Why Women Bash Sarah Palin
Fascist Feminism
Ever since Alaska governor Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, she’s been the object of merciless, vicious attacks — mostly by women. This intragender war marks the official unmasking of fascist feminism.
Feminism, which took root in the late 19th century as an equality movement for women’s suffrage, has evolved into a militant, totalitarian train of entitlement, misandry, superiority, and privilege. To maintain the façade of pursuing equality, the National Organization for Women, self-designated voice for the “slighted” gender, presents a neverending, monolithic image of female victimhood. To achieve this monotony, NOW mandates that its badge-wearing acolytes talk, think, and act according to the the NOW playbook. I’m sure that Mussolini is smiling, wherever he is.
Buttressed by state and federal codes, statutes, acts, court decisions (case law), and blatantly anti-male judges — all in complete violation of the Equal-Protection Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment — women living in America enjoy the exclusive rights to commit maternity and paternity fraud, falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence (VAWA), commit paternal alienation, fraudulently get Green Cards (VAWA), dump their unwanted newborns at local fire stations (safe haven), and claim ownership of their babies (Roe v. Wade) while forcing men to support them.
All of these illegal rights and privileges for women were and continue to be made possible by eunuchs in public service — both Democrat and Republican — and the impotent male voters who put them there.
Women have amassed such unequal power since getting the right to vote in 1920 that they will destroy anyone attempting to remove said power or expose its fraud. Sarah Palin is guilty of the latter: she rose from hockey mom to state governor without affirmative action, whining about Alaska’s 10:1 male-to-female ratio, or complaining about glass ceilings. In other words, Palin proved publicly that women can succeed without being victims. That was her error: she violated the NOW playbook, has undermined NOW’s fascist power, and is experiencing the consequences.
Patently Inexperienced Female Fresh Face
So, what are the so-called feminists saying about Sarah Palin? What exactly do they have against her?
Let’s start with NOW itself:
Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.
We recognize the importance of having women’s rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women’s rights.
Rudov’s Reaction 1: So, by setting goals and achieving them, Sarah Palin was not exercising her rights? Unless she adheres to the NOW agenda, she is not a supporter of women’s rights? Here’s the problem: NOW continues to suggest that women have special rights that are different from men’s rights. That’s nonsense and purely unconstitutional, but it is a ploy that has been successful in America. Palin has shattered the victimhood creed and “special rights” mantra, and feminists are running for cover.
Rudov’s Reaction 2: Joe Biden is the candidate who appeals to women? Gee, why is that? Could it be that Joe Biden is the father of VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act, the passport for female-on-male violence and false claims of male violence? Yes, that’s the same Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden who admitted in a 1990 Senate Judiciary hearing (Serial No. J-101-80; pp. 171-172), the precursor to VAWA, that he grew up with an abusive sister who was permitted to hit him with absolute impunity — no retaliation allowed, even in self-defense — and he still has the bruises to prove it. Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. This is the VP candidate who appeals to women? If that’s the case, women find victims appealing because they identify as victims. Pure disempowerment.
In an article purposely containing an image of Palin with her right hand extended in Hitlerite fashion, Boxer said about Palin: “She’s an extremist. She’s way out of the mainstream.”
Rudov’s Reaction: Considering that NOW is a fascist organization, a so-called feminist like Boxer portraying Palin as a dictator is laughable. Out of the mainstream? Palin is more like the mainstream than Boxer wants to admit, and the post-RNC poll proves it.
Sally Quinn, Washington Post reporter:
Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? I’m the mother of only one child, a special needs child who is grown now. I know how much of my time and energy I devoted to his care. He always had to be my first priority. Of course women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Yes, other women in public office have children. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she didn’t get heavily involved in politics until they were older. A mother’s role is different from a father’s.
Rudov’s Reaction: Sally Quinn is violating the NOW playbook with her comment. Women are supposed to be able to make their own choices, manage their own schedules, right? I can’t imagine Sally Quinn making the same comments about a man. Because Sarah Palin has achieved without victimhood, any means to tear her down is justifiable.
Maureen Dowd, Op-Ed columnist, New York Times:
The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,†she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.â€
Rudov’s Reaction: This diatribe comes from the proud author of a book called Are Men Necessary? Again, because Sarah Palin has achieved without victimhood, Dowd believes any means to tear her down is justifiable.
Talk about rolling the dice. The idea was to connect to the Hillary supporters. These women, dismayed by the idea that the experienced female was passed over for a fresh male face, were supposed to be won over by a patently inexperienced female fresh face. Never mind that this feisty working mom leans — no, falls — right on social issues. You go, Clara Thomas. Oops, I mean you go girl.
Rudov’s Reaction: Unless a woman falls “left” on social issues, she’s disqualified as a representative of women? This is pure NOW fascism. Fall in lockstep, or face excoriation.
Gloria Steinem, feminist organizer:
But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.
Rudov’s Reaction: Unqualified woman? A female governor in a macho state, with an 80% approval rating, is unqualified? Opposes everything most other women want and need? Sorry, NOW doesn’t speak for most women, and the post-RNC poll proves it. Making life more fair for women everywhere? Women already control civil and reproduction rights and can become anything they want. What more “fairness” would Steinem like her victimhood crusade to accomplish?
Conservative Women
Women are bashing Sarah Palin because her no-victimhood success is a threat to their “downtrodden” agenda. Many believe that only liberal women have a problem with Sarah Palin. Wrong. So far, only they are vocal in opposing her. I’ve received numerous e-mails over the years from staunchly conservative women who lecture me that my belief in gender equality and neutrality is misguided and that, according to G-d, a woman’s place is in the home.
Plenty of conservative women have benefited from the handiwork of liberal feminists. Joe Biden could not have succeeded in his mission to villanize American men, via his unconstitutional VAWA, without the overwhelming support of his Republican colleagues in the Senate and House — both genders — and in the Oval Office, both Clinton and Bush.
Finally, it is ludicrous to think that only liberal women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence, fraudulently get their husbands to raise and support children fathered through extramarital affairs, and exercise their Roe v. Wade rights. In fact, conservative women do all of those things.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
Women bash Sarah Palin because she has shattered the farce of the glass ceiling, and now there’s no place for them to hide. Sarah Palin is living proof that women derive their power through guts, brains, raw talent, and achievement — as true equals to men — not through victimhood. Moreover, Sarah Palin has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.
Sarah Palin has exposed the truth about feminism, which has for decades kept women dysfunctionally addicted to victimhood and viciously cast men as their enemies.
Instead of disempoweringly “pursuing” equality through whining and lobbying, women, who already enjoy more rights and privileges than men, can emulate Sarah Palin to demonstrate it. Will they?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ 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). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,†is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
September 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Modern feminists never tire of saying that we still live in a patriarchal society where men have the majority of power. This ignores the reality that feminists have succeeded in developing laws biased in favor of women, while usurping the right of due process for accused men. Male politicians go along to get along with the feminists.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Marc…
The reaction of the left wing feminists to mccains choice for vp was to be expected and therefore no surprise there…
However I never thought that I’d live to see the day when a macho war hero running for president would stoop so low as to hide behind a woman’s skirts…mccain has always been a RINO which is one of the reasons dobson, who is a leader on the religious right, made it public that he wouldn’t vote for mccain…
By choosing palin mccain is pulling the old bait and switch routine hoping that nobody will look too closely at his record while running on palin’s record…Of course after the election mccain will be back to his old liberal self…
The other irony is that to support mccain because he picked palin as his running mate…The family values crowd is showing that they are more interested in hanging onto their influence within the repub. party while amassing political power…Then in making a principled stand on the word of God so that in essence they are betraying their own family values…Indeed from here on out I will refer to them as right wing feminists…
September 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Dabir Dalton,
Your comment suggests that Sarah Palin has nothing to offer McCain but her skirt, is that right? Do you believe, therefore, that a woman is beneath a man?
Dobson has made it clear that, because of Palin, he WILL vote for McCain.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I plan on Quoting this article a LOT (I will of course cite you as the source Marc)
Yeah I agree with your points here……what really rings the bell is the way you laid out how the majority of NOW’s actions have resulted in unconstitutional “rights”
September 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Dalton, I can’t fault you for the fear that McCain will turn left. But we’ll find out. I think Sarah will pull him right. I think he’ll soon come out for drilling in ANWR (which I admit isn’t a “right” thing, but it’ll tell us how things will be.) Plus, I think he’ll pick decent Supremes. At any rate, it will all be waaaayyyy better than having Barack/Joe in the white house.
I’m keeping a positive attitude. What else can I do?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It was Palin herself who, in her big speech, called herself a ‘hockey mom’. She is the one playing on her gargantuan achievement of being impregnated five times without termination, whilst simultaneously fighting her way to the top of the pile on pure merit (yeh, right!) By the way, if a female wannabe is outnumbered by men 10 to 1, then she has an ADVANTAGE, as she becomes even more the celebrity than normal, and given Palin is an ex beauty queen (genetic celebrity), she was already going to get the nod at every turn even if the ratio of male and female competitors/electorate was equal.
Palin may have won first prize in the VP selection pageant, but if McCain dies, the world is stuck with a stand-in president who believes in more guns, more war, less birth control, less homosexuality, more oil, more oil, more oil, and more oil.
The reason sensible people (including some feminists) are threatened by Palin is because they know that if Mrs Average Woman had five kids, she’d never be seen in the jobs market again – and mature feminists understand that GREATER female economic activity is vital for LESS sex segregation – which makes the world a safer place.
The US VP job is even more window dressing than the president’s job, and Palin is in that window to represent very traditional female power – to wish the boys well oversees whilst giving them semis, to keep the hearth warm, encouraging women into the home (and out of harms way), and, keeping the bible-bashers onboard, defending the housewives’ domain as a valued one.
If the Republicans get in, we’ll see even more women giving up their somewhat accountable day jobs for the anonymity of home life and the unfettered fascistic dictatorship that goes with the position.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Marc…
When it comes to politics most people are shallow thinkers and always vote for the politician who is best at telling them what they want to hear…This is why for the most part whoever runs for office on the dem. and repub. ticket is speaking to the choir…It is also the reason that makes independent voters who tend to think deeper on the issues so important and the reason that mccain chose palin so that he could run on her record…
Also the mccain spokesperson who was one of the commentators on Lou Dobbs Tonight made it clear that palin is attracting more male voters then female voters…So it is quite clear that the babe effect is working in mccain’s favore since palin is proving quite capable of luring those men who tend to think with their little heads where women are concerned to vote against their own interests…
September 8th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
As a man who’s been out front in fighting for gender neutrality in the law and the media, I can say, without hesitation, that copying the hatred and illogic of Tom of Covent Garden will sink any hopes men have of gaining legal parity with women.
Feminists continue to take rights away from men because men are not fighting the gynocrats, in huge numbers, with logic, rationality, and persistence.
Sarah Palin has achieved much, with skill and hard work. You may disagree with her social positions, but that is no reason to attack her personally.
Finally, to say that a female VP with five children sends a signal to all women to stay at home is as ridiculous as it gets. You make the rabid feminists look good.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Squiggy…
Any MRA who votes for the repub. party (right wing feminists) thinking that they are voting for the lesser evil…Are not only deceiving themselves but are voting against their own interests just as they would be if they voted for the dem. ticket…Indeed I would call their sanity into question…
September 8th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Marc wrote: “Sarah Palin has achieved much, with skill and hard work.”
__________________
That palin has achieved much with skill and hard work while taking full advantage of her genetic celebrity status can not be disputed…However if you think that MRA’s will find in palin an ally in the MM’s quest for gender parity with women your barking up the wrong tree…
September 8th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Dabir Dalton,
1) A man who doesn’t reveal his full name is no MRA. I’m not bothered by the opinions of faceless, nameless people
2) Sarah Palin, like Sean Hannity, uses every attribute she has to succeed. At the end of the day, is she doing a good job? If not, she will be fired. Sarah Palin has an 80% approval rating because she improves Alaska — not because of her looks.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Marc,
A correction on the history: Feminism is not the descendant of suffragism.
Radical feminism was born in the WKKK (read the book “Women of the Klan”, by Kathleen L. Blee). While the WKKK supported suffrage, it was not their first objective. In short, WKKK feminists actually ran the WKKK from about 1925-35, by doffing the Grand Dragon in a hail of false sexual allegations. WKKK feminists learned yhou to do this because the WKKK, in protecting the purity of white women, were terrified of interbreeding. The horrible things the WKKK did were founded on women’s claims that some black guy did something (the movie “Rosewood” is a loose documentary of a real life situation in Florida, where the black end of town was burned to the ground because a white woman, who was having an affair with another white man, pretended she had been raped by a black man).
see: http://www.dadsnow.org for more history on early WKKK feminists and how they migrated into modern day feminism.
The suffrage movement was focused on suffrage, with a tad of angry misogyny here and there. Susan B. Anthony did make some statements to the effect that women are superior, but you will find little in her work suggesting that she was seeking supremacy.
My grandmother Florence Wyman Richardson and her mother were leading suffragettes who founded the Equal Suffrage Association in St. Louis in 1908, and brought Missouri to pass the 19th Amendment. I am curator of her papers and clippings, which are fairly voluminous. These are being prepared for online viewing by the University of Missouri St. Louis. So, I can speak with some authority on who suffragettes were and what they stood for.
Suggragettes did not like the WKKK feminists and would have nothing to do with them. In fact, some of them, including my grandmother, passionately hated the WKKK. My grandmother believed in equal rights for everyone, including blacks, and had black leaders over to dinner at their house at 5732 Cates Avenue. She wanted to bring black women into the suffragette movement, but the rest of the ESA board was not quite ready for that, so it didn’t happen.
Modern day feminism traces back to the WKKK. The so-called “feminist backlash” most closely tracks back to the Suffragette movement, which largely collapsed after the the 19th Amendment was passed.
My grandmother and great grandmother did not think of themselves as being feminists, and never used that word in any of their work. My father, a Ph.D. history graduate of Cornell, does not recall ever hearing her use that word. And, he does not recall her ever talking like modern day feminists do about men. My grandmother’s husband, Roland G. Usher, was head of the history department at Washington University and an advisor to Churchill during the war. There was no talk in my father’s house that sounds anything like what modern feminism talks about.
Modern feminists lie when they pretend to be the offspring of the suffragette movement. They have nothing ideologically in common with the suffragette movement.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Marc,
Once everyone realizes that modern feminism uses the same hypersexual emotional ploys, methodology, and even the same words as WKKK feminists do, but pointed at all men (not just black men), it is quite clear exactly what feminism is.
We should not make the mistake of attacking suffragettes, who did not think that way, and were not out to rule the world.
The saying “No longer will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world” was first published in a WKKK broadside in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s. I don’t see suffragettes talking like that.
When folks understand that modern feminists are the latter-day WKKK, it makes it much easier for them to see what is wrong with feminism and walk away from it entirely.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Spot on, Marc – you’ve given clarity to the thought which has been dancing around my head for over a week.
Sarah Palin scares the dog snot out of feminists and others of their leftist ilk because her success will put the lie to all the victimology which they have been preaching for so long – all achieved without so much as a nod, let alone the genuflection to them which they so desperately crave.
To achieve a personal success without the guiding hand of the sisterhood will expose their failures for what they are – not some wild conspiracy of “Teh Patriarchy” to keep a woman down, but as a personal failure on their own part.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
A solid run down, Marc, and who but the bold would disagree. Sure she appears to have made it on her merits and gets right up the noses of our enemies the feminists. Can’t fault that.
But will she really shove the pointy stick further up the feminist nose? The Republicans may seem to be preferable to the Democrats; conservatives may seem preferable to Liberals. But hold on — haven’t the conservative Republicans been in power for the past seven and a half years, presiding over familycide, anti-manism, the dispossession of fathers, the creation of children ‘blessed’ with two, three, sometimes more, pseudo-personal relationship partnerships with additional Aunties from Gov Departments to tuck them in at night?
Is it not likely that the same ideological base that has continued the destruction of the social fabric will go on doing that regardless of hockey-mums in the VP chair?
Mrs Plain may appear to be a better bet than say Hilary, but I am not betting on her. Pull a gun on Putin? She, like her sisters from both sides of the yawning ravine that used to be the ‘One People’, has a shotgun in her handbag that she can haul out at anytime she chooses to blast her blue-collar husband to kingdom come. No one has blasted Putin but 50% of women have blasted their husband.
Can she discuss nuclear disarmament with world leaders? Probably. Is she likely to discuss divorce law disarmament with the Regiment of Women? Fat friggin’ chance.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Marc, you are right in your analysis. To which I add the following observation:
Sarah Palin invited Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s unborn child, to stand with her family, holding Bristol’s hand, on the stage of the Republican National Convention. Levi was greeted, in public before cameras, with handshakes and hugs by John McCain, Cindy McCain, Todd Palin, and Sarah Palin.
 This is HUGE.
 Those of us who are Americans, we have NO CHOICE but to vote for McCain-Palin.
And everyone else should express their support for Levi Johnson and the McCain-Palin ticket.
And if you doubt me, please go to Google, Yahoo! or Dogpile, and run a search for “Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin”
September 9th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Who is Amfortas? Darn it. There was I thinking I had something to say in the MRM. But Marc wants to know my name or I can’t be in his gang.
Well, Marc, your opinion in this matter does not alter my view of you, a brave and forthright MRA who has things to say and your own way of saying it. I have every admiration (even if the occasional disagreement)for a chap who will go on TV under his own name (or is it a ’stage-name’? You could be Rocco Vermicelli for all I know) and argue with feminists. A Warrior. Others have other ways.
But, I guess my words aren’t worthy to be heard.
Angry Harry, the undisputed leader of Men’s Rights opinion in the UK, hasn’t got a worthy word either. He too has, I believe, been on TV and taken on harpies. And he gets his views heard in the press. Despite that the shadowy bastard keeps his real identity quiet and doesn’t deserve being called an MRA. No, no, no. Nor the dozens of other men with online names who form the backbone of the MRM’s growth, worldwide, via the internet, but writing and speaking and getting the occasional piece published in local media all over the place. I guess we aren’t backbone material. Sap maybe?
Few of us have a book to sell or a living to make out of being MR hangers-on. Not that there is anything wrong with having a saleable presence and product, mind you. But those that have, have to have a known name so that others can send them a cheque.
I will reveal who I am when I am elected President. Heck, Marc, I will even invite you to lunch on the White House lawn. Indeed, how about a plug on your next TV spot? Repeat after me, “Vote #1 Amfortas”. I’m sure you could slip that in somewhere. A one-second sound bite. Meanwhile you and every other ‘real’ MRAs can write my online name in on the ballots and send a message – or rather a question – to put on everyone’s lips. “Who the f*ck is Amfortas?”.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:53 am
[...] http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/09/08/why-women-bash-sarah-palin-marc-h-rudov/ Marc H. Rudov said, <P Dabir Dalton, 1) A man who doesn’t reveal his full name is no MRA. I’m not bothered by the opinions of faceless, nameless people Angry Harry has already expressed his opinion on this. (Not happy). So has my friend Amfortas .( Ditto). What do you think? There are many in the MRM, all over the internet, who might be dismayed by Marc’s hard stance. I am known for who I am by a few in the MRM. I exchange emails and talk to folk as me. (Oddly, many still email me as ‘Percy’.) I know a few others for who they are too. But I respect people’s confidentiality regarding their identity, and their decision to use a ‘nom de net’. And your view is……. ? I have tried all my life to leave the place better than I found it. But there are 6 billion other buggers out there messing it up. I am outnumbered.But…YOU don’t just make a difference, you make THE difference. [...]
September 9th, 2008 at 4:54 am
[...] Why Women Bash Sarah Palin Men’s News Daily – Guerneville,CA,USA Marc H. Rudov Why Women Bash Sarah Palin 2008-09-08 at [...]
September 9th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Amfortas,
If you want to effect change and be taken seriously, you cannot do so without revealing your proper name. You must be willing to take arrows in your back. Anyone can hide behind a pseudonym. Merely opining on a Website does not make one an advocate for anything. One must be willing to risk something for standing up against tyranny. That’s the way the world works.
Argue with me all you want. I care only about results: men are losing the rights war. Either they vent and fume anonymously on Websites or don costumes to climb statues — all for naught.
Change comes from those who put themselves on the line.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:29 am
The only original reason I didn’t set out using my full name on this internet forum, is because most others don’t, and we are constantly being told to be careful who to give our full details to when online. It’s just fear of the unknown.
Whatsherface at feministing.com made a video about cowardly MRAs, or ‘misogynists’ hiding behind monikas, or sunglasses, etc, and not using their real names. Would you give your details to that person for instance?
Marc and Whatsherface have rejected anonymity for accountability, and both do have a point, but by setting out their stalls with their names on them, they both have to stick to the strategic frames they sallied forth with, which makes it more difficult for them to adapt and evolve their standpoints, and may put them a little bit in a defensive attack mode, rather than a reflective one, sometimes.
I would like the opportunity to remain somewhat anonymous, and test out ideas that can be wrong, so I don’t feel quite so obliged to always be right.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Establishment Feminism in America today is Blue State Feminism and has such individuals as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer as it’s represntatives. This is today’s radical feminism and it is part of today’s Establishment Liberalism as represented by the Democratic Party. Establishment Blue State Feminism must not conflict with the wider agenda of Establishment Liberalism.
Palin, to the Blue State Feminists, represents Red State Feminism. She loves her husband, she loves her children and family, she opposes abortion, she loves her country, and does not see herself as being oppressed by men and the patriarchy.
Palin is a punch in the face to Establishment Blue State Feminism.
Establishment Blue State Feminism does not truly care about women, otherwise they would be celebrating Palin. But Palin runs counter to the agenda of Blue State Feminism and Establishment Liberalism.
Now I would just as soon get rid of the word feminism,unless of course this country mainstreamed it’s male counterpart: masculinism, men’s rights, or whatever name men wish to come up with. But the political class and the MSM is going to frame every discussion of Palin through a feminist lense. Now I don’t know if Palin will use her influence to damage men, but from what I see, she loves her husband, children, family, God, and country-and these give hope that Palin can perhaps redefine the national discourse about women and men away from the damaging and dominant influence of Establishment Blue State Feminism.
Marc-
if you want to read the original discussion in 2005 here at MND regarding the WKKK go to:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/
And Marc, I consider you one of the greatest leaders for Men’s Rights. Thank you so much for all that you do.
Along with you, Mike LaSalle, and Harry at http://www.angryharry.com all share the top spot as leaders.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:33 am
“I would like the opportunity to remain somewhat anonymous, and test out ideas that can be wrong, so I don’t feel quite so obliged to always be right.” — Tom of Covent Garden
This lack of courage is precisely why men are losing the rights war.
Sarah Palin says what she thinks, and we know her name. She will make big changes. She’s already shaken up the establishment — in one week. That’s the way it’s done.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:54 am
David Usher,
Your point is well-taken, but feminism has become a generic term for equality-seeker. My point is that women don’t want equality, and NOW is proof.
If I choose my battles, I don’t see investing time in the feminist vs. suffragette fight as wise. I know too well what’s worth the effort and what isn’t.
Crusader is another term that has a pernicious past but has morphed into a generic term for cause-fighter. Anyone who studies history knows how hateful the Crusaders were.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I know a little history. Now let’s see. The Islam hordes started their march across the west within 60 years of Mohammed’s death. They continued for 600 years. They conquerored North Africa and subjugated Sicily (enslaving everyone there). They went up Italy and even stormed Rome. They went north as far as modern Turkey taking everything en route, lives included. They crossed into Spain establishing their rule by the sword and got as far as Bayonne in France, before any effective resistance started to push them back.
The first Crusaders had been a very patient lot considering the 6 centuries of bloodshed visited upon Christian lands. I guess they were a tad pissed off after all that time, but if you want to call it hateful go right ahead. Hand to hand fighting your enemy with swords tends to generate a bit of emotion.
Now, how long was it after 9/11 that America sent cruise missiles winging their kindly and considerate way to wipe out hundreds at a time at the push of a button?
September 9th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Joe Biden is the candidate who appeals to women?
I wonder how many women he would appeal to if they knew what is pet…the VAWA actually says and does? I also doubt that most of the Congress members do not have an idea of what is in it and that is why we need campaigns such as Radar’s FIX VAWA NOW
http://www.shatterdmen.com/Bidden.htm
Another thing about Sarah Palin, if she were like some of these gender feminist that are throwing enough stones at her that she could start her own quarry, Men’s rights advocates need to remember, many of these people would have accused the father of their soon to be grandchild of sexual assault. Sarah could have used her power to do this but she has accepted him into the family
Is it any wonder that the feminist dispise her?
I also strongly feel that any vote for any third party canidate at this time, would only help Obama.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Feminism = Leftism.
Repeat it. Learn it, love it, live it.
The whole Sarah Palin fiasco proves one thing beyond reasonable dispute by any human being, as if Bill Clinton getting a pass on being a sexual predator by NOW didn’t: Establishment feminism is Leftism first – then women.
As one shaven headed twit said once upon a time – “Fight the REAL enemy!” A vote for a Democrat is a vote for feminism.
Period. If you disagree, you’re delusional.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Marc says: “If you want to effect change and be taken seriously, you cannot do so without revealing your proper name. You must be willing to take arrows in your back…..One must be willing to risk something for standing up against tyranny. That’s the way the world works.”
Under my own name in my own country, Marc, I have taken on Cabinet Ministers. I have debated State and Federal Ministers face to face. I have written some 5 weighty reports for State Ministers and 3 for Federal Ministers. Crikey, I have been an Appointed friggin’ Ministerial advisor. And been sacked for my troubles.
I have used the press and have had articles and many letters published using my name. I regularly ‘feed’ some sympathetic journalists here and argue strongly with unfriendly ones. I have won some and lost some. I have been at this ‘uncivil war’ issue, far too politely, for a long time.
Though now retired, old and knackered, I have Professional Standing in two distinct careers. I have published work in learned journals and a citation index that beats your TV efforts. In the UK, where I lived for many years I held modestly high military rank. (General, 2 star, in your terms) and that from working my way up from the lowest rank. By the way, I have fought hand to hand, in the jungle. Have you?
“risk something for standing up against tyranny”.
I have arrow holes in my back, Marc. I have dispossession too. And a daughter, my sweet girl, afflicted with PAS.
That I prefer to be anonymous in the International sphere is my damned business, Marc, and I do not need lectures.
I EARNED the name, Amfortas. If you don’t think I have the Male Wound, point out someone else who has.
I have always given you respect for your work, which is well known in MRA circles. You do a damned good job. But I doubt anyone but a few here in Oz has ever heard of you. A great many have have heard of me. I do not ask for your respect for my work but I do NOT recognise your self-appointed Authority to determine who is a friggin’ MRA and who isn’t.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:39 am
They hate her because she got to the dance without their help, without bashing men, without aborting her children and because she is married to the father of said children. That is ’simply not done’. I can’t wait for the debates. Cheers!
Debi912
September 9th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Amfortas: Ibid, at comment #20. It matters not what you’ve achieved in your career, however great. You cannot legally and rationally overturn any system, in a democracy, without using your real name. That’s how it works. Venting and venting and venting in anonymity accomplishes nothing.
VAWA shouldn’t exist, but it does — and men made it possible. Most of the men against VAWA have never contacted Joe Biden or President Bush or their elected reps to complain about it — using their real names. Most of the men against VAWA wail about it under pseudonyms on sites like MND. Well, VAWA is still here and growing stronger.
If you don’t want to jeopardize your career, then stay in the shadows and live with VAWA. All the freedoms we enjoy in the USA were made possible, mostly by men, who put their lives and names and reputations at risk. That’s Life 101. Arguing about this is like arguing about gravity: it is what it is.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Marc: “I’m not bothered by the opinions of faceless, nameless people.”
Demonstrably false – given that you are responding to so many people round here – such as Amfortas – whose names you do not know.
“If you want to effect change and be taken seriously, you cannot do so without revealing your proper name.”
Demonstrably false – given that there are millions of effective activists around the world who beaver away behind the scenes; mostly unrecognised and mostly unknown.
“You cannot legally and rationally overturn any system, in a democracy, without using your real name.”
Demonstrably false – e.g the suffragette riots, the Stonewall riots, the racial riots and, indeed, 9/11 – or are you going to argue that 9/11 was effective in, for example, changing security procedures at airports because we know the names of the terrorists involved?
You seem to think that only the generals count, and that the humble soldiers are an irelevance.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Angry Harry,
You proved my point, as you always do. Instead of reacting to me with emotion, try to actually read what I write.
I really don’t care about anonymous opinions; I am responding to teach newcomers about the issues. Anonymous opinions aren’t solving any problems or making any headway. Keep arguing with me, and keep buttressing my point. That’s terrific.
By the way, Mr. Anonymous, all humble soldiers, in legitimate armies, have names, ranks, and serial numbers.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
While I certainly have my problems with Christopher Hitchens, his talk on “free speech” University of Toronto haunts me to this day. Maybe it’s time to link to it again…
“It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard — it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen. And everytime you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.”
Without a doubt, in the almost 8 years that I have edited this publication, I have acted to silence those who I considered to be out of line. And I am certain it will happen again. But it’s never a trivial act.
http://heliologue.com/2007/02/16/christopher-hitchens-on-free-speech/
September 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Marc, there’s no way in hell I’m giving my ID out on the world wide web. If you can’t understand that, that’s your problem. The safety of my family (physical and financial) comes first. It’s the same reason I no longer pick up hitchhikers.
As for me being “ineffective” in the Mens Right Movement, you’re wrong. I have a lot of effect in my daily life. I’ve gotten quite a few men and women (at work, at home, at church etc.) to see what’s really happening in America (and those other places). To paraphrase Harry, we need soldiers too. We have plenty of chiefs. And in my daily life, I assure you, I’m not anonymous. The fact is – YOU don’t know my name. And I can’t see any difference that should make to you. I don’t know amfortas’ name, but I know how important he is. We just do it free. On our own time.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Attention:
I will delete all posts henceforth that serve no purpose other than to treat this comments section as a bulletin board. If you wish to communicate personally with other posters, do so offline.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
This is all so hostile, and to think, according to an article in New Scientist a month or two ago, men should be more suited to communicating over the internet rather than face to face, as the need to rank in dominance is theoretically reduced by not being in actual proximity (where as women supposedly do better communicating face to face, as their communal instincts kick in).
Anyway, back to the hostility…
Is Marc first and foremost a Republican, over-riding all other considerations, or first and foremost an equality feminist, over-riding any potential to support Palin the anti-feminist? Okay, admittedly she took a job which on the face of it is a feminist action, but I think that’s as far as it goes, and time will tell.
Palin may have 80% support in Alaska, but I guess Alaska’s population is made up of mercenary male workers, toiling in inhospitable conditions to rape and pillage animal, land, sea and mineral resources, to earn a large enough wage to keep a mercenary Her Indoors safely indoors – so Alaskans are going to vote for the blood-hungry mercenary. No surprise.
Palin herself only goes outdoors occasionally, to shoot moose. Put her and an army of hockey ‘moms’ on a front line though, where the enemy fire back, and she gains my respect. Otherwise, she’s just another psycho with a white feather.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Marc, I’ve been fired for blowing the whistle on scientific fraud at the university where I worked. I’ve been kicked out of my church (in part) for standing up for men. I have written to my rep in my own name. I walk down the street with MRA slogans on my tee shirt. But I don’t see how it helps to give my name on this web site.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
If we had a big march and 100,000 people showed up, most of them would be nameless and faceless, but their presence would count. So the nameless and faceless people do matter, and they are true MRAs.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Zorik,
A parade of 100,000 men would accomplish nothing. When you learn how legislation is actually created and passed — and how paid lobbyists influence the process — you’ll realize that parades have zero effect on that process. All those nameless, faceless men would be wasting their time and accomplishing nothing but attracting TV cameras.
If you have a flat tire on your car, you don’t march in a parade; you jack up the car and change the tire. When you have evil legislation, like VAWA, you jack up the law and change it. This requires skilled, influential people who can do that.
Again, I look at the data. Men are squawking anonymously and losing rights. They’re on the wrong track. A True MRA is an effective change agent. No lawmakers ever have or ever will take men seriously when they hide behind pseudonyms.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Marc, thank-you for your thought-proving response. My next question is, do you think lawmakers are reading this web site? Do you think they will know or care who we are if we give our real names on this site.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Marc has made an extremely important observation here. For over 10 years now, I have used my real name with lawmakers and also on this and other sites. I refrain from rants and stick to the merits of an argument on an issue. If I have a valid principled argument with merit, then I shouldn’t be ashamed to put my name on it.
Having said that, Marc is also correct when he says that the only way fair and balanced policy will be championed is by having full-time professional lobbyists working the hallways, constantly tracking legislation, attending hearings, and so on. Ironically, men will not financially support this. Even more ironic is that CAFC’s most dedicated financial supporter for the last four years has been a woman. She has also donated the most in total dollars.
Our record of accomplishments speaks for its self, here in California, other states, and on the Hill. http://www.cafcusa.org/accomplishments.aspx
In Sacramento, there are at least eleven opposition groups and, of the eleven, six have nearly $16 million a year to operate on with highly trained professionals. Who says “money isn’t the mothers milk of politics�
There is nothing free about freedom, and fighting for it includes raising funds to pay professionals who are needed. You cannot not run a political campaign and be successful without it. All legislation is, is a political campaign done one bill at a time, and it doesn’t get done for free.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Marc said: “Most of the men against VAWA have never contacted Joe Biden or President Bush or their elected reps to complain about it — using their real names.”
I have sent three lengthy emails – including my name and address – to both Senator Biden and to President Bush. They were polite and to the point and contained data (American) and my opinion. They were measured and reasoned. They not only expressed dismay at what Amrica is doing to itself, but the flow-on effect to its allies and friends.
I recieved only an acknowledgment, of course, to only the first of both, and an addendum basically saying it was an American matter and foreign opinion is not taken into account.
Marc, you are not in any position to know what other MRAs do unless they squawk it about for your approval.
Sir, your rudeness to other good MRAs, men who generally admire the work you do, is disturbing. You dismiss them with all the grace of a feminist.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Amfortas,
I stand by my statement. Just because you have written letters means nothing about the majority of men or the majority of so-called MRAs. Also, you are a foreigner, and the response from Bush is probably justified.
Given my purview, what I do, and the contact I have with people around the world, I am in an excellent position to know what other men do. And, I can tell you that most men do nothing.
I am not being rude. I am being real. I am sick of seeing my rights disappear because men are too chicken to take their elected reps to task, and I won’t stop prodding them until they wake up to take action. Venting at MND doesn’t count for taking action.
Read comment #41 from Michael Robinson, the ONLY lobbyist for men in Sacramento — the guy men won’t support. He’ll verify everything I’ve claimed.
Men’s silence is women’s gold. Men must use their real names to flood their elected reps with calls and e-mails, and men must financially support legislative influencers like Michael Robinson.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She earns her success, and she loves and respects her husband.
Who, by the way, often steps into the role of primary caregiver and does a damn fine job of it. Todd Palin, rugged dude that he is, proves by his actions that fathers are perfectly capable of taking care of their infants and the rest of their children.
Because of that, putting Todd Palin in the national spotlight for the next several years is one of the greatest benefits for advocates of fatherhood that could be hoped for.
Add that to Sarah’s electrifying awesomeness, and you have the reasons why I am voting for McCain-Palin 2008.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:25 am
I use my real name when writing my representatives Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry and U.S. Rep Nikki Tsongas. I use my real name when writing my state represntatives. Case in point: I signed the initiative to put a law on the books in MA that would define marrriage as 1 man + 1 woman and overturning same-sex marriage. I wrote my representatives demanding that the legislature do what the state constitution says they are suppose to do and listen to the 100,000+ signers. They pushed the issue off the legislative agenda and never had a vote. 80% of the people in MA oppose same-sex marriage but our “representatives” do not act in the interests of the people. They do not listen. They act in the interests of the government and in the interests of special interests. My representatives do not listen to me. I use my real name when writing the media as well. The only way the representatives will listen to us men is if and when we become a “special interest” as well. Having said that, we need organizations that can get access to the politicians. We need our own version of N.O.W., or any of the 100s of other organizations out there promoting the interests of women.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Marc
I wonder how many of the readers of your works realize the degree of your trail-blazing?
You are, to date, the ONLY man who regularly appears on television and faces down feminism, directly, correctly, exactly!
Your breakthrough might be compared to to waht Fathers-4-Justice have accomplished in England.
You are a phenomenon. Everyone sympathetic reader of MND owes you a debt of gratitude for being the very first man to break through the lace curtain.
I caught you hust a few days ago on what I think was actually a money show on Fox News chennel.
I wonder if readers hear can really appreciate what it is like to watch a typically feminist talking head become discombobulated when hearing you speak the unvarnished truth, as in this case you did by starting your spiel with “feminism is sexism.”
Do viewers appreciate that what they are seeing is these feminists in the MSM, both men and women, actually hearing the trashing of their sacred cows FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME! They are simply dumbfounded! “What is he saying??!!!” “What am I hearing??!!!” “Am I having a bad dream??!!!”
This is waht those feminist are no doubt thinking when you are talking.
It is incredible to watch.
The question is: Are you going to prove to be a trailblazer, that is, that we will see more Marc Rudov’s on TV — or are you going to be somehow squashed.
When you are speaking on TV it is as threatening to the Feminazi as Sarah Palin — and that is intended as a big compliment!
Speaking of Palin, you neglect to mention her one characteristic that is the most unforgivable sin of all, from the perspective of the Feminazi: she is feminINE.
One last comment. I am of two very distinct minds regarding Palin. She is wonderful for all the reasons mentioned — HOWEVER — she should not be the VP pick.
In the case of a President McCain, the notion of the VP being “one heartbeat away from the presidency” takes on serious weight.
No, I’m sorry. I do not believe Sarah Palin has what it takes to be leader of the “free world.” Certainly position in the Cabinet, but not President of the U.S., which there is a very good chance she will become during the next 4 years once McCain is elected.
This is disappointing to me, as I am a great admirer of John McCain even though I disagree with him on some of the very biggest issues facing the nation (health care, war in Iraq, energy). McCain said he would rather lose an election than lose a war. By picking Palin, McCain has showed that winning the election is EVERYTHING.
This is doubly disappointing because it was unnecessary. There was no way that a majority of Americans would vote for Barack Obama to lead the nation. His history is wound too tightly with fundamentally anti-American politics. Americans are not so decadent yet that they would vote for an Emperor who has a strong history of anti-Americanism when the other choice is a 100% American patriot.
PLEASE keep up doing what you are doing, Marc.
Signed,
Mark Charalambous
September 10th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“I wonder how many of the readers of your works realize the degree of your trail-blazing?”
I realise.
“You are a phenomenon. Everyone sympathetic reader of MND owes you a debt of gratitude for being the very first man to break through the lace curtain.”
I do.
“I wonder if readers hear can really appreciate what it is like to watch a typically feminist talking head become discombobulated when hearing you speak the unvarnished truth, as in this case you did by starting your spiel with “feminism is sexism.—
I appreciate.
“Do viewers appreciate that what they are seeing is these feminists in the MSM, both men and women, actually hearing the trashing of their sacred cows FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME! They are simply dumbfounded! “What is he saying??!!!†“What am I hearing??!!!†“Am I having a bad dream??!!!—
I appreciate.
I always tune in to see Marc or listen/watch the archived file. I vote for Marc on every FoxNews poll. I email Cavuto and O’Reilly in support of Marc. I defend Marc on websites where he is attacked. It may not be much but it helps a little and I certainly do appreciate the things you speak of and am very grateful to Marc for what he is doing.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Agreed. We very much appreciate what you do Marc.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:24 am
“According to exit polls, the most volatile swing voter group over the last 20 years hasn’t been hockey moms like Sarah Palin, commuter dads like Joe Biden, or soccer parents like Barack and Michelle Obama. Over the last two decades, the swing voters most prone to moving away from Republicans in elections Democrats won and toward Republicans in elections Republicans won have been white men with a degree from high school but not college(nearly one-fifth of the electorate).
In other words, forget Sarah Palin: In recent elections, the biggest swingers looked more like her husband, Todd.”
– Bruce Reed
The explanation, of course, is that it’s kinda like what happens when you hand a TV remote to some stereotypical guy: he changes channels frequently not because of an attention span problem, or because he’s fickle, flaky and can’t make up his mind, but simply because there’s nothing on in Oprah-land that he can stand watching for more than a second. (Yes, having cable helps here.)
Time will tell if Palin bashes back at her establishment feminist critics, or if she’ll just keep on smiling while sounding just like one of `em by repeating the standard unchallenged catchphrases from Feminist Studies 101 about “glass ceilings”, “old boy networks”, how “a woman has to work twice as hard as any man”, etc.
So far she hasn’t defended herself against the attacks in any substantive way. She either promotes Sen. McCain or attacks Sen. Obama, who doesn’t quite know how to defend himself against her, partly because doing so lowers him to debating a VP candidate, which thus takes him down a big step while simultaneously taking his VP out of the picture entirely. (Net: don’t expect any real discussion of VAWA until the dynamic shifts, if it ever does.)
As a game of political chess, the R’s have been masterful. They have the D’s totally boxed in at this point. After all, it was Obama himself who has made this race largely about personal charm, which the R’s are now capitalizing on big time — though I don’t think this is what the D’s are talking about when they bring up stolen elections.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:48 am
MartianBachelor:
I think that’s kinda the subject of The Neglected Voter by David Kuhn. The choice of Joe Biden as running mate was a pretty lousy choice. They made the sucker play – securing the hard-core, man-hating feminist base. They may end up with nothing more interesting than trying to play victim politics again, spinning the meaning of better polling among women.