all English-speaking countries.
Watch this videoclip to see what I mean.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
It’s very clear to virtually ANYONE in any Western nation that there are virtually NO significant consequences for expressing hatred of men, particularly white men.
There can be significant consequences for expressing hatred of homosexual men, or men of a racial minority, but never because those individuals are first and foremost MEN.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Once again, I agree with you Mark.
Although, I don’t think “wining and dining” is all that bad. It depends on the reaction of the woman. Does she appreciate, really appreciate, the effort? Or does she expect it? Does she offer to share expenses? There are still some women who truly appreciate the effort, and realize it takes hard earned resources. It is, after all, a way for a man to say “you’re special to me.” Her reaction will tell if you’re special to her, or if she views it as a “right”.
Way too many pampered princesses in the world.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“Although, I don’t think “wining and dining†is all that bad. It depends on the reaction of the woman. ”
I beg to differ, Randyf. “Wining and dining” is “all that bad” since doing so reinforces women’s expectations of entitlement. And there’s no reason to start feeding those expectations by “wining and dining”.
Women have fought hard for “equality”. I believe that they ought to have an equal right to pay, pay, pay on dates.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
fourthwire, I guess I think of the initial “first date”. I have no problem paying, but her reaction will tell me if it’s worth pursueing. Also, I usually limit my “first date” expenditures. A hamberger and coke should mean something. Unless a woman is really struggling, I agree there should be offers to pay for things. It’s up to each individual man to decide if she’s worth it or not.
And some frank talk about money should be part of that first date.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I understand your position, Randyf. My point is that there’s no point whatsoever in paying to wine and dine a woman, first date or otherwise. And I agree that limiting one’s “first date” expenditures is a good idea. I just set my limit lower than you do.
Setting the right precedents with each woman is important. The ones who don’t mind paying for themselves are the only ones worth seeing more than once, anyway, in my opinion.
Once you pay for a woman’s hamburgher and fries, then you have already set a precedent with her. She has the same right to a job that you have. In fact, she can have you fired for even a blatantly false accusation of sexual harrassement on the job. She has superior civil, legal, social, and reproductive rights to you. Let her buy her own hamburgher and fries, I say.