I wish I had more time to respond to this Kay Hymowitz piece: Love in the Time of Darwinism. (Cap tap to Rudy.)
Hymowitz is best known as author of Marriage and Caste in America, one of the less-unfortunate texts in the cottage industry of publications devoted to the notion that lifelong heterosexual union is all that stands between us and the apocalypse. Those who want government to abjure responsibility for providing protections for the vulnerable are always quick to see marriage as the panacea for a host of problems. In some sense, arguments about what marriage ought to be are indeed very close to the core of some of our biggest contemporary cultural debates. Four times married — and in this last one, happily so — count me in the corner of those who argue against the over-promotion of the institution!
In any case, in this article Hymowitz takes on the modern dating scene, which offers any commenter of any political persuasion much opportunity for lamentation. But Hymowitz is primarily worried about the impact on we men-folk, who are apparently overwhelmed and bewildered:
Today, though, there is no standard scenario for meeting and mating, or even relating. For one thing, men face a situation—and I’m not exaggerating here—new to human history. Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually.
By the time men reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. Small wonder if they initially assume that the women they meet are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex.
Oy. All of those women going to college and playing sports? They want husbands and babies and little fluffy puppies. But not money, independence, strong bodies, or that nasty sex stuff. And if they pretend they want money or orgasms, they are poor deluded dears who have bought into the lies promoted by… by… by women’s studies professors, of course.
In any event, Hymowitz catalogs the bad behavior of SYMs (single young men) and — this is strikingly original — lays the blame squarely on women.
Adding to the bitterness of many SYMs is the feeling that the entire culture is a you-go-girl cheering section. When our guy was a boy, the media prattled on about “girl power,†parents took their daughters to work, and a mysterious plague seemed to have killed off boys, at least white ones, from school textbooks. To this day, male-bashing is the lingua franca of situation comedies and advertising: take the dimwitted television dads from Homer Simpson to Ray Romano to Tim Allen, or the guy who starts a cooking fire to be put out by his multitasking wife, who is already ordering takeout. Further, it’s hard to overstate the distrust of young men who witnessed divorce up close and personal as they were growing up. Not only have they become understandably wary of till-death-do-us-part promises; they frequently suspect that women are highway robbers out to relieve men of their earnings, children, and deepest affections.
Bold emphasis mine. My head is starting to hurt. It’s Ray Romano’s fault? No, it’s all down to divorce — the kind where hard-working and reliable men get abandoned by flighty women who, with the help of a unjust legal system designed by the pantsuited and the predatory, steal everything from their husbands, who are (like all men, really) naive babes-in-the-woods. Wise young lads, these, to learn such important lessons! As the kids said in my day, gag me with a spoon.
Hymowitz takes her talking points from the shrillest and unhappiest of the men’s rights advocates, arguing that women who are unhappy with male behavior today are only reaping what the feminist movement has sown. In still another burst of novel inspiration, Hymowitz opines that the only way to restore male accountability is for women to at least feign helplessness — or, to be fair, she lets one of her single young men speak for her, in the words that conclude the piece:
I have lived in many places, countries, and cultures,†Douglas Gurney from Montgomery, Alabama, writes. “This is a worldwide phenomenon. The behavior of men is simply a response (which is actually a quite logical one) to the changing behavior of women. Simply put, men are a breeding experiment run by women. You reap what you sow—and when a man can sow all he wants and leave the reaping to others, well, why not?â€
Folks, I’m about to get on a plane and leave the country for a while. I wish had more time to unpack all of the manure in both that winner of a statement and Hymowitz’s piece in general. But a few, key, basic points.
1. Evolutionary biology is grossly misunderstood, and is all but useless in explaining why and how we behave as we do. See Martha McGaughey’s excellent The Caveman Mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the Debates Over Sex, Violence, and Science which debunks most of the nonsense that gets promoted in articles like Hymowitz’s.
2. “Bad” behavior on the part of what Hymowitz calls her SYMs is less a consequence of feminism than it is a result of a deliberate abdication of responsibility by the older men who might otherwise be expected to serve as role models. Contrary to the fantasies of social conservatives and men’s rights activists (who have far more in common than they often admit), these older men were not driven from the home by wives and family law courts. A great many chose to leave one way or another; the divorces that resulted were at least as likely to be the consequence of emotional abandonment rather than the cause.
3. Feminism makes the clear and compelling case that male responsibility is not contingent upon female vulnerability. Decency and empathy are not evolutionary strategies that will be abandoned the moment we acknowledge that women are not frail and delicate. Men — and I speak as a member of that species — do not require feigned (or genuine) helplessness in order to treat women as people deserving of respect.
Hymowitz is right: the rules have changed. And she’s right as well that feminists have pursued equality between men and women in every sphere and arena of modern life. But most of us who embrace the notion of radical equality do so with the understanding that neither history nor biology are destiny. Most feminists are not viscerally anti-marriage; they are opposed to the notion that successful marriages can only be built on the antiquated notion of “separate spheres”, in which women are nurturers and men are providers. Feminism dares to make the simple point that men’s capacity to show up for life need not be contingent upon being needed by otherwise helpless women. The choice to make commitments is not predicated solely on the opportunity to have licit sex. Love is stronger than that, for men and for women alike.
My devotion to my wife is not based on her dependence upon me; it would be a sad commentary indeed if it were so. To suggest, as Hymowitz and the legions of other anti-feminists do, that women’s demand for equality has only liberated men to behave poorly, is to underestimate badly the male capacity for empathy, the male capacity for creativity, the male capacity for responsibility, and the male capacity for love.
These people always make me think – who wants a husband who is only forced to act halfway decently because there is a script out there to adhere to? There’s this idea that people who live out that ’50s script are happy, but I don’t see much evidence for it – in history or now.
If someone is only able to appear to be a decent human being because he fulfills certain, clearly delineated formalities that he knows are expected of him, I certainly don’t want to be married to him.
However, I also believe that the ways that sexism supposedly “benefits” women actually doesn’t benefit women, and that we should do away with those disparities as well. For example, being supported in choosing to prioritize child-rearing, or pursuing an avocation that doesn’t really pay much while being supported by a spouse.
Awesome article. And the “gag me with a spoon” line made me choke.
…is to underestimate badly the male capacity for empathy, the male capacity for creativity, the male capacity for responsibility, and the male capacity for love.
The thing is, those capabilities don’t need marriage to find expression. I can be creative in my career. I can show empathy to everyone I meet. I can share love with those who inspire it in me. And as for responsibility – that’s something that comes with a price tag. If you want responsibility, you must pay for it. That’s a truism, not an MRA manifesto.
If men (or women) are asked to take responsibility for something, there has to be a payoff.
This article absolutely infuriated me – if only there were some series of sounds or symbols women could use to communicate their thoughts to men, Kay!
Hugo,
I’ve just read the article you comment on here and I did not find any of the problems you mention here. I did not think it’s overly concerned with marriage or feminism bashing. I haven’t read anything the author has written before so I have no way of decoding her messages should she actually be using code. While she may be exaggerating here and there I think the most important theme of the article is the changing nature of the mating game and the associated costs for both men and women. The days of when human mating was largely socially determined are over and with that, and the unbelievable pool size we’re dealing with today are bound to cause problems.
Have a look at this statistical look at the situation -
en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_Will_Never_Have_a_Girlfriend
As for this -
“They want to compete equally, and have the privileges of their mother’s generation. They want the executive position, AND the ability to stay home with children and come back into the workplace at or beyond the position at which they left. They want the bad boy and the metrosexual.â€
I think this is a very real observation most men in the SYM group can easily make individually as well as collectively. They want the man who is successful in his career and a great potential father, they often want to be treated like a lady and their boyfriend’s best male friend at the same time. I’m not saying that men are simple in their requirements – in fact I think they are more difficult to comply with for not just a few women who don’t conform to the average beauty standard than it is for men to learn how to deal with the often conflicting and contradictory requirements of women. But that – and this is my main complaint with your reply to the author is – doesn’t make the men’s problems less real. Accepting that they do exist and that they are, in fact, caused to a non-trivial extent by women and their behaviour would be a better start to look at them than to dismiss them as some kind of attempt to undo women’s liberation.
The chaos and confusion is true, and not just a few people are struggling with the cost of freedom. Accepting that and helping them to deal with it would be a better answer than to dismiss their plight as a political agenda.
Here’s a feminist academic look at the “seduction community” the author refers to in the article, a thesis by Elana Clift called “picking up and acting out – politics of masculinities in the pickup community”. I found it rather interesting.
webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf?uniq=-wk7fye
Sam Seaborn, above, quoting:
“They want to compete equally, and have the privileges of their mother’s generation. They want the executive position, AND the ability to stay home with children and come back into the workplace at or beyond the position at which they left.”
I would contend that a man has the ability to rise in the workplace and have children. Women are denied that ability because of a perception that they are tied to the business of children more than men. Childery has a far more damagingly limiting effect on the boundaries of how a woman may live than how a man may live.
If we want to overcome the stereotype of “women as nurturer” then this has to be tackled. Women, too, have to be willing to tackle it. There should not be an automatic assumption that maintaining children’s parties, parent teacher meetings, washing and dressing in the mornings fall more to the children’s mothers than to the fathers.
Also the corollary: if women want to be perceived as more than babymachines, they forfeit the right to steal half of a man’s fortune in the event of divorce. There’s no point playing the feminist when you’re married and hubby is footing the bill, and then finding yourself all dismayed when you are divorced and have to fend for yourself. And using children for that purpose is disgusting.
Pingback: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » You! Don’t Send Me Flowers!
I only skimmed the original article. I don’t have time these days to get worked up over this type of thing. thank you for your thoughtful deconstruction!
and no not all women are hones, but neither are all men. Feminism is about realising women are people, not superheros. we all have individual strengths and weaknesses. so SYMs are looking in sleazy bars where sleazy men and sleazy women hang out and complain that only sleazy women exist? hmmmm….. yeah… if they look in the hare krishna temple they will find very different women, or the library, or a science fiction convention. where you go to find people will say more about those peoples culture and behavior than their gender ever will.
Not really sure what that has to do with Hymowitz’s article.
¨If men (or women) are asked to take responsibility for something, there has to be a payoff.¨
The ¨payoff¨ for taking responsibility for your own actions, desires and decisions is your life and your happiness. There is no necessary ¨payoff¨ for taking responsibility for your own children…if you don´t want children and raising the in and of itself is not enough of a ¨payoff¨ for you, then don´t have them.
The only responsibility that should come with a ¨payoff¨ is professional, and that has nothing to do with dating.
“Childery has a far more damagingly limiting effect on the boundaries of how a woman may live than how a man may live.”
Wow. I guess it is inconceivable in the big picture that “Childery” may have a net beneficial effect on a woman/mother (and man/father) relative to other alternatives such as a career focus. Seeing children as a “damagingly limited effect” seems a sad statement to me.
My wife gave up a job as a management consultant–well into six figures, after we had our second child. We since had three and four. I have offered many times to trade positions with her, to raise our younger ones until they hit school-I would love the change of pace-but she has declined. So, I am not a dogmatic traditionalist in terms of your definitions even though it may appear that we. But my wife and I have instead had to become realists.
I guess in this sense, our “childery” had such an effect on her career. No doubt, some days she misses the professional, adult contact and the respect in the workplace that she previously enjoyed, and she willingly admits as much. How many career oriented women in their 40s have pangs of regret on some days that they have either no children or ones that were raised by others. How many willingly admit this?
The fact is life requires decisions which limit your future options to a degree. Is it too much to ask that everyone’s decision is respected, regardless of whether it is aligned with one’s individual viewpoint of what is best for society?
In reading this article, I agree with SamSeaborn in that your assessment of it, Hugo, does not match what was said in the article. I am not clued into key words from your line of academia, but I believe that the point was that the emergence of the feminist belief system has had an impact, predictably, on the incentives, expectations, and activities of the male community in the dating pool. It did not seem to make males out as victims, incapable of demonstrating a capacity for “creativity, responsibility, and love”. The crux of the article had more to do with the new rules, or lack thereof, in the evolving world of gender-based expectations. Most traditional males I know do not want or expect a women or wife who “otherwise helpless”, this is a silly hyperbolic statement. But many couples find lasting happiness a challenge when a woman is dissatisfied at an inability to “do it all”–the resulting exhaustion and lack of fulfillment resulting in part from an unwillingness to acknowledge boundaries that may have previously been inherited from gender role is a reality to many women out there. This is the reality of trade-offs in a world with finite time and resources, not an insidious plot from neanderthals committed to gender politics.
Married Tom, do you have pangs of regret that your children were raised by somebody other than you while you were off at work all day?
It’s odd how we continue to talk about “you can’t have it all” only when it’s about mothers; perhaps because of the sexist assumption that fathers don’t think much about their kids on weekdays.
Mythago, I too was a management consultant with the same firm as my wife. I worked 60+ hours week on the average and my travel schedule was brutal and international. I quit it 8 years ago when my first daughter was two, and after seeing little of those first two years.
I now work from home with a virtual team of consultants spread across the country all but 4-5 days per week. I quit a considerably higher-stress position with more opportunity for advancement and higher pay to enable this, although I may jump back on the career treadmill again later as diapers give way to college tuition. As a result I contribute considerably to everything from housework to taking the kids to swimming practice and baseball.
My “pangs of regret” as a result have more to do with the material things I would have had if I had remained in this career. But this is more than offset by the opportunity to be with my children, even if I have to drive them to their events in a 1998 Isuzu Trooper with 180,000 miles. I agree that the notion that kids do not think about their kids on weekdays is a sexist one, and in my case untrue.
But in defense of those who are unable or unwilling to take such actions on behalf of their family, I think most would still find the sacrifice of their time on a career during the week enabling the mother of their children to stay at home and raise them (if she desires to do so) to be a noble one. The same statement is also true in equal measure for women who work to enable the man to stay with the children. You only have a few years to raise them, and most would prefer their loving spouse to do this than an impersonal if professional caretaker if possible, I assume.
At least until the kids are of school age, where sending them off all day to be with an “impersonal if professional caretaker” is not only okay, but preferable to the alternative.
You speculate about how “career-oriented” women (but not men) surely must regret not being home with their children, but you admit that you yourself feel no such pangs of regret. So why the hand-wringing about how women (but, apparently, not men) will be sorry they didn’t choose your wife’s path?
Which is a shorthand way of saying that nobody fusses about “having it all” until the having is done by a woman.
Um, yes, because people cannot hang out in sleazy bars AND libraries, but that is a whole different ball of wax…
What I think a lot of folk who write on this topic miss altogether is a great many early 20-somethings, male or female, are not really sure what they want yet and are still feeling life out. Which is okay.
maybe a tangent, but i felt the need to comment anyway. i notice that a lot of articles in this vein (including those bemoaning “hookup culture” and those focused on the “crisis” facing young men, as well as those concerning general heterosexual dating and relationships) often fall back on some evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that suggests that (particularly young) women often want certain things from men: to have car doors opened for them, to have the guy pick up the check on a first date, to be given flowers for valentine’s day, etc.
i’ve been thinking about this a bit, how it is that women of my generation can be so unabashedly kickass at so many things with nary a thought about what boys might think of them, and yet go out for the first time with a guy they’ve just met and be bothered that the guy didn’t open the car door or offer to pay. i myself have been guilty of this seeming discrepancy, back when i was about 18 or 19. i can’t speak for other women, obviously, but i think that part of the reason that many young women who think of themselves as unquestionably equal to their male peers and cherish the relative independence and options that the women’s movement brought about is exactly the whole lack of rules, guidelines, and a playbook for dating and relationships that hymnowitz laments in her article. i think she’s right when she asserts that dating today is much more complex and potentially confusing than it used to be–the payoff of course is that women expect to be treated like, well, people, with all of the ambiguity that entails. because dating and sex and all that is confusing, doesn’t it make sense that women would also cling to some antiquated and perhaps not egalitarian ideas in an effort to figure out what the hell a guy is thinking? i mean, i grew up with the very disturbing idea impressed upon me that “yes, women are equal and you can do anything a man can do today, so go out there and kick ass and take names! —-but remember–guys only want ONE THING–HINT HINT–so don’t be a slut if you want to obtain their love.” in other words, i sometimes looked to behaviors like opening doors and offering to pay and planning of “dates” as an indication that a guy actually respected me as a person, instead of just spending time with me with the object of getting laid. given the prevalence of Nice Guys, who had apparently absorbed the “pretend to listen, be there for her and act like you care and you’ll get in her pants” school of thought, it was often difficult for me to tell whether a guy who was “nice” to me was simply after sex or was interested in a relationship with me and, bizarre as it may seem, i sort of looked to those silly courtship rituals in an effort to distinguish between the two. in my head, if a guy put that much effort into being “romantic”, when culture tells him taht degree of reverence is not necessary, it meant that he wanted to show you his genuine interest.
needless to say, it did not prove to be an accurate barometer and, like many ideas i had in my early college years, i abandoned it, but i do think that some other girls out there may just be struggling with a world of increased freedom and ambiguous signals, and–no doubt because of hollywood, women’s magazines, chick lit, all female-directed media really, and the advice of our mothers, sisters, and bffs–looks to codified dating behavior of the past to read the tea leaves about what a particular guy really wants.