>
 |
| 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.
>AnthonyBSusan, your comment sounds like the something I ever heard a male judge say to a plaintiff seeking an injunction.In my state, at the time, it was a series of harassing events and he said that one rape was not a series of harassing events. Every other female judge in the room (paraphrasing here) said "you moron, you ask 'did he touch you more than once? yes? Granted!'"Cold-then you are changing your stance of just standing there staring as a woman is raped and will help her out even if it is nothing more than calling 911. So why claim otherwise? And before you go saying "you idiot…of course I would!" You were not saying that. You were saying you would refuse to help any woman outside a very small circle and calling 911 is at least some help while avoiding getting your own ass beat. Richard-you are making wild assumptions based on little more then conjecture from watching too much TruTV. Here is an actual DV police report from an incident that has the entire political community aflutter. Neither party was mistreated by the police and I am not going to comment on either party's behavior subsequent to this. This is an example of what actually happens when someone makes an accusation. Do you see him being thrown immediately into prison? No.Do you see any evidence that he was beaten half to death by the cops? No.You keep making assumptions that have nothing to do with reality and more to do with what goes on on TV.
>So I'd advise you to limit your sad attempts at argument to something you actually know anything about. And Richard was never heard from again…
>@ Richard:No, seriously – he's couch surfing in a trailer, and goes to play his guitar on a street corner when he needs money. This is all he really wants to do with his life. The $14K comes from when he was drawing a regular paycheck as a laptop mechanic – he decided not to pay child support out of that money, and it kept adding up and adding up for the years he worked there. He's pretty much the dictionary definition of deadbeat – a guy who just can't be arsed to care about his kids. There's no way he can pay even a fraction of that on a homeless beach bum's income, and the scenario you're suggesting is that Teh Evul Feminists will descend upon him and throw him in jail for failure to pay. Really, all that's happening is a bunch of bills being sent to his old address (where a friend of mine currently lives, which is how I know about this). I suppose if he ever gets another real job, his paycheck will be garnished, but that'll be about the worst thing to happen. Now, of course, we can move on to discussing the fact that there are three human beings in this world who have been pretty roundly rejected by their father.
>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?Okay.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.
>That's blaming the system, not blaming the victim. It's not the victim's fault that the system allows women to get away with false rape accusations and that other women take advantage of it, unless the victim herself is one of those women but I'm not making that assumption here.Trying to equate what I said to victim blaming is highly disingenuous and, if I was a moral absolutist like you, I would say that it was indicative of moral bankruptcy on your part. Since I'm not one, I'll settle for saying that it is yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty of feminists and their lackeys.
>@ anthonybsusananthonybsusan said: "@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."Interestingim·pos·si·ble (m-ps-bl)adj.1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.Again for clarity anthonybsusan said: "@Richard. It's impossible to get a restraining order just based on somebody's word."Impossible.So if I could show just one case. Just one case. One case. One. I could disprove all the bullshit that you wrote. Here you go toots.Attorneys for David Letterman are fighting a temporary restraining order leveled at the Late Show host by a New Mexico woman who claimed that Letterman wants to marry her and employ her as a co-host. In a request filed Dec. 15, Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe claimed that Letterman has used code words to express his desire to marry her and train her as a host on his show. Nestler said Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "sleep deprivation" and "mental anguish" since 1994, the Associated Press reports. Nestler's temporary order, which she is trying to have made permanent, states that Letterman must stay at least three yards away from her and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering." A state judge granted the temporary order, but attorneys for Letterman are seeking to have the order quashed. http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1143004,00.htmlSo somehow, this woman managed to get a restraining order with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE. But wait, you said that was impossible! Oops!Thanks for playing.Random Brother
>@ studentactivismThe question is who defends these policies when men try to change them? The answer is feminists. So feminsts ARE to blame because they ensure the policies stay in place.Random Brother
>@ Captain BathrobeCaptain Bathrobe said: "Yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip!"Random Brother
>@ ElizabethYou are trying to compare the treatment of a state senator (a man who by definition has wealth and power) with the vast majority of domestic violence cases, which is unfair.Random Brother
>@ Lady Victoria von SyrusI don't understan why that guy stolls around free, when others who can't pay get shafted.Random Brother
>@ DSCThose laws are for homosexuals, not duped dads. Stop trying to conflate the two. A fair system would allow the man upon discovery of the fraud to decide whether he wants to be responsible for another man's children.Random Brother.
>Richard, Arizona state legislators get a salary of $24,000 a year. For those who do not own their own businesses, they mostly are poor. One of them lost his house after being appointed to the State Lege.They are not, by definition, wealthy.
>Cold: Although intent has some relevance, your morality is defined by your actions, and the kind of man you are as demonstrated by your real-life choices — not the kind of man that you claim you coulda, shoulda, woulda been, maybe, if only the world made it easy for you to do the right thing. In fact, I would say the lowest level of immorality is represented by someone who knows the difference between right and wrong, deliberately does wrong, and then goes on to rationalize it.That said, there is nothing remarkable in rationalizing one's choice not to get involved on behalf of another, your anger at feminists and women in general being just slightly less legitimate than "I was late for work and didn't have the time" and slightly more legitimate than "I didn't help because I was upset about the situation in Honduras." The truth is, however, that people usually don't get involved because they are afraid the have the shit kicked out of them; if they aren't so afraid and stand by because they want to make some sort of a statement, that kind of conduct merely confirms everything that the people they are angry at have been saying about them. Your comments, for example, confirm the feminist charge that the patriarchy regards violence against women, or a threat of such violence, as an invaluable means of social control. In other words, you'd (supposedly) leap to the defense of "your" women, but if anyone else gets attacked, her victimization is just deserts for the fact that women can press charges. Being supposedly afraid of a false rape accusation is a red herring here, since you are far more likely to have the rapist sue you for assault (that actually HAS happened), but evidently, it's not a concern to you. The message is clear: if a woman doesn't want to be raped, she'd better live as you say she should live — rely on the benevolence of men if they choose to "protect" her, and suck it up if they choose not to. On the other hand, if you are afraid that in the process of rescuing a woman from her rapist, you might inadvertently stick your dick in her, perhaps you are right — you SHOULD stay away.
>@ColdYou know, I can understand why someone wouldn't want to get involved in an attack for their own safety. What makes you a coward is that you fear the victim more than you fear the attacker.
>Cold has trusted female friends?I call bullshit.
>@AmnesiaThe attacker can only harm me through direct physical force, against which I am able to put up strong resistance. The victim, on the other hand, can ruin my life by simply pointing a finger at me and it is much, much more difficult for me to defend myself from the corrupt, misandrist legal system and media. Fearing the person who is more dangerous isn't cowardice; it's simply being rational. But please, keep using this shaming language and helping to fill out the list. In addition to quoting misandry from prominent feminists, there is also a section for random misandrist commenters and a special section for stuff quote-mined from this very blog (payback's a bitch, David).
>@Richard: First, allow me to make something clear. You don't call me toots. Ever. Again. It's highly disrespectful and furthermore, it distracts from any legitimate point you might ever make against feminism. Why should I take your opinions seriously if you're going to insult me? You're not doing yourself or your movement any favors here.Second, perhaps the law varies from state to state. I probably shouldn't have made a generalized statement. However, you made one as well regarding restraining orders, and seemed to completely lack an understanding of how the process of obtaining one actually works. I don't know why the judge granted that particular woman an order and frankly, neither do you. You really haven't proved anything.
>Cold, are you actually saying that you think it's likely that if you stepped in to help a rape victim she would accuse you of rape?
>@ Amnesia, Cold, DavidIn response to this whole refusal to help issue, let me give you a couple of examples from my life.When I was about 11, 12, I was sitting on my front steps. I lived in a lower middle class black neighborhood and a dirty looking couple was walking down the street arguing up a storm. One thing led to another and the guy started beating the shit out of the girl. Ms. Badass Mouthy Sista wasn't so bad ass anymore. Then some dude comes up screaming. "Yo, what the fuck you doing man!" The wanna be superhero and the "abuser" start beefing with one another, and then they start fighting with each other in the middle of the street, with Ms. Badass sitting on the sidelines screaming. Well something must have snapped in little princesses head because halfway through the fight she JUMPED ON SUPERHERO'S BACK AND STARTED BITING HIS NECK. Now I don't knnw whether this chick was a druggie (they looked like druggies) or insane or just more fearful of her abusive boyfriend/husband/whatever he was, but the end result was the tide of the fight was turned and superhero ended up laid out on the ground. Then the two left, bickering all the way.Now my question is what would have happened if the police had shown up? The druggies would likely have stuck together, leaving Mr. Hero having to deal with the cops. Cops who may not give a shit who's right or wrong, they simply might want to arrest someone. Or hell, and I've seen this, the cops just arrest everyone. The woman refuses to rat out her boyfriend and they all get taken to jail. Or what if he had managed to fend off both of them and the cops show up and they claim he attacked them? You're telling men to get involved in these situations when there are dozens of things that can go wrong for the man who intervenes. Even cops don't like getting involved in domestic disputes and they have the power and training to deal with them. Another wonderful tale is far less riveting, but shows how stupid white knighting can get you in trouble. I had moved to that shithole state Maryland, and in my apartment complex someone knocked on my door. I look out and it's a little girl. She said that her mommy needed a phone. I had this feeling that something wasn't right, but I saw this cute little girl and thought what could be wrong here. I rationalized someone ran their minutes up and needed to go somewhere or get something important and that was the issue. So I grabbed my phone and followed the little girl to her apartment. I was maybe 6ft behind the little girl when she turned into her apartment. I was about to go in after her when I heard "Bitch, Imma fucking kill you." I promptly turned around and went to back to my apartment.Imagine me walking into some fucking man's apartment with a phone in my hand, just begging to be shot. Even if I had went in there, been peacemaker, or beat the guy down, I'm still in his fucking house uninvited, so when the cops come they're looking at me. I have to hope that I get a cop who understands and will not screw me because of policy, or racial reasons, or hell he's just not having a good day. You think that's a good idea?AND THEN YOU WANT MEN TO RISK ALL OF THIS FOR WOMEN WHO ROOT FOR AND PASS LAWS THAT SCREW OVER MEN? FUCK NO.If all of you superhero's want to run around involving yourselves in some of the most emotinal and explosive situations that arise in relationships, go the fuck ahead, idiots, but please don't tell sensible people, sensible men to throw themselves in no win situations in order to save the next Mary Daly or Andrea Dworkin. Random Brother
>@ Anthonybsusananthonybsusan said: "@Richard: First, allow me to make something clear. You don't call me toots. Ever. Again."And how would you stop me? See now I want to call you that over and over and over again. However, I'm trying to be nicer on this board so you get a pass on this for now. Anthonybsusan: "It's highly disrespectful and furthermore, it distracts from any legitimate point you might ever make against feminism."Actually I think it's mildly disrespectful, I haven't gotten highly disrespectfuly, yet. Anthonybsusan: "Why should I take your opinions seriously if you're going to insult me? You're not doing yourself or your movement any favors here."What does it matter? Feminsts don't change their minds based upon logical arguments. They're told by the higher ups what to believe and they believe it, the end. Just like you believe in "THE PATRIARCHY" and "THE RAPE CULTURE" and countless other stupid ideas. Because in essence your masters told you to believe and you believe, like a cult. The logic I give you may as well be math lessons for a rock.Anthonybsusan: "Second, perhaps the law varies from state to state. I probably shouldn't have made a generalized statement."Ya think?! Let me summarize this here. I was right and you were wrong. I accept your apology.Anthonybsusan: "However, you made one as well regarding restraining orders, and seemed to completely lack an understanding of how the process of obtaining one actually works. I don't know why the judge granted that particular woman an order and frankly, neither do you. You really haven't proved anything."I know the process doesn't work the way you say it does. I know it's not impossible to get one. I know you can, in certain places and with certain judges, get one on the flimsiest of reasons and I know that your claim was clearly wrong. That's what I proved.Random Brother
>Elizabeth said… "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?"Get sex?GET SEX!? Did I hear you correctly?RAPE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RE – MEM – BER!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>Well there you are David.A feminist female who obviously thinks rape is about sex.Better tell her she's wrong. She's not towing the party line!Why don't you?Is it because she's a wimminz?
>The victim, on the other hand, can ruin my life by simply pointing a finger at me and it is much, much more difficult for me to defend myself from the corrupt, misandrist legal system and media.You're right, that would be difficult if it were true. Now imagine all the women here in the real world who have to stand up against a corrupt, misogynist legal system and media. But of course that would require you to sympathize with women, so I'm guessing it's not going to happen.Ms. Badass Mouthy Sista wasn't so bad ass anymore.I like how you relish in the image of the uppity woman being put in her place. It's classy. Stay classy, Richard.
>@ triplanetaryHonesty > ClassyRandom Brother
>anthonybsusan said… "@Richard: First, allow me to make something clear. You don't call me toots . . ."Chill out, toots.