>
 |
| 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.
>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.Added to the list.To even attempt to compare being locked in closed quarters with violent men who thing you are a rapist with being a free woman out in society where there are a few rapists on the loose but where you can choose where you walk, are allowed to carry weapons, and have the vast majority of men bending over backwards to protect you just reeks of hate and misandry. Your empty words about prison rape being wrong earn you no points.
>Really Cold? If I was walking along the road in a well lit area that has the lights go out suddenly and my gun jams, you would rush to my rescue if some asshat decides now is the time to get sex?
>Rachel, reptilian shape shifters? They are very evil, but you can always defeat them by luring them into someplace cold. As they are cold-blooded, this immediately makes them very sleepy. Either that or lay out a big bowl of bugs. That always distracts them. notanmra, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
>You mean my blog?notanmra.blogspot.com you already know it?Is that what you are referring to?I have a youtube channel too:http://www.youtube.com/user/notanmraIt will take a while for me to compile my exact thought on Darth Elam's lams ass radio show.
>bar said… @ richard yes this blog was conveniently silent on, the hateful misandric false rape accusation by poor innocent heidi jones.That is certainly what a blog about MISOGYNY is supposed to cover,"misandric false rape accusation". Futrelle better fix that snafu real quick.;-) How I adore the lulz in this comments section.
>Elizabeth, I see that your reading comprehension remains as poor as ever. "Vast majority" doesn't mean all; I was part of the vast majority for a long time but no more. I won't help any woman under attack unless she is a trusted friend or family member, not because of any kind of hatred but because I don't want to turn myself into a suspect.Your scenario is also ridiculously far-fetched and paranoid, however if it was you specifically who was being attacked then I would definitely have other reasons besides the legal one to not bother risking my neck for you. There would still be plenty of other white knights to do it, however.
>To even attempt to compare being locked in closed quarters with violent men who thing you are a rapist with being a free woman out in society where there are a few rapists on the loose but where you can choose where you walk, are allowed to carry weapons, and have the vast majority of men bending over backwards to protect you just reeks of hate and misandryI'm curious. Do you actually believe that these simplistic, dark-spooky-alley images of rape represent the majority of real-life rape cases, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Most rapes aren't perpetrated by some shadowy figure dressed like Freddy Kreuger. Most of them are performed by people known to the victim, people who have gained the victim's trust and the sympathy of the victim's friend and family.I guess what I'm trying to say is that here in the real world, not every villain can be confronted with a gun.
>I won't help any woman under attack unless she is a trusted friend or family member, not because of any kind of hatred but because I don't want to turn myself into a suspect.How convenient that your deeply held social philosophy helps you justify and even feel self-righteous about being a complete coward.
>In other words-a woman gets attacked and you will just stand by staring at her being raped.
>I'm curious. Do you actually believe that these simplistic, dark-spooky-alley images of rape represent the majority of real-life rape cases, or are you being deliberately obtuse?I'm well-aware that stranger rape is the exception and not the norm. It case you didn't notice, I was responding to someone who was speaking as if it was the other way around.How convenient that your deeply held social philosophy helps you justify and even feel self-righteous about being a complete coward.More shaming language from a feminist tool; how quaint. So not wanting to become a rape suspect and acting accordingly makes me a "complete coward"? Tell me more.In other words-a woman gets attacked and you will just stand by staring at her being raped.More assumptions on your part. I never said I wouldn't call the police, just that I wouldn't personally intervene. Why can't strong, independent women(TM) defend themselves anyway?
>Not to comment on the rest of it but I do not like to accuse people who are not willing to jump into a fight of being cowards. YES, if you do not feel capable of physically helping you should call the police, but everyone has different reactions to fear and shouldn't be demonised for not feeling confident in such a situation.I also don't like the idea a man should be more obligated to help because they are just as likely as a woman to be seriously harmed in situation. I, being a woman, believe I would jump in, whether or not that's the smartest move. My (male) partner definitely would because he has stepped into situations with multiple people attacking someone on the ground. But we are both physically confident people who fight (muay thai) for fun, and I would never put this expectation on anyone else.Not to say Cold isn't a douche, of course. 😉
>Christ. "-be seriously harmed in SUCH A situation." Typing fail.
>@richard1. All right, I will give you some credit for explaining what you meant by 'debtor's prison.' However, it would not be limited to just men. There are cases of women paying alimony and child support, if the man is taking care of the kids and/or the woman is better off financially than he is. So, if any of those women were to stop paying, she would also be locked up.2. Well, if you would rather believe MRM campfire stories about feminists and roast misogynic marshmallows in your mancaves than find out what the law actually says, that's your business. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.
>FWIW, I know a guy who owes about $14k in child support, whose greatest ambition in life is to either run a cult in the middle of the desert or be the dude playing the guitar on a street corner. He has absolutely no intention of paying (not on any moral principle, he's just kind of a dick), and is not being threatened with any kind of jail time.
>LOL, another feminist calling me a douche without even bothering to explain how I am supposedly being one. Keep on providing me with the cheap laughs…
>Not to comment on the rest of it but I do not like to accuse people who are not willing to jump into a fight of being cowards.Oh I agree. I don't judge anyone for not jumping into a violent situation in an attempt to protect the victim. I can't say with certainty I would (I'd like to think I would), and I can say with certainty that if I did I wouldn't be much good, physically.No, the issue with Cold is that he uses rationalizations and victim blaming to not only justify his stance, but even to feel morally superior about it. He says it's actually those bitches' fault that he wouldn't step in to help them.His cowardice isn't rooted in his avoidance of a physical confrontation, it's rooted in his avoidance of his own moral bankruptcy.
>Moral absolutism from a feminist tool; what a shock. Would you care to quote me where I blamed the victim and said it was their fault that I wouldn't step in to help, or did you pull that out of your ass as per usual?
>@ Lady Victoria von SyrusAnd how does that erase all the men who cannot pay and are in prison?Random Brother
>@ DarksidecatDSC said: "1) What a person is being jailed for when they violate a child support order is “contempt of court”."So what? The end result is that a man is told to pay money he doesn't have and he ends up going to jail/prison. You can call it "contempt of court" or "happy, happy fun time" it doesn't matter, he's still going up the river. DSC: "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 ."If there's one thing you actually answer from this post, I'd hope it would be this question.If you are imputed more than you can pay, how is one to find the money to pay for a lawyer to help prove that you can't pay? DSC: "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.'No. If the person who cannot pay can somehow afford a proper defense he may not be jailed. But again if he is poor and already in debt, how is he to do this? DSC: "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."Again, more lawyer speak. You want to revisit Clinton and tell us what is is? DSC: "3) A false conviction does not result in false imprisonment. Do not confuse “unjust imprisonment” with “false imprisonment”. They are legally distinct matters."I'm sure the innocent man in prison appreciates the difference. DSC: "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."You don't consider lying to your husband/boyfriend about the paternity of your child fraud? You really are a feminist. DSC: "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”."All you do is make the MGTOW stance stronger as you basically confirm that women are lying sluts enabled by the law. And that they don't have to be 'nice' and tell you the truth. Repulsive. And here you are cheerleading this behavior. Typical man hating feminist. Of course you'll claim fucking men over like this isn't hate. DSC: " (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.)"Such bullshit.Random Brother
>@ DarksidecatDarkside cat said: "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."How about I learn the law, and you learn some fucking morals.Random Brother
>@ ElizabethElizabeth said: "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."You are overstating it. However, anytime you call the police on anyone. Anytime you bring someone in contact with law enforcement and or "justice" system in the role of a criminal you are risking their life. You don't know how that police officer will react/treat to that person. A knee in his back? A gun to his head? Taser? Beating? A false accusation of rape doesn't even have to go pass the police officer showing up and it could be extremely bad for the man accused, becuase you could get some white knighting jackass cop who wants to teach someone a lesson. You don't know how he'll be treated in jail and yes men have been raped in jail even if they were only there for a short period of time. All of these negative things can happen and that is before he's imprisoned. Not exactly related but here's a little tale about what happens when women bring cops into the lives of their menhttp://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/01/wife-has-cops-beat-the-crap-out-of-husband-to-hide-affair-audio-of-incident-emerges/Random Brother
>@ AmnesiaThe law can say a trillion things, that doesn't matter nearly as much as what actually happens to men when they are put into this system. You have what the law says. I know what actaully happens in reality.Random Brother
>"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." This is true, richard. These laws are regularly used by non-biological parents to maintain custody and other legal rights over children. Regardless of what you seem to think, not all people in a child custody issue are eager to ditch the kids and never have to financial or otherwise support them. There are plenty of male parents who, in fact, actually want to continue raising the children they have been taking care of. These parents loose their kids in states with biological paternity laws. There are, in fact, many loving fathers who would be extremely hurt by removal of these laws (do a google search for "father custody non-biological" and you will see that this is a common issue). So, do presumed paternity laws sometimes give responsibilities to those who do not want them? Yes. However, they also give rights to those who do. Responsibilities are the flip side of rights. You MRA lot like to claim that you support father's rights, yet you steadfastly ignore the ways in which these laws do advance the rights of fathers. We could argue as to which legal structure would have the best cost-benefit analysis, but you do not want to discuss the merits of parental status under various systems, you want to claim that women are evil and you want a system where men have all of the rights they want but no responsibility.Also, the irony of accusing women of a multitude of crimes while whinging about how being accused of a crime is so very terrible is rather priceless. A criminal conviction of fraud can in some cases result in a sentence of over 20 years. So, yes, you have just made an accusation that, by your standards, warrants you being put in jail for at least 20 years. So, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go…
>I think it's worth pointing out that Richard's two examples of men who had unjust child support judgments pinned on them are BOTH cases in which it was the state, not the children's mothers, who were looking for money.Hatley and Jones were each caught up in situations where they were named as fathers because state law required such a declaration when their ex-partners sought public assistance. Neither was sought out for support by those exes directly, and neither was forced to pay a dime in such direct support. All the money they paid, and all the money they were asked for, went straight into the state's coffers.So these aren't cases of feminist campaigns to force men to give money to women, as the MRAs would have it, but of state governments that are disinclined to devote resources to support for the poor looking for ways to recoup those costs. And the villains in the stories aren't the women — who were, again, REQUIRED BY LAW to provide the names of the men they believed to be their children's fathers — but the government bureaucracies that didn't provide these guys proper due process.
>@Richard. It's impossible to get a restraining order just based on somebody's word. It's actually very difficult to acquire one because the court requires significant evidence. I tried for months to get one against the man who sexually assaulted me, then harassed me, for months. And I thought I had plenty of evidence. No such luck.The police chief in my university town actually looked me in the face and told me my abuser would have to track me and physically hurt me. Again. That's what it would take to get one.So I'd advise you to limit your sad attempts at argument to something you actually know anything about.