Bo Winegard scrutinizes Kate Manne's concept of 'himpathy' -- the disproportionate sympathy powerful men often enjoy in cases of misogynistic behaviour.
A good essay. Hyper-progressive, nonsensical narratives about relations between men and women - whether they be 'himpathy' or rampant 'misogyny' or 'it's not about sex, it's about power' - all blind themselves to an elephant in the room....sex is about one thing and one thing only - sexual desire. Powerful men are not 'misogynistic'; quite the reverse in fact. They use their power to get more sex with more women and they do it..... because they can. The losers are low status (ie most) men. For every alpha-male with ten women, there are (logically) nine 'beta' men with none. Attractive young women meanwhile can attract men in droves whereas 'plain' women are left with far fewer options. It's all very 'unfair' of course (because life is) but, in all the favorite progressive stories of victimhood and unfairness, these real losers (men and women) in the 'battle of the sexes' barely get a mention in most journalism on the subject. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
I'm glad this essay was a lot better than your tweet about it (“The primary driver of the phenomenon Kate Manne calls "himpathy" is not misogyny; it is social status.”), which implied that the phenomenon (men get more sympathy than women) exists but had been misattributed, when in fact, as you correctly write in this full piece, it doesn't even exist at all.
Where is the evidence? Once again another essay against something feminist with no data, no studies, just a bunch of appeals to “common sense” (whatever that is), a sprinkling of anecdotes and an ending overly smug assertion that does not necessarily follow from the words presented.
I’m not necessarily wedded to the Himpathy whatever statement of some female theorist I don’t know in a book I haven’t read; but this is a lazy argument and I am disappointed.
“Himpathy” sounds like the quintessential kind of theory that is more the product of the author’s personality and imagination than anything else.
A good essay. Hyper-progressive, nonsensical narratives about relations between men and women - whether they be 'himpathy' or rampant 'misogyny' or 'it's not about sex, it's about power' - all blind themselves to an elephant in the room....sex is about one thing and one thing only - sexual desire. Powerful men are not 'misogynistic'; quite the reverse in fact. They use their power to get more sex with more women and they do it..... because they can. The losers are low status (ie most) men. For every alpha-male with ten women, there are (logically) nine 'beta' men with none. Attractive young women meanwhile can attract men in droves whereas 'plain' women are left with far fewer options. It's all very 'unfair' of course (because life is) but, in all the favorite progressive stories of victimhood and unfairness, these real losers (men and women) in the 'battle of the sexes' barely get a mention in most journalism on the subject. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
I'm glad this essay was a lot better than your tweet about it (“The primary driver of the phenomenon Kate Manne calls "himpathy" is not misogyny; it is social status.”), which implied that the phenomenon (men get more sympathy than women) exists but had been misattributed, when in fact, as you correctly write in this full piece, it doesn't even exist at all.
Where is the evidence? Once again another essay against something feminist with no data, no studies, just a bunch of appeals to “common sense” (whatever that is), a sprinkling of anecdotes and an ending overly smug assertion that does not necessarily follow from the words presented.
I’m not necessarily wedded to the Himpathy whatever statement of some female theorist I don’t know in a book I haven’t read; but this is a lazy argument and I am disappointed.
Makes sense, keeping in mind that high status people can become powerful enemies and at the same time, can owe big favors.