The Death of Manhood

According to the CDC, heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death in men. These maladies pale in comparison to the leading causes of the death of manhood: denial and inertia. Because so many men have their heads in the sand and refuse to fight for their waning civil rights, feminism continues its nonstop, high-octane, uncontested control of American laws and culture.

Ignoring inevitable reality never produces a happy ending. American politicians, who disallowed drilling off the coasts of California and Florida for three decades, are now running amok like decapitated chickens, balking at spiraling gasoline prices, desperately searching for alternative energy sources, and hypocritically exhorting new lifestyles.

Their panic began instantaneously about three months ago, when the price of gasoline first hit $4 per gallon in California — ostensibly the magic tipping point, the pain threshold. Now, the national average price exceeds $4, causing lifestyle hardships to 90% of Americans.

Was this fuel crisis predictable and predicted many years ago? Absolutely. Did anybody take it seriously? Absolutely not. But, what does one expect from inert people who eat a steady diet of denial?

TV’s talking heads and business columnists, on any given day, alternately and collectively blame OPEC, commodities speculators, oil companies, state and federal governments, environmentalists, and drivers of SUVs for this situation. Is there a practical solution in sight — such as offshore drilling, inland drilling, solar, wind, nuclear power, flex-fuels, or electric cars — in any reasonable timeframe? No. Fact is, we’re all screwed for the foreseeable future.

Unacceptable Copout

Every week, I receive hundreds of e-mails from men who have been hosed in divorce court, falsely accused of domestic violence and rape, and unable to see their children because of paternal alienation. They don’t know what to do, but they also have a history of complaining without acting.

Feminists are engaged in an endless campaign to worsen men’s lives. This situation is severe and crisis-bound. But, as long as men ignore it, mutter under their breaths, complain under aliases on blogs, and drink beer while watching SportsCenter, they have no right to squawk. Their unacceptable copout will lead to a day, akin to the current era of $4 gas, when the increasingly oppressive system of American gynojustice will be unstoppable and unfixable. It’s as certain now as $4 gas was when Thomas Friedman told us three years ago, in The World Is Flat, that China and India would be dictating fuel prices.

What does $4 gas have to do with men’s rights? Nothing and everything. If you think this article is about gasoline, go back to your beer and your fantasy football. The point is simple: Men must act today to defeat the future total domination of feminists. No more excuses.

Irreversible Consequences

One good example of how to fight back — using pragmatic, effective tactics — is the lawsuit filed by the Vienna, WV-based group called Men and Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD), which seeks to stop West Virginia’s unconstitutional and discriminatory (pro-female) funding of domestic-violence programs and shelters. In another effort, MAWAD is working to eliminate the anti-father West Virginia Family Court culture.

If men would copy MAWAD’s approach, at both state and federal levels around the country, they can dismantle the lopsided gynocracy — without resorting to counterproductive stunts like illegally scaling the Lincoln Memorial.

Remaining inert and living in denial, however, will lead eventually to crisis, the blame game, and irreversible consequences. To wit: VAWA (the unconstitutional but increasingly oppressive Violence Against Women Act) is already 14 years old, has ruined thousands of men’s lives, and knows no bounds. Moreover, as the national average percentage of out-of-wedlock babies approaches 50%, child-support fees, like the price of gasoline, will continue to escalate. Why not?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

This, the third article in a trilogy — along with “Men’s Silence Is Women’s Gold” and “Obama’s Baby Mamas” — is designed to:

1. Remind men that they live in a gynocracy
2. Admonish them to remove their heads from the sand
3. Warn them that their window of opportunity to prevent the death of manhood is almost closed
4. Stir them to take action — ASAP.

Despite its economic cost, the emergence of $4 gas can help men by exhibiting what happens when people foresee future perils but do nothing to prevent them. The question is, Will $4 gas help men? Doubtful. Men have sat back for years while elected gynocrats abridged their reproductive and civil rights. The current energy crisis presents an opportunity to learn something. Think of $4 gas as a two-by-four between the eyes, a crystal ball for the final destruction of men’s rights.

Every man has two options going forward:

1. Work with and fund groups like MAWAD and the National Coalition of Free Men to force pro-female politicians to create a gender-neutral government
2. Awake every day — out of gas and out of luck — with his manhood marginalized.

Based on what I’ve witnessed so far, I’m betting that men, unfortunately, will just pay the $4 for gas, the $5 for beer, and keep muttering under their breaths while saluting the gynocratic flag.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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.

Cafeteria of Endless Options

Barack Obama’s misandrist “Fathers’ Day Speech of 2008?, in which he transparently pandered to female voters by solely blaming men for the epidemic of fatherless homes, was a watershed moment in US history: he officially released girls and women from all reproductive responsibility.

The Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973 tells us that abortion is unilaterally a woman’s choice. She, and she alone, has the power and authority over her body and her baby. In other words, the man is irrelevant. OK. Does that not mean she has total responsibility as well? Logic says yes. But wait, there’s more. If she carries her baby to term but then doesn’t want it, laws allow her to drop it off at the local fire station — no questions asked — or put it up for adoption. The unlucky “sperm owner” has little power to protest her actions. But, once she decides to keep that baby, the sperm owner — actually, his wallet — is immediately relevant and responsible. Yes, for a woman, life is a cafeteria of endless options.

Liberalism’s Unintended Consequences

In the US, an average 40% of babies are born to unwed mothers. In England, the average is above 50%. Why? Two reasons. First, Hollywood makes movies like Juno and Knocked Up that glamorize teen pregnancy; a constant stream of unwed Hollywood actresses inappropriately “announce” their pregnancies and “show off” their baby bumps. Second, unwed mothers are eligible for welfare or child support: get cash for your kids. Neither was the case 50 years ago, when out-of-wedlock births were extremely rare and universally condemned. There is no doubt that, if welfare and child support for unwed mothers were outlawed, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would plummet. Did Barack Obama speak about this on Mothers’ Day?

Liberal policies, which selectively condone or ignore “bad” behavior, always have unintended consequences; it’s only a matter of time. In Massachusetts, at Gloucester High School, teen girls, none older than 16, have confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together (having babies makes a girl a woman, right Senator Obama?). In fact, these girls are more upset, after taking pregnancy tests, to learn that they’re not pregnant! All school officials can do is shake their heads in disbelief. Did Barack Obama speak of this on Mothers’ Day?

Paternity fraud, a scheme in which a mother falsely tags a man as the father of her child, is rampant in the US. New Hampshire found that as many as 30 percent of men paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported. How could this happen if women are helpless victims and men irresponsible low-lifes? Mandatory DNA testing for all newborns would: 1) end paternity fraud, 2) virtually empty the family courts, and 3) slash judicial and child-support-infrastructure budgets — overnight. Did Barack Obama speak about this on Mothers’ Day?

Rosanna Hertz, professor and chair of women’s studies at Wellesley College (Hillary Clinton’s alma mater), wrote a book called Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family. The new American family, without fathers? Yes. Hertz’s book, which extols the “virtues” of fatherless homes, won “Outstanding Book for 2007” in the January 2008 issue of Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Did Barack Obama speak about this travesty on Mothers’ Day?

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Even though a sperm must unite with an egg to create a fertilized embryo, at the end of the day, a woman is the goalie of her uterus: she decides whether a puck gets in, which puck gets in, and whether the puck stays in. Anyone who disagrees with this cannot become a US Supreme Court justice.

Unmarried mothers must stop complaining that sperm owners aren’t committed fathers. Here’s a rule of thumb for every unmarried woman: if you have no wedding ring on your finger, assume the man with whom you’re having sex will not hang around post-childbirth. Let that sink in the next time you roll the dice with an innocent child’s future.

Women have 20 methods of birth control from which to choose, according to Planned Parenthood. Women must stop passing the puck to men. Either men are equally responsible for pregnancy or they’re not. If they are, give them an equal say in all decisions about abortion, adoption, and custody. Otherwise, all unwed mothers should be totally responsible — logistically and financially — for raising their children.

Until we mandate nationwide DNA testing for all newborns, any woman who perpetrates a maternity or paternity fraud on a man must be prosecuted, obligated to compensate him for emotional distress, and required to refund all his support money, plus interest.

In four years, whether or not Barack Obama becomes president, he’ll be able to take pride in knowing he gave girls and women a pass and spawned a whole new generation of baby mamas.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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 Defeatist Generation

Tom Brokaw’s book, The Greatest Generation, is filled with personal accounts of brave American soldiers who fought in World War II. Until Brokaw interviewed them, in their august years, they never had spoken to anyone of their wartime experiences, believing that feelings are better left undisturbed and unarticulated, that silence and masculinity are synonymous. Instead of teaching their sons to fight like hell and sacrifice for a great cause, these reluctant talkers inadvertently created a generation of passively silent men who pathetically march to the feminist agenda. Alas, these Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials are the men of The Defeatist Generation — willing to lay down their arms and surrender to the gynocratic army.

When the topic is Osama bin Laden, men are Rambo; when the topic is women, men are Bambi. Men will go bonkers over — and pay lots of cash to see — football, hockey, rock concerts, tractor pulls, boxing matches, and naked women. But, when elected officials legislate away their reproductive, civil, and custody rights, their rowdiness melds into reticence. These men of “action” are quickly transformed into passive, diffident, cheap wimps. If one of their friends gets falsely accused of rape, they will be shocked … for two seconds … and then hope like hell it never happens to them. End of story.

Like Tom Brokaw’s WWII heroes, men of The Defeatist Generation willingly suck up their pain, akin to the old circus guy taking a cannonball in the stomach. Unlike Brokaw’s war heroes, however, they win few gender wars because they rarely, if ever, fight back. Only defeatists subserviently wine & dine their girlfriends and wives for sex, and then see those same women gouge them in divorce court. Only defeatists continue to reelect and reelect Senator Joe Biden, the biggest man-hater in the US Senate, the father of VAWA — the inexplicably unconstitutional but thriving Violence Against Women Act.

On my radio show two weeks ago, I interviewed Michael Robinson, executive director of the California Alliance of Families and Children (CAFC). With an annual operating budget of $50K, Michael is the sole policy consultant for men’s rights in California. He competes with 25 feminist lobbyists, operating with $10M per year — outstaffed 25:1 and outspent 200:1. That’s why California, in 2008, still unconstitutionally defines DV as man hitting woman! Yet, he’s had some great legislative successes: preventing divorced mothers from unilaterally moving their children out of state, keeping parental alienation in the family-court lexicon, and putting a stop to some forms of paternity fraud.

Incredibly, if Michael Robinson quits his tireless policy-reform activities or becomes incapacitated, the men in California will have nobody to fight for them in Sacramento. They must find this alarming, right? Wrong. When I asked Robinson how much donation money he had received almost two weeks after appearing on my show, he answered: “Zero!” That’s right: men feel entitled to Michael Robinson’s hard work.

Survival of the Fittest

Money talks; bullshit walks. One must conclude, then, that the peripatetic men of the Golden State are so busy with bullshit, like playing fantasy football and paying their women for sex, that they can’t be bothered to worry about losing their rights. That’s why California is called the Golden State: men’s silence is women’s gold. Gynocratic politicians, and the male voters who elect them, enable women to mine the gold of maternity and paternity fraud, and false accusations of rape, DV, and sexual harassment.

Case in point: Senator Joe Biden wants to give women free access to 100K taxpayer-funded lawyers so they can falsely accuse men of DV and take their children away from them. Unconstitutionality aside, there are two psychological questions necessary here: 1) Why does Biden continue his angry rampage against men? 2) Why do the eunuchs of Delaware keep this A-hole in office?

Notwithstanding that “survival of the fittest” is an irrefutable axiom, known to every living creature on Planet Earth, men somehow contract amnesia and a death wish when women are present — their testicles experience real shrinkage. I see this every time a man pulls out a chair for his female competitor in the infamous boardroom on Donald Trump’s The Apprentice.

Passive silence is the signature characteristic of The Defeatist Generation. Just remember what happens to the proverbial frog sitting motionless in the pot of water over a low flame: as the water temperature slowly rises (akin to yet another misandrist law being passed), the frog incrementally approaches the point of death. Likewise, while men sit in silent oblivion, the determined feminists, aided by male politicians, incrementally crank up the legislative and judicial heat until these silent, oblivious men are dead in the water.

General Mills is currently running a misandrist Multi-Grain Cheerios commercial in which the husband, deathly afraid of his wife, informs her that the cereal has only 110 calories. She demands to know if he’s calling her fat. Then, he almost wets his pants and barely can look her in the eye, while apologetically explaining that he was merely reading the box’s nutrition matrix. “What else does the box say?” she gloweringly inquires. He sheepishly replies, “Shut up, Steve.” Finally, she shoots him a wan, condescending smirk of approval. I want to puke every time I see this trash. This eunuch is a typical cowering American male, a member of the Defeatist Generation. Why didn’t he just say to her, “Yeah, you have a fat ass!”?

Why did General Mills fund this commercial? Because its VP of marketing felt that diminishing a man in front of his wife would sell cereal, based on how most couples interact. The eunuch in this Cheerios commercial is a proxy for every man who grovels to his merchant maureen for sex, for every feminist-controlled gynocrat who’s so fearful of his wife that he willingly throws his male constituents under the bus.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Based on my experience in this business, men tend to blame their misandry predicament on women. That’s like getting drunk and wrapping your new car around a tree, and then blaming the alcohol.

The reality is, men must blame themselves for slowly giving away their rights over the past 50 years. They must stop behaving like cringing, passive, silent, cheap ostriches and become titans of action — before the indefatigable feminists, with their deep Louis Vuitton bags, completely gut men’s rights. Men cling to their remaining right — the right to remain silent — and have made it an artform, a self-defeating death wish.

Men make two key mistakes in life: they recruit merchant maureens and elect gynocrats. A merchant maureen is a woman who drops her anchor into a man’s wallet, with his consent. He is silent, out of desperation for sex, and willingly gives her his gold. Most men, whether in private life or politics, just don’t have the balls to stand up to merchant maureens.

A gynocrat is a politician who cares only about women’s rights — men are invisible and irrelevant. Can you name an American politician who isn’t a gynocrat? Didn’t think so. Yet, gynocrats hold — and keep — elected office because men, 44% of the electorate, put and keep them there. Accordingly, gynocrats care nothing about men because they have no evidence that men care about themselves.

Men will protest a bad referee call during the Super Bowl, but they won’t protest bad laws that strip them of their rights. Men will pay thousands of dollars to purchase widescreen TVs the week before the Super Bowl, but they won’t contribute $10 to a lobbyist fighting for their rights to live as protected citizens. What else would you expect from the Defeatist Generation?

Again, men make two key mistakes in life: they recruit merchant maureens and elect gynocrats. Very simply, then, here’s how they can self-correct: 1) don’t recruit merchant maureens and 2) don’t elect gynocrats.

The true measure of a man is the courage of his convictions, the degree to which he’ll fight for his rights. The bottom line is the bottom line: How much do you really want to keep your gold? Your deafening silence says it all.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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.

Lessons from Childhood

Have you ever argued with your girlfriend or wife and realized — after hearing her words and voice tonality, viewing her facial expressions and body language, weighing the facts of the situation, and objectively assessing your personal behavior — that she was fighting not with you but with her father, mother, siblings, ex-boyfriends, or ex-husbands?

Of course you have, and I’ll bet it was recently. She hurled phrases, displayed fears, and used battle tactics that seemed incongruous with the matter at hand and inappropriate for you. Striking a chord yet? Congratulations! You know how to spot her emotional baggage. Now the question is, will that baggage ruin your journey?

What is baggage? Emotions from her childhood home or previous relationships and marriages that affect her current attitudes and actions. Her ability to resolve conflicts with you is a function of the age, size, weight, and style of her baggage.

There are three categories of conflict in the childhood home. The two polar extremes are 0% conflict, where her parents never argued at all, and 100% conflict, where they argued incessantly. I believe both of these to be detrimental to children.

If one’s parents never argued, they lived a somewhat superficial, disengaged life — with certain topics never broached, emotions never revealed, and words never uttered. Accordingly, with all that avoidance, there was no reason for conflict.

But, all people who are fully intermeshed have conflicts of one kind or another, at various times, whether they be spouses, paramours, business partners, or fellow citizens. Navigating those conflicts in healthy, constructive, respectful ways is the secret to successful human relations.

Navigation Skills

So, it follows that the child raised in an environment of either zero conflict or total conflict never learns those navigation skills, because he never sees adults successfully resolving conflicts and loving each other afterwards. Interestingly, this child, as an adult, will seek two extremes in mates: either one who is passionless, boring, and “safe,” or one overly emotional, anarchic, and given to explosive fits. The common thread in these two extreme relationships is the lack of closeness, confidence, and trust — and lots of avoidance.

The fundamental difference between the child of round-the-clock conflict and the one from total calmness is the amount of emotional baggage. Anyone emerging from a battle zone will carry forward some of the characteristics of that zone. Look at soldiers returning from a war — some of them never recover from the post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

Consequently, the child who lived in his parents’ battle zone will mimic many of their words, thought processes, emotions, and actions. On the other hand, the child who never saw his parents fight will have a naive, unrealistic view of relationships, expecting his to replicate the artificial serenity of theirs, and will tend to avoid every future romantic conflict — even a healthy one.

The third case is the one in which the child’s parents had only occasional conflicts (I believe 10-25% of the time is a healthy range) and resolved them quickly, rationally, and lovingly. The child who grew up in such a household is not only rare but extremely fortunate — considering the high number of miserable marriages, the 50% divorce rate, and the 40% out-of-wedlock birthrate. His skill for resolving conflicts — if he was paying attention to his parents — is likely the highest of all cases, as is his ability to recognize and choose a mate with similar skills.

Add the baggage of childhood to that of previous relationships and marriages, most people need porters to help them carry it all — because they make no effort to emotionally downsize. Even though this baggage prevents them from enjoying life and new paramours, they cling to it as Linus clings to his blanket in the Peanuts cartoon. It amazes me that people find comfort and security in discomfort and insecurity, but that’s what keeps psychiatrists’ couches full.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

We are taught by a schizophrenic society, one that purports to love religion and politics, to avoid discussions of religion and politics. Nonsense. I say talk about everything with every woman you meet: money, sex, marriage, divorce, men’s rights, religion, politics, business, history, music, sports, and the culture wars. Only by getting into tough subjects can you expose her baggage — and yours. You want a modicum of conflict with her, to determine how both of you handle it.

Why would you become emotionally involved with a woman and not know your ability to navigate inevitable conflicts with her? Yet, that’s what most men do: wait until the wheels come off the relationship, especially in divorce, to find out. To avoid conflict, to avoid learning about your respective conflict-resolution styles, is to become Tiny Tim tiptoeing through and around her “two-lips.”

The Transportation Security Administration screens all carry-on and checked bags. Why? They are heavy and can be explosive. Because of rising fuel prices, American Airlines is now charging $15 for the first checked bag. Accordingly, every man must screen his woman’s baggage, because it can be heavy, expensive, and explosive — ask any divorce lawyer.

If you don’t learn to screen her baggage, the whole journey of your life could be filled with her parents and siblings and all her ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands, in absentia. If that’s not the trip you planned, and I’ll bet it’s not, here’s what to do: When your warning buzzer indicates her explosive baggage is aboard, ask her to ditch it. If she won’t ditch her baggage, ask her to deplane.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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.

Cancel the Wedding

There’s a question every man should ask his fiancée before their big wedding day; too bad he doesn’t ask it: Are you marrying me to become my wife or a mother? If she doesn’t immediately reply, without hesitation, “to become your wife,” cancel the wedding.

Why would I make such a bold assertion? It’s not just because all my assertions are bold. Marriage, as strictly defined, has nothing to do with children. That’s right. Yet, in the typical home, the husband and wife will allow their marriage to revolve around their children. Worse, when that marriage ends, and there’s a good chance it will, their divorce will revolve around their children, too.

In my observation, wives are more guilty than husbands of making children “priority #1.” This is because such behavior is socially acceptable and politically correct in a country that considers motherhood noble and fatherhood trivial. When I discussed my article “Are You Her Number One?” on various radio shows, many a female caller was outraged at the prospect that any man should outrank her children!

According to Harvard psychology professor, Daniel Gilbert, children take the happiness out of marriage. In fact, Gilbert claims that sadness increases with the number of children. Most people don’t like to admit this, because it would sound horrible, but it’s true.

Ignoring Their Wedding Vows

I’ve examined the vows of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic weddings — as well as the texts of numerous states’ marriage licenses and certificates. Nowhere in these vows or documents can I find the word children. In other words, marriage is a bond exclusively between a husband and a wife. It does not include children. It does not include in-laws. But, is this what really happens in marriages? Hell no.

Ask any woman whom she loves more, her husband or her children. I’m betting she’ll say, “my children, of course.” Her husband is, obviously, programmed to respond, “Well, that’s the way it is, right?” Yet, he’s the one with whom she created a sacred bond in marriage. But, if hubby says he loves his children more than his wife, he’s history. Double standard?

Based on the high divorce rate, the high adultery rate, and the high number of unhappily married women, why do people bother marching down the aisle at all? There’s no logic here. If one could lose money on Wall Street as easily, predictably, and consistently as he can in matrimony, there would be no Wall Street. But, people continue to marry. Why?

Women marry to have legitimate children and receive financial support for themselves and those children. I believe this because women bring 70% of divorces. Men, on the other hand, given the highly expected financial and child-custody losses, take huge matrimonial risk because they genuinely want to be married and to have families. There’s no other way to explain the respective nuptial decisions of men and women.

But, regardless of their financial or familial motivations for saying, “I do,” what men and women don’t do, quite clearly, is adhere to the vows they took to forever cherish, love, and honor each other. Somehow, the import and memory of these vows vanish when children arrive, and THAT is the problem. Children are born outside the bounds of marriage and must never be allowed to invade it. Alas, they’re allowed, even encouraged, to invade it.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I’m not suggesting for one minute that spouses not have children. That’s ludicrous. I am suggesting, though, that spouses gain perspective on where those children rank in the hierarchy: not at the top. Spouses must keep each other at the top, as they promised to do.

Now, if you’re concluding, while reading this, that I’m advising you to ignore, abandon, and mistreat your children, you’re not intelligent enough to marry or procreate! Parents own and run the home; children must respect them and their rules. Brats cannot survive in a home where parents honor and admire each other.

It is inexcusable to vow, on your wedding day, to place your spouse first and then violate that vow by subordinating your spouse to your children. Marriages disintegrate because they weren’t integrated in the first place — wherein the participants viewed their wedding vows as meaningless utterances. Finally, at the marriage’s end, there’s nothing but hatred and revenge between spouses — exactly what they promised would not happen.

Children don’t ruin marriage, unless their parents give them the power to do so. Spouses ruin marriage — way before they become spouses — by believing that children belong at its center. Again, if that were true, marriage vows would include children. They don’t.

So, don’t get married until you have enough maturity and conviction to treat your spouse as the most important person in the world — above and beyond your children — and receive the same treatment in return.

If your children ruined your marriage, you never had a marriage: She married you to become a mother!

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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.

Harbingers of Failure

Ask your woman why she chose a Louis Vuitton bag or Manolo Blahnik shoes. She’ll talk endlessly and enthusiastically about these possessions. Impressive, huh? Has she told you, to your face, with similar enthusiasm, why she chose you? If not, there are three possible reasons, each unacceptable: 1) you never asked her; 2) she doesn’t adore you; 3) she’s guarded and unexpressive. Whatever the case, your relationship is already dead and headed for dissolution.

If you continue this relationship, however, without hearing her glowing testimonial about you, do so at your peril — and prepare for her scathing testimony about you in court. By the way, if you fail to communicate likewise to her, you are just as culpable for your eventual breakup. Being able to talk ad nauseam about why you love fishing or hunting or football, while unable to express specifically why you’re living with or married to her, is a HUGE red flag.

Lack of conviction and inability to communicate it are two harbingers of failure — in politics, in relationships, in business. One of my most searing political memories is from November 4, 1979, three days before Senator Ted Kennedy officially announced his candidacy for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination. On that pivotal night, CBS News correspondent Roger Mudd asked him why he wanted to be president. Kennedy, shocked by Mudd’s insightful question, stumbled, fumbled, and uttered a convictionless, passionless policy-speak response, precipitating a sharp decline in his popularity. Jimmy Carter ultimately defeated him 50%-38%. Kennedy really didn’t want to be president, and it was obvious.

Dumbfounding

Marriage in America is an institution in decline: divorce continues to ravage parents (especially fathers) and children; for the first time in history, only 49% of women are married; and the ever-climbing out-of-wedlock birthrate now averages 40%. Why is this? First, family law encourages acrimony and single-mother households. Second, misandrist feminists like Rosanna Hertz condone and celebrate fatherless homes. Third, men and women join forces for all the wrong reasons and can’t even explain why they’re together. It’s dumbfounding. If you don’t believe me, ask your best buddy why he’s with his current girlfriend or wife. You’ll be amazed at his answer. Or, maybe you won’t be.

Last week, singer Enrique Iglesias announced to the press that, for at least three years, he’s been with girlfriend Anna Kournikova, who has ignored his countless marriage proposals. Says Iglesias about his unrequited attempts to betroth Anna: “I always try, but she pays me no attention.” Ignoring him is abusive, disrespectful behavior: she owes him an answer, one way or the other. But, his tolerance of her abuse and disrespect is proof that he has no self-esteem. Why on earth are these people together? And, what keeps them together? Besides unhealthy inertia and individual self-loathing, I haven’t a clue. Yet, you may identify with their dysfunctional dynamic and wonder why it’s a problem. If so, you need serious help.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Become Roger Mudd: Get to the “heart” of your relationship; determine why your woman wants to be with you. Ask her this simple, revealing question: Why did you choose me? If she’s not as obviously excited, animated, passionate, specific, and forthcoming about you as she is about her new shoes, give her the boot.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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.

Crazy in Bed

We really didn’t like each other, but our sex was good; that’s why we stayed together so long. Does this dysfunctional comment sound familiar, perhaps describing one of your relationships? Is it possible to resent your girlfriend or wife outside of bed, yet enjoy her in bed? Many succumb to this “bad-blood/good-sex” delusion, but, given the general misunderstanding of good sex, that doesn’t surprise me.

There’s an old axiom about women: “crazy in the head, crazy in the bed.” It’s true; believe me. But, crazy and good are not synonymous. Good sex requires that both partners have healthy attitudes about themselves (which is rare) and that they mutually share emotional connection, vulnerability, trust, respect, and lust—inside and outside the bedroom (which is rarer). Most foreplay occurs in regular conversations, with playful teasing, between two people who truly adore and enjoy each other. So, if you struggle to gaze at or talk to her at breakfast, your sex isn’t good—her screaming and sweating notwithstanding.

Emotional Insulation

We live in a detached, desensitized world, as evidenced by the plethora of voicemails, text messages, IMs, and e-mails dominating our lives. The art of, like, intelligent conversation has, like, you know, vanished. Moreover, we have become a hostile society, where, without shame or remorse, people—even kids in elementary school—post embarrassing photos and libelous comments about each other on the Internet.

It is no wonder, then, that people navigate and survive their relationships using this mantra: Avoid intimate connection at all costs. To wit: How often have you received an e-mail from—or sent an e-mail to—a paramour addressed to “hey” … or addressed to nobody? To include the recipient’s name in the greeting is the sender’s way of communicating warmth and intimacy. Not to include it is to communicate coldness and avoidance, and to insult the receiver. Yet, most people ignore this common courtesy—a sign of our detached, desensitized times.

Wearing layers of emotional insulation prevents people from knowing or feeling the difference between a true sexual connection and what occurs between two hissing, screaming cats outside the bedroom window. And, this ignorance is the greatest reason people callously treat each other like discardable newspapers. It also gives them the power not to feel anything—to shut down, withdraw, cheat, and split. How convenient and tidy.

Women, we were socialized to believe, are nurturing, emotive, hugging, kissing, cuddling, attentive angels, while men are uncaring, cold, closed, distant, unaffectionate troglodytes. This is a HUGE lie. Gender doesn’t determine one’s generous nature; upbringing and attitude do. When I meet a nurturing, emotive woman, I know she is an exception—not the norm.

Most women, especially American women, are raised to be selfish takers. The paucity of women in bars buying drinks for men proves my point exactly, as does the female-centric emphasis of Valentine’s Day. It is impossible to have good sex with a taker. But, so many men feel “lucky” to have sex that they’re blind to, or don’t care about, this critical rule of life.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Watch a batter approach homeplate at the next baseball game. He’ll execute an autopilot ritual of settling in before facing the pitcher: big swings with the bat, digging into a comfortable foot position, spitting, and maybe grabbing his crotch. In fact, he performs this repeatable, predictable ritual regardless of venue, time of day, or opponent.

More likely than not, you are the same way in relationships: Without thinking, you execute a repeatable, predictable mating ritual, regardless of venue, time of day, or “opponent.” Such patterned behavior will draw you towards mates with similar flaws—especially selfishness—and then lead you to endure those familiar grooves, ruts, frustrations, resentments, and dynamics. What you may not realize is that your autopilot behavior will prevent you from establishing a solid emotional connection with any paramour. Bad blood, yes; good sex, no.

To engage in the self-delusion that loud sex with a lousy partner is tantamount to good sex merely prolongs your agony—and is a compound error. If your relationship contains bad blood, end the delusion and get a transfusion. Only with a good partner will you experience good sex.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ 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 hosts The Marc Rudov Show, a radio talkshow for men, and 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.

Shock and Awe

Whether a man purchases sex on a date, in marriage, or through an escort service, the dispensing woman is a prostitute, a merchant. Ashley Youmans, aka Ashley Alexandra Dupré, aka Kristen — famous whore of Eliot Spitzer — earns between $3K to $5K per hour spreading her legs. Heather Mills McCartney, while married to Sir Paul, earned $33,562 per day spreading her legs. Had Heather collected the $250M divorce settlement she was seeking, instead of the $49M she got, her daily fee would have tallied $171K! Poor tramp will have to make do with the lower sum. So, if merchant Kristen can turn six tricks per day, at her highest fee, she can join merchant Heather’s league: The Merchant Maureens.

Is your woman a Merchant Maureen? If so, don’t forget one minor detail: you recruited her. Why? Because you don’t know how to sail your ship in her waters without paying a fee. You didn’t even know that it’s possible. You assume that bribing your way through her canal is the rule. She knows that about you and charges accordingly, based on the value of your cargo.

You cannot claim shock and awe at her mercenary behavior. She signaled it in your first conversation — right about the time you bragged about your luxury car (your cargo) and offered to buy her something or take her somewhere. Dummy. In tennis, the first time you display a weak backhand, your opponent begins hitting lots of shots to your backhand. Duh! Likewise, Merchant Maureens sense your manhood insecurity — money is your manhood — and sell sex to you, charging you for passage. And, once you acquiesce to this prostitution, you’re booked and hooked — forever.

Learned Behavior

Men learn this behavior in childhood. Every time a female teacher is caught having sex with a male student, most people think the boy is “lucky” to get laid. Yet, when a male teacher is in the same situation with a female student, she’s a victim (the favorite female word), and he’s a predator — a perverse double standard. What happens if the female teacher spreads an STD to the boy or gets pregnant? His life is ruined. But, nobody cares — he’s a male; he’s disposable.

Society has total disregard for the psychological pains of boys and doesn’t even think boys feel anything at all. Boys are children, not adults. Such an attitude is precisely why men behave as Eliot Spitzer did — with self-loathing and immaturity about women and sex. Boys who feel “lucky” to get laid grow up with low self-esteem and become men who feel “lucky” — and will pay any price — to get laid. That’s why men are attracted to Merchant Maureens, why Merchant Maureens exist.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I receive dozens of e-mails every day from men whose lives have been ruined by Merchant Maureens. These men all say the same thing: “Marc, if I had known about you 20 years ago, I wouldn’t be in this mess.” We all learn tough lessons. But, what amazes me is the number of men, in 2008, who will ignore the severe weather warnings of the high seas — will put their fortunes and careers on the line — to pursue the Heathers and Kristens of this world, to recruit Merchant Maureens.

If parents don’t start imbuing their sons with self-respect and educating them about women — instead of perpetuating the lie from their own lives about female sexuality — boys and men will know women only as whores and will continue buying drinks, dinners, jewelry, vacations, cars, and houses for sex that should be free. When men and women respect and like each other, sex is never about money.

They won’t admit it, but many parents are raising future Kristens and Heathers — Merchant Maureens — to scour the globe in search of self-loathing, insecure men who will finance their lifestyles. We all see this happening, even in the homes of our best friends. Merchant Maureens are everywhere, as present in escort services as they are during ladies’ night at your local pub. The question is, Will YOU be recruiting them?

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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 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.

Size Matters

A man’s sophistication about women is inversely proportional to the size of his sex budget: the more he disburses, the less he knows. Whether he spends lavishly for sex on his girlfriend, mistress, wife, or prostitute, his mere purchasing of sex is proof of ignorance about the female libido. Given what we’ve learned about the magnitude, complexity, and logistical deployment of Eliot Spitzer’s sex budget, it’s clear that the ex-governor of New York is sexually naïve.

I got my first clue about Mr. Spitzer when he resigned publicly and tragically, on March 12, 2008, from the governorship. He displayed no emotion whatsoever. All that he had built, personally and professionally, was in tatters. Yet, with his disgraced wife by his side, cold as stone, he informed the world that he would step down from office. Contrast that with Brett Favre’s 20 minutes of blubbering while resigning from professional football just the week before. I’m not saying that Eliot Spitzer should have wailed uncontrollably like that — thank you for sparing us — but, to show zero emotion suggests, in fact defines, repression.

Why Eliot Spitzer saw infidelity as his only solution to sexual gratification is anyone’s guess. Perhaps his wife no longer satisfied him. Perhaps, like many men, Spitzer suffered from the Madonna-whore complex, where a man is unable to view his post-childbirth wife as a sexual being. Actually, I don’t know or care why he chose to stray. In my view, if any aspect of one’s marriage breaks down, he should fix it. If that becomes impossible, he should end the marriage, not betray it. But, if a man sees cheating as his only option, his style of pursuing sexual conquests implies much about his view of himself, of women, and of sex.

Positions of Servitude

In Under the Clitoral Hood, I teach that women are more sexual than men — and that men needn’t ever pay for sex. Men who pay for sex never learned this fact of life. Why? They were raised with immature, idealized, glorified views of women, and to believe that men are more sexual than women (a lie). They put women on pedestals and never know them — in fact, are unable to know them — as peers. Such men find highly sexual women threatening and won’t get involved with or marry them. Instead, they will marry sexually bland, virgin-like women — perfect as controllable moms and wives — while pursuing hot extramarital sex. This behavior is a sign of deep insecurity.

Observe some men around women, and you will notice puerile, sycophantic, deferential behavior. Always from positions of servitude, their pickup lines are in the vein of What can I buy you? Where can I take you? How can I make you happy? They would — and do — crawl through fire and broken glass, and pay any price, to get laid. Pathetic. The more money a man is willing to pay a woman for sex, and the more he brags to her about his possessions, the less he values himself.

Eliot Spitzer — real-estate scion, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, Manhattan district attorney, New York attorney general, New York governor — has to pay to get laid, with hookers and wire transfers? Give me a break! Nonsense. Women throw themselves at desirable men. Women are dying to get laid. Do you think they buy vibrators to mix concrete?

Given that, according to Susan Shapiro Barash, more than 60% of married women cheat on their husbands, Mr. Spitzer could have found many discreet, high-profile, unhappily married female counterparts for his trysts. Furthermore, these unfaithful women, who are hornier than the men they find, are not paying for sex! Let this be a lesson, gentlemen. Instead of hooking up with one of them, Spitzer chose high-risk, high-priced, low-esteem sex from whores. How sad. It’s bad enough that he devalued his marriage by cheating. But, he compounded that devaluation by unnecessarily enriching his female accomplices.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

A man who truly understands the power of the female libido pays nothing to get laid, ever. Eliot Spitzer, by purchasing sex, proved he doesn’t understand the female libido and has low self-esteem. As a result, he destroyed a career, a family, and many friendships.

Eliot Spitzer humiliated himself at that news conference on March 12th, when he resigned as governor of New York. But, prior to that fateful day, Eliot Spitzer did something worse: he humiliated himself every time he paid for sex — and that is his lesson for every man.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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 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.

Relationship Ranking

Alfred Adler, an Austrian psychiatrist and contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, was, by most accounts, the first to associate birth order with personality. In 2007, Time magazine devoted an article, “The Power of Birth Order,” to this subject. One cannot choose the pecking order within his family — his parents do that — but, in a romantic relationship, he can. Relationship ranking, like family ranking, affects one’s personality and demeanor. Why, then, do so many men choose relationships in which they won’t be numero uno?

The simple answer is, these men don’t feel worthy of being top dogs and, therefore, don’t insist on supreme ranking when choosing their girlfriends and wives. Worse, they don’t even think they’re permitted to demand it.

In the past two weeks, I had separate conversations on this subject with a man and a woman, each romantically involved with a parent of children who are his or her top priority. My question to each was, If you want to be #1 in your paramour’s life, why did you choose one who cannot or will not treat you that way? This query hit them like a hammer between the eyes, forcing each to examine his self-worth and choices.

The aforementioned man, like so many people I’ve met, told me that a chief reason he fell in love with his girlfriend is that she’s such a great mother, and he admires her for that. My response: “Terrific! What does her motherly devotion have to do with you?” Of course, the answer is absolutely nothing. I saw an expression on his face redolent of someone just zonked on the head with a can of V-8. In other words, he was thinking, That’s right! It has nothing to do with me. Why did I choose her?

Cut Those Umbilical Cords

To be fair, I’ve met or encountered just as many women who fell in love with men because they are good fathers or good sons. And, I asked them, What does this have to do with you? Same answer: absolutely nothing. Never equate a good father or son or mother or daughter with being a good boyfriend or husband or girlfriend or wife.

In fact, I assert that a woman overly devoted to her children or parents will be a terrible girlfriend or wife. Now, if she is a bad mother, you don’t want her, either. Part of being a good mother, though, is teaching her children to become independent and to respect her private life. If she refuses to impart this to her children, she is doing them — and herself — a disservice; she is the kind of woman you must avoid. The only reason to bring a woman into your life — and this is critical to remember — is that she’ll be good for YOU.

How do you know what priority or ranking a woman places or will place on you? Ask her! If she says, “I’m sorry but my children must come first,” you know where you rank. If she often states, “I’d like to spend the weekend with you, but I have to help the kids with their homework,” she is giving you a low ranking. This does not make her a bad person; it makes her a bad girlfriend. If you ignore her honesty, don’t blame her down the road for making you second, third, or fourth in her life.

Alas, many of you will do just that. Your only choice is to walk away, to find another woman. If being first is important to you, find a woman who can and will make you first. She must be able to separate motherhood from womanhood. She must be able to cut those umbilical cords, both upstream (with her parents) and downstream (with her children). If she can’t or won’t do that, she’ll be an endless source of frustration to you. By the same token, if you can’t cut your umbilical cords, you’ll be a terrible boyfriend or husband.

If you choose to get involved with a woman who can’t or won’t make you #1, it means you place a low value on yourself, your wishes, and your needs. To rationalize her inadequate, unsatisfying devotion to you with thoughts of accommodation, compromise, being a good guy, and admiration of her mothering skills is to reduce your own importance, significance, relevance, and ranking. It means, with all honesty, that your esteem tank is low. It’s that simple.

Nobody forced you to be with the woman in your life. Ultimately, if she accords you a low ranking, you’ll harbor feelings of resentment and self-loathing. Why hurt yourself that way? Perhaps, based on your upbringing, you think this is what a relationship is supposed to be. If you want to be depressed, it’s easier and cheaper to buy season tickets for the San Francisco Giants.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

I am a big advocate of communication. It bewilders me how many men and women don’t or won’t or can’t talk to each other about critical issues — money, equality, birth control, unintended pregnancies, intended pregnancies, sexual styles and appetites, and relationship ranking. And, then, they are “astounded” in a few months or years to discover infidelity, abandonment, or divorce petitions. Why?

Nothing in your relationship ever should be a surprise — if you are paying attention, expressing your wishes, receiving reciprocal communication, and compatible with your partner.

To be number one is to be the most-important person in your partner’s life. It is not to be more important than your partner. Critical distinction. It is not selfish to want to be your partner’s numero uno; it is essential. Why else have a partner? When you live alone, you are number one in the house, and it feels great. Why, then, elect to become anything else but first?

Today’s kids don’t know their place. Why? Because too many parents put kids above each other, and everything else. Moreover, female-ly courts require that children and mothers come first; that’s why the entitled generation of “millennials” exists.

Men and fathers aren’t on the radar screens of any politicians or any legislation; so, they already have two strikes against them. Becoming involved with a woman who placed her kids above her ex-husband and everything else, therefore, is an automatic strikeout — because she’ll do the same thing to you. Moronic masochism. You’d be amazed how many men willingly sign up for that.

If you’re in a relationship with a woman, are you her number one? If not, you’re number two — and that stinks.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ 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 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.