A New Hymowitz Piece. It's Women's Fault That Men Hate Them.

Poor deluded lass. She read those same woman-hating comments to her earlier piece I did, but arrived at a very different conclusion:

Men in their twenties and thirties are fed up with women, but author Kay Hymowitz says you can’t blame them when women are demanding equality except when it comes to romance.

...

So, is this what Susan Faludi famously called the backlash? Is it immaturity, as my own book seems to suggest? Is it the Internet as an escape valve for decades of pent-up rebellion against political correctness? Or, is it just good, old-fashioned misogyny?
A bit of all of the above, probably. But there’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. By the time they reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors—in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. They very reasonably assume that the women they are meeting at a bar or café or gym are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex.
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. The might hook up as freely as a Duke athlete. Or, they might want men to play Greatest Generation gentleman. Yes, they want men to pay for dinner, call for dates—a writer at the popular dating website The Frisky titled a recent piece “Call me and ask me out for a damn date!”—and open doors for them. A lot of men wonder: “WTF??!” Why should they do the asking? Why should they pay for dinner? After all, they are equals and in any case, the woman a guy is asking out probably has more cash in her pocket than he does; recent female graduates are making more than males in most large cities.

This is really weird stuff. She's trying to find a reason that would blame women AND wouldn't be just a sign of general woman-hating of the kind that would always exist, whatever women as a class do. She fails miserably, I think.

Compare her argument to some of those comments attached to her earlier piece of nasty fluff, to be found in my earlier post and its comments. Here are a few more (MAY TRIGGER):

Others have walked round and round this Topic with few "manly" enough to take on the "Generation of Vipers" and/or the "gender equality feminists", so I will. 

Who wants an ordinary-looking or a Hymowitz plain jane whose interest in promoting masculinity is like, nowhere!! 

I'll take a feminine - never feminist! - woman who resides with me for the dual purpose of catering to my wishes as I would be to the rare as a dodo, less harridanish of a woman. 

And the word marriage has zero appeal to me. Been there, done that and couldn't wait to get her out of my sight. OK, I shouldn't have married her in the first place - NOW you tell me!! 

I think manliness for many men is what you see is what you get. I like outdoor activities, can't stand community plays and other poorly structured 'artsy performances', and will never again try to be what some female has been taught to expect. 

After living with continuously arguing, uneducated parents, I swore I would NEVERI marry.

I failed ... once ... but never again. 

If a male needs a maternal influence in his life, he should get the real thing ... a female dog!!
-------
A comedian said it great: "I was gonna get married but thought I'd just buy a house for a women I didn't like instead." 

Men follow the incentives: the incentive for getting married is a huge negative for men. 

Want men to grow up? Raise them to be men, not sensitive new age naval gazers. 

Want them to marry? Raise your women to be wives, instead of spoiled brats. 

Legally we treat husbands like they are in coach, and wives ride first class. Gotta' change this if you want the men to come back to the table.
======
was born a man, society tried to make me a woman, but then I became a man again. Male adolescents today are not allowed to be "boys". The Slightest Infraction has them either "Pilled Out" if they show Ambition or Energy, Suspended from School, or Even Arrested. When Not in Trouble the Parents Track them with GPS and Call Them Every 10 minutes to see if they are Still Alive and Behaving. By Not Letting them be "Boys"you are simply Delaying the Process of Maturity. Eventually, They Have to Get It Out, This Occurs when they are Older than 18yrs. There whole Lives to this Point they have been Tracked, Punished, and many Pilled Out. Now they are Mansized and Over the Age. What Comes around Goes Around and now Its.... Party Time! By the way Kay, I think your hot.
======
But the problem is even greater than an academic discussion of men being disposable and women being given the false illusion of 'Sheena' invincibility. We have been told to scorn the old adage of 'women and children first.' I shudder to think what will happen to Western civilization in an increasingly more violent world, and as economic realities deteriorate, Even in the predations of past dark ages in human history, there was a symbiotic relationship in society between the majority of men and women who cared about each other and their children - it made the difference in survival or anihilation. On the road we are now currently taking, what will happen to the future of mankind in the West? 

Is it an accident that the media portrays and promotes the view of terrorists as brute testosterone hairy animals, while Western men have been emasculated with a vengeance, and portrayed as weak adolescent boys living in Never-Never Land? It has been said, there are no accidents in history.

And of course Amanda is quite right on her take on this newest Hymowitzing:

It didn't seem possible to me that Kay Hymowitz could come up with a piece that's lighter on evidence than her recent Wall Street Journal piece that cast all twentysomething women as dour marriage obsessives and all twentysomething men as perennial children, because that's how she saw it in a Judd Apatow movie.  But she really outdid herself in the Daily Beast, with an article explaining why men are universally angry with women.  Her evidence for this?  The rantings of men on internet boards that are dedicated to misogyny.  That's like reading a white supremacist website and concluding that all white people worship Hitler.
The Web sites Hymowitz (who has a forthcoming book, Manning Up)  uses as evidence for her "men all hate women now" theory are all on the far end of the "men's rights activist" spectrum, which is a subculture of anti-feminists who spend all their money on "pick-up artist" scams and mail-order bride businesses, at least when they're not tying their ex-wives up in court for years at a time with frivolous lawsuits.  George Sodini, the misogynist who shot up a gym class and killed three women, sprang from this subculture.  So did the guy who keeps suing nightclubs for having Ladies Night, because he's still bitter that his Russian bride got the hell out the second she secured her green card.  And so did Darren Mack, the man who killed his ex-wife and tried to kill the judge presiding over their divorce. Men join up with this subculture because they buy into the belief that feminists have convinced women to make up rape, domestic violence, and child abuse to control men, and that men are a deeply oppressed group, and that the more money and leadership positions thing is just an illusion concealing the truth of our matriarchy.
In other words, not the guys you want to ask if you're looking for average male sentiments about women.

In short, those kinds of comments threads are flooded by misogynists. They come in as a group and support each other. After a while you can smell them, the flavor of the arguments, and the repeated reference to the same short list of horrors that affect men (false accusations of rape, for instance, or how men really kill many more men than they kill women).

But whatever those comments threads tell us or don't tell us, none of them reveal that the greatest grudge men have would be about having to pay for a meal while dating if that's what is still expected of them (I wouldn't know, not having gone through the American dating rites).

It's true that quite a few argue that sex should be the natural payment for a free meal. But that's not the same as being upset about pre-feminist dating rites still existing in places. After all, pre-feminist comments threads exist, too! And pre-feminist earnings differences! And pre-feminist lists of the gender of American presidents and of the popes and of the mullahs and of the priests and so on. The world changes but slowly.

IF we were to take Hymowitz's ideas seriously, I'd argue that the various comments threads I have, sadly, read suggest that many of these misogynists hate traditional (heterosexual) women, women who stay at home. Those women are seen as leeches who suck up the man's resources, who are lazy and greedy and who are just waiting to kick the man out in order to get even more in a divorce settlement. These men also hate women who don't follow orders or who get less sexually attractive with age or who don't put out when expected.

But nowhere have I read comments demanding that women should call men for a date or that women should pay for dates more often. Nowhere.

Another filthy fluff piece from Hymowitz.