Men's issues on Blog Talk Radio with Amy Alkon
I will be a guest on Amy Alkon's show on Blog Talk Radio discussing men's issues today, Sunday, January 1st at 4:30-5:30 Eastern. We will also be answering your questions on air.
You can call in to speak with us between 4:30 and 5:30 Eastern on Sunday about men, sex, relationships or culture at (347) 326-9761. So, even if you are still hung over from New Year's festivities on Sunday, call in. We would love to hear from you.
Update: You can click on and listen to the show below:
You can call in to speak with us between 4:30 and 5:30 Eastern on Sunday about men, sex, relationships or culture at (347) 326-9761. So, even if you are still hung over from New Year's festivities on Sunday, call in. We would love to hear from you.
Update: You can click on and listen to the show below:
Listen to internet radio with amyalkon on Blog Talk Radio
Labels: media stuff
posted by Helen Smith at 6:59 AM
57 Comments:
Doesn't this describe how many, if not most, women treat their husbands?:
Does your partner:
act excessively jealous and possessive?
control where you go or what you do?
keep you from seeing your friends or family?
limit your access to money, the phone, or the car?
constantly check up on you?
Does your partner:
humiliate or yell at you?
criticize you and put you down?
treat you so badly that you’re embarrassed for your friends or family to see?
ignore or put down your opinions or accomplishments?
blame you for their own abusive behavior?
see you as property or a sex object, rather than as a person?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr H., listening to it now. You're even more beautiful on the inside than you are on the out... and that is quite an achievement.
Best to you and your family in 2012.
Trust,
Thanks so much for listening. Happy New Year to you and your family!
Helen,
Why not go on Paul Elam's show instead? That is much more relevant to Men's Rights than Amy Alkon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
How come your removing all the comments? Ohh i know your dishing SEX BULLSHIT!!!! http://sexbullshit.com/ You will be called out on my site. You guys make my job too easy!!
I listened to this show and found it uninspiring.
The only real issue for men is the law, the terms and conditions of the marriage conctract. Women just don't get that.
Amy Alkon is just another stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl. "Advice Goddess," my ass.
When women begin advocating changing the law, changing the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, particularly presumptive paternity, I'll listen to what they have to say. Until then, it isn't worth the waste of time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree about Alkon.
GawainsGhost,
Why don't you call it a marriage "pact" or some other word? Contract principles don't apply to marriage.
GawainsGhost,
Though I can't speak for Amy, I think that she does agree that the laws concerning presumtive paternity should change. The main purpose of the show was to educate and bring up awareness of some of these issues. That is often the first step to changing the laws. Remember, this is a process, not an event, it may take some time.
Helen
This comment has been removed by the author.
Change the law. Change the terms and conditions of the marriage contract. Eliminate presumptive paternity, no fault divorce and abortion on demand.
Until or unless you do that, nothing you say or think means anything.
Men are held accountable under the law. Women are not. It's that simple, so it's no wonder that no woman advocates changing the law.
You say it's a process, not an event. Yeah, right, like the Dallas Cowboys are going to win a championship with process. Please.
If women were truly concerned about men's rights, they would be storming the streets to change the law. But they're not about to do that, are they?
The solution, the way out of this trap, is very simple, guys. Set up an LLC. Put all of your savings into the corporate account and use it to buy income generating assets. Avoid marriage at all costs.
What is the modern American girl worth today? A tequila shot, a lie to the face, and one quick fuck and dump. And now she doesn't like it. I really don't care.
Is she going to be my life partner? No. Is she going to be my helpmate? No. Is she going to be the mother to raise my children? No.
Well, then I'm done. She offered me sex. That's all she has to offer me. I had sex with her. End of story.
She can buy her own house. Hey, little girl, go to college, get a degree. Then go out into the real world and get a job, advance in you career. Buy your own house, where you can sit at home alone and complain about men.
You can take your bad attitude and sell it on the street, for all I care. You can take all that money you earn from selling your bad attitude on the street, and use it to buy you own house. Because I'm not going to buy you a house. I'm definitely not going to assume presumptive patertinty for you.
Until or unless women are willing to discuss the real issue, which is the law, there's nothing to talk about. She's just another chirping bird, pampered and priveleged.
In other words, she's worthless. Any man who would invest any money in her is either a lovedrunk fool or a complete idiot.
I don't know if it's all that bad that (particular) women have more self-interest than thought.
The disguising of that self-interest is a bit more of a problem, and Alkon's absolute acidity when anyone points it out or challenges her is the most irritating thing. An oppressed little woman she ain't.
Men have to quit taking shit from women, they have to quit being the enforcers against other men for women's aims, and they have to quit being manipulated by chivalry (and tears and sex for that matter). Quit putting women up on a pedestal. Quit letting them get a free ride off you.
And Paul Elam is great at bringing that out. He gets it.
ZorroPrimo,
You have to get a bit more cynical. It's like you're shocked that women are ... whatever.
Rick, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on here. [from the movie Casablanca]
GawainsGhost and ZorroPrimo,
If men were concerned about men's rights, they would be storming the streets. Why the hell are the women going to do it if men care so little that all they can do is bitch on a woman's blog?
You are telling me I'm doing nothing or little to change the law or promote men's rights. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. But more importantly, what are you two doing to get the laws changed?
Helen
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZorroPrimo,
"Why'd you pool for questions in the first place?"
We had questions from a number of different places, here, PJM, Amy's site. We got to as many as we could but I understand your concern.
I do have an interview at PJTV with Stacey Campfield, at that time a state Representative who was trying to look into mandatory testing as well as changing the laws to allow men to opt out of child support if they found out a child was not theirs. I agree with you that this is an important topic and apprciate your input. Here is the interview I did at PJTV:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=109&load=1046
Helen
I am happy to say that I am part of my state's case law as a precendent for men who try to keep the mother of their child from moving the child away from them.
I like to think of it as my invisible Escalade. Worth every penny though!
Trey
Women make up 52% of the population. No change can happen without the majority.
The reason why women don't listen to men is because they don't have to. The law favors them, so there's no way they're going to change it.
The only thing men like me can do is ignore her completely. Marriage is out of the question. I do not agree to the terms and conditions of the contract. And I am not about to waste money on some stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl.
How much does a tequila shot cost? $5. How much does a lie to the face cost? $0.
The bottom line is this. She isn't worth 50%. She certainly isn't deserving of presumptive paternity. She can buy her own house.
If more men thought like me, women would change the law real quick.
at 51 i also feel that the law will not change in my lifetime, except to become more confiscatory toward men and therefore unless one meets an extraordinary woman, any marriage runs the high likelihood to become paid-up and ready to be cashed in.
in the case of women it's not nature vs. nature, it's nature + nurture.
After reading these comments, once again I am proven right. MRAs are the worst possible spokesmen and representatives for Men's Rights.
Here, we have two women who have popular blogs and are on our side, and when they do an hour show exposing men's problems with the current system, do they get thanked? No, they get a bunch of crap from those who supposedly are trying to help men improve their plight.
With friends like you, we don't need enemies.
@Old Guy said...
Here, we have two women who have popular blogs and are on our side, and when they do an hour show exposing men's problems with the current system, do they get thanked? No, they get a bunch of crap from those who supposedly are trying to help men improve their plight.
_______
I think they deserve our gratitude. They are not simply two women who pay lip service to men having rights, they actually are on the web, the radio, and sometimes even television sticking their necks out to stand up against misandry. I would imagine some of the backlash is quite unpleasant for them.
The certainly have my gratitude.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Old Guy,
Alkon has shown her true colors (in a negative way) on a number of men's issues. And she gets very caustic about it. She deserves criticism. If some of her positions intersect with those of MRAs, good, but you have to remember she's all about Amy.
With regard to Helen, ONE person above (GawainsGhost) has said something negative (and ZorroPrimo, who has apparently deleted that post now).
GawainsGhost is not the appointed spokesman and representative for men's rights. Take it up with him instead of painting all MRAs with your gigantic, clumped-up brush.
We are lucky to have a woman who is a nationally syndicated columnist supporting us. She may be imperfect, but is a useful ally. As for charges that she is all about Amy... so? Everyone is all about themselves. Anyone who claims different is a liar or delusional. We all spend our days feeding our vanity.
To be accused of painting with a broad brush by a member of the Men's movement is laughable. The MRAs I have interacted with are very much the male equivalent of the fat, lesbian, cat herding, college professors of NOW, who hate men and keep their outrage on a hair trigger. I save my nuance for people whose hair is not on fire.
Why are you assuming that I'm a member of the men's movement, Old Guy?
Just because I carry a laminated membership card?
And why aren't you duking it out with GawainsGhost for saying bad things about Helen?
You've got to get with the program, Old Guy.
The reason why a guy doesn't do anything is because his wife would KILL him, or he would remain single, or never going to have SEX!! All girls would hear, "its all about him", and "never about me". Despite what is truly there. A girl will have to stand up for the GUYS!!! I am trying to do that for you guys with SEX. Hence sexbullshit.com. Please come by and leave guest articles. I am also looking for more pro guy websites. I am having trouble finding just a guys site. Any suggestions??
Paul Elam's site is a good one:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
What's funny about Old Guy's comments is that Helen is engaging in some level of activism for men's rights - so by some definitions she is an MRA.
So he seems to be simultaneously defending her for being an MRA (two women ... *on our side* ...) and ragging on her for being an MRA.
What's funny about Old Guy's comments is that Helen is engaging in some level of activism for men's rights - so by some definitions she is an MRA.
Aren't you the clever semanticist.
Old Guy, it goes past word play. I have been reading Helen and posting over here for years and it is my opinion that Helen is concerned about and advocates for men receiving equal treatment under the law.
This opinion is based on years of observation.
You can bank it.
Have a great day.
Trey
This is ridiculous. I'm the only one who is talking about the real problem, which is the law, the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, which I will never agree to.
Did any of you even listen to the show? The two women, what did they talk about? Man caves and video games. It's a subtle form of condescension. It's stereotypical, and oh so predictable.
I don't live in a cave. I haven't played video games since I was 15. I do have a study with a library though, two bachelor's degrees and a master's degree. I'm an educated, intelligent, successful man. I also happen to run a multi-million dollar family owned business. And I take care of my mother.
But what do these women talk about? Caves and games. Why don't they talk about the law? Why don't they talk about presumptive paternity, no fault divorce, or abortion on demand?
Those are the real issues. The marriage contract as it is currently constructed is a license for abandoment, betrayal and bankruptcy. Yet, nobody talks about that. No, they all just complain about boys and girls.
I understand the law. I understand the terms and conditions of the contract. I do not agree to those terms and conditions. So my only option is to not invest anything more than a tequila shot and lie to the face in her. I would rather have the money. Wouldn't you?
When women start to discuss the real issue, I'll start to listen to them. Man caves and video games, give me a break.
Nothing is going to change. The law favors women in their exploitation of men, so there is no reason for women to change it. That's the real problem. Until you guys figure that out, you'll only be abandoned, betrayed and bankrupted.
"Until you guys figure that out ..."
--
Some of us HAVE figured it out, GawainsGhost.
Quit being so self-righteous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"I would rather have the money. Wouldn't you?"
--
Sure. I won't get married. What's the problem then?
You inherited mom's business and you don't have a leech attached to your neck in the form of a human female.
Men want companionship etc. above and beyond sex with a woman, but just don't marry her. If she puts on a full-court press, you have to harden your heart and move on. Do you really want to promise your undying love to a woman who is using sex and a long-term relationship to cash in via marriage?
I didn't inherit anything. I resigned from teaching to take care of my mother while my father was dying of cancer. Everything else I have I worked for.
The problem here is the law. No one wants to talk about that. No one wants to talk about the terms and conditions of the marriage contract. Because, I don't know, everyone is either lovedrunk or addicted to sex.
But, hey, that's fine with me. Bankrupt your bad self.
The first step of the scientific method is to identify the problem. All you girls and guys do is bitch about each other. The problem is with the law, the terms and conditions of the marriage conctract. Until you address the real issue, nothing is going to change. And nothing you say or do will mean anything.
@GwainsGhost:
Did any of you even listen to the show? The two women, what did they talk about? Man caves and video games.
Did you listen to the show other than for hot button key words?
They mentioned mancaves and gaming in reference to men's problems in society.
They also spent a lot of time on men's unfair treatment in divorce, custody, and support and the reappearance of debtor's prison. They covered female on male violence and the fact that all men are portrayed as potential child molesters and abusers despite the numbers being close to equal for men and women.
We can't win this alone, and it is counter productive to dump on people who support you and your cause because they are not vociferous enough, or do not give the same weight to various topics that you deem important.
Men are in a massive hole and there are many working to dig it deeper for us. We need all the publicity of the unfairness of the situation we can get.
We just got an hour of free time for our message on a podcast by a nationally syndicated columnist, which reaches a lot more people outside the MRM than all the MRA podcasts put together.
Dumping on these ladies for not doing it the way you would like is so dumb, it defies description. You come off sounding like a Feminazi plant, disseminating disinformation and agitprop. The best thing you could do to help men would be to shut up until you get some common sense and learn your manners.
GawainsGhost:
Let's talk about the law.
Asset division:
Let's start out by looking at the partnership acts of most states (regarding business partnerships). If a partnership is dissolved - absent an agreement specifying something else - the default position is that remaining assets will be divided equally among the partners. If two partners both work 10 hours a day building and selling widgets, and then both want to quit after two years, it does sound fair that remaining assets of the partnership would be distributed equally. Now maybe one partner builds the widgets and the other does the accounting and marketing. Since they can create an agreement to the contrary - and don't - an equal distribution upon dissolution is probably also fair or at least the most expedient method.
But that's exactly how marriage works. A determination is made as to "marital assets" - all assets obtained by both parties during the marriage - and they are split 50/50 in community property states. Other states take a bit of a look at who earned what. By the way, if you kept your mother's business ABSOLUTELY separate from any future wife - and kept all profits, all work, everything, in your own name with no connection to the wife, that would NOT be considered marital property.
OK, so where's the problem for men? I'll tell you by comparing it to our business partnership above. Instead of a situation in which the partners do different things, but both make substantial contributions, one partner does all the production, marketing accounting etc. and the other partner sits at home watching TV. But the first partner also doesn't make an agreement to the contrary of equal division, because he tells everyone that the other partner HAS THE HARDEST JOB IN THE WORLD. The other partner has the most important job.
WTF?
And if men really believe that, then why are they (the specific men who believe that fiction) bitching about ONLY having to pay half? If she has the harder job, she should get the BIGGER chunk of the assets upon divorce.
The problem is the FICTION that men uphold, not the law.
Now let's look at an area of the law that is in itself unfair:
Alimony
Let's take the example of an 20-year-old guy who is still living with his parents. He gets free room & board and everything paid for.
Now if he starts getting into fights with his parents, screams at them and says he is going to leave, the parents have a perfect right to say "buh-bye". They don't have to pay him money until he develops work skills (which he should have been doing while getting his life paid for), they don't have to provide him with the same standard of living that he had when he was leeching off the parents, they don't have to do anything.
I think: Same with a wife who no longer wants the husband. If he earns enough to pay alimony, the wife will no doubt get a healthy asset distribution anyway (something the snotty 20-year-old won't get). WHY does her lifestyle have to be maintained? She doesn't want the man, but she wants his wallet. And society allows her that.
She should get out and find a j.o.b. Like the rest of us have had to do.
THAT part of the law IS unfair to men.
Child support:
There is a huge, chivalry-based bias there.
Child support should help support the child, not mommy. So I don't understand $5000 per month (or $30,000 per MONTH in the case of high-earning sports and music figures) to mom for a 6-month-old baby.
Men are routinely ordered to pay child support. If they are unemployed, the judge will set an "imputed" amount anyway and tell them they better find a job or they will go to jail.
That is NOT expected of non-custodial women. They are sometimes living in the lap of luxury from a new boyfriend or husband, and judges will simply not tell them to look for a job or anything of the sort.
Despite the "deadbeat dad" image, WOMEN are much more likely to be in default of their child support obligations. Over half of women are in default to some degree (compared to 25-30% of men). Women don't give a flying fig because they don't feel that they have to take any responsibility, and they think (maybe rightly) that the hard measures applied to men in default will not be as strictly applied to them. Many women are raised to believe they don't have to take on any responsibility.
Presumptive paternity:
Let's take a situation in which the wife in a marriage starts screwing the pool boy.
The husband doesn't really like that and files for divorce. The wife then says she's pregnant. DNA testing shows it's the pool boy's.
So the pool boy has to pay child support, right?
Wrong in some states (Pennsylvania is one of them).
Paternity can be ascribed to the husband up to 300 days after a divorce in some states.
Why does the wife want that? Because the pool boy can maybe pony up $50 a month that he may not pay anyway.
The ex-husband, on the other hand, may be ordered to pay $4000 per month for the next 18 or 21 years. PLUS, since the kid isn't his biologically, he may just never see the wife or kid again. She's rid of the man, but can live off his payments.
Maybe even the pool boy can temporarily move into her house - if he pays rent.
And chivalrous men and feminist women find this A-OK. There doesn't seem to be any pressure to change those laws.
Anything else, GawainsGhost?
Summary:
Some laws actively put an unequal burden on men.
Some laws are ostensibly fair, but men put themselves into an unfair position by believing fictions (until there is a divorce).
Well, I've dated hundreds of women over my life. Know how many of them had boyfriends at the time?
Every single one of them. But what is a boyfriend anyway, just some guy to hold hands with. He's nobody as soon as the new kid comes into town.
Now, what is there to make me believe that it's going to be any different when she's my wife?
Nothing.
Community property, community funds, sweat equity, presumptive paternity, no fault divorce, abortion on demand. Only an idiot would agree to those terms and conditions.
So, go ahead, criticize me. I can take it. But whatever you do, don't talk about the law. That might prove you're intelligent.
Man caves and video games, please.
Why don't any of you talk about the real issue?
What's the self-righteous topic now, GawainsGhost?
I thought it was marriage?
Were all of my posts hidden so that only I can see them?
Testing ... testing ... 1.2.3 ...
i think the women's rights movement kicked off about a hundred and twenty hears ago. they have managed to bring us to this point on the backs of a lot of angry martyrs, the majority of whom are now dead.
so, when you are ready mark, organize a march or two, storm some women's club meetings...and maybe some civil disobedience events such as burning your underwear on time square on new years....and in about 120 years or so you (well, not you because you'll be dead) will be in a position to oppress a group of people who don't agree with your position.
me, i just avoid noisy harpies who try to be flirty but after a few questions display a keen sense of entitlement toward other people's money.
it's pretty simple.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Until you guys figure that out, you'll only be abandoned, betrayed and bankrupted."
I am happily married for 12 years and will bury my wife or vice versa in the next three decades. While I share your views on the law, I do not share your views on all women.
Men should be very, very careful of who they marry, but with such care, I believe that marriage is an acceptable risk.
It has worked for me.
Trey
Well, Mark is an idiot who obvioulsy does not understand the law. So his only response is to crticize someone who does.
Yes, a man should be very, very careful aoubt whom he marries. But that misses the point. The problem here is with the marriage contract. It doesn't matter who he marries.
I'm sure there are some good, decent women out there. And you're lucky if you found one. But the point remains that marriage contract is a license for abandonment, betrayal and bankruptcty.
What law is ther to prevent her from doin that? There is none.
It's perfectly legal for her to slap him with child support for some other man's bastard. And there is not a goddamn thing he can do about it, except pay the bills or go to jail.
Don't you guys get it? The problem is with the law. The terms and conditions of the marriage contract are completely unacceptable. If she doesn't get that, then it's her problem.
Change the law. Otherwise, marriage is out of the question.
I'm a man. i fully accept my responsibilities. I will support and raise any child I conceive, after a paternity test.
I am not about to agree to support and raise every child she conceives.
You always know who the mother is. You never know who the father is.
What part of this equation do you not understand?
There is absolutely no way I'm going to put my money on the line for some stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl.
She could have made a woman. But, no, that would have been too difficult.
So, instead she complains about man caves and video games. Please.
This comment has been removed by the author.
But the point remains that marriage contract is a license for abandonment, betrayal and bankruptcty.
The number one rule for financial success: Don't get married.
Number two: If you get married, don't have kids.
I broke both rules. It was worth it to me because I have 4 great kids and am not married any more. In my case, I beat the odds in court, too. The advantages of marrying a whacko, I suppose.
"Well, Mark is an idiot who obvioulsy does not understand the law. So his only response is to crticize someone who does."
----
It's OK. Point out where I don't understand the law.
"The number one rule for financial success: Don't get married."
---
You know you're going to get hit with the argument / statistic that married people are wealthier.
My contribution: There is a selection process going on. Medical students - over their life - will probably marry a few times. Some even brag about having to pay so-and-so in alimony to the ex or several exes.
The homeless, toothless bum in the street, in contrast, probably has less marriage candidates. But he is less wealthy, so he would pull down the figures if he married.
Now I'm really confused.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The law will never, ever change since women are 53% of voters.
This brings me to the broader, sweeping conclusion :
Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it invariably devolves into a feminist police state. No other outcome is possible from women having the right to vote.
This is because while men vote for what benefits all people, women vote for what benefits women only.
We assume that women voting is normal, but in reality, only 5-6 countries have had more than 90 years of women voting.
Future historians will laugh how giving women the right to vote was thought to be a good idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home