Friday, September 11, 2015

Meanies are picking on Evan Marc Katz!

Poor Evan Marc Katz. Everybody's hypersensitive, and he's feeling, well, sensitive about it.
"And pretty much all of my favorite writers and comedians have been attacked by the PC police – Jerry Seinfeld, Stephen Colbert, Sam Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Bill Maher, Laura Kipnis. Why? Because even though all of them have socially liberal worldviews, they either made jokes or spoke their minds – much to the chagrin of their critics."
Now I've certainly come out against, for want of a better term, Social Justice Warriors. But not only SJWs criticized Sam Harris. And that's because Sam Harris is a bona fide asshole and kind of an idiot too, as I've discussed many times on this blog. If liberals object to Sam Harris speaking his mind, it's because Sam Harris so often supports right-wing views: on torture, ethnic profiling, gun control and attitudes towards women.

Both Katz and Sam Harris have convinced a fairly large number of dullards that they are really bright guys. And they make a nice profit from that. So you can see how they might, at least occasionally, be concerned that there is a certain subset of the public who are not baffled by their bullshit.

But not only that, some of us are not even grateful to the service Evan Marc Katz is performing for humanity!
I have been giving free dating and relationship advice twice a week on this blog since 2007. I have approved 75,000 comments, thousands of which were vociferous criticisms of me and my advice. I’ve been blog trolled and Facebook trolled and Twitter trolled and comment trolled and email trolled. It doesn’t make me mad. It just makes me sad for those people who feel that the best form of debate is to create straw man arguments to attack me – all because I believe something different – something that is usually well-reasoned.
Poor Evan Marc Katz. All he wants to do is make a very sweet living sitting around talking about himself and inventing little tips and tricks for how woman can snag a man. And for that he must endure the horrific oppression of occasional criticism!

This is the kind of snake-oil Evan Marc Katz is selling to women, all the while claiming to be a liberal and pro-feminist. From his book Why He Disappeared:
Being passive doesn’t mean that you can’t do anything proactive. It means that you’re choosing not to do anything proactive, because being proactive during courtship is ineffective in making a man feel attracted to you. 
Here are a few common examples of being proactive:
  • You have a great date, you email him the next day to say you had a lot of fun.
  • You haven’t heard from him all weekend, you text him to make sure he’s doing okay.
  • You want to see him next week, you tell him his favorite band is playing downtown and you can get tickets.
  • You’re confused about where your relationship stands, you ask him where things are headed.
You think you’re being real; he thinks you’re acting clingy. Understand, the man of your dreams doesn’t NEED to be pushed to be your boyfriend.
You see, you are choosing to be passive (non-proactive) because you want to snag a manly-man who is threatened by you asking him on a date to see his favorite band. Or calling to inquirer after his well-being.

What Evan Marc Katz is doing is not performing a service for women - he's performing a service for the most worthless men on the planet, by encouraging women to believe that a real man is one who expects a passive woman. Instead of such men becoming evolutionary dead-ends as they deserve to be, Katz is telling women to accept this grotesqueness as the price heterosexual women must pay if they want to get married.

What does Katz think is going to happen after the desperate woman becomes passive during courtship and tricks the manly-man into marrying her? The man will be extremely confused when this perfect girlfriend who wouldn't dream of being such an aggressive bulldyke as to offer tickets to his favorite band suddenly stops being passive. Divorce will ensue. But possibly not before this piece of shit passes his genes onto the next generation. 

So what Evan Marc Katz is selling is women training themselves to be deferential to men. And he's such a little weasel he pretends that he's really a feminist and a liberal. Except that he gives the game away in so many ways, not the least of which is that a misogynist dumbass like Sam Harris is one of his favorite writers.

Katz was thrilled by Date-Onomics, a book that emphasizes the scarcity of men vs. women, because it helps to stampede poor gullible suckers into buying his how-to-be-passive-enough-to-snag-a-man advice books. Although Katz doesn't agree with everything in the Date-Onomics book -  of course he is very much against the notion that women should ever pursue men:
However, the author does make some very salient points that echo things you may have read here – particularly about how female maximizers can be left standing alone because they were consumed with their careers, didn’t prioritize love, and felt they deserved to be picky.
“With a lot at stake in getting it right in one shot, it’s the women who are confident that they are holding a strong hand who are likely to hold out and wait for the perfect prospect.”This is why it seems that there are a disproportionate number of “quality” 40-year old single women. Like Lori Gottlieb, they were holding out for a 10, while the appropriate guys settled down with other women who may have been less impressive on paper but who prioritized love and compromise.
Birger’s solution to this is that women should pursue men. I don’t think that feels good for most women, nor do I think it’s very effective. What I do concede, is that it behooves all of us to date extensively through our 20’s, to grow and mature, and figure out what works for us, so that we can realistically settle down between 30-35 instead of 35-45. Life doesn’t always work that way, of course, but it’s hard to argue that prioritizing love is, in any way, “bad” for you.
Naturally men don't have to prioritize love. They have their pick of apparently oodles of women who are doing that. The real message that all these dating hucksters have, ultimately, is that women need to cater to men's preferences. Or else.

Dating books - certainly Katz's - are often ignored by more serious media, but it was very interesting to read a review, in the NYTimes Sunday Book Review of all places, that did not unquestioningly accept the premises of Date-Onomics:
It’s important to point out here that there aren’t actually more women than men in the United States: There are 1.05 boys born for every one girl. But by “women” Birger means single, college-​educated, straight women, and “men” are single, college-educated, straight men. There are 33 percent more such women in their 20s than men. To help us see what a big difference 33 percent is, Birger invites us to imagine a late-night dorm room hangout that’s drawing to an end, and everyone wants to hook up. “Now imagine,” he writes, that in this dorm room, “there are three women and two men.” If this is a predicament that brings to mind some provocative possible arrangements, this is not what Birger intends: “Date-­Onomics” is written for people who assume that pairing two by two, male and female, with educated people in or above one’s class, is the endgame, and his book aims to give women the data to win it. 
The gender gap in college education is striking, and Birger joins a chorus of critics arguing that we must do better at educating young boys to prepare them for college, adding that ignoring the gap in education is bad not only for boys but also for girls. But he attributes to the “man deficit” everything from “loosening sexual mores” to young women’s increasing tendency to delay marriage, and male sexual aggression and issues with intimacy. Without substantial survey or interview data to ferret out the reasons that, for example, the number of women between 30 and 34 who are not marrying has increased by 31 percent between 2007 and 2012, he depends on anecdotes to assume that these women actually want to be married and that most women participating in “hookup culture” would forgo uncommitted sex for a “serious” relationship if only there were enough “good” men. 
Birger claims not to be cautioning young women to prioritize marriage, but the book seems to support exactly that conservative and panicked view. One strategy for women who want to marry, Birger suggests, would be to move to Silicon Valley, where single men outnumber single women. Another is that women who want to marry should expand their options to include men who have not gone to college and who are more likely to marry because “their” women are scarce. That marriage might not always be good for women is not a possibility he considers.
Of course someone like Katz would never broach the possibility that marriage is not always good for women. It's in his own financial interest to promote it, even when he apparently believes that the best women can hope for is to marry men who are turned off by the ridiculously inoffensive, and even considerate "pro-active" behavior that he warns against, and turn themselves into passive receptacles of male approval.

Which is why feminists are Katz's natural enemy although he won't acknowledge it straight-out. Katz's job is to sell marriage to women regardless of the cost. Feminists actually stop and consider the costs of marriage.

What's really funny is how Katz and other dating hucksters don't seem to be aware of the actual real-world conditions that they themselves have written about, while they're exhorting women to jump through hoops to land a man. We all know that what men really want in a woman is to be young and pretty. 40-year-old single women have a hard time finding someone to date because they're trying to date 40-something men, who are trying to date 20-something women. Men don't give a shit whether women are "pro-active" or not. But Katz can hardly tell women: just become 20 again. So instead his advice is that women should bow to the traditional masculine desire for control. But the men that Katz is pushing as marriage material really don't give a shit how passive you are, if you aren't young and pretty.

The solution for 40-something women (or older) is to date men under 40. I highly recommend it, especially if you're not a big fan of baldness. Maybe it won't lead to marriage, but since the marriage Katz has in mind is marriage to complete assholes, who needs marriage? Maybe we should all heed the slogan of Samantha Jones of "Sex and the City" - "women are for friends, men are for fucking."

UPDATE: while Evan Marc Katz is whining about meanies attacking him and favorite writers, he's apparently not above unprovoked personal attacks against others - and he does it in exactly the way you would expect from a weasel:
I personally thought it was helpful and pretty inoffensive! Apparently not … here’s Evan Marc’s response! I would like to point out, Evan Marc didn’t in any way share this article with me, contact me with his disagreement, or even comment on the HuffPo article directly – which I think is a bit spineless and underhand. If you’re going to write a response to something, at least have the decency to let the person you’re attacking know about it! Especially when your own article appears to begin with a rather personal attack!
More of my contempt for Evan Marc Katz and the other misogynist anti-feminist hucksters he likes to promote.