Thursday, November 20, 2008

Criticism AND Credit Where it is Due

Columnist and "conservative feminist" Kay Hymowitz has recently published an article that has inspired some responses from a few bloggers.

The article in question, Love in the Time of Darwinism, was her response to the avalanche of responses she got for her other article, Child Man in the Promised Land

Here's what a few have written in response to Hymowitz:

From Outcast Superstar:

I must say this article is much improved and I think this time she did a much better job trying to hit the nail on the head.

From Sell Civilization Short:

Hymowitz is dishonest. She's a Cultural Marxist, a con artist who will say anything in order to be the one who sets the rules and breaks them at her pleasure.

To summarize :
1. Hymowitz claims the Men's Rights movement is all about Pick-Up Artists.
2. Hymowitz wants society to put more restrictions on men so that civilization doesn't collapse.
3. Hymowitz wants to be sure that her little elite clique gets to define what the rules are for their own advantage.

The whole piece is classic Cultural Marxism. Harangue the victim with a plea for a return to morality -- then demand to be the arbiter of morality.

Hymowitz should admit her personal guilt and the guilt of her associates in destroying civilized culture.

Rex Patriarch

All I know is that the legal deck is stacked way too far against men. This chicks article changes nothing. The same rule still applies. The only winning move in the dating game is not to play.

From The Elusive Wapiti:

Oh dear. Hymowitz is at it again, this time surveying the behavior of SYMs in the dating scene and concluding that the immature, beastly child-boys have have cravenly replaced gentlemanly romantic behavior with the cold equations of survival-of-the-fittest sexual Darwinism:

I commented on Wapiti's post with the following:

Look through her entire article...not once will you see the word "hypergamy."

The "New Girl Order" (Hymowitz own phrase she coined) has changed women's behavior...but NOT the basic, biological imperatives that drive them to seek out mates with superior genes to give their offspring a better chance to survive and thrive.

Under the New Girl Order, the cultural zeitgeist has basically presented a false paradigm to boys growing into manhood...that they must get in touch with their feminine side, that they must be more emotional and in tune with feelings, etc. Couple this society-wide social conditioning with a generation of boys raised by single mothers of divorce or illegitimacy where they're only ideas of manhood are based on what they're mothers SAY a "real man" should think and behave like (i.e. putting women on a pedestal, femininity), and you have this mass of males growing up to think and act like Beta's.

All's "game" is, is re-connecting men to the idea of masculine dominance as the most desired trait females look for in mate selection.

It is no more manipulative than a woman who seeks to "boost" the mating attributes that males value most -i.e. cosmetics to highlight the appearance of youthful fertility.

The only difference is that in the New Girl Order, where all women are programmed since child hood that they are "equal" and "can do anything a man can do!" and "You Go Girl!" is the overriding mantra of our culture, Women are indoctrinated to SAY they want "equality" with a mate, while subconsciously, they're attraction triggers are based on identifying dominant males!

Kay is incapable of recognizing this, because she too is beholden to the cultural motif of "equality." Most Western Women cannot and will not admit that they value men who are dominant over them...because to admit it aloud would cause cognitive dissonance with their societal programming!

This is EXACTLY why we have women telling their girl-friends, emotional tampon guy friends and gay male friends how they dream of a man who is thoughtful, considerate, in touch with his feelings, blah blah blah...than go out and bang the bad boys.

My thoughts on this particular topic have definitely been influenced from reading PUA websites and blogs.

As notorious PUA blogger, Roissy in D.C., wrote in response to her latest:

Unfortunately, she does not make the connection and put two and two together. The problem lies not with men, who are merely skeleton keys that adapt to whatever lock women weld on their gates; the “problem” lies with women who have no choice but to obey their hindbrain programming and seek higher status mates in the sexual market as long as their assets allow.

While I too am critical of Hymowitz's writings in her two articles dealing with the fallout from the Feminist revolution and it's affects on dating and mating in America, I still feel it necessary to temper criticism with the credit she is due for past works, and that she does make at least some effort to see the male point of view.

Unlike most female writers/columnist/journalists, Hymowitz does not completely surrender her pretense of intellectual honesty to feminist dogma.

In her article, The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies she correctly apportions a share of the blame on feminists for their role in the destruction of the Black family.

I read that article and blogged about it back before both "Child Man in the Promised Land" and "Love in the Time of Darwinism" were published.

I think Hymowitz needs to go back and view the current scene of chaos caused by her New Girl Order, and understand that feminism has not only devastated the Black Family, it is also the direct cause for Men avoiding marriage and family creation, and that this avoidance IS ENTIRELY RATIONAL.


Anonymous said...

Good links.
I suppose Hymowitz's natural brainpower and her conservative environment conspired to give her some accidental insight on the real world.

The racial connection is a deep issue. I blame Cultural Marxism, but that's a topic for another time.

Elusive Wapiti said...

The interesting part about Hymowitz was that she basically described female hypergamy, without calling it by name.

Initially, I was a bit unhappy by her article in that she labelled disgruntled men as simply "angry". But at least she didn't outright dismiss them. I also thought it good that she at least made an attempt to undertand the POV of a subset of men.

In the end, I felt her analysis was flawed because she failed to analyze the male-female dynamic with equally jaundiced eyes toward women and men.

The black family--and in particular black men--have suffered the most under feminism, I think, because it/they were the most culturally vulnerable. But the families of the white and the brown aren't far behind I think.

Anonymous said...

If she thinks there's legions of dispossessed, righteously angry men now, just wait until the current crop of boys raised by man-hating single mothers become men. Then they will see the dark side of female hypergamy, namely hordes of young, ultra-violent men with no prospects, no place and no future in society. Men like this often bent upon death and destruction, and become the gunmen behind many a violent religious or political movement, insurrection or civil war. I hope they like men who view women as little more than throw rugs, because you can bet they won't have any respect for or compassion towards their female peers, who will learn the painful way that men and women are NOT equal, when it comes to physical strength and aggression.