Run, Joe, Run!
Well, Suze Orman is back at it again, playing the henpecking man-hater who tells women to get divorced from their husbands for making what she perceives to be financial mistakes. I thought she had started to recover from her man-hating, sexist ways, but I was wrong. I watched last night's show (Sat, Feb. 27th) and she had on Andrea, a real winner of a wife who met with Suze to basically castrate her husband, Joe, without his even being present. Ms. Orman stated that Joe was supposed to be on the show, but decided not to show. Gee, I wonder why?
Could it be that he knew that this man-hating show would pit his wife and Orman against him and he didn't have a prayer? Perhaps. Joe's crime? He dared to want to go back to law school in his forties and his wife made more money than him. It seems that wife Andrea makes $120,000 per year and poor Joe only makes $90,000. Joe has little in retirement and was in the military,then went to film school and now, (gasp!) wants to go to law school. Okay, so what? If it was a woman, she would be told to fulfill her dreams. Joe is castrated by these two man-haters as a pathetic loser who is going to lose his marriage if he can't step back in line.
Orman and the wife ooze their disgust on national television while Orman gives Joe a lecture on what a loser he is (see pic above). Repeatedly calling him by his first name, she sounded like Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World" segment. He was not there to defend himself, nor have I ever seen a man defend himself on Orman's show. Do they not dare or are they not allowed?
All I can say to Joe, wherever he is out there, is that your wife should not have gone on national television without you. When you decided not to go on, she should have declined the castration--I mean, invitation. If you ever want to tell your side of the story, I would be happy to have you on my "Ask Dr. Helen" show on PJTV. If men would start to come forward and fight back against the sexism of the likes of Suze Orman and your wife Andrea, then maybe women would stop shaming their men in public. Fight fire with fire. Until then, expect the media to treat men like dirt, and humiliate them, because, well, they can.
Oh, and Suze is doing some "research" on men and money and has asked men to go to her site and answer the question, "If you had the choice, would you prefer to be the primary breadwinner of the family?" If you have something to say to her, you can go here to let her know what you think of men and money.
Labels: Male Bashing, man-haters, sexist, suze orman
posted by Helen at 3:26 PM
63 Comments:
What qualifies Suze Orman to be a marriage counselor, which is what she is doing? She's practicing without a license.
As for Joe - He should divorce the old biddy and let someone else worry about her, if she can get anyone else after her performance on TV.
I've never watched Suze Orman and never intend to do so.
Suze Orman is a HYPOCRITE! She'll tell engaged women to get prenups, yet she'll chastise engaged men for not 'sharing with their wives to be' if they want to keep the fruits of their labor.
She's also a confirmed lesbian. Lesbians are normally man haters, because men=competition for dykes.
Helen, glad you can watch Suze for me. I gave up watching her years ago, it was more than I could stomach for reasons I unfortunately can no longer remember.
ChrisA,
I really can't watch much longer. I do enjoy watching financial shows but hers is making me feel troubled that she is so sexist against men. I think she has more recently turned to doing more of a "woman's show" but why does that have to involve shaming and belittling men? Have you noticed whenever someone talks about "empowering women," they start bad-mouthing men?
"a wife who met with Suze to basically castrate her husband, Joe, without his even being present." I guess if I was going to be castrated, I'd choose to be absent rather than present also! ;)
They lost me as 'NBC'.
I have a feeling that it doesn't matter at all what you write on her Web site - she will manipulate the figures and then spin it any which way she wants.
If she's in the mood, she'll say that most men want to be the breadwinner - which indicates that all men are controlling creeps.
If she's in a different mood, she'll say that the majority of men now don't care or would prefer the women to be the breadwinner - which indicates that modern men are lazy, disgusting slobs trying to live off women.
She is one of the most irritating people I have ever seen.
Please stop writing about NBC programming.
All you are doing is giving them the free publicity they seek.
If we don't watch, if we don't write about them, if we don't respond Pavlovian to their outrages, they have no power.
Her "financial advice" also seems to either be common sense or a questionable take on some economic issue. I don't think she's even all that bright. Her radiant white teeth and unbridled hatred of men probably make her a hit among married women.
It's easy to understand. To Andrea, marriage is a zero-sum game, and if her husband is more empowered, she must be less empowered.
Of course, in a healthy marriage, your joint empowerment is more than the sum of your individual empowerment. Too bad she doesn't get that.
Ummmm, I'm not the first person to let everyone know that Suze is a lesbian, am I?
I thought this was common knowledge ... it's on Wikipedia. She came out on Oprah I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suze_Orman
I mean, a man-hating lesbian? Who'd have thunk it?
If Suze is telling women to get a divorce as economic advice, that's pretty much all you need to know that she's an idiot.
Very, very few women (or men) emerge more financially secure after a divorce.
Right now, her guest is part of a marriage that makes about $210,000 per annum. If she loses access to that other $90,000, she's gonna suffer consequences.
Is there a shortage of lawyers in America?
It's happened too often in my comparatively limited experience for it to be a coincidence: Lesbians who are therapists and marriage counselors use their professional authority as a recruiting tool. Don't like something about your husband? You poor dear, of course you don't. He's a man, and they all have those horrible external genitals. Stop shaving your legs, move in with me, and we'll get eight cats and a Prius with a rainbow sticker on the back window.
A female friend recently expressed a desire to talk with a therapist about intimacy and relationship issues. (Good for her, I thought.) Her sister, who has been in a lesbian relationship for some 12 years, told her, "Whatever you do, make sure the therapist isn't a lesbian." It's not my imagination.
Male therapists and counselors who take advantage of their female clients'/patients' vulnerability to "get some" are rightly punished and stripped of their professional licensure. Double standard, maybe?
Women make most of the purchasing and investment decisions in a marriage. So, why aren't women held more to account?
It's the tired old saw: women want their cake and eat it too.
Even though women make most of the decisions, Ms. Orman assigns credit for success to women and scorn for failure to men.
Bitch.
Oh God! My wife's two heroines are Oprah and Suze Orman.
I'm done for.
I was once in the Navy, left to pursue other interests, then wanted to return to law school in my late 30's as well. My wife also thought I was crazy for doing so. But she supported me because, well, she was my wife. That's what spouses do. They don't go on national TV and insult their husband.
I graduated in 2003 and was accepted back into the Navy as a JAG. The Navy has since sent me to grad school at George Washington U where I am earning my LLM in international environmental law. I'll retire in five years with a full military retirement, and likely start working at a DC environmental firm, making 10 times more than I would have ever made as a civilian without a law degree.
That is what is possible when your spouse believes in you and supports you.
@MarkyMark said... Suze Orman is a HYPOCRITE! She'll tell engaged women to get prenups, yet she'll chastise engaged men for not 'sharing with their wives to be' if they want to keep the fruits of their labor.
______________
They act like the only thing a man protects with prenups is money, which isn't the case. If you ask me, there are two reasons a man should get a prenup, with money being only a secondary concern:
1. A woman will be swayed in her demeanor by the security and options provided to her by law. Her tolerance will be lowered if she knows that she can take his money for life, even if she ceases being his wife.
2. The worst cost in divorce to a man is psychological. I know of men who have been cheated on, resulting in a divorce, and the psychological trauma of watching her and her stud live happily ever after on his dime, usually in a house he paid for, and often with his kids he almost never sees anymore.
Suze does great harm... a male guru could never get away with it.
Of course, in a healthy marriage, your joint empowerment is more than the sum of your individual empowerment. Too bad she doesn't get that.
Vader,
Most AMERICAN women don't get that! WTF do you think we tell men to NOT get married? Because Andrea is the rule, not the exception, that's why.
MarkyMark
Helen - you pretty much summed it all up. The double standard is huge. Yes, if Joe was the woman, she would have been fulfilling her dream. This looks like a clear case of psychological violence and financial abuse on the part of the wife and Orman.
Patrick, RUN!!
I'll give the situation just a little bit of credibility - disregarding gender, if one spouse went to one graduate program, did nothing with it and then wanted to go to ANOTHER expensive, long graduate program, and was unproductive in one's 40's, I would have to tell the couple to take a long look at the expectations in the marriage, because one person not getting anything done with their life whilst living off the other is a toxic situation.
...but that's not the case here. One spouse makes good money on his own, and supposedly wants to enrich his mind in law school (where he stands to get involved in new interesting work).
I'm sick and tired of the double standard that men who don't provide are bums but women who don't are just women. Women need to decide if they want to be equal or not; if there are to have options while men have obligations, I'm going to stay out of the general female pool because I just ain't playing. I had an argument about it just this morning with my girlfriend, regarding her friend's dad who has been out of work for two years as a contractor (a very poor field to be in during the recession).
Is it possible we can go to gender-blind divorce courts? We will have to anyway with the coming wave of gay divorces; let's put everything in a file with the pronouns made neutral and have the judges decide without even meeting the couple and hearing the whining.
Anybody that would go on national TV to discuss marital issues has already chosen to destroy the marriage. Joe just refused to participate in the circus.
@XBradTC - As one friend put it so well: "The only thing you can be sure of in a divorce is that all the money goes away."
Nah, it doesn't go away. It goes to the lawyers.
Well, I refuse to watch this show. I don't need the condescension.
As far as the whole marriage thing goes, I got a better idea. Why don't I set up an LLC?
I have income, expenses and savings. So I just put all of my savings into the corporate account, and any assets I buy are pruchased through the corporation.
Then I meet a woman and we fall in love. Marriage (presumptive paternity, no-fault divorce) is out of the question. She wants to live with me? Fine. She has her education, her career, her income, just as I do. So we split all bills right down the middle, 50-50, with full documentation. We also have mutually agreed upon chores that are signed off on by each partner every week. That way we do not share property, do not share money, and there is no sweat equity. So we are not married in any sense of the term.
Meanwhile, I still have income, expenses and savings, and all of my savings go into the corporate account for the purpose of buying assets and growing wealth. She is not entitled in any way to any of this money. And she's perfectly free to do the same with her money.
If she gets pregnant, naturally I'll pay child support, as required by law, after a paternity test. If the child is mine, I'll support it. If not, I'll walk.
No divorce. No settlements. No arguments. No lawyer's fees. I'm only out the one month's rent and utilities. So what?
My money is protected in a limited liability coporation. My assets are secure. I still have money and can get on with my life. She's on her own.
Think any woman would ever agree to that arrangement? Why not? I mean, it would be equality.
Oh, that's right, she doesn't want equality. She wants her sense of entitlement and pretense to superiority. While using the legal system and the court to rob me blind.
Forget that. There is absolutely no way, not under any circumstances, not under any conditions, not at any time, I'm ever going to agree to that. I'd rather have the money.
Now what, girls? You wanted equality, and you got it. I have my money, you have yours. Now shut up.
The Entitlement Princess Syndrome common with a large percentage of American women, is exactly why I married a lovely and well educated lady from India.
We've been married for 7 years, and we still act like newlyweds. I treat her withe love and dignity few Indian men would ever show, and she showers me with love...and she has no sense of entitlement.
A Liberal Jewish Lesbian hates men? I'm shocked...shocked!! Name me ONE who doesn't! I listened to her once, when she gave the standard pedestrian advice about avoiding credit cards, and then a commercial came on for her books: "Order now, have your credit card ready".
Amen to those above who have noted that heterosexual women reaaly should ask themselves why tey would accept marital advise from the likes of her. I wouldn't be so presumpuous as to advise Orman on the financial consequences of her personal relationships.
I lost a lot of respect I had for Suze when she did a paid ad for some car company, telling people to make the worst economic decision they could make with the least effort: buy a new car.
Bad, bad, bad!
Also, just from a financial perspective, divorce is a terrible last resort for people being battered, cheated on, or cheated financially. Not something you do because of a disagreement on career or educational priorities.
All your money goes to lawyers and therapists. And your life goes in the crapper. It is not a happy place, except for golddiggers and ex-closet inhabitants. And divorce lawyers, who are bloodsuckers.
And if you have children involved, it is immoral and narcissistic to get a divorce for such a trivial matter.
@Jim O said... Amen to those above who have noted that heterosexual women reaaly should ask themselves why tey would accept marital advise from the likes of her.
_______________
It isn't uncommon for people to seek "support" from people they have cherry picked specifically because they are included to support what conclusions they have already drawn. It basically gives them even more ammunition against others while they can pretend like they are taking the high ground and getting counsel.
Sorry for hogging the soapbox, but if Suze wanted to give women actually sound financial advice that would help their investments recover, give them and their families better opportunities for employment, and help secure more prosperity for their children's futures, she would tell them:
STOP VOTING FOR SOCIALISTS!!!!
"Oh, and Suze is doing some "research" on men and money and has asked men to go to her site and answer the question, "If you had the choice, would you prefer to be the primary breadwinner of the family?"
My answer to that would be yes, because I don't plan on getting married. See, wasn't so difficult, was it?
Sounds to me like this guy's wife subscribes to the maxim, 'whoever has the gold makes the rules'. In other words, she probably feels that because she makes more money than he does, she should be allowed to control every facet of his life, and yes, even dictate what he can do with it.
It's interesting to see how women demand absolute financial security, but expect men to provide it - even when the men make less than they do.
In the same breath, these very same women will claim they are equal, empowered, liberated, and independent. But being financially dependent on someone else is the opposite of equality, empowerment, and independence!
Hypocrisy, thy name is woman!
Just catching up on my news reading for the weekend. It seems everything I read about liberals suggests they have all gone stark raving mad.
"Very, very few women (or men) emerge more financially secure after a divorce."
Yes, divorce drops standards of living on both sides. But the crime of American divorce is that the less-secure party _during_ the marriage can take part of the more-secure person's money _after_ the marriage in the form of alimony - so they are coming out better than if they hadn't gotten married.
And that brings us to...
"Right now, her guest is part of a marriage that makes about $210,000 per annum. If she loses access to that other $90,000, she's gonna suffer consequences."
She makes more than hubby, so Suze's guest's husband should get himself a lawyer today and prepare to sue for alimony.
Actually, he should serve the papers right now - there's really no downside unless the court has found a way to order a lower-earning spouse to pay a higher earner alimony.
I think alimony is almost criminal, but I tactically support every "reverse alimony" case I see because as soon as high-powered women see they are in danger of paying a salary to an ex, alimony laws will be changed.
Conservatives are TOTAL failures for allowing US divorce laws to be so deeply immerse in leftist principles.
SHE divorces, yet HE has to pay? Even if the woman cheats, HE has to pay?
I thought conservatives cared about personal responsibility? Or only for men, rather than women?
Conservatives are so stupid that they think 'Gay Marriage' is a bigger threat to marriage than the divorce laws that INCENTIVIZE a woman to divorce.
That is why conservatives are just as much to blame as feminists, for the pervasive misandry in society.
I rarely, if ever, watch Suze Orman's show. It usually happens when I am channel surfing. I just happened to land on her show during this interview. I was appalled and it reminded me why I don't watch her.
kmg,
I'm with you - feminists have formed an accidental unholy alliance with white-knighting chauvinist conservatives who enjoy lecturing and finger-wagging at men who haven't lived up to their chivalric ideals. And there's Marc Rudov's point that men everywhere of all stripes are afraid of women! Men don't dare pass pro-male laws and go home and never hear the end of it from their wives. Grow a pair, brother.
I'm turned into a tepid gay marriage supporter for two reasons: (a) they can't possibly injure the institution of marriage anymore than straight people have, and (b) the coming wave of gay divorces might just convince America that the laws need to be changed.
I love watching Suze Orman with the sound off.
Try it sometime. You'll love it too.
"... the coming wave of gay divorces might just convince America that the laws need to be changed."
----
I doubt it.
There have already been some court rulings in high-profile cases of gay/lesbian people.
A good example is the breakup after the videotaped "vows" / homemade marriage between the tennis player Martina Navratilova and the professional golddigger Judy Nelson.
The court merely assigns the role of man and woman. In that case, Martina was the man, and Judy was the woman.
Martina had to fork over big bucks.
Men are always going to be held responsible for women (at least in my lifetime) and women are going to enjoy victim status. That's why it is best not to play the game. If you don't marry them or get them pregnant, you can avoid that idiocy.
By the way, before Judy Nelson became a lesbian and separated Martina from a good chunk of change, she was married to a (male) doctor and also separated him from a good chunk of change.
I have no idea why there is such tremendous support for women like that in statutes and case law and court practices and chivalrous judges, but there is. It's so one-sided - and no one can explain to me why a manipulative bitch like Heather Mills is far richer than dozens of emergency room physicians, firemen and cancer researchers - put together - that I can only shake my head.
Chivalrous men (and feminists) are going to make damn well sure that other men kneel down and give everything to women.
"It's so one-sided - and no one can explain to me why a manipulative bitch like Heather Mills is far richer than dozens of emergency room physicians, firemen and cancer researchers - put together - that I can only shake my head."
This brings up a good point. Western society in general has deeply denigrated actual producers in favor of "the less fortunate" - except they aren't exactly the less fortunate, they are political interest groups who have executed their vices to screw up their lives and who manage to, through vote-selling, legally separate productive people from the fruits of their labors.
In the USA, this is also apparent in technical fields where the very people who develop people's web browsers, iPhones and cable technology are denigrated and mocked as unsociable geeks.
Like the misandry bubble, this cannot be sustained. California is exhibit A in this insanity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Straight women should be wary of advice from lesbians."A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" is certainly a truth for committed lesbians.
Imagine straight men taking advice about divorcing their wives from gay men.We simply wouldn't.
Orman isn't a marriage counselor, she's a second-rate financial pundit with a big mouth. I've never heard any advice from her that wasn't the standard "diversify your holdings" platitude than any storefront financial adviser will hand out with their IRA services brochures.
Forbes published a similar male-bashing op-ed...
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/26/single-women-marriage-child-man-forbes-woman-time-self-help-books.html?boxes=Homepageforbeswoman
This piece dovetails nicely with women's expectations for men... basically, marry me because I said so, child-man...
I guess you guys didn't get the memo.
Men are supposed go out and make a lot of money to support their families, ideally working themselves into an early grave in the process.
Guess its time Joe cut his losses.
Men are supposed go out and make a lot of money to support their families, ideally working themselves into an early grave in the process.
Exactly, and then the widow runs off to her lesbian lover and they live happily ever after.
"If you had the choice, would you prefer to be the primary breadwinner of the family?"
What makes you think I have a choice? Choice is for women.
For financial advice, there is none better than Dave Ramsey. For marriage advice, the Bible.
LissaKay,
I have to say I am not a big fan of Dave Ramsey. He is constantly harping on those "12% good growth mutual funds" and I have yet to find one--ever. I think it's stupid to tell people to put their money in the stock market as if it will always go up. One think I actually like about Orman is that she is more conservative about the stock market.
Well, I don't pay close attention to any stock market advice. I don't have any extra funds to invest, and it never made much sense to me anyway, so it just gets lost in the mental filters. I do listen to Ramsey for everyday money matters advice though. He is spot on there. And I love his no-BS, common sense approach. He tells it like it is, that's for sure!
I am sorry to hear that Suze has gone back to misandry, I guess it is her default. When she listened to some feedback and tried to change I was optimistic it would last.
Trey
@Helen said...I have to say I am not a big fan of Dave Ramsey. He is constantly harping on those "12% good growth mutual funds" and I have yet to find one--ever. I think it's stupid to tell people to put their money in the stock market as if it will always go up. One think I actually like about Orman is that she is more conservative about the stock market.
____________
I think Orman and Ramsey are examples of hard and soft misandry. Orman actively undermines and bashes men (hard misandry). Ramsey always seems to take the default position that men should "man up" whenever marital issues arise, regardless of who is doing what, but does not give equivalent advice to wives (soft misandry).
I think the difference is that Ramsey is not consciously bigoted, he does it with good intentions whereas Orman does it with disdain.
I agree about Dave and the market (12% nonsense). Dave gives great advice about debt and emergency funds, but Orman does give better investment advice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust,
I totally agree with your analysis. I quit watching Ramsey for the same reason, the "man-up" stuff was getting on my nerves and being told to find the endless supply of 12% mutual funds which always seemed to elude me was annoying. However, I do agree that his advice on debt seems good. And at least he rarely tells people to get divorced without knowing the situation.
Ormon is gay. I don't expect lesbians to be male-friendly or marriage-friendly. Male-bashing is their stock-in-trade.
Also, anyone with any assets or expectation of same should have a pre-nup, period. I agree the golddigging of women is obscene and I don't blame men with assets for hiding them. Some women (not all, I assure you) want to have and be everything but on some poor guy's back.
As for the laws in this country, most laws written to make victims of women and minorities were written and are upheld not by conservatives but by statist libs.
Peg C said:
"Ormon is gay. I don't expect lesbians to be male-friendly or marriage-friendly. Male-bashing is their stock-in-trade."
Oh for goodness sake! fight stereotypes with stereotypes why don't you. Yeesh.
J
it strikes me that the woman in the interview is threatened by the man`s desire to educate himself. this is traditionally a husband`s challenge, with a woman wanting to return to school after years as a housewife.
she needs to be brought to some understanding of why the husband wants to do this, and hear his points instead of hearing some screeching harpie tell her that there is something wrong.
makes interesting tv for those with the need to stare at a cathode ray tube.....
Post a Comment
<< Home