The underlying sentiment is nothing new. Even in the 80s men who would not bow down to convention and be beasts of burden for women were considered Peter Pans. They were criticized to the point where in the last few years men that tread warily around women are considered suspect; maybe suffering from a serious personality defect or even dangerous. I've seen this notion on so-called romantic forums; men that are not married by a certain point are deemed dysfunctional, while women are liberated and practicing their options.
Nevermind the fact that deep-rooted societal misandry---and those procuring that misandry---could have anything to do with men apparently not "manning up." Whatever that means anymore. Of course, being viewed as a grown up is contingent on what women ultimately think, not how men define their own masculinity.
And just recently, she was interviewed in the National Review, where she also states something about feminism as the interviewer asks:
Lopez: How much are feminists to blame for the mess men’s lives are in today?Hymowitz doesn't go completely all the way with something she probably is aware of, but ironically is a contributor in a way; many men do have serious issues that need to be addressed, and the continual spread of misandry is rampant. But instead of truly digging deep as to why these problems exist for men, much of her observations are trite and based on pop culture. How does this help anything? Really?
Hymowitz: It depends on which side of feminism you mean. I don’t believe that the feminists’ demand that women have a role in the workplace or in politics has to be bad for men.
But there has been a powerful strain of anti-male hostility in feminism. At its worst, it implied that men were all potential child molesters and rapists. More commonly, it appeared as a low-level drone of scorn and mockery. Think of the doofus TV dads — Homer Simpson, Ray Romano — the T-shirts saying, “girls rule, boys drool,” the “strong single mother” who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and the insistent chant of girl power. A lot of middle- and upper-middle-class boys got the message that confidence and decisiveness could come across the wrong way. That’s why you sometimes see a kind of passivity and uncertainty in young men. Women have been saved from their self-esteem crisis, assuming it ever existed; now men are the ones who appear to need an intervention.
Has she even bothered to listen to men and take to heart what they are saying on men's blogs? Doubtful.
Kay, many of us are finding that out without your opinions or help. We are men that desire to craft our own futures, not hinge it on the fickle whims of those who incessantly deride us. The idea that more feminism is the cure was proposed by a feminist without even any thought to men's needs; it is sick and laughable. Our government cares nothing or the woes of men, either. There are men that have lived in denial that we are our own saviors of sorts, but we are gradually waking up to that fact. Feminism also wrecked the protector and provider role in the past and present, and now we are supposed to come around to fulfill those proverbial shoes in order to "man up" for the very Ameriskanks that spit upon us? Are you kidding me?
How does such a guy man up? That’s the point: No one knows.
She skirts the fact that there are women out there that are guilty for adding fuel to the fire in a culture that coldly mistreats men in they are not wanted unless they are beasts of burden, walking ATMs, and supporting mischief and irresponsibility of someone else. Hymowitz and her ilk needs to acknowledge that Ameriskanks are smashing the social contract between men and women with glee, while still shaming us if we don't uphold it when destroyers decide maybe it wasn't terribly bright (or perhaps, realize that out of some sort of selfishness).
That said, the economy is dynamic and competitive, sometimes ruthlessly so. Not only do people have to work hard, they have to be acutely alert to shifts in taste and demand. They might have to travel or move for six months or a year. Those are conditions that don’t tend to promote stability or settled adulthood.
Must be nice to feel untouched by the He-cession---it's very real, and even has effected me.
Hymowitz: The pre-adult is a self-contained unit, largely disconnected from social institutions like the church. Later marriage is a necessary response to some big economic and cultural shifts, but one of its problems is that it leaves people in their twenties and sometimes thirties isolated from civic life. They’re renters, not buyers, and they move around a lot as the knowledge economy requires. Unsurprisingly, they don’t take much interest in local schools or community issues, and they don’t vote in very large numbers.
Again, it doesn't seem she wants to get at the heart of the matter, nor acknowledge the alienation and embitterment men truly feel with the workplace, institutions, and cultural malaise.
Men were furious at me. But they were also — and this I wasn’t prepared for — furious at women more generally. It’s not our fault if we’re not behaving, they said — it’s the women. They’re entitled, they’re bitchy, they’re hypocritical. They want it both ways: They want to be equals, and they want us to pay for them. They want gender neutrality, and they want us to have the muscles of Stallone. I interviewed some of the men who had written to me, and I started spending a lot of time on dating websites (reading comments, I mean) and pondering the personal blogs of twenty-somethings. I was pretty taken aback by the toxic level of bitterness and confusion about the opposite sex among pre-adults.
Let's get one thing straight here once for all----we are men, Kay, and if you can't come to grips with this you have a serious problem yourself. Apparently, you have something to sell with your labeling of men as "pre-adults." Ameriskanks and self-righteous manginas eat this up. And yes, those men are telling you exactly what has happened with them and Ameriskanks; are you glossing over this reality?
I guess, though, in the end I’d have to say I feel especially sorry for young women. I’ve met wonderfully smart, attractive, successful, and competent 35-year-old single women who are in deep despair as they come to the recognition that they may not find a man they want to marry. Some are freezing their eggs; others are just going to the sperm bank. Whatever your view of these decisions, they illustrate that the urge to have a baby remains very, very powerful even among very, very busy women. As I put it in the book, pre-adulthood is in tension with women’s biology — not with men’s.
My response is tough shit. Young Ameriskanks decided they were too good for men that would treat them with fairness and grace, and in their zeal to look for a secure mate are now feeling despair because CaptainSaveAHo hasn't arrived? Or perhaps the engaging in hypergamy lessens the appeal for hardworking blue collar men who would be good for professional women, or expect men to gloss over and forgive the bile they have received from them so that can transform into wedded bliss?
Get real. Ameriskanks have poisoned the well and ruined things for anything hopeful for a lasting relationship based on love and trust. I despise it, but I accept it---and as a MAN I adjust and adapt accordingly and continue to find my own path---with or without them. For AWs, they will get what they give, or as The Eternal Bachelor once stated aptly: Give modern women the husband they deserve. None.