Feminists Not All That Happy With the World They Created

I came across something that caught my eye.

Radio For Men With a Daddy Complex
Published by Auguste February 14th, 2007

I’m always surprised when I find out that my feminist friends haven’t heard of Tom Leykis. He’s a syndicated talk radio host whose show puts the “lowest common denominator” into “men’s rights activism.”

She says this like that is a bad thing. Oops. Wait a minute. This person is allegedly a guy. Wow.

His show, The Tom Leykis Show, is probably best captured by the description on his web site about a segment called “Leykis 101″:

An unapologetic primer to help men get laid with minimum effort, its “rules” - a retort to the women’s self-help guide - include Never spend a lot of money impressing her on the first date, Stop seeing her if you don’t get laid by the third date, and Never date single mothers…

[SNIP]

On paper, Leykis’ schtick is bad enough - if you look up “patriarchal sense of entitlement” and “othering of women” in the dictionary, you might find the above paragraph.

I don’t think a sense of entitlement has anything to do with it, and certainly not patriarchy, since Leykis is not a father and has made it clear he doesn’t want to be. The truth is, there are women who are willing to have sex with men without any sort of commitment. It is not entitlement - it is what is available, and Leykis is advising men how to find and interact with such women. If you’re not one of those women, then you have nothing to worry about.

As for “othering” - anyone who is not me is someone other than me. Also, men and women are different. Leykis wants something from women he can’t get from himself or other men. They are “other”. He advises men about how not to get used by women who "other" men and want to use them for their money. Again, if you aren't such a woman, you have nothing to worry about.

Now here’s where I’m going to get into difficult-to-prove territory: Leykis doesn’t believe what he says.

It’s an interesting accusation, but it doesn’t address the truth or falsity of what he says. This is an appeal to sincerity, another example of how what matters to Leftists is intention and sympathy, not facts or results.

As time went on, though, he began to develop some of his more patriarchal impulses into bigger segments of the show until it pretty much became four hours of misogyny daily.

He developed a money-making program. As he freely admits, he’s there to make money. What kind of ratings do the Leftist political radio programs get? Very low ratings. Leykis is going for ratings, which are converted into dollars.

And here the Leykis devotees are going to start getting really annoyed with me. “Misogyny?” they’ll be saying. “It’s not misogyny, it’s just telling it like it is. It’s just standing up for men, who are getting the shaft, and all because of feminists!”

No, there are a lot of men who contributed to this situation, too. Men let this happen to them.

All straight out of the MRA handbook, and all essentially quoted from Leykis.

I’m not sure what that MRA is. I’ve tried to find out. Perhaps a reference to the Australian organization? Men’s Rights Activism? If that is the case, why shouldn’t men be able to protect their rights? Has this guy ever peed standing up? If you define “misogyny” as “hatred of women”, one need not hate women to agree with Leykis, if you’re using a secular standard of hate. If you define it as “distrust of women”, well, I get the impression Leykis doesn’t trust anybody, and Leykis is advising men who are having casual sexual encounters not to trust their sex partners - and why should they trust them? The women shouldn’t trust the men, either. This is what happens when people fornicate so casually.

I don’t have much evidence for that other than the way the program metamorphosed as segments became more popular with his listeners, and events like the time a woman called into the show complaining that her boyfriend was becoming more and more violent; Leykis convinced her to leave immediately, essentially speaking the truth about how abusers never stop and only escalate. His siding with men only goes so far.

I’ve never heard him advocate violence. He tells woman AND men not to tolerate abuse. This is not inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy.

The same, however, is generally untrue for his listeners.

Oh come now. You’ve surveyed enough of his millions of listeners?

They do idolize Leykis - they even call him “Dad” - but they wouldn’t need him to be angry at women.

So then you are not placing the blame on him?

At a Portland live broadcast - I wasn’t there, but I tuned in for the local interest and to “watch” the trainwreck - a woman called in with the message that men should start taking responsibility for birth control, that if they don’t want to be “saddled” with kids they should wear a condom - some guy in the crowd could clearly be heard yelling, “Well try keeping your legs closed, then!” (That he wasn’t immediately torn apart by the crowd like hyenas on a gazelle is just another sign that MRA-types aren’t really interested in consensual sex, or they’d spend a lot less time trying to browbeat women into being ashamed of having it.)

Um, first of all, Leykis advocates that men always wear condoms when they fornicate. Secondly, these men do want consensual sex because it is the path of least resistance and the fewest negative consequences. Maybe your experience has been different - and that wouldn't surprise me, but there are some very easy women out there. Finally, they maintain that since it is women who get pregnant and condoms are only so effective, women should use one of the many forms of effective birth control if they are having sex with a man who does not want kids - or they should abstain/move on to another man.

He’s creating an army. Like the right-wing noise machine, he’s presenting easy talking points for the MRAs to utilize when, say, trolling a feminist web site - or elsewhere: There’s a promo running on our local Leykis affiliate which quotes Leykis saying something like “If it was a Men’s Night, with half-priced drinks for men, Gloria Allred would go ballistic.” Sound familiar?

I’m trying hard to find what’s “wrong” about this. Freedom of speech. right? Shouldn’t men avoid getting into relationships they don’t really want to be in? Shouldn’t men stick up for their rights? Shouldn’t men make wise use of their time and money? Shouldn’t men avoid getting women they aren’t married to pregnant? Shouldn’t men fight double standards that hurt them?

Here’s the bottom line.

Tom Leykis is the result you get with the following factors (facts, convictions, and personal preferences):

There is no G-d.

Hedonism - men should do what they want to do (have sex).
-They should not do what they don't want to do.
-Either way, they should use as little of their resources (time, energy, money) as possible to get what they want..
-There is no need for a man to bond with women, and attempting to do so in the workplace can lead to charges of sexual harassment.
-Sexual pleasure is worth the remaining risk of STDs and pregnancy that exists with condom use.
-People should comply with the law - that is almost the extent of morality. This includes abortion being okay because it is legal.
-Leykis 101 is an efficient way for men to get sex without commitment using as few resources as possible.

Men and women are different.
-A woman decides if she's going to have sex with you before money is spent.
-A woman who keeps seeing a man who is a jerk to her has low self-esteem and is therefore likely to have sex with him without commitment. Some women will have readily have sex with jerks but will pretend to be more chaste with a “nice guy” in the hopes that he will commit to her, because he can be better provider than an unreliable jerk.
-Women are more likely to have sex if they have been drinking.

Marriage Offers No Benefit to a Man While Subjecting and Exposing Him to Negatives
-Having a Wife (for girlfriend, or children) places certain demands and restrictions on a man's autonomy, lifestyle, and resources.
-Laws/court rulings, and social customs (women marrying up, not working, high divorce rate) make marriage a contract in which a man agrees to pay a woman if she leaves him, and to pay child support to her children, even if they are not biologically his.
-Men can get the benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, home cooking, a kept home, even children) for “free” or by paying less to a professional without being married.
-Men are attracted to physical beauty, which almost always diminishes with time. Women are attracted to money, power, and fame (which translates to security and confidence), which almost always increases for a man over time.
-Even if true, marriage giving a man longer life and more income isn't worth the other negatives, risks, and loss of personal autonomy.
-Husbands are expected to go without sex whenever their wife is not agreeable to it, while an unmarried man will find it easier and more socially acceptable to seek sex elsewhere.
-Men are almost always the ones arrested in a domestic dispute, and women have attacked and killed men and children and successfully used hormonal defenses in court.

Tom Leykis Doesn't Want Kids

Men should live within their means, including saving for the future. This includes not spending more money than necessary on a date/woman.

Given the needs of children, a woman should not give birth to a child unless she is in a stable marriage to the child's biological father, they both want and have agreed to raise children at that time, they are both suitable parents, and they can afford to raise children and give them the attention they need.

Which one of those do you disagree with? If you want kids, that's fine - does everyone else have to want kids, too? Does everyone else have to want to get married?

If you don't like what Leykis is promoting...
You can listen to something else or nothing at all.
You can (tell women you love to) avoid men like this. Simply “hold out” more than three dates. That should be enough to avoid avid students of Leykis.
You can encourage women to “reward” nice guys and stop rewarding jerks.
You can change the core beliefs of men, such as encouraging a belief in G-d that supersedes their libidos.
There are a lot of things you can do, but whining about Leykis is silly. He is logically consistent given the "facts" I cite above. If you agree with all of those facts, then you can hardly fault Leykis.

Here’s where/why I disagree with Leykis:
I’m convinced there is a G-d.
I want kids, and I want my kids and all kids raised in the best possible environment (marriage).
I believe marriage was created by G-d.
I believe marriage can be good for a man.
I believe fornication is an affront to the holiness of G-d and is damaging to the soul and spirit of man.
I’m convinced that it is wrong to kill human beings even if they haven’t been born yet.

But just because other men disagree with me and will not lead the same lifestyle I think is best doesn’t mean I think they should be getting into relationships they don’t want or for which they aren’t prepared, should be doing things they don’t want to do, should be spending their time and money on high-maintenance women when all the guys really want is sex, or should be conceiving children they don’t want.

Either a woman should be put on a pedestal or she shouldn’t. Women demanding postfeminist rights, freedoms, entitlements, protections, privileges, independence, and lack of traditional obligations and moral restrictions for themselves while demanding financial support, chivalrous manners, and fidelity from men is what has prompted the rise of people like Leykis.

Traditional women can still find a traditional man who will treat them "right", no matter how popular Leykis gets.