>
 |
| Damn you, you monsters! This scarf does NOT make me look gay! |
This is just embarrassing. A bit over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published a chunk of antifeminist polemicist Kay Hymowitz’ new book Manning Up, which argues that young men today have turned into a generation of immature pre-adults as a result (to simplify only slightly) of excessive exposure to Judd Apatow movies and to young women who won’t let them step up and be real men. The article stirred up quite a tempest in the tea-pot that is the Men’s Right’s/MGTOW world online. Completely missing the antifeminist implications of her argument, manosphere men attacked her for impugning the honor of young men and their video games, and for generally being, to quote a few typical comments, a “bitch,” an “entitlement whore,” a “cunt,” “a fugly tranny skank,” and someone who “on her best day … has a face that reminds me a mule my uncle used to own.”
Now Hymowitz has responded to all this vitriol by penning … a partial defense of her attackers for the Daily Beast. While she notes that there are elements of “backlash” and, yes, misogyny in the rage of the manosphere, she’s quick to equate this manosphere tantrum with the feelings of men in general (as Amanda Marcotte has already pointed out), and to suggest that there are legitimate reasons for the hate. Which apparently have to do with, er, male frustration with having to ask women out for dates. Yes, that’s her real argument. Let’s let her explain:
[T]here’s another reason for these rants, one that is far less understood. Let’s call it gender bait and switch. Never before in history have men been matched up with women who are so much their equal—socially, professionally, and sexually. … That’s the bait; here comes the switch. Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure.
At this point, Hymowitz launches into a tired old litany of male complaints about the alleged horrors of post-feminist dating: OMG, in this crazy mixed-up world of ours, men don’t know whether or not to open doors for their dates! Some women want to pay their way on dates, even when they make as much as or more than the dudes dating them … and others don’t!
Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day.
As Marcotte points out, Hymowitz is essentially echoing one of the dopiest of manosphere complaints about the ladies, “that they’re all different people, instead of easily controlled sexbots.” Indeed, on many manosphere sites, one gets the impression that women are, or should be, a bunch of interchangeable sperm receptacles, differentiated only by how high they score on a “hotness” scale of 1-10. If you think of women this way, no wonder you’re confused when women have, you know, actual personalities and shit.
But here’s a hint for the angry dudes of the manosphere: once you realize that women are not all the same person inside, you can turn this fact to your advantage, by deliberately seeking out women who are actually compatible with your own personality. Don’t like paying for dates? Then find a woman who likes paying her own way! (Just don’t be shocked if she finds your retrograde ideas about women repulsive.) I know that this may come as a shock to some of you guys, but there are men out there who actually find women’s distinct personalities … interesting. Stimulating. Attractive.
Back to Hymowitz. As strange as it is to see her parroting some of the dumbest manosphere complaints about women and dating — some women want one thing, while other women want something different! some say they want good guys but then they date bad boys! — even stranger is her notion that manosphere rage has its roots in frustrations about dating. Given that she’s not a complete idiot, there are only two possible explanations for this strange conclusion of hers. One, she’s so eager to find evidence for her thesis that empowered women are the root of male immaturity that she is willing to overlook the crazy misogyny of angry MRA/MGTOW dudes because they, too, blame women for their dating woes. Or two, that she has not actually given the blogs and forums of the manosphere much more than a cursory glance. I think it’s a bit of both.
The list of manosphere sites she mentions in her article bear out the second of these theses — it’s simply cut-and-pasted from her 2008 article Love in the Time of Darwinism, and it’s pretty clear she hasn’t revisited any of them since then. Or, in one case, ever: EternalBachelor.com isn’t a Men’s Rights or MGTOW site at all. but a skeleton site for a web magazine “coming soon” whose only content at the moment consists of photos of buff, shirtless guys (and a page where you can order t-shirts, presumably to keep the poor fellas from freezing to death). I can only guess that Hymowitz meant to refer to the Eternal Bachelor blog, which has itself been dormant for more than three years.(Another site she links to, Nomarriage.com, is also “under construction.”)
Kay, if you read this, please take a moment to peruse some real MRA/MGTOW and related forums, like, say, The Spearhead, and take a look at some of the comments there. For example, this one, about you — which, last I checked, had gotten 33 upvotes and only a handful of downvotes from the Spearhead peanut gallery:
I wish I could reach through my computer screen and punch this bitch. …. this stupid bitch is using the pain of innocent men destroyed by the same misandric system that publishes her shit to make more money and she is probably part of the feminazi conspiracy to appropriate and colonize the growing MRM. …
WTF is up with jewish women? They seem to be the most misandric of all. They demand that baby boys get their dicks chopped off and grown men too, I have hooked up with a few and they all got weirdly gitty knowing I was uncut and then sad when they realized I wouldn’t get chopped up and submit to their version of a sky god. I mean, really, WTF? I haven’t read much into the torah but just scanning the feminists and other feminazi loons it’s is obvious that there are a lot with jewish names. … Really, I don’t get it and am not trying to sound like a nazi but I must be missing something.
Somehow, I don’t think the rage in this comment has much to do with confusion over whether or not guys should open doors for their dates.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>"See Heidi Jones."That's the best you can do, huh. One woman lied therefore ALL women lie? One women = all women?See what I mean? They're terrified of growing up.
>Spam filter DavidRandom Brother
>"I certainly don't think that most false rape allegations are "mixups." Rather I think most "false" rape allegations aren't false at all but just cases where there wasn't enough evidence to convict, prompting the MRA to jump all over the situation and accuse the woman of being a malicious bitch without any reasoning beyond that she has a vagina. "That would be exactly what's going on. As richie-poo just proved – they think all women are exactly the same. Therefore, one lies, they ALL lie. In exactly the same way about exactly the same things.What they actaully want is women imprisioned for making the accusation. That'll teach the bitches to stay silent. I've heard feminists say before that men hate themselves more than they claim feminists hate men and I never understood what that meant. I'm starting to now.
>@ Amnesia1. There already is a debtors prison. No one has to "clamor" for it. If you are assigned child support and or alimony beyond your means and can't pay, you can go to prison. THAT IS DEBTOR'S PRISON. 2. About paternity, you don't know what you're taking about. In many states if you don't establish you are not the father within a very brief period of time then even if you show with DNA evidence that you are not you still have to pay. Also, most men don't believe that their wives would do something so horrific to them sadly, many are wrong. Why should the wife be rewarded for deception? Hell, you can even be dating a woman who has her own kid from a previous relationship and if you take the kid out, get the bastard some toys, you have then acted like a father and the mother can sue you for child support. And ANY TIME men have fought against any of these fucked up laws it the feminists who rise up and screech till they get their way. I have no idea why any man or decent woman would support shit like that.Random Brother
>@ walkertallSo Heidi Jones was actually raped according to you? Even though she recanted, right?Random Brother
>Proof please Richard. I disagree with putting a man in prison for not being able to pay. A man who willfully refuses to pay on the other hand…However, I have yet to see you provide proof that a couple of toys means that you have acted like the father and are now forced to pay. What I have heard is stories of men who did raise a child for ten years that was not his own and had no ability to have access to the kid after the break up. That is unfair.
>@ walkertallThere are studies that show up to 40% of rape claims are false. And agreeing with moron feminist does not equal growing up.Random Brother
>*watches Richard completely miss the point as usual*
>@ ElizabethLets start with Frank Hatleyhttp://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/15/georgia.child.support/Here's another child support nightmare.http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.19.06/paternity-0629.htmlThink any guy who goes through this is going to be pro feminism?Random Brother
>@Hide and Seek: I was not addressing you. I was not asking for a link either.I was asking David if he heard Darth Elam's radio show: and if so: what he thought of it.I have already heard the show.
>@ ElizabethElizabeth said: "So you think that if the person convicted wrongly was later exonerated, the accuser should go to jail?And in the Duke La Crosse case, you think that accuser should spend twenty years in prison for a case that was later dismissed completely?"Yes I do. Her intent was to imprison those men for life. She tried to put them away for life. It was an attempt to harm them. How is it that she can just stroll away and have nothing happen to her? She deserves 20 years for sure!Random Brother
>@ BeeWe are pretty much in agreement, except with regard to how long a false accuser should be in prison.Random Brother
>@Elizabeth, in the US, the names of victims of violent crimes (with the exceptions of minors in certain districts) are not legally sheilded from the press or public. They are, in fact, a matter of public record. It is considered a violation of journalistic ethics to reveal the names of victims, but it is not illegal. The only possible way it could ever be actionable would be in a civil case for "invasion of privacy" and it would still be a damned hard case to win.When bar says this "by using rape shield laws, so that the "victim" does not have her name released to the media, and does not have to face her accuser [sic]." He is absolutely and unconditionally wrong under US law. No district may exempt the victim from testimony and all indictments and trials make the victim's identity and statements at trial a matter of public record. Rape shield laws within the US do what bar claims they do. The victim can ALWAYS be forced to testify, even if they are in witness protection and even if they are a minor. Rape shield laws in the US ONLY affect evidence admission. What they do is make the victim’s past sexual history be presumed to be substantially more prejudicial than probative. In EVERY district of the US that has a rape shield law, the accused need show only, at most, that the evidence of the victim’s past sexual history is more probative than prejudicial. More on misunderstandings of US law here!1) What a person is being jailed for when they violate a child support order is “contempt of court”. Other civil cases where a person refuses to pay the money from the judgment can also result in jail for contempt. Debt is actually a constitutionally protected defense to contempt for failure to pay. However, the defendant (usually) has the burden of proof in such a matter, with such burden being preponderance of the evidence . The court may impose other alternatives, such as community service or mandatory job searches. So, the person who actually cannot pay child support due to debt will not be jailed if they properly assert it as a defense and present evidence of required job searches. 2) Legally, slavery requires considering a person chattel and is a civil matter. Criminal punishment is never slavery unless it imposes a chattel status. Imprisonment and forced labour by the state pursuant to the sentence is never considered slavery under US law.3) A false conviction does not result in false imprisonment. Do not confuse “unjust imprisonment” with “false imprisonment”. They are legally distinct matters. 4) Burdens of proof only apply to the jury not to public opinion. Members of the public may decide their opinions in any matter they wish. The court is not obligated to cater to or protect against public opinion. 5) States that have laws of presumptive paternity require either marriage or assumption of responsibility. So, you are not being “tricked” into legal responsibility for your spouse’s children in a state with a clear law that states you have such legal responsibility for your spouses children. There is no fraud here. While it may be nice of your partner or spouse to inform you of relevant state laws if they are more knowledgable or to not take advantage, it is your own duty to understand the legal obligations incurred by your actions. As they say “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. (Also, said laws carry advantages for these non-biological parents if they seek legal rights. It is, in fact, to protect the rights of non-biological caretaking parents that most districts that have such laws create or maintain them.)
>In the first case-this is not a case of willful failure to pay. Which means that the guy should not have gone to jail and there should be mandatory paternity testing as soon as there is a request to have the court order child support.The second one shows why you never fail to show up for court. The window should be longer as there is merit in what the Court of Appeals said about the difference between a financial and actual parent/child relationship.What I did not see from either of these articles is a breakdown of how often this happens that the non-biological father is being forced to pay.If it is 1 out of 1,000 cases, shutting down the system is an overreach. If it is 1 out of 100 there is a better case for it. Neither article shows the number of times this occurs so until then, stop putting those who lose their jobs in jail but keep putting those who are willfully refusing to pay in.
>"Her intent was to imprison those men for life."The federal sentencing guidelines gives the maximum sentence as 17.5 years. Correct me if I am wrong (people who know NC law better than me), but my understanding is that rape is a class C felony in NC (as is attempted murder resulting in serious injury) and has a maximum of 17.5 years.So, only if the victim is as much of an ignoramus about law as richard would even an intentional false accusation be good evidence of an intent to get the accused a life sentence.Learn the fucking law. Do it now, or shut up please.
>I know that the names of accusers are public record but that does not mean the press has an automatic right to it-I should have said that there are zero laws saying that accuser names must be released to the press-they have to at least file a request for it.Richard-you are assuming a person can show up at a local police precinct and the person they accuse goes immediately to prison. Therefore a person who makes a false accusation is deserving of prison time. Unfortunately (and fortunately for the rest of us) that is not what happens.
>And that is "unfortunately for you Richard who thinks that false accusations require long prison sentences."
>Richard, your comment is out of the spam filter. (Anyone following the discussions with Richard should scroll up to read it.) notanmra — I listened to part of Elam's show. He was his typical melodramatic self; the attempts at humor were pretty lame; some of the others featured on the show sounded like creepy weirdos. I didn't get to the call-in portion, may listen to more of the show later. Someone mentioned stalkers a while back in this discussion. I've seen studies suggesting that the majority of stalkers are women, but when it comes to the issue of violence, male stalkers are far more likely to harm or kill the women they are stalking. A significant amount of DV occurs AFTER women have tried to end the relationship, and it is men who do the most violence.
>"Learn the fucking law. Do it now, or shut up please. " Okay, sorry about that. It was unecessarily harsh. Though Richard shows a deep and profound lack of understanding of even the basics of the legal system, it was rather mean. I stand by the rest of what I said, but feel free to write that bit off as the result the short fuse of a sleep deprived law student.
>Dark-after reading the released post, I think it was just harsh enough.
>@David: I wish you would provide more concrete examples.I found most of it to be contemptible: Darth Elam's usual anti-feminist rhetoric: to lure men in: quickly followed by his other agendas: atheism and feminism.I really hate him. For very different reasons than you do no doubt.
>notanmra — Huh? Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong, but you think Elam is promoting feminism?
>Yes David. Perhaps not the entire feminist spectrum, but a good portion of it.Look past the anti-feminist rhetoric I mentioned.If you grab the entire wave file and cut out all the anti-feminist bullshit, you'll see that what remains has nothing to do with anti-feminism, or even "mens rights".Here are some good quotes:"The more men and women are finally prompted by social forces to start treating each other as equals, the more respect long absent will come into play"Sound familiar? I am guessing that I could dig up an old feminist book, and find that exact quote.Here is another:"I was talking before the break about feminism among other things, its a subject we're going to discuss a lot on this show in the future so I'm not going to dwell too much on it tonight".That triggered my bullshit-o-meter. Darth Elam is a feminist: like many of his followers. Listen to the callers: many were born and raised by feminist women. Leopards do not change their spots.He rambles on and on about how bad feminism is, but he never describes why. In the beginning, he even goes so far as to claim that his show will destroy it: then, he says, "I'm not going to dwell on it".Yeah, I can hear Darth Elam destroying feminism already by "not dwelling on it".Another:"…the men in this movement, they are the ones that have used their big head…"feminist philosophy #2: men think with their dicks.Want me to go on?I have picked apart his entire show: I plan to make a youtube video on it.I expect it to be flagged to death by MRA's: a group of people who are simply taking the place of the radical feminists from the 60's.
>"Rapists are the lowest form of life in most prisons. Many men accused of rape in prison are the targets of rape attempts. Deliberately placing someone in a place where there is a high likely hood of them being raped seems to me to warrant a severe penalty not the slap on the wrists and probation that most false rape accusers get."Prison rape is wrong. Period. Doesn't matter how guilty you are or of what.However, the reason rapists are often at the bottom of the pecking order is because they have made a habit of picking on people who are weaker than they are, young or old or otherwise defenseless, usually one-on-one, often with a weapon, and they get away with it for a long time because our society doesn't like to label men as rapists.When rapists face men who are routinely violent with other men, men who come at them in groups, men who don't have to convict them to punish them, the rapists' luck has run out.The very fear you have of being in the shoes of a rapist in prison is the fear women have of rapists out on the loose in society.
>A while ago, one of my friends wrote an anthropological article analyzing the beliefs of one of the more popular conspiracy theorists, a man whose delusions are strikingly similar to schizophrenic delusions, which makes it likely that the individual in question is reporting hallucinations as fact. In any case, after my friend's article was published, he started being contacted by all sorts of people who take the fellow's claims seriously, people who had read but failed to understand my friend's article, and who assumed he knew their guru personally and could shed special light into his claims. They had evidence to share, such as carefully analyzed youtube videos that they contended revealed the truth of their conspiracy theory, but that, alas, on examination, revealed only that people greatly invested in seeing something as true are especially prone to pareidolia. Upon finding oneself in possession of what appears to be evidence of a hidden conspiracy that matches one's secret and widely repudiated beliefs, one may wish to examine that evidence closely to be sure that it is not a trick of the light instead of a slitted pupil.I provide this anecdote for whatever good it may do anyone reading.