Hillary Cannot Be President
The Unfairer Sex
Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to become our next president. Why? Because she exclusively represents a gender that doesn’t want or believe in equality. She promotes herself as a champion for women, and, therefore, doesn’t represent men. This biased leader of the “unfairer” sex — a gender always in search of special rights and privileges — doesn’t have what it takes to lead our nation.
Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, also can’t be president. He launched his Women for Richardson effort with pledges to support pay equity, provide limited Social Security credit for family leave, and appoint judges who would uphold abortion rights. Said Richardson: “This is not a constituency issue. This is not an issue of women being a special interest. Women are the majority in this country. What I’m doing here is addressing the interests of the majority.”
Mature, emancipated, fair-minded adults take umbrage at condescension and handouts. But, women are not taking umbrage. Why not? They don’t really want equality. Women don’t grasp that they diminish themselves by seeking and accepting special treatment, from politicians or employers or boyfriends or husbands. It suits women to feign weakness and fragility — because wimpy men fall for it. Alas, a woman who plays the victim card will indeed experience the occasional victory, but it will be Phyrric: she will lose the respect of others and of herself.
Women enjoy double standards and aren’t satisfied having the upper hand in the laws governing reproduction, safe haven, abortion, maternity fraud, paternity fraud, divorce, custody, alimony, child support, assault, battery, restraining orders, domestic violence, rape, and presumption of innocence. They want more, and they get more. Gains in rights for women mean losses in rights for men. It’s a zero-sum game. Equality be damned. The Constitution be damned.
Name one presidential candidate who’s promised to prosecute the next woman who falsely accuses a man of rape. You can’t. Remember Crystal Gail Mangum, who feloniously accused three Duke University lacrosse athletes of rape? They were totally innocent, and yet she’s a free woman. Outrageous. Which presidential candidate promised to prosecute women like Kim Basinger who alienate children from their fathers? None. Which candidate promised to prosecute Katie Couric for slapping a male subordinate in the workplace? None. Not one presidential candidate gives a damn about or represents men. America is a gynocracy.
Princess Academy
What is the genesis of our gynocracy? Women aren’t born believing they’re entitled; they learn entitlement at Princess Academy, through a lifetime of courses. These courses are available within and without the family — in school, on TV, on the radio, in the movies, in singles bars, in magazines, and in “female-ly” courts. They are offered to grown women, as part of continuing education, and to little girls, as the introduction to vaginal manipulation.
In July, NBC teamed up with Money magazine to teach women how to land billionaires. And, within the past week or so, MSN Money offered a female-taught tutorial to men on how to get a second date by paying for the first one. Are men stupid enough to justify and validate these courses? You bet. Otherwise, the “madrasahs of misandry” wouldn’t exist. And, they will pay handsomely for their stupidity. After all, it’s no coincidence that “court” is at the root of courting and courtesan.
Despite graduating college at a 33% higher rate than men; despite earning more money than men in New York City, Chicago, and Dallas; despite owning the preponderance of rights and privileges in all of America; women perceive themselves as the downtrodden. This is a vestigial emotion from the days when daddy never said no.
Women protested when ladies’ nights were outlawed in California, Hawaii, Iowa, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and are outraged that the same fate might befall New York. Princess Academy graduates like Maureen Dowd — who penned Are Men Necessary? — reject equality, proving that feminism is a hypocritical joke.
Princess Academy has a panoply of courses for little girls, too. SalesGenie, an online purveyor of sales leads, is the latest advertiser to teach that fathers (men) have all the financial responsibility. In a new TV commercial that CBS showed frequently this past weekend during the 89th PGA Championship in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a little girl laments that her father, a salesman, didn’t make very much money last year. But, mommy saved him by buying a subscription to SalesGenie. Now, the little girls tells us, her daddy can get more sales leads, close more business — and make more money.
Is it inappropriate for a little girl to be involved in her father’s finances? Yes. Is it perverse to use a little girl to manipulate men into buying a financial product? Yes. Is it strange that women, who also are sales executives, aren’t targeted customers in this SalesGenie spot? Yes. What do children think when they watch this sexist SalesGenie commerical? That men have one purpose in life: being the default providers for women.
Damsel in Distress
If women are fragile, dainty, delicate, entitled princesses, they’re unfit to be president. If women need special rights and privileges, they’re inferior and unfit to be president. If they don’t mind watching their sons, fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, cousins, uncles, and friends lose civil rights, they’re unfit to be president. Alas, many men, in the name of political correctness and notwithstanding the above, will vote for Hillary, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Until women act equal, they aren’t equal, and we cannot elect them to the top job of our country. How will we know when women are equal? When ladies’ night is outlawed in every state and no woman complains. When women stop demanding and expecting to be wined & dined on dates. When articles about how to marry billionaires cease to exist. When alimony is abolished. When mothers stop getting automatic child custody. When unwed mothers are no longer entitled to child support. When women who falsely accuse men of rape are imprisoned for 25 years. When politicians no longer have special campaign platforms and promises for women.
Newsflash: Hell will freeze over before women act like equals. Why? Because the typical woman is insecure and, regardless of her education or occupation or age or wealth, likes to be a damsel in distress; the typical man is insecure and, regardless of his education or occupation or age or wealth, feels compelled to rescue her. Ultimately, however, he will pay a huge price for his insecurity: loss of cash, kids, house, and civil rights.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
It’s shameful enough that male candidates are pandering and condescending to women, totally ignoring men in the process. But, Hillary’s candidacy is doubly bad because she’s a woman running as the “champion for women.” Adult women in a gynocracy don’t need a champion. A genuine, fair, balanced president must be the champion for all citizens. Hillary cannot offer this, and Hillary cannot be our president.
When women demonstrate that they are fully equal to men — take the same lumps, pay the same prices, and suffer the same consequences in life as men — then they will be qualified to occupy the Oval Office. Until then, they can keep seeking special treatment and keep getting disrespect.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 60+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
August 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
The same argument may have been made in 1933 against a National Socialist German Workers Party member, yet he was supported by corporations, and he used nationalism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Communism to win popularity.
Under Hillary Rodham-Clinton’s leadership and a liberal House and Senate, men will soon experience their own form of holocaust – more government rules against men, more courts and agencies, more police, and or more prisons.
If hate crime legislation is possible against blacks and gays, its possible that disagreeing with your girlfriend or wife will land you in jail (oh…that’s the Violence Against Women’s Act). I suspect that things may go from worse to insane.
Woman worship – lust, woman rights in abortion, divorce, work, family, among other things – for the last forty years have cost men too much in liberty, finances, jobs, family, social services, and respect.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The time to start the Impeach Hillary movement is now. It will dovetail beautifully with the men’s movement.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Marc writes……. “She promotes herself as a champion for women, and, therefore, doesn’t represent men.”
This is exactly the point
This is exactly the argument to be made all the way until November 4, 2008 7pm Honolulu time.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“She promotes herself as a champion for women, and, therefore, doesn’t represent men.”
Thats the resistance mantra against hillary clinton!!!
Simple but potent!!
August 12th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“What I’m doing here is addressing the interests of the majority.”
So, this Richardson fellow, is he going to introduce laws just for the benefit of us white folks? Special privileges for those of us who don’t need wheelchairs?
August 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
excellent!!
Bravo!!
MORE!!!
August 12th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
i feel sorry for married men come jan 2009. can you imagine waking up the day after hildibeast gets elected potus? you walk out of the bedroom and there is your wife standing in the kitchen with a silly grin on her face. you say “good morning honey”. kaboom!
August 12th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Warren Farrel got alot of publicity for his books and reached alot of people when he ran for governor of california!!
Mr. Rudov..Have you considered throwing in youre hat for president??
August 12th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Hillary Clinton is HARDLY insecure. On the contrary, she borders on the same meglomania as her husband.
The real reason she should not be president is because she AND her husband, already ran the country, and are now trying to take over the world. They are socialist/communists/fascists…and as everyone agrees, they will bring more feminists to rule than we can stomach.
“They” had their two terms. The founders would have not granted them another.
Their policies of ignoring the growing threat of Islamic fanatics wanting to kill us is one of the reasons we got attack on 9/11. Bill Clinton deserves more of that blame than Bush.
How many times did they ignore the problem? And not to mention the damage they have done to our military.
The reason that the men running for office are so submissive to the women, is because there are more women in America than men. Because of economics, they are now in the workforce.
Whether equal or not, you cannot ignore them.
If the men do not want Hillary to be elected, then they WILL need the women’s help.
That’s just a fact, no matter what you think of the female sex.
Let’s hope enough women hate Hillary enough to go out and vote against her.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Well, before anyone bothers to vote, just remember the term “electronic voting machine”.
Why do we have them? For convenience? Do you really believe that?
An election based on paper and an open (not secret) ballot is very difficult and easy to rig.
However, rigging a “secret” and electronic ballet is an inexpensive piece of cake.
The presidential election is rigged and if the new world order crowd wants their shill, either another Bush-Dictatorship Warfare State clone or Hillary-Dictatorship Welfare State clone, then that is what will be in the president’s office after the next election.
That is, unless at least one person in every voting district initiates a referendum on the electronic voting machines (in other words, rigged elections) and a return to paper ballots.
If the voting booth you use has a nice, convenient touch screen, do you really think your vote is being counted?
August 12th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Excuse me, I have a correction.
I meant to type this: An election based on paper and an open (not secret) ballot is very difficult and NOT easy to rig.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Joyanna Adams,
I never said Hillary Clinton is insecure, but she is. Any person who hangs onto a cheating spouse is insecure. Also, Hillary Clinton is riding on Bill’s coattails — she is where she is because of him.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Too bad Republicans don’t have anybody who would do anything differently. That is why Republicans refuse to discuss social issues. They know they would alienate the mainstream and conservative base more thoroughly than ignoring the issues entirely.
This is why Republicans will lose in 2008 unless they change. They will get clobbered on social issues. Democrats have seized on social issues as “moral issues”, and are proposing the customary solutions. Republicans have nothing to say about this.
I am working on something to change the shape of GOP politics. If all goes well, I will be making an important announcement at the DC Rally on August 18th and 19th.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Prediction:
There is some evidence that Hillary might be a lesbian (denied by recent biographers). Back in the 1990’s, a person I worked with in Washington who was keeping tabs on her said that when she was planning “Hillarycare”, she spent a lot of time in private enclaves with Molly Yard, Bella Abzug, and other well-known lesbians.
We know Bill spends a lot of time in other pastures. Nobody knows what Hillary does. In my analysis, it appears that Hillary has the burden of proof here.
I am predicting this will become a major issue if Hillary ends up on the ticket. the GOP is saving it for the right time as a nuclear option.
Prediction #2: We will see an Obama-Clinton ticket. I have very good reasons for making this prediction that I won’t get into here. It mostly has to do with DNC party dynamics, and the alignment of groups supporting the two along race and sex, and perceived problems. In the end, Hillary would take the VP slot because she could do far more damage in her favorite areas without anyone noticing than if she was in the pilot’s seat and facing constant public scrutiny on the broad array of all contemporary issues. Obama would take care of everything else, while handing social issues to Hillary for her sole attention. In this situation, we will see an unbearable wall of sound coming out of the VP office about everything from domestic violence to day care and health care and all those “moral issues” that Repubicans still refuse to talk about.
I might do an article on it if I’m in the mood to waste my time writing about nothing of great import.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Hillary stayed married no out of insecurity but out of cold calculating planning. As the divorcee of a president, she would not have a chance in hell of gaining presidency as divorce is frowned apon and she would have left the circles she needed to get elected. By sticking with Bill she showed many ‘positive’ traits, and kept all their connections.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:24 am
We need an edit button-”not out of insecurity but out of cold calculated planning”, is what that first sentance should say.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:28 am
People are notorious for block voting. That is to say, women will typically vote for a woman reguardless of her platform. Blacks will vote for a black for the same reason. And yes, whites and males will vote AGAINST for the same reasons…
When you see women interviewed being asked, “will you vote for Hitlary?” Many say yes. When asked why? They claim that “it is time for change”. What change would that be? the lack of a penis in the Oval Office I would guess. Because Hitlary is no different than any other leftist democrat with the exception of her plumbing…
If course, I have heard rumors that her plumbing isn’t so different either but I digress…..
TMOTS
August 13th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Boycott AmeriKa. Tune in, Turn on, Drop out. Let the nucking futs fight the next conflaguration themselves. Oops. Forgot, there will be no more wars once Hitlary gets in.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:18 am
It’s to bad Hillary is going to be president. Sorry sports fans but there are more women in this country than men. Why do you think Republicrats and Democrans all pander to females?
That is how a democracy works, mob rule, get over it and plan ahead because it is going to degenerate into chaos. As you can see already.
It get worse with every election cycle. It’s contest to see who can promise the most and we already know who is going to pay the price. I’m just surprised Hillary hasn’t floated the man tax idea yet.
She must be saving that for October.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:54 am
David Usher,
Rumors about Hillary’s sexual orientation have circulated for years; it’s amazing that nobody has been able or willing to confirm anything. At this point, nobody would be surprised. Her marriage to Bill certainly isn’t about love — THAT is for sure.
Regarding an Obama/Clinton ticket, that would be perfect. Obama is scared of his wife and has no experience. Hillary scares everybody — including the eunuchs and lesbians who support her.
The Republicans are the biggest eunuchs in politics. They never support men.
Bottom line: our entire system is gynocratic. This election is the opportunity for men to make themselves heard. Don’t let ANY politician get away with ignoring men. Write. Call. Make noise. Put men on the agenda.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Marc-
good topic. I posted the following on Ray Blumhorst’s blog on August 11th and it is more applicable to your column here, so at the risk of appearing lazy I will simply copy and paste it here:
Ray-
nice read.
Is it unwise for a man to marry in this climate of misandry?
Yes.
I’ll extend what is also unwise in this climate of misandry:
Being a man living in America.
My prediction: The next President of the United States will be a misandrist Marxist.
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The next election is going to see a HUGE shift in historical voting patterns-and more importantly a HUGE shift in voter turnout.
The Republican’s are gonna get clobbered.
Females under the age of 30 represent a huge demographic. The are more educated and in many cases better off economically then males under 30. They historically vote in very low numbers. Not this time. They are gonna vote in HUGE numbers. Blacks also a low turnout group and Hispanics also a low turnout group, will vote in large numbers for HRC (and her VP pick-Obama). Many girly men will vote for HRC. All gays and lesbians will vote for HRC. HRC is not even bothering to try and get the heterosexual white male vote-married or otherwise. She does not need them. And she won’t be THEIR President when elected. Even a fair number of Republican’s will vote fore HRC, at least the ones who don’t stay home on Election Day. Her lead will more than offset-far more than offset- a potential Ralph Nader entry into the race. My prediction.
A misandrist Marxist in the Presidential office is bad news for men and boys. Really bad news. Reforming marriage to reassert man’s place in society at this late date in history is pissing in the wind.
Only a complete social collapse of America offers any hope for men.
And THAT will come after a HRC Presidency. Perhaps as long as two generations after. Perhaps sooner.
So my unsolicated recommendation is this: get used to living in a country that will make the last 30 years for men look like a walk in the park. Or find another country to live in.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I agree that blocks will vote, blocks!…not a typo, blocks of blacks, blocks of gals, etc. Sadly there were those who chose Gore because he kissed Tipper a certain way…great CV for the job eh?
Joy, an occasional hat tip to valid generalizations about the sistas would be helpful…but being defensive and moreso since the EG fiasco is painting you into a corner. I’m not sure why no one is saying that, so I mustered the noive! Oy Vey!
August 13th, 2007 at 10:55 am
BTW, Marc… I know I’ma little off topic here, but since it apears you are reading this thread….. I wanted to say I think you’re doing a great job with your weekly spats with Lis Wiehl on Fox News with Neil Cavuto.
My own personal opinion….I think the key to being successful on TV in these debates is to come up with sound-byte types of phrases to repeat over and over again as, for example, you did on the gender pay issue. When Lis said women only earn 72% of what men do, your response was something like “If that’s true, Lis, why would anyone hire a man?” What a great response! You got right to the point without being wordy and gave the viewers something to walk away with that would stick in their minds. “Why would anyone hire a man?” I could see people walking way from that debate and asking themselves that very question. “Yeah… why would anyone hire a man?” I think this is key. It works best when you encapsulate your arguments in short, easy to remember sound bytes whenever possible.
Another tactic you might want to consider using in your debates….again, this is my little vision….is to use feminists’ own inaccurate statistics against them when possible.
For example, in another of your debates with Lis, you discussed the question of “Who Benefits From Marriage?”
I think one response from our side could have been …”If it’s true that women only earn 72% of what men do, then the man only gets 72 cents on the dollar in his new partner whereas she gets 100 cents on the dollar in hers. Obviously marriage marriage benefits women more.” Maybe you could find a better way to say this… but the point is to nail them with their own statistics.
Again…Great job.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:49 am
David Usher said, “Too bad Republicans don’t have anybody who would do anything differently. That is why Republicans refuse to discuss social issues. They know they would alienate the mainstream and conservative base more thoroughly than ignoring the issues entirely.
“This is why Republicans will lose in 2008 unless they change. They will get clobbered on social issues. Democrats have seized on social issues as “moral issues”, and are proposing the customary solutions. Republicans have nothing to say about this.”
Absolutely right, David.
Other than Ron Paul, Republicans have nobody with real conservative principles, and they haven’t had anyone who really understands that politics isn’t a country club gentlemen’s pursuit but rather a back-alley knife fight since Lee Atwater (remember Michael Dukakis in that tank? Priceless).
This Republican Administration has deservedly screwed the Party for the next 2-3 election cycles. Nobody the Party is likely to offer will be anything other than Hillary lite.
I’ll vote, but It’ll be for a third party
August 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Actually Mitt Romney is a committed social conservative. He isn’t quite the “flip-flopper” the NY Times and CNN are attempting to label him as. He sees clearly an opening in expressing his social positions. He would appoint strict constructionist conservatives to the Supreme Court (extremely important), he will be pro-military and pro-War on Terror and he is a small government Republican. Romney is out in front in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls. The national poll results are irrelevant. The ticket is likely Guiliani-Romney with Guiliani at the top. It gives Guiliani credibility with social conservatives while still being able to pull in moderates and Independents. But it will still be hard to beat HRC-Obama.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Marc Rudov said:
“The Republicans are the biggest eunuchs in politics. They never support men.”
Newt Gingrich turned out to be an Alvin Toffler Third Way socialist. That is why the Welfare Reform bill he got passed included the poison pill of permanent license suspension for those unable to comply with patently unreasonable child support orders.
Here in the late great State of Washington, the Republicans rode the Gingrich-Limbaugh wave into the supermajority control of the Washington Legislature. However, in 1997, they threw a huge part of their constituancy, noncustodial parents who were burned by the Support Schedule law passed in 1988, under the bus when they enacted a WorkFirst Bill that included license suspension for noncustodials unable to comply with the unreaqsonable child support orders, without fixing the support schedules so we can comply with the orders.
Did not take long for the Washington Republicans to pay the price.
Democrats rule the government in Olympia and will continue to rule until the Republicans grow testicles and champion those who have been burned by this evil system.
Or until the Democrats and their allies in the courts and the bureaucracy provoke a violent reaction as tyrants often do.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Actually the Republican’s will not grow testicles until the men who want change provide the political coverage (and therefore provide the political capital) for them first. The Democrats don’t worry about offending men-the females give them political coverage; the Democrats don’t worry about offending white European-descendent males specifically-they have the Blacks, Hispanics, etc. to provide political coverage; they don’t worry about offending business-they have a huge constituency dependent on high taxes e.g., government employees and those dependent on big government; on and on. The democrats have many special interests that are vocal and provide political coverage. They also represent political capital for the Democrats.
When the hell have the Republicans ever heard anything about men from the men themselves?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Said Richardson: “This is not a constituency issue. This is not an issue of women being a special interest. Women are the majority in this country. What I’m doing here is addressing the interests of the majority.”
So, I guess Richardson will be “addressing the interests” of white people next? Yeah, sure.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Take Action — Contact Your Congressmen
============================
US Senate
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
US House
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
August 13th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Women are a majority? Sure, by about 1-2%. Big deal. It’s almost meaningless.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Komik,
Meaningless? Women comprise at least 54% of the electorate.
Think about the wintertime, when we get the outdoor temperature on TV. We get it as the absolute temperature and as the temperature with wind-chill factor.
Women comprise 54% of the electorate in absolute terms. But, with the feminist factor, that number rises to 64%-74%. If you don’t agree, look around. How much of the national agenda is based on men’s needs? None of it. Quite chilling, isn’t it!
Big deal, my ass.
Now, what are YOU going to do about it?
August 13th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I came across this quote from a speech that Hillary made in 1998 at a domestic violence forum in El Salvador:
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
This is the woman who wants to be in charge of the armed forces, the people who she says suffer in death less than the women who survive.
Read the full speech here:
PDF file (opens to the page containing the exact quote above, highlighted in yellow):
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/resources/speeches/Clinton-Hillary/HillaryClintonDVSanSalvador.pdf
Web (original source):
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
August 13th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Republicans will get clobbered not because of Hillary, but because Republicans have no message on the great social problems of the day. Three-quarters of Poverty and Health Care is associated with non-marriage. Democrats have siezed on these issues as being “moral issues”, but are taking them in the wrong direction. Republicans are merely watching the parade pass them by.
My next article, submitted to a national magazine, goes into this in great detail and provides Republicans with the answers. If they don’t bite, then they will get what they deserve in 2008.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
“Only a complete social collapse of America offers any hope for men.”
Ha!
Man, I’ve never seen such a bunch of terrified little boys. You really believe this crap? You really think white males somehow have it bad, because of Hillary, or that she’ll go after you if she gets elected? Seriously? You haven’t even begun to know how hard life can get if you think she’s threatening to you or your tiny manhood. You aren’t even that important. You don’t even know why she scares you.
Damn, seriously. Grow up. Learn how to be a real man.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Smogmonster:
* “little boys”
* “tiny manhood”
* “grow up”
* “real man”
If that isn’t a fine example of anti-male shaming tactics, I don’t know what is!
August 13th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Hey Smog-
you must be the product of the inner city public school system. Just because the loser minority community you come from needs public assistance simply to friggin’ survive don’t complain to us about your problems. It’s not my problem your mother was an ignorant crack whore.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Women will never be equal to men. God made it so. We are to be beside him and help him. Men, notice I said “beside”, not underneath you.
Both genders have got to wake up and realize who they are in the eyes of God, then perhaps our nation will heal.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
OK, Felicia Benamon, get me a beer and darn my socks while I watch football. Then, you can start cooking me a fine meal. After that, I’ll decide what I want next.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Marc, she wasn’t volunteering to be your doormat.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Bart,
Our country is governed by the Constitution, not a church. Religion has no place in a discussion about civil laws. Arrests and lawsuits are not predicated on deity but on codes and statutes. Those who bring religion into such a discussion prove that they cannot argue law.
Women use the we’re-not-equal-to-men crap all the time to convince eunuch lawmakers that they need MORE rights and privileges. That’s how they’ve succeeded so far in getting all these rights and privileges, and eunuchs like you fall for it every time.
Two observations:
1) You have no sense of humor (I was making a point)
2) You are a classic rescuer. There is no need for you to defend a woman. She’s a big girl and can defend herself.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Marc, I am not a eunuch. Calling me one shows your lack of sense. Your problem is you don’t know the difference between a woman who is a feminist and one who is a more traditional woman.
You are trying to narrow the debate to merely legal issues. But without understanding the true nature and proper role of men and women, the problem will never be solved no matter what laws are passed.
You seem to think women are just men with different plumbing.
Marc, I know you were making a point, but it was a stupid one. One of the reasons we have feminism in the first place is because guys like you don’t know how to treat a real woman with love and respect. You don’t seem to believe in love. Your whole goal seems to be getting laid.
I don’t rescue feminists, so I don’t “fall for it every time”. But I haven’t given up on rescuing real women and I’ll do it when I feel like it, and the Marc Rudov’s of the world won’t be telling me what to do.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Marc,
What an intense and thought provoking article, one of your best I think. But then again, all your articles are great because you ARE a no-nonsense man.
I can’t decide which part of this particular article is my favorite but you are most certainly King in the matter of conveying the inequity of the genders today, the sad state which we have allowed to be our present fate. We all need to fight as ferociously as you so we might achieve balance and fairness at last.
I fear Hillary as our president and hope we as a nation will choose well, and otherwise.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Denis #36 — you sound like a racist.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Marc said: “Those who bring religion into such a discussion prove that they cannot argue law.”
And those that narrow the topic to law show that they cannot argue religion.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Bart,
This IS about legal issues. Opinions regarding who might be a feminist vs. a more “traditional woman” and/or the “proper role of men and women” are irrelevant. The Constitution is for us all and as Marc said, “Religion has no place in a discussion about civil laws.”
Real women do not need to be rescued. Why do you think you must “rescue” women?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Kate, the nature and proper role of men and women is totally relevant.
Kate said: “Real women do not need to be rescued. Why do you think you must ‘rescue’ women?”
First of all, I can stick up for anybody on this thread that I want to, male or female. Second, Felicia was right and Marc was wrong.
Aren’t you coming to the rescue of Marc? Does that mean he’s not a real man?
August 14th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Marc’s humorous (and little cynical) remark to Felicia Benamon may seem a little uncalled for, but from his posts on this site I conclude his judgements are very, very rarely wrong, what he usually tries to point out is that it’s important to Stay On The Topic” and Felicia was completely off it.
So Bart, show some sense of humour and don’t embarrass yourself by striving to be the “protector of the poor little fragile dears”.
They are not as poor nor as fragile as you think!
August 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Bart & John Black,
I am not here to argue religion, and I will not argue religion here. If YOU are here to argue religion, you’re in the wrong place — go to your house of worship. If you want to inject religion into my article, I will delete your comments.
Men and women do NOT have different roles. If you think they do, try telling a female employee how different she is, and see how fast she brings the EEOC down on your ass for a painful lawsuit. Try using your religious arguments in court.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:00 am
KateM,
Good to hear from a woman who “gets” it. Those who think you are coming to my rescue are simply unaccustomed to hearing the opinion of an adult woman. Your viewpoint destroys their “fragile female” mentality.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
This discussion is very interesting, however, lets try to avoid a degeneration into a circular firing squad.
As for Hillary, she and her husband, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis. and other unAmerican moonbats the Democrat tend to nominate are the reason the Republicans can get away with nominating RINO nonconservatives like George W. Bush. We will vote for ANY Republican nominated because the Democrat in the White House will be infinitely WORSE!
At least Bush doesn’t embarrass us by leaving his bodily fluids on the dress of an intern!
August 15th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Hey Marc – didn’t you know women never lie? At least according to this widdle nazified feminust:
“Today I followed a link to a story on a website called Mens News Daily, which sort of reminds me of Womens Wear Daily, except its different. Mens News Daily is a temple of paranoid gynephobia (not gynecologistphobia, a different issue altogether). I mean, seriously. You have to see it to believe it. These people are ccccrazzzy. Its actually not bad for a laugh, although it is kind of creepy to remember that its pretty likely that a lot of the commentors who rage about rape charges being 80% false are probably rapists themselves.”
http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com/2007/08/led-astray.html
Yup. If she said it, he’s guilty. Why bother with a trial at all, right honey? An accusation is good enough. (And if you doubt it… why, you must be ccccraaazzzzy….. )
Meet the new left, same as the old left.