Obligation Masculinity: Kay Hymowitz and Her Clueless Brethren

“Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad.” – George Bernard Shaw

The manosphere has fired on all cylinders this week concerning Kay Hymowitz’s forthcoming book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys and Sunday Wall Street Journal article entitled “Where Have All The Good Men Gone?

I first saw discussion of the issue at Dr Helen late last week, and by the time Monday rolled around it had been posted on by Whiskey, Captain Capitalism, Crime & Federalism and Ferdinand Bardamu (the latter in spectacular fashion) and obliquely referenced by Roissy.

It is not what you would call a well-constructed argument. Hymowitz complains that young women are having difficulty finding “quality” men to date and marry – hasn’t this topic been done, I don’t know, every generation since Christ? – and that the solution is that men need to change themselves into something the women want, because otherwise the women will be unhappy. There’s an imperative for men to “man up,” but there’s a seemingly-intentional obfuscation of the underlying issues and there’s no concrete advice for what anybody is supposed to do about it – least of all the men at the center of it. To her, manhood is defined as doing what a woman wants.

I hesitated to even respond to the piece, thinking that not giving such nonsense any attention at all might be the best policy; I have decided that such a misguided work deserved a first-class fisking, the mother of all digital examinations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MISANDRIST MENDACITY, AND SLOPPY AT THAT

Hymowitz’s “Real Man” shtick is unabashed shaming, highly solipsistic and a case study in collective projection. If you don’t have time to read the rest of the post you can really stop here. It’s Hannah Rosin’s “The End of Men” with extra shaming and some extremely flimsy cultural commentary mixed in, and is completely oriented towards the interests of women with zero concern for what men might want.

In a circumlocutious re-statement of “men are intimidated by strong successful women,” Hymowitz wants us to believe that men are cowering in fear of women’s rise in the workplace and retreating to the basement where they play WoW and jerk off to porn until the wee hours.

She takes anecdotal stories of young urban women who choose to date losers and turns it into a problem with men instead of a profound lack of judgment on the girls’ part. While she does a pedestrian but adequate job of documenting the gains of women and the decline of men in today’s white-collar economy (again, nothing Rosin hasn’t already done) she offers zero evidence that there is any kind of epidemic of “slacker males” refusing to get a job and living in their parents’ basements by choice. (Considering we just had a census, one would think this evidence wouldn’t be difficult to dig up.)

She then asks us to presume that the first issue causes the second, a pretty simple correlation-causation fallacy that wouldn’t be true even if she had given us hard evidence for slacker syndrome.

There’s also a heaping helping of subtextual “men are afraid of commitment.” We know how this story ends; it’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity.

In the end, Hymowitz is telling us that women are entitled to a husband they want to be with, and that if guys don’t “step up” to fit the bill they’re bad men.

Hymowitz is completely clueless about how men work, what they want, what they perceive in society, and the elephant in the room that drives her ilk’s frustration – female hypergamy, the force that makes more and more men unattractive to them.

Put simply, Kay Hymowitz is every beta’s mom, telling men “you just have to work harder, get a better job, show a woman she’s special and be more roMAAAANtic!” If anything she will just create another generation of sucker chumps unable to attract women and the girls will scream even louder.

DEFINING IMMATURITY

For the record, an “adult” is someone who pays their bills and obeys the law. Anything else is a lifestyle choice in a free country. Hymowitz’s statements about male culture are breathtakingly arrogant and sexist. For the past few years she has fretted publicly about “child-men,” by which she means guys who aren’t interested in the things women do.

With women, you could argue that adulthood is in fact emergent. Single women in their twenties and early thirties are joining an international New Girl Order, hyperachieving in both school and an increasingly female-friendly workplace, while packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling, and dining with friends. Single Young Males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3, and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it’s receding.

What is this tripe? What kind of world does she live in where shopping, traveling and eating out are expressions of mature adulthood and not consumerist frivolities? How on Earth is the trash marketed to women on TV and in magazines (Cosmopolitan has the highest circulation of any magazine in the country) more mature than homebound diversions like video games? Not to mention that apparently women never drink alcohol. What solipsistic world is this woman living in?

Come to think of it, why don’t we examine that question right now.

KAY HYMOWITZ’S AMERICA

I am fairly certain, as has been discussed on the Dr Helen thread, that Hymowitz is living in her own fishbowl. A quick look at Hymowitz’s resume reveals a uniform pattern. Bachelor’s from Brandeis, Master’s in English from Tufts, aborted an English doctoral program at Columbia, teaching posts at Brooklyn College and Parsons, and now writing for City Journal and working at something called the Manhattan Institute. She’s spent her entire adult life in highly-educated Boston and New York humanities sectors – which means a general dearth of men, a preponderance of soft beta guys, and continuous exposure to hordes of young women writing and editing by day and living the “city life” and dating for the tingle by night. In short, her cross-generational coffee klatch covers the very thin demographic of educated middle-upper class East Coast urban women. Wannabe Carrie Bradshaws.

Her whole life has probably involved watching well-educated, reasonably attractive women date bad boys and losers, then complaining they won’t “commit,” then complaining they can’t find a good man, then later complaining they’ve “settled.” (As she gets older she gets the stories from assistants and mentees instead of direct colleagues but the profiles are the same).

She can’t possibly turn against the sisterhood, so the only people left to blame are men, and she probably has little if any contact with young men in a way that might open her mind to their concerns.

This should really end the discussion right now; Hymowitz is not qualified to make a social-science argument about the issue, and she lacks the perspective to make a humanistic one. The point is not whether she’s right or wrong; it’s that she quite literally doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

My suspicions of Hymowitz’s myopia were all but confirmed with her galactically stupid decision to cite a book about riding the cock carousel in the second paragraph of her WSJ story. But that she does, approvingly quoting Julie Klausner’s “I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I’ve Dated” – a documentation of the pervasive depravity of young urban women’s sexual decision-making.

Klausner says “we are sick of hooking up with guys,” but like Hymowitz, acts as if these men passed through a membrane into her bed and that she had nothing to do with who she chooses to date and who she decides to screw. Amazingly, one woman’s decade of slutting it up indicates a crisis of American masculinity.

Klausner is an idiot, and unfortunately all too typical in today’s SMP, falling in with the strangest of characters for the slightest of reasons and apparently expecting they will magically transform into suburban family men on her whim. (You didn’t have to buy Klausner’s book, though – a good review of field reports from game websites will tell you the same thing.)

By citing this book, I can only think Hymowitz accepts the worldview that a woman should ride the carousel, “have her fun,” when she’s young, and then expect a willing “commitment man” to appear on cue when her eggs begin to get overripe. (She’d probably say that’s what men do so men should be OK with women doing it too).

Aunt Kay is embarrassing herself giving into not just anecdotalism as hysteria, but also into the contradictory and one-sided expectations of the young women who surround her. If there ever was a halcyon “back in the day” for marital relations, a woman of Hymowitz’s age and stature would have told these entitled princesses “girl, you better chill out and show some respect for yourself or no man worth his salt is going to want to marry you.”

Fast-forward to today, and instead they define what the women want as “right” (of course reserving the right to change their minds) and pen books about how bad men are when they can’t get what they want.

THE BIG LIE

Hymowitz agitates that male indolence is due to “uncertainty about the role of men.” That’s a very clever sidestep of what’s really going on. Aunt Kay seems to think that if we issued a pamphlet dictating the terms of manliness (like Joycelyn Elders wanted to do with masturbation) they would hop, skip and jump into meeting the checklist. In effect, men aren’t “men” because we aren’t demanding enough of them.

Collective nagging as social policy – what a crock. Some nebulous “uncertainty” is not the core problem. Hymowitz and her ilk’s hamsters can’t bear to admit the real truth: men know what is expected of them, think it sucks, don’t find it rewarding (it certainly isn’t getting them laid) and have turned away from fulfilling other people’s (i.e. women’s) laundry lists of what they are “supposed” to do to win the imprimatur of “manhood.”

CONFUSING THINGS TO MAKE A POINT (WHO SAID CONSISTENCY WAS A VIRTUE?)

Hymowitz can’t keep straight three distinct groups of men.

  • Alphas: attractive men who “won’t commit” (women fight over them)
  • Betas: stable, employed men women find unattractive and don’t want to date (they are all but invisible to women)
  • Omegas: men without hope, truly unemployed and living in someone else’s house, sometimes for sloth but often because they cannot find a job in today’s economy (punchlines for jokes about “failure to launch” and how men are losers)

She discusses at length the falling economic prospects for betas and omegas, but when she talks about “manning up” she and all the other girls really want the alphas to “commit.” In this manner there’s a conflation, a blurring, of the three groups that ensures the message is as muddled as possible.

Hymowitz also mixes up two female mental processes:

  • Female commitment-phobia and choice addiction: “I want to try out all my options but there aren’t enough quality men to choose from!”
  • Dating men who are not selected for marital potential (following the tingle)

The first is something a young woman is going to have to get accustomed to if she truly wants a good man, because they do not grow on trees. The second is why making more “good men” will not solve the problem of the Klausners of the world – if you aren’t in the market for the product, more supply makes no difference to you.

DR HELEN AND TOM LEYKIS CLIPS

When Kay Hymowitz penned her original “Child-Man” article in 2008, Dr. Helen Smith took the article apart on Pajamas Media, calling out its blatant misandry, insulting tone and complete lack of actual contact with men. The comment thread saw over 250 posts. Helen posted an update that Kay Hymowitz had emailed her:

Hello Helen;

“Given the hundreds of messages I’ve gotten from men concerning my recent City Journal article, I wasn’t surprised to see your post. And I have to say, while I stand by my description of the child man culture and still believe that young women’s complaints about the guys out there are based on some truth, I made a mistake in not exploring the male view.

At any rate, my next piece will be about exactly that. (Your comments section will probably help me.) I knew some men were angry, but I didn’t understand the depth and extent of their rage. I don’t think many people do.
Best regards;
A Chastened Kay Hymowitz “

Who does she think she’s kidding with this non-apology apology? Notice the double-down on shaming – it’s not that men are passionately responding to being baselessly attacked; they have deep and extensive irrational “rage.” Note also her primary deference to “young women’s complaints” as they are the only ones that matter. Unreal.

A more animated exchange took place between Hymowitz and male-interest radio host Tom Leykis.

Hymowitz reaffirmed that all of her sources about young men are the complaints of young women. She admits that men are getting a raw deal in family courts, but blames it on a “self-perpetuating cycle of men who are not appealing to women as possible husbands” – in other words, it’s their fault the women divorce them. Are women accountable for anything in this woman’s paradigm?

An erstwhile defender of the single male lifestyle, Leykis pressed her on why men who have jobs and pay their bills should be concerned about what other people think of their leisure pursuits. She could only respond, with a nervous chuckle, “well women are pretty unhappy with it…they’re looking for husbands and where are you?” That reveals everything.

The rest of the clips can be found in sequence here, here and here.

A DISPATCH FROM THE TRENCHES

I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t cite the input of men myself. Here’s a comment left on the Wall Street Journal article by a man identifying himself as one Stephen Boswell:

“I can only speak for myself. But I’m in my early 40s, I’m unmarried, and I doubt I’ll ever marry, given that no woman has ever shown any interest in my good qualities.

One big reason seems to be the fallout of the “women’s liberation” movement. I have nothing at all against women wanting to assert themselves and not be servants to domineering men. I can totally see that point of view. But in practice, it seems to have gone far beyond “liberation” and straight into “vengeance”. Wanting to be equal is one thing; hating men for merely existing is something entirely different.

Another big reason seems to be the lack of successful career paths for college-educated middle-class males (like myself). I got my degree in Computer Science, had a career for about eight years, and then the dot-com bubble burst, followed quickly by the whole “outsourcing” phenomenon. I’ve been scrounging ever since. These days, there are very few middle-class careers that can’t be outsourced, and most of them have, and the few remaining that can’t be (e.g. government service) are being attacked as the problem (witness what’s happing in Wisconsin right now). In short, I couldn’t support a wife and family with my crappy excuse for a career, and I have no idea what I should do instead of what I’m doing now.

The last reason sounds darker, but after being unemployed for a few years, I believe I can back it up with experience….I really think that modern women prefer to date losers. I’ve received nothing but mocking ridicule in response to most of my romantic overtures. However, during the years where I was unemployed, living in my mother’s spare room, working as a handyman (and anything else I could find) just to live…I received more romantic interest than during the rest of my life put together. Maybe women deliberately date losers in order to foster their superior “liberated” attitude…I really don’t know. But the difference in the way women treated me when I was an unemployed loser was like night and day.

In summary…women can’t find good men because women don’t want good men, and aren’t honest enough with themselves to admit it.”

Does this sound like a “child-man” to you, a guy running from commitment and family, a guy who is driven to regressive despair because he can’t bear the idea he might have to report to a woman at the office?

Hardly. This is a guy beaten down for decades by the system, who did everything his elders told him he’d have to do to secure a reasonably happy life of financial security and the comforts of a mutually loving partner.

Any one of thousands – millions, probably – of compliant, hard-working beta men who have come up losers in modern society could have written this comment.

So if women want to ask where the good men are, they’re working hard for the money while you’re blowing the bass player.

AN UNINTENDED CALL TO ACTION

Hymowitz’s argument, with its one-sided perspective, disregard for the realities of the sexual marketplace, and blame-shifting to men is, both personally and intellectually, deeply insulting. But it’s something more.

What if they had a gender war, and the men actually showed up? What if Lysistrata was played out in reverse, with the men saying “you girls are not worth our time, let alone our investment; we’re not going to deal with you at all”?

The WSJ article has 1200 comments on it to date, and based on my skimming, I’d say 80% of respondents are men and 90% of them (male or female) are critical of the male-bashing. As Ferdinand Bardamu said:

This is momentous. As recently as a couple of years ago, an article like this would have gone unnoticed by men, part of the white noise of misandry blasted into our ears all the time. Now, whenever women like Hymowitz rear their ugly faces to condescend and blame us for the country’s ills, there’s a horde of angry men to descend upon them and drop truth bombs until they cry. A sea change is occurring, with the ideas of the manosphere leaking out into the public at large. It’s men – on strike!

It’s hard for me to believe Hymowitz’s book is going to lead to the change she wants. The most likely scenario is a huge backfire and further alienation of young adults across gender lines.

  • The young middle-upper class women to whom the book speaks will read it as a confirmation of their status quo: “she’s right, I’m AWESOME, it’s the men who need to change to meet my demands! It’s their fault I haven’t found Mr Right!”
  • Manosphere readers and red-pillers will react with even more contempt towards society and distrust towards women.
  • Some betas (chumps) will be convinced they aren’t doing enough supplicating, and double down on their betatude with predictable tingle-free results.
  • The rest of the betas will get fed up with women giving them advice that doesn’t work to attract women, give it up and go ghost. Or follow in Mystery and Roissy’s footsteps and become the alphas women complain about but sleep with beforehand.

PRETENDING YOU’RE NOT THE PROBLEM

A real effort at this very complex issue of the young adult SMP would include, among other things, toning down misandrist advertising, re-valorizing masculinity at the expense of “you go girl” gender feminism, disincentivizing credentialization so that young people get out of school and begin their real lives earlier, cutting down middle-class material expectations and control-freaking, and discouraging sexual madness (no more “have your fun”).

It’s doubtful much if any of this would be put into place, but Hymowitz doesn’t even want to try. Instead, she would rather pray to Tinkerbell and Jiminy Cricket. If she just wishes hard enough and writes enough articles about it, she won’t have to give up the goodies of the revolution or repudiate the disgusting excesses of the free-sex culture – good and ready men will simply appear out of the ether into Central Park, marry all of her young friends and protect them from their hypergamously-imposed twin prisons of Settling and Spinterism.

About these ads

40 Comments

Filed under junk culture, media, original research

40 responses to “Obligation Masculinity: Kay Hymowitz and Her Clueless Brethren

  1. The Truth

    Great post Badger! Kudos. I think more and more men are going ghost. There is really little reason to play a game rigged against them.

  2. Wow, excellent post Badger. You nailed her from every conceivable angle. What I find most troubling is the cluelessness – if she were willing to say what she really believes and what her real agenda is, I’d at least have some respect for her honesty and conviction. As it is, she’s hiding and the result is muddled and illogical. Still, I bet she’ll do quite nicely with this book – and no one in the media will put together an evaluation even half as sensible as this one.

  3. Brendan

    Nice post, Badger.

    I think that the key problem is that no-one is interested in the male perspective — and by that I don’t mean the perspective of liberal feminist academics who happen to be male (these are presumably not the men who are being “complained about” in writings like these anyway), but rather young men in general out there in the culture. These are voices that are silenced, more or less. They find expression on the internet, mostly, in the context of anonymity, for fear of reprisal in the real world – but they find almost no expression in the real world at all.

    What I can say is that if you scratch beneath the surface of the average guy, there is quite a bit of “rage” about the contemporary situation men find themselves in — and not only (or in many cases, not even primarily) regarding the issues Hymowitz is talking about. We just had an election in this country. White men overwhelmingly voted against the governing party, and it was often written off as “angry white men”. There *is* a lot of anger out there, and it just doesn’t have a voice, because it isn’t *permitted* to have a voice. The powers that be cannot stop it from being expressed at the ballot box and, so far, in an anonymous way on the internet, but the “rage” is there, right below the surface. It’s kind of a silent, unspeakable rage, however, because the kinds of things many guys want to say, or will say, when they feel comfortable expressing it, are often so politically incorrect as to cause scandal. This is the fruit of an environment that is fundamentally suppressive of the perspectives and opinions of almost an entire sex.

  4. Bravo Badger!

    Home Run. One sentence really sums it up for me:

    “For the record, an “adult” is someone who pays their bills and obeys the law. Anything else is a lifestyle choice in a free country.”

    If she thought that unmarried men were depriving themselves of the joy of marriage and kids (ahem!) then why isn’t she SELLING it to us instead of chasting us for not doing our duty?

    At some level, Hymowitz must KNOW that modern marriage is a raw deal for men.

  5. Keoni Galt

    Excellent fisking. The sad thing is Kay has written some excellent pieces against feminism and it’s role in creating the welfare state and it’s role in the destruction of the nuclear family. Until she got into male shaming the modern man, one would have thought she understood the problems feminism and the sexual revolution have caused. But no, she is most certainly an ala carte feminist.

  6. Keoni,

    I picture Kay and her friends sitting at the coffee shop engaging in a lot of false nostalgia: “you know that feminism thing was fun, but wasn’t it great back in the day when men had to WORK for it and we didn’t have to be breadwinners?” They want to back up the clock to make things easier for themselves, but can’t admit to each other how much the system they pushed forward has screwed men over. The moderate and conservative feminists may be the most dangerous group because they want the goodies of the movement but wrap it in the cloak of “traditionalism.”

    it’s different colors of the key point of my post – obligation masculinity, they are all fighting over exactly how men should serve women’s interests.

  7. Lovekraft

    In my ponderings, as a Mens Rights Activist, I have developed and presented on numerous blogs the following:

    that the feminist notion of masculinity that should satisfy the Modern Woman is deeply flawed, unfair, and unsustainable. That of the romantic soulmate, one who reacts to his mate’s each and every moodswing. The herb who shares each and every hobby and slowly but surely becomes resented and emasculated. Has resulted in so many men becoming shadows of their true selves.

    Instead, I am arguing, as a Beta, that the man should be required, as you put it, to “pay their bills and obey the law. Anything else is a lifestyle choice in a free country.” This should be enough and the woman should be grateful, and that once she does accept this, domestic and relationship harmony will result. This harmony will likely, IMO, lead to her receiving true love and intimacy, instead of the battles that result from reacting to her whims.

    I have a second part of this concept, which commenter Workshy Joe stated: “If she thought that unmarried men were depriving themselves of the joy of marriage and kids (ahem!) then why isn’t she SELLING it to us instead of chasting us for not doing our duty?”

    This means that, in the age of No-Fault Divorce and Marriage 2.0, once the man has fulfilled the above-noted requirements, then the ONUS is on the woman to prove her worth to the man. Prove to him that she is not infected by feminist supremacy notions of entitlement; to be a reliable, stable and accountable person.

    It’s amazing how the MRM is coalescing various concepts and the fact my idea has taken root (not taking credit, just sayin’ is all).

  8. dragnet

    Reading your blog for the first time—this is an excellent post.

    Keep up the good work!

  9. Lavazza

    Mainstream feminism is about men’s obligations and women’s rights. Anything about women’s obligations or men’s rights will be met with indifference or criticism. The weird thing is that even women who do not identify themselves as feminist or even call themselves anti feminists have the same views.

  10. Susan, I don’t think Kay will ever guess enough consonants to buy a clue from Pat Sajak.

    Workshy Joe – isn’t it bizarre how they treat “commitment” and marriage like broccoli, something men should do not because it has tangible rewards but because “it’s good for them”?

    Lovekraft, you bring up a point I didn’t have time/space to delve into – that many men have been turned into cowering “child-men” simply by trying to please the capricious whims of the women in their lives, be it their mothers, teachers or girlfriends and wives. It really makes you wonder if feminism wasn’t just the world’s biggest collective shit test.

    Brendan, dragnet, Lavazza – it’s a real boost to see voices of wisdom reading my blog.

  11. Pingback: Kay Hymowitz, Round Two « The Badger Hut

  12. The weird thing is that even women who do not identify themselves as feminist or even call themselves anti feminists have the same views.

    Our whole society has been indoctrinated with feminism. The notion that women still don’t have equality with men is trumpeted every day. Many women espouse, or at least accept, feminist ideas without even realizing they’re actively biased against men. In fact, many men do too. The kind of backlash KH is experiencing at the WSJ and elsewhere is encouraging.

  13. Susan,

    Our whole society has been indoctrinated with feminism. The notion that women still don’t have equality with men is trumpeted every day. Many women espouse, or at least accept, feminist ideas without even realizing they’re actively biased against men. In fact, many men do too. The kind of backlash KH is experiencing at the WSJ and elsewhere is encouraging.

    I’m sure I’m not alone in being totally behind the goals of women who wanted to get out of the kitchen and have a decently stimulating middle-class career, but at some point feminism became a cultural Marxist movement. Women are cast as the proles, and they’ll never be happy until the proles control everything and the male bourgeoisie cower under their yoke. The signs of Marxism are uncanny – notice how sympathizers are driven out of the movement and thrown down the memory hole for contrarian opinions on issues like abortion, and sympathetic men are still shamed and treated as useful idiots (a la the Vagina Monologues’ continued hatred of male sexuality). Myths of oppression were invented to motivate the followers for ruthless conquest. Commendable social progress by the alleged oppressors (technology and infrastructure) had to be torn apart and denigrated because “a woman could do it better if men would let her.”

    Then, in an analogy to Animal Farm’s pigs walking on two feet, feminism started to assert that equality really meant inequality, and that they were totally consistent asserting equality in the workplace and chivalry in their personal life. They wanted the deference and power of the movement AND the benefits of the old regime.

    Now “feminism” is totally turned around itself, puritanical and summed up in one petulant phrase:

    “Don’t take any shit from a man.”

  14. Brendan

    I’m sure I’m not alone in being totally behind the goals of women who wanted to get out of the kitchen and have a decently stimulating middle-class career, but at some point feminism became a cultural Marxist movement.

    It happened at the very beginning of second wave feminism. There really wasn’t ever a separate “strand” that was about getting women into careers that was not intertwined with the narrative of patriarchal oppression – narrative which is Marxist in structure. Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” wasn’t simply saying she bored and wanted social acceptance for working as a professional, it was saying that the middle class home was a “comfortable concentration camp”, where men were the Nazi guards and women were the oppressed and hated Jews. This was *very* inflammatory rhetoric and it happened right at the beginning of the movement. Gloria Steinem started out a bit more reasonable, but then quickly adopted the images and gestures of the 1960s counterculture, which was itself riddled with Marxist and neo-Marxist ideas. Robin Morgan, the founder of Ms. Magazine, was quoted in “Sisterhood is Powerful” (1970) as saying that the women’s movement endorses Marxist-Leninist socialist thought, and later on, Catherine MacKinnon, in her “Feminist Theory of the State” (1989) wrote that feminism, communism, and socialism are one and the same, and that a socialist/communist government was a political goal of feminism.

    Of course feminism has always had many strands and not all supporters of feminism believe the same things. But the Marxist strand has been strongly bound up in virtually everything else since the beginning of 2nd wave feminism, really. And it’s been remarkably effective as a result. The feminist theory of patriarchy (which is feminism’s equivalent of Marx’s theory of capital) basically contains a self-validating narrative which can be deployed to explain anything on earth, any aspect of history or economics, law, sexuality — you name it. Hitching feminism to a neo-Marxist theory of patriarchy was truly a master-stroke, because that narrative is now one of the dominant narratives through which women in particular understand the entirety of human experience, really.

  15. slwerner

    Badger – ”I’m sure I’m not alone in being totally behind the goals of women who wanted to get out of the kitchen and have a decently stimulating middle-class career, but at some point feminism became a cultural Marxist movement.”

    I’m right there with you.

    There was a time that, for a few years, my wife was a SAHM. She gave it her best efforts, but it wasn’t where her heart was at. She didn’t complain (much), but I knew she wasn’t satisfied. I knew that she had always want to be a lawyer, so as soon as our youngest was old enough for preschool, I basically insistent that she go to Law School.

    Today, she’s much happier, even though she’s in a rather high-stress occupation as a prosecutor (doing a murder trial right now).

    Interestingly, I don’t have any interest in video games myself, but my wife does. They serve as an “outlet” for her. Many of her colleagues (as well as many other professionals I know) simply drink too much. There are far worse things for people to do than play video games. Hymowitz is simply, and rather disingenuously (IMHO) trying to tap into a negative perception of the stereotypical “slacker male” as being obsessed with them.

    To me, being a “slacker” does not directly equate to playing video games, it just relates to taking the easy road.

    I had a cousin who, some years back, after graduating from college, proudly announced that she was planning to be a “slacker” (she actually used that term) for a while. Most all of my female relatives “congratulated” her decision to “take some time for herself” before joining the “rat race”. A young women who travels abroad (on her fathers “dime”, BTW) is seen as an empowered women, taking charge of her own life, yada, yada, yada. But, a guy who lives off his parents (for a while) working a menial job is a loser? Pretty damned sexist, if you ask me.

  16. Nergal

    On the Leykis show she was basically saying the guys deserve to have their earnings confiscated because they won’t “take on responsibility”. Female confirmation of the reality of hypergamy. Not being more successful than your wife is seen as a crime worthy of imprisonment and fines up to and exceeding hundreds of thousands of dollars, BY WOMEN!

  17. Retrenched

    The funniest thing about Kay’s article is her assumption that, if only there were more “good men”, women would choose them. When the fact is, most young women completely reject the good men who are out there now. Adding more “good men” to the mix would just make the exciting, out-of-their-league “bad boys” they lust after that much rarer and harder for them to find.

    How many “good men” did Julie Klausner sleep with?

  18. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Last of the Old Edition

  19. Squared

    Fantastic rebuttal, the best one I’ve seen about this particular article. Great job.

    [Thanks!]

  20. slwerner,

    “I had a cousin who, some years back, after graduating from college, proudly announced that she was planning to be a “slacker” (she actually used that term) for a while. Most all of my female relatives “congratulated” her decision to “take some time for herself” before joining the “rat race”. A young women who travels abroad (on her fathers “dime”, BTW) is seen as an empowered women, taking charge of her own life, yada, yada, yada. But, a guy who lives off his parents (for a while) working a menial job is a loser? Pretty damned sexist, if you ask me.”

    Very sexist, but sexism has never bothered feminists unless it’s hitting them in the pocketbook. The good news on this front is that if the economic downturn is going to be permanent as many are predicting (especially for those with big student loans), no one – man or woman – is going to be able to be a “slacker” in terms of long periods of vacation from employment.

    Retrenched,

    “The funniest thing about Kay’s article is her assumption that, if only there were more “good men”, women would choose them. When the fact is, most young women completely reject the good men who are out there now. Adding more “good men” to the mix would just make the exciting, out-of-their-league “bad boys” they lust after that much rarer and harder for them to find.

    How many “good men” did Julie Klausner sleep with?”

    You are absolutely right and I tried to hit on this in both posts.

    “The underlying premise of Hymowitz’s case is that if there were more “good men,” women would choose them. As any pickup artist can tell you, the problem is not the supply of the product – it’s that the product is not in demand. More supply would simply drive down the value of the good man even more.”

    I commented more on this at Hooking Up Smart tonight, I’ll be spinning it into a future post called The Hymowitz Fallacy.

  21. Pingback: 19 | The Badger Hut

  22. Pingback: Tuesday Potpourri | The Badger Hut

  23. Pingback: Michelle Langley and “Women’s Infidelity” on the Tom Leykis Show | The Badger Hut

  24. Pingback: Crazy Girlfriends and Spengler’s Law | The Badger Hut

  25. Pingback: Guest Post: The Female Condition | The Badger Hut

  26. Pingback: Cattiness and the Un-Selected Man | The Badger Hut

  27. Pingback: Spinster Math | The Badger Hut

  28. Ivan

    Fembots are incapable of rational introspection, thus the endless projection and shaming. I know so many young women who are incapable of admitting any fault whatsoever. Looks like it’s spread amongst the general populace. Men are always wrong, women are always right, and the women will hold their breath til they turn blue or get their way.

  29. Pingback: Clueless SoCons, Redux | The Badger Hut

  30. Pingback: Mental Symptom or DC Broads? | The Destroyer Method

  31. Pingback: Happy Birthday to the Badger Hut, Part 2: Best Posts | The Badger Hut

  32. Pingback: Rediscovering Masculinity « Elephants & Trees

  33. Pingback: Tom Leykis Returns To The Radio Today | The Badger Hut

  34. Pingback: Passive Game | The Badger Hut

  35. Pingback: A New Spin On “Man Up” Marketing | The Badger Hut

  36. Pingback: Educated Women’s Contempt For Men | The Badger Hut

  37. Pingback: Educated Women’s Contempt For Men | The Badger Hut

  38. “Amazingly, one woman’s decade of slutting it up indicates a crisis of American masculinity.”
    I died laughing at this line. Well done sir.

  39. Pingback: Fisking The Hamster | The Badger Hut

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s