The Debate on Alan Colmes: Who Won?
Monday night, I debated Jeff Fecke, a paid male feminist representing the Center for Independent Media, on Alan Colmes syndicated radio show. For those who were out shopping Monday evening, you can listen here
It was the most oppositional interview I have ever encountered (even worse than the time I debated Karen DeCrow). Colmes wanted the interview to attack my article FOX News Alan Colmes: Who Needs Air America? My piece was written in response to Colmes truculent interview of Stephen Baskerville a couple of weeks ago. In that interview, Colmes ridiculed Baskerville with a wall of polemics to avoid any thoughtful discussion of the issues. My article merely returned the favor, leaving everyone even-steven.
On Mondays interview, Colmes did his best to make everyone think my Coulteresque piece was somehow unreasonable. He attempted to paint me as a woman-hater — the oldest feminist trick in the book — which does not work when interviewing me! He did keep me scrambling, and I did miss some great debate points (which of course came to me later). All in all, given the fact that I did not know what exactly was to be debated, it went quite well.
I believe the interview was a great success (but then I am probably slightly biased). While it might not have changed Colme’s mind yet, it certainly appeared to greatly impress the listening audience. 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. Only one caller agreed with Colmes. A few others said that Colmes needs to rethink his position.
Those who heard the show are encouraged to post their vote and comments about who won the debate. Like everyone else in this movement, I am always learning things from everyone I meet.
Possibly related posts...
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
[...] 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, [...]
I thought the callers complaining of the way they’d been ripped off, won the debate for a shaky sounding Mr Usher – weighed down with his anti-feminist, anti-no fault divorce attitude, perhaps. Surely, conservative MRAs can embrace a free market economy for marriage and divorce – and campaign for an open, free and fair joint custody/child support settlement system.
..I think we need to host our own panelist’s…
on one side….pro-marraige……………………… mens rights
other side..marraige is a harness……………….mens rights
What I was trying to say is that father’s rights is a sub-set of Men’s rights.
See outline below:
I) Men’s Rights
A) Family Law
1) Husbands (Alimony)
2) Fathers (Child support)
(Custody)
3) Divorce (marriage)
B) Civil Law
1) Same Sex Marriage
2) Reproductive Rights (abortion)
C) Criminal Law
1) sex bias in sentencing
2) sex bias in prosecution
D) Social image
1) AD’S
2) TV-movies
3) Billboards
Colmes gets away far too much with saying “you are saying this about all women”. He could have been shut down on that within 5 seconds. Colmes finally did admit that Dave was saying “raped by the system” when saying that men get raped. Easier to have clarified that more upfront so as to shut him down more quickly.
Alan was correct when asking callers “do you mean this about all women”? It was the Achilles Heel of the people on the side of men.
In the end, he could say that some men had a vicious attitude about “all women”. None of the callers should have implied that all women are bad, but some of them did.
Alan had a major point when he said that crime started going down in the 1990s in most of the US.
Just heard Alan say “Maybe the women weren’t calling because they didn’t want to talk to that guy”. This is the reason why pro-feminist males act the way they do: they think that women will not give them sex and/or like them if they do not defend the radical feminist point of view.
Male feminists want to be liked…and they want to be liked by the women…so they stab other guys in the back and ignore their own rights while better men fight in the Men’s Rights Movement for some equality.
Dear Mr. Colmes,
If you are reading this, please invite me (or Dave) on to talk about IMBRA, the feminist law against socalled “Marriage Brokers” that forces American men to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to foreign women on dating websites.
I can promise you a show filled with facts and figures.
Ask your producer to email me at veterans at veteransabroad.com.
Meanwhile, please invite Dave Usher or Marc Rudov to discuss VAWA, the law that allows women to make false accusations and benefit from them even after immediately dropping the charges.
Men’s Rights
|
|
—————————————————————–
| | | |
Family Law Civil Law Criminal Law Social image
Husbands
(Alimony) Same Sex Marriage Reproductive Rights Advertisement
Fathers Affirmative action bias in sentencing TV – Movies
(Child support) Govt contract bias in prosecution Billboards
(Custody) College Admissions
Divorce
Not sure if above chart will translate
I realize you are just a sub-men’s right advocate. See chart below:
Men’s Rights
|
|
————————————————————————————
| | | |
Family Law Civil Law Criminal Law Social image
Husbands
(Alimony) Same Sex Marriage Reproductive Rights AD’S
Fathers Affirmative action bias sentencing TV-movies
(Child support) Government contract bias prosecution Billboards
(Custody) College Admissions
Divorce
A lot of time was spent at the beginning defending the personal attack. I would have at least said that the slander against men involved in some of Colmes’ beliefs is much worse than saying that someone looks stoned in his photo.
In other words, in the first 5 minutes, I would have turned his outrage against him. Heck…if a male TV host ever tried to force me to discuss my reference to the word “mangina” about him, I would explain in detail how mangina is the best way to describe a male feminist.
Colmes did win this first 5 minutes because no good reason was given to have said that he looked stoned in that photo and he shouldn’t date anyone’s daughters. Bad photos of anyone could be found and his looks criticized.
Later…Alan Colmes seems to criticize men dating younger women.
Mike L,
You or somebody has to read the posts you’ve blocked via ISPs, right?
It’s a funny kind of ruse to play….
Do you decide to ban voices because it’s good for your commercial goals, or merely because it’s intellectually simple?
I’ll donate to your server costs when I see some evidence of a commitment to actual discourse.
MRNI: doing great for Usher was the first order of battle. I had to clear his withering personal attacks before I could even get around to father’s rights. Much of the interview was spent dragging him back to fathers rights. He tried a bunch of times to paint me as a woman hater (again to avoid the issues), I finally dragged him back to the issues (once and for all) by saying “Alan, do you really care about women?” He realized that he couldn’t win the male bashing game when I said that.
That we even got around to fathers rights at all was a minor miracle.
Colmes spent several minutes trying to label Mr. Usher as “anti-female” and sought to dismiss any analytic opinion about the issue at hand as misogynistic.
Throughout the entire segment Colmes returned to his beat-a-dead-horse theme of “aren’t you being nasty towards women?”
He never grasped, or even engaged in David’s argument about systemic sexist discrimination against fathers in the Family Courts.
And sadly Mr. Usher’s pro-marriage argument (with which I disagree) was never given a fair consideration.
Colmes failed to understand that the court system protects women against unreasonable men, but doesn’t protect men from unreasonable women, as a caller stated. That should have been the focal point of the discussion. There isn’t equal protection under the law.
After further review, Usher did Great for Usher, but just ok in fighting for men’s rights
Wow, Colmes spent a good 5 minutes being all boo-boo faced because you hurt his feelings. You vicious, evil man you.
Again Alan Colmes demonstrated his fear of views in conflict with his, and you were right when you noted that his immediate responses were to accuse you of hating ALL women, and having the bad views of ALL women. Somehow the toad took the 36 percent statistic you quoted and turned to “So you’re saying ALL women do this?”
Hopefully his wife will divorce him, take everything he has, and not allow him more than 102 hours per month with his children. She may as well throw in a false accusation of violence or two for kicks, it’s not like she would be penalized. If she remarries at least they may finally have a man in their lives.
As long as women like Alan Colmes believe and preach the idea that only women are the care providers during the marriage, the going will still be tough in our cause. As long as women like Colmes still believe the only way to happiness is to give women everything they want, we will be the underdogs.
How dare we have the nerve to want equality in parenthood???
Good job Mr. Usher
Audio now available here:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/audio/alancomes-2007-12-17.mp3
mruffollo..
Anti-male hysteria has in fact choked the younger generations of males the most!!
..There are now very few men who have not heard a story of a friend of theirs getting a false accussation of some sort!!
…False rape accussations
…false sexual harrassment accussation
….False phone/text mail harassing
..false stalking accussation…
You name it…
…It may in fact be in the hands of the younger generations of men to try and tame this feminist juggernaut that is choking us!!…We may in fact call ourselves the “falselly accussed” generation!!!
David,
I listened.
Excellent job.
I already had a low opinion of Colmes (lower than that of Hannity) from watching him a few times on the Hannity and Colmes Fox TV show. His interview with you amazingly took him down at least another notch. (Hannity’s sexism is typical of political republicans and is nearly as bad as the feminarcicist sexism typical of political democrats.)
I’m about halfway through Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody.” I’ve found it accurate to my experience and satisfying (only in that it is refreshing to see the truth written so succinctly and clearly, finally, for the first time ever) since page 1.
I agree with your impression that your “opponent” agreed with your points (much to the apparent disappointment of Colmes).
It was nice that Colmes finally started letting you finish your sentences after the first 5 or 10 minutes of rudely interrupting you.
Thanks again for trying to educate him.
fecke didn’t seem to attack men/fathers until prodded to attack from alan.
..what surprised me the most was that Fecke seemed to be reasoneable on a few issues!!
Men already may be speaking.
40% percent of Americans say they would vote to keep a woman, Hillary Clinton, from winning the presidency, more than twice the total for their No. 2 “anti-” pick.
“While Mrs. Clinton performed poorly among most demographics, younger male voters were particularly cold. More than half of the adult men younger than 40 said they would use their vote to keep Mrs. Clinton from returning to the White House.”
“Mrs. Clinton performed best among older females.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071218/NATION/42189178/1001
Yesterday in town halls in Plaistow and Nashua, NH, Mrs. Clinton promised “a new beginning in America” and expanded her argument that she could be a “change- maker” based on her more than three decades of experience working for children’s rights and women’s rights.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dems16dec16,1,5373117.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo
What is the Al Jazeera angle?
Are we going to be able to get Men’s Rights debates on Al Jazeera?
That would be fun if we got a billion Muslim men to start loudly ridiculing the feminist cult of the modern United States.
We liberated some of them. Now maybe they can return the favor via ridicule that the American MSM cannot ignore.
Hi Dave: Thanx for getting on TV like that. It looks like the Marc Rudov ratings on Fox News is telling the producers there that there is something to Men’s Rights.
It is shocking that Holmes put you on simply because you wrote an article. I would have expected the opposite to happen (complete silence).
Please send me the file or a link.
Is the clip viewable from the Fox News website? I guess the other guys here saw the debate live?
By the way, was VAWA mentioned? Is there a transcript to look at?
America needs feminism like fish need bikes.
If somebody wants to post the debate on youtube, I can send them a 64kbs mp3 of the interview. I will link it into this piece if you do.
Despite all odds, I clearly won the debate.
I managed to cut through the (expected) drenching of venom, by making short “crowbar’ counterpoints and by saying things to throw him off base. Listeners are not stupid. They can tell who is being unreasonable. I stick to the issues, don’t fight with anybody, and let the listeners decide for themselves.
Alan kept trying to drag me into a woman-haters battle, which I refused to do. It was actually rather stupid of him to try this because it is the oldest and cheapest trick in the feminist playbook. This trick is taught to all first year women’s studies activists-in-training. The trick is to ignore the name calling, and drag the issue back to a rational debate. In this case it was to point out that when we entitle women to have lots of children out of wedlock, instead of marrying, we know what lots of them will do.
I flew over the issue by repeatedly pointing out that it is feminists who have created the very situations that lure women into making decisions that leave them in poverty and desperate social situations (moral: marriage is not a trap when you compare it to the multiple traps of single-motherhood!). When Alan didn’t back off (and this was my favorite line), I said very clearly “Alan, do you really care about women?”. He really backed off after that because I nailed him at his own game.
Fecke did agree with me on several major points. That was a huge victory for women. Fecke and I do have some disagreements, which could use more debate. But we both agreed that divorce is a major problem, and Fecke did agree that a lot of men get shafted. I probably need to get to know him better — there are a lot of male feminists who know that feminism isn’t the answer. When all men who care about women come together to call for changes to let marriage become the social norm, everyone will be one hell of a lot happier.
In the end, it was Alan who ended up the “odd man out”. He didn’t agree to anything, and never came out of his cave.
The callers reflected who won the battle. A few told Alan he didn’t have his head screwed on right. All except one agreed with me. They were furiously looking for callers that agreed with him. The fact that only one listener out of a fully-lit phone bank supported Colmes says that the listeners made their minds up.
The interview went 30 minutes longer than planned, because it was so lively. The producer said that the phone lines were fully loaded. The half-hour segment ended up going for an hour.
Note: Actually, I was not nervous at all. I have a slight quaver in my voice that is a family trait, inherited from my grandfather. Some interpret it as nervousness.
colmes is like a cross between a rhetoric pitbull and academic street fighter!!..Thats why it’s his show!!
Davis got some shots off, and did what he could do..overall it went well!!
What these feminists seem to not understand is that a child gets 50% of its DNA from its father and 50% from its mother. A child is no more its mother’s than its father’s. A father should have as many reproductive rights as the mother. A child is a reflection of both father and mother equally.
The family court system gives women an incentive to induce men to impregnate them, because the family court system can then force the father pay child support, but the father had no voice or choice in the matter. We are asking for this incentive to be removed by giving men reproductive, custodial, and marriage rights.
Allan Colmes and the many other feminists apparently are living on another planet.
Colmes was a bit of a hothead at first, but later he let Usher finish a sentence or two, but by no means was he fair.
Colmes was extremely rude, but I think we all expected that. Colmes uses his experience to deny thoughts and ideas from being properly expressed.
I thought Usher did a Great job, A little nervous, but that is perfectly normal.
..Alan was quite ruthless!!
hard to listen to. host is extremely rude/aggressive and not allowing thoughts/points to be developed.
I hope someone has the good sense to post this debate on youtube. com
I have done major media before many times — although it is usually with hosts who ‘get it’ and want to dig deeper. There was one time I debated Karen DeCrow — and won the debate so handsomely that the host nearly fell off his chair laughing.
I do have to give Colmes credit for taking this up. It would be so easy to simply ignore the issues I set out. It is up to me to prevail.
The media gets interested when somebody has something to say that challenges conventional wisdom in a striking way. I have never set up anything … they call me. Anybody can do this. Just learn the ropes, then do it.
..donnie boy..I agree, it will be 2 on 1, but in the very least, dave could make sure people get some solid facts, and some web sites to possibly educate themselves??
colmes interrupts all those who disagree with his positions. he does it just at the end so as to make it difficult to finish the thought or make a point. because he waits until the last second to yap, the actual minutes and seconds seem balanced. its a good tactic for debating, but doesn’t speak highly of fox news for never ever addressing the issue in all the years he has been there. i am sure he conducts himself in the same manner on “his” radio program. i have little respect for him, if any at all. trust usher will hold his own with it being 2 against 1. colmes is as far from being a fair and balanced interviewer as is possible.
dave sorry to post so many times …but I’m excited for you..
If you really wanna sock it to em….heres a quote you can use from a man who saw this coming back in the 60’s…when famillies were first starting to breakdown into chaos…
In 1965, Senator Patrick Moynihan was condemned for his observation of the consequences of family breakdown:
“From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”
whatever you accomplish this evening..make sure to give the audience some web-site addresses to organisations so they can educate themselves!!
may the force be with you!!
damn dave…how did you land that gig??
going big time!!
May the force be with you!!