"Manning Up" or Wimping Out?
I have a review up at Pajama's Media on Kay Hymowitz's new book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys:
You can read my review and comment here.
Kay Hymowitz's new book wants the current generation of "child-men" to "man up." But maybe our society shouldn't have spent decades tearing them down.
You can read my review and comment here.
Labels: men's issues, PJM column
posted by Helen at 6:35 AM
54 Comments:
Great review Dr. H.
As for Ms. Hymowitz, if a man insisted women should change solely because of man's wants, she would probably call him a sexist.
For the love of all that is good in the universe, do write that book Dr. Helen!
Please do.
That was a good description of what lots of men think.
I read this review, thought it was well written. I agreed with much of it. But neither the book, nor the WSJ article, nor the review--and this is not a criticism of Dr. Helen--addresses the salient point.
The real problem here is with the marriage contract. It's over 600 years old, born in the Age of Chivalry and from the Cult of Mary. These ideas have dominated of romance for centuries--the brave knight goes on a perilous and testing quest to win the love of a virtuous lady.
Yeah, right. And what does he get for all his troubles? Abandoned, betrayed and bankrupted. See Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler in this regard.
I don't have a problem with community property, community funds, sweat equity, because I understand that a marriage is, or is supposed to be, a partnership and a financial arrangement. But presumptive paternity? No fault divorce? Those are deal killers.
I'm a broker, a deal maker. I've negotiated high dollar deals between multi-millionaires and corporations. When there's an offer on the table, I want to make that deal. Because if I don't, I won't get paid. And I've already incurred expenses just to set up the deal.
There are two parties, a man and a woman. One party, the man, refuses to sign the contract and close the deal. (There is absolutely no way I'm going to agree to a fully binding legal contract whereby there is even the remote possibility that I might be required to pay child support for another man's bastard. Or give 50% to a woman who can change her mind for any reason, at any time, and walk away without consequence.)
Now what? You're a broker, a deal maker, what are you going to do? The only thing to do, if you want to make this deal and close this sale and get paid, is to change the terms and conditions of the contract so that it is mutually acceptable to both parties.
But that's not likely to happen, because one party, the woman, is not going to agree to any changes in the contract. As written it gives her total power, after all, and she's not about to give that up.
Now what? One party, the man, walks away. The contract does not get signed, the deal does not close, and you don't get paid.
Do you like apples? How do you like those apples?
We can all complain about failed relationships, about feminism, about chivalry, about men being boys, about girls not being women. None of that changes anything.
The problem here is with the contract, and that is what the court is going to enforce in all circumstances. Until you change that, there is no reason for any man to marry any woman, unless his career aspirations are financial suicide.
The marriage license today is a license for a woman to abandon, betray and bankrupt a man. The courts will enforce that with passion and prejudice.
As the broker, what are you going to do? If you cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract, nothing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thank you for your defense of me.
What college degree makes Kay Hymowitz think slavery is acceptable?
Is that the one that costs tens of thousands of dollars, but there are no jobs for it?
The very fact that women claim to wear makeup to attract men is proof that women have no intention of taking any step out of the cave and will continue to plot man against man. Ensuring no one is happy for tens of thousands of evolution years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
the point he was making is that both sides have responsibilities for you to close a deal. Marriage is such a deal. The point is that the deal puts the female in full power. If you want to make marriage tenable again then you need to make the deal better.
Of course family courts throw it all out and stomp on you. This is why men won't sign on the line.
What reason does she have to actually compromise in a marriage or to work on the relationship. She gets all the goodies when she leaves there is no reason for her too.
Unfortunately, lots and lots and lots of men "sign on the [dotted] line".
Every day. Left and right.
Say Dr. H,
Kay Hymowitz doubles down: http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/02/23/note-to-angry-guys-drop-the-darth-vader-decor/
Also, apparently Kay Hymowitz will face the internet in a chat format tomorrow.
Why don't men want to marry Ms. Hymowitz and fulfill her every whim? Well, especially considering her obvious disdain for men, giving her the full power of the government to destroy a man's life sounds about desirable as being skinned alive and rolled in salt.
Yep. Shaming men has the exact opposite result and hurts both men and women.
The more you shame men, the more they withdraw and do more of the thing you were shaming them for.
You know that saying about "Doing the same thing over and over is the definition of insanity". Well it applies here with the shaming of men.
Shaming and ridicule was what made men withdraw to their video games. And now we want to shame them away from the shamed away state?
Wait, I even confused myself right there :)
All I know is that as a divorced man I'm the happiest I've been in my life. I have plenty of friends that are female but no romantic interest. I spend my time helping my children succeed.
My two youngest, the others are adults now, live with me voluntarily as they can't tolerate living with their mother. And, I know that when I die everything I have will go to my children whom I dearly love, not to some whacked out, egocentric, undeserving woman.
Helen, thanks for inspiring me to post myself on Kay's blather. Keep up the good work.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/obligation-masculinity-kay-hymowitz-and-her-clueless-brethren/
Does Kay Hymowitz have any sons? All the material on the internet just says she has 3 grown up children.
BTW, your review was really good. Pretty much tells all about what men feel they way Dilbert tells about what cubicle workers feel.
I have to admit it is sort of comforting watching single men be the target of the 'married good single bad' crowd. A 40 year old single woman in America is an old hag with an attitude problem. Up until last week a 40 year old man was defined as an eligible bachelor. Kay Hymowitz has redefined the modern single man as an old hag with a an attitude problem.
Welcome to our world. The guys will find out quickly its not so pleasant.
Singled Out: How Singles are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After, by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.
REQUIRED READING!
KH is a stupid piece of dog excrement!
Dr. Bella DePaulo has a wonderful blog going on over at the Psychology Today website called Living Single. Lots of good stuff on it, she does her homework.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cham - Why do you have be such a Troll?.
The review was great, Dr. Helen. Thank you for countering the misandry that pervades current popular culture. It is encouraging to have your voice out there.
And I completely agree with other commenters - it would be fantastic if you did write that book. Easier said than done, of course...
I wouldn't mind being interviewed for a book if you're putting it together.
My reasons for dropping out of the gender economy aren't the only ones out there.
cham has the right to her perspective, but the only criticism for her comparison is the reason for our crankiness...
...recently a frinnd of mine`s parents died, within a couple of moinths of eachother, as happens. now my friend finds himself inheriting several millions of dollars and a big pile of bricks right on lake ontario.
i am telling him that he has just become the target for several hundred thousand women in the greater toronto area all vying to be the one to help him through all this...with marriage in mind, of course.
my wife and i both worry for his safety.
and i`ve just read through some of the reviews for that woman`s book.
talk about taking the moral high ground.
men are just realising that marriage isn`t the deal for guys that it is for girls.
i wouldn`t give up my paycheque, my free time, my peace and quiet, my self image and my balls, for a major share of housework, baby duties, several generations of women on my case, gardening and roof repairs...not to mention the hot little tramp that i married turning into a fat gassy little complainer who comes home pissy after coffee with her mother once a week.
thankfully my wife is different in that she doesn`t like her mother at all and thinks a man and woman should live and plan together and be equal partners...but we`re a little older than 40!
Andrew,
Great, if I do write the book, I will be asking periodically for help from readers so your opinion would be very much appreciated!
Hi Helen,
nice to see a woman rebutting the utter rubbish women like Kay put out.
I also put the comment on Pajamas that if men want to SEE what they are in for in the divorce courts they can click here.
http://www.youtube.com/user/peternolan1109?feature=mhum
As far as I am aware, 15 months later my achievement of capturing on video the crimes in progress by a magistrate still stands unchallenged. I am starting to be very proud of the fact that no man has matched this achievment yet. I actually thought that as soon as I reported this and showed men that it was lawful to video record family law meetings that LOTS of men would want to do it. I guess men are bigger whimps now than what I realised. What a shame.
DADvocate said...
All I know is that as a divorced man I'm the happiest I've been in my life.
Yep Dad. Same goes for me. The wimminz HATE on me for being happier now than when I was married. And I get to have plenty of romantic interests. MUCH more than when I was married.
I just keep pounding the message into the young men "5% is the new 50% if you happen to be a man".
The young men simply can NOT dispute the evidence of what happens in divorce I posted to my web site. My intro post has had 700+ views now. I'm doing my bit to let young men know what a scam for women marriage is.
One young man I helped wake up? He tells me he went on to wake up 18 other young men last year alone. What we are seeing is an exponential increase in the number of men who know marriage is a scam for women and that the women KNEW it and lied to us thereby betraying us.
If I was a woman like my ex who has a daughter who is 20? I'd be real upset at betraying that daughter....but only if I had morals. And there is no evidence that women possess morals in any significant percentage.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/14/threadid/606/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Helen. Did you notice in the interview (and my that woman is hideous) they talk about 'pre-adulthood'?
This is merely shaming language for men in trying to tell them you can't be an 'adult' unless you are married with children.
What would women say if we referred to any woman who was not married with kids as in adolescence and 'pre-adult-hood'. I think they'd claim they were 'upset'.
Bitches like this need to be denounced long and hard by OTHER WOMEN so no-one makes the mistake many women AGREE with her like so man women (AND MEN) agree with men being robbed of their kids, their homes, their assets, and 50% or more of their future income.
And did you notice that kay says "it is not even clear they (men) are needed for family life."
Oh really? What is alimony and child support 'needed' for then if not for 'family life'.
Helen. You wonder why us men are disgusted with women? Look no further than such hateful comments like that can be made on the WSJ and WOMEN will rush out and buy this bitches book and lap this shit up.
What would WOMEN say if a man said "It is not even clear women are needed for family life"
After all. Two men were just fired from their jobs in the UK for a private conversation that was recorded where they questioned the ability of a woman linesman.
Men can be fired for questioning the ability of a woman linesman at a soccer match but a woman can be promoted by the WSJ saying "It is not even clear if men are needed for family life."
How about THAT for hypocrisy from women, eh?
By the way Helen. If you want to see where the west is headed try looking at the Ukraine. My fav#1 (Ukrainian) and I broke up in october. But she called me to wish me merry christmas so we caught up just as friends recently.
Her story with her son (18) who finished school mid year and went to uni for the second half of the year is this. She paid EUR4,000 for his annual tuition. To put that in perspective she says her mothers pension is EUR40 per month. EUR4,000 is a FORTUNE in the Ukraine. She has been working her pretty little arse off FOR YEARS to save up his uni fees. She works here in Germany and her mum has been taking care of the boy. Got the idea?
Anyway. The boy was reluctant to talk about his exam results. So she calls the uni and asks them about it. They tell her that he has NEVER BEEN TO CLASS and didn't sit the exams! The boy has been leaving home each morning and coming home each night and saying he went to Uni but he didn't. And he won't say where he has been.
She is now beside herself as you can imagine. She was asking my advice as to what she could do. I told her it was too late. She had made it clear to him that lying was acceptable in his up-bringing and he had lied to her. I told her that 90 years of 'feminism' in the Ukraine meant men knew full well that they don't get to have babies. They get to have liabilities. So they refuse to work and if they are hungry they will steal.
Her brother (32) has never had a real job she claims. When you take away a mans chance to raise his own son? You take away his willingness to work and contribute to others. He'll do exactly what beta monkeys do. Goof off and have fun hoping the alpha will be killed one day or one of the female monkeys will actually give him a bit. But other than that? It's swinging through the trees having fun.
I never knew women were so stupid they could not see this coming. But they are.
Peter,
You need to lose the anger. It's eating you up.
Trauma usually moves from fear to anger to wisdom when it is being dealt with. It is easy to get stuck in the first two reactions though.
Trey
I was surfing around the various links about this, and found something that cracked me up.
Wikipedia has deleted the article for "Marriage Strike". Check for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Strike
I guess the idea was so toxic for some POV that discussion had to be suppressed.
Dead Dog - if you look a litter further, the people who decided to delete the article are women. Makes you wonder.
I'm not sure the Marriage Strike exists. From this study and site:
http://blog.match.com/2011/02/04/everything-you-think-you-know-about-singles-is-wrong-we-separate-fact-from-fiction-with-the-first-comprehensive-study-of-singles-in-america/
Men are just as inclined to want to get married as women. In fact, 33% of men and 33% of women said they want to get married. And among singles without children under 18, more men (24%) than women (15%) say they want to have children.
So if someone wanted to get married they'd just have to locate a member of the opposite sex that also wanted to get married. There is equal percentages of both genders who want to tie the knot.
Cham: Statistics are a science of hocus-pocus. Please. Let's keep this on an adult level.
There is a huge difference between what an informed person tells you and an uninformed person. Educate the whole of American men about the reality of family court, no-fault divorce and the presumption of paternity, and THEN conduct your cute little survey.
37% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. 43% believe in angels. Extraterrestrials, according to another group, live in South America.
Ridiculous people believe ridiculous things.
No offense.
33% of men and 33% of women said they want to get married.
That seems awful low. The numbers on children do to.
Dadvocate: From this site:
http://senoritaruth.com/prnewswire/?p=127142
The study of singles in America was funded by Match.com and conducted by MarketTools in association with biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher, social historian Stephanie Coontz, evolutionary biologist Justin Garcia and the Institute for Evolutionary Studies at Binghamton University (EvoS). The study, based on the attitudes and behaviors of a representative sample of 5,200 US single people ages 21 to 65+, is the most comprehensive survey of American singles ever undertaken.
I spoke to Dr. Helen Fisher myself 2 weeks ago and she said the 5200 respondents were chosen at random using the US Census data.
At the risk of being obsessive, where were the questions about paternity fraud? As I recall, Fisher has written whole books on the subject. In particular, I want to know what percentage of the respondents, particularly male respondents, understand the current legal environment and, of those who didn't previously know about it, how did their attitudes toward love and marriage change as a result of learning.
Cham - Surprising but not unbelievable. This looks like a study the company I work at could easily have done. I imagine they pulled in Fisher, et al for the name value. Or, maybe, they got a tax write off for giving money to a university for a study.
When I made my statement, I wasn't thinking as much about the study being of only single people and of the age range 21 to 65+. One could easily see how, as people get older, marriage and children (or more children) seem less desirable.
I wonder how the study was conducted. Probably and online survey, which is easily the most cost effective method for such a study. This may have created some bias although those in the know where I work claim any bias due to the study being on the web is minimal.
But, what the heck?! I'm singe (divorced), have kids and I'm plenty happy. Happiest I've ever been.
Cham opines:
"I'm not sure the Marriage Strike exists. From this study and site:
http://blog.match.com/2011/02/04/everything-you-think-you-know-about-singles-is-wrong-we-separate-fact-from-fiction-with-the-first-comprehensive-study-of-singles-in-america/
Men are just as inclined to want to get married as women. In fact, 33% of men and 33% of women said they want to get married. And among singles without children under 18, more men (24%) than women (15%) say they want to have children.
So if someone wanted to get married they'd just have to locate a member of the opposite sex that also wanted to get married. There is equal percentages of both genders who want to tie the knot."
-----------
It seems to me that you have to look at the number of people who DON'T want to marry if you're looking for a marriage strike. I would assume that people on a marriage strike don't want to get married.
So if 0.0001% of men want to get married and 0.0001% of women (and all the have to do is find each other, problem solved, says Cham), that means there is no strike among the other people?
Kind of shaky logic.
JG: That would depend on your definition of 'strike'. Workers who strike want to work, they have issues with something about the work that needs to be changed. The only answer we get from this survey question is that 67% of American single adults don't want to be married. We have no idea why, just that they don't. It could be they have issues with one aspect of marriage OR they are happy with their single status and aren't interest in being married.
DADvocate: Considering that this study was paid for by Match.com, most of the survey questions were crafted by Match.com and the details of the survey are not going to be released to the public I suspect Match.com did this survey for 2 reasons. 1) They wanted to better understand their customer base so they can sell more memberships to Match.com 2) They wanted to be seen as a leader and an authority to all aspects of singles in single America, a marketing objective if you will. I don't think they gave any money to a university and I gathered from listening to Dr. Helen Fisher that she received some sort of consultation fee and the ability to write yet another book using the results. You can learn more about the controversy surrounding this particular survey on this post:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201102/what-s-missing-the-recent-comprehensive-survey-about-singles
Check the comment section.
"We have no idea why, just that they don't. It could be they have issues with one aspect of marriage OR they are happy with their single status and aren't interest in being married."
------
Sure, but saying "we have no idea why" is not a counterargument against the assertion that there is a strike.
I think this argument falls under the category of "confuse them with bullshit if you don't have anything more convincing".
Quite a few men I know are saying things like "I will never get married again", so maybe that's also true on a larger scale. Or maybe not. It's more persuasive to me as an argument than "lots of people don't want to get married for whatever reason, so that means there's not a marriage strike".
I also think Cham is taking the word "strike" a bit too seriously and literally.
It's not a group of employees refusing to work for an employer. It's a sloppy way of saying that more and more men are going to go against their natural inclinations to get married because they are seeing what happens to men who do that.
Dr. Helen,
I think women want to be taken care of and I've tried to do that with my wife and kids ~ seems to be working twenty years on.
When I was coming of age the meme seemed to be about Macho men, there was a song, movies, etc. I remember a talk show at the time, the subject of what women wanted was discussed and, I believe it was Carol Burnett who stated something along the lines of - I'll tell you what a Macho man is, he's a man who comes home and stares a 30-year mortgage in the face.
The secret to a happy marriage? I don't know. I joke that it's making money faster than she can spend it. But I'm certain that at least one component is a lot of giving; love, time, tolerance, putting the others before yourself.
As for the book, I believe Kay has captured the big market here. A book to make single women in search of Mr. Right feel less alone and perhaps better about their condition will be a big seller.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cham - the study was funded by Match.com "in association with biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher, social historian Stephanie Coontz, evolutionary biologist Justin Garcia and the Institute for Evolutionary Studies at Binghamton University."
I guarantee you they gave money to all those people and Binghamton University. I wouldn't be surprised if this study set them back $250,000, maybe more, considering the size of the sample and the people involved.
You don't need a anthropologist, social historian or evolutionary biologist to do a study like this. You simply come up with the information you want to know, the correctly phrased questions to best gather that information, and analyze the data. Not quite as simple as it sounds but it's not rocket science either.
I'm sure they're sitting on data Match.com doesn't want its competitors to know. I have to sign a form of confidentiality every year at my company. Many companies don't want it known we do work for them, let alone what the studies are about or what the results are. Technically, I'm not supposed to tell family members this stuff. Of course, they find it rather boring anyway. I find some of it fascinating. Some I find stupid and think "Why do you even have to ask that question? My kids can tell you the answer."
And here is Kay's answer (this is just a hate-filled woman):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12649_whyaremenangrymanningupauthorkayhymowitzexplains
BTW, Kay has a piece up at
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-28/why-are-men-angry-manning-up-author-kay-hymowitz-explains/
That is a response, of sorts, to the men who are opting out. A sample:
"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?"
That doesn't leave a lot of room for another option, ie that men have some legitimate concerns.
Bella DePaulo takes on Kay Hymowitz!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201103/the-escalating-war-against-single-men-what-s-it-about
Go Bella!
Comment of the day (in response to Hymowitz's "Man up" demand):
"No. Now go away."
I said years ago that when men get sick of the game, they'll just walk away. I'm being proved right.
Post a Comment
<< Home