Research shows that about 60 percent of women will tumble for the cad but hitch their wagon to the dad, which may explains the almost 60 percent divorce rate.

The female equivalent of the Madonna/Whore double standard, it's not some leering feminist turnabout-is-fair-play gambit. It's always been this way. Just as a lot of men want to party with the bad girls but marry a good girl, so a lot of women want to be treated like tramps by the bad boys but marry some nice guy for hearth, home and a baby or few, and not much else. A new study, just out from Catharine MacKinnon's Fortress of Feminist Fragility, the University of Michigan, confirms this:

For long-term relationships, women like dads-men who are kind, compassionate and monogamous. But for short-term relationships, women prefer cads-the classic Romantic dark heroes who are dominant, promiscuous and daring. That's according to a new U-M study, appearing in the current issue of the journal Human Nature. - Diane Swanbrow, citing the study conducted by Daniel Kruger, a social psychologist at the Institute for Social Research (ISR), and co-authors Maryanne Fisher and Ian Jobling, University Record, October 27, 2003

The girl that I marry will have to be?
Me? I don't get it. But that's an autistic American Indian for you. My ideal gal finds as much humor as I do in the silly social rituals in which normal people engage. She's intelligent, inquisitive, industrious, affectionate, unabashedly adventurous in bed, and honest and healthy, which means she's not some half-starved waif sweating over a few extra pounds. She enjoys being a woman, and she likes men. Yes, such women do exist. Not many, but I do know a few. They don't stay single for long. Men love women like that, and women hate them.

This is one reason why, after decades of cultivating the futile hope that society could evolve, I've come to agree with Tom Leykis. This "coming to Jesus" had less to do with anything that Tom has said than what women have said. As I mentioned last month, I think he's mellowed a bit over the years. My views have shifted, too. But by and large it's been women who have persuaded me that what Tom says is true.

To put this into some perspective, let me explain that I'm a south Seattle kid. Yes, Seattle, one of the most "pussified" places on planet Earth. It's no accident that The Backlash!, Men's Advocate, Take Action Against Bias in the System, Dads Against Discrimination, and so many other organizations to counter feminist bigotry were located in Seattle: It (was) the epicenter of the Marlboro-smoking, whiskey-drinking, fat, whiney single-mother movement.

A few years ago, I gave up on Seattle and moved to Olympia, the capitol of Washington state. Lots of family here in Olympia, a lot of family history. Against all reason I hoped that here, maybe, I could find my kind of gal.

In densely populated metropolitan areas, people, like agates in a tumbler, bump and grind against one another, chipping away until they develop a polished exterior that conceals the rough stuff within. Some religions and philosophies - a few, not many - carry this further, permeating the spirit and refining the soul. But in smaller communities, where the polishing process is less intense, the coarse character endures to express itself with a passive-aggressive snarl. In Olympia, that snarling vents every foul agenda dreamt of by the androphobic prattlers who magnify every misstep of men into a crime against the cosmos.

Hope doesn't float
Hope is such a hard habit to break, but what I found in Olympia wasn't up to the job, for it is a microcosm of what dominates Seattle. A few really swell gals and a lot of losers who, if the national trend is any indication, will marry once or twice, end up divorced, and spend most of their life as single moms who work, whine, smoke and complain to one-another during the week, and troll for cads at the local bars every Friday night.

Right about now you're probably thinking, "Jeez, you're really angry and bitter." Actually, surrendering to the reality is a relief. I give up! I'm not going to fight it anymore. Most women are not worth taking home to meet the family. So be it. Think Christian Slater leaning back after being busted - sort of- by the FCC in Pump up the Volume, telling his listeners, "So be it." But, like Slater's character, I have a sly smirk on my face.

The reason has to do with timing.

I don't believe Tom disrespects women. I don't. I know he doesn't dislike them. I don't, either. But, like James Coburn's character, Derek Flint, in Our Man Flint and In Like Flint, he understands them and he doesn't try to compete with them. They are what they are, and who are we, as men, to try to change them?

True, most women spend a lot of their time trying to change us men, but that's just part of who they are. We can fight it, try to change them in return, but they don't like it, it doesn't do us any good, so why bother? Is it really worth the effort? What would we get out of it, anyway?

Tom tells his listeners how to get laid a lot, and I'm not really that kind of guy. But as my fortune improves and women begin to pay more attention, maybe I'll change my mind about that. For the time being, however, it's all good, it's all part of living and learning and, with any luck, loving and being loved in return.

Regards

Rod Van Mechelen

Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective (the page now includes several articles by other authors), and the publisher of The Backlash! @ Backlash.com. He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.