Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

But at least “…her stance is sure to incite lively debate.”

April 29th, 2013 - 12:20 pm

Publisher’s Weekly just did a review of my forthcoming book Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters:

When W.E.B. DuBois posed the question to black America—“How does it feel to be a problem?”—he probably never imagined that just a little more than a century later, someone would be asking the same of male America. But that’s precisely what Smith, a forensic psychologist and men’s-rights activist, wonders in this incendiary, if shaky, treatise on “the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century.” To explain why men are “going Galt” (as in John Galt, from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged), meaning intentionally opting out of institutions like marriage and higher education, Smith blames society: “Masculinity is frowned upon and belittled in every aspect of society,” the media depicts men as “goofballs and idiots” or sexual predators, and laws like Title IX and those governing child support equate to a “crackdown on… everyday college guys” and unwitting or wrongly fingered fathers. In the final pages, Smith outlines an action plan for men and their allies that includes further reading, legal advice, and information on organizations that fight for men’s rights. Some of Smith’s research is weak or anecdotal—she relies heavily on blog comments and random men she meets at bars and in the gym—but her stance is sure to incite lively debate. (June 18)

One thing that struck me as I read over it and compared it to other books on gender issues is how differently PW reviews treat authors they agree with those that they don’t. My book is described by them as an “incendiary, if shaky, treatise” and the research “is weak or anecdotal—she relies heavily on blog comments and random men she meets at bars and in the gym—.” A PW review of Kathleen Parker’s Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care states:

Although Parker’s deliberate provocations make for lively reading, the majority of her claims are too fanciful and unsubstantiated to be genuinely thought provoking or even interesting (erectile dysfunction is caused by young, sexually aggressive women; women serving in the army put the nation at risk). Parker makes a poor conspiracy theorist, and her statistics and unverifiable theories are unable to make her case, however vehement or entertaining their presentation.

Another book that stands up for males, Christina Hoff Sommer’s The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men gets a pretty decent review but PW can’t leave well enough alone:

Sure to kick up dust in the highly charged gender debates, Sommers’s book is at its best when coolly debunking theories she contends are based on distorted research and skewed data, but descends into pettiness when she indulges in mudslinging at her opponents. Perhaps the most informed study yet in this area, this engrossing book sheds light on a controversial subject.

Compare this with the more agreeable tone used for books like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead about the dearth of female leaders and how to solve the problem:

The author’s counsel—gleaned from her own experiences—includes suggestions for increasing self-confidence, particularly in the business world; understanding the role of mentors and how to identify them; building emotional relationships at work; not focusing on being liked; juggling marriage and children with a demanding job; and the importance of taking risks. “Hard work and results should be recognized by others, but when they aren’t, advocating for oneself becomes necessary,” Sandberg opines. A new generation of women will learn from Sandberg’s experiences, and those of her own generation will be inspired by this thoughtful and practical book.

Suddenly, the only “research” needed is Sandberg’s own experiences! The book is “thoughtful and practical.” Funny, when I picked it up in the bookstore, I found it dismissive to men and hardly thoughtful, but then, if a book is “thoughtful” towards women, it’s good, towards men, it’s “incendiary” and “mudslinging.”

Oh, well at least the review said the stance of my book “is sure to incite lively debate.” I sure hope so!

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (13)
All Comments   (13)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I live in Germany where either the feminist aggression against men is not so obvious or, because I am retired, it makes no difference to me. (In a addition my masculine narcissism allows for no femine shaming, admittly this entalis a certain pre-programmed antagonism on my part). But younger men have it differently and may react differently. Some thoughts:

I had some therapeutic experience years ago with repeatly beaten women who continually returned to the same man for more. Nothing much we could do. I have reflected freely about such violent men and have drawn a conclusion I do not like. I will explain myself so: There is no problem showing the superiority of young girls to young boys, superior strength , superior use of hands, interest in reading, etc., etc. Well just how did I react as a youing boy to my inferiority?

1. As a 6 or 7 year old lad I and other lads would seperate outselves from the "uggh" girls, mock them a bit, and feel superior. Let me focus on "mocking them a bit". 2. "Sticks and stones, may break my bones, but words do not hurt me", i.e., until they are effectively used to put my very being in doubt, to demean it to valuelessness. That hurts!

Just playing with ideas I will non-systematically combine points 1. and 2. As a young boy I, like my friends, took an aggressive stance vis-a-vis little girls as a mechanism of defense. It was only verbal (who wanted to get beat up by a girl anyway). Some wild speculation: The key to overcoming my boyish feelings of inferiority re girls was to distance myself (with others) and to mock in some way the girlish threat so as to feel my boyish superiority. I will apply my thoughts here to a possible connection withs the violence of some men against women. In other word, boyish slef-defense aggressivity directed a young girls may take a perverse form in adulthood. Here is my conclusion for the future:

Men, if the very confrontation or encounter with women is experienced as demeanment, could respond by distancing themselves from women (less desire to marry>>sexual contact need, but that is all), avoiding women completely (and I have seen that here in Germany), not because of homosexuality, rather because of sexuality itself promotes a sense of masculine demeanment. Another alternative could be to merge the need for self-defense, at least partially, with a violent response. I am suggesting that a possible future trope in masculine self-defense from felt femine aggression might be increased violence of one type or another. There is structurally one area in which men are always superior to women, and that is raw strength. I had the opinion that women beaters are cowards seeking both a weaker opponent as well as a female object so as to feel superiority via violence.

A possible confirmation: I have read that rapes are increasing in the American military. Could it just be that enough men feel that there "innate" warrior superiority is being challenged by inserting women into fighting units? I have only made a guess.

As always I would like to thank Dr. Helen for an insightful article and I do wonder if my thoughts have in value.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Some of Smith’s research is weak or anecdotal—she relies heavily on blog comments and random men she meets at bars and in the gym—but her stance is sure to incite lively debate."

You don't need a more convincing statement as to how saturated with misandry our society has become.

Are blogs and their comments not the expressions of real people?
The guy sitting on a bar stool isn't a real person?

That would be the summation of those who believe no socialogical study is valid unless you've vetted it through a bunch of effeminate leftists.
That would be the summation of people who are at the root of the trouble.

This decade will not pass before we see a huge storm brewing with regard to men's declining participation in a society that empowers women at the huge expense of men.
They're laying the groundwork now. Dehumanizing men who are merely bloggers/beer drinkers - in that their opinions don't matter - is just the start.
It may come to force and violence if the shaming fails.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are a few people in the world who know me and loathe me. I helped put them in prison for child abuse generally, so I consider their hatred as a badge of honor. I suggest that you can do the same! If your work is accepted and praised by bigoted feminists, you would need some serious re-evaluation!

Well done!

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Either you got the same reviewer as Parker, or yours borrowed from hers. The dismissal in both cases is the same. Both books were condescended to as presenting "unverifiable" data or conclusions, but both -- golly -- were going to be good for entertaining argument. It's exclusionary rhetoric, as in, "We don't say things like that here, you silly thing."

I would say the reviewer is so imbued with her feminist cant that she simply can't process information that disagrees with the received ideas of known feminist talking point. I suppose you will have to endure a string of these fembot emendations.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wouldn't give a flying fart out of a baboon's butt for what a reviewer thinks. They're all mind-locked into group think. And they don't know anything.

By the way, I saw a commercial last night for this new show that's premiering soon, Dating and Pregnant. It's some sort of reality TV show that's promoting single women who are pregnant to date and find the man of her dreams. The key lines were "I don't need a man. I want a man," and "Sex, pregnant, then love."

Are you kidding me? Does anyone else besides me see how exploitative of and discriminatory against men this is? It's ridiculously obvious and obscene. But they made a TV show about it. One of they idiots who is dating a pregnant woman says, "You're glowing." Yeah, with another man's child, stupid. He didn't want to have anything to do with her, so why should you? All she has to offer you is debt and problems.

I mean, this is getting to be beyond bizarre. When I was teaching college in the late 90s, I had this one student, a single mother of course, who wrote in her paper "I just want someone to love me and take care of my baby." In other words, I just want some dufus to provide me with a house and money.

This is the mind set of the modern American girl. Run around, have sex with whoever lights your fire, get pregnant, and then get married to some retard who is ignorant enough to raise another man's bastard.

Hey, ignoramous, if she's already pregnant or already has a child by another man, why on earth would you assume presumptive paternity for her? And the media is pushing this agenda, pregnant women or single mothers dating and getting married. And they're flaunting it in your face on TV.

The problem here is with the law. Presumptive paternity renders the marriage contract null and void. Therefore, it is not worth entering into, especially not with a pregnant woman or a single mother.

Don't you see what's going on here? One man is a sperm donor. Another man is a bank account. Are any of you guys going to agree to that?

Until or unless marriage law is changed, marriage is out of the question for any man of reason. The modern American girl, what with her promiscuity and licentiousness doesn't deserve a husband. She doesn't deserve a man who will provide for her and protect her. She's on her own. That's the way she said she wanted it to be.

Yeah, suddenly with child, she wants money and security. She wants to get
married. She should have thought of that before she got pregnant.

Any man who would agree to raise another man's bastard is a fool. That really should be the men's rights movement. These girls, they're out there running around, having sex with whomever they want, and then expecting some stupid guy with money to provide for them for a child that he didn't conceive.

It's delusional, modern feminism. It's all about female empowerent. They say they don't need a man, but they want a man. Yeah, for money.

The men's rights movement is really a woman's problem. She is the problem. It's her attitude that's the problem. But until men change the law, what women want, especially single mothers or pregnant women, will continue to be the problem.

Hey, either men make changes to the law or they suffer the consequences thereof. It's that simple.

I will provide child support for every child I conceive. That is the law. But I refuse to provide child support for a child I did not conceive. Except that's marriage law. Ergo, marriage is out of the question.

The reason why these women are flaunting it in your face on TV is because you don't realize the marriage contract is exploitative and the courts are discriminatory.

A pregnant woman looking for a date? A single mother looking for a husband? This culture has become insane.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If men are dumb enough to romance single moms they probably deserve what's coming.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
LMAO! As the collapsing economy becomes more of a certainty, the articles by women asking "where are all the good men" will sky rocket...and it will be fun to watch their little baffled faces staring out of their office windows, exhausted after a 14 hour day, wondering how they're going to pay off their Master's degree in Human Resources.... MGTOW.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The older I get, the less I want one sitting at home on my dime.

So either you can pay for a sit-at-home, or she is going to have to be staring out the office windows ... or, I guess be a regular at the welfare office.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, Feminists are promoting polygamy now.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sure but unless they can get laws passed requiring men to marry them, the number of high-status, high-functioning men agreeing to a basket of divorce liabilities with plural feminist harpies is .... a negative number? We won't get married now, and that's to a decent middle-aged woman with a career and some evidence of personal ethics. Why would we marry a bunch of fembots built like potato sacks, and compound the misery?

The problem with progs and they simply have no irony for themselves, and really do believe that if a cohort of them decide something is good for the rest of us, we're obligated to take their direction.

And betas don't make enough money or have the emotional wherewithal to run a string of women. Perhaps the fembots should get themselves a harem of betas. But the problem with *that* idea is that feminists don't care for other people; work and the subsuming of selfish interest for the value of the family are beneath the dignity of those in the cause.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Feminists are promoting polygamy now. Seriously."--TMG

All together now surfer dudes! "Two girls for every boy..."

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Perhaps the fembots should get themselves a harem of betas."

They already have that: it's woven into the tax code.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All