~ archived since 2018 ~

Tom Leykis rips Kay Hymowitz a new one.

thetrollking

May 23, 2011

11 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://audio.myprops.org/971/886984.mp3

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Tom Leykis rips Kay Hymowitz a new one.
Author	thetrollking
Upvotes	11
Comments	9
Date	May 23, 2011 10:16 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/hie4o/tom_leykis_rips_kay_hymowitz_a_new_one/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/tom-leykis-rips-kay-hymowitz-a-new-one.1039537 https://theredarchive.com/post/1039537

Comments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]francomaistre 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She's got her points; in fact, I think it's more accurate to say she's got her little routine well talking-pointed. In that respect, I have to disagree with the characterization of this program as ripping Hymowitz a new one. He completely caved to her characterization of single life as being all about self pleasure; fed the stereotype by dwelling on strippers and sex; and didn't try to elevate the conversation above that level even once. If that's the livestyle you're most comfortable in, I guess I shouldn't criticize, but in a conversation like this I can't help feeling a little bit demeaned by allowing all men to be pigeonholed that way. If I am pursuing an ambitious career, educating myself, getting involved in the community and/or politics, keeping myself healthy, and working on building healthy non-sexual interpersonal relationships, I'd hardly say that my life is all about trips to Vegas and video games, and I really wish one of the callers had made point to her this way and challenged her to maintain that smug attitude and general contention of MGTOW's as socially detached slackers.

So many things about this program that make me mad. I heard Hymowitz interviewed on NPR a while back but it was pretty cut and dry and I thought I largely agreed with her views about "pre-adulthood" and the shifting role of manhood in American society. I didn't realize until this interview what a feminist social engineering ideologue she was at a personal level.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

He completely caved to her characterization of single life as being all about self pleasure; fed the stereotype by dwelling on strippers and sex; and didn't try to elevate the conversation above that level even once.... I can't help feeling a little bit demeaned by allowing all men to be pigeonholed that way. If I am pursuing an ambitious career, educating myself, getting involved in the community and/or politics, keeping myself healthy, and working on building healthy non-sexual interpersonal relationships, I'd hardly say that my life is all about trips to Vegas and video games, and I really wish one of the callers had made point to her this way and challenged her to maintain that smug attitude and general contention of MGTOW's as socially detached slackers.

Superficially, I agree. However, I believe there are deeper currents in their discussion. Here's my $0.02:

Men and women are locked in a power struggle: female sexual power versus men's willingness and ability to eat shit.

The power struggle is fun for a while, but there are limits.

Hymowitz is basically saying, "Men, you can't stop playing now, look at all that's at risk! Relationships, children, continuation of our culture!"

Leykis is basically saying, "You burned that house down, sister. Yes, relationships and children are important to men. But you women have made the relationship environment so toxic, men are not even getting the relationship and children they desire (to say nothing of human dignity or respect). You women have removed every incentive for us men to be meaningfully involved with you.

"We men are autonomous, living, breathing, feeling creatures. We do not exist merely to serve women, despite what you might believe. If you're unhappy with our culture's toxic gender relations, what are you going to do about it? We men are fed up trying to fix male/female relations. The ball is in your court now, sister. If you fix the problem, give me a call; until then, I'll be playing my xbox."

Hymowitz's entire worldview is predicated on a critical assumption: men will put up with an infinite amount of shit in order to be near women. Leykis is trying to disavow Hymowitz of this notion.

Hymowitz understands that men might not be happy, but she does not want to believe we've reached the point of men abandoning women -- because that's the Armageddon scenario and the end to her female power. And, as she points out, the end to our culture.

As a man who has suffered under our culture, I say we let it die.

[–]francomaistre 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Leykis is basically saying, "You burned that house down, sister. Yes, relationships and children are important to men. But you women have made the relationship environment so toxic, men are not even getting the relationship and children they desire (to say nothing of human dignity or respect). You women have removed every incentive for us men to be meaningfully involved with you.

That's an understandable point of view for a man whose been burned by 21st century American family law, but if you listened to the podcast this isn't the line of reasoning Leykis keeps coming back to. The conversation doesn't rise to this level, which is exactly what I'm trying to point out here. Leykis keeps coming back to prenups and divorce and the whole "sweat of my brow" thing, and how it's better to be friends with benefits than spouses.

And that's a valid point of view, I completely accept that, and I accept your point of view as well, but he's not making the case for being a productive and self-actualizing individual, which is the needed response to Hymowitz's "you need a wife and kids to serve greater society" nonsense.

Hymowitz's entire worldview is predicated on a critical assumption: men will put up with an infinite amount of shit in order to be near women. Leykis is trying to disavow Hymowitz of this notion.

Hymowitz understands that men might not be happy, but she does not want to believe we've reached the point of men abandoning women -- because that's the Armageddon scenario and the end to her female power. And, as she points out, the end to our culture.

You know, I'm honestly not sure that's true. By Hymowitz's own admission her views are swayed by her interactions with her (presumed unmarried) two daughters without grandchildren. But she's not exactly a combat booted radfem. There is legitimate research in her book that pretty realistically defines the changing gender role of men, which she has to already realize is leading to men abandoning women or the book wouldn't be so accurate and would likely just retread the tired old ideological mantra about the patriarchy and female oppression.

I think the overall findings of the research is good. America needs to know this stuff. This is the kind of wake-up call the feminist establishment needs for them to start coming to terms with the social responsibilities of political and economic advancement. It's just disappointing to me to find out that on a personal level, her interpretation of the research is that the changing roles and gender empowerment of men is wrong and that trying to shame us back to the status quo is the appropriate response to the change.

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link