Ding-dong, the witch is dead

I’m generally not in the habit of rejoicing over other’s misfortune’s, but I’m making an exception for the unceremonious firing of Judith Regan from her job at HarperCollins. Regan’s ultra-tacky attempt to publish O.J. Simpson’s hypothetical confessional is reason enough to regard her fall as a good thing; to compound that, we’ve also learned that LaRegan sealed her fate by claiming that she was persecuted by a “Jewish cabal” of three Jewish staffers at HarperCollins and a literary agent. (Maybe she can now form a publishing venture with Mel “Get Over It” Gibson.)

I will here freely disclose that my distaste for Regan is, at least in part, personal, since I’ve had a chance to be on the receiving end of her (in)famous temperament. In May 1999, while promoting my book Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, I was invited to appear on Regan’s now-defunct weekend show on Fox News on a panel on feminism and men (alongside Barbara Ehrenreich, John Podhoretz, and my former professor Lionel Tiger). As it happens, my book contained a bit of a swipe at Regan — funnily enough, somewhat related to the O.J. Simson case.

As some may recall, in 1995, during the Simpson trial, Gordon Clark, the husband of prosecutor Marcia Clark, filed for temporary custody of their two children, aged three and five, claiming that she was “never home” and he was better fit to care for the children. This sparked an outcry from feminists, who saw the move as an attack on career women. (Never mind that when Marcia Clark filed for divorce, she admitted in her petition that her husband had always had an equal role in raising the boys. Or that at the time of his custody bid, she was working 16-hour days and weekends while he was usually home by 6 p.m. Or that she wanted him to pay more child support — out of his $36,000 a year to her $96,000 — so that she could hire babysitters, instead of letting him spend more time caring for his own children.) Regan wrote a piece for Newsweek titled “An Open Letter to Mr. Clark,” in which she wrote that a truly good father does not try to take the children away from the mother and flatly asserted that, while women and men are equally capable of ambition and success in the workplace, women are more capable when it comes to raising children.

I commented on this as follows:

A few champions of embattled mothers, such as publishing hotshot Judith Regan (herself embroiled in a custody fight), openly advocated discirmination against fathers: “Women are simply better equipped biologically for parenting young children.”

Almost from the start of the show (unfortunately, there’s no transcript available and I don’t have a tape handy), Regan ripped into yours truly, claiming to be outraged by the charge that she advocated discrimination against fathers. (I’m not sure what else to call the advocacy of blatantly gender-based maternal custody preference.) She also scoffed openly at my argument that fatherlessness is often due not to men walking away from their children, but to men being pushed out of their children’s lives, dismissing as irrelevant the fact that two-thirds of divorces involving children are initiated by mothers. In the second half of the show, probably irritated by my insistence on defending my viewpoint, she tried to simply shut me up; every time I tried to speak, she would interrupt me to direct a question to another guest. This became so blatant that one of the other guests, I believe Lionel Tiger, asked Regan to give me a chance to speak.

The best bits, though, were off-camera. During the first or second break, Regan told me that I must had a “cold and distant mother” because it was obvious that I hated mothers. (At that point, I probably should have walked off the set, but I contented myself with informing her that my relationship with my mother was just fine.) When the show was over and I was walking off the set past La Regan’s desk, my gracious host told me once again that I was grievously wrong to think that father absence was often not the fault of fathers. “Then why is it that it’s mothers who initiate divorces two-thirds of the time?” I asked. In response, Regan shrieked, “Because all those men are pigs! And I hope that some day, you marry a guy who chokes you and gives you a black eye!” (as she alleged her ex had done to her).

And there’s a postscript. (No, I did not marry a man who choked me and gave me a black eye.) At a conference a year or so later, I ran into Diane O’Connell, who had co-written Sanford Braver’s Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths. O’Connell, who had either seen or heard about my run-in with Regan, told me about one of her own: she was all set to co-write some sports figure’s autobiography which Regan was interested in publishing, and met with Regan to discuss the project. Then, a couple of days later, the offer was abruptly withdrawn. O’Connell learned from her agent that Regan had blackballed her after learning about her co-authorship of the Braver book, which is sympathetic to divorced fathers.

I can’t really say that I bear Regan a personal grudge. Being used for target practice on national television was not a lot of fun, but it probably did sell a few books (all the mail I got as a result of that appearance was sympathetic, with several people telling me they were appalled by Regan’s behavior toward me). My issue with her is not that she was rude to me, it’s that she’s an anti-father bigot. (A friend who used to work for HarperCollins, not directly for Regan but with a few people who had direct contact with her, told me that she was famous for referring to the father of her children as “the sperm donor.”) Another sad thing is that women like Regan claim — and perhaps sincerely think — that they are disliked because our culture labels strong, independent, aggressive women as bitches. Unfortunately, sometimes the label fits.


Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Ding-dong, the witch is dead

  1. Jim

    Actually the label that fits is “pig”. That woman is a complete dickhead.

    You can decide on how much abuse you care to take on national TV, but you do us all a gigantic service when you lure these pigs out to expose themselves in public. It discredits their views, and it discredits the unjust and bigoted laws predicated on those views. Thank you for what you have already done, and thank you in dadvance for whatever else you may do in the future.

  2. Drew W

    I’m really not trying to be facetious here, but I was surprised that Regan got ousted over the poor taste of letting OJ Simpson “write” a book that supposedly winked at the murders of his ex-wife and her friend. I thought the very idea of the Regan Books imprint was to publish irredeemable trash. Just as a city might carve out a “combat zone” for its porn businesses, the municipality of HarperCollins created Regan Books not only to generate money, but also to isolate it from the respectable folk. (Not to push the combat zone metaphor too far, but Judith Regan did publish that Jenna Jamison book after all.)

  3. vbspurs

    First, yipes — my sympathies to you, Cathy, for having to tolerate such unprofessional behaviour from someone I am content to call a dillweed.

    Another sad thing is that women like Regan claim — and perhaps sincerely think — that they are disliked because our culture labels strong, independent, aggressive women as bitches.

    It’s not strong, independent, aggressive women who are called that, but the ones we don’t agree with.

    I don’t use the ‘b-word’ when describing my own sex, as you can see, but it strikes me that one was much more likely to tolerate Margaret Thatcher’s premier brio, if one were Conservative.

    The same is true, of Hillary Clinton, whom I cannot stand.

    Unfortunately, sometimes the label fits.

    Yes, it does.

    But whilst it is true that with men it is much more acceptable to be ruthless, let’s not kid ourselves and say they are forgiven all the same, for this attitude.

    Not that that was your point, but everyone knows Lance Armstrong is an asshole, and whether male or female, it’s the unpleasantness factor that is the indictment against the person, not the sex.

    Either way, Regan sounds like a piece of work. Ding-dong, indeed.


  4. Jim

    “But whilst it is true that with men it is much more acceptable to be ruthless, let’s …”

    True in some places , perhaps. It must be a cultural blind spot. Ci Xi is stil remebered in China as a paragon of ruthlessness. Still admired. Then there is everyone’s favorite daughter-in-law, Xi Feng, who kept the whole family afloat for one last generation and still found time to hound a rival wife to suicide. Poor Hillary is a piker in comparison.

  5. jens

    Hah! Young being just a little less than gracious…I believe this is a first.

    I didn’t get to see the interview myself, but Regan must have been a Fury indeed to get such a response from such a voice of reason (voice of Reason?)!

    No loss.

  6. bama

    Cool, calm and collected, as ever, I see. And you were very gracious not to choke her or blacken her eyes yourself right then and there. Good on ya, Kate! bama 🙂

  7. Vicki Small

    Indeed, it does sound as if Ms. Regan is an anti-father (and anti-male) bigot. I think it ironic, then, that she was so willing to give OJS a chance to make a bunch of money (for his kids, of course) by telling his trashy tale. Why wasn’t she more ready to give him a black eye and choke him?

    I realize that sort of thing is frowned on, but I just marvel at the inconsistency.

  8. Katrina

    Yay for fortitude Kate! I’m not sure I wouldn’t have gone out swinging if such a comment was made about my parents.

    I’m glad to see you blogging again. I missed your insights. I always find them valuable.

    Also, and even more important: Happy Holiday!!

  9. Purple Avenger

    Regan sounds like a real loser..

  10. Anonymous

    Vindication is oh so tasty. A little goes a long way. Enjoy.


  11. Peregrine John

    I think it’s more that people like Regan can’t tell the difference between “assertive” and “obnoxious”, among other distinctions.

  12. Mark Rosenthal

    Sorry my comments are coming so late. I only just noticed this post.

    Years ago, the term “Lace Curtain” was coined to describe the bigots who’ve managed to worm their way into critical positions in order to choke off all discussion of the injustices perpetrated against men under the guise of “protecting women”. It was a perfect metaphor at a time when everyone had heard of the “Iron Curtain” (used to describe the repression under the Communist regime in the Soviet Union) and the “Bamboo Curtain” (an analogous reference to Communist China). But the “Curtain” metaphor has fallen into disuse since the fall of the Communist regime in Russia, so unfortunately many younger people don’t understand the implication of describing the prevalence of Regan-like behavior as the “Lace Curtain”.

    Nevertheless, it’s clear that Regan was an important part of the Lace Curtain. A few years ago the Toronto Star fired long-time columnist Michelle Landsberg, who was best-known for her misandristic writing. Could it be that the Lace Curtain is finally starting to unravel?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s