'Clueless Guys Can't Read Women'

More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on, and a new study discovers why: Guys are clueless.

More precisely, they are somewhat oblivious to the emotional subtleties of non-verbal cues, according to a new study of college students.

"Young men just find it difficult to tell the difference between women who are being friendly and women who are interested in something more," said lead researcher Coreen Farris of Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.'

Comments:

they are clueless when women are using them.
they are clueless when women really only want them for their income.
they are clueless when their finances get controlled by the woman.
they are clueless when she lies to him.
they are clueless in divorce court.
they are clueless when they loose their kids.
and they are clueless NOT to know that women kill and abuse more children in US homes than any other perp.

We're clueless because women are manipulative, infantile, children, who expect us to be mind readers. They never say what they're feeling, we're just expected to know. Then they lie about things on top of that. So, it's tough to not be clueless when half of what you hear from the woman is a lie anyway.

Besides, why the hell should we have to read women anyway? Why don't they grow some hair and ask us out if they like us, instead of waiting for us to come to them, or just be more straightforward with their intentions? I respect courage in a woman.

Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Its funny because normally you cant get them to keep their traps shut. Then your expected to mind read there BS.

"If you loved me you would know"

It comes down to women want stuff but cant even be bothered to actually tell you, as their personal slave you should know what they want- even before they do!

I believe women are very capable and sophisticated predators who employ the masquerade of childishness and infantilism to get what they want.

They know fully well what they are.

They will almost never discuss it.....

Guys are clueless because they're not mind readers.

Feminism may go too far in girls vs. boys

Feminism may go too far in girls vs. boys by Holly Bowne

I recognize that U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton has the ability and as much right as any man to run for president. I firmly believe in equal pay for equal work, and that women can do any job they set their minds to doing. I grew up witnessing the many positive changes feminism has brought about -- including economic and political gains for women, as well as changes in the way we live, dress, make a living and dream of a future.

But as I sat in the stands of my local indoor soccer facility, watching my son's under-12 boys team being physically abused by a girls team, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps feminism has finally gone too far.

During the game, I saw a female player actually punch one of our boys in the back of his head (the ref did not see it) and later, I saw my own son's face being smashed into the boards by another young lady. (The ref did see that.) I noted the parents of the girls' team smiling smugly whenever one of their players managed to knock over one of our boys.

Now, the fact is, when you get into the age of puberty and beyond, most of those boys could, if they chose, send a girl flying into the boards at any point. Feminism aside, it's a simple fact of nature that men are physically stronger than women. But they are taught never to use that physical strength against a woman.

Listening to the grumbling coming from the parents of the boys, it was obvious that our guys weren't playing their best game. They would hesitate for a second too long or hold back just a bit, yielding to a baser instinct not to hurt a girl. Our boys were simply not playing full-out against this girls team. And to be honest, I'm not sure I would have wanted them to.

We drill it into our boys' heads from a very young age that they should never push, shove or hit a girl; if anything, they are to step to the defense of a girl when necessary. Then we put them all out on the soccer field -- basketball court, wrestling mat, pick a sport -- together where the boys are supposed to be as physically competitive with girls as they would be with boys. We are confusing our boys.

If men abusing women is never appropriate, why should the reverse ever be all right? Our culture seems to be blurring the lines between feminism and offensivism.

I recall a shopping trip I made with my daughter a couple of years ago. As we were browsing in one of the popular mall shops, we came across some T-shirts that stated "Boys Are Stupid -- Throw Rocks at Them." We were appalled, and I had barely uttered the words, "Who would buy something like that?" when we noticed a young mother on the other side of the display searching for a shirt in her little girl's size. Do we women really need to teach our girls to bash boys, physically and emotionally, to make our mark in the world?

After the soccer game, I asked a manager why this talented girls team didn't play up a few levels within the girls division instead of entering the boys' leagues. I was told that prohibiting them from playing in the boys division would be considered discrimination. Amazing. Women have fought a long, hard battle to earn equal rights. We now have clubs, sports, colleges and political organizations solely for women and the support of women's rights. But we're still not satisfied.

We are raising our boys to be men in a world that increasingly disrespects men in a variety of venues. If we truly believe in equal rights, then we women need to speak up and stop allowing TV programs, clothing, and even children's sports to get away with the male bashing that is going on. We need to build up our boys instead of tearing them down. We need to teach them how to be men. Men who are intelligent, sensitive and strong.

Men who know how to treat a lady.

Women are as Violent as their Husbands

Article here

When professor Suzanne Steinmetz published the results of her survey on domestic violence, no one had prepared her for the firestorm that would ensue. You see, feminists take it as an article of faith that only husbands abuse their wives.

So when Steinmetz revealed that women are often as violent as their husbands, the fem-fascists started a whispering campaign designed to block her promotion at the University of Delaware. When that didn't work, they phoned in a bomb threat at her daughter's wedding. Cowed by the threats, Steinmetz soon suspended her pioneering research.

Erin Pizzey of England had impeccable credentials -- she was the founder of the first abuse shelter for women. So a few years later she published Prone to Violence, a book that revealed these women are often as physically aggressive as their mates.

That provoked threats of violence by the women who said women can never be violent. Pizzey was forced to seek police protection as she traveled around to promote her book. She was met by jeering protesters with placards that read, "All men are bastards."'

When is a Crime NOT a Crime

When it's committed by a woman, of course!

"A woman in Port St. Lucie faces charges of chasing her fleeing husband around their yard in a minivan, in attempts to drive over him about 20 times.

"Their baby, who was in the back seat of the minivan, was buckled up and was not hurt, deputies said.

"Deputies said it started over a dispute over $300 on Friday between Leslie Ann Brown and her husband, Nicholas.

"Deputies said he tried to stop the vehicle by throwing a brick at the windshield.

"The wife has been released on $2,750 bond, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and child abuse."

Huh? In the MSNBC/AP story quoted above, a woman repeatedly tries to murder her husband, at the same time endangering their baby--and she is out on a lousy $2,750 bond?

And does it not occur to anybody that the baby could have been hurt if she rolled or crashed the van? (Am I cynical to note that I'm surprised the man is not being charged with endangering his baby for throwing the brick?)

Typical of the way the mainstream media dismisses violence against men, the article is under the header "Criminal Weirdness." MSNBC asks "Which story in Weird news last week did you think was the strangest?" and groups the story of the woman's murder attempt with lighthearted fare such as:

"Illinois-shaped corn flake sells for $1,350"

"Cops chase stolen doughnut van at 100 mph"

"Japan appoints robot cat ambassador"

"Wine taster's nose insured for millions"

"Danny Boy the bird reunites with owners"

One more point--can anybody tell me what common, two-word phrase is glaringly absent from this story?

The story is here--thanks to G.R., a reader, for sending it.

Recruiting Merchant Maureens

Recruiting Merchant Maureens by Marc Rudov

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 a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 100+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

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

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

Shattered Men- The Other Half of DV

Let's do the math for a case very close to the Shattered Men family.
I am sure there are many more right here that have not spoken up.

I was talking to one of our members yesterday that is doing his best
to pay his bills. He told me that his income last year was a little
less then $12,000. He has been ordered to pay $191 per WEEK in child
support.


Ok...here it is. $12,000 divided by 52 is $230.76. If we take
$191.00 from this, we have $39.76 to live on...to pay for shelter,
food, transportation and everything else...BUT...this is before
deductions too so there actually is far less then $39.76 to do all
of this. In fact, there is a chance this person owns more support
then he actually gets.

Why do these problems occur? Much of it is because our "family
courts" are not family friendly. They have boughten into the
feminist lie that is always the man's fault so often child support
is set to punish the father.

To compound this, if a parent gets behind in child support he (and
sometimes she) will have punitive actions taken that will guarantee
that they will never be able to pay back support.

Lets look at some of these:

1: Penalties are assessed to back support. Odd is it not that if
they can not pay what is owed...they make sure you own even more so
the amount is even more.

2: Drivers and professional licenses are revoked thus making it
impossible to work to pay off the debt.

3: Your car may be "booted" further preventing any chance of paying

4: The support level is so high that one essentially becomes
homeless thus preventing gainful employment. It is next to
impossible to get a job if one is homeless.

5: Harassment and public embarrassment will assure that if you did
have a job, you will not have it long.

6: If you do not have money to pay child support, about the only
remedy is to HIRE a lawyer for several thousand dollars to fight
it.. LOL...this is a catch 22...if you can hire a lawyer...wouldn't
you pay the support?

7: Wage assignments which is often the first step but employers do
not want to get involved so often they find ways to terminate
employment.

Since the creation of the federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement in 1975, government workers and lobbyists for private
child support collection companies have been relentless in their
efforts to misinform the public about child support payments and
collections

Also, more money IS being collected since this act...but less is
getting to the children.

Before the federal program was operational, about 70 percent of the
amount of child support that was ordered was paid directly by non-
custodial parents to custodial parents. An additional amount was
paid to the government as reimbursement for welfare entitlements.
According to research, divorced fathers (somewhat different for
never-married fathers who are more often involved in welfare
reimbursement and known to be different from non-custodial mothers)
paid 90 percent of what was due, and fully-employed non-custodial
fathers paid closer to 100 percent of what was due. Since the
creation of the federal child support enforcement program which
forces higher payments through expensive government payment systems,
the figure previously at 70 percent has dropped to 67 percent. The
primary reason for non-payment is that non-custodial parents are not
able to pay as much as they have been ordered to pay. And some of
the money that is currently paid gets lost in the new system.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay042404.htm

The governments answer? Expand the number of people employed in
child collection efforts. Of course, this will do no good unless the
people who owe support are the ones hired so that they will have a
paycheck to be able to pay support.

I have also heard of reports that there are many who DO pay...but
are told they did not. In Indianapolis Indiana, one child support
collection employee put $91,000 dollars of child support money in
her own pocket. I have not been able to find out how many fathers
were jailed for non payment when they did pay but it was in her
pocket.

Another consideration that is often overlooked...is the governments
helping those in need.

FACT: If a parent is owed child support she (and very rarely he) can
go to the county prosecutor and have the NCP taken to court without
expense to her. (I say rarely he because out of the small percentage
of men who are owed child support, few are able to get the DA to
file a court action (see below)

FACT: If a NCP parent has been given court order visitation rights,
he is often not ALLOWED to see his children. There is NO recourse
for him except to go back to court at his expense and get another
court order that will not be worth the paper it is written on.

I contend that when the courts and society enforces the right for
the NCP parent to see their children as much as they enforce the
support orders, then we will be making progress.
Better yet... if we had Equal parenting in most situations most of
this would not exist.

Please look at the following...and then see the extent of the
problem Be sure to read my plea at the bottom.


The State of Fatherhood

37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6,
col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-
custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish
the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton)

Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports
by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of
Orthopsychiatry, 1991.) "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see
no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...."
(Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p.
125)

Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to
handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and
close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey
of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our
understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their
children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July
1991.)

"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little
time with=their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial
Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8,
No. 2, p. 54)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact
with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the
Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50)

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes
sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons
and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July
`93.)

"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for
problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source:
Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol.
51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J
Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that
77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children,
as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference"
perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance
with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-
compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children
of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

Child Support

Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all
noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the
fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with
visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation
rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census
Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so
because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO
report:GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%

Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%

Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%

Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

Women Behaving Badly

Reported in the news during October 2007, here is the compilation of the women with troubles. Each name is linked to a blog entry displaying details.

See Article

When Men's Health Doesn't Count

When Men's Health Doesn't Count
By Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks

Congress is sending a message to American men: men's health doesn't count.

The disturbing health and mortality disparities between American whites and blacks are well known, but most people do not realize that the health and mortality disparities between women and men are just as great. For example, the gap in life expectancy between whites and blacks is six years, while the gender gap is 5.7 years. Adjusted for age, men are 1.6 times as likely as women to die from one of the top 10 causes of death, and blacks are 1.5 times as likely to die from them as whites.

Despite this, it is women's health, not men's, which continues to receive government attention and funding. For example, the National Institutes of Health--the federal focal point for medical research in the U.S.--spends nearly four times as much on female-specific health research as on male-specific research. And though the average man is as likely to die from prostate cancer as the average woman is from breast cancer, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Cancer Institute spends three and a half times as much money on breast cancer research as on prostate cancer research.

In fact, prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases but receives only 5% of federal research funding. In addition, the breast cancer postage stamp has raised over $25 million for breast cancer research since it began in 1998, while a 1999 bill proposing a similar stamp for prostate cancer research was unsuccessful.

When Congress formed the Office on Women's Health in 1991, its goal was to improve women's health by directing and coordinating women's health research, health care services, and health education. Since then men's health advocates have been trying to create an Office of Men's Health, with the goal of duplicating the OWH's success. Yet while a new bill which will help to make the OWH's funding permanent was just passed by the House, the Men's Health Act of 2001 (H.R. 632) remains trapped in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on health. If not rescued soon, the bill will die when the 107th Congress adjourns this fall.

According to Tracie Snitker, director of public affairs for the Men's Health Network, "the number and quality of federally funded women's health education projects is outstanding. But while outreach programs teach women about breast cancer and cervical cancer, there are few if any programs which educate men about their own gender-specific health needs.

"We want to do for men what the OWH has done for women," she adds. "Men need education about the cancers which disproportionately affect them, such as prostate cancer, skin cancer and colorectal cancer. Young men need education on testicular cancer. Most importantly, we need to teach men to seek preventative health care."

Part of the reason an Office of Men's Health has been so long in coming is the common but nonetheless false perception that the government and the scientific community have paid more attention to men's health than to women's. In 1990 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made national headlines by citing the fact that women-specific health research comprised only 14% of the budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH). She called it "blatant discrimination" and led the successful campaign for the creation of the OWH. What Mikulski and many in the media who publicized Mikulski's claims did not understand was that only 6.5% of the NIH's budget went to male-specific research--the vast majority of the NIH's research was gender neutral.

Today the disparity in favor of women in NIH research has grown, as has the gender disparity in enrollments in non-gender-specific studies. According to the Government Accounting Office, one of the few areas where men comprise the majority of research subjects is in initial trials of experimental drugs. These are the trials undertaken to ensure that the drugs are not lethal or seriously harmful.

First, drugs are usually tested on rats and monkeys. If there are no adverse effects, they are then tested on people--usually men. If the men also show no adverse effects, the drugs advance to larger trials, where women comprise the majority.

Considering Congress' repeated refusal to act to help men's health, one can't help but wonder--is men's health as important as women's, or is it merely more important than monkeys'?

Why the Wife is Unhappy with Her Husband

Most Marital Problems Revolve Around Why the Wife is Unhappy with Her Husband

Men certainly create their share of problems in marriages, but I believe that a significant percentage of divorces are caused by some women's hypercritical nature. In my co-authored Chicago Tribune column Men Blamed for Marriage Decline but Women's Relationship Wounds Often Self-Inflicted (1/21/07) I wrote:

"To what, then, do we attribute women's discontent with marriage and relationships, and the fact that they initiate the vast majority of divorces? A new Woman's Day magazine poll found that 56% of married women would not or might not marry their husbands if they could choose again--why?

"Nobody would dispute that, in selecting a mate, women are more discerning than men. This is an evolutionary necessity--a woman must carefully evaluate who is likely to remain loyal to her and protect and provide for her and her children. If a man and a woman go on a blind date and don't hit it off, the man will shrug and say 'it went OK.' The woman will give five reasons why he's not right for her.

"A woman's discerning, critical nature doesn't disappear on her wedding day. Most marital problems and marriage counseling sessions revolve around why the wife is unhappy with her husband, even though they could just as easily be about why the husband is unhappy with the wife. In this common pre-divorce scenario there are only two possibilities-either she's a great wife and he's a lousy husband, or she's far more critical of him than he is of her. Usually it's the latter...

"Yes, there are some men who make poor mates, but not nearly enough to account for the divorce epidemic and the decline of marriage. While it's easy and popular to blame men, many of the wounds women bear from failed relationships and loneliness are self-inflicted."

Women Tell the Truth about their Lies

Article here

More confirming data. Yes, the sweet, fairer sex. We need to rid the world of this type of baloney!! Excerpt:

'Barash interviewed 500 women nationwide who answered her Craigslist ads seeking females to confide what they fib about. Among her findings:

* 75 percent lie about how much money they spend. For instance, they sneak purchases inside their homes after shopping or hide the price tags.

* 50 percent harbor "mixed feelings about mothering." One told Barash, "I look at these children and I crave sleep and free time. They wear me out and make me jealous of working women who have no children, no husbands."

* More than 60 percent cheated on their husbands. A 32-year-old mother conducted her trysts while telling her trusting husband she was working late. Even in asking for a divorce, she withheld the truth: "I didn't say I had fallen for another man. He was better off with my lies."'