« The Next Phase | Main | Worst Bush Moments: #15, Re-Election »
Big Conservative Media Me
By Jeff Fecke | January 6, 2009
I will be on the Dennis Prager Show tomorrow — yes, you heard me right, the Dennis Prager Show — discussing his wonderful advice on how it’s a good wife’s duty to endure marital rape. I’ll be on with the redoubtable Megan Carpenter, so I’m thinking we should be able to take him.
The appearance is scheduled for Noon in Minnesota; Minnesotans can listen on The Patriot (1280 AM) and then burn their radios to rid them of the taint. Other stations are listed here, and you can also pick up the live stream here.
Topics: Feminism | 39 Comments »
January 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Yay! Make sure to record it so you can put it up on your site. Then you can respond to the things he won’t let you respond to using his radio magic (I’ve listened to his show before; I know how he works)
January 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I contacted the show for you and let them know of your first column. You can thank me later.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I’ll thank you now — sure Dennis, like all commentators, loves seeing his stuff shredded. :P
January 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Fighting a bit above your weight class now, aren’t you Jeff? From an intellectual perspective at least.
Beware that “radio magic” that Disco Stoo warns of.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Yeah, because stereotyping women as sexless bores (which is what Tennis Breaker, as I call him, does) is such an intellectual endeavor!
January 7th, 2009 at 6:47 am
burn their radios to rid them of the taint.
Not a little afraid of dissent, are we?
(shudders)
And what Chad said. That “radio magic” will getcha.
(It’s called “beating up the enemy”, and it’s not only great entertainment, it’s fun to do).
January 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Great!
Dennis Prager is a pretty clear thinker.
I think you and he will have a great discussion.
Thanks!
January 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Damn. You are a Minnesotan too?
Amazing.
How is it we deserve both Powerline and you?
Or, for that matter, Al Franken and Keith Ellison?
I wish you all were talking about politics and Gaza instead of sex. Because, in this case, you’re both full of BS (oops – all three of you).
Although I believe that, in general, the truth of male/female relationships lies more in the realm of “mystery” and “WTF” which Dennis appears to be advocating than the “certainty” that you all appear to be advocating.
Just sayin’, ya know?
January 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
your radio appearance was a big nothing burger. prager never advocated rape. severe over-reaction comparing his advice to rape. ridiculous attack, poor analysis.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Having been married to an amazing woman, who is committed to our marriage, I believe you both are disconnected from the general larger point Dennis is making. Of course what he says is clear. “Rape”? Are you so willing to trash language and minimize the violent evil of that actual event? Maybe your hatred of conservatives is overwhelming your love of truth and clarity and honesty. that is sad. Good Luck.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I voted for Obama; infact a straight Democrat ballot in Ohio. However, you allowed your emotions to overtake you regarding the Prager columns. He clearly defined his position. You misinterpreted his position as was evident on the Prager interview of you and Megan today. He does not advocate or condone marital rape. You know this but refuse to back down. Have the integrity to aplogize for misstating what Prager meant.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Amusing that Jeff objected to Dennis saying “Men are animals”.
I am curious how he justifies that objection with the feminist “Woman don’t rape only men do” Canard.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Good job today, Jeff! I wish there had been more time for your comments. Emotional blackmail (if not marital rape) is never a smart way to achieve sexual fulfillment with someone you claim to love and respect.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Listened to your hour with Dennis and all it served to do is enforce my belief that people on the left such as yourselves are out of their minds.
For you to claim that Dennis was advocating marital rape is absurd and you owe him an apology although I won’t hold my breath for it.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Hi Jeff,
I wonder if you will notice how respectful conservatives are being on your comments. There is no comparison how low and mean liberals are in their comments about conservatives. Take a look at Megan’s site.
I was a liberal for many years until I actually started reading both sides. The mindset of liberalism makes people come to strange and naive conclusions about human relations. You probably can’t really see it since your thinking goes through visceral filters rather than realistic ones.
I just wanted you to notice the difference in commenting.
Take care.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Even to accuse Dennis of promoting “emotional blackmail” is immature. I sometimes have sex with my husband – dread when I’m not in the mood simply because I love him and I know it would make him happy. I also refrain from calling him names when I’m angry at him, even when I really want to, because it could damage our relationship. Is that dishonest? And I would encourage women not to call their husbands names in anger because eventually that could add to the demise of a marriage. Is that advocating “emotional blackmail”? If you cannot see the value in advocating that women should consider more than just their mood or feelings when they are asked for something, you have a narrow mind. Newsflash – men and women are very different sexually. Why is it that you never see porno mags for women? Why do you never see romance novels for men? You have let your ideology cripple your ability to be intellectually honest and inquistive. It’s never to late for change though. Reconsider. Challenge some of the ideas that you have been told are right and wrong. If you open your mind and your heart and you may find that you actually agree with people you think you differ with more that you disagree!
January 7th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Jeff,
Debating and rehashing the issue with you will get us nowhere. What I want to point out is the incredible contrast betweeen your words and the spirit behind them on the blog about Dennis and your phony considerate, mature spirit on the radio. You are a fraud. Dennis Prager showed you the same respect on the air that he would show to you personally, even if he totally disagreed with you. That is the difference betweeen a class gentleman like Dennis Prager and liberals. The liberals attack the messenger more than they attack the ideas. One more thing, you sounded like you have been emasculated. What a sad representation of a “man.” Being a male it makes me sad to hear someone who is male sound like such a femme.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Why is it emotional blackmail for a man to consider sex to be the duty of one spouse to another, but it’s not emotional blackmail for a woman to [b]routinely[/b] deny sex to her husband and expect him to meekly accept his “responsibility” to endure it? That was, in my interpretation, what Jeff and his “redoubtable” feminist comrade, Megan Carpenter, were trying to sell. Women have prerogatives, while men have responsibilities. In my opinion, Jeff and Megan didn’t come off sounding altogether reasonable. They sounded like feminist ideologues. For the benefit of their cause, it was a mistake for them to come on the show.
Prager, for his part, while sounding calm and articulate in promoting his point of view, did articulate the conservative perspective of males. He said that men are like “animals” — that men are animals — and that they simply need sex for this reason.
A simple definition of “essentialism” is “a generalization stating that certain properties possessed by a group (e.g. people, things, ideas) are universal, and not dependent on context.” In this vein, I think that there are three perspectives on male/female sexuality (only two of which were articulated on Prager’s show).
* When it comes to sexuality, Prager’s conservative flavor of essentialism is his assertion that men are sexual animals, meaning that [u]men are more sexual than women.[/u]
* The feminist flavor of essentialism is that [u]men and women — whatever their essence — are identical.[/u]
* But I hold a men’s rights advocate (MRA) perspective on this. I believe that [u]women are more sexual than men.[/u] Women are more sensual, their bodies are capable of enjoying more than one orgasm during sex, they pamper themselves — they’re simply more sexual in my view.
If it’s true that women are more sexual, then the implications of them refusing sex to men are stark. When women decline or deny sex with their husbands, I believe that there is usually a utilitarian purpose for it. She may or may not realize that she’s making a logical choice to forgo sex in order to accomplish that purpose (she might only “feel” it), but wittingly or unwittingly there usually is a purpose, in my view. I believe that women who do this are often (but not always) trying to coerce their husband to do what she wants, or perhaps trying to inflict emotional pain on him as some vindictive form of punishment for something he did to anger her.
During the program, when Prager called men “animals” — needing sex because (in his view) it’s in men’s nature to want it more — Jeff piped up and said that this was anti-male, claiming that men are more than just animals and that we have volition and will — identically with women — and that we thus have a responsibility as men to use our will in order to accommodate a woman’s lack of inclination to have sex.
Perhaps it never occurred to Jeff that Prager’s statement is anti-male mainly because it gives women a pass for engaging in sexually manipulative behavior.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Why is it emotional blackmail for a man to consider sex to be the duty of one spouse to another, but it’s not emotional blackmail for a woman to [b]routinely[/b] deny sex to her husband and expect him to meekly accept his “responsibility” to endure it? That was, in my interpretation, what Jeff and his “redoubtable” feminist comrade, Megan Carpenter, were trying to sell. Women have prerogatives, while men have responsibilities. In my opinion, Jeff and Megan didn’t come off sounding altogether reasonable. They sounded like feminist ideologues. For the benefit of their cause, it was a mistake for them to come on the show.
Prager, for his part, while sounding calm and articulate in promoting his point of view, did articulate the conservative perspective of males. He said that men are like “animals” — that men are animals — and that they simply need sex for this reason.
A simple definition of “essentialism” is “a generalization stating that certain properties possessed by a group (e.g. people, things, ideas) are universal, and not dependent on context.” In this vein, I think that there are three perspectives on male/female sexuality (only two of which were articulated on Prager’s show).
* When it comes to sexuality, Prager’s conservative flavor of essentialism is his assertion that men are sexual animals, meaning that men are more sexual than women.
* The feminist flavor of essentialism is that men and women — whatever their essence — are identical.
* But I hold a men’s rights advocate (MRA) perspective on this. I believe that women are more sexual than men. Women are more sensual, their bodies are capable of enjoying more than one orgasm during sex, they pamper themselves — they’re simply more sexual in my view.
If it’s true that women are more sexual, then the implications of them refusing sex to men are stark. When women decline or deny sex with their husbands, I believe that there is usually a utilitarian purpose for it. She may or may not realize that she’s making a logical choice to forgo sex in order to accomplish that purpose (she might only “feel” it), but wittingly or unwittingly there usually is a purpose, in my view. I believe that women who do this are often (but not always) trying to coerce their husband to do what she wants, or perhaps trying to inflict emotional pain on him as some vindictive form of punishment for something he did to anger her.
During the program, when Prager called men “animals” — needing sex because (in his view) it’s in men’s nature to want it more — Jeff piped up and said that this was anti-male, claiming that men are more than just animals and that we have volition and will — identically with women — and that we thus have a responsibility as men to use our will in order to accommodate a woman’s lack of inclination to have sex.
Perhaps it never occurred to Jeff that Prager’s statement is anti-male mainly because it gives women a pass for engaging in sexually manipulative behavior.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Jeff,
Having listened to your bit on Prager – oy.
I can’t add anything to what’s been said above; you misstated Prager’s position; you tried to use a platoon of strawmen to back him into a corner (and he’s way too good for that); you not only substituted emotion for evidence, you (plural) did it in a shrill, strident manner that (as we’ve seen above) alienated even those disposed to be on your side.
Bear in mind, I don’t agree with Prager all the time on social issues. I’ve duked it out with him on the death penalty and abstinence education in particular. I’d be interested in hearing a reasonable argument with his position.
Yours (plural) sounded like a sophomore-level Women’s Studies thesis. And, sorry to say, not one that’ll get you on the honor roll.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Jeff,
I heard you and Megan on the Dennis Prager show.
Both of you misstated his points and did a poor job of defending your positions.
Of the two of you, Megan did the better job. She said was not married and sounded as if she was her 20′s, and asserted that there is little difference in the libidos of men and women. Therefore if men want sex more often than their wives, the husbands are unreasonable.
Maybe at Megan’s age, women are as frisky as men, but I doubt Megan is close many married people in their 40 or 50′s. If she were, she would know the many things in ordinary life that dampen a wife’s desire: Pregnancy, childbirth, baby awake all night for the first year after birth, crying babies, messy home, menopause, genitourinary problems, stress of getting kids to/from school and activities, putting on weight (not happy with her body or husband’s body), kids might hear us having sex, financial stress, kids behavior problems, etc.
All this can result in wives (not all of them, though) being turned off for months or years at a time. It’s happened in my life (married nearly 30 years) and among my close married male friends. Also, it’s rare for a wife to allow any intimate activity unless she is willing and able to have intercourse, and to try to discuss it is often futile. It’s frustrating, but we married our wives for love and would never hurt or degrade them. Still, an occasional “yes” from the woman who vowed to “love, honor and cherish” would be most welcome…
While Megan debated Dennis Prager from a position of youthful ignorance, Jeff you seemed callow but more agenda driven from a deep dislike of Dennis Prager. He’s conservative, ergo his ideas must be sexist and retrograde. You constantly tried to twist his words in that direction, but failed.
He was very gracious to you and Megan as he is is to guests and callers who disagree with him.
And Jeff, I didn’t hear if your are a husband and father, but I doubt it.
Prager merely mentioned in a low-key way that wives hurt their husbands and their marriages when they unreasonably refuse intimacy. It’s a measure of how little the left-wing media values husbands and fathers that a plea for simple consideration for guys like us from our wives is considered repellent.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
M.C.
No. You’re wrong. This isn’t about consideration for husbands. It’s about stereotyping women as people who hate sex, and men as beasts who care about nothing except sex.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Ben,
Where on earth do you get that?
I mean, I know Dennis; I’ve talked with him many times; I’ve even guest-hosted his show once (September 2004). I’ve yet to hear him say anything of the sort.
Look, say what you like about him – and I disagree with him on a number of issues – but at least stay factual.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
MBerg,
I admit I am using hyperbole. My points are these:
1. His articles were based on stereotypes of women and men and their supposed differences in sexual desires (after all, it focused on women not being willing to have sex, rather than the more general concept of “one person in the relationship doesn’t want to have sex”.)
2. He seems rather oblivious to the concept that sex might be something that might actually be equally enjoyable for both people in a relationship.
3. He mentioned something about the best way a man knows his wife loves him is for her to let him penetrate her. Not so. (It’s the case for many men, but not all of us).
4. This point is subjective, but here goes; the articles really come across as nagging women.
That’s a lot to say (and that isn’t even it, but such is the nature of blog commenting), so I condensed it into a bit of a pointed, hyperbolic phrase. Perhaps that wasn’t right, perhaps I should be more clear, but that was my thought process going into it.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:38 am
It’s painful to listen and read you and Megan. You both owe Dennis an apology. You’re being intellectually dishonest and yes, you have completely degraded the meaning of rape by comparing it to an all too human problem. A problem Dennis frankly and without malice brings out in his article – the issue of libido between a man and a woman and how it affects their marriage. To imply that its emotional blackmail and akin to rape that a woman have sex with her husband even if she is not in the mood is quite frankly twisted. Who doesn’t do things for someone they love even if they’re not in the mood? Why should it be any different with sex especially, as Dennis pointed out, in the context of a loving relationship.
Its truly sad and pathetic to watch how often liberals choose to demonize those they disagree with rather than discussing the merits of the idea. The more time goes on the more I lose respect for liberal thinking. Good luck to you.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:06 am
…I’m thinking we should be able to take him.
Probably time to go to Plan B, eh? Prager makes an argument that certainly is capable of being challenged, and perhaps even being effectively challenged by a little exaggeration; you could have, say, played the slippery slope card, and argued that if a woman should agree to have sex with her husband much of the time that she doesn’t feel like it, that might encourage the husband that he gets to nail the wife (note careful slipping into men as horrible imagery) any time he feels like it, and then go to show how bad that would be, for both husbands and wives (as it pretty clearly would be).
There’s an argument there, and by quickly skating past the weak point, you could end on a strong one.
Still, it’s not all a strong argument, and it militates exactly in the opposite direction of what Prager is arguing (that that particular concession by wives, at least upon occasion, having sex when they don’t feel very much like it, is good for both parties and the relationship), but you would have at least brought something to the table.
But, instead, you went for feckless misrepresentation, not only about what Prager was arguing, but went all vague on what you’d written, no less than just a few hours before going on the show.
Sorry; you’re not ready for prime time, and you’re not a player.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Thanks for appearing Jeff, it’s important that we see what people like you and Megan think and the extent you want to extend rape and infantilise women. Your approach was to spread as many logical fallacies as you could and Prager pretty much caught most of them – I wish he would have pinned you down and stopped that nonsense early but we don’t always think of the best argument to make at the time of a debate.
The evidence is pretty clear that you acted wrongly and if you had any decency you would write a public apology to Dennis Prager.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
ArgusEyes,
Who sent you here?
January 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Who sent you here?
Lo, when I am behind the rising of the sun and the song of the morning birds, why dost thou ask “who sent you?”
For it was I.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Ben wrote:
Jeff goes on a nationally syndicated talk radio program in which his Web site is mentioned by the host at least two times, and you ask who sent him?
Somebody, find me the Clue Bat.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
That was a rhetorical question, genius. I know full well that Tennis Breaker has worshipers that have a collective hissy fit every time their deity is criticized.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
“Who sent you here?”
LOL, see what Jon said.
Are you referring to the fact that I’m British, Ben? Because if so, I must point out that I am a big fan of the Dennis Prager show and listen via podcast.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:01 am
I don’t get it. Is “Tennis Breaker” an attempt to be witty or clever?? If so, you swung and missed. Merely makes you look petty and infantile. I feel like I’m in third grade.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Where “I know full well that Tennis Breaker has worshipers that have a collective hissy fit every time their deity is criticized” equals “Dennis has fans who are smart enough to call out people who defamatorily mis-state his stances”.
Glad I could help.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Kevin,
It’s a pun. Have you ever heard of a pun before?
MBerg,
You mean the way all these posters come in and defame Jeff?
(Oh wait, Jeff isn’t a radio talk show host, so that doesn’t count, I guess?)
January 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Ben,
Who’s “defamed” Jeff? And by “defame”, I mean “seriously insulted his reputation”, by, say, falsely claiming he advocated rape?
People have been *critical* of Jeff and Ms. Carpenter’s appearance on the Prager show – and rightly so. It was a bad appearance, and Prager caught them on it and pretty cleanly flensed the both of them (he’s a little tougher customer than Mark Heaney). Saying so – and, for that matter, critiqueing them – doesn’t “defame” either of them.
“You’re wrong and here’s why” is criticism. “You’re wrong, and you produce kiddie pr0n” is defamation (unless it’s true, of course).
Defamation is wrong (and, in some cases, actionable). Criticism is part of being a pundit, professional or amateur.
It has nothing to do with whether Jeff is in radio (indeed, the bigger a public figure you are, the higher the threshold gets).
So hep me here, Ben. Who “defamed” Jeff, and how?
January 9th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Here is my answer to that question. Not everyone who’s been coming in lately to criticize Jeff has been boorish and uncivil, but these people jump out right away as trolls.
*Ori claimed that Jeff was out of his mind.
*Steve Mikez called him a fraud.
*chukmaty called “us” (presuambly all of the critics of Prager in another thread) third graders (I know that shouldn’t be a bad thing, as many of us were once such at a time in our lives… but it’s so false it’s not even funny.)
*Trey is a state-based bigot who called Minnesotans frauds.
Now granted, these are trolls, so their opinion shouldn’t matter at all… but there you have it.
I must confess to some defamation as well. I did indeed use that nickname Tennis Breaker for Dennis. That might suggest he has something to do with Tennis, which Kevin seems highly offended by, and if it turns out that Dennis doesn’t play tennis at all, my nickname could indeed be considered defamatory. I apologize for making that suggestion, and I will stop using that nickname from now on.
January 10th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Not really offended but more confused that someone that is presumably an adult is using terms I’d expect out of the mouth of a nine year old.
I was wondering if I was just missing some underlying inside joke.
Apparently no, that’s just the best shot you can take at Prager. Which is kinda sad, although also sort of amusing if that’s the limit to which you can defend Fecke.
January 10th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Ben,
The stuff you note is uncivil, to be sure. Some of it is based on frustration with (I’ll be frank) the head-spinning illogic and disingenuity that Carpenter and Fecke brought to national radio; I try to stay away from incivility (and, being human, fail often enough).
But it’s not defamation; that’s something that’s untrue that damages someone’s community standing and earning potential – like for example falsely saying someone advocates rape, and whipping up a groundswell of hatred that gets them fired from their job,to pick a completely hypothetical example.
Anyway, the horse has been beaten to death. Congrats on the national debut, Jeff. It probably wasn’t as fun as Mark Heaney painting your toes on the air (it’s a figure of speech), but hang in there.