« A Very Serious, Thoughtful Misogynistic Smear That Has Never Been Made in Such Detail or with Such Care | Main | Shorter TMZ: Slut Was Askin’ For It »
Alan Colmes Review
By Jeff Fecke | December 18, 2007
So anyhow, for those interested in the discussion between David Usher, myself, and Alan Colmes, it’s up on Men’s News Daily. For what it’s worth, Usher thought he won the debate, and that I was on his side:
Jeff Fecke agreed with me on several major points. It seems the he, like many male feminists, have a queasy feeling in the gut that feminism is actually bad for both men and women.
Uh…no. I think feminism is the answer for men and women. I don’t think that women are uniformly good or men uniformly bad, but neither does any feminist I know. However, I’m quite certain that men and women alike are not served by ending no-fault divorce, and I’m absolutely certain that most men are not “raped” by women.
At any rate, I think I did okay, but I never claim victory or defeat; you can decide for yourself.
Topics: Feminism, The Men's Rights Movement | 3 Comments »
December 19th, 2007 at 2:03 am
I thought Alan was irritating in his role as the victimized little baby whose feelings were hurt by David Usher’s little blog. Boo Hoo!
Jeff, when you acknowledged that vindictive wives/mothers exist in society and suggested that the remedy was a good attorney for the husband/father, I wondered just what planet you were on. Of course, a “good attorney” exists to win legal battles rather than arrive at a mutually beneficial settlement. You don’t hire a legal assassin in order to “calm the waters,” do you?
One thing that you did acknowledge was that the legal environment encourages such acrimony, and the desire by each side to “win” eclipses the priority of ensuring ongoing and substantial contact between children and both biological parents. It is not a “good attorney” that is needed, but a ratcheting down of tensions. That may be accomplished if collaborative law gets a chance to flourish as an alternative to custody litigation. It’s far better for moms and dads to work out their problems outside of the courtroom, yet still represented by attorneys. But guess which groups stand in the way of collaborative laws circumventing the toxic adversarial process in the family court? Groups like the National Organization for Women. That tells you quite a lot about the true motivations of leading feminist groups. Women win when the acrimony continues, and children lose their relationships with their fathers.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I agree, Colmes was irritating. If I were Usher I would have just said, “You know what? I smeared and insulted you because I hate you. Fuck you. Deal with it.” If I’m going to smear and insult someone, I sure as hell ain’t going to pretend that I’m on the high ground; but I don’t want to hear any whining about it either.
All I’ve really got to say to a guy like Usher is, “sorry your marriage didn’t work out; sucks to be you. Get back to work.”
December 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
..fecke, from reading some of you’re prior pieces, I believe you seemed somewhat reasoneable in this debate..
Realise you’re assumed victory over Usher is not a triumph over mensrights by any stretch. For Mr. Usher is a marraige advocate, and has some fallowers, but their are many other men who feel marraige has become the modern “yoke of the males”.