More on toxic "dating coach" huckster Evan Marc Katz

Once you've demonstrated that someone is actively encouraging women to date men who are statistically more likely to abuse them, as Evan Marc Katz does, there's not much else to say about them.

But I can't help but say a few more things about Evan Marc Katz and his exchange with a dissatisfied customer.

In addition to Katz's usual slipperiness in failing to own the regressive advice he gives women, the article demonstrates that even women who are inclined to be skeptical about the benefits of reverting to traditional gender roles have drunk hearty draughts of Katz's misogyny Kool-aid. Customer says:

But I also feel like I’ve learned a lot of stuff that just feels almost insurmountable taken in total, and also… a huge amount of effort that will yield… what, I’m not sure.
To wit (and hear this not as angry, but just incredibly overwhelmed):

She then goes on to list what she considers Katz's objectionable advice.

She then says:

I’m not sure I can actually do all these things.
It looks exhausting, and no fun. What is the upside, besides getting laid, since I earn my own living? 

The fact that she thinks that there actually is an upside - "getting laid" - to Evan Marc Katz's advice that women submit to traditional gender roles in order to catch a manly-man indicates that she's already in the land of cognitive dissonance. Because in fact if all you want to do is get laid, why would you have to become passive? Contrary to Evan Marc Katz's claim, men in fact do like it when women initiate sex, and not only insecure clueless men. Now the traditional-gender-role-loving men that Evan Marc Katz is promoting as real men may not want to marry a woman who actively pursues sex, on the basis of the traditional gender role phenomenon known as the madonna/whore complex. But they will certainly have sex with you and if getting laid is what you want, then it's a win-win. 

And of course there are some men who are sufficiently "masculine" and yet do not buy into rigid gender roles. I know such men. But naturally they are very popular with women and tend to already be in relationships, usually long-term relationships, so if that was the type of man Evan Marc Katz was selling, his success rate would take a big hit - there are just not enough of that kind of man for all the women who want them. But the supply of single traditional-gender-role assholes is huge, and so it's just that much more efficient for Katz to make a buck convincing women that those are the men they really want. Or at least convince them that there are no other alternatives, because "men" are likely to feel emasculated at the tiniest non-passive action on the part of women.

Notice too that the dissatisfied customer said: What is the upside, besides getting laid, since I earn my own living? 

"Since I earn my own living" - she is not looking for a man to be her meal-ticket. 

Now of course economic inequality is the basis of traditional gender roles. The reason men made all the moves in courtship with women was because they had all the power and all the money. Men bought women - not the other way around. Rarely as obviously as when slavers bought slaves, it was more of a barter system than a cash-and-carry. But the power dynamic was just as real.

The main motivation for getting married for a woman was economic - if she didn't find a man who could support her financially, she would either have to live with relatives or earn her own living at a time when it was perfectly legal to bar women from many kinds of high-paying jobs. And the jobs that were open to women were low-paying, usually because they were considered women's jobs. And of course she would not be allowed to have sex lest she be considered a worthless slut - only men had the option of socially-accepted extra-marital sex until very, very recently. So the only option for a woman who didn't want to be a celibate burden to her family (or a celibate poorly-paid worker) was to get married.

Evan Marc Katz prefers to believe that gender roles are biological - like his favorite writer Sam Harris (Harris is a New Atheist and evolutionary psychology is their religion) and so of course he ignores the economic social reality. He prefers to tell women that male dominance is just the way of the world, men are never going to change, and there is nothing to be done about it except resign yourself to being the passive receptacle of male approval. Or live a lonely, sexless life.

It used to be that dating hucksters didn't have to work so hard to push women into the passive role - the entire socio-economic system was designed to force women into that role. Marriage was very common because women had a compelling financial interest to get married. 

But since Katz's clients earn their own living, they tend to believe they don't have to settle for any man with a good job. But a woman being "picky" lowers Katz's success rate, so he is very much focused on claiming women expect too much from men. 

And then when he is called on it by someone he can't ignore, a client, he gaslights her and pretends that he's a huge egalitarian who never told women they had to be passive.

I was amused to see how Katz referred to his critics:

 I’ve seen criticism of my views from anonymous strangers before, but I’d never before had a client who expressed such great displeasure with her perception of my coaching philosophies.

As anybody who has read this blog knows, there are many Katz critics, including myself, who are not anonymous. And Katz knows it too - he reads this blog. It was easy enough to figure that out when I noticed in my blog analytics that someone from his town in California was regularly visiting this site. 

Naturally he won't discuss critics by name, any more than he will name feminists he makes claims about - because it's much easier to argue with straw-women, or clients who have already drunk his Kool-aid. 

Katz may be toxic for women as individuals and for the progress towards an egalitarian society as a whole, but he sure knows how to take care of the financial progress of Evan Marc Katz.

More on the toxic Weltanshauung of Evan Marc Katz.

Fortunately some men are helping to promote an egalitarian society:

Michael Kimmel: Why gender equality is good for everyone - men included.

Evan Marc Katz turns to a famous misogynist for advice

I really feel bad for the pathetic losers who look to "dating coach" huckster Evan Marc Katz as some kind of authority on women's lives. He's so obviously useless on his best days and evil on his worst.

Katz holds a classic both-sides view of men and women. In other words, yes, men have been bad to women, but women are just as bad to men. 

This is easily debunked if you do nothing more than look at which gender is more likely to kill members of the other gender. As The Atlantic reported in July:

The CDC analyzed the murders of women in 18 states from 2003 to 2014, finding a total of 10,018 deaths. Of those, 55 percent were intimate partner violence-related, meaning they occurred at the hands of a former or current partner or the partner’s family or friends. In 93 percent of those cases, the culprit was a current or former romantic partner. The report also bucks the strangers-in-dark-alleys narrative common to televised crime dramas: Strangers perpetrated just 16 percent of all female homicides, fewer than acquaintances and just slightly more than parents.

Obviously men are not killed 55% of the time by their former or current partners, partner's family or friends. Men are killed by male strangers far more often. 

Now I didn't have to look this up to have a rough idea it was true. I pay attention to the news, read magazine articles, etc. But if need be, it's easy enough to confirm via a Google search for online data. But I suspect that the kind of woman who looks to Katz as an authority on anything isn't well-informed and is unlikely to look things up for herself.

Meanwhile Katz promotes traditional gender-role men as mates to his audience - the kind of men who are more likely to commit violence against women.

Now he occasionally nods towards the problems of men being horrible to women - he mentions the MeToo movement. It looks good to the suckers.

Then he follows it up by citing Camille Paglia, the world's most famous lesbian misogynist, saying nice things about Hugh Hefner.

Misogynists like to reinforce each other so here's Katz approving of Paglia's idiocy:

• Men and women are more the same than ever before and it’s hurt the dating dynamic.
• Men should be more courtly and chivalrous to women.
• There is no male defense of sexual assault or harrassment.
• Women could benefit by embracing the feminine, eschewing victimhood, and not lumping all men in with the worst of men.

In a list advising women to take the traditional submissive role in relation to men, Katz/Paglia make sure to include something that anybody can agree with - no defense of sexual assault or harassment.

This demonstrates just exactly how full of piping hot shit Evan Marc Katz is when it comes to "believing women" which he claims for himself in the blog post about MeToo.

In the view of Katz and Paglia, women are not justified in feeling like actual victims in a world of frequent sexual assault in the workplace and frequent violent assault in the home. Acknowledging the horrors of living in such a world is considered "victimhood" by professional misogynists Katz and Paglia.

One of Katz's sad followers quotes Paglia approvingly in the comments below his post:

“I was horrified, horrified by the pink pussy hats,” she said; the pink pussy hats were “a major embarrassment to contemporary feminism.”

Of course Paglia would say that. She hates women and she loves Donald Trump. 

And that is the essence of what Evan Marc Katz does to his audience - citing misogynists with approval to make them feel like worthless losers so they'll agree to relationships with awful men. Because the important thing is Evan Marc Katz's track record and there are far more single assholes than single good guys in the world. Pushing women to go for creeps helps Evan Marc Katz's business and that's what any snake-oil salesman cares about.

And when these horrible men treat those women like inferiors the women will accept it for the cause of "vive la difference" and they will not ask for help because they've been advised by Evan Marc Katz and Camille Paglia to "eschew victimhood."

I really hope one of the victims of Katz's horrific advice sues that little weasel some day.

Evan Marc Katz: heterosexual women are great big hoes

Evan Marc Katz, patron saint of traditional gender roles:

Men spend countless hours working to get rich – not just for their own self-worth, but because having money gives them an advantage when it comes to courting women. Do these men feel bad that they’re being “used” for their money? Occasionally. But, for the most part, a rich guy understands that his money is part of the package – and if it allows him to get a woman he wouldn’t otherwise get, he can usually make peace with it.

These are the people Evan Marc Katz means when
he uses the terms "men" and "women."

So let's see - men work to get rich so they can have "an advantage" courting women. And when the money gives them an advantage courting women they "wouldn't otherwise get" they can make peace with it.

So a man can make peace (usually!) with a scenario that he spent countless hours trying to achieve.

Evan Marc Katz is a special kind of stupid.

And his claim about straight men of course begs the question, although Katz's none-too-bright followers are unlikely to think of it: if getting rich is about scoring quality pussy, why do any straight women or gay men work to get rich?

The only women who would listen to Evan Marc Katz are those who agree with him that women are whores who marry for money. No doubt because that's who they are, and they assume all women are like them. And Katz will certainly not tell them otherwise.

It makes me wonder who Katz is voting for in the upcoming presidential election. Hillary Clinton certainly didn't marry Bill for his money; she has worked all her life; and been nominated for president. How does such a woman fit into the Evan Marc Katz gender role paradigm? She doesn't. And neither does Elizabeth Warren.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is very much an Evan Marc Katz kind of man. Sure Trump didn't actually work to get rich, he was born rich, but he obviously used his money to buy women he wouldn't otherwise be able to get, twice dumping the aging Mrs. Trump for a younger model.

Donald Trump is the kind of man that Evan Marc Katz is selling to his poor marks, but the joke is on them. Unless they are under 35, they are not considered worth purchasing by the kind of men who buy women.

I'd bet that most of Katz's audience are women over 35, and so he is encouraging them to believe in a system which has already rejected them. No matter how much Evan Marc Katz advises women to be passive, these gold-digger wannabes will never score the rich man of their dreams. 

What a grotesque snake-oil salesman is Evan Marc Katz. But at least he offers his customers some consolation for being such dummies: Why So Many Smart People Aren't Happy.

More on the horrifically regressive, logically dissonant commentary of Evan Marc Katz.

Evan Marc Katz's exciting new dating technique: mate poaching!

The other side of Katz's
mate-poaching technique

Evan Marc Katz the dating advice huckster keeps trying to pass himself off as an egalitarian, even a semi-feminist:

But I don’t write this blog (or offer advice) to look good. I write here as a reflection of reality. Yes, I believe I’m one of the good ones – and yes, even the good ones have been raised in a society that objectifies women – and have been known to make mistakes once in awhile.

This gives you an idea of how disheartening Katz's view of women's hopes and expectations is - even he, a "good one", persistently tells women to be passive in their relationships with men.

Katz also pushes the idea that men come in only two flavors: alpha (desirable) or beta (less desirable).

Here is Katz a month or so ago:

Beta/feminine men are often some of the best husbands out there, but they conduct themselves in a passive way, leaving women wondering how they feel. In short, these nice guys are so insecure about pursuing you and making a move that they often wait for YOU to express interest in them. “You can call me, you know,” might be their mantra. Which is fine. However, this puts you in your “masculine energy,” and forces you to be the one to reach out to him to gauge his interest and availability.
As a dating coach for women, I don’t like that model. Nor do most of my clients. They may be proactive superstars in real life, but they tend to prefer being courted by (alpha) men.

But then suddenly, unceremoniously he has abandoned that old dichotomy.

In his most recent blog post he writes:

Sounds a lot like the kind of experiences (and thinking) that we see so often in the questions and comments here. Women choose selfish alpha males who are inconsiderate of their needs, and insecure beta males who feel impotent and emasculated, and come to the conclusion that this is the way all relationships work. It’s not.

So now alpha and beta males are both bad choices that us stupid women make, and the alpha male has been swapped out for the married man. Katz cites the July 2016 Modern Love column by Karen Rinaldi:

From her own failed relationships (and her parents uninspiring 60-year-marriage) Rinaldi came to the obvious conclusion that the only answer was to be alone...
...Then she fell in love with a married man…who left his wife and married Rinaldi. 

Says the author, 

“I don’t need him, but I want him in my life. He doesn’t protect me from others, only from my worst instincts. And as far as procreating, well, we did it the old-fashioned way and that will never get old.
He is comfortable in his masculinity and doesn’t need to remind me of who is boss, because in our relationship there isn’t one. Our lives are shared at every level and I realize now what a man is for.
He is a true partner. He is a lover and a friend. He is the father of my children and the only one in the world who cares about the minutiae of their lives like I do.”

And that, my friends, is why you keep dating. Even if you’ve made dozens of bad relationship choices in the past, you always have a new chance to rewrite your future.

Katz has not yet offered a Greek letter with which to label the poachable married man.

Katz's audience tends to be conservative - you'd have to be in order to accept Katz's constant promotion of traditional gender roles. So I was amazed he would deliberately alienate his audience by promoting an adulterous man as dating material.  I once posited that Katz promoted traditionalist men because they are more likely to be single than egalitarian men are, and thus increase the match-up success rate for his clients. Well apparently Katz has decided to expand the pool of men for his clients by suggesting they consider (not pursue, that would be unfeminine and active) egalitarian men who are not single.

One of Katz's commenters, "KK" responds to his blog post:

“Then she fell in love with a married man…who left his wife and married Rinaldi”.
Sorry, Evan, this isn’t a happy ending.

Not only not a happy ending but a ridiculous solution for a dating coach to suggest. A woman who doesn't mind dating a cheater will have plenty of men to choose from - she needs a dating coach about as much as a woman who prefers depersonalized sex with random strangers in a back alley needs one.

Well, I have said before that Katz is not very bright. 

Another one of the commenters offered information about the woman whose husband Rinaldi poached. Her name is Catherine Texier and she wrote an entire book about it eighteen years ago. 

One of the editorial summaries on Amazon:

Shortly after the author returned from a trip to France, the country of her birth, she discovered that her husband of 18 years and the father of their two daughters wanted to leave her. Texier, a novelist (Love Me Tender) who co-edited with her husband, Joel Rose, Between C and D, a lower Manhattan literary journal, publishes here the diary she kept in 1996, the final year of their marriage. Artfully written and candid in its anguish, her memoir describes the harrowing months when she tried to change Rose's mind by maintaining their sex life, cooking for him and restraining her rage at his betrayal. Although she discovered that he had been having a 15-month-long affair with the woman he wanted to leave her for, Texier continued to hope that the memories of the good years they had shared would be powerful enough to keep them together. It was only after Rose took his lover on a trip to Los Angeles that the author finally told him to leave their home. Men and women alike will respond to Texier's re-creation of her feelings of depression, anger, jealousy and erotic longing that accompanied the dissolution of her marriage.

Rinaldi is thirteen years younger than Texier. So this is the utterly banal scenario of a man dumping his wife for a younger model, a move that poster boy for alpha males, Donald Trump, has made twice.

As KK comments later on:

...the wife eventually kicked him out. He was perfectly happy with his cake- eating status quo. Therefore, Rinaldi ended up with him by default. He didn’t CHOOSE her. He didn’t confess his affair and run off with her. He got kicked out. And Rinaldi grabbed up her prize (sarcasm) after he got dumped.

So to recap.

The problem: women becoming discouraged over the failure to find a good man.

The Katz solution: get yourself a man, a damn fugly man, twelve years your senior, married with kids. A man who will two-time his wife for over a year, then once the adultery is in the open, continue to screw his a wife in addition to you for another year or so. You will finally have him all to yourself, three years after the beginning of the relationship, once the wife decides to cut him loose.

And here I thought that Evan Marc Katz's view of women's hopes and expectations was already at rock bottom.

I don't speak for all women of course, and I suppose it's possible that Katz may convince some women that a life with an old ugly unfaithful entitled man is the best possible one for them, but I for one would rather be celibate the rest of my life than end up with a creep like Joel Rose.

It's a complete mystery to me why people like KK continue to go to the poisoned well that is the advice of Evan Marc Katz.

More on my contempt for Evan Marc Katz.

Are "dating coaches" like Evan Marc Katz encouraging domestic violence?

Evan Marc Katz is defending against objections to his advice for women by offering a false equivalency.

He claims he has similar expectations from men and women when it comes to the best ways of attracting a mate. He presents an exchange between himself and a dissatisfied customer which includes this:

(CLIENT)
I have to talk to men in a certain way or they won’t find me appealing. 

(EMK)
Yes. Then again, don’t men have to talk to you in a certain way as well? They can’t be arrogant, rude or condescending. They shouldn’t be negative or nakedly insecure. They shouldn’t blather on about themselves without taking an interest in you. It would seem that there are certain characteristics that make all people unappealing, no?

As he states, he expects men to refrain from being arrogant, rude, condescending, negative, blatantly insecure, and talking only about themselves. The kinds of things he must surely expect from women too. But Katz has one extra piece of advice for women that he doesn't have for men: be passive:

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.

Katz expects women to be so extremely passive that any and all attempts on the part of the woman to communicate, without first being contacted by the man are considered by Katz (on behalf of men) horrifically clingy and pushy.

The male prerogative to pursue a woman, and the female requirement to be the passive object of that pursuit are known as "traditional gender roles."

As the organization "Futures Without Violence" states:

Traditional Gender Role Beliefs: Men who hold traditional gender role beliefs (men as breadwinners, women should stay at home, etc.)14 and conform to masculinity norms (believe men need to be self-reliant, have power over women, etc.) are more likely to commit violence against women, particularly sexual assault.15,16 Alternatively, men who view women as their equals are less likely to commit an act of sexual assault.12

And as a document from the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence notes:

...as discussed in the VicHealth prevention framework, research has consistently found that individual men who hold traditional views about gender roles, have a rigid belief in male dominance, or hold sexually hostile attitudes about women are more likely to perpetrate violence (see VicHealth 2007: 34).

Katz doesn't refer to the men he is selling to women as believers in "traditional gender roles" he refers to them as "masculine men." But there is no doubt at all that traditional gender roles are what he is promoting for women who want to find "love":

Men win you over by giving to you. We ask you out. We call you. We pay for dates. We initiate sex. We ask for commitment. We propose marriage. We give. You receive. Reverse this order by asking him out, initiating sex, asking for commitment, or proposing marriage, and a masculine guy will feel, well, emasculated. Thus, if you want a masculine guy, your greatest move is to embrace your passive feminine side.

Evan Marc Katz is encouraging women to date and marry men who are statistically more likely to perpetrate violence against them. But as long as he gets his success stories and makes his money, why should he care? After all, by his lights, women should not expect anything more than rigid traditional behavior from men (unless they are by Katz's definition, insecure losers: "But most men do not want to be actively pursued. The only guys who do are really shy, really insecure, or really clueless about women."). Because men, manly, masculine he-men, must be in complete control in all the usual, traditional ways or they feel, well, emasculated. Or as another dating advice huckster whom Katz highly recommended says:

So you can either support feminism in the hope of bettering the state of affairs in the future, or better your life now by finding love.

This is the hideous evil dystopia that Evan Marc Katz and his fellow sexist hucksters are selling to women. And Katz has the nerve to whine about occasional criticism.

And lest you think I'm too hard on Katz, when reviewing what I've written about him previously, I've often gone incredibly easy on him. I just noticed that I said of him:

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 a woman can snag a man. 

But actually, as you can clearly see from the passage above on the importance of being passive, Katz has invented nothing - he is just regurgitating virtually every single thing that women have been told (and until recently compelled to abide by) since time immemorial. What a loathsome piece of work is Evan Marc Katz.

More on the work of traditional-role-promoting "dating coach" huckster Evan Marc Katz.

Is Evan Marc Katz a Sexist Who Tells Women to Settle...?

Obviously.

Every time I Google questions about online dating, I invariably get links to Evan Marc Katz's business of telling not-very-intelligent, conformist women that men are never going to change and women better suck it up and cater to men or they'll die alone.

Evan Marc Katz himself is completely conventional in his outlook - he's mildly liberal but at the same time he believes that sexism and racism are no longer real problems anymore.

This echoes my own perception as well. It’s not that sexists are dead. But sexism as an institution is embarrassing, on the wane, and illegal in the workplace. Same with racism. It may linger in subconscious attitudes and latent behavior, but full-out racism will pretty much disqualify you from holding down any job..

You see, in spite of the fact that for millennia men have completely beaten women down - literally as well as figuratively - things have been better for women for the last 40 years (at least in the West where it isn't as common to force your daughter to marry an older man as it is in other parts of the world) so SHUT UP BITCHES! 

Or as Katz says in "Are Feminists Keeping The Patriarchy Alive?":

I was surprised to hear about the vitriol from Rosin’s latest Slate piece about “The End of Men”. In it, she asserts that “the patriarchy” – the nameless, faceless, male conspiracy designed to keep women down – is all but dead. And that really rankles some feminists whose entire livelihood depends on fighting against the patriarchy.

Katz doesn't offer any evidence of feminists "whose entire livelihood depends on fighting against the patriarchy" (although I am ready to sign up for that job!) but then his audience is composed of the gullible who don't ask for evidence from their guru.

Katz himself doesn't see male entitlement - the conviction that men deserve to have younger, better-looking mates - as sexism. "There's not much we can do about that."

That said, men ARE impossibly shallow. I struggle with it in my coaching every day. Clients who tell me, as they show me their lists of hot, underaged favorites, “I can’t help what I’m attracted to”. Yeah. There’s not much we can do about that. It’s why the 50+ set is interested in you. Just know that there ARE men out there who are looking for peers. My 60-year-old Mom married a 60-year-old guy. I’ve had single parent clients find the love of their lives on Match.com, JDate and Nerve. It happens all the time.

Well women can't help what they're attracted to, but Evan Marc Katz certainly does think there's something they can do about that. But then, Evan Marc Katz's livelihood depends on telling middle-aged women what they can do to change themselves  to meet the standards of men who are soaking in the entitlement granted them by a patriarchy that is still very much alive - but not because of feminists. 

So it is imperative for Evan Marc Katz to try to gaslight women - men feeling entitled to better-looking and younger mates isn't sexism!  It's just part of nature! There's not much we can do about that. And we all know sexism is just about dead!

What Katz fails to mention - and this is never acknowledged in this kind of discussion - but the unspoken reality is that if these middle-aged men can't pick a woman from a list of hot underaged favorites to date, they will go out and get an underaged prostitute. Men don't have to settle because they can always buy a woman. Either for the night, or for marriage with some young woman from a desperately poor country. 

As with so many other things, when it comes to sexism and the patriarchy, it's the economy, stupid. Women in the US no longer have to settle for any man just because he has a job - but men are failing to adjust to this reality, in part because they can still buy women. But as long as we live in a world where there are millions of women being bought and sold to men, we are not living in a post-patriarchy. 

FUN FACT: Evan Marc Katz has a low sex drive:

Let’s be honest here – not everyone is equal at all things. I am argumentative. I am short-tempered. I have a low sex drive. I like to talk about myself a lot. So if my wife were to say to me that she’s dated men who were less argumentative, more easygoing, had a higher sex drive, and were better listeners, is that an insult to me?

Evan Marc Katz sounds like quite the catch. I think maybe he's the one who better worry about dying alone.

I'm just sorry that the blog Cupid is Burning is no longer being updated. Miranda had Katz's number in 2013: EMK: Want a man? Then shut up and slap a smile on it, cupcake!

Also on this topic: Evan Marc Katz's war on feminism, part 2

All of my blog posts about Evan Marc Katz.

More sexist bullshit from Evan Marc Katz

"Men and women are different" is one of the favorite statements of people who want to bolster the patriarchy. Because the difference is always used as an excuse for why men get privileges denied to women.

Here Evan Marc Katz is arguing that women are not as interested in looking at men, as men are in looking at women, and that women are more naturally monogamous than men, based on all the usual evolutionary psychology pseudo-science:

Men, since the beginning of time, were designed to spread their seed.
Because monogamy lowers the chances that our genes will survive, men are not, by nature, monogamous creatures. We choose monogamy because we deem that it’s more beneficial to have love, stability, and a nuclear family than to have lots of children running around with our eyes. But make no mistake, monogamy is a choice, not a natural state.

Evolutionary psychology is used to promote lies about the essential natures of men and women, or as Katz demonstrates:

This is just a long, roundabout way of saying that, in general, men want variety.
I recall a study that said the exact same thing.
Men would be perfectly content having missionary sex with a new woman every night.
Women would be perfectly content with the same man forever, as long as he mixed it up in the bedroom a bit.

Katz is so personally invested in this narrative that when a more recent study comes along indicating that in fact WOMEN are bored more quickly than men by monogamy Katz attacks Amanda Marcotte for mentioning it.

Marcotte harps on studies that show that women respond to novelty in porn (duh) and fantasize about sex with strangers (double duh). All that proves is that, yes, women can get bored with routine sex as well. I don’t think there’s any right-minded person who ever thought otherwise. What this doesn’t prove, however, is that women are MORE driven by sex than men. While it’s useful to recognize that women and men are similar in many ways, I think it’s shortsighted to suggest that we are the SAME, as if gender was simply a societal construct and not somewhat tied to biology. 

Are there some women who want to sleep with hundreds of men? Sure. But there are more men who want to sleep around. 

Are there some women who can separate love and sex and have no emotional attachment after physical contact? You bet. But there are more men who do.
Are there more women who give up on sex within a marriage? Apparently. But that might just mean that she’s married to a jerk for 20 years and can’t summon any more amorous feelings for him. It doesn’t mean that she’s more likely to cheat or that she values sexual variety as much as he does. 

So, to me (and my confirmation bias), this study is much ado about nothing, in that it’s verifying something we already know. The reason that Marcotte is jumping on it is because it confirms what she wants to believe (women and men have the same take on sex), not because it represents a true shift.

Katz can't be bothered to analyze the competing studies and explain why his favorite study is true and this more recent study is wrong - mainly because he lacks the intellectual ability, he's titanically lazy, and he prefers to pull things directly out of his ass. So his response is basically: oh yeah, well this other study says MEN like variety more than women so nyah nyah nyah!

Now I've had my issues with Marcotte in the past, but I have to laugh at Katz, who claims to be a liberal, attacking Marcotte. As Roy Adroso in his Alicublog noted recently:

Anyway, a lot of prominent liberals (including Amanda Marcotte, conservatives' favorite feminist voodoo doll)...

Marcotte is actually referencing an article in the NYTimes but Katz would rather attack her than Daniel Bergner, the author of the Times article.

Katz promotes the idea that marriage and monogamy were invented by women, and forced on men by women. This in spite of the fact that all societies up to the present time are completely dominated by men. The outright illogic - and self-serving - of such a belief system is absolutely breath-taking. Women are so not naturally monogamous that monogamy is enforced on women often on pain of death. And in a way that is not forced on men.

If women were so congenitally monogamous we'd hardly need to be threatened into it.

In his recent blog post Katz says:

Yes, this is a blog about dating and relationships, but I always find it interesting to share pieces about gender dynamics as well.

Good - then people will know exactly how sexist his attitudes are about gender dynamics.

I think my next entry in this Katz series might be "Evan Marc Katz thinks men are insensitive, shallow, entitled, cheating jerks - and he wants to help you find one for your very own."

More of my thoughts on Evan Marc Katz.

Evan Marc Katz's war on feminism, part 2

As I blogged about not too long ago (Is Evan Marc Katz a Sexist Who Tells Women to Settle...?), Evan Marc Katz, the guru of traditional-gender-role loving men and women, attacked feminists, claiming that the patriarchy was basically dead (or would be if it wasn't propped up by feminists themselves!), while conveniently ignoring the constant drumbeat of male entitlement that suffuses all the comment threads on his web site.

Well now Evan Marc Katz is here to tell you that the hate groups known as Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) are the equivalent of "the extreme wing of the feminist blogosphere."

The manosphere is like the extreme wing of the feminist blogosphere. They have some very valid ideas that are dwarfed by their monolithic thinking and negativity towards the opposite sex.

Predictably, Katz presents no evidence at all of the existence of the extreme wing of the feminist blogosphere. None.

Comparing feminists to MRAs is like comparing the NAACP to the KKK. The former group is advocating for an historically oppressed group of people, the latter is devoted to oppressing that same group of people. And no matter how "extreme" any member of the NAACP is, there is just no comparison to the Klan.

Katz is expressing a common fallacy that both sides of any issue are always equally extreme. Economist Paul Krugman addresses that mindset here.

And make no mistake, virtually all the big MRA groups are hate groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports on just exactly how deep the misogyny goes.

You can tell exactly where Evan Marc Katz is coming from because instead of referring his readers to the greatest existing source of news about the "manosphere" known as We Hunted the Mammoth, instead he links to an article by an anti-feminist named Andrew Aitkin. Aitkin pretends to be pro-feminist (and as Evan Marc Katz himself explains on his blog, it's no longer the cool thing to be a blatant sexist) but what he really thinks of feminism is that if you support feminism you will never find love. Don't believe me? Read this:

Support feminism (and ultimately androgyny) by aligning yourself with its goals: suppress your feminine qualities and emphasize your masculine ones, in an effort to further your career and the feminist cause.
Take advantage of the male-female polarity that (still) exists by allowing your feminine qualities to shine through, since this (still) attracts men.
Ultimately, the point is this: Option 2 attracts men, Option 1 does not. So you can either support feminism in the hope of bettering the state of affairs in the future, or better your life now by finding love. Call me selfish, but it seems like an obvious choice to me...

Who is Andrew Aitkin, you ask? Just some uncredentialed guy who thinks he knows it all. No, I am not kidding:

I am a 30-year-old, American, straight, white, single man. I write this blog in my free time. I am from a large family and my parents are still happily married. I grew up with very masculine environments and had very little help in learning about women; so I can empathize with being ignorant about the opposite sex, and I understand the learning process one has to go through in order to correct that. 

I do well with women. There are certainly some better-looking men out there, maybe some that are more confident, and possibly some that are smarter. Obviously there aren't any who are more modest ;) I am not at the very top of the heap, but I've made significant improvements. Several years ago I could barely talk to girls, let alone attract them, so I can definitely identify with the struggle for self-improvement. 

I love women and have an extremely analytical mind. The former trait motivates my observations, while the latter facilitates my curiosity and helps to process those observations. I also love ideas and writing: this blog is the result.

So where does Aitkin get this notion that feminism means suppressing feminine qualities and emphasizing masculine ones? Hell if I know - he doesn't cite any sources (in the Evan Marc Katz tradition) and I can't think of any feminists advocating any such things.

But what does Aitkin consider masculine qualities, which he believes feminists are advocating that women acquire? You won't believe it, so here it is the handy list of masculine-quality don'ts that Aitkin warns about:

• Having only or mostly guy friends
• Claiming that "girls are too bitchy and emotional, guys are just easier to get along with"
• Laughing at stories about guys treating girls like shit
• Scoffing at girls that get upset or "overreact" when a guy breaks up with them
• Being proud of the ability to drink a lot, or to drink strong liquor
• Pretending to be OK with just hooking up or just having sex with a guy
• Being proud of her one night stands, and telling stories about them openly
• Not making demands of a potential boyfriend because "it's no big deal"

So just in case you missed it - the above itemized list is what Andrew Aitkins claims feminists are advocating! He is seriously representing feminists as a group of people who promote "laughing at stories about guys treating girls like shit."

Either Andrew Aitkin is doing his level best to smear feminism as, basically, misogyny itself, or he's just so stupid he is incapable of following his own logic.

I sure wish I knew who the other members of this alleged  extreme wing of the feminist blogosphere were so we could team up and devote ourselves to taking down the businesses of the feminism-smearing Evan Marc Katz and Andrew Aitkin.

UPDATE: I was not at all surprised to find that Evan Marc Katz has admirers in the MRA world.

Next up: More on the pernicious misogyny of Evan Marc Katz

The cowardly, sneaky feminist-hating Evan Marc Katz

Dating advice huckster Evan Marc Katz likes to claim he's a liberal and pro-feminist:

(Suzanne Venker) holds special contempt for feminists, Hollywood, liberals, atheists, and casual sex, and since I believe in all five of those things, I could feel the heat rising when I learned how folks like me are unable to have successful and meaningful relationships.

Well as a wise person once said, actions speak louder than words. So while Katz is claiming to be pro-feminist, he's promoting the advice of extreme feminist-haters.

I've already pointed out that he recommended the idiotic advice of a non-credentialed feminist hater named Andrew Aitkin.

And in spite of his protestations against Venker, he goes right ahead and quotes her book "How to Choose a Husband" approvingly:

Because her case is actually quite a compelling one. And it’s one I’ve been making on the pages of this blog for six years...

...From p. 122 “I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “you’ll attract more bees with honey than you will with vinegar.” This is the very aspect of human nature against which feminists have rebelled. To them, being sweet means being a doormat. They are wrong. Being feminine – kind, soft, nurturing, or whatever adjective you prefer – is only suffocating if you’re in love with a Neanderthal…. Most men are much nicer than feminists would have you believe. And if you treat them with honey as opposed to vinegar, you’d be surprised what you’ll get in return.”

Now Katz, Aitken, and Venker don't need to actually cite any dastardly feminists saying these nasty things that they like to attribute to feminists - because bigots don't need evidence.

And Katz is at it again. On his blog today I found him recommending another vicious feminist-slanderer Dr. Robert Glover.

Here Glover claims that Elliot Rodger was not motivated by misogyny - apparently in Glover's world, there's no such thing as misogyny, since if Rodger wasn't one, in spite of his clear manifesto, then nobody is. Which would of course let Glover, Aitken, Venker and Katz off the hook, wouldn't it?

Culturally Accepted Misogyny. Rodger’s anti-female rants have brought the feminists out of the woodwork. Even though Rodger is obviously homicidally rageful at women, as I write this, the body count includes more men than women. We can’t put this on misogyny.

Of course in Glover's world feminists come "out of the woodwork" because no doubt Glover doesn't know any actual feminists, personally.

Here he uses the word patriarchy in quotes - which would make sense since he denies misogyny exists so surely patriarchy is a figment of feminist imagination.

I grew up in the 60’s and heard all the feminist rhetoric about the “patriarchy” – the evils of men – and how “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” (The woman who said that later married a very wealthy man.)

He's attacking Gloria Steinem there, by the way, but like Evan Marc Katz, he's too passive-aggressive to name her. Steinem herself was wealthy when she married David Bale. Wealthy people tend to know other wealthy people. But Glover seems to think it's some kind of anti-feminist gotcha.

Finally, laughably, Glover considers Maureen Dowd a feminist. Of course I've heard people describe right-wing freaks like Camille Paglia and Christine Hoff Summers as feminists, when their entire schtick is to attack feminism.

Well if you can gas-light away misogyny and patriarchy, you can believe anything you want.

There needs to be a book written about the insanely high amount of feminist-bashing promoted by dating advice hucksters. But at least Aitken, Venker and Glover own their hatred of feminists - Evan Marc Katz won't own it - he just promotes people who do hate feminists.

Because Evan Marc Katz is a little weasel.

More of my thoughts on Evan Marc Katz.

Evan Marc Katz Dating Coach pushing pseudo-science again

There's nothing "dating coach" Evan Marc Katz loves so much as to tell women they are different from men,  which inevitably means, in the usual custom of patriarchy, that they should have lower expectations than men in life because that's the way we've all evolved.

As is always the case with extreme pop evo-psychos, nurture - meaning not just socialization but the history and economics that shapes our current world -  is completely left out of the equation. The evolutionary psychologists who dabble in racism have the same approach: African Americans get lower SAT scores, therefore African Americans are intellectually inferior because evolution. That is the basis for all evolutionary psychology/socio-biology thought from Charles Murray's The Bell Curve to Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate - all differences are automatically assumed to be the result of "nature."

The worst of these is David Buss, with whom Katz's latest evo-psycho hero David P. Schmitt works. 

David Buss represents the ultimate in the knee-jerk response of evo-psychos to any cultural phenomenon and he was rightly exposed by David Buller (I'm sure evo psychos could come up with an evolutionary explanation for why there are so many Davids involved in evo psycho discussions, they are just that ridiculous.)

I posted Buller's evisceration of Buss on this blog before but it is worth repeating. In his Adapting Minds - Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature Buller writes:

...in a well-documented study, the anthropologist William Irons found that, among the Turkmen of Persia, males in the wealthier half of the population left 75 percent more offspring than males in the poorer half of the population. Buss cites several studies like this as indicating that "high status in men leads directly to increased sexual access to a larger number of women," and he implies that this is due to the greater desirability of high-status men (David Buss 1999 "Evolutionary Psychology the New Science of the Mind").

But, among the Turkmen, women were sold by their families into marriage. The reason that higher-status males enjoyed greater reproductive success among the Turkmen is that they were able to buy wives earlier and more often than lower-status males. Other studies that clearly demonstrate a reproductive advantage for high-status males are also studies of societies or circumstances in which males "traded" in women. This isn't evidence that high-status males enjoy greater reproductive success because women find them more desirable. Indeed, it isn't evidence of female preference at all, just as the fact that many harem-holding despots produced remarkable numbers of offspring is no evidence of their desirability to women. It is only evidence that when men have power they will use it to promote their reproductive success, among other things (and that women, under such circumstances, will prefer entering a harem to suffering the dire consequences of refusal).

The desire to attribute ALL human phenomenon to nature is so reflexive for evo psychos that even virtual slavery is ignored in order to claim women's sexual choices align with evo psycho theories. 

But of course that's an old sociobiology strategy. American slaves were declared to be naturally suited to slavery. How convenient. And how convenient for patriarchy enthusiasts like David Buss, David Schmitt and Evan Marc Katz that untestable just-so eve psycho theories "prove" that women are "naturally" more agreeable, more complaint, more social and domestic, as shown in the idiotic chart Katz posted on his blog.

Although Evan Marc Katz claims to be working for women, you can see who really loves him in the responses to his latest "women are inferior" post - men who support traditional gender roles.

Well I'm done writing about Evan Marc Katz. Like followers of Donald Trump, Katz's followers are idiots working against their own fundamental interests and there's no reasoning with them. If it wasn't Katz there would be some other asshole telling women to stop trying to do "men's" things like choosing mates on the basis of youth and beauty and competing for good jobs and being non-compliant. 

Evan Marc Katz is just another clown cashing in on the waning days of extreme patriarchy.

Evan Marc Katz's message to women is still: be passive

Evan Marc Katz advises women to be passive when it comes to dating men, but he also likes to promote the work of other regressive monsters, these "dating coaches" who say exactly the same thing. The dating coaches Katz likes to recommend believe that male dominance is the ideal standard of human behavior and rather than opposing it, we should encourage it.

The latest asshole being promoted by Katz is one Dr. Ali Binazir. He also believes that women should  wait for a man to make the first move - and all the other moves - because if she makes any sudden moves that indicate interest in a man he'll be scared away. Thus spake Binazir:

And at a very primitive level, remember that men enjoy the chase. That’s why the word chase is so often preceded by thrill of the. Why should he be thrilled about your taking away his thrill?

Binazir confesses that this has happened to him a lot. And we are to take him as the exemplar of manly opinion and behavior, of course. But in spite of the fact that he's a wimp who is afraid of any woman expressing strong interest in him, he prefers to describe himself as a predator, a lion. When the animal Binazir actually resembles the most is a chicken.

The animal Evan Marc Katz resembles the most is a weasel, for his constant sexism and then refusal to own his sexism. Katz gaslights poor suckers who buy into his mindfuckery. One of his marks, in the comments of his article promoting Binazir mentions women "dating down" and Katz chides her:

Are men dating down when they date women with less money and education? If not, then please drop that tired act and start dating the way men do – because they feel accepted, appreciated and admired.

So "start dating the way men do" wow Katz is such an egalitarian! except that elsewhere he promotes the idea of gender essentialism and strict gender roles - men must chase women because men must have the thrill of the chase because men are lions and women are gazelles, as his buddy Binazir describes it. You can't get more different than that - men and women aren't even the same species - men are predators and women are prey.

So you get that, ladies? You should date the way men do. Except when you should date the exact opposite of the way men do. Are we clear? Good, now give Evan Marc Katz and Dr. Ali Binazir all your money!

When worlds collide: Evan Marc Katz and Amber A'Lee Frost

Well it was inevitable - Evan Marc Katz, gender-traditionalist dating-industry huckster who likes to use men's rights activist lingo to categorize men (alpha and beta) admires leading Ladies Auxiliary brocialist feminist-hater Amber A'Lee Frost.

Katz and Frost are made for each other.

The piece that Katz links to by Frost demonstrates the deep hatred of feminists shared by Katz and the brocialists. Just as leading brocialist Hillary-hater Doug Henwood criticizes feminists much more harshly than he does the Koch brothers, Frost likes and admires Tucker Max and Neil Strauss far more than she does any feminists. Frost much prefers to harshly attack feminists, supported and encouraged by the brocialists at Jacobin and The Baffler. Frost previously defended misogynist men of the left - admiring men who are assholes and shitting on feminists is what Amber A'Lee Frost does. As a comparison - she's much less sympathetic to women talking about sexual assault in a public forum, calling it "industrialized confession" than she is towards industrial-grade assholes like Max and Strauss. No doubt Katz believes this indicates Frost would approve of him too, and he's probably right.

Speaking of the Koch brothers, Katz is a big admirer of their most prominent employee, Arthur C. Brooks.

All kinds of inter-connections among the feminist haters. But the main connection between Katz and Frost is that they both want women to defer to men. Katz explicitly tells women to be passive - in order that they may have relationships with traditionalist men (who are single in much greater quantities than more enlightened men, and so more likely to increase his match-up hit rate and further his career); while Frost, along with her contemptible brocialists-at-arms Liza Featherstone and Doug Henwoood want feminists to shut the fuck up about glass ceilings or careers or even the universality of rape(!) because the men have more important things to talk about.

Yes, dating hucksters and brocialists have much in common in their attitudes towards women.

More reeking right-wing lies from dating advice huckster Evan Marc Katz

Biological weasels are cute
and blameless ~ unlike metaphorical ones

Evan Marc Katz claims to be a liberal, but when it comes to gender he is as conservative as they come, which is why he so often quotes right-wingers with approval. This time around he references Arthur C. Brooks, number one employee of the insidious Koch brothers. I blogged about him here: Nazis -> Koch brothers -> Arthur C. Brooks

Like all conservatives, Brooks blames victims if they point out that they are victims. The basis of the conservative mindset is that people who are victims only have themselves to blame. That way the people who are actually responsible for the victims' misfortune are let off the hook. People like the Koch brothers, who I predict will go down in history as the foremost contributors to the global warming crisis. The Koch brothers and their lap dogs like Brooks have a deep self-interest in promoting the philosophy of the blamelessness of the powerful.

Another belief of right-wingers is that we now live in a time when men and women are completely equal and the term "patriarchy" is just some crazy bra-burner mythology. This is a subset of the blame the victim tactic - how can women complain about the way things are when men have it just as bad? 

This leads to the usual false equivalency as Katz demonstrates in his latest blog post. 

They are the men who complain that the world is rigged to favor women and spend all their time railing against injustice (“I had to pay for dates! She didn’t even call me back! American women are emasculating hags with no sexual market value over the age of 30!). They are the women who complain that everything is part of a greater patriarchy designed to oppress women. If you question it, you’re a part of it. 

As always, Katz employs the straw feminist: "They are the women who complain that everything is part of a greater patriarchy designed to oppress women" Naturally he doesn't name names because there are literally no woman anywhere complaining that everything is blah blah blah. Now there are organized Men's Rights Activists who are that extreme, but since Katz can't find any feminists who are as extreme as MRAs are, he must invent them in order to maintain his fantasy "both sides are just as bad" position.

He also uses this post as another opportunity to lie about his past advice:

So although 50% of my advice is to tell women to stop putting up with bullshit from men, the other 50% is to tell women how to act more effectively with men. It often means being nicer, more patient, more accepting, more understanding, more easygoing – putting yourself in his shoes the way you’d like him to put himself in your shoes. Basically, it’s good people advice that somehow gets twisted into a patriarchal attack on women, because evidently men aren’t entitled to expect better treatment from women as long as other men still treat women poorly.

He doesn't merely tell women to be nicer, more patient, etc. He tells women to be passive.

The sweet irony here is how Katz is claiming to be the victim - his advice "somehow gets twisted into a patriarchal attack on women."

Poor Evan Marc Katz! All he did was tell women to be completely and abjectly passive in their dealings with men, and some bitches out there are "twisting" that into a patriarchal attack!

Evan Marc Katz needs to own the fact that he is a conservative - but he won't because he'll lose some of his poor gullible marks that way and because he's a weasel. And I apologize to biological weasels who are much less harmful to human social progress than Evan Marc Katz.

More on the pernicious misogyny of Evan Marc Katz

There was a much-touted study by OKCupid that demonstrated that men and women have different sets of expectations in the world of online dating.

What this study demonstrates is that although men rate women on a continuum from ugly to hot at OKCupid, they mostly message the hottest women. This is a fact - almost every straight man in the United States, no matter what he looks like, thinks he deserves a much younger, much better-looking woman.

Women, on the other hand, have much lower expectations, no doubt because we live in a world still completely dominated by men, and all cultural traditions, going back for thousands of years ensure that up until very recently all humans were raised with the idea that men are just better in every important way, as a group, than women.

And it's been empirically demonstrated that women do settle, the way dating coaches like Evan Marc Katz are incessantly exhorting them to do.

But misogyny in the world of online dating is so reflexive that even when women clearly are settling, it's twisted into something else. I will let Christian Rudder of OKCupid demonstrate how this reflexive misogyny works:

As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

Here is how Evan Marc Katz spins it:

...Women, on the whole, are far more discerning than men when it comes to physical attraction. In the linked OkCupid study, women think that 80% of men are BELOW average in attractiveness, when, in a normal distribution, that number should be 50%. I’m not going to say whether these women are right, although THEY certainly feel they are. I will say that men, for all their flaws, are equal opportunity daters in a way that women are not. While they will still lust for the hottest woman around, they’ll ultimately marry someone in their league, which, empirically, is not always that attractive.

Somehow even though women clearly are settling, Rudder turns it into "the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her," while Katz turns it into "men are equal opportunity daters in a way that women are not."

To get a sense of how extreme Evan Marc Katz's double standards are (I address Christian Rudder's double standards here), this is his response to a different OKCupid study showing that men prefer 20-something women no matter the man's age:

20 year old men prefer 20 year old women. 40 year old men prefer 20 year old women. It’s shocking to see on paper, but not so surprising if you’ve ever talked to an actual man, read a men’s magazine or looked at porn intended for men. This doesn’t mean that 40 year old men want to MARRY that 20 year old woman, only that they find her the most physically appealing. To tell men NOT to feel this way would be akin to telling them not to breathe.

Women aren't doing a comparison study of all the images being presented to them - they are just responding based on what they like. But Evan Marc Katz's response to women liking what they like is most certainly NOT "tell(ing them) NOT to feel this way would be akin to telling them not to breathe."

As always, Evan Marc Katz's (and Christian Rudder's) message is: guys gotta be themselves and women better change themselves to conform to what men like. Because men are certainly never going to change. With the unspoken: and why should they? 

Christian Rudder and Evan Marc Katz refuse to acknowledge the reality that men make almost no effort to look good for women. Which is pretty much what you would expect of a group of people who believe in their own superiority. Why should they "make an effort" when they're good enough for even the hottest woman, as-is? 

But there are some dating coaches who do acknowledge this reality. Dr. Nerdlove devotes a column to telling men they need to think about their appearance. Something, it's safe to say, nobody has to tell women:

Step Two: Get a Haircut.
Cold hard truth: women hate your hair. Sorry.
Most men have absolutely no idea what to do with their hair. They go to the barber or Supercuts, get the exact same haircut over and over again, and never stop to think just how much a decent hair cut can change how they look. There’s more to a haircut than just trimming off a couple of inches here and there; a proper hair cut can completely transform your face, bring balance to your features and help frame your personality.

I would maintain that the reason that most men "have absolutely no idea what to do with their hair" is because they've never spent any time thinking about it. Because most men think they look fine no matter what. 

And Evan Marc Katz may be right, men are never going to change - once they've been blessed with the high self-esteem of male entitlement, they ain't never going to give that up.

This is why women should date younger men. The younger the man (at least in the West) the less likely he will feel that extreme sense entitlement, or harbor the belief that gender inequality is ordained by God and/or evolutionary psychology.

And 20-somethings are better looking, on the whole. Which is not to say that every 20-something guy is hot - I, of all people, can attest to the fact that many many 20-something guys are completely unappetizing. But on the whole, you have a better chance of finding a physically appealing 20-something than a physically appealing 50-something.

And hey, that's how I feel and telling me not to feel that way is like telling me not to breathe. And I'm sure Evan Marc Katz would believe I have a right to feel that way. If I was a man.

Speaking of men ruling the world and the misogyny that ensues: Tina Fey, Patricia Arquette, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Amy Schumer Casually Give the Middle Finger to Aging Out of Hollywood'

Up next: More sexist bullshit from Evan Marc Katz.

Evan Marc Katz: women must be passive for alpha males

Once again, Evan Marc Katz has fresh content in which he tells women to be passive if they want a man:

For the uninitiated, mirroring is designed for one purpose – to prevent women from chasing down men who are not interested in them. It is not a game. It is not a throwback to the 1950’s. It requires no thought and very little effort. Mirroring presumes one basic thing about that guy you like: if he’s interested in you, he’ll let you know.
So…
If he texts you, text him back right away.
If he calls you, call him back right away.
If he says he wants to see you this weekend and you’re free, say yes.
If he says he wants to be your boyfriend and you feel the same, say yes.
Mirroring is reactive, not proactive.

It gives men the space they need to choose you, prevents you from looking needy and desperate, and reveals what men are thinking – all without doing ANYTHING.

Mirroring is based on confidence, not insecurity. You should never have to chase a guy down and remind him that you’re alive and available and want to see him. All you have to do is be warm, enthusiastic and available when he reaches out to you.

The primary exception to mirroring comes in the form of beta/feminine men. Beta/feminine men are often some of the best husbands out there, but they conduct themselves in a passive way, leaving women wondering how they feel. In short, these nice guys are so insecure about pursuing you and making a move that they often wait for YOU to express interest in them. “You can call me, you know,” might be their mantra. Which is fine. However, this puts you in your “masculine energy,” and forces you to be the one to reach out to him to gauge his interest and availability.

As a dating coach for women, I don’t like that model. Nor do most of my clients. They may be proactive superstars in real life, but they tend to prefer being courted by men.
Which brings us back to the beginning. When a man is interested in you, you don’t have to do anything except say yes. You never have to reach out to him because he will do it for you. It’s in his best interest – whether he wants to get laid or whether he wants to be your boyfriend. You have to trust that.

"but they tend to prefer being courted by men"

So "beta/feminine men" says Katz, using the terminology of evolutionary psychology and Men's Rights Activists, are not actual men.

And the best part is that Evan Marc Katz claims to be a feminist.

It's important to note that the kind of men that Katz is promoting to his poor sad clients are so backwards, their masculinity is so incredibly fragile, that they will freak right the fuck out if you exhibit any initiative whatsoever. You must absolutely wait for him to choose you, or no deal.

To Katz a true man is one who believes in traditional gender roles - in other words men who are more likely to be abusive. 

You know who didn't take the kind of advice that Evan Marc Katz is dishing out? Linda McCartney.

...Five months later, in May 1968, she turned up at a press conference being given by Paul and John at a New York hotel. ‘I managed to slip him my phone number,’ she recalled later. ‘He rang me up and told me they were leaving that evening, but he’d like it if I was able to travel out to the airport with him and John. So I went out in their limousine, sandwiched between Paul and John.’

Is Paul McCartney a beta male? Well it didn't utterly emasculate him when Linda didn't wait for him to ask for her phone number. So by the Katz definition, yes.

You know who else was not passive? Yoko Ono:

Eventually, Yoko’s dogged pursuit of John became so blatant that it developed into something of a private joke between the married couple. Yoko’s grande atrocity occurred one night when she turned up at the Transcendental Meditation lecture John and Cynthia were attending in London. When it was over she followed them out of the lecture hall and into the backseat of John’s psychedelically hand-painted Rolls-Royce limousine and sat herself down between them. Cynthia and John exchanged embarrassed smiles over her head until the chauffeur dropped her off at Park Row, where she was living with her husband.

So apparently in Evan Marc Katz's book, John Lennon, leader of Beatles was a beta male, and not "a man." 

Granted Yoko's approach was much more extreme than Linda's but neither of those women - who were, by the way, older than the man they were pursuing - Linda only by a half-year, Yoko by eight years - were passive. They were proactive and extremely proactive in the case of Yoko Ono.

So John Lennon and Paul McCartney both failed the alpha male type test. They ended up with pro-active women. Women like Elizabeth Warren, who proposed to her husband.

You know who does match the "alpha male" type that Katz is constantly selling to his sad backwards traditionalist clients? Donald Trump:

Introduced at a party in 1998, one year after he had split from his second wife, Marla Maples, "I saw Melania and I said, 'Who is that?' " Trump recalls. "She was a very successful model. She was terrific. I tried to get her number, and she wouldn't give it to me."

He came to the party with a date!" Melania explains, laughing. "I had heard he was a ladies' man, and so I said, 'I'm not one of the ladies.' He said later that he sent her to the ladies' room so he could get my number. I was like, 'Oh what a sneaky way!' "
Still, Melania says she liked his "sparkle" and took his number. After returning from a modeling gig in the Caribbean, she called him, and on their first date, "we talked for almost the whole night," she says. 

Clearly when a man is attractive, women will pursue him and the man won't necessarily be turned off by being pursued. And if Lennon and McCartney are examples of "beta males" why would any woman want any other kind?

And it's not a stretch at all to make the connection between men with fragile masculinity issues and voting for Donald Trump. As this Atlantic article notes:

Standard commentary about Clinton’s candidacy—which focuses on her email server, the Benghazi attack, her oratorical deficiencies, her struggles with “authenticity”—doesn’t explain the intensity of this opposition. But the academic literature about how men respond to women who assume traditionally male roles does. And it is highly disturbing. 

Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama’s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come. 

To understand this reaction, start with what social psychologists call “precarious manhood” theory. The theory posits that while womanhood is typically viewed as natural and permanent, manhood must be “earned and maintained.” Because it is won, it can also be lost. Scholars at the University of South Florida and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reported that when asked how someone might lose his manhood, college students rattled off social failures like “losing a job.” When asked how someone might lose her womanhood, by contrast, they mostly came up with physical examples like “a sex-change operation” or “having a hysterectomy.” 

More on the traditionalist views of Evan Marc Katz.

Evan Marc Katz - still a regressive asshole

Perhaps Evan Marc Katz was stung by myself and others online suggesting he's a sexist douchebag (or hyperbolically, albeit amusingly "a shitstain on humanity") who encourages women to be passive like we're still living in the 1950s. So he's teamed up with some regressive woman - and if you don't think women can be regressive you've never heard of Phyllis Schlafly, Camille Paglia, Ann Coulter or Katie Roiphe.

Katz probably figures, well if some woman says these things it's OK and he gets a get-out-of-misogyny free card.

Nope, sorry Katz. You don't. This mealy-mouthed up-talking simulacrum of an educated professional woman named Kate Edwards says "women need to be much more pro-active" but then a minute later says "I don't think women should ask men out."

Katz then says that you can only ask out a "beta male" - in other words a loser who lacks confidence - something he's already said before.

He then waffles as usual because he's a weasel and says it's OK if you ask a guy out. But really you should wait for the man or you will most likely fail. But it's OK so don't get mad at him, Evan Marc Katz. But you know, you should listen to him so you won't die alone.

He is the king of having it both ways, much like his hero Sam Harris.

They make me want to puke, these hucksters promoting an antiquated MRA-approved mode of human interaction, helping to hold back humanity in order to make a nice buck from the insecure and the hapless and the easily-led.

More on the incredible douchebaggery of Evan Marc Katz and his various huckster friends.