Marc Rudov: No more entitlements for women. Women can pay their own way

He took it all quite well, the onslaught by the reporters and all. I think the result is obvious to anyone watching. Despite all their ganging up, he came out the better and I am sure he made some converts. Good for him!

Marc's site: http://themansnononsenseguidetowomen.com/

I've read his books, and I know what he's getting at, but he's so fucking piss poor in a live debate I'm amazed he's sells any copies at all.

He always throws weak points at criticisms in live debates and is not able to quickly make his point. He needs more practice at being eloquent and quick witted. Introduce some humor as well

I agree with him and I give him props for doing what he is doing, it's just that he's so dry in person, that his extremely important message often gets lost in personal criticisms of his character. When dealing with women especially - because you know the very first thing they will attack is character - you really need to bring a polished game to the debate.

Plus he can't let his opponents score points when talking about issues like alimony by saying well, she gave up her time to have and raise the kids and she's still doing that. He left that completely unanswered - DADS WANT PARENTAL RIGHTS! DADS WANT TIME WITH THEIR KIDS!

His responses should be quick and to the point because he only has seconds not hours. To the alamony issue he should have kept it to one sentence and effectively turn the issue back on the panel:

You don't need alimony with 50/50 physical custody

When they fire back with stuff like:

- men are not as capable with kids as women
- men are abusive
- men work to much
- men don't want their kids
- step mothers are not real mothers
- mothers can't stand to lose their kids

he should have in the back of his mind at the ready:

well, new research is showing that fathers do in fact have the same ingrained parental instincts as mothers and given the opportunity can perform caring duties every bit as well as any woman. Just as we once believed no woman could perform as well as a man in the working world, yet now we see that was utterly false, we must now let go of our pre-conceptions that no man can ever perform child care duties as well as a woman because that is equally as false

Actually, biological fathers are the least likely people on the planet according to most statistics to commit child abuse and in fact it is biological mothers who are the leading perpetrators of child abuse. Now, this may be a coronation of the fact that mothers also perform more of the caring duties as well, but the only way to find out if this is true or not is to yield more of the caring duties to men and see if this theory holds true. Let fathers do more caring and we'll see that they can perform just as well as mothers.

Men do not have the same options to opt out of work to perform caring duties like women do. At 85% of companies in the United States, leave to care for children is still called Maternity leave rather then parental leave. Even if it is technically open to men, by giving it calling it maternity leave instead of parental leave, men feel pressured to yield that option to women. In the companies that do offer leave to men, most still offer longer periods of leave to women.

Given the choice every living parent who loves their kids would rather be with them then not. This is not a gender issue at all because loving parents do just about everything they do in this world for the benefit of their kids.

Step parents are not as good as a biological parent ever because nothing in the world can replace a mother or a father in a child's life. The ideal is to have a mother and father who live together in the dame home and care for the child together. But in reality that does not always work and in the event of a break up, it is vitally important to the well being of the child that both parents are allowed to have an active part of the child's life. Step parents should not replace biological parents no matter which parent has custody

Well, it's the 21 century and it's time for women to allow men into their world. The belief that only mothers can care for children is just as much an impenetrable glass ceiling for men as the belief at the dawn of the last century that no woman could ever climb the corporate ladder or run a company as well as a man was to women. It's not just the glass ceilings for women that society must work to shatter.

see, have your facts straight and always frame your answers in term of a human rights issue. You know, just like how the feminists got everything they wanted.

He knows what he's talking about, he just needs to learn how to present it. He can afford nice suits, time a the tanning booth and a manicure, now some one needs to tell him that a professional speaking coach would be the best investment he ever made in his life and would increase his book sales 100 fold.

I got banned by Mike LaSalle, the imperial editor of MND, largely because (according to Mike ) I was "spoiling" his premier poster's commentaries.

Too much provocative dialogue and heretical thinking, I guess.

Marc R. is getting better ... he used to be just about how to get pussy for free.

Now he proclaims that marriage is a dead-end for men.

I'm waiting for him to proclaim that he is no longer addicted to pussy.

I am not holding my breath. (In the segment linked above, he brags about getting a lot of poontang.... Sad.)

BTW - Mike LaSalle in an e-mail to me said he is planning to ban all commentaries in the near future.

So much for the integrity of MND.

One thing he needs to stop doing is calling women prostitutes (even when the description fits). It puts women on the defensive. Far more effective is simply to point out that women are taught from birth to associate 'nice' things (ie, expensive things) with romance. It holds them back from finding actual love as much as it hurts men. Let them reach the conclusion in their own heads that yes, the 'dating scene' of a LOT of people does, in ways, resemble a transaction between a 'John' and a prostitute.

Then again, there's the old adage, you don't pay a prostitute to have sex with you, any woman can do that, you pay her to leave when it's over.

...from his book sales into a professional public speaking coach. Politicians are among the stupidest people alive, but they have speaking coaches, debate coaches, and speech writers to make them sound smart and score the quick points in the debate.

Mr. Rudov does not need a speech writer - he's an author after all. But he's piss poor live so he could definitely benefit from a public speaking coach and a debate coach.

After all, he obviously spend big dollars on his personal appearance, he's ALWAYS well tanned, immaculately tailored, has his hair and eyebrows done professionally and always has a manicure. That's all well and good cause he likes TV time and to get on TV one has to look good for TV.

But, he also wants to get his message out to the people - and it's not a popular message the sells it's self - so he needs to know how to present it live.

Live is different from the months is takes to write a book.

He needs to get people on his team to help him with that. Just like he need publishers on his side to get his books out, he needs a team to get his message out live. There's tons of professionals out there who can really polish his game if he's willing to cough up the cash to hire them

Otherwise, he's good, I agree with most of what he has to say and I'm glad to have him out there doing what he is doing.

Would like to acknowledge that they are on this earth because their mother was a whore?

Not to suggest an actual, pay-me-for-sex whore.

Just a spread-my-legs-for-daddy-after-the-high-school-football-game type "easy" girl?

Fess up you bastards!

Just kidding.

First of all, this was a vicious attack (on Rudov), even by media standards. At one point, he was asked "where's your heart?" He was also asked, "what planet are you from?".

But obnoxious comments aside, here's a view of the people involved (all locations of people are given "stage"):

-Lady in black and white dress - a very excitable person; a biased feminist, needless to say. When she pretended that the man is not usually expected to pay, she was dishonest with herself and the viewers. But I'm sure that's what they wanted to hear. Verdict: volatile pig.

-Man (seated immediately to left of woman mentioned above): this guy's probably the biggest honorary woman I've ever seen..and politically correct to a fault. To say he is a "wallet" is an understatement..eunuch is more like it. Verdict: "A fool and his money are soon parted."

-Lady on far right: it appeared to me that the reason she spoke so little, was because she was afraid..mainly, that Rudov might be right. Verdict: a child, should be in day-care instead of on news show.

-Minor opposition characters: 1) Guy in blue shirt..a non-entity - he did not effectively refute Rudov's argument; 2) Man standing at remote location: he made an idiotic statement, and Rudov effectively responded to it; 3) man seated immediately to Rudov's right: also an honary women, also a non-entity, and Rudov effectively rebutted his weak arguments.

-Woman at remote location: I was cheering for her almost as much as Rudov! One of the very few media women I have ever seen, who is not a slime-bag. She aptly defended Rudov, and because of this, boy is she in big trouble..with the other panelists, the station's producers, and most of all the viewers!

-Rudov: though under attack as a dispicable male who is "anti-woman", he absolutely refused to buckle under pressure. Note that the station did everything possible to try and set him up to fail, for example isolating him in a swiver chair away from the other participants, and introducing him as a "claimed expert on relationships" (what do they mean "claimed"? All the other avowed "experts" in this area are women, and unlike Rudov, they are mostly fucked up).

The only two minor negative points about Rudov, is that he appeared to be swiveling in his chair too much (maybe he was doing it on purpose?); and he appeared to be less knowledgeable in the area of equal pay (or maybe he was just trying to steer the discussion back to the dating issue ?).

The only place I would differ from him, is that he appeared to say that the dating issue is pretty much all about money (unless I misunderstood him). That's not completely true, because when two women go to lunch together, for example, it is not necessarily the expectation that the one who earns more will foot the bill. As Farrell has said, there is something else going on, in addition to the pragmatic money issue, when determining who will pay for a date..something in the pscychology; perhaps Rudov would say to that, the man's "expectation to pay for sex" which he did mention.

Sorry this is so long winded, but I take great delight in judging people (just kidding!)

-ax

Why is Paragon so vitriolic in "his" assessment of Rudov's performance? Could it be because "he" knows that Rudov did in fact, come out the winner?

That's right turkey, I'm still on your trail!!

-ax

I don't believe I commented on who I thought won the debate. I have seen Mr. Rudov speak on several shows and read his books. I agree with him

My critique was not what he was saying, as much but his presentation style. He did miss a few opportunities to score points where his opponents handed him an easy issue and he let is slip by, he always does that. In case you hadn't noticed it, I am not the only one here who has that particular critique of him as Mr Reality mentioned it to.

I'm not saying I don't like the guy cause I do. But to further his own career he should work on his public on camera game

It just sounded to me like you were picking apart his performance and pointing out all the really little things he may have done wrong..thus possibly making him appear to be the loser?

I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it did appear to me that Rudov maintained his composure and the aptness of his responses. I have seen only one other interview he did, but that was only a debate with one other person and so he wasn't under a vicious attack, as he was in this latest one. Maybe if he did have some weaknesses, it was because of the massive intimidation. But if you say he did a lot better in his other interviews that this one, I guess I'll take your word for it. Of course I'm going to check out the linke below, hopefully that will have archived interviews.

Imagine if a group of male interviewers on some news show, were grilling a lone feminist guest over hot coals, and asking her "where's your heart?" There would be national outrage, death threats against the interviewers, etc.

-ax

Rudov's comments that it puts women down if a man buys a woman a drink, and his response that it doesn't put men down if a woman buys a man a drink, are both defensive and bizarre. But Rudov's biggest problem is that he lacks the intellectual range to tackle the socio-biological problems he purports to "expose."

He needs to argue from the perspective of someone who has done extensive research in matters of concern to mens' rights activists, and he should be knowledgeable about feminist positions also. The perspective of a guy trying to land a date while minimizing his expenses and who comes out swinging, saying that he "exposes" women (for costing him so much money?) makes him look like a wounded lunatic. The hosts were laughing at him.

If he were exposing patterns that are difficult to identify for whatever reason, he should acknowledge that both men and women have difficulties, instead of blaming women as if they were any more conscious of their behavior and its consequences than men are. It's impossible to take him seriously. He sounds like a teenager.

(OpEd) on Rudov --- "If he were exposing patterns that are difficult to identify for whatever reason, he should acknowledge that both men and women have difficulties, instead of blaming women...

I believe if you might read Rudov more critically, you will find that he NEVER blames women for anything.

In fact, he argues that men are stupid.

Then, he suggests that the solution for the gender wars is for stupid men to bargain down the price of pussy.

Rudov is just basically saying that men are paying retail for poontang, when they shoud be paying wholesale.

He never questions that whatever men pay for pussy... they always lose.

Just another S-H-I-L-L.