Video: Farce of “Lucky” Weddings

every time you get exposure is a win!!!

this one was a battle…liz’s tone of voice…high pitched and borderline hysteria..draws out the male protector instinct…

Scottkirk,

She drew no protector instinct from me. You must be projecting.

When I said that the man is the minority shareholder in the marriage corporation, Lis said:”Good!” That says it all for me.

when you hear people say “something must have happened to you” for you to think the way you do!!

What they really mean to say is. how did you break out of feminist social control???

Hmmmm. According to both Cavuto and Wiehl, women divorce men because they are “cheating pondscum”. According to Wiehl, it’s good that those “useless” men are minority shareholders in marriage.

Gee, after hearing that, I sure look forward to getting married in Amerika (to an amerikan woman no less).

Uh-huh.

Anybody remember Mr. T?

“I pity da foooo….”

Lis is really beyond redemption as a debating girlfriend.

First, she needs a new haircut. Second, she needs to learn how to debate. Third, she needs another new haircut after the new one after she learns to debate.

Because, this woman is make-you-foam-at-the-mouth S-T-U-P-I-D!

Note how Marc uses his informed (oh crap! … evil patriarchal advantage!!!!) KNOWLEDGE of issues, statistics, research, and popular MSM opinion.

Lis just goes on and on and on and on and on …. with her “Marc you just don’t get it, women are VICTIMS Marc why can’t you see that Marc and all those divorced dads were cheaters and women get the house but they have to still pay for the “dead assets” and of course no woman would ever enter into marriage just to harvest a man’s wealth because we (girlzzzz) just wanna be your soulmate…..

Can somebody please call 911 and simply say — “I’m afraid of her?”

Lis needs an intervention.

Marc needs a superior girlfriend.

Marc… this is starting to look like intellectual masturbation with a willing concubine.

The dialogue is almost porn-like….

Anyway, considering the level of bad luck that most men bring on their own heads when they make the mistake of marrying in Amerika, they might as well have married on 06-06-06.

i wager that wiehl was in the top 10% of her class at law school too!

this was lunch in the park on a sunny afternoon. bada boom bada bing.

Does anyone know if Lis Weihl is really married or was she just stating a hypothetical in the piece?

I feel for the guy if she is. How can he stand to hear her speak?

“Does anyone know if Lis Weihl is really married or was she just stating a hypothetical in the piece?

I feel for the guy if she is. How can he stand to hear her speak?”

Again, I pity da fooo…………….

In their next debate, I fully expect Lis to ask Marc to buy her a drink and finance a Caribbean week-end cruise to discuss their future collaborations….

This woman is beyond silly.

Does she understand that?

For the record, Lis Wiehl is married.

For the record, could you please debate HIM (Lis’ husband) next time?

Suggested topic —

“Girls Gone Stupid.”

(And the men who marry them.)

Her husband is a doctor/lawyer/politician … right?

DadWith2Girls,

You are missing the value of my debates with Lis. The world is getting the man’s point of view — which never happens on TV, anywhere — and seeing feminism exposed.

If I were to debate a man, who probably would agree with me, there would be no difference of opinion, no excitement, no audience, and no ratings.

Marc,

I do indeed get your point.

I fully understand that you are the MRA “canary in the mineshaft” experiment.

You are an incredibly logical and precise debator. And what is astonishing is that you actually LISTEN-TO-LIS, without any easy arrogant dismissal of her views.

You do not need to debate a man. (I did not suggest that…)

You need to debate an intelligent woman.

Lis is — unfortunately — merely “cute.”

I’d love to see you debate the cultural icons of feminism — Gloria, Kim, Wendy, Hillary?

Now that could be pay-per-view territory!

BTW..

I’m not dissing on Lis.

She is like the high school girlfriend you could never quite figure out, and then she married the football quarterback.

Had five kids.

Lis, to be honest, really scares me.

Reminds me of every cheerleader I’ve ever known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis_Wiehl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Sherman

“You are an incredibly logical and precise debater.” That was a nice thing to say to Marc, DadWith2Girls. I also agree with much of what you said otherwise and appreciate the humor.

Marc,

You won again. Lis was all flexed and ready and more annoying than ever but really had no business being in the ring with you because she came unprepared.

A mud-wrestling match might be more interesting. “Now that could be pay-per-view territory!” (Quoting DW2G)

Bravo Marc. You are getting a viewpoint of Men across that is not being heard up till now. It is long overdue for Men to part the Lace Curtain. Who cares who the Skirt is? It could be Rosie O’Gasbag. Lis Wiehl is a demographic and Eye Candy. She is cute and Blonde and Many Women identify with her. If we are going to change the culture of Male Hatred and loosen the strangle hold of the FemNags on the Media. We must Entertain as well as inform. Otherwise we get no opportunity to voice our concerns.

Kim Gandy would never consent to debate Warren Farrell on National TV. She cannot stand up to real reason. Feminism is a massive Fraud. The Empress has no clothes. Even Women in increasing numbers realize that. Christina Hoff Sommers, Phyliss Chessler, Carrie Lukas, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, etc. etc.

Finally our Voices have an outlet. Keep it up Bro. Great work. And it entertains as well as informs. This is what we need. I hope it continues. Next Step would be for Fox to give you your own TV Show.

Lis’s argument: “Haven’t you ever heard of [anti-male stereotype]? I mean , c’mon!”

Marc’s argument: “According to a study X, women do this, and men get stuck with that.” (And I know he’s barely scratching the surface of facts.)

Neil’s job is to stop the debate before Lis looks like Hitler saying “They are Jews, and that’s all you need to know to see they deserve what they get, and the Nazis are the real victim here.”

Maybe there will be one guy in the world who will marry today and divorce later and come out ahead. But with those kind of odds, it’s simple, don’t get married unless you have a vagina.

Thanks Marc for helping to create awareness of the cultural truths with insight and facts and examples.

I may have Feminist Attention Deficit Disorder – I stop paying interest to the over-used “man bad, woman good” perspective. I am incapable to feel compassion for a group of people based on their lies and injustice.

These are the words all women absolutely hate and fear:

“there is absolutely zero benefit for men to get married”.

This needs to be repeated by every male who is on TV and radio.

So that young boys recognize the total bias and danger with this “social arrangement”.

You can’t sell me on the idea that Lis is the best master debator that Fox can pimp out to give some heady dialogue to Marc.

Hell, any of Fox’s bimbo newsreader girlzzz could do the job better.

Lis has LOST every round with Marc, yet she keeps coming back!

That is a rigged contest. It lacks imagination.

(Truly a feminist sham shuck ‘n jive game…)

If you lose and lose and lose…. do the honorable thing, and step aside and let another gladiator (gladiatrix?) enter the arena.

Lis has to go. Preferably, by resigning of her own accord.

Though she might try a subtle tactic and come out as her real brunette…

Match the carpet with the drapes…. rhetorically speaking…

Yeah, that would make her seem more intelligent.

Might buy her a few more debates…..

I think Lis is doing a great job. The more she speaks the more people will realize the fallacy that is Feminism.

I find it disgusting that you would celebrate this woman’s public humiliation.

Where is your sense of Chivalry?

“These are the words all women absolutely hate and fear:

“there is absolutely zero benefit for men to get married”.”
——————————————————————-
Darn right. Whenever I repeat that type of statement in front of women, they completely freak out.

I usually say something like this after getting laid.

If I’m not in the mood and I want to see some fireworks, that type of statement is good for breaking the ice.

i am 59. i regularly have women ask me if i will get married again ( 3 times divorced ). in addition, they also ask what i would want in a women. my list of 5 criterion i use in the decision to “date”.

1) does she believe oparah and dr. phil are honest
2) is she pro-life or pro-abortion
3) does she smoke
4) does she badmouth her ex or other men
5) will she pay her own way

any one of the 5 is a deal breaker.

sm777…..i also enjoy using the “no benefit to marriage for men” line when confronted with a shrew. they usually become apoplectic. fun to watch actually.

i know, its not a nice way to conduct myself, but i am just a weak neanderthal, mired in my own insensitive maleness.

I use this phrase in some form to help flush out feminists in a room. Though feminists consider husband and fathers evil, many feminists are still attracted to advantages marriage provides them.

“there is absolutely zero benefit for men to get married.”

A man needs marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

DadWith2Girls:

I hope you are joking about the chivalry comment. If you believe in chivalry, you are inviting massive trouble into your life. Good luck with that.

Listen to Tom Leykis read and discuss for one hour my article: “Chivalry Died in the Garden of Eden.” (If you do not have Windows Media Player, CLICK HERE)

A woman has equality; that means she has the right to say anything and behave any way she wants — and then deal with the resultant consequences. This is the life of an adult. If Lis wants to trash men on the public airwaves, she deserves the consequences.

If a man feels he must protect a woman from the realities and pains and costs of equality, it means he is insecure and doesn’t want her to have equality. Unfortunately, most male lawmakers, DAs, and judges are in this camp — which is why they constantly kill our civil rights.

Marc,

“I hope you are joking about the chivalry comment.”

It’s too bad you have not read me as much as I have read you.

I-R-O-N-Y my comrade. I will be less subtle in the future. (Though that usually gets me banned…)

Ah well, you have Lis to deal with. My problems are trivial in comparison.

But then again, I’m not trying to sell any books. Or my brand.

(Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

I agree with you that… ” A woman has equality..”

What She lacks is a sense of justice.

Take Lis on about her comfort with seeing men debased, disgraced, and legally disenfranchised.

Ask her how she feels about her fellow cheerleaders — the elite high school skanks — being distressed about not finding husbands. Their “dreams?”

It’s her nonsequitors that reveal Lis’ true nature.

It’s a long shot Marc —

I’m asking you to provoke Lis into a momentary realization of her vacuous self.

She’ll smile… when you do that.

Another outstanding job Marc. And I’m not the only who believes this. I just voted and you are once again winning the debate according to the FoxFans poll: You are beating Wiehl again 61% to 39%.

Lis’ journalistic resume for what it’s worth –

• COLUMN ARCHIVE
• Supreme Court: Landmark Decision Highlights Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Two Wrinkles on the Tanning Addiction: Skin Cancer and Lawsuits
• The Skinny on Job Discrimination
• Lis on Law: Questions Answered!
• Wedding Norms Challenged as Women Question Changing Names

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287723,00.html

Lis Wiehl joined FOX News Channel (FNC) as a legal analyst in October 2001. Currently an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law, Wiehl also serves as a legal commentator on National Public Radio’s All Things Considered.

Prior to joining FNC, Wiehl served as a legal analyst for KIRO-TV (CBS). From November 2000-February 2001, she provided legal analysis for NBC News. Before that, Wiehl held the position of principal deputy chief minority investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Judiciary. Additionally, from 1990-1995, she served as an executive assistant at the United States Attorney’s office. Wiehl began her career as a litigation associate for Perkins Coie law firm.

Wiehl received her undergraduate degree from Barnard College in 1983 and received her Master of Arts in Literature from the University of Queensland in 1985. In addition, she earned her Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School in 1987. She is also the author of The 51% Minority — How Women Still Are Not Equal and What You Can Do About It.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77671,00.html
—

Selective opinions about Lis’ two books —

“The saddest part of this sorry book is the fact that it pretends to be written by an experienced trial lawyer. Ms. Wiehl has less experience at trying cases than most first year district attorneys. Wiehl has an amazing ability to sell herself. The problem is that there is very little to be gotten from such shallow waters. Worse still is the utter irrelevancy of so-called “lawyer lessons” given that lawyers suffer inordinately high divorce rates, alcoholism, depression and other stress-related illnesses. The best advice may well be that lawyers should tend to their garden and leave the rest of us to learn our own lessons. Now that is a winning strategy!”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0345469208/sr=1-1/qid=1183930222/ref=cm_rev_next/103-7756070-8931066?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11&qid=1183930222&sr=1-1

—

A Dim Bulb Speaks, June 8, 2007
By K. Keyes “git player” (Longmont, CO) – See all my reviews

“I’ve seen Lis on Fox debating Marc Rudov and others and she’s just not quick on her feet. She enters with a pre-planned argument and is quickly off balance when it deviates. If she were a good enough Manhattan lawyer she wouldn’t bother being on TV, but she gives good face.

I wouldn’t want her representing me in small claims court, let alone 51% of the population in the “Feminism 2.0″ movement.

The fact that she thinks she can perpetuate the myth that women make less money and are thus treated unfairly in a typically lawyer-esque fashion, with vague suppositions backed up with little data, gives one more of a hint of her grrrl power rather than actual brains. To her this would be a preponderance of the evidence for an all female jury to decide the verdict. “We find the defendant, every man that’s ever been born, guilty as charged!”

Woooooeee! You go girl!”

http://www.amazon.com/51%25-Minority-Women-Still-Equal/dp/0345469216/ref=bxgy_cc_b_img_b/103-7756070-8931066?ie=UTF8&qid=1183930222&sr=1-1

—

My opinion remains the same.

Marc needs a better girlfriend to facilitate his master debating.

Lis is just jerking him off….

You know, DadWith2Girls, I think you are on to something.

The show would indeed be more interesting if Marc had a more worthy adversary.

Good call.

http://www.perkel.com/pbl/married/index.htm

Don’t Get Married!

It’s a Lie – It’s a Trap
Marriage isn’t what you think it is. It’s a license you give the government that allows greedy opportunistic lawyers to steal everything you own. Here in America there are a lot of people making a lot of money splitting up relationships hunting for people like you to suck you dry.

DW2G and Mike LaSalle,

Regarding having a more-worthwhile adversary, I have two comments:

1. 39% of America believes Lis is right on. Yesterday, I spoke with a woman who, with her friends, is part of that 39%. They don’t think Lis is at all bitchy in her behavior with me.

2. If FNC presents me with a logical, reasonable, even-tempered adversary, she cannot, by definition, be a feminist. Moreover, she will tend to agree with me; there will be no debate and no ratings.

A little lesson in TV 101: good television is all about divisiveness, which yields ratings. So far, the “Marc vs. Lis” series has been a surprise success. Ratings, ratings, ratings. If people don’t like it, they will turn it off. They are turning it ON!

Lis is a prototypical feminist and the PERFECT adversary. She uses all the feminist touchstones, talking points, and lies — and becomes overly emotional and dramatic. I couldn’t dream of a better adversary. She helps make women look bad and men look good.

I would second (or third or fourth, as the case may be) the motion that you find a more worthy adversary, but I doubt you’d find one. Lis clearly, clearly lost this debate, and yet, still 39% of viewers are voting for her. That’s just sad. Of course, part of the problem for Lis is that she’s often stuck with, quite simply, the wrong position. Last week, the Trojan condoms ad was clearly sexist, and the “Lighten up!” argument simply doesn’t fly coming from feminists who are traditional quite humorless. This week, she’s stuck with the argument that men actually benefit as much or more than women from marriage, which is simply not true. It’s just not, there’s no way around that. She loses the debates simply because she’s forced (or chooses) to take untenable positions.

And calling a house, the one asset virtually guaranteed to appreciate in value a “dead asset” should have resulted in a loss via instant disqualification. Seriously, do 39% of the viewers really think that women get “stuck” with a house after the divorce? That the guy, who just spent who knows how many years paying for the house and will likely be forced to continue paying on the house even though he no longer lives there, as well as for his own much smaller apartment, is the one who benefits from this situation? If the house is such a burden and a “dead asset,” why ask for it in the divorce proceedings? Seriously, the fact that even 39% of the viewers think she won this debate saddens me.

If it is considered a “dead asset”, then it should be liquidated with the balance of debt or profit split evenly between parties.

It is not a “dead asset”. It is typically the most valuable and important investment a man can make….and it is typically handed over to the woman in divorce.

Liz’ referring to a house as a “dead asset” is a lie.
Par for the feminist course!!!

Rizzo,

I have three requests for you:

1. Reread my tutorial on TV 101 (see comment #34)
2. Define more-worthy adversary
3. Articulate your objective in replacing Lis as my adversary.

Marc,

1. Quit being condescending. I read it. I don’t need to reread it. I didn’t much need to read it in the first place. I get it. We all get it. It ain’t that hard to get.
2. I have no strict definition. In fact, I don’t really care that much who your opponent is. My only point was that Lis is an awful debater. That’s all. Her best (perhaps only) arguments over the past two weeks were to tell you to “lighten up.” I never took a debate class in college, so I can only assume that such “arguments” are not exactly considered to be of the highest quality.
3. I have no objective. Again, I don’t really care. On the one hand, it would be nice to see you win a debate by actually having the arguments (which you do) and the ability to articulate them (which I haven’t been convinced of yet) on your side (Lis has neither) rather than simply winning by the equivalent of a forfeit as a result of having a such lousy opponent. There’s little satisfaction to be gained from a forfeit. To put it another way, it’s more satisfying to beat the Red Sox than the Devil Rays. On the other hand, a win is still a win, so whatever…Congratulations, you win. You beat Lis.

Anyway, I just think Lis is a poor debater. Case closed. I didn’t really put a great deal of thought into the implications of replacing her, nor do I care to.

Lis is a poor debater because she has jack and shit to work with. Anyone else would have the same bad material.

Which is good for our Mr. Rudov. No matter who is in the other video box, he has a target-rich environment.

i like to watch wiehl when rudov is talking ( head bobbing back and forth, goofy looking grin, etc ), and to watch rudov when wiehl is talking ( head still, listening to the other person intent on formulating his coming response ). not much to figure out. he speaks from knowledge and confidence in his material. she speaks inane generalities hoping to cover up her inability to create responses while he is talking. just like tennis, i wager she gets paid just as much as rudov.

donnieboy57, get real.

Wiehl (whale?) is a woman. Thanks to “affirmative action” she probably gets paid more.

Maybe her head bobbing back and forth, complete with goofy looking grin, is because she had too much to drink before beginning the show.

Mr. Rizzo,

You have no definition or objective, you put no thought into replacing Lis, yet you commented anyway. Case closed.

Good god Marc, would you relax?

Several people here commented on getting rid of Lis. Why? Because she’s not very good. End of story. Basically, if you can’t see it, they were complimenting you by stating that she’s not at your level. Do you always argue with people who are complimenting you? Or do you think you’re a lousy debater as well?

Besides, it was just a half-serious remark (not every comment has to have hours of thought to back it up). Again, I do not care at all whether or not Lis is replaced. I just think she is a lousy debater. Also, in case you didn’t notice (which it seems apparent that you didn’t) I also added that I don’t think you find a more worthy adversary anyway.

So, in summary, you’re making a big deal out of nothing. Case closed.

Marc-

my two cents. I would not change a thing. Lis provides ample opportunity for you to expose feminist hypocrisy, feminist lies, and feminarcissm. That is her role and you use her well. In Gonzman’s parlance-a target rich environment. You and Lis have good chemistry in your debating presence and for the masses that need entertainment to keep their interest, I believe this suffices. But the real value is the cluster bombs you can fire off whenever Lis provides you with the previous said opportunities. That is how a shift in thinking can occur with the viewers and THAT is where the real value lies. Posters here and across MND have reached a point where they have nothing better to do but discuss endless minutia instead of being real doers themselves. For them that is easier than taking action while at the same time allowing them to believe that they have actually accomplished something. You don’t need any Monday morning quarterbacking.

btw-you are still up 61% v 39%