I recently wrote a post on my blog asking readers to react to the creeping socialism and expectation in our society that those who are productive must pay for the cost of our society:

Do you ever wonder after dealing with all that is going on with the economy and the upcoming election if it’s getting to be time to “go John Galt”? For those of you who have never read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents, “stopping the motor of the world,” and leading the “strikers” (those who refuse to be exploited) against the “looters” (the exploiters, backed by the government).

Perhaps the partisan politics we are dealing with now is really just a struggle between those of us who believe in productivity, personal responsibility, and keeping government interference to a minimum, and those who believe in the socialistic policies of taking from others, using the government as a watchdog, and rewarding those who overspend, underwork, or are just plain unproductive.

Obama talks about taking from those who are productive and redistributing to those who are not — or who are not as successful. If success and productivity is to be punished, why bother? Perhaps it is time for those of us who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less, and let the looters of the world find their own way.

My question to readers is, what are some ways to “go John Galt” (legally, of course) — that is, should productive people cut back on what they need, make less money, and take it easy so that the government is starved for funds, or is there some other way of making a statement?

The comments to the question posed ranged from “It’s not time to ‘go John Galt’ yet” to “Cut off the money!” to everything in between. Here are some examples:

Paul Hsieh, MD says,

I’m not quite ready to give up in America yet and “go on strike.” Yes, we are going to be in for a rough ride, regardless of who is elected president.

But rather than going on strike, I’d rather try to advocate for laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights, and work to make things better. We still have free speech in this country and we still have a culture that (for the most part) values reason, success, and prosperity.

The next few years will be critical for this country, with respect to both domestic and international issues. If the better people choose now to “go on strike,” then we may simply be ensuring the victory of the bad guys, whereas if we speak out (in whatever capacity we have), then we still have a chance.

Pete says,

I sold my business.

I sold several properties, two of them to my children at a significant “loss.” (Ka-Ching!)

I’m raising a great deal of my own food and have taken to raising sheep and poultry. All for personal consumption, not sale.

I live in a rural area, so while Andy and Bob and Charlie might buy some sheep to be raised by me, Andy is buying swine, Bob is buying beef, etc.

Canning. Freezing.

Buying bulk.

Locomotivebreath1901 says,

Until the electorate demands the abolition of the insidious withholding tax nothing will change because the only way to kill the nanny state beast is to starve it.

Cut off the money!!

On the other hand, reader James Racicot at Instapundit would welcome our new socialist overlords should Obama win the presidency:

A Democrat president, a Democratic Congress, and perhaps a filibuster-proof Senate is all the public needs to hold the entire Democratic Party apparatus fully and completely accountable for the next few years. It’s a good thing! As a frequent reader of “right-wing” blogs (and less frequent commenter), I look forward to hectoring from the sidelines, opposing for the sake of opposing, and generally making an ass of myself. Hell, the Kos kids seem to have had a ball these past few years: all the fun with none of the responsibility.

So many decisions, so much fun with the upcoming elections! So readers, if you are a conservative or libertarian, what do you think? Is going John Galt the answer? Would turning into the Kos kids float your boat? Or is rationality and critical thinking going to get us anywhere?

__________________________________

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com.

Share on digg

First, there is a pathetic article from the health section of the New York Times. “If the Boss is Young and Male, Watch Out,” written by Tara Parker-Pope, about a study (conducted by a man) of the “problems” associated with having a young male boss. Why the negative, snide title by Parker-Pope indicating her hostility towards men in general? She wouldn’t dare put up the same title about having a female boss; that would be sacrilegious, of course.

In yet another bit of obvious male-bashing News-Sentinel blogger Katie Allison Granju has a post entitled “Teenage boys are stupid,” in which she attributes male idiocy to all young men based on the actions of one young man who killed a classmate at school. This young man has a sister who is on the run for murder, yet I never saw a similar article by Granju with the title “Teenage girls are stupid.” As commenters pointed out, she knew good and well that there were no consequences for saying the former and that she could possibly get fired or catch real heat for saying the latter. Somehow, these women don’t think angry male commenters count. As men become more organized against this type of prejudice, this will change.

Finally, much to my dismay, financial adviser Suze Orman now seems to be on a bender against men. Since her show is on CNBC, a network with strong male demographics, she usually tries to control herself when it comes to bashing men (although I have seen some subtle digs on her show such as when she tells men to help women with their money problems in ways that she rarely advises women to do for men).

However, on last week’s show, she had guest Judge Judy on to talk about prenups, co-signing loans, and women and money. Unfortunately, the two began discussing how women are always getting stuck with their husbands’ loans and bills because women are “too nice.” Apparently, Orman believes that men don’t pay the bills and then ride off into the sunset, abandoning women to avoid paying their fair share.

If Ms. Orman bothered to check her facts, she would find that the majority of child support and alimony is paid by the male gender. Women are more likely to be “deadbeat parents” than men. So men are hardly walking away from the bills in record numbers.

On another show, My Life on the D-List, I watched as comedienne Kathy Griffin went to discuss her finances with Orman. As she entered Orman’s office, Griffin told a male staffer that he darn well better open the door for her. He was there to serve her while Orman accused him of having “no masculinity left” later on during a meeting. The emasculated male staffer simply grinned and agreed with whatever they said. I nearly threw up before changing the channel. I wonder why, all of a sudden, Orman is getting her panties in a wad over men. Has the election made her more bold or more likely to attack or belittle men?

That made me wonder why the male bashing seems to have intensified around this election.  I have a few theories, although none of them seem to explain everything.

This CNN poll might provide some clues:

It may be supporters of Hillary Clinton, who still would prefer the Senator from New York as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters, registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee, are now backing Obama. That’s down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they’ll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

“The number of Clinton Democrats who say they would vote for McCain has gone up 11 points since June, enough to account for most although not all of the support McCain has gained in that time,” says Holland.

Could it be that some women in the media are angry that Hillary didn’t win and are displacing their anger onto men in general? Of course, we don’t know 100% that the women I mentioned are all Hillary supporters (Granju appears to support Obama), but at least two of them appear to be. Suze Orman has given money to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and is a big supporter of the Democratic Party as well as an admirer of Clinton. Kathy Griffin is upset about what she perceives to be sexism against Hillary. Tara Parker-Pope writes for the New York Times which endorsed Hillary Clinton, and has written about Hillary on occasion in the health section of all places.

Perhaps their anger over Hillary turns into anger at men in general because they don’t dare get directly mad at the Democrats who are the ones who displaced Hillary with a man. If women in the media were to get directly angry at the Democrats, there could be repercussions. They might fear that the bad publicity would cause people to reconsider voting for Obama. Bashing men is easy because they can simultaneously get their anger out and yet have no real consequences. It rarely results in any backlash and is seen by women and their cohorts as “edgy and powerful.” In reality, it is anything. They should remember that what goes around comes around. But that’s a column for another day.

My other theory of the upswing in male bashing is that because the Democratic presidential candidate is a minority, perhaps some women feel some identification and therefore feel more psychologically safe expressing their hostility (since so many Democrats do so with the safety net of the media) because they think Obama might win. Or conversely, it could be that as Obama goes down in the polls and McCain rises, anger towards those that are perceived to be the “dominant group” — that is white men — are fair game to be ridiculed and belittled in any way possible in order to try and remind their female base that they better stick by Obama.

Whatever the reason, the male-bashing season seems open, and the women who participate seem eager to tear into any innocent men or boys who come their way for no other reason than their sex. It seems that some “feminists” have turned into the worst caricature of the chauvinistic pig that they once said they despised. It’s funny that if they looked in the mirror, they would now see that man staring back at them.

Anyway, I wonder if we’ll see a further uptick of male bashing in the media as the election gets even closer. Are readers seeing more male bashing in the media than usual or is it just the typical fare? And if you think there’s more, what’s your theory as to why?

________________________________________

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me; otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc.

Share on digg

Dear Dr. Helen,

I read one of the letters sent to you about male-bashing and just wanted to share one of my experiences also. I work at a fast food restaurant where there are “unofficially” two positions: the boys and the girls. Whenever a new guy is recruited he is given the “boys” training. They show him how to do the tasks that the restaurant deems appropriate for the men to do. This struck me as very sexist from the outset, but I held my tongue because I was just a new guy and obviously needed the job. As time went by, I started noticing the huge differences in workload between the boys and girls. It seemed to me that the men had to do far more work in the restaurant than the women. To be sure I wasn’t just exaggerating, I took it upon myself to learn how to do the girls’ tasks also and confirmed my suspicions: the girls had it much easier than the boys and we were both paid at the same rate.

What I couldn’t understand was how none of the other guys had noticed this, so one day I mentioned it to one of my fellow male workers and imagine my surprise when he said that he had always felt this way also. I soon discovered that all of the other guys felt the exact same way. When I asked why they hadn’t spoken up, some said that they had tried but were immediately ridiculed by both the managers and the girls and were labeled as “whining babies.” Naturally, I was outraged and decided to speak up myself — and boy what a mistake that was. I quickly realized why none of the guys ever spoke about this. My complaint was completely ignored by management but the worst came from the girls.

I became the target for a barrage of anti-male attacks about how I was just another lazy good-for-nothing man trying to get out of work, how I was just a whiny baby that couldn’t take it like a man, how I probably was lazy in sex also and hence I was no use as a man, etc. They would band together in groups of two or three and launch these attacks at me every single day for about a month. At first I had said some very vicious things back at them to defend myself but when they reacted by taking serious offense and playing the victims, the idiot managers would reprimand me. So eventually I just got tired of fighting a war that I apparently had no way of winning, and I fell into the same attitude as the rest of my male co-workers: I shut up and “took it like a man.”

I am by no means happy with the way things are but it’s going to take a while until I have the guts to risk that kind of abuse again. So for now I’ve just resigned myself to an attitude of silent misery. What can a guy do to fight against this, especially since most of his fellow guys are scared to death of having their masculinity threatened and ridiculed and dare not say anything either?

Len

Dear Len,

Unfortunately, male discrimination in the workplace is becoming more and more common. For example, in PC Canada stats show that more men complain of workplace discrimination than women:

According to a 2006 survey commissioned by Kelly Services, a firm that finds temporary and permanent staff for companies, 34.8% of men said they believed they had experienced discrimination over the past five years at work compared with 33.3% of women. Similar findings were reported by University of Toronto sociology professor John Kervin. In a survey of business students at an Ontario college, Prof. Kervin found that just as many men as women — 21% each — felt their professors were biased against them because of their gender.

It’s the classic workplace discrimination scenario in reverse: All things being equal, if a man and woman are up for the same job, the woman has an unfair advantage, say men’s rights advocates. And they blame decades of affirmative action initiatives that have encouraged companies to promote women and minorities.

The problem is that all men do is complain. One employment lawyer noted that while men are discriminated against under the law, he has never had a client bring a discrimination lawsuit against a company. But men do win suits if they bring them. For example:

In 1993, administrators at Northern Arizona University decided to give some of their professors a raise. Under the school’s plan, female and visible minority professors would receive pay-equity raises of up to US$3,000 each. The plan excluded all 192 white male professors.

Eleven years later, an Arizona judge awarded US$1.4 million in back pay and raises to 40 of those male professors who brought a discrimination suit against the university.

My advice is to write to the HR department of the fast food chain and file a complaint. Keep a record of the harassing events and send the documentation with the complaint. If the company has any scruples, they will take your complaint seriously. They might even have your managers and co-workers go through sexual harassment training, including the women. If the company is stupid enough to dismiss a discrimination complaint, then you have a copy of your complaint to file with a lawyer. I would find a good civil rights lawyer who works on contingency fee. You can sue each individual manager and the girls involved. You have a hostile work environment claim — that is obvious. If nothing else, the lawsuit will be sufficiently negative that they will think twice before abusing another male worker.

The dismissal of your complaints by managers and the resulting verbal abuse by them and your co-workers is sexual harassment, pure and simple. Do not hesitate to take action. I’ve seen men win these cases before. I understand that you feel you need your job but what you are going through is atrocious. The “take it like a man” line is said to psychologically weaken you and shut you up so don’t listen — it is a manipulative tactic meant to silence you. Remember that one definition of bravery is “the quality of mind enabling one to face danger or hardship resolutely.” If you stand up to these workplace bullies — and that’s what they are — in a constructive way, then you will know deep inside that you really are a brave person who has inner strength, despite what your co-workers say.

I do want to point out that it may not be constructive in your situation to shout back vicious things, for you have seen how it can backfire, as the women can easily use it against you and make you seem like the bad guy. Keep your cool, remember your plan of action, and do not stop until you are satisfied that your complaints have been taken seriously.

Readers, do you have any other advice for Len on how to handle his workplace situation? If male, have you experienced discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace? How, or was it resolved?

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Dr. Helen, I’ve recently been coming to grips with the fact that I was raped by a woman. While doing online research, I happened upon your blog and read several entries, most notably the relevant “Can Women be Predators?”

If you don’t mind, I’d like to share my story with you.

I am now an editor at a small book company and an activist but in my earlier life I was a Marine.

On a Friday night in 1990, after hanging out with a friend for several hours at a club — said friend disappeared for the night and left his female friend (stranger to me) without a ride and about 35 miles from home. I was plastered, and not going to drive as the club was next to a motel. She asked for a ride and I offered to drive her home in the morning as she was about 6 months pregnant, but I was going to have to get a motel room for the evening as I was drunk and not driving in such a state. We decided to split the cost of the room and both agreed that sleeping was all that was going to take place. She was pregnant and also not my type in the slightest. At the time, I thought I was in love with a woman attending a local college. I seem to recall we even had separate beds.

I woke up about 2 hours later — still destroyed by the alcohol — to find my clothes removed from the waist down and the girl on top of me wailing like a banshee and quite roughly enjoying herself. She had apparently brought me to erection — not hard as I’m one of those men who can hold one for hours, awake or asleep, sober or drunk. She told me everything was okay and to go back to sleep and despite my best effort to the contrary, I was unable to move or speak coherently in my still very inebriated and half-conscious state and did fall asleep again quickly.

After most of my drunken stupor wore off around 7 am or so, I awoke again to find her on top of me — this time with a more menacing attitude as she knew I was in a better position to respond physically this time. I had began to wiggle out from under her (taking care not to hurt her baby) when she sternly warned me to “be quiet” and “not be forceful” and made it clear that she would cry rape if I tried to stop it. I was stunned to say the least and not sure how to respond. I could easily have thrown her across the room and off of me, but was concerned for her child and took her threat very, very seriously. She said it so easily that I doubt I was her first.

I weighed my options for a moment and came to the conclusion that a sober, 6 or 7-month pregnant college student of 24 was far more likely to be believed by the authorities than a drunk 19-year old Marine in the best shape of his life. I frequented that club a lot and I’m sure several people saw me leave with her. I was pretty much f*cked — in more than one way — at that point.

I complied by lying still while she continued to warn and threaten me and she eventually orgasmed again and got off me. I don’t know how long the second rape transpired as I tried to disconnect my mind from that scene. Further, I have no idea how many times she had actually raped me that night (at least twice), but I was extremely sore for a few days. As a small favor, she turned out to be disease free.

I’ve always tried to pretend it was nothing or play it off like an uncomfortable memory of a wild night that ended weird whenever the memory surfaced.

After 17 years of pretending, the floodgates opened this week (thanks to a wonderful woman I work with) and it has been extremely difficult to deal with as my denial was swept away. I have a lot of counseling in my future in order to heal after the band-aid was ripped away.

This was very difficult to admit, not only personally, but to a very dear friend who has been there before. As you know, rape is about power and control. She had power over me that night, even though I could have easily thrown her across the room and off me. Her pregnancy and threat of jail against me were the only weapons she needed to have her way that night.

I spend a great deal of time on civil liberties issues fighting for those without a voice through my publications working on national coalitions with the ACLU and tons of other organization leaders spanning the spectrum from left to right. It is very hard to see myself in the role of victim now, given how much time I devote to advocacy efforts.

Thank you for listening and thank you for what you do.

When I read Mike’s story, I realized the horrible psychological predicament that this rapist put Mike in. If he turned her down or pushed her away, she could call rape and as he points out, a pregnant woman would no doubt be believed by authorities and his career as a Marine would have been over. The psychological trauma this caused him must have been excruciating. Can you imagine being blackmailed this way? I know of another man who had a similar event happen to him as a teenager, but he never did anything about it or reported the abuse.

Why?

Share on digg

Are you a doctor, lawyer, or other professional who belongs to an organization that you resent sending money to every year? I was until this year, when I decided it was better to quit the organization than spend money (hundreds of dollars at that) on one that promoted knee-jerk politically correct activity that I did not believe in.

I had belonged to the American Psychological Association (APA) since 1994 but did not rejoin this year. Why? Because their pet political projects are nothing I wish to fund.

Instead of improving the science and practice of psychology, the APA spends its time playing political advocate with resolutions ranging from defending abortion (I am not necessarily anti-abortion, but the APA should respect psychologists who are) to equating Zionism with racism. It supports research that bashes conservatives yet rarely, if ever, prints any countervailing views in its journals. One past APA president thinks so highly of men that he wrote an article entitled, “How to raise sons who won’t create sex scandals.” Where is the article about “How to raise daughters who won’t make false sex abuse claims?” I’m sure I won’t see that anytime soon as the APA puts ideology over science, which sadly is typical of most professional organizations these days.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is just as bad — they encourage doctors to act as nanny staters who feel justified in meddling in the lives of their patients’ parents to find out whether they keep a gun in the home or how much alcohol their parents consume. It would be more prudent for pediatricians to ask the parents if the child has access to a swimming pool or bike (more kids die from drownings or bike accidents than from gun accidents) if they were really concerned about Johnny’s health. But alas, this would not fulfill the need to act as political activists with the correct moral posturing.

Speaking of moral posturing, it seems that the American Bar Association (ABA) is getting in on the act  with a flyer that it promotes on domestic violence. This flyer was developed by the ABA’s Commission on Domestic Violence and highlights a series of 10 purported myths. The flyer, titled 10 Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them, is full of myths itself, yet because they are PC myths, they are rarely questioned.

One group that is questioning this flyer is RADAR — Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting — a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence. RADAR is in the process of writing a special report that refutes many of these myths — naturally most of the myths take the position that women are always victims of domestic violence and men are the perpetrators. The ABA ignores the research that says women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner aggression — for example,  their website flashes this “fact:” “84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse were female.” Research shows otherwise.

For example, a recent Centers for Disease Control survey of young adults found that in cases of one-way partner aggression, women were the instigators in 71% of cases. Fewer than one in five cases of female violence are explained by the woman acting in self-defense.

I do have to give the APA some credit here. The president of the organization, Gerald P. Koocher, spoke up in a somewhat non-PC way about domestic violence in this article:

Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them). In addition, data show that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly.

At least Koocher acknowledged that women can be participants in domestic violence. This acknowledgment, along with their stance that psychologists can continue to work at U.S. detention facilities, has warmed my heart to the APA just a little.

So my question to you is, do I join back up and throw away over $400 doing so or do I go straight to Amazon.com and buy the Kindle that I’ve had my eye on (especially after reading Charlie Martin’s review on it) and never look back?

Along the same lines, have any of you had a similar experience with your professional organization? Did you quit, or just resign yourself to their views?

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at  askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me; otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc.

Share on digg

For example, here is the opening to the article for dating a divorced woman:

Dating a woman who’s been down the aisle in the past is a bit different than dating someone who’s never been married … but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t lead to a wonderful and fulfilling relationship. You just need to be aware of a few special concerns, says Dr. Keith Anderson, author of On Your Own Again: The Down-to-Earth Guide to Getting Through a Divorce or Separation and Getting on with Your Life.

Note that if you are a man dating a divorced woman, it might lead to a wonderful and fulfilling relationship! At worst, a man will have “special concerns” about a divorced woman. However, what if you are a concerned woman who is dating a divorced man? Here is the opening for that article:

If you’ve just begun dating a divorced man, you may soon realize that the “regular” dating rules don’t always apply. Whether it’s due to encounters with his ex, issues concerning his children or heavier-than-average baggage, dating a divorced man can be especially challenging. For tips on how to enjoy a fulfilling relationship with a divorced man, heed the advice of Dr. Christie Hartman, author of Dating the Divorced Man: Sort Through the Baggage to Decide If He’s Right for You.

Note the difference: a divorced man has baggage and is a challenge. Dating a divorced woman is a special concern and leads to a fulfilling and wonderful relationship. Even the books mentioned are different. For divorced women, a book is cited with a nice title that is gender neutral; for divorced men, the title is more hostile and is geared towards what women can do to make sure this damaged man is right for her. Everything is about what women want in a relationship. The man just has to play along and conform to what women need.

But, those are just the openings of the articles. What about the actual advice? Is it less sexist? Nope. Here is an example of the writer’s advice for men dating divorced women:

Q: Are there any issues in particular that a man dating a divorced woman should keep an eye out for?

A: That she’s had at least one particularly bad experience with a man. You have to be respectful of that and recognize that because of this, she may be a bit careful and sensitive. It’s likely this experience will shape her interactions with you — especially when it comes to how things start out. Another big one is the issue of kids. Someone who is divorced may have kids, and that adds a whole level of complexity to the relationship. If you’ve never had kids, being faced with the scope of her parenting responsibilities may take away from the romance. …

It often depends on the divorced woman he’s dating. If you’re dating someone who is just fresh out of a divorce, she is hurting; it’s a difficult time for her, and it probably will be for you, too — much more so than if you were dating a woman who has never been through a divorce. In essence, you’re dating someone who’s going through a grief process. That same person six months or a year from now will likely be in a much more emotionally healthy place.

Interpretation: “Men, you better be sensitive that a hurting woman had a bad experience with a man. How tragic. It’s up to you to understand and be respectful.”

What if you’re a man who had a bad experience with a woman? Is that possible? It can’t be. If you hurt, it’s because you’re needy and may require too much attention from your new girlfriend:

Q: When it comes to dating divorced men, are there definite don’ts?

A: Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Find out if his divorce is final, when he separated, if he has children, why his marriage ended, etc. Also, don’t give too much too soon. Divorced men, especially if still divorcing or recently divorced, can be needy. Never give more than you are getting.

So, if you’re a woman, never give too much and don’t try too hard to be understanding. That’s a man’s job! And if she has kids, the author says one should be understanding if male, and be “pleasant and not a threat” to them; but if you are female and your boyfriend has kids, the only concern seems to be the impact for the woman on the relationship:

What’s more, women without kids may be surprised by the amount of time and care that children require, which will influence the freedom the couple has.

So, you get the idea. Men are to be accommodating to a divorced woman, understanding and sensitive to her and her kid’s needs. Women dating divorced men are to be understanding and sensitive to the women’s own needs.

Notice a pattern here? “Never give more than you are getting.” Now that’s a formula for relationship success!

Have you ever dated a divorced man or woman? If so, what were the issues? Did it work out or not? If you are a divorced man or woman, do you have any better, less sexist advice?

________________________________
If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me; otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Dr. Helen,

My wife has recently informed me that husbands are now expected to give their wives “push presents.” Quite frankly, the idea and the term disgust me. She is not pregnant, nor is she materialistic, shallow, or prone to feeling entitled to anything. To the contrary, she is an exceptional woman, and I don’t believe she was motivated to tell me this out of materialism. Thus, I found this somewhat out of character for her. I tried to convey my disgust to her, but she just did not seem to understand what I found so offensive about the idea.

To me the very term “push present” evokes materialism and a confusion of priorities at such a momentous time. It also seems to elevate the role of mother over the role of father right from the start. No doubt pregnancy is much harder on women than it is on the men that support them through it, but the idea that she is entitled to a gift (which is not the true spirit of gift giving) is just odious to me. It is likely that I would have been moved to give her a token gift as a celebration of her becoming a mother if and when that ever happened. However, as for now, I just don’t feel that way given the context in which I have learned about the practice. It seems like something right out of that model of aspirational female behavior, Sex in the City.

I am not asking you to agree with anything I have said, and it is possible that I have this all wrong. I am just looking to hear that someone I don’t know personally at least understands my point of view even if she does not necessarily agree with it. You have written about issues that are at least tangential to this subject, so I thought you might be interested in it.

Dear Reader,

First, let’s start with what might have motivated your wife to bring up the idea of push presents and then I will give you my thoughts on men giving women push presents in general. You allude to the fact that you do not yet have children (gleaned from your statement, “if and when that ever happened”) and I wonder if your wife brought up the “push presents” to get a sense of how you would feel about having kids in the near future. When she heard how upset and offended you were about the “push presents” (with good reason, I might add), she may have responded in a manner not characteristic of her because she felt that you were not responsive — that is, your statements about the “push presents” may have represented to her that you did not want her to become a mother at this time and she was hurt or upset or both.

I don’t know if the above fits your situation but it is something to consider, given that you say she is exceptional and is generally a caring person. That said, maybe she does think “push presents” are a good idea — and you asked for my opinion, which is as follows:

Apparently there are a number of women who, like your wife feel that push presents are expected for having children:

That’s “push” as in, “I the mother, having been through the wringer and pushed out this blessed event, hereby claim my reward.” Or “push” as in, “I’ve delivered something special and now I’m pushing you, my husband/boyfriend, to follow suit…”

A recent survey of more than 30,000 respondents by BabyCenter.com found that 38 percent of new mothers received a gift from their mate in connection with their child. Among pregnant mothers, 55 percent wanted one. About 40 percent of both groups said the baby was ample reward.

Well, at least a number of women felt the baby was enough. My problem is with the sense of entitlement. Should a present be expected? I say, “hell, no.” A husband is expected to be supportive of his pregnant wife, and help her with things like maybe going out and getting her some favorite foods, or rubbing her back or feet if they hurt, showing up for the birth to lend support, and of course, taking care of the baby afterward. But a husband should not be expected to give some kind of gift to pay his wife off for having their child, something that sounds so utterly unfeminist and dishonest, I don’t even know where to begin.

What a woman is saying when she expects a gift is that sex — and by extension, child-bearing — must be compensated by a man. This exchange boils down to legal prostitution (nothing wrong with prostitution in my book, but call a spade a spade). The problem here lies in the fact that wives who want this type of exchange often think of themselves as above being a prostitute, but indeed, they are not — they are just dishonest prostitutes who are pretending to be something else. And what about the act of paying for children? A diamond in exchange for a child? Isn’t this a little sick? And if this kind of exchange is okay for women, why not for men?

Perhaps husbands should start expecting “pro-presents” when they get a promotion — wives should be expected to get hubby a new car or perhaps some kind of fun technology he has been wanting, that new big screen TV, perhaps? If the wife has no money, surely there are other things she could do to show how much she cares that her husband is moving up the career ladder. I’ll let the guys fill in the blank here.

If women find the above suggestions insulting, then think how men might feel when women expect gifts from them for having their children. Something that is precious, amazing and part of the human experience has now been turned into a business transaction. Any man who feels pressured into giving a push present either has low self-esteem and/or fears his wife or perhaps the wife is just taking advantage of his chauvinistic attitude — he sees women as bearers of children who have to be reimbursed for their suffering. Neither of these is a good attitude to have in a marriage. In an equal partnership, there would be a sense that having kids is a shared activity, not something that one suffering partner does and the other reimburses her for. What happened to being a loving partner who does not expect her partner to pay her off for having sex and then kids? Surely that should not be too much to ask.

I understand that for some women, having kids is hard and painful, but so is passing a kidney stone and I doubt the majority of women think they should get diamonds for that (or maybe they do). And certainly, if a man voluntarily wants to give a nice gift to his wife for becoming a mother, that’s sweet, just as it is sweet to present the husband with a gift voluntarily for becoming a dad, but it is the expectation that one is to be reimbursed for the act of child-birth that is troubling here.

So readers, what do you think of “push presents”? If male, should husbands be giving gifts to their wives as payment for having kids or, if female, do you feel entitled to a “push present” from your husband, and if so, why?

________________________________

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Let me give you an example of the professional man who keeps other men down. If you work in — or are involved in — academia, you will know what I mean. There are a number of older guys, in their sixties or so, who worked with the civil rights movement and considered this their heyday. They are now full professors who pride themselves on helping women and minorities get ahead. They come into every faculty meeting harping about the need to give a step-up to the women in the department or they demand that a minority be hired for some position, meanwhile overlooking the qualified men who should also be in the running. You, the young, untenured guy in the department, often wonder why this deadwood won’t step down if he cares so much — and give up his much-coveted chair to some minority. But no such luck, the guy is reveling in his position and perks, all the while demanding that men like you give up the right to theirs. You realize that if this traitor was looking to get hired as tenured faculty today, he might not stand a chance. Does this sound all too familiar?

But that’s just academia, where a lot of weird stuff happens that doesn’t really translate over to the “real world,” right? Wrong. Take a look at what is happening to men down on their luck in the real world — the “justice” system. There also, we see the family court system, often with male judges who have no qualms about giving fellow men the shaft. The reason for this, according to Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody, is often attributed to simple, old-fashioned prejudice:

Though formal legal equality between the genders inhibits judges from expressing their biases openly, occasionally, some still do. “I ain’t never seen a calf following a bull,” declares a Georgia superior court judge. “They always follow the cow. So I always give custody to the mamas.”

Last time I looked, cows and bulls weren’t heading to divorce court. It sounds like this judge needs to go work as a farmhand rather than working to destroy people’s lives. Times have changed and many “chivalrous” male judges haven’t changed with them.

Even rich men are hurt by this biased system set up and perpetuated by their fellow men. Even Paul McCartney with all of his success and money was caught up in the court system in England. He had to hand over millions, time with his daughter, and property to Heather Mills — and this was considered a triumph! The summary of the divorce judgment indicates that the judge based the award on what looks like an antiquated law of chivalry — no doubt drafted by men:

The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.

What would have happened had McCartney not been rich? He might be toiling away at some job now to pay off his ex just for the privilege of her company for four years. Male chivalry on the part of the court system here and in England plays a part in handing over these outrageous awards. The system — instituted and maintained by many men, as well as women — works to keep men financially down.

In terms of high-level businessmen such as CEOs or politicians, I think it was Scott Adams or Drew Carey or one of those Dilbert-like guys who said in response to the constant outcry that men run the world, “those are other men.” Whoever said it — I have searched high and low for this quote and finally gave up — was correct. The majority of men are not Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, or even Bill Moyers. The majority are just your average Joe trying to make it through the day like everyone else. In a speech to the American Psychological Association entitled “Is There Anything Good about Men?” Roy F. Baumeister points out that while it looks like all men are at the top, the majority are not:

When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.

Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.

The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? U.S. Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men.

The problem is that the men at the top both simultaneously give the illusion that all men are on top and at the same time, some — not all by any means; many leaders are quite fine — hurt other men by setting rules and regulations for those under them that damage all men further. How do they do it? Once they have made it, these men try to change the rules for others. Bill Gates made his fortune by using the capitalist system — now that he has his billions, this system is only worthy of his contempt. And don’t get me started on what Bill Clinton has done with sexual harassment law that has left men in his wake vulnerable to lawsuits and losing their livelihoods and their reputations. Notice that Bill has never really suffered too much for his transgressions; he has made millions, is still in the public eye, and doesn’t seem to be suffering despite selling his fellow brethren down the river.

Finally, ordinary men also keep other men down (see this comment section at my blog for more on this). Chivalrous men who think women can’t make it on their own and need men’s protection at any cost, as well as men who stick their head in the sand (ostriches) and blame other men for their problems or say that the problem does not exist, only serve to perpetuate misandry in the culture. In addition, men are indoctrinated to say bad things about other men. How many times do you hear men saying “he’s a dog, a deadbeat, a loser,” often without proof? And these are their friends. Some men buy into the “men are evil” myth hook, line, and sinker. It is often not warranted.

What do you think, are men playing a role in the anti-male bias in our society?
________________________________________________

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc. And of course, if anyone has experience dealing with this issue, please comment also.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

I never realized how much I hated carrying a purse until this week when a service person ripped off some money out of my wallet — about 200 bucks. It sucked because it was my spending money for the week. Now it belonged to some thief who had free and easy access to my purse because I turned my back on it for a few minutes without thinking. If I had a wallet in my front pocket, that would have been a lot harder to pull off. I started to get mad about the stolen money and ruminate about why people ripped others off like that, which probably was fruitless — the truth is, people steal. The question was, what could I do to prevent it from happening again? The answer? Quit carrying a damn purse around, especially a Coach bag. It might as well have a big label attached to it: Take Me Now.

I started thinking about how many hours I have spent guarding that purse. Not only me, but a number of women are constantly clutching their bags to their sides. For example, blogger Rachel Lucas states:

I don’t know about you, but when I’m in an elevator with other people, I ALWAYS CLUTCH MY PURSE no matter what. Even if the only other occupant is a 5-year-old white kid or a 90-year-old blind Chinese woman. In fact, if I’m anywhere in public with a purse, I AM CLUTCHING IT.

What a waste of energy! Keeping up with a purse is actually exhausting. Blogger Ann Althouse wonders if purse-carrying is a feminist issue, leading her to ask why women’s clothes don’t have pockets — and determines that the reason is anti-feminism:

I used to view clothing manufacturers as anti-feminist because they gave men pockets but denied them to women. Even when they gave us pockets, they were often shallow and slanted — designed for the elegant placement of a hand, perhaps. The clothing manufacturers were part of the elaborate system designed to oppress women. I’m still a little irked about it!

Well, getting irked at the clothing manufacturers or even the “patriarchy” because there are few pockets in women’s pants is rather silly, though I understand the sentiment. But it is the women themselves who are slaves to fashion. Don’t believe me? Try going to the opening of a local Sephora (a make-up store, for those of you who aren’t “in the know”) and watch the parade of women swoon and swarm through the store as if they are on a drug-induced high. Then take a look at the puzzled faces of the men or boys they’ve dragged to the place while they watch the mysterious behavior of these women who are practically foaming at the mouth about make-up and tell me that this fashion — along with a lust for purses — is anything but the desire of the women themselves doing the longing. Many women don’t want pockets for the same reason that they wear make-up. They think it makes them look good and they want to impress — mainly — other women. But enough of this.

Back to my purse-carrying dilemma. I have always watched guys with envy for the way they have so little to carry around. “How do they do it?” I wondered.

I decided to try carrying just a wallet — a nondescript black one like this — and see if it was worth punting the purse for a freer lifestyle. I thought back to an interview my husband and I did with Norah Vincent, author of Self-Made Man: One Woman’s Year Disguised as a Man — and realized that while I could never pass for a guy or live as a guy (not that it’s easy, as Vincent found out: it’s tough being a guy), I could at least steal some guy traits that might make my life a bit simpler, and that included carrying a wallet. Men seem calmer than women, and maybe not having to keep up with a purse 24/7 is part of the reason.

How has it worked out? It’s hard! The first day I carried just a wallet, I kept looking for my purse and feeling that I had forgotten something. By the third day, I was over this but I didn’t have all of the things I needed such as various keys, my chapstick, stamps, my address book, my pepper spray, various food, gloves — and carrying spare change in my pocket drives me crazy. It jingles and falls out when you sit down. Is this normal? Are there some tricks of the trade that I do not understand here?

For those of you who carry just a wallet, how the heck do you do it? Where do you put extra things that you need? Do you carry a man-purse or a briefcase, which really is just a man’s version of a purse? I would really like to make this move to just carrying a wallet work — if there are some secrets to it, let me know. And are there any other man-traits that might make women’s lives easier? Help me out, guys!

_____________________

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader,” etc. And of course, if any women have experience dealing with this type of money issue, please comment also.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee, and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Do our choices in cars really reflect our true personality traits? That’s what they say, but Dr. Helen Smith isn’t sure.

Today, instead of taking a question from a reader, I have my own question I have been toying with as of late. Do our choices in cars really reflect our true personality traits? I wondered about this after reading a “psychographic profile” of hybrid-car owners that found the following:

…people who drive hybrid cars are 78% more likely than the general population to be highly creative….That is, they are inventive and imaginative and also tend to be emotionally sensitive and intellectually curious…

They tend to be more open-minded, more spontaneous, and more assured of their ability to lead others, the Mindset Media found.

According to JD Power, hybrid buyers and potential hybrid buyers tend to read magazines as such as The New Yorker, Sunset and Wired and are likely to watch cable television channels such as CNN and CNN Headline News.

And naturally, most hybrid owners turn out to be–shock, progressive types–those bastions of openness and creativity (just don’t mention Fox News or Limbaugh around them or they’ll break out in a rant about censoring these idiots). Before I comment on this hooey, let’s first start with the obvious–what the heck is a psychographic profile? Apparently, it is a fancy name for a profile done by the company mentioned above, Mindset Media, on various products to find out what types of characteristics people who buy that particular product have or don’t have. For example:

People with high self-esteem are more likely to drink premium coffee. Altruists floss more, and deliberate people pay off their credit cards more regularly. Pragmatists like minivans, but station wagons appeal more to spontaneous types. And highly open people buy organic foods at nearly three times the rate of the general population.

Do you ever wonder if some of these tests are just geared towards making people feel “good” about themselves, particularly if they have what are considered “progressive traits” so that it will reinforce their buying habits, adding to those who smugly go around feeling that they are “saving the world?” The bias in some of these tests is fairly obvious, as pointed out by this commenter:

Before hybrid owners break their arms patting themselves on the back, they should be aware of a couple of things about these “studies”. While there is no reason to doubt the honesty of the J. D. Powers study, it is simply another example of the old truism: only the wealthy can afford liberalism. Though the percentages would differ, you’d no doubt see a similar pattern if you polled for “luxury vehicle” instead of “hybrid vehicle”. If and when hybrid vehicles begin to cost about the same as conventional vehicles, such a study might prove interesting.

As for the “psychographic profile”, using the title “Low Dogmatism” for the category of people who “disdain so-called moral authorities, especially the conservative kind” is a dishonesty sufficient to justify ignoring it as OBVIOUSLY biased.

Good point, I wonder how and if the personality of these owners will change as the price falls on hybrids so that more people can afford them? And why is it that the bigger the car, the more likely it is to be assigned with a negative personality style? For example, this article entitled “Auto ego: What your car says about your personality” states:

“The Hummer screams the need for power and control and domination over all others,” says consumer psychologist Charles Kenny of the research firm The Right Brain People in Cordova, Tenn. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger loves the Hummer. It’s Kenny’s opinion, based on Democratic presidential hopeful and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s personality, that Clinton would “love to drive” one.
“If there is a boss car on the road, the best one to fulfill the need for power is the Hummer,” Kenny says. “It fits her to a T.”

Doug Brauner, of ESPN’s “Autotrader.com DRIVE” and owner of Car Czar auto-repair centers in Citrus Heights and Sacramento, differs in his assessment of Hummer owners.

“Overcompensating, you lack a certain amount of self-esteem in certain areas,” he says of those who buy Hummers. “I don’t want to begrudge our governor, but there’s an empty card in your soul if you drive these things.”

Yep, one’s choice of car makes them an empty soul if it doesn’t jive with progressive dogma–even Hillary Clinton is fair game because she is not always seen as a true progressive–and certainly Schwarzenegger deserves a dig because, despite evidence to the contrary, he is a Republican. And why is it that you have high self-esteem if you buy premium coffee but low self esteem if you buy a Hummer? Are you starting to see a trend here? Are Starbucks liberals who drive hybrids the only ones with any consistently positive traits?

I drive a Mercedes C230. It’s their bottom of the line car that I bought because I love the service at Mercedes. My husband drives a hybrid and while he is “all that,” he doesn’t really fit the profile of the “typical” hybrid owner. I don’t really see the car as a reflection of my personality but maybe I’m missing something.

Do you think cars really reflect people’s personality traits? What car do you drive and is the brand and model consistent with your personality traits?

____________________________

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question — if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc. And of course, if any women have experience dealing with this type of money issue, please comment also.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Increasingly, women are bringing in bigger bucks than their partners. How do wives cope with a wounded male ego? Dr. Helen Smith tackles the issue — and solicits suggestions from the guys.

By Helen Smith

Okay, male readers, today, a female reader — let’s call her “Lilly” for clarity’s sake — is asking for your help. Here is her email:

Dr. Helen,

I’ve recently found myself bringing in more money than my husband, and it’s causing problems. It’s not because he doesn’t work hard — he works more than me (which probably just adds insult to injury).

I’ve been looking up this topic online. Everywhere I look it is just women commenting on how to make the man feel better, but I’d like to hear from men on what works for them.

Thanks — Please don’t use my name! For my husbands sake!

Dear “Lilly,”

You didn’t tell me much about yourself or what the specific problems are between you and your husband in terms of money issues. I will, therefore, have to be a bit general and you can use what you find relevant. I will start with some stats on women who are the chief breadwinners in their family, what advice is out there and then move to some specifics about what you can do to keep money from coming between you and your husband.

This letter could have been written by many women around the United States. Times are changing and women are bringing in more and more of the household income, about 43% according to one study [this percentage seems awfully high to me, given that so many women work part time]. Although there are no official stats on this trend, wives are the chief breadwinners in one-third of all marriages, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. In addition, women from ages 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, or a median wage of $35,653, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent.

I remember reading in a women’s magazine, Cosmo, I think, some good advice to women in these cities who are bringing in more than their guy — first, don’t brag about it, and second, pay for dinner and don’t make a big deal about it.

Simplistic advice but not bad for a start for the woman who earns more than her guy.

However, much of the advice for women who earn more than their husbands ranges from the downright sexist to the ridiculous (although some of it is sensible) and is hard to sort out. For example, MSN (who seems to slam men every chance they get) had the following “gems” for breadwinner women:

We could spend hours debating the emotional nuances of what it means — for feminism? for the family? — that the male-as-breadwinner species may be as endangered as the two-toed sloth. But in order to find and keep your financial sanity as a female breadwinner, you have to accept a few basic laws of nature: You’re in charge. This doesn’t mean you and your partner can’t share equally in financial decisions, but you need to accept the fact that you will probably be the one to initiate most discussions, monitor how your money is organized and orchestrate your financial future.

Clarify roles and expectations. Given that female breadwinners lack for role models, you have to start with what you’ve got — and improvise. That means sitting down with your spouse and expressing what your ideas and expectations are for everything from spending to laundry — and likewise listening to his.

If you are hoping to emasculate your husband, turn him against you and possibly end up in divorce court, follow the above advice. Otherwise, it is not worth the pixels it’s written on. You are not in charge just because you earn more money than your husband, this is ridiculous. When men treat their wives like this, is is considered abuse and they are told to knock it off. Redbook has a good article on how to handle money issues more gracefully:

Which brings up another he-makes-less hazard: battles over the proverbial purse strings. “It’s essential to give him a sense of control over financial issues,” says Haltzman. “One of the most destructive things you could do to your marriage is say, ‘I earn all the money, I make all the decisions.’ Powerlessness is death to a man.” Jane and John Metcalfe’s solution: “We make all decisions based on a collective need, rather than on who earns what,” says Jane. All their money goes into a joint checking account so that “his” and “hers” immediately become “theirs.” Combining resources is actually common, says Minetor: “The majority of these couples pool their money, and the spouse with more time and interest manages it.” That’s a good idea, says Haltzman, because having to ask for money can be humiliating for the lower earner.

A high-earning woman needs to make it a priority to respect her husband — or she could end up with a man who feels like this:

Craig, an actor and scriptwriter, meanwhile, feels equally unhappy.

“Being a kept man does strange things to the male psyche,” he says.

“The price is no cash, no liberty and precious little respect.”

“Our respect for our partner rests on whether they are fulfilling their gender expectations,” says Professor Janet Reibstein, psychologist and author of The Best-Kept Secret: Men and Women’s Stories of Enduring Love. “Higher-earning women struggle to respect their low-paid men because social prejudice says that a man should keep his woman.

This struggle to respect him may be apparent to a man who makes less money or he may feel he is not getting respect even if the woman feels she is giving it to him. How can you make sure that your man feels appreciated for who he is and his qualities and not just a paycheck?

First, treat him the same way you would want to be treated if he made more money. Don’t make it the focal point of your lives but rather use it as a tool to make your life easier and more manageable. Be open about finances and talk over purchases as equals, not as the “person in charge.”

Make sure your resentment doesn’t build up over time. Men tend to do things a bit differently at times around the house and you may have to change your standards if you find that you expect him to do things exactly the way you might. Let him know how great it is when he does other chores, such as yard work, fixing electrical or plumbing problems or throwing ball with Johnny. These are equally important to household chores but often get overlooked because women do not do them as often.

Keep an eye on your sex life. In this article on high-earning women, it states:

When low-earning men feel belittled and high-earning women feel resentment, their sex life inevitably wanes.

“It’s common for high-earning women to withhold sex,” says Kathleen Cox.

Being sexually available is a large part of the way a “kept” woman “earns” her spending power.

“But if women are the richer partner,” she says, “they have power to refuse sex. They think, “I don’t want to have sex, so why should I?””

Using sex as a weapon is a big no-no and should never be done if one wants a decent marriage.

Finally, Lilly, these are only suggestions. You may not have any of the above problems and it may simply be that your husband feels upset that the traditional roles are reversed and this has lead to unpleasant feelings on his part. In that case, I turn the floor over to male readers to help with what you can do to help him and yourself cope.

So, male readers, do you have any advice for Lilly on how to help her husband cope with her increased paycheck? Does your wife make more than you? Does it bother you or do you feel good about it? Let her (and the rest of us) know if your significant other’s increased paycheck is an issue for you and if it is, how you felt and what you wanted your wife, girlfriend to do or not do?
____________________________

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc. And of course, if any women have experience dealing with this type of money issue, please comment also.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Why do today’s men run from commitment – indefinitely delaying settling down in a marriage they take seriously, and having kids? Dr. Helen Smith asks whether they are indeed pampered eternal adolescents more interested in exploding toilets and video games than real life, or if they are simply making a logical choice when “the reward for being an adult in our society is so low, especially for men.”

By Helen Smith

I’ll start out this column with a follow-up to last month’s column on the “47-year old virgin,” I heard back from him about the replies from all of you and this is what he had to say:

I was pleased that there was so much compassion and honest concern voiced by many of the commenters. They brought up many interesting points and in many ways made me feel much less isolated.

He states he will seek professional help and follow up at a later time. Thank you to all who responded and to those who truly seemed to care about helping another reader deal with this complex issue.

Now, I’ll turn to another complex issue from reader Eric who emails about an article by Kay Hymowitz entitled, “Child-Man in the Promised Land,” a rather insulting look at the Peter Pan Syndrome in today’s young men:

Dr. Helen:

Kay Hymowitz obviously spent a lot of time researching this piece on why young men delay marriage. To be honest, some of its themes struck home with me, but there’s one obvious deficiency here that invalidates the entire article. Care to guess what it is?

For all her work, Ms. Hymowitz never talked to an actual man. Sure, she watched the Man Show, read a couple issues of Maxim, read a couple of humor Web sites and quoted plenty of studies on the market potential of video games. And yes, by looking at all of those, I’m sure she could glean some truth about the young American male.

Then again, if I spent a couple of months reading Cosmopolitan and Redbook, catching up on Grey’s Anatomy via the DVD box set, watched the Lifetime Movie Network and re-runs of the Bachelor, I could probably come to some interesting conclusions about American women and write an article about it in a serious tome like City Journal. Unfortunately, I’m guessing nobody would take me seriously unless I actually chose to speak to some real live actual women before coming to any conclusions.

Why does this sort of tripe get taken seriously?

Dear Eric,

Good question. This “tripe” gets taken seriously because the focus is on “why men are bad,” which is the new slogan for the 21st century.

For those of you who don’t know her, Hymowitz is the author of Marriage and Caste in America whose main thesis seems to be that marriage is important to society. I read over her article and was rather appalled at the lack of understanding on the part of Hymowitz as to why men don’t marry. We interviewed her for a podcast on the Glenn and Helen Show and she seemed to be level-headed and understanding–but I guess everyone has their blind spot when it comes to why men don’t toe the line and provide society with what it needs or wants despite little reward and plenty of headache for being a modern day husband and father. Instead, Hymowitz, like so many other writers and naysayers blames men for not marrying because their “default state” is perpetual adolescence:

But this history suggests an uncomfortable fact about the new SYM: he’s immature because he can be. We can argue endlessly about whether “masculinity” is natural or constructed—whether men are innately promiscuous, restless, and slobby, or socialized to be that way—but there’s no denying the lesson of today’s media marketplace: give young men a choice between serious drama on the one hand, and Victoria’s Secret models, battling cyborgs, exploding toilets, and the NFL on the other, and it’s the models, cyborgs, toilets, and football by a mile. For whatever reason, adolescence appears to be the young man’s default state, proving what anthropologists have discovered in cultures everywhere: it is marriage and children that turn boys into men. Now that the SYM can put off family into the hazily distant future, he can—and will—try to stay a child-man……a freewheeling marketplace gives him everything that he needs to settle down in pig’s heaven indefinitely.

Yep, it’s just that freewheeling marketplace or an avoidance of deep attachments or whatever that is keeping men from taking marriage seriously, settling down and having kids. But I don’t think that’s the whole story. What Hymowitz misses is that men are on a marriage strike, not necessarily because they are perpetual adolescents or avoiding deep attachments to others but because the reward for being an adult in our society is so low, especially for men.

It’s really simple Psychology 101 (or Economics 101) — make something negative enough and people will avoid it, make it positive, and more people will engage in that particular behavior.

Nowadays, for many men, the negatives of marriage for men often outweigh the positives. Therefore, they engage in it less often. Not because they are bad, not because they are perpetual adolescents, but because they have weighed the pros and cons of marriage in a rational manner and found the institution to be lacking for them. It’s a sensible choice for some and the video games, magazines, and humor websites that Hymowitz disses are a way to fill one’s time with fun activities that don’t tell you that you suck, are an “unfinished person,” emotionally detached or on your way to jail for fake domestic violence charges. People used to treat men better than this.

Now, Atlas is shrugging and everyone is coming out of the woodwork to explain why. But like reader Eric said, if you want to know why fewer men are getting married, go to the source, go ask some actual men and really listen to what they have to say. You may be surprised to find out how grown-up, adult and rational single young men really are.

***

What’s your take? Do you think today’s single young men are “child-men in the promised land,” or rational adults who are turning to video games and alternative lifestyles because those are more rewarding activities?

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Middle-aged virgins are not necessarily the stuff of comedy. Choosing to wait is just fine, writes Dr. Helen Smith — unless past sexual abuse or a debilitating lack of confidence is making the choice for you.

by Helen Smith

A reader is concerned about being a middle-aged virgin:

Dr. Helen,

I am a middle-aged virgin. I’m a 47-year-old heterosexual male and I’ve never had sex with a woman.

I saw that movie, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and it hit way too close to home. (Also Steve Carell looks a lot like me in that movie, which bothers me.)

I think that there must be a lot of middle-aged virgins out there, but most people are too ashamed to admit that.

Back when I was fifteen years old I was violently, sexually assaulted by an older teenager at high school. I never told anyone about it, but that experience has made me afraid of intimate contact with anyone.

My co-worker listens to Tom Leykis on the radio and he would describe me as a man who has “got no game” but I don’t want to be the kind of man who would trick women into having sex with him. I can’t believe that I’m alone in not being able to “hook up” with the opposite sex. What do you think? Are there a great number of people in the United States that have not been able to have sexual relationships yet, or am I just a statistical irregularity?

Thank you for your time. I have always respected your opinions.

Dear Reader:

I think that rather than focus on whether or not you are a statistical anomaly, it would make more sense to focus on why you have not yet had a sexual relationship. There are a number of reasons men are virgins after the age of 40; they feel comfortable this way and have no desire for sex (asexuality); their faith prohibits premarital sex; they want sex but don’t know how to approach a woman and feel unable to “compete,” (in other words, “got no game”); and finally, prior sexual abuse that may have interfered developmentally with their desire and/or their confidence in attracting women.

Some men are asexual, I have met some that don’t care about sex and deny being interested. There are even studies that put asexuality at about 1% of the general population. Some men are religious and feel that it is wrong for them to have premarital sex. They have never been married and stay true to their religious faith. These two reasons are perfectly legitimate and if they apply to you, you may want to learn how to accept both as reasonable alternatives.

However, I have a feeling that the latter two reasons I mentioned, a lack of confidence in approaching women and the history of violent abuse that you mentioned may be at the core of why you have not had sex by now. If it is lack of confidence, know that you are not alone; other guys like Brian on a thread regarding middle-aged male virgins had this to say:

FYI, I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 34…..The reasons were clear. Being 5`5 and overweight, I wasn’t that good looking. There are times that I was just completely shut out of the dating scene entirely. People have asked me how could I go for so long? My answer, how could you want something that you have never experienced. I didnt know what sex was until I had it myself. I will have to admit though, I was pretty horny because I was J*rking off twice a day.I don’t think there as many female virgins(if any) because there is more pressure on men to perform. It`s simple as that..

Perhaps your lack of confidence is a result of being terrified to engage in sex with anyone. A violent sexual encounter in your formative years can shape how you view sexuality as an adult. Unfortunately, you may now tie sexuality with violence, shame and unhappiness. Since you have not had any other sexual experience to prove otherwise, this negative pairing may be forefront in your mind when you think of trying to approach someone of the opposite sex.

This terror may keep you from entering into a relationship that might lead to possible sexual relations. My suggestion at this point is to seek therapy with a licensed therapist or certified sex therapist who is knowledgeable about sexual abuse and sexuality. You mentioned that you have never told anyone about the sexual abuse you mentioned; discussing the abuse and its impact on your future sexuality in confidence with a professional might start you on the road to the relationship you are looking for or help you to realize that you are where you need to be. Good luck and keep me informed.

Any male readers out there who started to have sex at a later age than is typical — after your early twenties — why did you wait, and do you have any advice for our “40-year-old virgin”? If so, drop it in the comments below.

——————

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com . This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.
———

Share on digg

There’s a double standard in our society when it comes to sexual abuse, writes Dr. Helen Smith, who reminds readers of the fact that many choose to overlook: women also commit sexual offenses against children.

by Helen Smith

Should men be kicked out of the church nursery for the crime of being male? Reader Sarah thinks this is unfair–so do I:

Dear Dr. Helen,
My question is in relation to an incident that happened recently at our church. A friend of mine was assigned to teach our son’s nursery class (like Sunday School, but for tiny ones ages 18 months to 3 years). There are about a dozen children in this class, so there were supposed to be two teachers, but they hadn’t assigned anyone yet, so my friend’s husband volunteered to help his wife out. A parent of one of the children complained to the bishop that a man was teaching the nursery class, so my friend’s husband was asked not to help out with the class anymore.

I understand that there’s been a problem in my church in recent years (not in my congregation, but in other congregations) with some high-profile cases where a male teacher, teaching alone, sexually abused a child in the Sunday School class, so I thought it was a good idea when they instituted the two-teacher rule (every class is to have two teachers, which for practical reasons is a good idea). But I think this is going too far. Women can’t kick all the men out of positions of caring for children, and then turn around and complain that men don’t help out with the kids or that there’s a shortage of teachers. I would like to go to the bishop and complain about this, but I need some facts first. I am familiar with conditional probabilities and would like to crunch a few numbers for him.

My question is, what are the actual chances that a man would sexually abuse a child vs. a woman abusing a child? What is the incidence of sexual abuse in general? What percentage of sexual abuses of children are committed by men vs. women?

Thanks,
Sarah

Dear Sarah,

Your bishop may not be as safe as he thinks if he uses only female teachers. Although PC books and statistics would like us to believe that women do not commit sexual offenses against children, this is not the case. For example, here is some interesting information on female sex offenders from the Canadian Children’s Rights Council:

As recently as 10 years ago, it was a common assumption that females did not or could not sexually abuse children or youth. Even some professionals working in the field believed that women represented only about 1% to 3% of sexual abusers at most. However, mounting research evidence about sexual abuse perpetration at the hands of teen and adult females has begun to challenge our assumptions, though these earlier and dated views still tend to predominate.

The percentage of women and teenage girl perpetrators recorded in case report studies is small and ranges from 3% to 10% (Kendall-Tackett and Simon, 1987; McCarty, 1986; Schultz and Jones, 1983; Wasserman and Kappel, 1985). When the victim is male, female perpetrators account for 1 % to 24% of abusers. When the victim is female, female perpetrators account for 6% to 17% of abusers (American Humane Association, 1981; Finkelhor and Russell, 1984; Finkelhor et al., 1990). In the Ontario Incidence Study, 10% of sexual abuse investigations involved female perpetrators (Trocme, 1994). However, in six studies reviewed by Russell and Finkelhor, female perpetrators accounted for 25% or more of abusers. Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990) found that adult females were abusers of males 37% of the time and female adolescents 19% of the time. Both of these rates are higher than the same study reported for adult and teen male abusers.

Part of the problem is that “86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren’t believed, so the crimes go unreported and don’t get prosecuted.”

A July 2000 Justice Department report found that females account for 4% of those sexually abusing children under 18. The report also says they account for 12% of those molesting kids younger than 6. In a U.S. Department of Education report released in June 2004, at least 20% of students reported sexual misconduct whether verbal or physical by a female teacher or aide.

This latter statistic does not surprise me. I remember in junior high a female biology teacher who was notorious for having sex with the middle school boys. People thought it was funny. It really isn’t. Some boys can also have psychological issues that are as serious or more serious than girls who are sexually abused at a young age by an authority figure.

In terms of how many people say they are sexually abused, some sources say “about 25 percent of women and up to 17 percent of men say they experienced sexual abuse as children, ranging from seeing someone exposing themselves to intercourse. Boys are less likely to report abuse.”

Naturally, people are concerned– abuse by someone in authority against a child is a betrayal of trust and is a terrible thing. However, when a woman does it, it is often not taken as seriously. We seem to have a double standard in our society when it comes to abuse committed by men and by women. Female sex offenders are said to be few and far between,yet female teachers are making the news for abuse cases. However, excuses are made for these women but not for men:

“Men are demonized, women are diagnosed. Men are beasts, but women are troubled or mentally ill,” said media scholar Matthew Felling in an interview with Fox News. In fact, accounts of women sexual offenders are often more titillating than harsh. Felling calls the news coverage of young, attractive teachers involved with their students “part crime drama, part Penthouse letter.”

Part of the problem is that even when women commit sexual offenses or violent offenses, we often don’t consider that a crime, or society finds it much less threatening and tends to be more lenient. That makes all the statistics questionable.

But even if men do pose a greater risk, would that justify this discrimination? In our society, we generally oppose “profiling” of racial groups on the basis that they’re more likely to commit crimes of violence or terrorism. Why is this sort of profiling somehow different? Ask your bishop these questions and see what he has to say. I do want to add that the two teacher rule sounds like a good one in order to protect all parties.

What do you think–should men be kicked out of the church nursery? The other question I have is, have any male or female readers out there had any experience with a tryst with an older woman while they were very young? If so, were you scarred, appreciative, or did you feel somewhere in-between?

—————————
If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

The time for alimony as we know it may have passed, writes Dr. Helen Smith. “No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends.”

by Helen Smith

An anonymous reader writes in:

Dear Dr. Helen,

I recently read your post about a man whose wife had killed their son and now she wants alimony while in prison! It seems you didn’t think this was a very good idea and I agree. But my real question to you is “what is your personal opinion of alimony–do you think it’s passé?”

Dear Anonymous Reader,

Good question. First, let me make clear that we are distinguishing alimony here from child support which is a whole different matter. Children have to be supported by someone and are in a different category than grown-ups who should be held responsible for their lives and their livelihood. I will discuss alimony only which is defined as “an allowance for support made under court order to a divorced person by the former spouse, usually the chief provider during the marriage. Alimony may also be granted without a divorce, as between legally separated persons.”

Personally, I have a hard time justifying long term alimony payments to men or women in today’s society. Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair. However, in today’s world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends. That said, if we are going to have alimony laws, I believe that men and women should be held to an equal standard under the law. But apparently, many women do not feel that equality holds when they are the ones who have to take responsibility.

In this Forbes article, women are angry about paying alimony:

A lot of women are indignant now that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, says Carol Ann Wilson, a certified financial divorce practitioner in Boulder, Colo. “There’s this sense of, ‘What’s yours is ours, but what’s mine is mine,’” Wilson says. “My first response to that is, ‘All these years we have been looking for equality; well, this is what it looks like.’ I think women get angrier about having to pay than men do.”

Or take a look at what a couple of female commenters have to say when Kevin Federline asks Britney for more spousal support:

Do you believe this guy? Still asking for money. He is using the kids as big ticket items for his greed. The LAZY ASS! why don’t he get a job…..Kevin Fed…….LOSER!

this broke ass wants brittenys kids and more of her money???? what the hell. this lazy worthless piece oof shit nedds a fukin job. he wudnt even have a life without brittany

If Kevin was a woman, would we see this type of outrage? You might think K-Fed is a poser and a loser (and in a way, he is) but many men who have written to me say that they secretly find it satisfying that the shoe is on the other foot for a change and women are getting to experience what men have been dealing with for ages.

Men’s rights columnist Glenn Sacks points out another frustrated woman who got stuck paying alimony and set up a website called WomenPayingSupport.com whose motto is “Be a Man Among Men…Don’t Ask for Spousal Support.”

My motto? “Real men are champions of justice and don’t give in to manipulation from gender ‘feminists’ who want to have their cake and eat it too.” That’s not the way that equality works. If women don’t have to pay, then neither should men. People should learn to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their choices. I say abolish alimony altogether.

If alimony laws continue to hurt only men, nothing will change. But once women are affected in more and more numbers, there will be an outcry for change. As Tom Leykis, a nationally-syndicated talk show host stated, “The only way to abolish alimony is to make women pay it.” Only then will alimony laws be considered passé and dropped altogether except for extreme short term cases, as it should be.

What do you think–should alimony die a quick death, should it continue as is or change to somewhere in-between?

—————————
If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Dr. Helen Smith’s column, Should Men Get Married? caused quite a stir. Now she looks at the other side of the coin – and offers some tips for women on improving the odds of happiness if they do step up to the altar.

By Helen Smith

Columnist and blogger Don Surber emails to make an excellent suggestion:

Dr. Helen:

I will suggest following up your column on “Should men marry?” with “Should women marry?”

Dear Don:

I concur–we need equal time for women (or the men who are interested in the topic) to get a chance to let us know if they think that marriage is worth the gamble. If you had asked me in my teens or twenties if women should get married, I would have stated a resounding, “No!” But now that I am older and wiser and been married over thirteen years, I have to say from my own personal perspective, the answer would be “Yes” but only if your partner is the right person for you, and you understand what you are getting into.

There have been so many mixed messages over the years for women about marriage from feminists and others who, on one hand tell women to make their own decisions and be independent, but when they do want to be married or do something that goes against the grain of gender feminism are told that marriage is a trap and “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” This is nonsense.

Missing out on marriage because a bunch of “feminists” told you that it is the right thing to do is silly, and there is a backlash against this type of thinking now with the current crop of girls–the Millennials (those born between 1981-1999)–embracing marriage at a rapid rate. Kay Hymowitz, author of Marriage and Caste in America had this to say about how young girls feel about marriage:

In fact, when it comes to families, this generation is as mushy as a Hallmark card. A Harris Interactive survey of college seniors found that 81 percent planned to marry (12 percent already had) at a mean age of 28. Ninety-one percent hope to have children—and get this: on average, they’d like to have three. The 2001 Monitoring the Future survey found 88 percent of male high school seniors and 93 percent of females believing that it is extremely or quite important to have a good marriage and family life. In a survey of college women conducted by the Institute for American Values, 83 percent said, “Being married is a very important goal for me.” Over half of the women surveyed said they would like to meet their husbands in college.

Of course, thinking you want to get married and have three kids is much different from the reality of doing so. Back to the question, “Should women get married?,” my answer is that if having a husband (and/or children) is important to a woman,then the answer is “yes” but only if you really have an understanding of what being married entails. It is not about a big engagement ring that one can show off to friends and family; it is not about a large wedding that makes a woman feel like a princess for a day; and it is not about a meal ticket or a path to a life of leisure. It is about sharing one’s life with another person, a human being, who has flaws just like you on a day to day basis and sometimes putting their needs ahead of your own. It is hard and not for the faint of heart, the selfish or the fickle. But a happy marriage is well worth the cost, for even the most introverted among us have some longing for connection with another person who cares about one’s well-being.

I will close this column with a few tips for women (and yes, there are many tips for men too, but that is another topic for another day) on things I have learned for how to have a happy marriage should you choose to go that route:

1) Encourage your husband to see friends once in a while. Just like you, men need to be with their buddies and have fun. Now, I am not talking here about carousing bars and picking up women or anything. I am talking about going out to have fun with friends, getting a beer and just feeling that he has a life outside the marriage and family.

2) Don’t call your husband continuously on his cell phone to “check up on him” when he is out with friends or others. I have noticed a negative correlation between how many times a man’s cell phone rings when he is with friends and how he feels about his marriage. No one likes to feel they are on a short leash. If a man continuously asks a woman what she is doing, when she is coming home and checks up on her non-stop, we would say he is being controlling. The same holds for women calling men. Again, I am not talking about calling your hubby up to let him know what you need from the store or tell him about an emergency etc., I am talking about calling repeatedly to ask him what he is doing or when he is coming home while he is out with friends or in business situations etc.

3) For goodness sakes, don’t write on your blog or on chat boards about the problems you are having with your relationship. I have seen a number of women do this and then wonder why their boyfriend or husband seems huffy or distant. If you have a problem, be direct and talk with him about it. Don’t spread the information to the world.

4) Finally, just try to treat the guy the way you would like to be treated and treat him like a human being with some compassion and kindness. Expect the same. Repeat as necessary.

So, what do you think, should women get married? If not, why? And if so, anyone have any tips for how women can improve their relationship with their husbands?
————————
If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Not everyone looks forward to sitting around the Thanksgiving table with their extended family, notes PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith – particularly those whose politics differ from members of the clan. She offers a food-fight prevention survival guide.

By Helen Smith

I recently did a show with PJM Political on XM (it will be on the XM Channel #130 POTUS 08 on Thanksgiving at 6:00 PM Eastern/3:00 PM Pacific) on surviving political discussions and family holidays. It seems that many of you out there in blog world are getting into heated discussions at the holidays while sitting around the dinner table and I imagine with the upcoming Presidential election, this year will be a doozy. So I figured this was a good time to discuss a holiday survival guide for those of you who may be about to spend some serious quality time with your extended family.

Naturally, I have written previous posts on the topic of holiday survival–back then, I naively thought I would hear some nice stories about how people got along for the holidays. Instead, here are some of the sad comments that I read about why people did not want to deal with family members:

My sister and brother-in-law are D.C. area residents and wear their politics on their sleeves. I quit arguing with them some 20 years ago when they stated that Reagan was responsible for the Yellowstone Park forest fires. I realized then I could not have a rational discussion with them.

The problem I have with this stuff is that my brother-in-law starts yelling. Who wants to converse with someone who’s attracting attention from all the other diners in a restaurant. I finally decided that he doesn’t really want a reasoned conversation. He just wants to shout down anyone who disagrees with him, so why bother?

My dad is as mean as a snake. All 8 of his kids bear the scars and deal with them in different ways. The last time I saw him was 5 years ago at the rehearsal dinner for my younger brother’s wedding. He was picking on my niece, and she not being used to that treatment slapped him in the face. I told my Dad to knock it the f–k off. He took exception and we started a fistfight in the restaurant. My dad was so bent out of shape that somebody stood up to him that he didn’t show up for the wedding, and I gladly stood in for him, next to my Mom, in all of the wedding pics.

I cherish Christmas with my family: A day with the estrogen poisoned females of my clan; children yelling and grubbing for the bounty that comes with the crass commercialism of the holiday; the ever present fear that my brother, four Christmases banished from the family for alcohol related lunacy, will crash his drunken, six foot, four inch body through the front door and spray the room with lead. Ah, Christmas! I strap an Officer’s Compact Colt .45 into a pancake holster on my hip in case the door comes off its hinges at the party, pack up my hastily purchased gifts, and I wade into this thing called Christmas. Ho, ho, ho, who wouldn’t go?

Through the years of Republican bashing followed by Kumbaya sing alongs (I kid you not), I have found the best strategy is to simply keep my mouth shut.

Now, most of the above comments are extreme but many of us feel awkward and/or upset over political discussions with family members over what should be a pleasant holiday meal or event. So the holidays are coming up and your family likes to discuss politics–what do you do if you are worried about fighting with Uncle Fester about the war in Iraq, with Aunt June over healthcare, and Cousin Jack over immigration instead of chowing down on turkey and cranberry sauce?

First, remember there is no need to discuss anything political. If you find the topic worse than a trip to the dentist to get your teeth pulled, just smile and say that at the holidays, you prefer to relax and talk about family and change the subject.

Second, you can’t generally change someone else’s mind, especially someone who is extreme (in either direction–left, right or otherwise) in their political views. Instead of focusing on changing one person’s view, think of ways that you can work to make your political goals known to a larger audience or in a way that will be more beneficial, by blogging, podcasting, or working on a political campaign.

Third, if you feel you must speak up, be prepared with a few facts, put them out in a polite manner and move on. If the topic gets heated, take a step back and say, “You are really passionate about this topic, why don’t we both step back and come back to it at a more appropriate time.”

Finally, if the political talk gets you too angry or frustrated, avoid it, especially if you have heart problems, high blood pressure or other problems that might be exacerbated if people really get on your nerves. Do some relaxation techniques or go outside and see what the kids are doing or what other family members are up to.

So, those are a few suggestions other than “use duct tape” which is what one of the commenters on the previously mentioned threads recommended.

Any one out there with other suggestions for how to deal with political discussions with family members over the holiday season? If so, let us know so we can all learn how to keep the conversation pleasant and the good times rolling along at this sometimes stressful time of year (or at least keep out of jail).

————————-

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

Is marrying your cousin acceptable behavior – and is it a health risk for your future children? Dr. Helen Smith answers the question, and offers advice to a young woman with a boyfriend who seems a little too eager to commit.

by Helen Smith

Reader RW writes in:

Hello Dr. Helen, Please help me. I want to find out if I can marry my second cousin. I am in love with my dad’s first cousin. She is my Dad’s mother’s sister’s daughter. We are the same age, please tell me if our children will be deformed. Can we marry?

Thanks,

RW

Dear RW, First of all, I believe (and I am sure someone out there will correct me if I’m wrong) that rather than your second cousin, the woman you want to marry is your first cousin–once removed. Your great grandparents are her grandparents making her your first cousin–once removed. This cousin stuff is confusing but can be made easier by taking a look at this Wikipedia entry that illustrates the relationships between cousins and how one is to refer to them. In answer to your question, you can probably marry a first cousin, once removed–heck, you might be able to legally marry your first cousin–not removed–if you live in certain states. And in answer to your question about deformed children, you can read about the statistics of cousin marriage at cousincouples.com:

Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.

You can also learn other cousin facts such as:

26 states allow first cousin marriages; most people can marry their cousin in the US;

The frequency of cousin marriages in the USA is about 1 in 1,000. The frequency of cousin marriages in Japan is about 4 in 1,000;

It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins!

Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children.

So, RW, while you may get some weird looks from people if you tell them you married your cousin, it seems that you are in good company. I hope this information helps you with whatever you decide.

Dr. Helen

Next, Danielle asks:

Dear Dr. Helen:

I am a 21 year old college student, about to graduate with my bachelor’s and am in the process of applying to graduate school. I have lived in various regions of the US and have spent about a year in both the UK and Africa. I live a full life and every day is something new. I’m young and unattached so I figure it’s ok to experience life randomly and freely. I don’t really get into relationships and have never (even in high school) had a real boyfriend. However, I have met a man who has changed my perspective.

I never intended to get married but I always wanted lots of kids (six or more). But now, I have met a man who is on a totally different page. He and I have a really great relationship; we have fun together, we talk, we’re intimate, and we respect one another. But he is 33 and ready to get married and have his first child…within the next year. I never even considered these things at least for another 5 or 6 years but he is ready now and I feel like he is shoving it down my throat. He always asks when are we getting married? Or he will make comments like, “I need to get you pregnant!” Or sometimes, right before we make love, he’ll say, I can’t wait to hear our little boy kicking in there! It drives me crazy and I’m feeling overwhelmed because while I do love him, I feel like I need him to wait for me. We’ve been dating about a year. I finally set him down and had a talk with him about the situation. I expressed how I wanted to finish school first and make sure our relationship was solid by dating another few years before we made that type of commitment. His excuse is that I am flaky and there is a chance that I could leave him. I feel like these are his insecurities and he is overeager to start his married/fatherly life before he gets too old. Am I being unreasonable or is this relationship doomed due to the two of us being on different time tables?

Dear Danielle,

It sounds like you have two questions: 1) Do you really want six kids? and 2) do you want to have them with this man? Many women think that they would like six kids but after having the first, realize that one, two or maybe three is enough. If you do not have experience with kids, take care of a friend’s children and see how you feel. You may change your mind. If you are truly committed to having six kids, you may need to have them sooner than five or six years from now. After 30 or 35, it gets harder to have children so if your dream is to have six, start early. Also, you mentioned that you want six kids but never intended to get married. How did you plan to raise them–alone with six kids? That seems a bit naive, not to mention the problem with the children not having a father around. That said, do you really want them with this man? Do you want him specifically to be the father of your children?

As I read your letter, two things concerned me in your description of your boyfriend. First, I noticed that you mentioned that your boyfriend stated, “I need you to get pregnant,” with no thought to what you want. Second, when you tried to explain your feelings, your description made it sound like he did not take any responsibility and ask what he could do to make things better between you. He simply blamed you by stating that you are flaky and might leave him. Have you given him reason to believe this? Maybe you have and don’t realize it. If not, then he might have a tendency to externalize blame to others if he does not get his way. Is he like this in other areas of your relationship? Can you talk with him freely about problems or issues that you have without him blaming you for them? Ask yourself some of these questions and your decision may become clearer as time goes on.

A relationship is about give and take, and compromise. Do you feel that he cares about your needs as much as he does his own? Does he ever ask you what you would like in a relationship or what would make you happy? The answers to these questions should be “yes.” You state that you want to go to graduate school. It is possible to do that while married and with children, but it is hard. How important is your career to you? Is it something that you can go back to after having children? How would you feel about yourself if you did not go to graduate school immediately? It seems that I have more questions for you than answers but once you answer these questions honestly with yourself, I think you will have your answers. Good luck.

Dr. Helen

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

If PJM’s advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith ever doubted that the institution of marriage was getting to be an increasingly risky and expensive proposition for men – her readers have certainly educated her, forcing her to think carefully about whether or not to advise them to head to the altar.

By Helen Smith

"It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. "Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they
did."

--Guardian "Nobel Prize Winning Novelist Doris Lessing

A reader writes in:

Dear Dr. Helen:

After reading your last column on men's rights, I have to ask, what are your thoughts on whether or not men should get married?

Dear Reader:

Wow, that is a tough question. Let me start by saying that many of you emailed me about my last column on men's rights to say that I was wrong to blame men for "not showing up" to fight against the courts and laws that treat them worse than common criminals--without due process, constitutional rights or any say in government intervention into their private lives. But it seems that women are getting ahead in the workplace (in NYC and other large cities, they earn more than men) but men are falling behind in the domestic realm which includes marriage. I understand that many of you feel that I am "blaming the victim"--in this case men--but I will use in my defense the refrain preached by Martin Luther King: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed."

This quote was one that I found in a new book by professor Stephen Baskerville entitled Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.

In this book, Baskerville describes some horrific situations where men are called deadbeat dads and jailed (pdf file), fathers have their children taken away, false abuse charges ruin reputations and men lose their very lives by committing suicide after divorce decisions that leave them feeling impotent, destitute or without the people they love the most: their children. On the topic of marriage, Baskerville says:

There is mounting evidence that as men discover the terms of marriage and
divorce today, they are engaging in a marriage boycott or marriage “strike”: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife walks out and how attractive the divorce industry has made it easy for her to do so. ....Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one
attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place.

Strong stuff. I used to think that it was bad advice. How could someone tell young men or older men not to have families? A good family is a wonderful thing; however, I admit to having been naive enough to do a post on marriage at my blog thinking that I would hear about the positive things men liked about being married. Boy, was I wrong. Here is what I heard instead:

I'm a single, never married guy. Professional, good job, etc. Have been dating a great lady for almost a year. I thought I was ready to ask her to marry me (she has been hinting for months that she wants to marry). Problem is, at least 7 out of 10 guys I talk to tell me that it is one of the worst mistakes that they every made. Some tell me not to marry American women, that they are all feminist at heart. One married guy told me that I could get the same effect by selling my house, giving all my money away and having someone castrate me. This is really starting to un-nerve me and the more I learn about the legal bias against men, I'm beginning to back off of marriage. I love my girlfriend, but all of these guys say their girlfriends changed once they married and begin to dominant and control. I am starting to think marriage in American can not be saved.

I met a woman that I was sure was my soul mate. I was deeply in love and so, I thought, was she. All this changed when I lost my high paying job through downsizing. To my credit, I went to work immediately and had two jobs, but still only made about 80% of my old income. My wife gave me a year and then began sleeping with a man who hadn't lost his job in my bed while I was at work. She left with him, taking almost all of my savings and anything else she could carry. Her explanation was that she was "an expensive bitch" and she was unhappy because I worked so much. The adultery doesn't seem to matter to the court and she got essentially everything. Besides the financial losses, I was so devastated by the betrayal that I could barely function for months. She treated me like garbage and I never worked harder at any endeavor in my life.

So back to the question of should men get married? I say, do so with an open mind and realize that the legal system may be stacked against you. Make sure you trust the woman you are going to marry and consider a prenuptial agreement that can serve to protect you should a divorce become a reality. One doesn’t want to become jaded to marriage and relationships but at the same time, a certain degree of reality is warranted because men often do not make out well in divorce proceedings–for example, 84% of all child and spousal support payments come from men. When things become less attractive to people, they are less likely to do it. If society wants men to be involved more in marriage, marriage has to be more attractive to them–it is getting riskier and more expensive for men to be married. It’s not surprising fewer of them are interested.

For readers, what advice, if any, would you give to the young men of today who wonder if they should get married? Or if you are male and not married, do divorce laws and the legal system have anything to do with your decision or not?

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville, Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/31/ask-dr-helen-should-men-get-married/feed/ 39 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/08/ask-dr-helen-fighting-for-mens-rights/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/08/ask-dr-helen-fighting-for-mens-rights/#comments Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:00:00 +0000 Dr. Helen Smith tag:pajamasmedia.com,2007://4.24635

Men are becoming increasingly concerned about finding justice in today’s legal system. PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen interviews expert Glenn Sacks and warns against “standing idly by while your rights are infringed, your freedoms are in question and your sex is used as a weapon against you.”

By Helen Smith

Many readers have written in to ask various questions about domestic violence laws, their effect on men and how to find justice for men in the legal system, especially in the wake of the Duke rape case. In order to answer your questions, I turned to expert Glenn Sacks, who is a men’s and fathers’ issues columnist, radio commentator, and blogger. Below is our interview:

Helen Smith: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed in the 1990’s under President Clinton. How is that working out?

Glenn Sacks: It’s done some good, in that it has helped ensure funding for domestic violence programs and shelters for battered women, but it has also helped create many problems, particularly for fathers and their children.

To pick one example, the restraining order issue is a nightmare. The father
is booted out of the marital home and pushed to the margins of his children’s lives. The orders are often based on false accusations, and are used as custody maneuvers or as punitive measures by angry soon-to-be-ex-wives.

Some judges simply rubber stamp protection order requests. One example is the David Letterman case from a couple years ago, where a judge granted a lunatic woman a restraining order against Letterman because she said he was sending her harassing messages through his TV broadcasts. District Judge Daniel Sanchez, who issued the order, explained, “If [applicants] make a proper pleading, then I grant it.” As if what matters is not the accused’s guilt or innocence, but instead whether the accuser knows how to fill out a form properly.

Other judges may doubt the veracity of the charges but nevertheless decide to “err on the side of caution” by granting them. VAWA and VAWA-funded DV service providers have contributed greatly to the restraining order problem.

Another problem with VAWA is the way that it helps fund domestic violence advocacy groups’ political agenda. Whenever we try to push forward legislation to help resolve some of the gross inequities of the family system and to protect the loving bonds children share with their fathers, these groups are out in force in the legislatures to stop us. That’s what happened with the California Shared Parenting Bill AB 1307 in California in 2005. The Assembly Judiciary Committee was largely sympathetic to our position—until the domestic violence groups showed up. Funded by your tax dollars, they plied the committee members with horror stories, deceptions, and half-truths, and the bill was soundly defeated.

Another example. In 2004, the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga move-away case. In that case the mother was clearly wrong, continually trying to jerk her kids half way across the country just to keep them from their father, who ran a business in Northern California and couldn’t move.

Gary LaMusga had to stay and work to pay child support to her while she moved his kids away. She even bragged about the better standard of living she gained by using his money and living in a smaller town with a lower cost of living. I wrote a column for the San Francisco Chronicle about it called “Is a Pool More Important than a Dad?” The mother’s behavior was so bad that when I debated Gloria Allred on the radio about the case, even she didn’t want to defend her. The link to VAWA? Dozens of taxpayer-funded domestic violence advocacy groups from all over the country wrote and/or signed on to an amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to rule against the father. The case wasn’t even a domestic violence case—it had nothing whatsoever to do with domestic violence—yet here they were, trying to use scare stories and political intimidation to get the Court to sever the bonds between this loving father and his two boys.

HS: What are some of the misconceptions about men and domestic violence?

GS: The biggest misconception is the woman-as-victim/man-as-perp model. Research clearly establishes that women are frequently the aggressors in domestic combat, often employing the element of surprise and weapons to compensate for men’s strength. Yet the domestic violence industry—funded partly by VAWA—does everything it can to suppress this reality.

Even when women are arrested for DV, the DV advocates pretend that she’s really the victim, and the police just misunderstood the situation. The DV industry calls female abusers “victim-defendants,” and advocates on their behalf. It’s a total perversion of what the battered women’s movement once stood for. And, in its early days, that was a very heroic movement.

HS: What are Predominant Aggressor Laws and how do they affect men?

GS: Under Predominant Aggressor Laws, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call, they are instructed not to focus on who attacked whom and who inflicted the injuries, but instead consider different factors which will almost always weigh against men. These factors include: comparable size; comparable strength; the person allegedly least likely to be afraid; who has access to or control of family resources (i.e., who makes more money); and others. Given these factors, it is very difficult for officers to arrest female offenders.

The stakes here are high. Because many states also have mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence cases, the predominant aggressor doctrine leads to the arrests of many innocent men. Since family courts usually must consider evidence of domestic violence in determining child custody, an officer’s decision on who to arrest can often determine who will get custody of the couple’s children after the couple divorces or separates.

HS: How does one know if Predominant Aggressor Laws are in force in their state?

They can ask the state Attorney General–often they will have that info. on their website.

HS: What can people like myself who care about equal rights under the law for men do to change things? Should we try to change one law at a time or is consciousness raising a better alternative?

GS: For you personally, just keep doing what you’re doing. For the rest of us, we need to build an effective national advocacy organization that can have a regular lobbying presence in state legislatures to help change and
reform the laws. Much of the problem is our fault—men’s fault. We complain that the legislators pass laws which screw us, but the reality is that when these laws were being debated, we didn’t show up, {my emphasis} we didn’t have a regular presence, we didn’t do the grunt work that the feminist groups have been doing for 35 years.

Fathers and Families, led by Dr. Ned Holstein, is a well-run organization that is on the road to becoming an effective national group. The California Alliance for Families and Children, led by Michael Robinson, is doing good work on this issue in Sacramento. The American Coalition for Fathers & Children and some of its affiliates have done good work on this problem, such as Dads and Moms of Michigan. But we’re a long, long way from where we need to be.

HS: Where do men “show up?” Should they write to their politicians? Testify to Congress? Letters to the Editor? Riot in the streets?

GS: I think we need to build effective organizations, and efforts should be channeled through them.

What struck me most from the interview with Mr. Sacks was his reason for why men are sometimes screwed by unjust laws passed by the legislature–men just don’t show up. So guys, remember that next time you shake your head after hearing about a case of a false accusation, divorced dads who have their kids robbed from them, or a male friend who is hauled off unfairly on domestic violence charges. This is happening because men are letting it. You are standing idly by while your rights are infringed, your freedoms are in question and your sex is used as a weapon against you. As a woman who cares about living in a country that purports to extend life, liberty and happiness to all, regardless of race, sex or creed, I have a hard time dealing with this, I hope that you do too.

If you have a question you would like answered, please leave it below or email me at askdrhelen@hotmail.com. Your questions may be edited for length and clarity. Please note that your first name only or no name at all will be used to identify your question—if you want me to use your name, tell me, otherwise you will be referred to by your first name or as “a reader” etc.

Helen Smith is a psychologist specializing in forensic issues in Knoxville,
Tennessee and blogs at drhelen.blogspot.com. This advice column is for
educational and entertainment purposes only and does not purport to replace
therapy or psychological treatment.

Share on digg

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/08/ask-dr-helen-fighting-for-mens-rights/feed/ 4