A bunch of people have sent me this article by Kay Hymowitz entitled “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” That title and the first paragraph tell you everything you need to know about what it’s about:
Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This “pre-adulthood” has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it’s time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn’t bring out the best in men.
Do I really have to write about this shit? I’m sick of it, these empty-headed yentas bitching about why men won’t man up when they have not only have zero incentive to do so, but will actually be PUNISHED for it. Captain Capitalism, Whiskey and Mike at Crime & Federalism have already covered this article. Do you honestly need me to fisk yet another one of these silly twats?
Okay, fine. I’ll take a look at this crap. The three guys I mentioned have taken care of the basics, so I’m going to zero in on one particular aspect – the fact that careerist, promiscuous women like Hymowitz feel entitled to a REAL man. This quote sums up their attitude perfectly:
“We are sick of hooking up with guys,” writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, “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.” What Ms. Klausner means by “guys” is males who are not boys or men but something in between. “Guys talk about ‘Star Wars’ like it’s not a movie made for people half their age; a guy’s idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends…. They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home.” One female reviewer of Ms. Kausner’s book wrote, “I had to stop several times while reading and think: Wait, did I date this same guy?”
Put the cliched narrative of a thirtysomething slut burnout looking for a provider beta after spending her salad days sleeping with enough men to fill a book aside and concentrate on her sheer selfishness. Klausner and her ilk feel entitled to a real man despite the fact that they themselves make poor women. Please tell me, dear, why the FUCK I should “man up” for the likes of you. Is it because you’re an accomplished paper-pusher? Is it because you graduated college with a 3.7 GPA in your humanities major? Is it because you’re a snide, sarcastic, bitter harpy with an axe to grind against an entire sex? Boy oh boy, that sounds like something I’d sign up for in a jiffy!
I will never tire of reminding people of Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity:
In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.
Boorish slags like Julie Klausner deserve uncaring manboys. If you want guys to man up, gals, you better damn well be “womaning up.” Get the apron and the kneepads and I’ll give up the video games and the Frat Pack movies. It’s one thing to get the realmannspracht from a lady who aspires to live and advocate traditionalism, even if she does a poor job of it – it’s another entirely to get it from a woman who spent the bulk of her adult life spitting on everything that womanhood stands for. (Yes, I am defending Laura Wood, silly as she may be.) Women get the men they deserve. If it seem like all the men who are fucking you are dirtbags, it might just be because you’re a useless bitch.
The silver lining in Hymowitz’s noxious screed is that virtually the entire commentariat is united against her. There are hundred of comments on her article and I can’t read them all, but from what I’ve seen the ratio of haters to supporters is at least nine to one, and they’re leaving remarks like these:
This is the result of “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” thinking men are useless. Name a single father figure on television that isn’t a dope or an idiot. You can’t because today’s society denigrates men and relegates them to peripheral roles in society and relationships. It takes a LOT of work to make a boy grow up and become a MAN, the most important thing these boys need is a strong male role model to look up to. Where exactly is a boy going to get this role model? From his mommy?
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!
{ 106 comments… read them below or add one }
Heh, good question.
Why men should “man up” by an used up, aging slut, probably filled with STDs and uncapable to bond with a single man?
Forgot to add:
Even if the divorce racket wasn’t what it is, that’s still a really bad deal.
A linking of themes from the manosphere.
Irena Dunn coined the phrase: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.â€
From her Wikipedia
article: “In the early 1980s she married Brett Collins, a convicted bank robber turned prison activist, whom she met through her work editing a prison magazine.”
Enough said.
All you have to do in order to puncture the pomposity of these women is make them SPECIFY what they mean by “manning up”.
I’ll take a guess at what they mean:
Manning up = EARN MORE MONEY than they do and MARRY THEM.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Wake up and smell the demographics bitch!
Not so long ago, the average Western Woman in her 20′s had a lot to offer to a man on the mutual road through adulthood: a high school diploma, financial responsibility, femininity, a level of chastity, a willingness to understand the man, support, cherish and appreciate his love, protection and support, marriage and children raised in a two separate sex headed household. Today, most women in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of cock limbo, a hybrid state of riding on the cock carousel and expectation to be exempt from the results. This “pre-ready-for-relationshiphood” has much to recommend it, especially for the strong and independent sexually empowered woman. But it is time to state what has become obvious to legions of apathetic young men: It doesn’t bring out the best in women.
Not so long ago 50% of women weren’t obese.
Her picture looks like she’s just about to cover up a cold sore. Or getting a reach around by June Cleaver. Something is very off about that picture.
As for the article itself, I read it a couple of days ago and thought it was a long nagfest against a generation that has never had a reason to give a shit. My generation has everything and more, except balls. No, not balls to take the reigns and save civilization so people like Kay don’t have to actually do something productive, but the balls to stand up to people like Kay and put her where she belongs. In the ash heap of history, like most of the last 100 years of insanity.
Looks like she’s done some “manning up” of her own. She resembles David Brenner in drag. Yech. What a fugly tranny skank.
Slightly OT:
What is wrong with these media bitches that keep turning to fiction to prove a real life point??
The next time some broad compares the average flesh and blood dude to Mr. motherfucking Darcy,Ill smash that cunts face on the pavement.
Do I go around comparing a 6 or 7 to Jenna Jameson and whine in an editorial as to how they dont measure up?
Also this entitlement whore Hymowitz brings her beloved Sex and The City and finds real life lacking! Jewess,please!
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_4_urbanities-scoring.html
And back to her current nag:
I would like to address some quotes other commentators have ignored
“In his disregard for domestic life, the playboy was prologue for today’s pre-adult male. Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad, however, our boy rebel is a creature of the animal house. In the 1990s, Maxim, the rude, lewd and hugely popular “lad” magazine arrived from England. Its philosophy and tone were so juvenile, so entirely undomesticated, that it made Playboy look like Camus.”
Notice how she excuses those men who were supposed to be representative of those of who read Playboy while castigating those who read Maxim…”Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad, however, our boy rebel is a creature of the animal house”….In other words …. oh why cant the average women get the gentrified ,well to do ,smooth WASPish man with his own penthouse filled with avant garde art that they clearly deserve instead of these crass betas with their Maxims and tech toys(left unsaid).
Yes you stupid twat, Maxim is juvenile and adoloscent filled with naked chicks(semi naked in U.S edition) but it also contains other articles on history,geography,technology,military know how and survival stories.Not “Camus” mind you but I willing to wager Maxim and Playboy(which carried articles by Mailer and Hemingway) appeal a lot more to the gray matter than Cosmo,Vogue or whatever other intellectually bankrupt estrogenfest you broads lap up.
What these mentally handicapped harridans dont understand is that the same guy who appreciates naked chicks(the horror!) ,fart jokes(personally never cared for them,and am sure its appeal is exagerrated by women),video games(a lot better than playing with doll collection,arranging throw pilows and collecting teddy bears) can also appreciate more cerebral pursuits which brings me too…..
“At the same time, young men were tuning in to cable channels like Comedy Central, the Cartoon Network and Spike, whose shows reflected the adolescent male preferences of its targeted male audiences. They watched movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks. Americans had always struck foreigners as youthful, even childlike, in their energy and optimism. But this was too much”
She forgot to mention History Channel, National Geographic,Discovery HD,ID,Science or any other channel that has anything to with history,geography,general knowledge,science,technology,forensics,military strategy has overwhelmingly male demographics.The most women do to exercise their noodle to try and guess the accent/ethnic origin of that handsome muchacho
who is the subject of the fat chicks infatuation in Ugly Betty/Glee or whatever godforsaken garbage it is they tend to watch.
I would try and explain this to Kay “Who needs a hymen?” Hymowitz but she is too busy examining (and gushing) over the career of Paris Hilton.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_4_urbanities-paris_hilton.html
My work here is done
I think you are reading things into the article. It doesn’t seem to be particularly anti-male. The only thing really objectionable is the quote from the female comedian, and it is open whether that reflects Hymowitz’ own views.
I concur with your point about her not womaning up. But in their defense, there’s nothing for women to woman up to. All that upright behavior you described is so 1950s.
The notion that a girl achieves womanhood when her hips finish spreading needs to go.
I propose that a girl becomes a woman when she becomes a wife…with all the semantical freight that word brings with it.
Do not forget people, she is one of the executive editors at City Journal, the propaganda arm of the Manhattan Institute – i.e. neocon central.
We need to turn our guns on the neocon centers of power. They are vile, disgusting wretches.
Just more shaming language! from the washed – up sluts.
Well said. Why should anyone “man up” to meet the expectations of some crazed, impossible-to-please woman?
Uh another old whore bla bla blaing in the wind.
“But it’s time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn’t bring out the best in men.”
Funnily enough women in 30s divorce, and then go eat, pray and love to bring out the best in their haggard selves. How the hell is that not worse than the man-boys who at least aren’t “harming” anyone but themselves?
The female entitlement (for men tailored to her needs) is rampant, and one should rightly point out so.
What is the “best in men” she refers to, and what are her standards, and how can she defend them when on the other hand there is carte blanche for women to choose whatever path in life they want?
“Yes, I am defending Laura Wood, silly as she may be.”
I wonder why no has blamed this on your no-mastubation stint.
I can’t imagine a worse example for her to have used in this article than Julie Klausner.
Forget “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” This woman has been ridden more times than a bicycle! That’s what we should “man up” for? No thanks, I’ll sit that one out.
I have a traditionalist take: we have seen the enemy and he is us.
It’s one thing to get the realmannspracht from a lady who aspires to live and advocate traditionalism, even if she does a poor job of it – it’s another entirely to get it from a woman who spent the bulk of her adult life spitting on everything that womanhood stands for. (Yes, I am defending Laura Wood, silly as she may be.)
I agree with this…despite my disagreement with her and her continued attempts to shame and revile the manosphere, she does come from a slightly higher moral ground with her ‘man-up’ spiel than a 30+ year old retiree from the cock carousel, grousing about the lack of available “good” men to marry her.
The Spearhead took some well deserved hits from Laura Wood as the home of the lowest level of discourse in the Manosphere. Personally, I don’t mind profanity but the abuse of logic I can’t stomach. It’s basically a support group for losers looking for a philosophy to justify being as selfish and deluded as the feminists they criticise. It was sad to see Keoni writing down to their level.
And like a typical white knight/feminist, Heathcliff offers up zero specific examples to back up his emotional slur
There’s nothing emotional in my comment. If you want to see emotion take a look at the comments to the Spearhead post ironically titled “emoting housewife”. I’m neither a white knite nor a feminist but I’m also not looking to jump on a victim bandwagon.
Heathcliff “emoting housewife” does not constitute evidence to back up your erroneous claim. Kindly provide specific example not taken out of context and explain why it is an unfair attack on the feminist known as “Thinking Housewife” So far, you make about as much sense as the “emoting housewife” herself. Are you sure you have a cock and balls down there? Double check for me.
Heathcliff, first of all my point was to counter TTH’s sweeoing generalization of The Spearhead was inaccurate, unfair, and not based on logic. Secondly, I highlighted the false moral equivalence she and her emailers ascribe to the Spearhead and what she rightfully called EPL Syndrome. Patrick in particular branded The Spearhead as “evil” comparable to the evil of EPL Syndrome, largely because of vulgar language.
BTW, Heathcliff, did you see my response? Did you see Novaseeker’s latest piece? Both are good examples of logical arguments. Please show us where this “abuse of logic” is coming from?
Did you actually read the article? Sounds to me like Kay mostly agrees with you. She concludes with:
“So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with “Star Wars” posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn’t be surprised.”
and
“But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.
They might as well just have another beer.”
Please note that I did not “ATTACK” TTH.
I criticized some of her statements and characterized them as emoting rather than a logic based criticism.
Furthermore, she criticized the Spearhead first, and when I responded with my article, she turns around and calls us all “Bullies.” She can dish the criticism, but as soon as it is countered, she cries bullying…and guys like you’re a quick to jump to her defense. If she can’t stand the criticism, she shouldn’t be criticizing.
“Home of the lowest level of discourse on the Manosphere”.
Though your idea of “lowest level” is probably skewed, dude, there’s a blog called Citizen Renegade. Go there, the “level of discourse” may make your head explode and we don’t have to see anymore your white-knighting ass.
Don’t worry, The (non) Thinking Hosewive has already another 5 chumps in that job.
Man, she looks like a guy!!!
Perhaps she should start listening to other advice on how to be more Feminine before she criticizes our looks/lifestyles.
Agree with Ferd and Keoni with regards to Laura Wood. She’s insufferable, illogical, and definitely no friend of men…but she definitely walks the walk when it comes to traditional values.
I started reading the Hymowitz piece and I just couldn’t get through it. 1) it’s too long, and 2) I’ve read the exact same piece before at least 7 or 8 times in 2010.
I believe it was TFH who said this was the year that feminist and manginas would begin doubling down on the misandry—I think the guy was onto something. It really feels like the anti-male press, shaming language, etc is reaching a crescendo—articles like these have been flying off the presses fast and furious the last few years. And the pushback from men has largely been equal to the challenge.
I’ve been skeptical of some of TFH’s predictions…but at this rate, he just might be onto something when he says the bubble pops in 2020.
I have always considered self-responsibility and self-reliance to be the ONLY definition of adulthood. I have never considered entering into fiduciary relationship with others to be a necessary characteristic of adulthood.
However, there is another point that shows the lack of imagination of all parties in this debate. Its possible that some do not get married and have kids because they want to retire, independently wealthy at age of 40 and live in, say, South East Asia for the rest of their lives. For most of us, the “white picket fence” option represents 30 years of wage/debt slavery. Some of us might abhor this option completely.
Social conservatives often claim that marriage is good for long term health. My personal experiences have often demonstrated the opposite. Marriage, in fact, can actually be life-threatening for those who intend on living life for the Long Haul.
I don’t understand how anyone with a cock could be happy with “white picket fence” It sounds rather girlie to me.
Milo,
I use the term “white picket fence” as a descriptive phrase for the whole marriage/kids/home ownership traditional life pattern. Sorry for the confusion.
My point is that there are more options in life than just going through life on auto-pilot by living the conventional life-cycle based life. Saving up enough money to retire internationally by the age of 40 is a far more appealing option to me than the traditional life pattern.
Contrary to what social conservatives may claim, marriage can actually be life-threatening if your spouse does not share your goals for radical life extension. I know of several situation where this has turned out to be the case.
I have to mostly agree with dirk. Among social conservatives, Hymowitz isn’t as good on these topics as Charlotte Allen, but she’s not the total misandrist everyone here is saying either.
That Spengler quote is gold. Saved.
Women are starting to see the effects of the disaster they have brought about by supporting the feminism agenda. Though, even if the ideal of the traditional family and chastity is resonating again in their heads, the current generation is lost and doomed to spinsterhood and unhappy beta marriage.
And they deserve it.
What about men? Well, not so screwed. We don’t come with a sell-by date, and chaste young ladies are always open to the idea of marrying an older man. There will be plenty of competition, but a whole new patriarchy of alphahood could be the end result.
Heathcliff we are awaiting your response.
Some of the problems with The Spearhead, only some of which are exhibited in the “Emoting Housewife†post.
1. Tendency to attack those in 95% agreement more viciously than those who are truly misandrist.
2. The claim that there is no consensus of opinion at The Spearhead (“How can you criticize us when we have not official opinion on that?â€) While shouting down those who do not adhere to the most cynical and victim-mongering fringe.
3. Deflecting all criticism as “shaming language†while in fact using dismissive and insulting language at every turn rather than trying to support a position with rational argument.
4. Refusing any critical examination of an individual man, men in general or the MRA because they have been unfairly scrutinized by feminists in the past. The truth is that the only one anyone of us can change is ourselves. You should always be examining your own motives.
5. Encouraging men to behave a victims, helpless in the face of a feminized society, i.e. don’t try to succeed in business, marriage and family, etc because you are doomed anyway and you are only feeding the beast. Taking the blue pill should make you stronger, not weaker.
6. Personal life experience has no bearing here unless of course you have been cuckolded and had your money and children taken by the family court. That, of course, counts as empirical evidence.
7. Emphasizing the risks inherent in trying to live a traditional lifestyle while refusing to concede that there are adverse consequences to either the PUA or MGTOW lifestyles. Roissy is more honest about the consequences of his lifestyle to himself and civilization in general.
8. Pretending to fight feminism and attacking any critics as feminists while in fact engaging in a la carte feminism.
9. Use of language and rhetoric that unnecessarily alienates potential allies.
10. Constantly attacking women, 99% of men, the Church, the State, while rarely trying to do the heavy lifting and propose solutions. To do so would expose you to the frenzy of nihilist piranhas you nurtured. Better to play it safe.
11. Authors and more so a commentariat that is poorly read. If you are going to criticize feminists or traditionalists, it would be nice to have some first hand knowledge of feminist or traditionalist thought. Also, some reading of history would help provide a sense of perspective.
12. A lack of perspective leads to snow flaking. The problems of our generation seem pretty significant when compared to US of the 1940s or 50s (probably the high water mark of human civilization for some time to come) but pale in comparison to those of your ancestors. But there I go telling you to man up.
13. Way more “emoting” going on at the Spearhead than at TTH.
Member of Opus Dei, a feminist backlash against older men dating younger women has already begun. 18 year old women are being referred to as “girls” by the mainstream media anytime it involves sex and men. Feminists control public influence and the legal system of most Western countries, soon they will make criminals out of older men who date 18-23 year olds. Mark my words.
Here’s an awesome site about sex : feminism’s most powerful weapon:
TheAntiFeminist.com
Well, I have to say that I agree with much of what you say about TS Heathcliff.
I no longer visit The Spearhead. The quality of the articles were mostly of a high standard, and I enjoyed reading them.(and at one stage the comments too.)
Over a period of time though , I noticed that many (not all) of the commenters were just there to put the boot into women. Not at all interested in really addressing the problems. Not at all interested in solutions. Not at all trying to help the younger guys deal with women, some of whom would inevitably marry anyway..
It became a lot worse when voting on comments was introduced.. It took the focus off he articles, I think. (Sadly)
I always thought that it was a bad move, as it introduced a kind of frivolous aspect to the commentary. Much of which, began to turn very nasty.
I never once voted or down voted anyone’s comment ( back then when I myself would comment.) even people with whom I strongly disagreed. There seemed no point to me..
unfortunately, i agree with a lot of heathcliff’s points, especially #2. i am curious as to where most of you guys stand on the issue of, say, men providing for women. after all, i know plenty of “good girls” who will only marry men who will bring in the dough. as for the “bad girls,” well, it’s not such a big deal.
half of the spearhead thinks women should fend for themselves, while the other half thinks they should be locked up. which is it? this is a genuine question, i’m not trying to incite a riot. obviously you cannot have it both ways, just like the feminists cannot have it both ways (e.g. feminists cannot “make more money” than men, yet marry men who make more money than they do).
Another thing that social conservative women fail to consider:
Being a slacker is a rational choice in a no-growth economy.
Funny how only a couple of women and that mangina are saying that The Spearhead is too “emotional”. Projection much?
@ wifey
your comment is intellectually dishonest.
here’s a good rule of thumb that i go by: if your primary concern when evaluating men and/or their decisionmaking is its utility to women (or lack thereof) then you are part of problem.
end of story.
The comments of a white-knight of the Non-thinking Housewive and a couple of trolling bitches are SO going to be taken in account. Really.
Hello? Many commenters in there presents lots of solutions. Learn Game, chill out and relax, go expat. All of them are valid.
The consequences of the PUA/MGTOW are NOTHING compared to being sucked dry in Family Court. There’s a reason why both lifestyles are popular.
Little secret: As a young man, me and all those around my age saw in first hand the many, many divources of the generation of our parents (luckily not mine). Yeah, we are DYING to go trough that.
The pedestalizing Church and the armed State thugs DESERVE to be attacked.
“language that allienates possible allies”. Wow, that’s a textbook phrase of a concern troll.
@Aberlard Lindsey
Damn straight. As a Captain would say, “Enjoy the Decline!”.
“half of the spearhead thinks women should fend for themselves, while the other half thinks they should be locked up. which is it? ”
Ah, but you see…there is more than one way to think about this issue. Nobody is more right than others. To promote only one idea, even if it turns out to be a good one, is to seal further discourse into a doomed scenario.
To my mind, the likes of Kay Hymowitz, Maureen Dowd, etc…are just shilling what will sell their articles and books. They are playing to a gullible sheep mentality who think that they have the right to everything they desire. It’s all crap of course, as everything comes with a price tag. It isn’t up to men to show these women why the sticker price is too high to pay. Why would anyone care? Are men falling all over themselves to win approval from these harridans? Are men trying to prove something to women in general? I don’t think so. I believe that men are growing more and more immune to the pontifications of yellow journalist agitprop.
This womyn should start examining the crap that Oprah and Cosmo shells out to the unwashed fem-masses before she tries to criticize our lifestyles.
I mean, Cosmo and all those other Emotional Porn mags essentially feed into the ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX of the modern woman. Instead of teaching about deep issues, they focus on superficial and physical trivialities, like Prince Dickwad’s marriage.
Kathy: “Over a period of time though , I noticed that many (not all) of the commenters were just there to put the boot into women.”
I have some news for you. Any site occupied by MEN and not their supplicating manginas will be more than happy to tear you a new one, meaning they will not put up with little Princesses expecting a free pass. Feminists are the problem, and it has infected pretty much every modern woman’s thinking, so unless you grow a thick skin and come on board, prepare for an awakening.
BTW, if you have actually followed Bardamu’s blog, you will find that the Princess Entitlement Syndrome where debate has to be couched in PC, mangina-friendly terms has little stock here.
dragnet –
did i say anything about *my* evaluating men based on their utility to women?
i actually don’t expect men to “man up” without my “womaning up.” if i wanted a guy to do his “man part” then i would absolutely expect him to want me to do my “woman part.”
however, the question stands — unless, of course, you’re of the MGTOW train of thought — in which case you’re correct, women don’t matter — what do you want from women? that’s all.
Heathcliff: “The Spearhead took some well deserved hits from Laura Wood as the home of the lowest level of discourse in the Manosphere. Personally, I don’t mind profanity but the abuse of logic I can’t stomach. It’s basically a support group for losers looking for a philosophy to justify being as selfish and deluded as the feminists they criticise. It was sad to see Keoni writing down to their level.”
So you don’t like free speech when it doesn’t fit your standard of intellectual inquiry? You sound like the typical Liberal snob. Have you actually followed current events? Are you not aware of how biased academia and media is against we MRAs? You fembots are followers of a vacant, flaccid philosophy of Gensupremacy and your petty attacks serve simply to demonstrate how corrupt your view is, even when having so many advantages/opportunities to bring us into your camp.
haha, there’s more shaming language on this site than there is on feministing
“flaccid” “supplicating manginas” “harridans” “trolling bitches”
wifey:
Don’t fall into the trap of looking at things in a vacuum. We in the manosphere lament the loss of traditional male/female relationships necessary for the long term health and stability of our civilization, but we know that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and that, for the foreseeable future anyway, there is NO turning back. Thus, we are faced with a conflict between ideology and pragmatism. To make myself more clear, here’s a post I left on solomon’s blog a little while ago about this issue:
———–
Lisa:
“Now you’ve lost me. I thought you wanted a woman with high moral values and self-respect. If you were dating a woman who wanted to take things slow (assuming you liked her), why would you drop her?â€
It’s come to my attention recently that this is an error most women eventually make when commentating in manosphere blogs. Namely, they say something like “if you want this, then why are you acting like that? Hypocrisy!â€
My current girlfriend is an attractive, 24 years old blond who has “only†slept with four other men before me. That’s still a few too many for my liking, but compared to what else is out there, I could certainly be doing worst in this regard.
With that said, if I were single right now, I too would want a young, beautiful, family-oriented, virginal or quasi-virginal bride to be. And yet, like solomon, I too would drop her like a bad habit if she hasn’t put out by date number three. “Contradiction!!†cried all the women. Actually, no, there is no contradiction. Implicit in this reasoning (although some influential manosphere blogger should really spell it out more clearly in a blog post already, as I’m getting sick of reading comments like these) is the fact that there is an important distinction between what we would truly like in a perfect world, and what, for all intents and purposes, we are forced to settle for in the real world. A distinction women by and large fail to recognize.
In other words Lisa, if you were making this argument in the anglosphere of a century ago, you would have a valid point. At a time when ladies were presumably not extinct, it would have been foolish for any man to expect chastity in a woman he is courting, yet dump her for not behaving like a whore. But this is 2011. And in 2011, I know that if a chick I’m seeing has not put out within the first few meetings, it’s probably not because she’s a paragon of purity and virtue searching for The One, but more likely because she’s a frigid bitch who’s just not that into me, and that I’m probably wasting my time. So yes, at the surface, it might look like I’m betraying my long term ideals in favor of a quick thrill. In reality though, I’m just playing the odds.
http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/proverb-27-how-women-age-beautifully/#respond
————-
So on to your question. Should men provide for women? Depends. In a perfect world, free of the myriad number of problems feminism is directly and indirectly responsible for, absolutely. This state of affairs seems most conducive to a healthy and prosperous society. In today’s world? Not only is this arrangement no longer economically feasible in most cases, but it would also take a truly beautiful, virginal, trustworthy, motherly and overall exceptional woman for me to agree to this level of commitment and sacrifice. And why shouldn’t it, now that western women in general have shown their true colors? Why shouldn’t it, now that casual sex with multiple women is more accessible than it’s ever been before?
Is this ideal? No. But this is the hand we’ve been dealt, so we’ll have to make due with it.
squared — thank you for your reply.
i agree that the genie has been let out of the bottle and there’s no stuffing that sucker back in. i, myself, am not of the mind that men *must* support women or that women *must* support men. as for your argument of health and prosperity, i suppose that depends on how one measures “health” and “prosperity.” for example, is there any historical society that has been more outwardly prosperous than the society we live in today? unlikely. is there any historical society in which there has been a lower rate of birth mortality than the society in which we live today? again, unlikely.
that’s not to say our society doesn’t have myriad problems — it does, many of which have been caused by feminism, and many of which have been caused by other things. however, every historical society has had its ups, downs, problems, assets, etc.
don’t think that feminism could have come about in a society that wasn’t wallowing in its own prosperity, by the way.
What do I want from women?
Perfect world: I want a woman to be the beautiful mother of MY (emphasis on my) children. I want her to be the one I marry, provide for, fight for, die for if necessary, grow old with, and live happily forever after with.
Real world: Spread her ass cheeks, mostly.
“Perfect world: I want a woman to be the beautiful mother of MY (emphasis on my) children. I want her to be the one I marry, provide for, fight for, die for if necessary, grow old with, and live happily forever after with.”
fine, a perfect world situation is nice to think about. however, there is, and never will be, a time in history when the world was perfect.
your perfect world, as described, is paradoxical.
*is
Don’t be obtuse. When I say “perfect world” in this context, it’s quite obvious I’m simply talking about a world where feminism has not completely poisoned the well of gender relationships.
Really, at the end of the day, good men always go where they’re wanted.
squared –
hopefully you’re aware that in a world without feminism, your ideal would still not likely be attainable.
Hey guys, don’t get your knickers in a twist.
Many thanks for reinforcing my point about the ” nastiness” from some of the commenters at TS. LOL!
I don’t even READ TS anymore so you are safe from this trolling bitch.
I was pretty tickled at the belligerent responses though.
I expected nothing less.. :D
Squared ideal is 10x more attainable in a world where feminism has been destroyed. Would you ever think of bothering us, wifey, if society got back to normal and looked down on your harping?
You just don’t get laid as much as you want to.
harmonica –
really? you can’t even make an argument, just write me off as “harping”?
no offense, but this is why the other side is winning right now.
Have you ever gone to a high society function? You see men all dressed the same — in tuxes — and women get to “express themselves” through their dress.
This is an allegory for society and this is why Hymowitz can’t stand what young men are doing now. They’re making good on the old hippies’ promise to drop out. They’re not metaphorically wedged intoi their tuxes anymore. Thus, to Hymowitz, they’re not “men.”
When you get down to it, Hymowitz is basically calling for complete conformity of men: be like we want or get shamed! It’s the same as it ever was, the difference is that the post-feminist family courts and post-Bush economy don’t offer men much anymore.
Good work, sir.
I, too, enjoyed the use of the Spengler quote and may use it in something I am working on as well.
Wifey, you are harping. Why is Squared’s ideal so unattainable when its exactly what women have done from the beginning to 1960? Is it so hard to be natural?
The other side wins because there is a weapon men don’t have. Pussies.
Why oh why am I looking at a 30 YO pic of Ron Reagan Jr. in drag?! And what could she/he possibly tells us about much of anything? Just wondering. Cheers, ‘VJ’
Gx 1080
These solutions are not offering up to pay the tab when the cock caroussel stops for the ladies.
So, they are not “valid” solutions.
The men who took up these solutions? they are either sitting on a beach, enjoying a cold glass of gin with lime, riding on their motorcycle on the endless road from west to east, from south to north, or are just in the process of deciding who (if) to have over in his pad tonight.
Valid? Not valid?
If the men who took up these solutions are laughing their arse off at the trolls and their mentors, that should give an answer.
Hey Finn Man, Update your Blog! We’re getting too warm down here! Cheers, ‘VJ’
Not to be too antagonistic, Ferd, but this fight is getting further and further removed from reality and more and more into a war of abstractions. How many men really read Maxim that avidly, for example? The WSJ and the Financial Times both boast higher circulations. Do people really watch “Frat Pack” films out of demand, or is it because a few films broke the bank (Meet the Fockers, Tenenbaums, etc.) and Hollywood culture always milks the stone dry?
Basically I just don’t see why you’re conceding the argument to her in the first place. I’m not convinced the frat boy is particularly common outside, well, frats, and I think both of you are chasing phantoms because of her very Jewish trade in pop culture tropes.
You can also never plumb hard enough the depths of male idiocy or sycophancy. Witness these sad bastards who buy all this “thinking housewife”, play-acting traditionalist crap. All these sluts-turned-saints who are converting largely to Catholicism, that emotive whore of a religion.
Sorry but I don’t need moral guidance from some bitch whose biology is so inclined that getting her to take care of her cats is probably a triumph of civilization. That so many other men are so easily duped (hint: she’s not a Catholic! She’s not a “traditionalist”! She’s seen more cock than a hen cage and she’s from exactly the same stock as you yourself!) is extremely melancholic.
http://i.imgur.com/CZj77.jpg
Arne, you hit the nail on the head there.
Kesha, has no class, no talent, no looks. And, she acts like a slut.
Great role model for teenage girls..shakes head..
Audrey Hepburn on the other hand was all class and style..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7SI7N22k_A
Arne (graphic) –
Women: What the fuck happened?
according to that picture … um, they got a lot hotter?
(disclaimer: i have no idea who either of those people are)
Men and women alike are in a terrible state. The existence of feminism should not be a license to be a shut in WOW nerd.
I just had to respond to this. I’d been wanting to ever since I first read Hymowitz’ diatribe. My comment is a bit long for this section so I have posted it on my blog. You can read it there.
http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=3519
TDOM
Why women aren’t supposed to “woman up”:
Women assume they have everything by coming to the table. They’re the gatekeepers. They Judge. Men Perform.
Men are supposed to do the Dance of Men, and women are supposed to select from among them.
Sums up male-female relations (and female hypergamy).
Women resist ANYTHING that suggests THEY have to perform.
Get up the courage to ask a man out? No way.
Stay fit and pretty? You’re an asshole for wanting that!
Be nice and non-bitchy? You hate independent women! We’re tough and strong!
Be realistic about your standards? We’re the judges – not you!
ANYTHING that suggests *women* are “equals” is ignored or voted down right away.
Conservatives want a return to when Men Led and Men Were Responsible (and women weren’t). Liberals want Female Freedom but not Female Responsibility (“Where are all the fathers/husbands/Real Men? We don’t need you – but where are you?”)
Virtually everything can be summed up by this observation.
@ Jack Donovan
I liked the interview with the Changes guy. I’d like to see more written on your points about the emasculating nature of modern office culture. I think this needs to be tied to all the “information economy” talk. In other words, that kind of economy would only make things worse, even if it were economically feasible.
dragnet,
I’ve been skeptical of some of TFH’s predictions…but at this rate, he just might be onto something when he says the bubble pops in 2020.
Which ones are you skeptical about?
This is not in order to debate, but rather to clarify what the specific predictions actually are, and to see if they ultimately come true or not.
Traditionalists like Laura Wood are more dangerous to young men than feminists. The latter are rather upfront about their aims and make no secret of their strong animosity towards any man (or woman for that matter) who fail to toe the party line. Most of the time they don’t even try to gain the sympathy of men. Traditionalists, on the other hand, verbally condemn feminism and lure non-feminist men in by portraying themselves as allies, promising “real manhood” and the rebuilding of the patriarchy. Any man who listens to them is likely to end up a mangina or a divorced/unhappy husband who attempted to domesticate a modern woman into patriarchal roles.
Enemies of feminism should just concentrate on subverting the current system and abetting its self-destruction. Once it’s in ruins and feminists are hunted down, people can start the debate about what kind of new society to build. Then the advice of traditionalists may be considered, as long as they aren’t female supremacists. Until that day comes traditionalists are largely useless in the struggle against feminism.
No declining empire was ever reformed by traditionalists. Traditionalists aren’t good at preserving broken and hopeless systems; however, they are good at rebuilding communities once the old system has been wholly obliterated. That’s what they should focus on.
I like the Spearhead. It’s a bunch of standup guys who generally agree with what I have to say. Also I consistently get a lot of thumbs-up on most of my erudite comments. So fuck you Bitch.
She is not hating on men. She argues because women are now becoming more educated on average then men and they are capable of making their own money, the traditional roles have been lost, leaving people confused. She’s more blaming women!
The author is married and has three kids. She’s just commenting on the social trend of “40 is the new 20″ – and you can’t deny that while people used to get married between 17-22 I know plenty of 30 and 40 somethings who are in no rush at all. She’s merely answering many women’s questions of why that is. And the answer is our culture. If you are so upset, she must have hit a nerve.
Gx1080: “Wow, that’s a textbook phrase of a concern troll.”
And yours is a textbook phrase of a feminist. “Concern troll,” lol. What’s next, are you going to link to Derailing for Dummies?
Whenever MRAs, PUAs etc. refuse to “man up” and choose to become slackers and assholes, it’s because of something women have or have not done. Everything is a reaction to women, everything revolves around them. There is nothing else.
Try again, dumbass. Is about becoming INDEPENDANT from women. To be able to live your life without being a pussy-whipped servant.
“slackers and assholes”.
Up yours. Rather be that that another chump on the treadmill.
You’re all hopelessly dependent on women, which is why everything you do revolves around them. PUAs, especially, are the most pussy-whipped people you could possibly imagine.
I avoid the treadmill (and women) without being a slacker asshole, but that’s probably because I am actually able and willing to think.
Let me draw you a picture of what “manning up” really means. Wait, I don’t have to; Jaques Louis David already did that, well over two hundred years ago. It’s called “The Oath of the Horatii.”
Wikipedia has a nice copy of the picture and a pretty good article about it. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_the_Horatii
To whet the appetites of the fire-eaters: One of the Horatii, on coming home after winning the fight, has to kill a disloyal bitch for cursing Rome. Hey, the past is a foreign country, etc.
Talking about women/feminism just means that you are not truly free of them .
Find yourselves a hobby, a couple of good friends (maybe one good one) and they won’t even come to mind .
My best times EVER were when we had a group of 3 guys who would get together and laugh our brains out (no alcohol or drugs) several times a week…..ooooo Blessed Times!.
ENJJJJJJJJJJJJOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Ramses, in my humble opinion, non-social hobbies which one can do all by himself are even better. There is no better feeling than what one gets from tossing a hand-launched glider of one’s own design and construction up into the air, watching it center its circling in the thermal, and just go up and up until it goes out of sight overhead, never to be seen again.
With apologies: Fuck all that social shit!
Long story short…
In every part of the world, throughout all of human history, men have always done whatever they have to do to get laid. That means becoming the kind of men that the women of their society and culture are attracted to, the kind of men that those women want to sleep with. This is an immutable law of nature.
Women get more of what they spread their legs for, and less of what they “LJBF”.
It’s as simple as that.
The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.
Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.
The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.
ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.
Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.
@Rollo
Brilliant insight.
Rollo,
Great comment. When future historians debate why the West collapsed (or came perilously close to it), feminism will be discussed as the reason.
@ Rollo
I agree with Squared and Fifth Horseman. Thanks for putting it better than I ever could.
Errr…I stumbled on to this blog via a friend’s link and I’m shocked to think that so many men have clearly never met a decent woman. Would you talk about your mother’s like that?
In response to Hymowitz, I believe “pre-adulthood” is as much of a problem for women as it is for men. It is not an issue of gender but more one of modern society, who would want to grow up in this day and age.
Luckily I am somewhat divorced from all this loathing because we are a military family. The men (women too obviously but I’m talking about the majority) actually do go and fight, whilst we stay home and raise the children. The only difference these days is that many of the wives/partners actually work as well (often in the military too). Speaking for myself and those that I know, we have huge admiration for what our men do. We love and support them so we put up with the countless months, adding up to years, of running households and raising children.
Yes that’s right..sacrifices!! No relationship can be successful without both parties being prepared to make sacrifices for the other. In essence, I think perhaps that is what is lacking here from both sides.
Oh and for the record , I have ALWAYS hated feminisim (I think it did more harm) and I love Star Wars so don’t lump all of us women in together, I certainly wouldn’t do that to men.
How many times do we have to point out that we’re not saying all? I hear this bullshit all the time on the radio and read it all the time on the Internet. Let me say it again for all the bird-brain women out there:
Denizens of the manosphere do not claim that all Western women are insufferable feminist bitches.
We do claim that many, and if it were possible to quantify, that most are.
All you exceptions to the rule, who in reality are probably not exceptions at all, stop clogging our blogs with your stupidity.
And stop acting as if raising children is some herculean task you undertake selflessly for the benefit of your husbands. Bitches, please. You bitches want children even more than your mangina boyfriends and husbands do.
Ok so maybe Ms Hymowitz does have a point. Although she is clearly NOT talking about the men I know.
Yes this is my first foray into the manosphere but the comments here give me the impression that generalisations are the norm.
Oh and by the way, raising children is a herculean task but definitely not one we undertake selflessly. Some of the sacrifices we make are having to forgo jobs/careers and family support since we are moved every couple of years.
Generalizations are the norm because they are generally true. How many women have you dated? Oh what’s that? Zero? There it is.
Chris are you for real?? How can you expect to be taken seriously with that statement?
How can you expect to be taken seriously with that vagina and those ovaries?
Not at all surprised that the discussion got derailed halfway through due to women. Also not surprised by the constant NAWALT we of the manosphere get bombarded with on a daily basis.
On topic: Yet another woman who believes her vagina is made of gold, and entitles her to a lifetime of slave ownership to a man. I hope more young men turn to video games and porn as substitutes for women, and I hope when the inevitable societal collapse happens that these wretched women enjoy their independence. Let’s see how “strong” and “independent” you truly are, when it’s every man for him or herself.
Christ I think instead of these women like kay sitting around and bitching about how men need to “man” up I think they should get off their high horse and start to “women” up! Her and women like her are just pissed off because simply men dont need to marry women anymore.If women could be great partners and know how to raise children then we would want them.because quite frankly her whole thing about 20 something women getting jobs and raising families on their own made me spit out my drink from laughter. That is just laughable,look around kay its 2011 sweetheart,those 20 something women slam the cock and booze harder than we do. I just think if im going to man up its going to be for a girl that can help raise a family,not some whore who spent half her life loose in bars.
I actually bought this book “manning up” on Kindle like 2 weeks ago… but I’m still only 1/3 done with it…
It might have to do with how boring it is.
To me, the money quote was “Unlike the playboy with his jazz and art-filled pad” as if what music you listen to is a way to gauge how mature you are. There is a word for this, it’s pretentious. Superficial will also work in a pinch. I mean under the skin it’s still the same guy but the playboy, he listened to jazz and bought avant-guard art. That’s what makes a better man.
8====D—–Kay Hymowitz
she can go man up hugo skeezer’s bunghole….
and, ya know what, let the gays and feminists join the military….
that’s a “privilege” I don’t want…..
I am a gypsy and we gypsy woman do the clothes washing, house cleaning, gardening, cooking, and the caring for her husbands parents. I do my “womans work” alright. And I’ll have you know that men have to PURCHASE us from our families. Is that not demeaning enough for you? I also happen to enjoy comedy central, cartoon network etc. I happen to be immature sometimes. What’s a “man”? A man is whatever a man wants to be. Ironic that a women thinks she knows about men. She would have to be one to know this. Also I have never met a man my age (I’m a teen) that is anything like she discribes. One more think before I end this-if a man doesn’t need a woman it means he has no sex drive. Need I really say more???
The book will be an interesting read once i get it, however I doubt it will provide me any insights and progression about men other than the tired expansion of the “where have all the REAL men gone slogan”.
Its interesting feminists always claim feminism is the study of women, in reality women are the least studied sex in anything from crime to sexuality i hear feminists talk about women’s sexuality but this converstations quickly erode into male sexuality. It seems Feminism is always studing men only, when it does study women its in relation to men almost everything is linked straight to men.
I still don’t know any clear reasons why some women end up in jail for terrible crimes or become violent domestically etc this information is so hard to find, as for men I know a many reasons and all I need to do is read feminist literature. Sad really feminism doesn’t really speak about women much, as it trys to speak of men.
Need more articles on women ranging from crime, sexuality and their own aspirations not how much men suck all the time. Alot of men join feminism simply because it never stops talking about them. Lets hear about the womens’ sphere for a change and if its negative then so be it “man up” feminists.
{ 18 trackbacks }