Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Rudov: "Women to rule men completely by the year 2010"
Submitted by MrReality on Thu, 2007-09-13 00:59
Marc Rudov writes "Just when you thought that legislative, judicial, law-enforcement, media, and reproductive biases in favor of women were the epitome of double standards, there is new evidence that "life control" is increasingly shifting to the female domain: in four years, women also will rule men financially. Remember this the next time the waiter brings the check to your table, and your woman insists that YOU pay it — or worse, you acquiesce."
Reality setting in yet gentlemen? Misandry, Greedy/spoiled women, Affirmative Action and chivalrous men have ensured that every man will be a legal slave by the year 2010. That's if it has not occurred already. Wake up guys stop coddling the enemy!
- Log in to post comments
Comments
A bit overwrought
I like Marc's writings and admire his major cajones, the way he goes after these fembots and stays in the fray. However, "Women to rule men completely..." is overwrought. It might be more accurate a title "Average woman will overtake average man in financial realm by 2010" Personally I think they are already there.
QUESTION
David A. DeLong
My only question is what really happens if it is truly the women that are the enemy? Do we discount the actions of social scientists, secret organizations, the justice department; I could go on, but why bother?
The only way we will be able to reach a resemblance of dignity as well as equality, is if we change the system that governs us. Men and Women need to unify as equal entities to do this; as we cannot achieve anything as profound without unification.
When a person endeavors to weed a garden they all eventually realize that the best way to weed is by getting the roots.
New Schtick Just Like The Old Schtick
Marc Rudov is trying to market his new schtick, because his old one -- "The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth" -- has failed to sell.
Now he's morphing into a more critical voice, trying to sucker MRA's into buying his new persona.
I got banned from the site where his piece was published largely because I criticized Marc as being "pussy-centric."
He assumes that masculinity demands the worship and consumption of pussy, only at lower prices.
His version of men's liberation is when the skank (err, romantic soulmate) you were suckered into marrying pays for lunch once in a while.
I still think he has no real agenda except to promote himself.
My biggest problem with Marc...
...is that in a sense he still panders to women by first running off tons of so-called "acheivements" women have made as if the very reason women have these things is not simply because pussywhipped men handed them over to them with misandric laws and as "gifts" in exchange for the promise of a woman's favor.
Marc still does not understand that feminism was NEVER about equality. It was -- and always shall be -- about putting greedy women first and about blaming men for women's own insecurities and negative behavior.
It's a victim movement...a "point the finger while we steal" ideology. One of pure projection with women claiming that men are doing the things that women are actually doing.
Moreover, women ARE the enemy until they cut the unibrain form of "thinking" and begin defining themselves as being separate from the problem. A person condoning and going along with evil is just as bad as the person that is doing the evil act. Also, behind every male pushing for these misandric laws are nagging women that annoy them daily in order to get them to acquiesce to their desires.
Behind every annoying female is her annoying parents that raised her to be an entitled princess and so on and so on.
The problem with women is they blame men alone and the problem with men is they blame men alone. NOONE is blaming women for their part in this....the "government" is largely influenced by women's organizations and almost every government official has a wife or daughter that agrees with misandry. Government officials don't all happen to be men either...lets stop blaming men and look at the whole problem.
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
Maybe MRA's Should Celebrate a Panderer?
Mr. Reality said ... "my biggest problem with Marc is that in a sense he still panders to women ..."
Precisely!
His current gender-war schtick is to debate bimbos. (He recently fired the blonde, and hired a theoretically more credible brunette.)
It tanked.
Marc is the P.T. Barnum of the MRA web-circus-show... "a sucker is born every minute."
When Marc states --- "girl, I actually do not care about your opinion..."
then, maybe you can begin to trust him.
Until then, label him as a S-H-I-L-L.
(A shill is an old circus term for the solicitor barker who brings the "marks" into the tent. Think "a pimp" and you'll be in the ballpark for understanding the arts of the shill...)
women to rule men
hardly know any man personally who doesn't pay a woman. men have in western societies become servants to women. don't pay her and go to jail. it's a well designed system meant to do exactly what it is doing, making men servants of women. to get here they had to abandon the precepts of law (i.e. truth, fairness, equality and so forth). not a big deal w/ the vermin that call themselves "officers of the court" these days. just had to give them a cut. average workingguy doesn't have a clue that he is nothing but a servant until the poop hits the proverbial fan. wife decides to move on or have an affair and only then does he realize something is horribly wrong. but then it is too late. pay up or go to jail.
yep, well designed system working just as intended.
When You See a Broken System...
ALWAYS ask yourself, WHO is this broken system working FOR?
Follow the money....
Marc Rudov's anti-feminist commentary
I enjoy watching Marc Rudov on TV and listening to him in radio interviews as he challenges feminist orthodoxy and masculine chivalry. I think he does a pretty good job of making thoughtful, intelligent and logical arguments against the defenders of victim feminism and female entitlement. He seems to get a fair amount of TV appearances and does pretty well in those debates, despite the limited time in which he has to get his point across. I'm glad he's out there fighting the good fight and I respect his point of view and his intellect.
Where I would tend to disagree with him is in his insistence that there are no significant biological differences between men and women -- that differences in sex roles are the result of culture and social conditioning. (That's actually what feminist ideologues often try to argue.) There's a large and growing body of scientific evidence showing such things as important differences in brain structure and function that affect perception, emotion and behavior. I would also be interested in hearing Marc's response to the claim that married men are on average better off physically, emotionally and financially than single men. Does marriage confer some protection on men that single men usually lack?
Romancing Your Chosen Vampire...
(gregory) -- "Does marriage confer some protection on men that single men usually lack?"
It is basically just this --
Single men have to be afraid of multiple women who want to harvest their money and future dreams.
Married men have only to focus on the single vampire they fear. Their soulmate. The "special" girl they said "I Will" to.
It is really that simple.
And that tragic.
Moreover when a man is married...
.....a man has the "benefit"(if that is what you want to call it) of being married to the "royal sex."
Thus he MAY be able to partake of the many government benefits she gets for FREE just by being with her(if she lets him). He is her dog and every now and then even the most oppressive owners throw their dogs bones.
Women also tend to judge men by how much money they have and whether they have a WOMAN or not. In this misandric society being partnered with a woman raises a man's status from the field slave to the house nigga....especially black men whom are at the lowest tier in society anyway due to women hijacking civil rights and subsequently the oppression of the male gender which has been going on for hundreds of years even before feminism made THE PERSONAL(i.e. Women hating men) political.
Hatred began with women towards their husbands, sons and fathers behind closed doors. It was personal but every man felt it. Then with feminazi-ism -- just like they said -- women made their personal hatred political.
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
marc rudov.
He does get some air time by remaining deferential to women, which is obviously his aim and I don't think mras
can expect more.He doesn't disagree with mras but if he were to start leading off in a a big way he would be pulled instantly and that would be another voice lost so fellas,cut him some slack.
Thinking is Hard
saracen395... "so fellas,cut him some slack."
Ah yes, the voice of "reason!"
Don't be too assertive, take pride that one man's voice can still be heard in the feminazi-dominated mass media, don't expect too much.
After all, you're ONLY a man. (Accept being marginalized in the misandry that rules the airwaves, right?)
(saracen395) " ... and I don't think mras can expect more..."
I totally agree.
That YOU don't THINK!
Marc called you a moron Roy.
He sent me an e-mail with a bunch of "honorary woman-like" statements in it. Amongst these statements he called you a moron because your disagreeing with pandering to women got you kicked off of some bum ass site he hangs out on.
You may be right about this guy just trying to find a way to get laid and not really being interested in men's rights.
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
Do Not Feed Faux-MRAs
Mr. Reality.....
Marc has to feed his head.
Look it up.
He is the "white rabbit" of the MRA mooovment....
Anything he would say about my 'net persona is irrelevant.
Like all his other pantomimes performing as a so-called men's rights advocate.
He's slick, in a not-good way...
I'm starting to wonder about Rudov
Don't take this as if I'm agreeing, with all of what you guys are saying about Rudov. But he does look like he may become the "clown" of the men's rights movement. The public will look at his antics and get the wrong idea about MRA's.
He should probably just stick to his specialty area, which seems to be men's relationships, and not portray himself as an MRA in general.
-ax
The Hillaries....
Marc Rudov, Mike LaSalle, David R. Usher ...
these castrados are the Hillary Clitonistas of the so-called men's movement.
They are all about self-promotion and BANK.
Emphasis on "clit" --
because they are all slaves to pussy and its institutionalized tyranny via marriage and "no-nonsense" male servitude.
Shills.
Every one of them.
Any man that prides himself on getting laid...
...is a fucking clown. Point blank. Women use sex to enslave men so any man that brags about getting some is simply bragging about the whip(i.e. pussy) that the taskmaster(i.e. women) uses as an instrument to beat him into submission.
Maybe that's why they call it being pussy-"whipped"?
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
Rudov the Red-Nosed "Yes, dear."
Rudov is a silly man who is more interested in bargain basement sex than mens' rights. He shouldn't be telling women what they need to do to be "fair." Virtually everyone else seems to recognize that this is a grand waste of time. It's unmanly to be bitching about women in any case. It's worse to make yourself into a public spectacle over it.
Ironically, the no-nonsense guide to whatever Rudov the Red-nosed was obsessed about resulted in the total absence of "nonsense" (if you get my drift) for anyone who adhered it its advice. He should have called it "The No Nonsense Guide to Involuntary Celibacy."
Rudov-the-Red-Master-Debator!
OpEd...
your combination of cynical insight and ironic biting humor is truly beyond the usual MRA sarcasm....
and well overdue.
MRAs are generally too polite. Thank you for being direct.
Marc Rudov needs his pussy-fix, even if he disguises it as a debate.
He has established himself as a master-debator.
Thanks dude
Now I almost feel sorry for Rudov the Red Nosed. The poor guy needs his fix. And in 2010 it will be more expensive than ever, especially with the rising cost of energy. Doc Love over at Askmen.com does a better job than Rudov. At least Doc Love has a sense of humor--even about the Feministas.
Maybe Rudov can save his inadvertent image of involuntary celibacy. He should emphasize his Mephistophelian appearance and glue a couple of fake horns to his head. He'd be a dead ringer for Lucifer. And he might even get lucky.
Rudov the red-nosed "Yes, dear" enumerates womens' wealth
Rudov needs to flesh out these categories with some numbers. He writes:
Where's this wealth coming from? Here are five common sources of female wealth:
* Wages, business earnings, and investments
* Family inheritance
* Becoming widowed at a young age
* Lucrative divorce settlements, alimony, and child support
* Being wined, dined, vacationed, and bejeweled during the dating process.
Being wined, dined, vacationed and bejeweled is a source of wealth? More like a sunk cost. It's not as though wine guzzling and gullet stuffing, even on an ocean liner, is adding substantially to a person's net worth. Maybe the bejeweling does.
But the worst is this notion of "the dating process"--whatever that is. Sounds like a miserable ordeal. I hear that Rudov is supposed to be a formidable expert on that technically difficult subject.
Anyway, that last negligible item on the list shows how badly Rudov can't stand to keep it in his pants. He's too distracted by his weener to do the math. A couple of never-returned engagement rings isn't going to tip the balance of economic power in womens' favor. And even if they did, the sociological and economic changes Rudov gripes about can't be resolved simply by men and women agreeing to treat each other as equals. How long would that last?
Institutional change isn't going to work either. There has to be a genetic component. Human nature has to change somewhat. But Rudov discounts biology and biological differences in his analysis. So he believes, along with many sociologists who have done some serious work, that institutional change is enough. Not so.
Women don't have to do what men do to gain wealth.
I actually told Rudov that the major reason women are ahead of men today are due to unfair laws, misandry which permeates America to the point where our entire legal system is based on it, and women being born with the vagina pass.
Basically, other than a few women who do not subscribe to the victim creed(and I mean VERY few) the majority of women are where they are by manipulating, stealing, lying and using misandry to get ahead at the expense of the males in their lives. Rudov actually went on to spew some pro-feminist rhetoric about women being able to do anything and being the same as men(even though biology shows differently). He sounded like an idiot that had been sitting in a women's studies class.
The point is if I rig the playing field so that it is 99.9% in my favor -- which women have done -- of course I am always going to win.
Maybe that is why he does not challenge feminist bullshit(because he actually supports it in order to get laid by these nasty ass bitches).
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
I think you misunderstand the last point
Being wined, dined, vacationed and bejeweled during 'dating' is absolutely a significant form of wealth transfer.
Your average single male on the dating market spends orders of magnitude more on his per suit of a mate then the average single female on the dating market.
He is spending thousands and thousands of dollars per serious attempt while she receives thousands and thousands of dollars spent on her per attempt she even remotely entertains.
He's putting out shit loads of cash to many individual women in his efforts. He gets slowly bled dry by women.
She's receiving shit loads of cash, food, and goods from many men in her efforts. She quickly piles up the cash and prizes from men.
People tend to always discount biology as a factor because it is something that despite the modern technological age we live in, we are completely powerless against it and have no means of changing it. You can't fight biology. You will always lose.
So people tend to focus on areas they can change, like social policy and culture even though these things are heavily influenced by biology.
It's stupid to claim accepting female tyranny is MANLY.
"It's unmanly to be bitching about women in any case."
Gotcha. This charge -- used mainly by women and "honorary women" with penises fits somewhere in between these two weak "anti-male" shaming tactics.
Charge 1. Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples:
“Stop whining!”
“Get over it!”
“Suck it up like a man!”
“You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
“You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
“Your fragile male ego …”
“Wow! You guys need to get a grip!”
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (”yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge 2. Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:
“Are you gay?”
“I need a real man, not a sissy.”
“You’re such a wimp.”
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.
"He shouldn't be telling women what they need to do to be "fair." "
If one were to look at your woman-coddling posts he should not be telling women anything instead just letting them run wild wreaking havoc. Let's do that as a matter of fact. Oh wait....that's what men have been doing for who knows how long and look where it has us? So obviously your notion of blaming men while shielding women from any blame -- like the feminists -- is a flawed one.
Marc does ALOT more than you do sitting here on this website arguing about how to protect women from the repercussions to their bullshit. Why don't you just shut the fuck up?
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
Transfer of wealth versus entertainment
I'm not so sure that spending money on food and drink will have that significant an effect on net wealth. It's not the same as an outright cash transfer. You can't say, necessarily, that the amount Mr Y spends on Ms X on entertainment is the amount Ms X gets to sock away in the bank. Ms X might not be able to afford the entertainment. Perhaps she could save income that might have gone towards food and drink, but a gift of food and drink cannot result in any "transfer" of wealth larger than the amount she might save on the food and drink she can afford. I'm assuming that they consume everything, that Ms. X doesn't get to resell any caviar and that all the food and drink is completely digested and is later diffused into the atmosphere or ends up in sewage. Likewise for the gift of a vacation that may exceed the means of the recipient.
This is why I take issue with Rudov's statement, though I think the statistics should be
known. Many women in higher income brackets complain that men are willing to pursue women who make considerably less money than they do. If this is the case, then the remarks apply.
However, for other items like jewelry, automobiles or personal nuclear fusion reactors, there would be a net gain in wealth.
Wealth is built over time....
...not "instantly." Thus measure all the free meals, drinks, shopping trips, etc -- exploitation which women try to label as just "entertainment" -- that women exploit from men daily(thus the amount of money women KEEP by having men "take care of HER responsibilities") and you arrive at a pretty large sum.
The average female spends her entire life exploiting men for money in some form or another. Women have different "titles" for their thievery(Wining and Dining, Gifts, Valentine's Day, Marriage, etc.) but it all equates to manipulating men out of their wealth and sanity. It's sheer greed and vanity...nothing more.
Also, the fact that women have been doing it for years does not excuse it. I have seen excuse after excuse for women's bad behavior and find it comical to say the least. Moreover I see alot of Rudov bashing when noone here is really doing shit for men rather they are making excuses for immature girls that call themselves women. Pathetic.
When Mr. Rudov said to boycott Valentine's Day I was on board since the majority of women I have observed tend to want the most expensive gift with the flowers and chocolate while buying him a cheap Walmart tie that does not even match any of his outfits. This is the dynamic a good majority of women live by they think they are better than men and pandering sycophants who log-on to Men's Activism boards claiming to be male(when they are really feminist women) keep this going by making up a bunch of pseudoscientific excuses as to why women keep acting like children(i.e. Excuses for tolerating bad behavior).
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
Misinterpretation: focus on men's rights or women. Which is it?
"It's unmanly to be bitching about women in any case."
Gotcha. This charge -- used mainly by women and "honorary women" with penises fits somewhere in between these two weak "anti-male" shaming tactics.
No it's not feminist blaming and shaming. It's the recognition that men's rights activism concerns men's rights; the subject of women is a different subject. But some "honorary" men's rights activists don't see that.
Why do you care whether "women" gain vast hordes of wealth through the "dating process"? No one insists that anyone enrich their treasuries. The question for me is, "what does that have to do with men's rights?" Does harping on the subject get you any closer to presumptive shared parenting? Does it do something about male versus female college enrollments?
Rudov, for example, mentions some issues of concern to MRAs, but backslides into diatribes about women, the subject he's really interested in. Men's rights activism is an excuse for Rudov to discuss his favorite subject, which isn't men's rights activism.
Debunking OpEd's fraudulent position and sending HER packing.
No it's not feminist blaming and shaming.
Yes it is.
Claiming that men being aware and thus exposing(as Marc does) about how women are unfair and greedy -- subsequently there actually being a "need" for men's rights -- is "unmanly" counts as shaming men into submission.
In truth it is simply a petty unintelligient "anti-male shaming tactic." It is meant to shutdown logical debate that illustrates the fact that the reason there is a need for men's rights is due to the very real problem that western society is slanted in favor of women who abuse the system through lobbying for -- and enjoying -- preferential treatment at the expense of men.
It's the recognition that men's rights activism concerns men's rights; the subject of women is a different subject.
The reason men's rights exists is because men have no rights and women have all of the rights. Yet according to you a man that discusses this misandric western system and how women exploit men for political rights, financial gain, etc.(which all go hand in hand with men being thought of as the lower denomination) is being "unmanly."
But some "honorary" men's rights activists don't see that.
Weak.
Why do you care whether "women" gain vast hordes of wealth through the "dating process"? No one insists that anyone enrich their treasuries.
I am concerned with Men's Rights and the continued exploitation and enslavement of males in the dating process, in the law, in the family(which also relates to dating), in the service, etc. The aforementioned problems are representative of misandry, reducing the worth of a male to that of an ATM(thus the male being treated as less than human while women are treated as if they have the world between their legs) and the believed expendability of the male sex. Thus they are a hindrance to men's rigts. You should know these things as a so-called MRA. I should not have to explain to you how women using men(thus the female being treated better than the man) is related to men's rights.
As a matter of fact the element of women being treated better than men and being shown preferential treatment -- in nearly EVERY aspect in life -- is at the HEART of men's rights issues. In that aspect Rudov is very correct and I appreciate what he does for men as a whole.
The question for me is, "what does that have to do with men's rights?" Does harping on the subject get you any closer to presumptive shared parenting? Does it do something about male versus female college enrollments?
You're focusing on only one issue. Men's rights goes beyond "men with children" you imbecile. It envelopes men as a whole not just men with kids or men in college. My focus remains at the core of things; which is women get all of the rights while men are left with little to none. Female greed and vanity coupled with chivalrous men that think exposing double standards(which lead to injustices in other aspects of life) is "unmanly" is at the heart of the problem.
Women think women are special and that men are here to serve them. Thus men must always pay at the dinner table or when dating. Women think women are special and that men are here to serve them. Thus men must always be made to pay in court. Women think women are special and that men are here to serve them. Thus men go to war and women can choose to go to war but are not forced like men. Women think women are special. Thus women lobby for abortion laws which the father has no say in. Women think women are special and that men are here to serve them. Thus the man must always "please" her even when doing something that is to his own detriment like passing misandric laws to make the women happy. Men think women are special because they are taught so from birth by being told men must do all of the above to find favor in female eyes. They are also taught to seek this approval by women and chivalrous men.
It's female greed and vanity coupled with male chivalry(i.e. Men that don't want to be labelled "unmanly" by OpEd and the rest of the feminine goon squad) that has got us into this hole. The world does not change until the people within it and how we relate to one another changes. The biggest relation that must be worked out is the dysfunctional one wherein women are treated like "the only child" by men -- and women's groups -- which translates into "favoritism" in laws.
Mr. Rudov is correct in that what happens in the home translates into what happens in the political arena and vice versa and if men are always lowering themselves to women during their relationships with women this enforces the notion that women are superior and thus should have special rights, privileges, etc. even to the detriment of a man's civil rights.
That chivalrous code that men just take whatever women dish out and don't complain, that men MUST take care of women, that men MUST pay for a woman(while dating he pays, while married he pays, when in court he will also pay), that men MUST protect all women, MUST be broken and thrown away. It is killing men....literally.
Rudov, for example, mentions some issues of concern to MRAs, but backslides into diatribes about women, the subject he's really interested in. Men's rights activism is an excuse for Rudov to discuss his favorite subject, which isn't men's rights activism.
I only agree partly -- I think Rudov is pretty smart -- and he is damn sure doing more than you are sitting here trying to shield women and calling him names. Rudov exposes double standards that harm men better than any man here. Moreover I have seen more than a few men on these boards shield women from criticism...or at least attempt to.
Rudov exposes women's double standards which is the very same mentality that allows them to lobby for double standards in the legal arena(See above responses). He's smart enough to see how everything is related as I explained above. You have no idea what men's rights is about because you want to silence men that expose half of the reason men "have no rights" -- greedy women -- while claiming to be a men's rights activist. If that's your purpose(as I know it is) more power to you but my conversation with you is at an end. All of your posts -- or at least most of them -- exonerate women in someway from their wrong doings thus responding to someone(who is probably female) with a pro-female agenda is clearly a waste of time.
Like all feminists you don't want your bullshit exposed so you claim men that expose your double standards are "whining" or some other derogatory catty remark. It's been nice but eveytime I read one of your posts my IQ drops a few points.
Have fun arguing with another member or perhaps yourself since most women in western societies are mentally unstable anyway.
------------------------------------------------------
E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
"Why do they(women) constantly stand before the fairy-take mirror-on-the-wall, to reassure themselves that they are the most beautiful, the smarte
Wrong!
The reason men's rights exists is because men have no rights and women have all of the rights. Yet according to you a man that discusses this misandric western system and how women exploit men for political rights, financial gain, etc.(which all go hand in hand with men being thought of as the lower denomination) is being "unmanly."
Wrong! The problems men face are legal and institutional and they have to be dealt with on that level. Characterizing women as the enemy is, understandably, one of the attractions of men's rights activism for some MRAs, but the focus should be on institutional and legal reform.
The talk of "exposing women" for what they truly are might be satisfying, but it its counterproductive. Likewise when it comes to calling feminists feminazi's etc. You don't see that language in the NH commission report.
You mention Marc A. Excellent example: he illustrates my point by remaining factual and by sticking to the legal issues. Rudov is a negative example. Marc A. would never come out swinging and say, "I expose women" the way Rudov has.
But some MRAs are so angry that they never get past that point. They feel so strongly about the injustices they've suffered that any hint that they might need to subordinate a natural impulse to the greater good is (wrongly and defensively) ascribed to feminist shaming and blaming, instead of just common pragmatic sense.
So the question remains: is venting anger at a particular group the goal, or is achieving the putative ends of men's rights activism the objective?
(Of course when I mentioned presumptive shared parenting or trends in college enrollment, I was naming two examples out of many.)
I agree ..no, wait, I disagree..hmm, let's figure this guy out
"Rudov, for example, mentions some issues of concern to MRAs, but backslides into diatribes about women, the subject he's really interested in. Men's rights activism is an excuse for Rudov to discuss his favorite subject, which isn't men's rights activism."
Every time I start to think that same thing, a little voice says to me, "what the fuck is Rudov really up to?" I'm not sure whether he is backsliding in these instances, or if he is just keeping things hopping in the debates. I mean, he knows the media thrives on this kind of incendiary behavior (his calling women "prostitutes", etc).
The question is, what is his greatest priority; to make big bucks? - probably not, if he was already well of from his investing business. Maybe he wants to be a celebrity; but also he does seem to have a bone to pick with women in general. It will take a while for me to figure him out. One thing is for sure though, he is a lot more likely to be a flash-in-the-pan than, say, Glenn Sacks or Warren Farrell ever was.
-ax
LoL! Pathetic. Try again female sympathizer...
I said: "The reason men's rights exists is because men have no rights and women have all of the rights. Yet according to you a man that discusses this misandric western system and how women exploit men for political rights, financial gain, etc.(which all go hand in hand with men being thought of as the lower denomination) is being "unmanly.""
Then OpEd responded with this: "Wrong! The problems men face are legal and institutional and they have to be dealt with on that level. Characterizing women as the enemy is, understandably, one of the attractions of men's rights activism for some MRAs, but the focus should be on institutional and legal reform."
I say men have no rights and women have all of the rights. You say that is wrong. No man in his right mind will agree with you in modern day misandric America. Read the majority of the posts here...they show women get away with crimes men would be hanged for. That's a fact...yet you deny this. I truly doubt you are an MRA now.
Moreover, a man's civil rights are a portion of the "legal" arena(or at least they should be, misandry aside) so you just said "wrong" then went on to say men's problems are "legal".....
*Scratches head*
Also, You are wrong about where the focus should be.
Throughout history noone has ever truly changed a corrupt system by working "within" that system. This does not mean to start blowing buildings up...but attempting to seek "equality" for men in a law system that is built upon misandry is a losing battle without holding those responsible for misandry guilty for their crimes and stopping whatever negative behavior caused us to get to this point in the first place. The very fact that the legal system entertains and promotes misandry -- even though it is unconstitutional -- shows that the legal system is not an independent system but a dependent tool utilized by human beings.
Moreover, institutions and legal systems are built by "human beings" -- they are the dependent variable not the independent one as they too have a source -- (Mainly chivalrous men and women) thus at the core of these systems are the beliefs, attitudes and biases these two groups hold.
No matter how much you try to change the system if men still refuse to hold women responsible for anything and women still exploit men and look for a free ride....well.. -- which caused this gender war in the first place -- .."nothing" will change no matter how many times you try to focus on the misandric legal institutions(or how many bills you submit because the women will always fire back with something they think they are "entitled" to and chivalrous/female lawmakers will crumble and give it to them. Unless as I -- and Marc says -- pandering to women and protecting them all of the time like they are special gets diminished or dies out completely) which is the hellspawn of female greed, vanity and male chivalry.
If female greed and childishness -- along with male chivalry -- remains the same as it has been these misandric systems will simply be re-built within a minimal amount of time. By ignoring the root of the problem you're simply cutting off one measly leaf in an attempt to kill the entire tree.
You're goal is a valid one but it will be in vain as long as you keep focusing on the product and not the source. Both must be hit simultaneously in order for the movement to advance and achieve liberation for men.
Product: Misandric Laws and court systems,
Source: Greedy women who refuse to behave like adults and the chivalrous men who protect and egg them on.
Without the "source" the "product" cannot exist. Every MRA has their thing...you may continue "only" confronting the product and let Mr. Rudov and others whom understand the root of the problem handle the other half the root.
I honestly think other than a few points that could use touching up, that Mr. Rudov is doing a great job exposing women's(and chivalrous men's) double standards. These double standards in relationships subsequently translate to the same mentality and thus double standards in the legal arena. I am proud that he is actually on TV speaking up on men's behalf. Most of the time he makes Lis Wiehl look like an idiot. Look at the polls. He's KILLING her!
Also, I never mentioned Marc A.
Nice talking with you...actually I am lying I sigh everytime I see your posts.
------------------------------------------------------
"Why do they(women) constantly stand before the fairy-tale mirror-on-the-wall, to reassure themselves that they are the most beautiful, the smartest, the most courageous? Because they are compelled t
Across the board?
I say men have no rights and women have all of the rights. You say that is wrong.
It is wrong. You have to specify which rights. In the area of reproductive rights, men are far behind. Men receive more severe treatment in the legal system for certain crimes. But I would not say that men have absolutely no rights. That's an oversimplification.
No man in his right mind will agree with you in modern day misandric America. Read the majority of the posts here...they show women get away with crimes men would be hanged for.
To go from that to men have no rights is mistaken. There is unequal treatment and unequal application of the law. But this is not the same as no rights whatsoever.
I don't understand the sentiment that if you don't characterize institutional bias against males in black and white terms, then you're not an MRA. The facts are bad enough, but even that is somehow not good enough, as if any concession to the facts is total capitulation.
He is 100% a narcissist
That's where his pussy addiction comes from. He needs to get laid as much as possible to prove to himself that he's still the living God he thinks he is.
You're absolutely right, he will never be the type of activist Sacks and Farrell are because he is at the end of the day in it for himself and not the cause.
I don't mind that though personally because I don't put him in the same category as Sacks or Farrel.
Rudov's the type of guy brining up mens issues only because it's controversial to do so and it gets him time on major network news shows.
But that's ok to me because he's still getting the time on major network news shows and mentioning mens issues meaning that the audience out there in TV land is getting exposure to them.
Will the TV land audience see through him after they read his books, sure they will. But, if he caught there attention through mentioning an MRA issue, maybe once they get tired of Rudov's self adoration they'll crop him and seek out genuine MRA authors and activists who are really in it for the long run.
There's no need to mistake him for a true MRA activist to see him as a useful buffoon who for his own purposes is paying lip service to our issues.
Since we still desperately need the message to get out there to men everywhere as most are completely clueless of MRA issues, we should not let our selves get caught up in Rudov's other agendas and just encourage him to speak as much about our agenda when he gets face time.
The Pussy MALLification of America
With respect OpEd ..
"The talk of "exposing women" for what they truly are might be satisfying, but it its counterproductive."
Actually, exposing women for what they really are would be the very best political strategy.
If women were forced (and I do mean FORCED) to look at how the laws in this country have made them into a predatory species...
Then, they would have to make a real choice.
To accept the current inequality and entitlement shitstem, as their obvious advantage.
Or,to seek a reform towards real gender equality under the law.
Personally, knowing that women have an inherent nature to benefit from any situation they find themselves in...
... men do not have a slim chance in Hell of ever turning feminism around, unless the world economy collapses.
Industrialism is all about pussy....
Cultivating it, making it a rabid consumer, making its male slaves vacantly happy and appropriating their earnings...
Go into any retail store and analyze the percentage of space dedicated to satisfying pussy.
It is approximately 85%.
The same amount of national wealth that women control.
Until men no longer desire to be controlled by women, it's pretty much a futile effort to try to promote a movement of eunuchs.
reply
The world is changing, people are so stressed lately and yet there are a lot of secrets when it comes to Saving Your Marriage