Hugo Schwyzer, in his latest misfire:
By now, the basic claim — that men’s aspirations seem to have diminished as women’s ambition has increased –- is familiar. What’s less obvious is another byproduct of the man crisis: the frustrating degree to which so many young men increasingly turn to the women in their lives not merely for emotional reassurance, but for direction, order, and stability. While there’s nothing new about women nurturing their boyfriends and husbands, in the past -– at least among the American middle class -– that emotional encouragement was part of an explicit quid pro quo. However imperfectly the ideal was lived out in practice, the goal was usually the same: men provided, women soothed. For a host of reasons, guys are providing less financially than ever before. At the same time, men’s yearning for comfort, reassurance, and direction from women seems to be getting louder and more urgent.
I highlighted “seems” in the passage because it is the linchpin of the piece, yet I don’t believe that the observation is backed up by reality. It is true that women are gaining more economic power and increasing in relative status and that men are “suffering” through a transitory crisis. But are men yearning more for comfort and reassurance from the women in their lives? Are both financial and emotional dependency increasing or are they moving in opposite directions at different speeds?
Schwyzer’s evidence, power-blasted to rid it of the shit particles inherited from its original domicile:
Men may not be at end, but in Girls their psychological dependency is on display like never before. Think of Charlie, Marnie’s boyfriend. While having make-up sex in his painfully neat apartment, Charlie starts begging “don’t abandon me, okay, don’t make me feel safe and then abandon me.” Marnie –- who wanted Charlie back -– is so horrified by his desperation that she breaks up with him mid-coitus. We laugh in both disbelief and uncomfortable recognition at Charlie’s childlike, frantic craving for safety. We empathize with Marnie’s disgust with this hopeless man-child who decorates -– and verbalizes — like a woman but who crumbles like a thoroughly modern dude.
That’s the same Girls created by Nora Ephron/SATC fangurl Lena Dunham. The same Girls whose lead female character, not mentioned by Schwyzer even as he does focus on the most beta character on the show, is a dependent wreck-of-a-mess who initially leeches off of her parents financially and her sideasspiece-turned-boyfriend Adam emotionally. The first 80% of the season depicts the lead female character pining and whining for Adam as he does his own thing. He then mysteriously transitions to the needy insecure lost boy. Point being, Schwyzer is citing make-believe to fit his preconceived notions.
Where does Schwyzer go from there? He rolls out some dialogue from the movie Blue Valentine where Ryan Gosling’s character is pleading with his wife to tell him what to do to save their relationship. Schwyzer writes:
“Tell me what to do.” “Tell me how I should be.” Dean’s entreaty is both heartbreaking and utterly familiar; more than an appeal not to be abandoned, it’s a forlorn male plea for an instruction manual that wives and girlfriends can’t be expected to possess. Like Marnie in Girls, Cindy knows just enough to know that for her sanity’s sake, she’s got to get away from that sweet, suffocating, neediness.
Is that how we should look at this particular movie? It seems to be something else and seems to be much deeper than Schwyzer’s just-so gut shot. Gosling’s character has become something of a loser. High school dropout who paints houses for a living. He drinks and is not happy. His wife is a nurse and they have a child together. The child may not be his. We could play the one-up game if we want, but we could also relate this to the overall transition being faced by men and women alike in this fast-changing world. Gosling’s character would certainly feel the pressure to be the right kind of man with the right kind of job. But his wife married him with full knowledge of his resume. She signed up for it. But when the failure finally comes to a head – and it inevitably would – he is the one left pleading for his life. He pleads because he has to plead. She does not. In the movie she encountered an ex-boyfriend (the one whose child Gosling’s character might have been raising, not that Schwyzer would sympathize) which sends him into a tailspin which ends in their separation. So we could reference this movie as an example of the tough transition faced by men and women alike or we could just point out that men are needy little bitches.
Schwyzer then lashes out at Tom Matlack at GMP, de-contextualizing one sentence out of a long piece, to which Matlack has replied. Mark Greene has provided a good response as well.
Schwyzer goes on:
The problem isn’t just that men may have a harder time adapting to a rapidly changing economy. The problem is –- as both Hanna Rosin and Lena Dunham (the creator and star of Girls) seem to understand – a growing number of men expect women to serve as perpetually available emotional beacons in their struggle to navigate the transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency.
To underscore, I don’t see this. Maybe it is just me. Though I see clingy men all the time (I see clingy women too, we just happen to notice a man clinging on to a woman as a “man bites dog” story), I also see men in various ways fighting their dependence on women. One way is Game, a key tenant of which is to avoid “one-itis”. But those guys are misogynist dicks, right?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Interesting point on Dunham’s character. I believe Schwyzer’s point is true (a real rarity) based off of observation of others as a man in his 20′s. It may be the case, however, that all members of this generation are more needier than average — but women have more recourse than men in their parents, friends, the state, etc…leaving young men more codependent by comparison.
He’s using fake people to bolster his point? The fuck? Yes, guys who need women are going to need those women more than guys who don’t need women. Revolutionary shit right there. I have a few friends who fall/fell into a “the next girl who lets him fuck her will get a ring from him” phase. Maybe they act like Gosling? But I certainly know more men who do and do not have gfs/wives who took their time, never particularly needed a woman, then found a solid girl. They act more like men than snivelling weenises.
Women are headcases across the board, and can barely keep their own emotions under control. Knowing what they are like, I never depend on them for any type of emotional support. They can be good company in small doses.
So… Hugo Schwyzer is doing good work diagnosing a crisis among men, right? Whether he’s right or in error (as Chuck’s highlighting of “seems” points out), I applaud Mr. Schwyzer for his desire to help men.
Given the same diagnostic opinion as Schwyzer, I would counsel men to critically deconstruct feminist narratives and also to read Heartiste. Is that also Schwyzer’s proposed solution?
he of course ignores that charlie later gets a younger, hotter girl to replace marnie
also, why bother with all this, hugo schwyzer is a pussy with no balls. the name schwyzer itsself just rings of a pathetic herb. these people don’t deserve serious deconstruction, just ridicule
“these people don’t deserve serious deconstruction”
I disagree. Those people are mouthpieces of the powers that be and they set the tone and parameters of public discourse. Thus their writing should be both ridiculed and deconstructed.
Personally, I don’t have the stomach for it because of my hate for liberalism, which us why I’m glad that Chuck can deal with their material objectively.
In essence: if we ignore them, they will NOT go away.
I thought my initial reaction was ad hominem. But then i realized it is a perfectly logical theory. Maybe schwyzer has no male friends to draw personal, anecdotal evidence from. Would certainly fit with his hate of the male status quo; he was never accepted by men.
Men of Color do not have this problem…
that tells you soemthing right there
Right on Anti-Racist. Men of Color and especially fine Men of darker colors are natural masters of all women. white boys go down before us and also fake ass bright skinned people of Color who are too uppity for Darker Men Of Color. Anti-Racist leads the way for the Superior Darkest Men Of Color. We are your Brothers Soldier. Do not fear our interest in your brotherhood with us.
Men of Color do not have this problem…
You sure? Every black woman I’ve ever seen is angry. Every white women I’ve ever seen except lesbians is always smiling, especially white women who never see black people.
“Marnie –- who wanted Charlie back -– is so horrified by his desperation that she breaks up with him mid-coitus. ”
wtf, the guy really likes that girl,
“it’s a forlorn male plea for an instruction manual that wives and girlfriends can’t be expected to possess. ”
indeed, men should stop caring about what makes women in their lives happy and whether the women themselves know what makes them haaaaapppyyyy! But who exactly taught them this idiotic recipe in the first place?
“To underscore, I don’t see this. Maybe it is just me. ”
a man who gets a circumcision to please his wife(or ex-wife?) can whiff clinginess even where it doesn’t exists. Maybe he can sleep a little better at night when there are others like him.
Anti-Racist,
I love you. And yet you refuse my sincere devotion. Why do you abandon me to the bitter winds of loneliness? Where is my comfort and reassurance? Am I expected to go on without you?
You are disrespectful at your own peril white boy gorbachev. Anti-Racist is a Soldier of Justice. He is a senior Officer in our struggle and he has Boots ready to back him up. We are always keeping vigil and watching over our Brother white boy and following his every Wise comment.
Chuck, “Promoting Justice” has to be a joke by you…
Nope, it’s not me. I wish it was.
We are not white boy chuck so zip that mouth of yours pinky. What you all fail to understand is that our Bond with Anti-Racist is tight and you all are interlopers on this site. Which is why Anti-Racist polices it up of racists like yourself. Are we clear white boy?
Every single article this guy writes makes men look bad in some way. He twists things, he emphasizes this, deemphasizes that, makes up a few “facts”, quotes feminists and all the rest just to force the outcome that men are scum.
Why?
And the other question I would have for him: How can you just continue on your merry way knowing that so many people – men and women, MRAs and feminists – loathe you?
LOL, but how in the hell do they reply to posts within 3 minutes of every anti-racist post?
Chuck, by the way I just emailed you something I saw on the internet from Schwyzer let me know what you think.
Cam,
refresh…refresh……….refresh. it’s a grand undertaking by whoever is doing it.
i didn’t get an email though. g.l.piggy@gmail.com?
i wonder if that dumbshit shyster realizes he just wrote a psa for game?
hahaha,
remember this is the guy who bragged about cuckolding another man….
remember this is the guy ho tried to kill a lover (and himself) in a drug fueled rage….
why are we even listening to this guy talk about gender, it’s like listening to David Duke talk about race, and y’all wouldn’t do that would ya know?
anyways, why are MGTOW’s so hated when they only seem to be “opting out” of a bad situation?
Schwyzer is doing this….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIS19La8W8.
But he is not the only one. Lots of people, men and women, loathe their demographic so they can sit with the Cool Kids at lunch.
stoner,
simple…because they don’t do so quietly.
schwyzer and feminists want men to opt out meekly. scurry away while admitting their inferiority and while not holding any sort of grudge, frustration, exasperation over the whole thing.
but it’s an emotional breakup writ-large. tempers flare.
@Heartiste,
No. You had the right assumption. He’s a dumbshit. He has no idea.
And it’s hard enough to win accolades from the capricious feminist howling monkeys of the barren wastes, accolades and acceptance he so desperately craves. But unlike most, he actually endures not just suspicion and derision, but thinly veiled contempt from the targets of his unrequited affection.
A principled chauvinist always wins more respect from heterosexual feminists than a squirming, obsequious schweister, um sheister.
“I just stabbed my testicle. And my best friend’s testicle. Look! Look! Are you proud of me yet? Did I do good? am I a good boy? Look at me, look at me, pay attention to me, I’m a good boy!”
it should be added – and i read someone else’s take on this as well though i can’t remember who – that men are chided for being emotionally distant. now they’re being chided for being emotionally needy. damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Exactly. Plus, look at all the progressive men that have fallen foul of feminists for some minor infraction. Aaron Sorkin, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, etc.
You can’t win with these people. So what’s the point in trying to please them? I’m sure everyone here has come to the proper conclusion: there is no point.
True that. Men are either too distant or too needy, too commitment-phobic or too clingy, too domineering or too wimpy, too jealous or too apathetic, etc. etc. etc.
let me reiterate…
Men of Color keep their women on ice
only white women complain. it is quiet evident that they are disgusted and dissappointed with with white “men”
it is no wonder that white women are choosing Men of Color to have healthy and long lasting relationships with.
Anti-Racist is exactly right. What you loser racists fail to understand is that we are for real. We are not a troll or a joke as some of you white boys wish but we are an organization dedicated to Promoting Justice. Our network of Soldiers watches comments at sites where racist injustice is promoted and we offer our allegiance to lone Heroes like Anti-Racist who is smarter than all you white boys. What we also do is keep an eye on Anti-Racist and offer him ANY support he needs. AS LONG as he understands that he us now on our team.
One more thing to my fellow Soldier Anti-Racist. What is your opinion on men of color who sometimes get uppity toward Men of Darker Color?
Did anybody else see this guy on Nat Geo’s “Taboo” show? Schwyzer is an expert on balloon and other fetishes. So, don’t feel guilty dumping on this 3rd rate feminist-intellectual.
http://www.shallownation.com/2012/07/28/national-geographic-taboo-strange-passions-video-photos/
@anti-racist – I’m sure you’ve seen a lot of needy men of color in Tyler Perry movies.
Hugo Schwyzer has to be the biggest pile of shit in the Western Hemisphere.
This is just another example of how nearly everything feminists complain about is the result of feminism itself. If you ask guys like Schwyzer what it takes to be a good man, basically, every criterion is defined in relation to women. Every article I’ve ever read from Hugo Schwyzer judges men solely by how they treat women. Even THIS article does that.
So, if there are guys who are dumb enough to actually do that, then how does he EXPECT them to react when it looks like their women are going to leave? Not only does that mean they’ve failed as men, that’s practically their whole sense of self-worth threatening to walk out the door.
The problem isn’t that so many men are underachievers, it’s that too many of them have accepted the message of people like Hugo Schwyzer, at least implicitly.
Add to that the fact that so many young men were raised without fathers (something else feminism can take the blame for), and they have a whole lifetime of being controlled by women and trying to please them. I think a lot of young guys just don’t know how to do anything else. How are they supposed to, in this environment?
Which is why people like heartiste are so important. It seems like guys who are just looking for advice on how to get laid are eventually going to find him, if they keep looking. Even if most of them won’t have the courage to take his advice, I don’t see how they can avoid changing their outlook, if they just keep reading.
“we are an organization dedicated to Promoting Justice. Our network of Soldiers watches comments at sites where racist injustice is promoted and we offer our allegiance to lone Heroes like Anti-Racist”
So…
You’re telling us that there’s MORE THAN ONE person who has nothing better to do all day than sit around, hitting the refresh button over and over, to see if anti-racist left another comment?
Do you think that might have anything to do with your lack of real-world achievement? Just a thought.
it is no wonder that white women are choosing Men of Color to have healthy and long lasting relationships with.
yes, through the prison pen pal program.
i have said many times that i am a white loser and that is why i think hbd and race “realism” is so absurd
oh and PJ:
dude you need t get a life
even i have to step away from the monitor
i am sure that much like me you need to eat sleep mastobat and take dumps
even a loser like me has to take breaks from the internet. money doesn’t grow on trees i actually have to ask my wealthy parents to supprt me
“We are always keeping vigil and watching over our Brother white boy and following his every Wise comment.”
“Wise,” indeed. Good job, sir.
Anti-Racist you are evidently not a loser because we see the operations of your superior intellect. But with a gift like yours comes Responsibility brother. You are now in the game. No backing out. And we are at your side and at your back Sir.
Thank god for the sickle cell!
The essential ‘dialectic’ is this: The patriarchy. Men. Class-based oppression. Collective guilt and victimhood. Seeing individuals = attempt to divert attention, likely capitalist reactionary. Therefore, men = evil.
First reaction for any problem encountered at any junction, whether private or personal, whether a problem experienced by a conservative or liberal woman, any problem at all: Seek out how men are responsible. Identify problem. Initiate Blame. Extract promises and, if possible, resources. If impossible, destroy local Good-Will out of spite.
But there’s not just one category. There is a host of growing victim categories that have to be taken into account, and there is a clear and demonstrable hierarchy.
In the following list, lower numbers indicate lesser “privilege” and therefore lesser Collective Guilt Factor. Therefore, the higher your number, the more you must do to prove innocence in conflicts with people with lower numbers, and the more collective guilt you deserve, regardless of personal actions.
Watch out for that number. If there is an 4-9 point discrepancy, any action taken by the Less Privileged, any action at all, up to and especially including physical harm or injury, even death, is acceptable as Just Rewards for Being Born.
Order of responsibility, most to least guilty of class offenses:
10: White men (Conservative white men; liberal Christians; Secular white men; feminist men; 1. Anglo-Saxon, 2. N European, 3. S. European)
9: Asian men
8: Black men
7: Conservative women
6: Non -socialists (of any flavor: Only statist, pure socialists are immune)
5: Non -radical environmentalists
4: Vegetarians
3: Gay men
2: Heterosexual women
1: Bisexual women
0: Lesbians: do not figure on this list; they are pure victims and, as such, are guilty of nothing. The Male never poisons their ritual cleanliness. However, internally, there is a micro-hierarchy that, while small, is important: White lesbians; Asian lesbians; Hispanic lesbians; Black lesbians; any Native American lesbians.
* Within each of these micro-categories of Lesbians, two scales can lower the guilt factor: The uglier, the lower the number; but fatness trumps ugliness; both factors are cumulative.
OVERALL MODIFIERS:
1) Fatness: The fatter you are, the more you subtract from your collective guilt number, to a maximum of 1 point.
NOTE: Double-reduction for black women; triple for lesbians. Bonus does not apply to white men, and, in fact, there is a Reverse Penalty for conservative white men: the fatter, the higher the obvious guilt; also apply Contempt in the First Degree with a dose of Mockery and Snide Commentary; possible Penis Mockery.
2) Divorced men who want to see their children are, by definition, Evil. If they do not want to see their children, they are also Evil. If they pay child support, they are Acceptable, but are in need of suspicious apprehension. If they pay child support but do not / cannot see their children, even if it’s not their decision, they are Acceptable but clearly hollow creatures without souls, because they are still responsible for all psychological effects of any kind on their children. If they try too hard to see their children, they are likely Psychopaths; however, they are still responsible for Psychological Neglect if they fail.
Corollary: Women who have children whose father is not present, for any reason, including those resulting from a woman’s actions, are Brave Heroes and Courageously Pure Upholders of Virtue, Deserving of the Highest Awards the Holy State can confer. Criticism of any decision made by such women is an automatic +1 in Collective Guilt Factor. This penalty is doubled for any woman. I mean, men are expected to complain. Women should Respect Sisterhood.
Progressive America
However, times have changed. There’s more to this story, today. It’s not enough to be a Recent-Wave Feminist. Critical Race Theory clearly shows that if you are a committed “progressive revolutionary thinker”, especially an “anti-racist” (more accurately “ideologically justified racist”), or are possibly just working in the media, women are thrown under the bus.
The Adjusted List goes like this:
15+: White men. This is the greatest Collective Guilt Factor of all, and has the added attribute of Retroactive.
Exception: All men with the name “Noam Chomsky” (See “Jewish Collective Responsibility Note 2″)
13: All Jews. Most left-wing dialogue is powerfully anti-semitic in tone and expression, and even the mildest at least has undercurrents. Apotheosis: Sweden. Corollary: The more Socialist-bureaucratic a country, the more anti-semitic it is in practice. Exception: France. France’s anti-semitism is, like all things French, weirdly unique and at some point not dependent on outside trends.
Jews are most guilty in this order: Hasidic or religious Jews (Possibly more guilty than white men, especially if they live near black people, in which case they are possibly more guilty than white men and may, in fact, be unholy baby-eating demons in human guise); Left-wing mildly observant Jews who think a peace solution is possible without the “push to the sea”; Secular left-wing Jews from New York, which is the Center of All Things Evil and taints all who live there above this level of guilt in greater measure; Secular left-wing Jews; Secular left-wing Jews from California who have solid Guilt-Inducing PC Media Industry bona-fides are magically at the bottom of this list. This pass is generally also applied to non-Jews, though Jews get it automatically.
Jewish Collective Responsibility Note 1, Israel: This is progressive Jewish special ability for use at urban social events and demonstrations: Anti-Israeli Jews get a pass, but only by the degree of their publicly-voiced visceral hatred of Israel and the demonstrated desire to see it obliterated. Special Brownie Points for writing this in an article for East Coast media, esp. The Nation; however, no bonus for writing it in Tikkun.
Jewish Collective Responsibility Note 2, Official Identity Rejection Card: Jews can temporarily atone for being Jewish by being more anti-Semitic than the most anti-semitic non-Jew currently in the room or, by extension, on this floor of the Social Studies building. This condition is dependent on continuous maintenance or absolution for being a Jew is revoked. Careful observation is required to prevent backsliding. Does not function in Scandinavia. Only works in France if individual speaks French and is a member of the Socialist Party.
12: Conservative white women
Asians, like those in California demanding equality in college admissions or operating businesses in poorer areas and having the temerity to send their kids to school with the money they make rather than give it away. Direct correlation: The more they study and work, the higher their number and the more guilty they are (of enforcing the capitalist status-quo).
11: Non-socialists
10: Radical environmentalists
9: Other Asians (especially
8: Hispanic women. Drop down one in California. Don’t drop down if member of La Raza.
7: Environmentalists. Raise up one in California.
6: Gay men, except gay Republicans who don’t either live in NYC or work in media.
5: Black men***
4: Third-world or “brown” people of any random description: In general, “Brown people”)
3: Black women***
2: Native Americans. Note: may be fictional. Might be around. If owning casinos or advocating private property ownership or resource extraction of any kind: +3.
SPECIAL NOTE:
Black people claiming Native ancestry: -1
Suspiciously white people able to “pass” mentioning Native ancestry: +700; Exception: White Female members of the Democratic party within the Ideological Proximity Halo of Barrack Obama claiming Native ancestry: No penalty.
1: Muslims
0: Religious Muslims. They are Revolutionaries and are therefore Pure. These individuals are also likely Brown. Third-World people are chic and cool and provide a modifier aura of bona-fide Revolutionary Cred of -2 to all those within a 10-foot Ideological Proximity Exclusion Zone. Female Radical Muslims are more powerful acquisitions and provide a bonus of -3. This bonus is cumulative with others but cannot drop total score below 1. Levels below 0 are reserved for those who follow the Correct Path to Allah.
OVERALL MODIFIERS:
1) and 2) from the above Pre-Critical Race Theory adjustment both apply.
3) Single moms: -1.
4) Lesbians: Lesbians no longer appear in this list, but Lesbianism applies a – 2 modifier. This cannot reduce the total score below 1.
5) Revolutionary Acts: Violence, regardless of nature, performed by members of groups with a score lower than 8 are officially Non Violent. All those punished for these acts are Political Prisoners. Inter-group victim competition between those with a Collective Guilt Factor lower than 8 must somehow blame anyone with a higher Collective Guilt Factor and not the individual with a score lower than 8.
http://glpiggy.net/2011/03/12/feminists-remain-cowardly-on-cleveland-18/
6) Revolutionary Cred: Acts of Socialist Violence or Activism provide a bonus. The more Committed, the greater the discount. The discount ranges from -8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) to -2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)
7) Feminist: Applies only to Men. Can provide a Bonus, but also comes with the attribute Contempt. Also included as a free bonus is a complementary pass for Friendzone amusement park in Palmville.
Discount ranges from -4 to -2 (http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/obama-feminist/)
*** Sudanese non-Muslims or any non-Muslim from Darfur, East Timor, Nigeria, the Philippines and especially Coptic Christians do not exist. Any mention of them is an attempt to Subvert the Narrative with imaginary, Islamophobic tropes. This is the only case deapplication of official blackness / Brownness, because such people simply don’t exist. Mentioning these individuals has a 50% chance for application of the label Racist Islamophobic Capitalist American Imperialist Patriarchal Misogynist Reactionary who Eats Black Baby Muslims for breakfast. Just like the Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Aftonbladet_Israel_controversy
Muslims
“For a host of reasons, guys are providing less financially than ever before.”
Women’s financial independence is largely illusory. Instead of providing directly for women as their husbands, many men are working and paying taxes to support women indirectly through the welfare state. This includes not just direct welfare but also many make work government jobs filled with women. So this is one faulty premise in this article and the rest of the article seems filled with many other claims of a dubious nature.
it’s hard to tell (and that’s the mark of a good troll), but i think anti-racist and promoting justice are meta-trolls. that is, they deliberately write inane, absurd comments caricaturing anti-white racists to send them up. whatever the motivation, i do find their spergy robotic print-outs oddly entertaining.
I’ve been saying this from the beginning. He has to be some right-wing … provocateur.
Nobody, and nobody is that ideologically pure.
It’s like some perfectly PC AI.
AR is real. His comments try to demoralize rather than discredit. PJ sounds… like a Soldier on a Mission.
@Mark
That’s a really good point. Chuck, you should investigate and write a kick-ass blog post about it. Your soldiers await your input on this important issue.
(In case you can’t tell, I’m trying to be the Promoting Justice to Chuck’s anti-racist).
@Heartiste
I’m beginning to think the same thing about Hugo Schwyzer as well.
Considering he spent his 20s and early 30s tagging vulnerable coeds but now champions a version of feminism that would freak out even moderate lefties, it’s pretty obvious he’s an unreconstructed cad running an elaborate false flag operation.
Come to think about it, that would also explain why you have never revealed your true identity. Talk about a heel/face turn…
At the same time, men’s yearning for comfort, reassurance, and direction from women seems to be getting louder and more urgent.
This is utter rubbish. I’ve never heard of this being true at all.
Schwyzer is not off the mark here. Men who act needy are not going to be respected. While Schwyzer might think this is some payback for the patriarchy or some exclusively male problem – the truth is that he underscores just how little sympathy the feminist thought process has for males. This is essentially what Roissy says: Men are expendable and women (especially feminists) are hypocritical. It’s why a false statistic on the gender pay gap will occupy the minds of the feminists while the real gender gap of achievement in school is chalked up to merit. It’s all deception and deceit for biological and social power purposes.
Scwhyzer and feminists are unable to empathize with men so they mock them. Women can’t be guilty because of the patriarchy. It’s a simple formula that allows women to draw from the pool of social pressure while excluding men from the same right; it’s how men will end up paying for the State to take over child-care, pre-natal care, 50% gender quotas in corporations, and other “rights” for women.