Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

WSJ reviews Men on Strike

June 25th, 2013 - 4:37 pm

I just saw this review of my book at the WSJ:

Ms. Smith argues that men are simply reacting to a woman-centric culture that systemically belittles them as bumbling incompetents, denigrates their achievements and outright discriminates against them in such venues as family court. Mothers usually get custody of the children after a divorce, even if they have cheated on their husbands. Husbands sometimes end up forced to support children who aren’t genetically theirs. For women, it’s “my body, my choice,” whereas men can be stuck writing child-support checks for 18 years even if the mother was a one-night stand who lied about using birth control. Ms. Smith blames not only feminists but passive “Uncle Tims,” as she calls them, who go along with all this because, well, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, especially if she is your wife or your boss or she decides to start a Sandra Fluke-inspired boycott of you or your company.

The reviewer, Charlotte Allen, thinks I need more hard-core data to back up my points. Fair enough, but she doesn’t deny the existence of the problems men face.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Has the reviewer ever watched a typical TV commercial. Men are always portrayed as bumbling dimwitted idiots. Ditto your average TV show. In schoold the teachers try to either have the boys drugged out or declared to have Autism. And it courts its so anti male its rediculous. Years ago I knew a guy whose wife started parting with her friends and became a drug addict and she hid it so well that he didnt know it until he found the forclosure notice, The courts gave her the kids and wouldnt take them away even when he proved she was turning tricks in front of the kids for drugs. At work I proved a female coworker lied about what I had said (said I wanted to get a gun and kill the women in the office because I called her druggie boyfriend that constantly stole from her worthless) and I was almost fired even when I proved she lied and I never said it. As I was told "In todays world I have to take the womans story as the truth even if she is lieing". If I was a young man today I would never concider getting married. Its not worth it and women have no respect for thier husbands and treat them like bad roomates but expect to be treated like queens. Women have done themselves no favors and they are mostly very unhappy with their lives as a result.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
You "need more hard-core data"? Your book has hundreds of footnotes, and it was clearly meant for a popular, not scholarly, audience. Plenty of data appear.

Typical fembot reviewer in denial.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
I do hope, Helen, that you write a follow up book that is more "academic" than this one. I realize that your book was not meant to be a dissertation, and I am not criticizing your book. You had a certain reader in mind.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you all for your comments here and at the WSJ. The reviewer may have it wrong, but the exposure and a review of the book at least helps get the word out.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Dr. Helen, that WSJ review is clueless.

But at least they spelled your name right!

The point isn't that some women are biatches and some men deserve them, but that the institutions have that certain bias now. The review totally misses that point which is the main point beyond the anecdotal observations.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe you can make a survey in a popular magazine, like GQ or the Lower Podunk Tidbits that asks men how often they've been screwed over by the system, then quote it often enough so it's accepted as the truth.

Worked with the 1 in 4 rape statistic. And that was scientific enough to satisfy feminists. The facts must conform to the theory or they're to be disposed.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Shame on you Dr. Helen! You should have followed the same standards for unimpeachable research demonstrated by those mensches of intellectual rigor, the Feminists.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Fair enough Charlotte Allen, lots of hard-core data could be added; but you missed the point. "Family Court" is an institution killing men and outrageously favoring women while screwing up kids for life. Let's gather the "hard-core" data you are looking for; it will foment a long overdue revolution! Furthermore, has anyone analyzed the economic impact of the ever increasing "no fault divorce"? It measures in Billions of dollars yearly (money wasted on lawyers and psychologists, work-hours lost by working fathers fighting for their children, lack of innovation due to depression, destabilized children costing inordinate amounts of money, etc.).
This book is a "wake-up call" to the American society. It is barely an introduction to the immense danger of this institution called "Family Court".
Now that Helen Smith has finally "creve l'abces", woke up the beast, spoken against this great injustice against men, it is time to get behind her, support her and make sure her book does not vanish in oblivion.
THANK YOU Helen Smith. It think playing John Galt won't do it. Men need to united and rise to regain our proper place in the family and above all save our children!
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here is what I posted on the WSJ comment section: I really do think that her review is just a fancy-pants ad hominem, as she completely ignores the core of the book, which is the impact of structural disincentives to educate oneself in the system, marry, and parent children (whom the state will take away if the wife asks).

"This vapid summary of a book -- a book that discusses the clear disincentives men have to marry and father children -- ignores the very point of the book: that when financial incentives are structurally imposed on social relations to *avoid* marriage and parenting, the penalized cohort (men) will act in their self-interest.

"If the reviewer had any personal experience (directly or through her brothers, male friends, and sons) she likely would not congratulate herself with such witty notes that men were hosed in Elizabethan England as well. Her logic, while arguing for 17th century social and political culture (there's a trope that could withstand an actual discussion for approximately 15 seconds), is nothing more than an assertion that these are not her problems, and that the book is tiresome for reflecting these problems in a coherent and exhaustive fashion. While this is no doubt good for whatever career she wishes to advance among our cognitive elites, her commentary just reinforces the wisdom of men going their own way. She might as well just roll her eyes and state that one has to break a few eggs (or half of the American population) in order to make a better American omelette.

"In this way this is the least helpful of all commentaries, as she is just saying "We don't talk about such things in my particular faculty lounge, and neither should you." This is just a fancy ad hominem, one in which those who present unsettling facts (of law, the CPS industry, and the obvious collapse in the male marrying impulse) are dismissed for having the temerity to disagree with the feminist nostrums by which she chooses to live.

"It would be better if the WSJ would assign reviews to on social policy books to someone who either had some background in the subject, or at least the capacity to learn from someone who does."

--BV: over $1mm spent on family law fees and CPS defenses in the past four years, just to remain a modest shadow in my son's life. And no, I'm not listing what the settlement of the divorce cost my balance sheet. And no, I'm not listing what I pay her in child support and what costs I incur traveling to where she moved my son. And no, there's no reason to mention that my ex- has more money than I, and a w-2 that is 5-10x higher than mine. This sort of thing, obviously, doesn't matter. Because Elizabethan England dunned fathers for children not their own.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Allen's requirement for "more data" is what people say in almost any situation when they have lost an argument and say, "What are your sources?" Then, they say, "I don't approve of your sources." Then, confronted with facts, and not even sustaining opinions, they say, "Everyone is entitled to their own facts."

Well, exactly what are Allen's sources? It's your 99 Theses that are on the table; aside from her vapid remark about early 17th century England, she rebuts nothing.

The big problem most of your critics have, aside from reading comprehension deficits, is that as feminists they are avowedly left-wing, and are incapable of discussing how incentives affect behavior. As though nothing they do is in their self-interest, but everything their opponents do is cravenly, immorally self-interested.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All