Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan — not to mention General Douglas MacArthur — must be rolling in their graves at the sight of Barack Obama genuflecting to Japanese Emperor Akihito.

It was a supreme act of weakness, a lowpoint for the US presidency, a voluntary denigration of America. Should anyone be surprised? Of course not. Barack Obama is consistent. Yet, every time this president removes a brick from American integrity, people are surprised. Amazing. Denial is a powerful force.

Obama’s Feminine Side

Do you remember the “special inaugural issue” of Ms. magazine, in January 2009? I’ll never forget that image, and the danger to men that it conveyed. Talk about showing Obama’s feminine side! It was a harbinger of things to come.

In mid-February, a few weeks after Inauguration Day, while chatting with Bill O’Reilly at Fox News headquarters in New York City, I predicted that Barack Obama would become the most female-centric president in history, a threat to men’s rights. At that time, Bill wanted to give Obama a wide berth in all areas. His riposte was along the lines of: “You might be right. Let’s see what happens.” I hope you’re convinced now, Bill.

Fast-forward to October 30, 2009, when the White House issued a list of visitors to the executive mansion since Inauguration Day. It’s no coincidence that Kim Gandy, ex-president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), visited 14 times — 14 times in 10 months. Why? Obviously, to demand that Obama dance to her feminist tune. Result? He obliged her — in spades (see “Time for the GOP to Man-Up”) — making him a “Gandy dancer.”

Railroading American Men

The original gandy dancer — before Obama, that is — helped build and maintain America’s railroads in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thousands of these workers, in a rhythmic “dance,” used long levers called gandies to position the heavy steel rails for nailing to wooden railroad ties. Hence, the term was born.

Unfortunately, the Gandy-Dancer-in-Chief is also laying tracks across America, railroading American men along the way: He knows that the quickest way to weaken America is to marginalize its men.

Have you seen one male talking head on TV speaking out about Obama’s unconstitutional adherence to the feminist agenda, to his railroading of men? No, you haven’t — and you won’t. And, Obama knows this.

Sadly, the typical male reaction to Obama’s Gandy dance is: “Hand me another beer; give me that remote.”

As Iraq needed a surge to survive, America badly needs a manhood surge to survive. Where is this surge? Men seem content to let women, and their Chief Feminist, railroad them. Silent, anonymous grumbling is futile; only strong action will work. Memorizing NFL stats and watching extreme fighting are not examples of strong action.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In geometry, we learned that two points make a line. Well, Obama has produced enough points to create a feminist constellation — all while men at home, at work, in universities, in the media, and in government have looked the other way. Still trying to please their mommies, their wives, their girlfriends, perhaps?

At what point will men decide they’re mad as hell, won’t take it anymore, and stand up for themselves? Based on current behavior, I predict never.

Obama can’t railroad men unless they consent — and, by default,  they do. Until men play a new tune for Obama, he’ll keep dancing to Gandy’s tune and keep bowing to NOW’s demands. All aboard!

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 115+ articles and Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719), and a forthcoming book for women. The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Did you ever imagine that men — who created, fought and died for, and built America — would one day comprise a special-interest group (SIG)? Stop imagining. That day is today.

Judging by how they view themselves, and, consequently, how women view them, men are neither special nor of much interest to America. Accordingly, this so-called “group” is, in reality, hollow and nonexistent and, therefore, trivial.

Typically, SIGs organize, raise money, and fight to coerce spineless politicians to subvert the US Constitution to create unilateral rights and privileges. Result? Unconstitutional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the newly enacted Hate Crimes Prevention Act — which, some argue, could have allowed the feds to nullify North Carolina’s decision to forgive three innocent men in the Duke Lacrosse Case.

Obama’s Macho Window Dressing

Women keep playing oppressed victims when, clearly, they aren’t: Maria Shriver declared America a Woman’s Nation. Yet, they endlessly seek unilateral legal dominance when the Constitution, as written and amended, gives them everything they need. Why? Simple: because they can. They know that, whenever women cry foul, men buckle.

In the past week, feminists accused Barack Obama of running a boys’ club within the White House — because he frequently shoots hoops and plays golf only with male colleagues and friends. Big freaking deal. His “boys’ club,” a mere retreat from self-imposed subordination to women, is macho window dressing.

Nothing demonstrates Obama’s real agenda like his female-centric rhetoric and behavior. For example, Obama told NBC News that “men are obtuse about women … and need to be knocked across the head.” As I indicated in “Obama’s Misandry Cineplex,” the president is operating anything but a boys’ club:

• In 2008 and 2009, Obama castigated men on Fathers’ Day for leaving their pregnant unmarried girlfriends. Did he make a similar speech on Mothers’ Day to vilify unmarried pregnant women? He did not. Roe v. Wade, which Obama supports, says: it’s her body, her baby, her choice. Yet, Obama blames men for women’s choices.
• Unconstitutional women-only section at Whitehouse.gov.
• White House advisor on violence against women, corresponding to the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act.
• Fatherhood.gov to teach men parenting, while Motherhood.gov is nonexistent (by giving birth, women are fully equipped to be great mothers, right?).

Republicans Have No Brand

If men want to end government-sponsored misandry, where do they turn? The Democrats? Forget it. Democrats believe in central government, entitlements, and redistribution of wealth. They view the Constitution as a document of suggestions, recommendations, and hidden rights and entitlements for special groups.

How about the Republican Party?  Republicans portray themselves as upholders of the law, believers in states’ rights and small government, the people’s party, and advocates of equal protection under the law. Really?

If that’s the case, why are men exempt from equal protection? Are they hollow, nonexistent, and trivial? Why doesn’t Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, stand up for men and fathers? Why indeed.

Instead, every time a new misandrist law comes along, like the Hate-Crimes Act mentioned above, Republicans vote for it. Never an argument, filibuster, or fight. Never an appearance on Fox News to rail against it. Equal protection, my ass.

Since 1874, the elephant has symbolized the Republican Party. Its origins were, coincidentally, based in fear and weakness. I see no difference today. A better symbol would be the hippopotamus, because Republicans are hypocrites.

Republicans have no brand, no discernible purpose — other than to oppose Democrats — and, therefore, no unique drawing power. A brand is perception, not proclamation.

Here’s how the GOP can brand itself as unique and appealing: man-up. Attract men. Fight political correctness to restore equal rights to men. Give men a reason to join, a place to turn.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

There are too many men who obsequiously believe that women deserve “special” rights and privileges — violating the Constitution — because they didn’t have suffrage until 1920 (89 years ago). That’s as absurd as calling anorexia a cure for obesity. One can’t fix an injustice by creating another injustice.

In “Rebranding Manhood,” I wrote that masculinity is not deference to women — it’s standing up to them. Either we as a nation believe in equality or we don’t. If we do, let’s enforce it. If we don’t, let’s rip up the Constitution and devolve into gynocratic fascism.

It’s time for the GOP to man-up. Does this connote patriarchy? Not at all. It means not tolerating matriarchy. It means equality, as the Fourteenth Amendment dictates. A country of male doormats is no country.

The GOP, like any group, reflects the wishes and demands of its members. If it continues to ignore equality for men, we will know why: the members want it that way. Alas, neither the GOP nor America will have much future.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 115+ 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). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

We love you, Maria Shriver. For the past half-year, with unchecked politically correct sexism, you’ve preached that America is a woman’s nation.  Not only haven’t you faced any resistance, legal or social, NBC is rewarding you with a weeklong series called — what else? — A Woman’s Nation™.

Maria Shriver, you have two sons and two daughters. Do your sons like hearing from you that they’re growing up in a woman’s nation? I doubt it. What will their friends say? Nothing flattering. What will your daughters think about their brothers — and all men? Isn’t your TV program just as destructive as those that once prompted mothers to teach “life in a man’s world” to their daughters?

Nowhere in the US Constitution is it written that America is a woman’s nation. Our legal system is designed to be blind to specific groups, as the 19th Amendment illustrates: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Yet, we have unconstitutional laws and policies that confer upon women unilateral rights and protections in rape, reproduction, abortion, custody, child support, domestic violence, workplace practices, and immigration. Why? Because spineless men fear retribution from feminists and sexual retaliation from their wives for writing, passing, enforcing, and adjudicating gender-neutral laws.

Dominant in Our Society

Time magazine buttresses Maria Shriver. In its October 26, 2009, issue, “The American Woman,” managing editor Richard Stengel cites a TIME/Rockefeller Foundation poll:  “Women have become dominant in our society. Women will soon constitute a majority of the workforce; they earn 57% of college degrees; they make 75% of buying decisions in the home… women are not terribly concerned with equality issues…” And yet they complain about glass ceilings.

Men are fast becoming slacker dudes and permanent blue-collar workers. This is because highschool programs favor girls; college-enrollment stats prove it. Not only are women dominating at the undergraduate level, they are receiving more than 50% of degrees in law, medicine, and business. At UC Davis, 80% of veterinary grads are women. The trend of female domination is growing unabated.

Is this a problem? You betcha. A society of marginalized men is a weak society. Whom will these highly educated women marry? Slacker dudes? I don’t think so. Given that 40% of American children are born out of wedlock, marriage isn’t a big concern for many women. Too bad. Every study of teenage pregnancy, drug usage, alcoholism, gang membership, crime, and school dropouts points to the lack of fathers at home. Women file 70% of divorces and choose single motherhood as a lifestyle.

The presidents of Brown University, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania are women. Great accomplishments. But, expect that, as fewer men graduate from universities, fewer will head them — and those who do attend will find curricula and policies favoring women. The workplaces will follow suit, as educated women will fill most of the management positions.

What Happened to Equality?

What happened to equality, Maria Shriver? Your preaching and TV show about a woman’s nation is divisive, not inclusive. What good will come of it? You are compounding the omnipresent wedge between men and women. And, by the way, any men who rally your cause are pathetic eunuchs — proof of your thesis.

As you speak on NBC this week, heralding the dawn of the “woman’s nation,” please remember that your sons — and all sons — will be watching. They’ll base their self-assessments and life/career plans on what you say. Will they want to be college graduates, soldiers, husbands, and fathers in a woman’s nation?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, there’s one silver lining in your estrogen cloud. In canonizing women as strong, smart, talented, and self-reliant — and they are — you have done men a big favor: terminated all justification for women to receive alimony and child support. You are the alimony terminator. We love you. This is fantastic, as Arnold would say.

And so, America is now a Woman’s Nation, a matriarchy, a gynocracy. Women are in control. They no longer need, and therefore cannot require, men to support them financially — at any time, in any way, for any reason. Otherwise, they’d be hypocrites, wouldn’t they?

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 115+ 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). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

In algebra, we learned that mathematical relationships fall into one of three categories: equal to, greater than, or less than. Your relationship is no different. Which one is it?

Here’s how to conclude that the “equal sign” does not represent your relationship or marriage: your girlfriend or wife has the upper hand. Your life with her is filled with deference, fear, and appeasement. Think Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who appeased Hitler. How did that work out?

No man is equal to his wife or girlfriend if he constantly grovels to and pays her for sex. As I explained in “Why Men Want VD,” their relationship is actually despotism, voluntary despotism. Nobody forced him to accept this pathetic, emasculating lifestyle. He willingly became her subject, her hostage — starting with their initial contact.

He steels himself for the long-term tolerance and “love” of his captor, in the process becoming her poster boy for Stockholm syndrome.  It follows, therefore, that their bed is the stage for Stockholm sex, which he buys with chores, undeserved apologies, unwanted pets, fancy meals, silence, jewelry, furs, cars, vacations, country clubs, homes, and objectionable decorations.

Every day on this stage is filled with cold shoulders, resentment, disrespect, pettiness, secrecy, glowering, knotted stomachs, and fantasies about or actual infidelity. Their greater-than/less-than dynamic — the rule, not the exception, in most lives — is headed for a disastrous, destructive end.

Regina of Redistribution

Any woman who believes a man owes her money, simply because she’s a female, is a merchant maureen. And, feeling entitled to his largesse simply because he’s the richer one makes her a socialist, a regina of redistribution.

In fact, she’s entitled to nothing. So, the man who obliges her in either case is a eunuch — lacking balls and knowledge of female sexuality.

I hear frequently from both genders that men and women are not equal, cannot be equal, should not be equal. Tell that to the US Constitution. Tell that to Ursula Burns, CEO of Xerox. People uncomfortable with peer relationships are, in fact, uncomfortable with themselves. Insecurity is no foundation for any relationship.

Here’s the gist of a recent conversation I had with a female NoNonsense Coaching client. It illustrates the typical inequality between men and women, which most men encourage, enable, tolerate, and finance:

Rudov: Have you ever taken a man out to dinner?

Female Client: I prefer to make dinner at home, even though it’s a lot of work and costs more money.

Rudov: Your answer is illogical nonsense. Taking a man to a restaurant would be much cheaper and zero work, yet you choose the harder, more-expensive solution? The real reason you avoid taking him out is that you don’t want others to see you handing your credit card to a waiter while a man sits there. That would be humiliating … because men are “supposed” to pay for women, right?

Female Client: Well, no man would ever let me pay. He’d rather be dead than let a woman pay.

Rudov: Let you pay? This man is not your boss or father; you don’t need his permission to pay. Did you ask your ex-husband’s permission to file for divorce?

Female Client: No.

Rudov: So, you don’t need permission to spend his money but need it to spend yours? Huh?

Female Client: [silence].

Rudov: Do you now see the voluntary inequality between men and women, and why they make it impossible to get along with each other?

Female Client: Yes. To be honest, I’ve never thought about this before.

This exchange above illustrates the chief reason men choose — and get — Stockholm sex: they see women as “greater than” themselves and willingly travel on the Estrogen Express.

Why would my client have thought about this issue before our exchange if no man had ever challenged her? People respect only those who challenge them, only those who refuse to be doormats.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

The next time someone asks you to name your sign, don’t think horoscope. Think about your woman. If equal sign isn’t your response, you’re her hostage. You are engaged in Stockholm sex — and it’s your fault. You chose it, and her.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 115+ 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). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Humans are biologically wired for infidelity, we hear. Monogamy is an artificial lifestyle, they say. Men and women cheat on each other because they just can’t help themselves, right?  Wrong.

People who respect and value themselves don’t cheat; moreover, they attract like-minded partners.

Infidelity is a choice — as obesity, substance abuse, and ignorance are choices. Infidelity is voluntary destructive and self-destructive behavior. But, given that at least half of all married men and women cheat on each other, why is it such a popular choice? In a word: chivalry.

Chivalry, as I defined three years ago in “Chivalry Died in the Garden of Eden,” is benevolent sexism, or BS — the province of insecure, immature men and women. Chivalrous men have two major deficiencies:

1. They don’t comprehend the strong female libido and foolishly pay to get laid; their female counterparts happily reward them with sex
2. They are unaware, or pretend to be unaware, that women collect the majority of college sheepskins and soon will dominate the landscape of corporate and government management (do the math). Nevertheless, in feeble attempts to feel manly, these eunuchs treat women like delicate flowers — and the women oblige them.

Chivalrous “relationships” — the antithesis of peer relationships — clearly begin on a footing of disrespect and manipulation: one cannot establish trust with another who is above or beneath him.

Limited Period of Usefulness

Infidelity, in chivalrous couples, is almost assured — one could say inevitable. That is why people who pledge “commitment” in such dysfunctional circumstances covet others almost immediately. Sound familiar?

When a man grovels for sex, he signals to his wife or girlfriend that she can easily manipulate him — and she’ll never find him sexually arousing (the biggest reason women cheat is for better sex). She’ll always view him, disdainfully, as a means to an end, with a limited period of usefulness.

By the same token, a man who purchases “eye candy” views her, condescendingly, as a means to an end, with a limited period of usefulness.

These players don’t love and admire each other, just use each other — a dynamic that occurs in most pairings (do the math). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that people who don’t crave each other will stray. The inevitable infidelity occurs in three stages. Let’s explore them.

The Three Stages of Inevitable Infidelity

1. Dispensability: your limited period of usefulness has expired (e.g., you’ve provided her with children and financial security), and she begins pursuing others
2. Disinterest: she stops faking a desire to be in your company and does everything possible to avoid you
3. Deceit: she has affairs behind your back and constantly disguises her whereabouts.

Infidelity is inevitable when your so-called “partner” deems you a disposable means to an end. Some folks cheat for years and stay together, while playing a pathetic, transparent game of pulling the wool over each other’s eyes. This is beyond my comprehension. I’ve never cheated, ever. What for? Integrity is everything to me. When a relationship stops working, it’s time to exit — not cheat.

My objective in “Why Did She Choose You?” was to exhort men not to become involved with women until knowing why. If a man and woman cannot grill each other honestly, they’re too immature to commit. Indeed! The smoke-and-mirrors nature of chivalry promotes the very immaturity that begets infidelity.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

One cannot prevent infidelity, only minimize it — by choosing his behaviors and partners carefully. But, he can all but guarantee infidelity by engaging in chivalry.

The price of chivalry — wining/dining, jewelry, trips, cars — is high; the price of infidelity — divorce, alimony, child support — is even higher. Yet, men keep paying and paying; women keep taking and taking. And, the duplicity keeps growing and growing.

Chivalry begets infidelity, inevitably: Excuse me, fine lady, may I buy you a drink? Let the cheating begin.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ 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). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

The manhood brand is dead, kaput, and that is no accident. Men, who built the legal and physical infrastructure of this country from scratch, have, over the past 36 years, chosen to allow women to marginalize and overshadow them. It’s as though the entire history of men was written on an Etch-a-Sketch and then shaken until erased. Maria Shriver, wife of The Terminator, has proclaimed America a woman’s nation, and she is right. How pathetic.

The epitome of dead manhood is the corrupted structure of parenthood: mothers own children, fathers rent them. Such is the outcome of the Roe v. Wade decision, which unconstitutionally handed women more reproductive rights than men. This 1973 US Supreme Court decision told women: it’s your body, your baby, your choice.

While a pregnant woman ponders her unborn child’s fate, dad is out of the equation. But, if she chooses motherhood — baby ownership — he, namely his wallet, is in the equation. Contract law stipulates a correlation between ownership and financial responsibility. Not in maternity.

At the moment of birth, mother becomes the father’s landlord, to whom he pays rent. Worse, he must fight for the key to his flat! Does one need more proof than the inexplicable custody fight that fathers are mere tenants, not the owners of their children?

As owners, mothers get lots of behavioral latitude — in ways that fathers, as tenants, never could. No matter how badly mothers MissBehave, as Brooke Burke and Denise Richards prove while contemplating the mixing of motherhood with bikinis, America celebrates them.

Perceived Power

Men built America, landed on the Moon, and comprise 85% of legislators. So, how did America become a “woman’s nation,” where 60% of college graduates, 50%+ of med-school graduates, 50%+ of law-school graduates, and 80%+ of veterinary-school graduates are female — where Barack Obama created an unconstitutional Council on Women and Girls and now wants to institute a Title IX-like push for women in science & engineering?

Simple: men, who have a perpetual fear of not getting laid, never had any real power. Back in the day when women were home baking cookies, couldn’t get credit, couldn’t own property, and didn’t run businesses, men had perceived power. As women began entering the workforce, earning graduate degrees, and using their reproductive rights as weapons, “manhood” waned.

Men are uncomfortable confronting women as peers, because they believe — wrongly — that males are more sexual than females, that kowtowing for sex is a prerequisite. Women, naturally, exploit this male ignorance to the hilt.

Result: Men reflexively buy drinks for women, propose marriage on bended knee, assume fault in every dispute, and rubber-stamp almost every piece of anti-male legislation (think VAWA). This is manhood?

Unproductive Expressions of Manhood

When men are bashed in TV sitcoms and commercials, they tolerate it. That’s why so much is on the air. Corollary: You never see woman-bashing on TV, do you?

Watch this exchange I had with Bill O’Reilly in February 2009 (click photo to watch). Bill doesn’t seem to mind the male-bashing: he opines that men are tough and can take it.

When the topic is Osama bin Laden, men are Rambo (McCain proclaimed that, if elected, he would follow bin Laden into the Gates of Hell). But, when the topic is women, men are Bambi — silent and deferential. To wit: The US Department of Labor, in January 2009, released a scientific study that proves no gender wage gap exists. But, you don’t see the male talking heads on TV discussing it, do you? They’re too scared.

Because men have allowed manhood to become synonymous with impotence, they express masculinity in unproductive, artificial ways. Here are five examples:

• Loud motorcycles
• Blaring music from automobiles
• Extreme fighting
• Tattoos
• Tolerating violent women

Despite giving them temporary testosterone rushes, these behaviors, ironically, defeat manhood. They are substitutes for real expressions of manhood: standing up to women, disagreeing with them, saying no to them. Their fear of being rejected in the bedroom is so great, yet so unfounded, that men would rather live in a gynocracy and mourn the death of manhood than reverse this sad situation.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Rebranding manhood is possible only if the product — the man — changes. Otherwise, there’s no brand to rebrand!

Men cannot revamp perceptions and laws and policies if they refuse to change themselves. For example, if a man doesn’t have the balls to talk to a woman in a bar without buying her a drink, he doesn’t have the power to change custody laws.

Men must change their views of themselves and of women, and begin treating women like peers. Equality means equality. The Constitution states nowhere that women have special rights or privileges or protections, yet men keep granting them — each time destroying the manhood brand.

Manhood does not derive from deferring to and coddling women; it results from facing and demanding respect from them. Until men grasp this, the manhood brand will remain dead and America a “woman’s nation.”

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ 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). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Marriage is a failing institution. There are some basic factors driving this failure — judicial and societal — but the bottom line is indisputable: For the first time in US history, across all ethnic groups, the majority of women are unmarried and 40% of babies are born to unwed mothers.

The judicial reason is quite simple: women know that, most of the time, they’ll beat men in matters of alimony, child custody, and child support. Rewarding failure is self-fulfilling. Here’s a test: Ask any woman, about to get married, if she still would march down that aisle if there were no child support or alimony to collect upon dissolution of the impending union. Is she still giddy with glee or pissed off like a Swedish countess?

Compounding the judicial factor is a specific societal shift: anything-goes America now celebrates unwed mothers. When unwed teen Jamie Lee Spears (Britney’s sister) became pregnant, her picture appeared on the cover of People magazine. On Oscar Night of 2009, Barbara Walters asked actress Anne Hathaway about marriage. The 26-year-old Hathaway selfishly expressed a desire to become a mom but not a wife. This narcissistic attitude is now the rule, not the exception.

Programmed Like Automatons

When I was a lad, the dream of every girl was to get married and every man to “settle down” to become a family man with a career. In fact, it was common for any man with a girlfriend to get matrimonial pressure, from friends and family, with this gem: When are you going to make an honest woman of her? The implication being that she was dishonest in having sex until he saved her through marriage.

Stepping back to examine the big picture, one easily could conclude that people, by and large, have been getting married more to please others than to please themselves, to do what is expected of them. They’ve been “programmed” like automatons to think of marriage as proof of respectability, worth, and stability. Why else would men illogically get married despite knowing that wives bring 70% of divorces and get child custody and alimony in 90% of cases?

Generation Y, accustomed to fatherless homes, clearly has a different philosophy about matrimonial programming. And, Anne Hathaway, whose parents are happily married, proved with her statement to Ms. Walters that she has downloaded a new lifestyle application.

Predisposed to Fail

I posit that underlying the aforementioned is a more-fundamental reason for nuptial failure: we are predisposed from childhood to fail, and Don Quixote is to blame.

Don Quixote? Yes. A famous aphorism that completely guides all of our lives derives from an early-1700s translation by Peter Motteux of Cervantes’s classic work: “It is the part of a wise man to keep himself today for tomorrow, and not to venture all his eggs in one basket.” Today, we use the shortened version: Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.

“Quixote’s Law” is integral to the basic principle of investing: diversification. Invest in mutual funds, not in single stocks, we are told. Those who invested all of their money with Bernie Madoff violated the diversification principle and lost fortunes as a result.

Quixote lives in our careers, too: we work for one employer but constantly put out feelers for the bigger, better deal. Actors always hear: You need something to fall back on; don’t quit your day job. When we make plans — business, military, or personal — we also make contingency plans, in case “Plan A” goes awry.

Wait a minute! Marriage is putting all of your eggs — especially your nest eggs — in one basket, in one person. But, isn’t this the antithesis of Quixote’s Law — and, therefore, a huge conflict of values? Absolutely, and the reason people sign prenups, resist commitment, and hedge their marital bets by cheating, which, ultimately, leads to custody fights and loss of wealth. Watch two women confess marital infidelity to ABC News.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Marriage is important for the stability of society and for the healthy raising of children, but a failing institution that brings more pain than stability. For proof, look at the familial dysfunction around you — in homes, schools, TV shows, movies, the Internet, shopping malls, and family courts.

If unwilling or unable to make this one exception to your hedging strategy — the one you follow in every other aspect of your life — to put all your eggs in one nuptial basket, don’t get married. Ever. Spare pain for yourself, spouse, kids, and respective families.

You can’t have it both ways — even though Anne Hathaway, like many women today, thinks she can. Single people shouldn’t have children. Children aren’t puppies, acquired on a whim to mitigate loneliness or boost the ego. Children need two married, loving parents raising them together.

Singlehood is a life of many baskets, marriage a life of one — with both spouses weaving the same wicker. There is no hybrid. Marriage requires a lifestyle change that most people, in all honesty, don’t want — the all-in-one-basket lifestyle — and that’s why it’s failing.

As the statistics prove, people aren’t trained or prepared to violate Quixote’s Law to succeed in marriage. Don Quixote lanced marriage. Don’t let marriage lance you. Choose your basket — and partner — carefully.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ 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 frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Oprah Winfrey is increasing domestic violence in America. By being Harpo — remaining silent — on the truth about violent women, she unwittingly perpetuates the problem.? Repeatedly excusing women’s culpability and unfairly blaming men only serves to foment this pernicious societal scourge.

On March 19, 2009, Oprah aired an anti-male show about domestic violence (DV), to capitalize on the biggest news story: Rihanna. Oprah holds men totally responsible for both causing and ending DV. Outrageous! Nowhere on her show was mention of all-too-common incidents of female violence such as those involving actress Kelly Bensimon and NFL player Geno Hayes.

Instead, Oprah stridently cautioned her female audience: If he hits, he’ll hit again. Fair enough. Missing from her mantra, though, was: Never hit a man — out of anger, revenge, jealousy, hormone imbalance, or any reason whatsoever! Also absent from Oprah’s show was a reciprocal warning to men: If she hits, she’ll hit again.

Acceptable Marginalization of Men

Why is the DV situation so unfair & unbalanced? Americans — especially male citizens, talkshow hosts, journalists, politicians, and judges — not only trivialize female-on-male violence, they laugh at it.

To wit: In a Saturday Night Live skit (from 02.24.01), Katie Holmes repeatedly whacks Will Farrell in the crotch. In the photo below (click to watch videoclip), Chris Parnell, playing the director, instructs Holmes in how best to grab and twist Farrell’s testicles.

SNL’s New Twist on Testicles

Consequences? Acceptable marginalization of men leads children to disrespect them, women to hurt them — with impunity — and courts to unfairly prosecute them.

Report from the Street

I hear frequently from cops all over the country who tell me that my articles don’t begin to cover the truth about widespread and unreported female-on-male violence. One particular officer writes to me almost every week about another incident. His latest:

I recently arrested a gal for hitting her boyfriend (no politically correct woman-is-victim crap). She left the crime scene, and he called my department. Upon my arrival at the scene, this guy approached my patrol car. At a minimum, he was 6′7″ and had a bloody nose. We arrested her at her parents’ apartment across the street, after a short struggle and strong denial of any wrongdoing.

On the way to the police station, I had to restrain her against the inside of the passenger door of my patrol car (I had a cageless car). So, I requested more officers, and we had to walk her the rest of the way to the police department.

She demanded that I call the bar, where they were before the altercation, to ask the bartender about her boyfriend’s abuse … yadda, yadda, yadda. The bartender reported nothing abusive about her boyfriend and only remembered them arguing. The more lies I caught her in, the more she denied culpability — using a foul mouth.

Even though her boyfriend is large in stature, he’s a wimp. No brighter than she, but undeserving of being abused.

Ultimately, the trial was vacated. I kinda wanted to see what angle she would use to defend herself in court, because none of her alibis confirmed her version of the story, as I indicated in my report. That’s probably why she didn’t want to go to court.

A lot of officers don’t put the full details in their reports, which can help convict DV culprits — male or female. But, the details are especially important when the alleged culprit is a female, because she’ll show up on her best behavior, in conservative attire, and easily fool judges and juries.

The Real Cycle of Violence

Problems are fixed only when their root causes are exposed and addressed — not ignored, distorted, or deflected to others. That’s what happens in Washington, and why Washington solves nothing. Domestic violence is a growing problem because people are in denial about its female roots.

Anyone who condones, denies, trivializes, or laughs at female-on-male violence is responsible for encouraging, enabling, and perpetuating it. If you plead guilty to this, Oprah just assuaged your guilt. Worse, she gave mainstream media the green light to continue misreporting DV statistics. This is the real cycle of violence.

Oprah Winfrey, because of her power and passion and influence, is in a unique position to educate millions around the world about the truth: women cause up to 70% of domestic violence and must not be given a pass.

But, instead of empowering women, by exhorting them to become accountable and responsible for their violence, Oprah disempowers and victimizes them by unilaterally blaming men for the entire matter.

Oprah validates people who believe a man never should touch a woman, no matter what she does to him. Implicit in this belief is a woman’s right to assault and hit men, for any reason she chooses, and I don’t hear Oprah protesting that insanity.

We Are Now a Woman’s Nation

What makes women think they’re more important and valuable than men? That’s easy: men, through their words and actions, constantly put women on pedestals. Wait a minute … what about that so-called feminist quest for equality?

Let’s get real. Women never wanted equality; they always wanted superiority and knew that spineless men would deliver it. Men, as they are wont to do, have come through with flying colors, sowing their own demise in the process.

So, America is now a gynocracy, Barack Obama has created the unconstitutional Council on Women and Girls, and Maria Shriver rightly proclaimed that “We are now a woman’s nation.” A symptom of being a “woman’s nation” is blaming men for all female behavior. Duh.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Victimhood mentality is the antithesis of equality — an emotional prison that stunts growth. Women must own up to their violence. Men and women must be equally prosecuted for hitting and hurting each other; that should have been Oprah’s message on March 19th. It wasn’t. Instead, Oprah cemented hidebound — and inaccurate — thinking.

If Oprah really wants to end DV, she’ll tell women to stop it — in the same breath that she tells men to stop it. Moreover, she’ll scold her TV colleagues for putting anything on the air that trashes and injures men for comic relief.

Oprah aims to help women, but acting like Harpo on female violence ultimately hurts them — by persuading them to choose victimhood. Oprah’s success was possible only because she never chose victimhood. It’s time for her to end the double standard.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ 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 frequent guest on Fox News Channel?s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O?Reilly Factor.

Rudov?s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright ? 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Nothing speaks subjugation like a man on bended knee, sliding a diamond engagement ring on the finger of his new fiancée. Yet, countless men engage in this emasculating, enslaving ritual every day.

When asked why he felt compelled to prostrate himself while pledging to his “better half” a life of devotion, the typical man will utter: respect. Actually, he lowered himself so that she could secure a yoke around his neck.

Respect. Powerful word, isn’t it? I have three questions: How can a man respect a woman he’s just purchased? How can he respect himself after such a transaction? And, how can she respect him? If you believe most relationships are based on mutual respect, you’re on crack.

About half of engagements never lead to marriage. At least half of men and women cheat on each other. Half of marriages end in divorce, more than 70% of which are filed by wives. And, according to Woman’s Day magazine, more than 80% of married women say they either probably or definitely wouldn’t marry their husbands again.

A friend of mine told me, just yesterday, that he and his wife recently had dined with a woman expecting to receive a “huge” engagement ring. When they questioned her obsession with carats, she replied: “A big ring proves how much he loves me.” My friend’s wife told the misguided merchant maureen that she’s nuts. Yes, she is nuts … but not alone: most people knowingly live the charade of equating heart to diamond, and that’s why American men spend $8B+ every year robotically buying both.

Since the ninth century, the engagement ring has symbolized the groom’s wealth and ability to care for a wife. Has anything changed, despite that 60% of college graduates, in 2009, are women?

Today, a man is expected to spend three months’ salary on this symbol, which, legally, signifies a business proposition — a formal agreement to marry, not a romantic union. Accordingly, the legal consequences of breaking an engagement, which vary by state, directly affect the disposition of said symbol when the betrothed part company.

Nevertheless, in our materialistic, shallow culture, the typical woman, especially in the presence of her competitive girlfriends, basks in the delusion that her diamond is about status, generosity, self-worth, love, and fidelity. And, if the ring her man buys isn’t the “right” size, her girlfriends will label him cheap. Let’s face it: her diamond is nothing more than his proof of purchase; the bigger the ring, the more proof he purchased her.

Ironically Juxtaposed

This past week, I appeared on The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. My sparring partner, Dr. Debbie Magids, and I debated two topics: the double standard in the coverage of domestic violence between singers Rihanna and Chris Brown, and engagement rings for men. These two topics couldn’t have been more ironically juxtaposed.

There is outrage across the country over seeing photos of the bruised Rihanna. Now, we don’t know all the details, but most people don’t care about the details and automatically assume that Brown is a criminal — because he’s a man.

Here’s the double standard: women cause 70% of domestic violence but men get arrested 95% of the time. I explained to the TV studio audience that, on a recent radio interview, the host announced that he would boycott Brown’s music. I asked him if he would boycott Rihanna’s music if she had sent Brown to the hospital. His outrageous reply: “I’m not sure. When a woman hits a man, he probably deserved it.” The audience, mostly women, erupted into cheers and applause, demonstrating their visceral hatred of men.

When Debbie and I debated engagement rings for men — one of the silliest ideas I’ve ever heard — I asked the audience how many of them would have married their husbands without engagement rings; almost all clapped and/or raised their hands. I then asked how many of them would have spent three months of their salaries on engagement rings for men; same reaction. Laughable. Dr. Debbie even accused me of reducing love to a transaction. Really? How naïve of me. Her comment was funnier than anything on Comedy Central: men have been riding the Estrogen Express since the ticket window opened for business.

There’s no evidence on Earth, now or ever, that women would behave as those in this studio audience claimed they would. Also, if women viscerally hate men so much, as proven by their “slapped-dudes-deserved-it” attitudes, why would they contradict themselves by vowing to marry such vile creatures — especially without diamonds in exchange — while also pledging to cough up big chunks of salary for male engagement rings? Answer: hypocrisy. Most women don’t marry for love, as the statistics above prove, and as I explained in “How Real Is Her Love?”

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Life between men and women is filled with transactions — from the first date to engagement to the wedding to marriage and through (and after) divorce. Why? Because both parties want it that way.

What are the results? Disastrous. Are people willing to change? No, they choose to live with failure. They cling to antiquated customs like wining/dining, pedestals, courting, Valentine’s Day, engagement rings, and wife/mom is everything — and fail.

The regular NFL season is 16 games long. How many seasons would the owner of a team permit his head coach to compile a record of eight wins, eight losses (i.e., 50% failure)? Maybe two. After that, the owner will can and replace the head coach. To the new coach, the owner will issue this warning: If you don’t deliver better results than the last guy, you’re ass is out of here!

Failure is unacceptable in football and in every business. Yet, in people’s personal lives, failure is not only acceptable, it’s predictable. And, they can’t get enough of it. Go figure.

If your fiancée won’t marry you without a diamond, or will marry you without one but will make your life an eternal hell because of it, the basis of your relationship is transparently mercenary. So, knowing this, if you proceed anyway, the yoke’s on you.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ 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 frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Quick … name one person, in all of world history, born as the result of a homosexual union. You can’t. It’s biologically impossible.

Yet, we are seeing a neverending, culture-splitting battle to equate homosexual unions with those between men and women. No matter how you slice it, they’re not equivalent, and that’s why most states specifically codify marriage, per se, as a union between man and woman. Heterosexual unions, joined by marriage, are the bedrock of our society — providing necessary structure, stability, and continuity.

Personally, I have no objection to civil unions. My only problem — for religious, biological, and sociological reasons — is calling a gay union “marriage.” It makes no sense to me. Let’s remember also that marriage, even between men and women, is a licensed privilege and not a right.

In November 2008, California put this issue to a vote via Proposition 8, which reinforces existing law to prohibit gay marriage. In that election, 52.3% of voters — including 70% of blacks — supported keeping the ban.

These results reinforce the publicly stated policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are against gay marriage, as are the Roman Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.

More American Than Obama?

Yet, today, actor Tom Hanks called Mormons un-American because they supported Prop 8: “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go-around of our self-correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

First of all, we don’t have a “self-correcting” Constitution — either in Washington or Sacramento. If we as a populace want to add to or remove from our Constitution, we must vote on it. That’s exactly what happened in November 2008.

Second, calling someone un-American is a serious charge, and it presumes the accuser a “benchmark” American. Obviously, Tom Hanks thinks he’s more American than those against gay marriage. Is he more American than Barack Obama? Logic should hold. I’d like to witness Hanks telling the new black president, to his face, that he’s un-American.

What does it mean to be un-American? In my opinion, someone is un-American if he or she wants to see this country fail and/or is actively trying to destroy it — with words or actions.

So, let me understand this, Mr. Hanks: People who deeply believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage and family, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are trying to destroy America? The evidence is all around you, Mr. Hanks: the dilution and dismantling of traditional marriage and family are destroying America.

Sell More Tickets

Why did Hanks single out the Mormons? Using all logic, he should have condemned blacks, who, one could argue, put Prop 8 in the victory column. Why didn’t he? I’m purposely baiting you here. Hanks knows that the Mormons are “safe” to attack — they’re nonviolent proxies for his fake wrath, and he’ll gets points in Hollywood for bashing them.

I have a deeper question: Why did Tom Hanks speak out at all on this matter? He’s not gay; Prop 8 doesn’t affect his life in any way, shape, or form. Why does he care? Simple: he’s a mercenary and believes that speaking out will sell more tickets and, consequently, fatten his wallet. And, that is why gays should be offended at his hypocrisy and disingenuousness.

There’s more to Tom Hanks’s hypocrisy, though. Again, let’s play out the logic. If Hanks is so outraged and offended by codified discrimination, on any piece of paper, in any of the 50 states of America, why doesn’t he publicly protest Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — all three of which unconstitutionally discriminate against men? After all, Tom Hanks is a man, and these pernicious “codifications of discrimination” affect him and all men directly. Answer: being politically incorrect would make him lose ticket sales and, therefore, poorer.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I reject the transparently hypocritical, disingenuous, ludicrous claim of Tom Hanks that Mormons are un-American for supporting Proposition 8. A plurality of Californians — across all religions, races, and ethnicities — decided that marriage must be preserved as a union between one man and one woman. On that same day, by the way, voters in Florida and Arizona decided likewise.

Accusing others of being un-American, for financial gain, certainly could make Tom Hanks un-American, but I do not feel superior or phony enough to be the judge.

Postscript: Tom Hanks apologizes for “un-American” comment

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ 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, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

On a February 28, 2008, appearance on Fox & Friends, I said that a woman meeting a man at a party will assess his value to her based purely on his profession: “If he says ‘I’m a doctor,’ she thinks, house in Malibu; if he says, ‘I’m a teacher,’ she thinks, Chevy Malibu.” Men encourage women to behave this way.

For the most part, relationships begin, endure, and end over money — because people don’t know the meaning of love. Just look at those parting gifts: alimony and child support. Even though our parents taught us that love trumps money, the setbacks we sustain in dating, marriage, and divorce don’t reflect that teaching. Maybe that’s because our parents didn’t walk their talk.

Every Valentine’s Day, which I urge all men to boycott, De Beers goads us into measuring a man’s “love” for his woman by the number of karats he places on her finger. Listen to women and men bragging about those karats, proving De Beers’s success.

And, by the way, have you ever noticed that people attribute the twin sobriquets of generosity and stinginess only to men? Just think about the last time you heard anybody accusing a woman of being cheap with a man. Do men challenge this? No.

Finances Are Private

People don’t know the meaning of love, but they do know the meaning of money. So, here are three familiar examples of how money trumps love:

1. Because a divorce can cause a man to lose his kids and 75% of his wealth (property, pension, securities, cash, legal fees, child support, and spousal support), in almost every case, he’ll stay in a caustic marriage — sacrificing personal happiness — rather than sustain financial loss. Instead, he’ll irrationally wait for his wife to divorce him (wives initiate 70% of all divorces) and ultimately lose more.
2. Manhattanites (for example) will, without hesitation, drive or fly many miles for business or job opportunities, or to purchase paintings, but won’t “inconvenience” themselves to pursue romances — regardless of their merits — in Long Island or New Jersey. It’s amazing that those who constantly complain about lacking love in their lives would rather be alone or settle for nearby booty calls than disturb their comfortable routines to find worthy, albeit geographically undesirable, partners.
3. When total strangers meet on a blind date or at a party and find themselves hot for each other, they will — in a heartbeat — find a bed, expose their genitals, and exchange bodily fluids. Would they so hastily expose their finances and exchange balance sheets? Of course not. Finances are private; genitals (normally called private parts) are not.

Many men have told me that their ex-wives had threatened divorce unless they received Jaguars or diamonds or vacations or new homes. And, these men, in every case, relented to such extortion, deciding to delay their inevitable divorces, which ended up costing them more in the long run.

Is such extortion predictable? Absolutely. When a man flashes his cash to attract a woman, she’ll wave it back at him — after she takes it. So, when you hear a man say that his relationship or marriage is based on love, look more closely. Just ask him how his girlfriend or wife is handling his new-found frugality in this economic downturn — if she’s still there.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

As long as men and women allow money to trump love — an unfortunate fixture in our culture — they’ll find it impossible to have functional, healthy, and happy relationships and marriages.

The reality is, most of them don’t care. And, they prove this by how they live: women equate their femininity to how much money men spend on them; men equate their masculinity to how much money they spend on women — just ask the ones who feel emasculated when women pay for dinner.

Three signs that money does not trump love in your life:

1. Spending money is never, ever the “man’s role”
2. Money — given or received — is never tied to self-worth, masculinity, or femininity
3. When necessary, both man and woman will inconvenience themselves — through time invested, sleep lost, and distance traveled — to be with each other.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, 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, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Mention the word feminine; most people understand it instantly. Jessica Alba, Beyoncé, and Scarlett Johansson come to mind. Now, try masculine. Puzzled? Stymied? That’s because the definition of manhood is in constant flux and dilution, as men have allowed misandrists — male and female — to marginalize them. There’s no better example of a male misandrist than VP-elect Joe Biden, worshipper of women and trasher of men, who constantly brags about his unconstitutional, pernicious weapon of male destruction: VAWA.

Being manly is out in America. Instead, we have the metrosexual, the straight man who preens in the bathroom as much or more than his woman. Don’t forget the former hit TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, produced by NBC Universal’s Bravo network, to have gay men teach clueless straight men about style and manner. The trendline is clear: men have been becoming, and are socially rewarded for becoming, more feminine. What’s going on?

This sinking manhood in America is confusing today’s boys about masculinity. As I stated previously, this is happening because men are allowing it to happen. Like the automakers in Detroit, American men are in denial, doing nothing, while they’re being phased out. Never forget that 85% of legislators are male — those anti-male laws are coming from somewhere, and male voters are putting and keeping these misandrist legislators in power!

Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, the preponderance of female teachers, negative images of fathers in sitcoms and commercials, and a legal system that allows, in fact encourages, women to commit maternity faud, paternity fraud, rape fraud, and domestic-violence fraud make growing up and living as a male a truly vexing experience. And, if men think someone will “save” them, they should be ashamed. Grow a pair.

Many women, however, don’t care — or deny their lack of concern — about the fate of their sons. Let me give you two examples. On December 28, 2007, I debated attorney Jennifer Brandt on Your World with Neil Cavuto about the lunacy of marketing “Hello Kitty” products to boys. Then, on February 28, 2008, I debated attorney Mercedes Colwin on Fox & Friends about the feminization of boys in school. Their rebuttals are perfect depictions of mothers who want to keep their sons umbilically attached and nourished with placenta, to prevent them from becoming real men.

Barack Obama’s Lesson to Men

Why should anyone care? Feminized boys are incapable of providing balance to society, and if there’s anything the USA lacks, it’s balance. So, what example could “umbilical boys” follow to grow up, to become men? How about president-elect Barack Obama, putative man-in-chief? Hardly. On November 16, 2008, Mr. Obama and wife Michelle spoke with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. Here are two snippets from that interview that will underscore my point:

Steve Kroft: How long do you give her (Michelle), knocking around that big house (the White House), before she starts to want to put an imprint on the job of being first lady?

Barack Obama: I think Michelle is going to design her own role. I think she’s gonna set her own path. But, here’s one thing I know about Michelle: She’s serious when she talks about being a mom. That’s why our girls are so wonderful. I’d love to take credit for it, but (pointing to Michelle) this is the one who deserves most of the credit.

Unbelievable. There’s no way the Obama daughters could have turned out so well without the influence and guidance of both parents. Yet, Barack Obama took no credit for their upbringing, which he rightfully deserves. Worse, Michelle just sat there, silent, and gave him no credit.  What message does this send to Americans about the role of males and fathers in our society? Try deference, irrelevance, and impotence.

In snippet #2, Mr. Kroft asked Barack Obama whether his mother-in-law would be moving into the White House:

Steve Kroft: There’s been a lot of talk about … you, you talked about your mother-in-law. Is she moving in with you?

Barack Obama: Well, I don’t tell my mother-in-law what to do. (Michelle laughs). But, I’m not stupid — that’s why I got elected president, man (Barack and Michelle laugh). But, she sure can if she wants.

On the surface, this seems an innocuous, lighthearted exchange, but it makes the same point as above: men are required and expected to defer to women. And that’s that. It’s what “smart” men do, right? It’s how wimps get laid and get elected. It’s what boys are taught, what they do, and, as a result, why we live in a gynocracy. That’s Barack Obama’s lesson to men.

Mother’s Wishes and Son’s Desires

Dissatisfied with the demise of Queer Eye, NBC is taking another stab at clueless men. In concert with Ryan Seacrest, the Peacock Network is airing a so-called dating series that is, in the Obama era, a sad exposition of American “manhood.” Called Momma’s Boys, which I would rename Placenta Place, this ridiculous show claims it will uncover the conflicts between a mother’s wishes and a son’s desires, and reveal the truth about who plays a more crucial role in a young man’s life — his mother or his significant other. Note: a real man doesn’t have this dilemma.

Last night, NBC aired this program for two hours, opposite Monday Night Football. Fortunately, I live on the West Coast and could see the Bears beat the Packers in OT by a field goal — before forcing myself (for this article) to watch Momma’s Boys. I could bear only 45 minutes of it, and I thought repeatedly of poking out my own eyes throughout that time.

Thirty-two 20-something women (girls, really) packed into a mansion in Santa Barbara, vying for three umbilical boys and the approval of their mommies. Each week, rejected girls will leave Placenta Place until the three umbilical boys end up with the matches their mommies bless. As the author of Under the Clitoral Hood, I’m trying to imagine a woman feeling orgasmic about a man whose mother chose her to lie in bed with him. Is this dysfunctional or what?

The juxtaposition of NBC’s pathetic umbilical spectacle with football was amazing. The show’s only redeeming value is visual proof, in living color, that men have allowed themselves to sink to a new low. I found it nauseating to watch mothers lecturing their sons about the suitability of women — and coddling them for making the “right” choices. OK, no more details about the show. You get it. Enough.

To deny that America is populated with umbilical boys — deferential men forever tethered to their mommies — is to be hugely mistaken. Otherwise, NBC and Seacrest could not air this national embarrassment, in prime time, find contestants — eunuchs, mothers of eunuchs, and females in search of eunuchs — and do so profitably.

As women hungry for real men will attest, Momma’s Boys is, sadly, a true reflection of manhood in America. Just ask them. And, here’s a scary thought: those umbilical boys eventually will become fathers. How will their sons and daughters turn out? Badly.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Earlier, I compared men to the waning Detroit automakers; that comparison is apt. The Big-Three have chosen to become irrelevant and now want Americans to “save” them. Right.

Men have within their own hands the power to create whatever world they wish to inhabit, the power to be as relevant or irrelevant as they choose.  Their world has become a gynocracy because they chose to let that happen.

NBC’s “Placenta Place” is a mirror of the American gynocracy; Ryan Seacrest and the Peacock Network are making money by mocking mockable men, women, and mothers. If you are aghast at what this mirror reflects, what will you do about it?

Mothers choose to keep their sons umbilically attached; their sons choose to comply. Women choose to date and marry “men” forever tethered to their mommies. Men choose to elect gynocrats who destroy their rights. Apparently, people are happy with their reflections in NBC’s societal mirror — that’s why it’s on TV!

In no place does the US Constitution state that women are entitled to extra or superior rights. Yet, in virtually all aspects of life — home, office, bars, legislatures, and courts — men have allowed women to be superior. Why? Simple: fear of not getting laid and not getting the approval of their mommies. Such is life in Placenta Place. Love it or leave it.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, 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.

The nonstop TV commercials touting cures for erectile dysfunction paint a dismal picture of widespread male inadequacy. It’s as though every handyman in America is trying to fix his wife’s pipes with a rubber screwdriver. Nonsense. According to the National Institutes for Health (NIH), only about 5 percent of 40-year-old men and 15-25 percent of 65-year-old men experience this manhood malady, which the NIH states is not an inevitable part of aging.

So, what’s going on here? There are, to be sure, legitimate medical reasons — and, perhaps, a tiny influence from our estrogen-laced water supply (from the urine of women taking birth-control and hormone-replacement pills) — that cause some men to lose their swordsmanship. But, there is no “missile crisis,” as our pharma-driven culture would have you believe.

I posit that most male impotence derives largely from anxiety, boredom, and incompatibility with wives and girlfriends. In essence, the preponderance of American men popping Viagra pills suffer from selectile dysfunction: the predisposition to choose the wrong women, without logical and rational thought, and to put them on pedestals.

The Unrealistic Dust

We live in a gynocracy, where women comprise 60% of college students, control 60% of wealth, make 80+% of purchases, bring 70% of divorces, and birth at least 40% of our babies out of wedlock (with guaranteed child support).

Because the US Constitution has been reduced to a museum relic, thanks to weak male politicians and judges — and male voters who put them in power — women enjoy unconstitutional rights to control reproduction and commit maternity fraud, paternity fraud, rape fraud, domestic-violence fraud, and VAWA-enabled Green Card fraud.

Despite treading water in a sea of female rights and privileges, the typical man still blindly and obsequiously clings to the outmoded, illogical, irrational belief that he must unilaterally court and please women — put them on pedestals, wine & dine them, propose marriage to them on bended knee, and generally kowtow to them.

Such pathetic fawning clouds his judgment and objectivity about the character, agenda, and motive of every woman he meets. Inevitably, though, the unrealistic dust of his idealized, fantasized angel will settle, and he will see her — correctly for the first time — as a flawed mortal. At that point, his immature emotions will transform into disappointment, resentment, and … deflation.

Cockeyed Worship Behavior

Men’s cockeyed worship behavior doesn’t end with paramours; it also extends to politicians, as I discovered in the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama. To my shock, a lot of men are disturbingly in awe of and totally infatuated with this relatively unknown man with a thin resume and unconfirmed birth status. Yes, men have put Barack Obama on a pedestal, too.

When the president-elect held his celebratory rally in Chicago’s Grant Park, the night of November 4th, grown men in the crowd could be seen with tears streaming down their faces. Tears over an elected official, a mortal who campaigned to redistribute their wealth? Give me a break.

I expect men to cry in divorce court — when they lose their houses, cash, kids, and rights — but not over an elected official. But, there is a strong correlation between the degree of selectile dysfunction and the heights of pedestals onto which men place their paramours and politicians.

Barack Obama is merely a man who won the USA’s top-CEO job. That’s it. He’s responsible for budgets, borders, and bombs — not for leading a starstruck flock to the Promised Land. He chose a VP, Joe Biden, an avowed misandrist who, through VAWA, has ruined the lives of thousands of men. But, no matter. Men inexplicably ogle Obama as they do supermodels.

Furrowing Up My Leg

When I disseminated information to my subscribers about Barack Obama’s birth-certificate controversy, about 1% of them unsubscribed in indignation. That’s right: they refused to hear anything negative about their Chosen One, and they excoriated me for my sobriety and demand for the facts. How dare I! To hell with the Constitution. According to these Obamamaniacs: We’ve built our pedestal, made our selection, and that’s that. And men denigrate women as the emotional ones?

Chris Matthews, an in-the-Obama-tank anchor for MSNBC, said: “The feeling most people get when they hear a Barack Obama speech — I felt this furrowing going up my leg; I don’t have that too often.” Mr. Matthews, who recently announced that he’ll challenge Arlen Specter (R-PA) in 2010 for his US Senate seat, almost cried on January 30, 2008, when contemplating that the Clinton Machine might topple Barack Obama off the pedestal. With “men” like Chris Matthews in government, or aspiring to be there, it is no surprise that America is a gynocracy.

What results have Chris Matthews et al garnered so far? The Obama who promised “change” and “hope” during the courting period has filled his cabinet, post-honeymoon, with “no-change” Clintonistas. Imagine that! In fact, these appointments, Washington insiders all, overshadow him. Obama doesn’t resemble in real life the idealized, fantasized, pedestalized visage that so-called logical, rational men created in their minds when selecting him. No, Obama said what was necessary to get hitched and now is doing precisely what suits his agenda. Duh!

Need to Erect a Pedestal

Selectile dysfunction, based on the need to erect a pedestal, is an unhealthy condition but one that can be cured. What are the signs? If, for example, you selected Obama but cannot enumerate logical, rational, educated reasons for doing so, you have a classic case of selectile dysfunction.

By the same token, if you cannot articulate, logically and rationally, the reasons for selecting your woman, you’ve pulled a real boner. Placing a woman on a pedestal is immature behavior, the epitome of of selectile dysfunction, as it underscores the inability to see her as a peer. Sound familiar?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

A man’s rigidity is inversely proportional to the height of the pedestals he erects. In other words, pedestals deflate manhood. How deflated are you?

Any woman whose man places her on a pedestal will lose respect for him, take advantage of him, and further her own agenda with him. Moreover, she will get little satisfaction from him in bed. Why so many men don’t get this is beyond me.

Accordingly, a politician placed on a pedestal — instead of being held to accountability — will lose respect for his constituents, take advantage of them, and further his own agenda with them. Eventually, though, the dust of euphoria will settle and the truth will emerge, and the constituents’ emotions will morph into disappointment, resentment, and … deflation.

You show me a man who elevates politicians to pedestals, and I’ll prove that he does likewise to women. If the cause of selectile dysfunction is obvious, so is the cure: grow a pair! And, magically, you’ll find your erectile dysfunction cured as well.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, 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.

John McCain, in his battle with Barack Obama to become 44th president of the United States, proved himself a terrible salesman and a worse campaign manager. He had the easiest products to sell — capitalism, justice, and freedom — but was outgunned by an inexperienced man who masterfully hawked socialism to the masses as a means to “fix” the economy, while spending lavishly with other people’s money.

By bashing Wall Street and Washington as sources of evil, instead of specific fraudulent CEOs and politicians, McCain inadvertently sullied capitalism, stoked the wrath of American citizens, and enabled Obama’s quest to redistribute wealth.

Competing with Obama/Biden, chief cheerleaders for the unconstitutional and pernicious Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), gave McCain the opportunity to become a unique voice for gender equality and to help right the legislative and judicial wrongs perpetrated against men. To wit: He could have pledged, for example, that all future Crystal Gail Mangums — the stripper who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape — be thrown in prison, but he did no such thing. Instead, Mangum is a free woman publishing a book about life as a professional victim.

So, through his loss, John McCain, the man who promoted himself as a maverick, ultimately became a “cadaverick.” A maverick is generally defined as a lone dissenter who takes an independent stand apart from his associates. I admire those who defy conventional wisdom — as long as they move people to produce positive, transformational results. But, to wear the maverick badge as a general strategy makes as much sense as constantly running up the down escalator, just because it can be done.

Instead of a campaign taking a bold, ingenious, and differentiated course, McCain’s was filled with chaotic, errant, and erratic decisions.

McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate. She impressed me at first. But, then, it became clear that she was not VP material — and that McCain had chosen her blindly, in haste. He staked his reputation and future on Palin, who made a big splash at the Republican National Convention, but, because of her lack of mental gravitas, quickly became an embarrassment. For example, Carl Cameron of Fox News reported to Bill O’Reilly that Palin didn’t even know that Africa is a continent.

With Palin, McCain was stuck in a bad marriage of his own creation, typical of all bad marriages: mismatched parties, joined together for the wrong reasons, replete with resentment and backstabbing.

Another example of John McCain’s erratic judgment: he suspended his campaign in the face of a financial-bailout vote on Capitol Hill and threatened to withdraw from the scheduled presidential debate at Ole Miss that Friday.

Instead of rushing to Washington to accomplish something — either to protest the bill’s passage or to markedly change it — McCain emerged from the smoke with no results. The debate was held after all, but, in 90 minutes of sparring, McCain never once mentioned the campaign-halting financial calamity that was paralyzing America. Meanwhile, Obama coolly glided through the whole mess, unscathed.

While understandable that America chose the better campaigner, it is disconcerting that America elected a man who spent only five months in the US Senate before declaring his bid for the presidency, possesses a long legacy of espousing socialist views, and has associated with left-wing America-haters like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Khalid Rashidi.  Yet, Americans disregarded Obama’s alarming pedigree, and McCain was reluctant to make a huge issue of it.

Gray-Haired Executives

In his campaign rhetoric, Obama made light of experience, claiming judgment as more important. After all, what else did he have to sell? But, he was convincing because his opponent, John McCain, was always displaying such a lack of judgment, despite his experience. Where I come from, though, judgment is the result of experience.

I live in Silicon Valley, the land of technology startups created by young, green, energetic idealists. Typically, they get their fledgling companies off the ground, gain some traction, and then hit the wall. What happens next?

They bring in the gray-haired executives with experience and judgment — chosen according to their associations and records of management philosophy and results — to run them properly. Google and Tesla, the new manufacturer of electric cars, are perfect examples. So, if companies need experienced execs with judgment to run them, why is this not true of a country of 300 million people?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

America now faces a dangerous future — filled with threats from terrorists and unfriendly nations, an unstable financial industry, a heightened cry for entitlements and redistributed wealth, the risk of rising taxes, and the potential reduction of individual freedom that accompanies socialism — with an inexperienced, left-leaning leader at the helm. And, two days of precipitous post-election drops on the New York Stock Exchange prove it.

Obama and Biden would not be bound for the White House were it not for the male vote. What did men think about when electing them? Taxes? Defense? Economic opportunity? Did men vote logically, or were they totally emotional? Based on the contest between a known veteran conservative who ran an erratic campaign and a novice socialist who ran a smooth one, it isn’t clear.

One factor men did not consider in choosing Obama/Biden: personal liberty. Based on my experience, personal liberty is the last thing men care about. They just don’t care. VP-elect Joe Biden has singlehandedly destroyed the lives of thousands of American men with his unconstitutional VAWA.

Crystal Gail Mangum was able to falsely accuse three Duke University lacrosse players of rape, with impunity, because of Joe Biden’s VAWA, which gives women license to destroy men. How many men know or care about that? Few. How many women know or care about that? Fewer. That’s why Joe Biden soon will occupy the VP mansion.

Had John McCain fought to eliminate the legislative and judicial injustices against men, he could have emerged as a true maverick — because, in this gynocracy, no politician has the guts to take on the feminist lobby.

Instead of exposing Obama’s weaknesses and emerging as a unique executive, John McCain, the man with experience and judgment, dithered and dashed and was diffuse in his message. And, that is why this self-proclaimed maverick is now a cadaverick, a moniker shared by the men who voted to destroy their personal liberties.

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.

I love you. Three powerful words. They change lives. Are they real? Unlikely. Men and women blithely utter these three words as easily as politicians promise tax cuts. Do they mean it? Odds are, no. The test below will tell you for sure.

Half of marriages end in divorce. What is a divorce, really? Besides being a legal process and a destroyer of families, it’s a biopsy on a marriage, a diagnostic evaluation of a failed union. On the altar, bride and groom pledge love as the primary component of their wedlock. As petitioner and respondent in a dissolution, which the wife initiates 70% of the time, they bicker over the loss of assets and children — not love. So, the biopsy reveals no evidence of love. What happened to it? Did it just vanish?

Unlikely. People marry for a variety of ulterior motives — money, lifestyle, loneliness, security, convenient sex, career, appearance, parental pressure, legitimate children, and Green Cards — none of which is love. In fact, in the entire history of marriage, love as a uniting force is a relatively new concept, and a weak one at that.

My contention is that love in a failed marriage or relationship was not real and never existed. To use a scientific analogy: If love is the chief component of marriage, it cannot disappear into thin air, without a trace. Think of love as having a binary property: either it exists or it doesn’t. By the same token, glass is the chief component of windows; it can’t just evaporate one day, defying all laws of physics and chemistry.

There are people who believe they’re marrying for love — but only because they don’t understand its meaning. Almost any dictionary mentions “passionate affection” in its definitions of love. But, most of us have experienced passionate affection, numerous times, with our spouses and paramours. If we’re honest, though, we’ll admit that those encounters weren’t necessarily love. So, a big problem is that, by and large, we don’t know the meaning of love. It’s a nebulous concept. Yet, we recite it, believe others who pledge it to us, and base wealth-depleting decisions on it. Total insanity.

Four Pillars of Love

What is love, then? How can one know whether he truly loves a woman or is receiving true love from her? This is a critical question, because one never should express or accept or base his life on anything he doesn’t grasp.

Allow me to offer a reliable, easy-to-remember love test. Simply, the four pillars of love are mutual and sustainable lust, obligation, veracity, and equality. For the structure of love to stand, all four pillars must be present. If one pillar is missing or deficient, the structure collapses, and there is no love. If the pillars are not mutual (supported by both man and woman) and sustainable (able to endure for years), there is no love.

Let’s examine these four pillars of love:

Lust — Lust is a powerful sexual attraction between mates. Without lust, two people are just companions. Lust is the result of mutual connection — physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, philosophical, political — manifesting as respect, admiration, and desire for intimacy. Lust cannot be sustained without the other three pillars (see below). Without lust, people get bored and stray. Women often are counseled by their mothers to disregard lust as unnecessary in a marriage (just catch a good provider); that’s why so many women cheat on and divorce their husbands. Many men find lustful women intimidating or offensive; that’s why they marry boring wives and then cheat on them. It’s a myth that lust is a short-term phenomenon. When asked why he never strayed in his 50-year marriage to Joanne Woodward, Paul Newman said: “Why should I go out for hamburger when I have steak at home?” Note: a quick way to kill lust is to eat like a pig and avoid the gym.

Obligation – Obligation is the mutual commitment to watch each other’s back, to defend each other, to speak well of each other in public and to the children, to rally each other, to be there for each other in difficult times (except in the case of self-destructive behavior like drug addiction), to consider each other in all major decisions, to be responsive to each other, to follow through consistently on promises to each other, to be faithful to each other, and to put each other first above all else and everybody else. Obligation, in this case, is meant not to be drudgery but voluntary and heartfelt. If you cannot imagine living up to or receiving these obligations one year or five years hence, love doesn’t exist in your situation. And, if one of you attempts to harm or destroy the other, at any time (including divorce court), love never existed between you.

Veracity – Veracity means truth.  Two people must communicate the truth to each other — about their feelings, thoughts, likes & dislikes, intentions, agendas, and actions — and they must do so willingly, frequently, and effortlessly. Alas, most people do not live this way, and that’s why most relationships fail. If two people meet online, and their dating profiles contained lies (age, weight, photos, etc.), they’re already doomed. There’s a myth that women convey their feelings more easily, willingly, and truthfully than men. Not only is this a myth, it’s a downright lie. If two people don’t have mutual and sustainable veracity, starting with initial contact, they have no love.

Equality – Equality is the antithesis of entitlement. Equality means that neither man nor woman is treated better or regarded more highly than the other, period. With equality, neither partner has rights or privileges superior to those of the other. A woman who expects that a man will wine & dine her, “because that’s the way it’s done,” doesn’t believe in equality. No love here. Conversely, a man who expects a woman to pick up his dirty socks, “because that’s the way it’s done,” doesn’t believe in equality — if she consents, neither does she. If a woman’s attraction to a man is predicated on the carats, casas, and cars he provides her, she doesn’t believe in equality — if he consents, neither does he. No love here.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Life is simple, but people work hard to make it difficult. Love is simple to understand, as the test above proves. Either love is present in your relationship, or it isn’t. You might feel a lot of attraction for her, and she for you, but that doesn’t make it love. Only if you have mutual and sustainable lust, obligation, veracity, and equality can you have love. If one of those pillars is missing or deficient, you don’t have love.

It’s OK to be in a relationship without love, as long as both of you are clear about it. If such is the case, never say, I love you, and never accept it from her — because both of you would be living a lie.

How real is her love? How real is yours? If the test shows not real, you have some big decisions to make.

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.

On the evening of October 2, 2008, Senator Joe Biden debated Governor Sarah Palin at Washington University in St. Louis. This sole matchup of the VP candidates was designed to measure their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, it was yet another opportunity for Biden to expose his ideological and unconstitutional bias towards women. He didn’t disappoint.

Among other accomplishments, Biden bragged to Palin that he had authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). No response from Palin. No response from moderator Gwen Ifill. But, that’s not surprising. Have you ever heard — just once — any law professor, politician, or talkshow host publicly challenge Joe Biden on this pernicious, misandrist, unlawful legislation-turned-industry? Never: invented rights for women are off the table.

VAWA is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which mandates that no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Accordingly, there is nothing — nothing — in the Constitution, expressed or implied, giving women any preferences over men. Yet, VAWA does exactly that: it provides domestic-violence protections and benefits exclusively to women. This is hypocrisy, pandering, and juris contemptus; amazingly, Americans accept it.

Joe Biden, who teaches a seminar in constitutional law at Widener University School of Law, professes to believe in the Equal Protection Clause, as evidenced by this exchange with Gwen Ifill about gay rights:

GWEN IFILL: The next round of — pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

JOE BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair. It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

Psychological Demons

So, if Joe Biden believes the Equal Protection Clause is valid for gays, why does he not believe it valid for heterosexual men whose wives and girlfriends punch them? Because Joe Biden grew up with an abusive sister who was allowed to hit him at any time with impunity. He internalized her abuse and somehow grew to see men as villains.

Frankly, I don’t care about Biden’s psychological demons; I do, however, care about his power as a US senator to use those demons to write laws — in concert with his legislative, judicial, and executive colleagues — that destroy my rights. His desire and ability to ignore the Constitution, when he sees fit, makes him a danger to all men.

Senator Biden is not alone in turning a blind eye to female-on-male violence. Recently, I appeared on a Dallas radio talkshow to discuss this topic — because of Macy’s misguided misandry campaign. A male caller berated me for not being man enough to take punches from women. That’s what many boys, including Joe Biden, are taught. Consequently, this double standard is reinforced endlessly in TV sitcoms and movies, where it is common and acceptable for women to hit and assault men.

America perversely believes that men hitting women is tragical while women hitting men is comical — even trivial. America is wrong, and Joe Biden is wrong. The Equal Protection Clause represents that hitting is wrong, regardless of who throws the punch.

Judicial Philosophy

Joe Biden exposed more of himself to Sarah Palin in this exchange with Gwen Ifill near the debate’s end:

GWEN IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue — and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year — can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

JOE BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties. And so that — that — that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it. But I did change on that, and — and I’m glad I did.

Once again, Joe Biden exposed himself and his personal agenda of giving consent only to judicial appointments who espouse his ideology and judicial philosophy, who will write opinions he likes.

Judges are supposed to be apolitical and stick to interpreting law as written. But, Joe Biden sees the US Constitution as a political document that he can use to further his causes. So far, nobody has stopped him.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

The voters of Delaware can’t get enough of Joe Biden, and they keep reelecting him as proof. But, that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to put him in the White House.

Ask any cop who gets a 911 call for domestic violence. He’ll tell you that, regardless of who threw the punch, in most cases the man is going to jail. If the cops discover afterwards that the woman’s accusation was false, they will NOT prosecute her. When you ask yourself how that can be, think Joe Biden.

Joe Biden exposed himself to Sarah Palin and, once again, to the rest of us. Worse, he’ll get to do more of it because America likes his perversion of justice against men. Does this include you?

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.

Men finally have figured out how to enjoy life like Heather Mills, the unjustly and grossly overcompensated ex-wife of Paul McCartney. They grew tired of watching women get bailed out of failed marriages, collecting obscene payouts and lifetime salaries called alimony. So, they developed a brilliant plan: become CEO of a teetering company, leave it in tatters, and exit with a golden parachute.

Here are examples of men living off divorce settlements like spoiled ex-wives, engaging in profit via failure:

• Franklin Raines earned $90M in his five years as Fannie Mae’s CEO, from 1999 to 2004, while cooking the books. One of his successors, Daniel Mudd, collected $11.6M in 2007 compensation. Fannie Mae — a quasi-governmental corporation created by Congress to support FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed secondary mortgages — failed so badly in late 2008 that, to prevent total collapse, the feds bailed it out for $200B+ (along with sister organization Freddie Mac) and took control of it
• In August 2007, Bank of America bought failed subprime-mortgage peddler Countrywide Financial for $2B — after CEO Angelo Mozilo sold $121M in company stock and the feds bailed it out for $51B
• In October 2007, the board of Merrill Lynch fired CEO Stanley O’Neal, who collected a cool $160M bonus payout on his way out the door. His successor, John Thain, earned $17M for one year — before selling Merrill to Bank of America for $50B
• James Cayne, as CEO of Bear Stearns, “earned” $49.31M in the last two years of his firm’s pitiful existence — before collapsing, receiving a $29B government bailout, and becoming part of JP Morgan Chase
• Richard Fuld, CEO and largest shareholder of Lehman Brothers, collected $354M in total compensation in the past five years — before declaring bankruptcy and melding into Barclays Financial
• Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke orchestrated an $85B withdrawal from taxpayer coffers to save insurance giant AIG from bankruptcy
• Alan Fishman, CEO for just 17 days of Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest S&L, floated out the door on an eye-popping $20M parachute — as it became the largest bank failure in US history, taken over by FDIC, and handed to JP Morgan Chase for the bargain price of $1.9B

Total cost to the taxpayers of these Wall Street divorce settlements: over $600B. Rationale: financial stability. Actual result: more turmoil and the need for another bailout.

By the way, these bailouts are unconstitutional because the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the federal government from selectively helping businesses or people. But, let’s not allow the Constitution to interfere with politics.

Now, the American taxpayers are further enraged as President Bush and Congress have completed a rescue bill that will require them to pony up another $700B, on top of the first $600B+, to stabilize the US financial system. Cries of socialism abound. Let weak companies fail! they demand. How dare those Wall Street bandits clean up when we folks on Main Street are sucking it up!

Ignoring Jurassic Park

The main cause of this near-meltdown is socialism. That is why the only solution — a bailout — is also socialism. We can trace all the chaos back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed during the Carter Era and buttressed during the Clinton Era, to help the have-nots own homes, to make home ownership an inalienable right.

Social engineers like Barney Frank imposed pressure on banks to put people of little means (many of them illegal aliens) into homes. The availability of easy cash and the weight of political correctness compounded to reward these unqualified borrowers for assuming home loans they couldn’t afford.

From there, the lending banks packaged and sold these “subprime” mortgages to the likes of Bear Stearns, which created tradable paper (mortgage-backed securities) linked back to said unqualified borrowers. Even worse, the financial system provided lax regulatory oversight of the whole mess. This scenario is akin to building a house with termite-infested wood.

Each member of this financial gravy train — unqualified borrower, greedy banker, and avaricious mortgage reseller — pursued undeserved wealth, exhibited massive entitlement, and enjoyed total lack of accountability. Any system functions according to the incentives and disincentives underlying it.

As mentioned before, the socialistic goal was to put have-nots in houses. The real outcome? A sea of foreclosures, people out of homes and on their asses, venerated financial institutions dead, sold, or on the verge of disappearing — and an economy Warren Buffet calls the financial equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

All the players ignored the simple lesson of Jurassic Park: defying the laws of nature effects calamity. Giving advantages to people who haven’t earned them always results in the whole of society paying a calamitous price.

American taxpayers have been livid about Bush’s bailout, verbalizing their anger via radio talkshows, letters to newspaper editors, comments on blogs, and the switchboards of Congress and the White House. As a result, the final bailout plan differs significantly from the original one proposed by Secretary Paulson, who wanted to be solely in control of managing $700B. Citizen outcry does work.

When we close this chapter of US history, CEOs no longer will be able to profit via failure, to act like ex-wives. Will the same be true of ex-wives themselves? It depends on you.

Main Street Sirens

If men were so motivated to protest bailing out a system that rewarded failure on Wall Street, why are they not equally outraged to revolt against rewarding unwed motherhood and failure in marriage? Why not? Is the principle of eliminating injustice not a universal one? Apparently not when women are involved. In fact, men — especially male gynocrats — are afraid of women and will kowtow to them endlessly. That’s why the party is over for Wall Street barons but in full swing for Main Street sirens.

I coined the term merchant maureen to describe a woman who drops her anchor into a man’s wallet, with his consent. When that merchant maureen becomes pregnant and/or adds a wedding ring to her finger, she rises in status to Fannie Mae.  To me, Fannie Mae represents fraud, entitlement, and lack of accountability — a perfect metaphor for a woman who seeks to profit via failure by taking advantage of the financial incentives society offers her to marry, bear children, and divorce.

Too many women enter marriages with this attitude: Hey, if it doesn’t work out, I’m protected. And, that is why so many marriages fail: rewards for failure beget more failures.

If your wife is Fannie Mae, remember that you chose her — despite knowing that she fully agrees with and condones the following nonsense:

• Women receive at least 90% of all child support paid in the US
• Women receive at least 90% of all alimony paid in the US
• If a woman marries and/or gets pregnant by a wealthy man, she is entitled to be maintained in his upper-crust lifestyle after they part company
• If a woman isn’t financially qualified, in her own right, to indulge in her husband’s lifestyle before becoming part of it, she is entitled by law to do so after exiting it
• A woman is not only allowed to take more capital and property out of her marriage than she put into it, she is allowed to draw a salary for life — alimony — tantamount to indentured servitude for her ex-husband.

The social engineers — most of them men — believe that, by incenting women to marry, divorce, and bear children, they create societal stability. The reality? A revolving door in female-ly court, where women bring 70% of divorces; an out-of-wedlock birthrate approaching 50%; rampant paternal alienation; hordes of financially ruined fathers; and a rising crop of undisciplined children (e.g., California’s highschool dropout rate is almost 25%).

Any system functions according to the incentives and disincentives underlying it. This one is, appropriately, failing — and we are paying a calamitous price.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Does your “Fannie Mae” differ from the unqualified borrower who bought a home he couldn’t afford or the CEO who fled a broken company with a taxpayer-subsidized payoff? No, she doesn’t. And, she would leave you broken without a second thought. The system of “profit via failure” encourages and incents her to do just that.

If men would exhibit as much outrage to their elected officials about abolishing marital fraud as they did about abolishing Wall Street fraud, we would see action. But, I suspect they won’t: too afraid of not getting laid and being labeled misogynists.

I, however, want action and propose the following policies to eliminate profit via failure in American homes:

• Abolish all welfare and child support for unwed mothers, gutting the unwed-mother movement. Women who bear children out of wedlock will be totally responsible for supporting them, just like women who adopt children.
• No monthly child support in equal-custody situations. Extra expenditures like summer camp must be mutually agreed and negotiated, or it doesn’t happen.
• In unequal-custody situations, the child-support obligation of the noncustodial parent (almost always the father) will be no more than 5% of gross pay. Extra expenditures like summer camp must be mutually agreed and negotiated, or it doesn’t happen.
• Abolish all alimony, no exceptions.
• All couples must have prenups approved in advance before states let them marry.

By instituting the aforementioned policies — thereby removing all financial incentives to marry, bear children, and divorce — marriages will be entered into slowly and thoughtfully, decisions to bear children will be made cautiously and judiciously, and divorces will be approached rationally, objectively, and in the best interest of all concerned.

Imagine this new setup where women must actually love men before “committing” to them. No more “strategic” marriages or “accidental” pregnancies. I know one thing: If you married Fannie Mae, she won’t like it. I know another thing, too: Unless you force your pols to scrap the old system, accept life with Fannie Mae.

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.

Nobody was less shocked than I to learn that 87% of workplace professionals bring PDAs into their bedrooms and that 35% of them would choose these devices over their spouses. This is the finding of Sheraton Hotels & Resorts in a survey of 6500 execs from Australia, China, Germany, the UK, and the US.

Why are so many people literally in love with their BlackBerrys? Dysfunctional relationships and bedroom boredom abound, and people are choosing inanimate objects for companionship. Essentially, men and women loathe talking directly and frankly to each other and, consequently, become sexually entangled for the strangest reasons and in the wrong ways.

If you don’t believe me, just sit in the back row of a divorce court one day. Listen to the parade of parties, allegedly once in love, excoriate each other. This all-too-common downward spiral occurs when spouses cohabit without ever experiencing emotional intimacy, from avoiding more issues than they discuss.

When boys are raised never to ask women their ages, ask them to pay, or tell them off-color jokes, they are, in essence, taught avoidance. Correspondingly, girls are trained never to challenge men directly, never to pay, and to be demure and indirect. So, it shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone when, as adults, men and women possess no ability to establish trust or open communication with each other.

It’s no wonder, then, that the BlackBerry — a communications device totally dedicated to its owner, who can program and switch it on or off at will — is more appealing to an uncommunicative person than another human being he cannot predict or control.

Designated Pursuer

Ask your friends why they became involved with their significant others; you will hear some bizarre answers such as, “I don’t really know; it just kind of happened.” Or, “We met online and started seeing each other and never questioned it.” Hookups often are pursued because of convenience: “She was ‘there’ when I was looking.” How about, “He was so aggressive in asking me out, I couldn’t say no.”

Can you articulate clearly and in great detail why you are with your paramour or spouse? I’ll bet you can’t; I say this because of e-mails from disillusioned readers, calls from radio audiences, and clients of my relationship coaching. Most men and women never give much thought to what brought them together. So, the first problem with relationships is why they formed.

Next, let’s examine how these lovebirds got together. Despite all the talk about equality and powerful women, especially with the rise of Sarah Palin,  men and women, in most situations, prefer old-fashioned courting, where the man pursues, wines & dines, and “lands” the woman — the first stage of the Estrogen Express.

There is no rational reason, no financial excuse, and no sexual justification for the man to be the “designated pursuer” of the woman. Worse, everything about this unbalanced, inequitable scenario leads eventually to anger, resentment, and emotional distance on both sides.

No man ever will respect a woman he had to chase and purchase, and no woman ever will respect a man who emasculated himself to endure such nonsense — even though she was happy to benefit from it. Yet, this mating dance is precisely how most relationships are formed, and that is the problem.

Given that 50% of marriages end in divorce, that women bring 70% of those divorces, that at least half of all men and women cheat on their spouses, and that 35% of participants in Sheraton’s survey choose their PDAs over their spouses, let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the relationship mill is broken.

Psychotherapists would urge spouses to put away their BlackBerrys and talk to each other, face to face. Unfortunately, these mental-health professionals are missing the point: PDA-addicted people don’t like their spouses and never will, and they are unskilled in the dialog of human intimacy — the chief reason they chose their undesirable spouses. Their preferred companions have LCD screens and lithium batteries.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In an age where women have the freedom to pursue whatever educational, professional, and personal endeavors they wish, men must insist on full equality — both benefits and costs — in relationships with them, or nothing at all.

If a man feels unilaterally required to make his woman happy through dating, the engagement, and her wedding day, he will find himself subordinated and unhappy in marriage. Then, he will cling to his trustworthy BlackBerry for companionship — and, unfortunately, for communicating with his divorce lawyer. Instead, by simply rejecting chivalry and all female entitlements, he can spare himself this pain.

If your life boils down to a choice between sex and the BlackBerry, pick the latter: it’s all you’re equipped to handle.

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.

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.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

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.”

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.

Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe columnist:

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.

Within minutes of Senator John McCain introducing Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his vice-presidential running mate, the talking heads on radio & TV were consumed with one question: Will Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s choice for veep, be able to debate her with his trademark brusque, adversarial manner? The answer was, universally, no. Why? She’s a woman.

Nothing is more condescending to women than kid-glove treatment, yet most men reflexively provide it and few women protest it. Such hypocritical deference, in a country where women “claim” to want equality and men “claim” to honor it, is tantamount to keeping them under glass — like Barbie Dolls arrayed on a toystore shelf.

Ironically, women who desire to be coddled and placed in a protected class — where they receive free wining & dining from men; are allowed, with impunity, to falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence; get automatic child custody; benefit exclusively from Roe v. Wade; and are encouraged, with EEOC endorsement, to wear cocktail wardrobe at work — actually wish to be encased in glass.

The result is the so-called “glass ceiling,” an imaginary boundary that many women believe men built to prevent them from advancing into executive positions. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: boundaries exist only if one believes they exist. Ask Michael Phelps, the Olympic swimmer who this year won eight gold medals by believing anything’s possible. Beginning any journey with the belief in failure will, in itself, cause failure. And, blaming others for failure, as the glass-ceiling adherents do, is also failure.

If you’ve ever watched me debate women on Fox News, you know I refuse to participate in this anachronistic but still-popular custom of deference. Instead, I treat them as equals, focusing on their words — not their genitalia. Secure, fair-minded women appreciate obeisance-free discourse, and the men with the balls to engage them in it.

Vintage Victimspeak

Everything I’ve read about Sarah Palin indicates that she’s one tough cookie who will easily withstand and counter the in-your-face salvos of VAWA Joe. If that’s not the case, she’s unfit for the VP job. Trust me: Putin,  Achmadinijad, Asaad, and Chavez won’t put Governor Palin under glass.

When Hillary Clinton conceded to Barack Obama on June 7, 2008, she bragged about having received 18 million primary votes, a US record. Quite an accomplishment, right? Not after she diluted it by equating each vote to a crack in “the glass ceiling.” Clinton didn’t come clean to admit that her campaign was rife with problems. No, instead, she bloviated with vintage victimspeak: Ladies, men are the reason we women fail.

As I listened to Sarah Palin accepting John McCain’s invitation to join him on the ticket that historic Friday in Dayton, she instantly impressed me with her intelligence, style, gravitas, strength, vision, independence, and energy … until she transparently pandered to Hillary’s voters:

“It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

What glass ceiling? If it exists, how did Palin, with virtually no experience, ascend from mayor of her small town to governor of Alaska — a very macho state?  She did it with brains, guts, hard work, sharp elbows, and no victimhood whining. Despite being antithetical to her own experience, she felt that the “glass ceiling” would resonate with Hillary’s acolytes. Frankly, I think she blunted her otherwise powerful message.

The Wage-Gap Crap

Another form of the farcical glass ceiling is the oft-mentioned wage gap between the genders. It’s crap. At the DNC in Denver, Barack Obama said: “And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.” Senator Obama, your daughters have more opportunities than our sons. Stop your nonsense.

In American universities today, 42% more women than men graduate. Women in their 20s outearn their male peers in cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas. Women on corporate boards of directors outearn their male peers.

If men in similar jobs aren’t paid equally — and they’re not — how is it possible to mandate equal pay between genders? It isn’t. Everyone is paid what he or she is worth, and that compensation is determined by job skills, job requirements, personality, geography, industry, company size, and negotiating skills. When a company offers a woman a salary, and she accepts it — without negotiating a better deal — she is agreeing to the amount. She can’t later complain that some man outearns her.

People often cite, and blindly accept, a mysterious “statistic” indicating that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man earns. Surprisingly, few ask how that figure was derived. It’s meaningless. Moreover, it does not factor in child support and alimony, which women receive in at least 90% of cases. And, let’s not forget the imputed income to women when men pay for their entertainment and travel. All told, according to Allianz, the financial-services behemoth, women control 60% of American wealth.

Take a man earning $2M per year and another living under a bridge, earning nothing. Lump them together: each has an average annual salary of $1M. Makes sense on a calculator but not in reality. Men and women, in general, have different jobs. In addition, more women than men are in low-paying, part-time jobs. Yes, there are men and women with equal jobs in the executive ranks. But, rarely do you find women welding steel atop bridges or men changing diapers in daycare centers. So, if you take a group of women, ranging from CEO to secretary, and a group of men, ranging from CEO to Navy SEAL, the arithmetic averages of their wages will not be equal. But, because most men feel guilty for being alive, let alone walking upright, they easily succumb to this glass-ceiling wage-gap crap.

Biden’s VAWA Trap

In an amazing twist of fate, Joe Biden may fall into his own misandrist trap. Biden created the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act in 1994 to vilify men and encase women in glass. Ironically, if he attacks Sarah Palin in the presidential debates, she would, according to VAWA, be justified in calling 911 to have him arrested.

That’s right: by making Governor Palin fearful with his hostile tone, Joe Biden will be breaking his own hateful law — thereby cutting himself on a shard from one of the cracks in the proverbial glass ceiling. What sweet justice. So, it remains to be seen whether Biden will assail Palin or keep her under glass. I guess we’ll have to wait a few weeks, won’t we!

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

In the short term, victimhood sells the feminist cause, but in the long term, it fells the feminist cause. Men never will respect women who want special treatment. The “glass ceiling” and victimhood are synonymous. Never confuse deference with respect: they are mutually exclusive.

If women want to shatter that so-called glass ceiling, all they need do is drop their desire to be kept under glass. Then, they will discover, magically, that there is no glass ceiling — only the myth of a glass ceiling, which is both a farce and a crutch.

Women have two choices: Either stay home to bake cookies as unequals, with reduced rights and deferential treatment, or compete and coexist with men as equals, with equal rights and equal treatment. Trying to have it all by cherry-picking the best features of each is a blatant attempt to be kept under glass — engendering disrespect and resentment among men.

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard — all in the John McCain circle — made it to the top. How was this possible? Because they didn’t let boundaries, glass or other, stop them. Do they have bruises? Of course: that’s life in the fast lane.

The glass ceiling is a farce, as are the 18 million cracks in it. In fact, the only ceiling on your success is the one you put there.

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.