"The Trouble with Wanting Men" :: "Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name: heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?"
Wow. I can't even read very much of this right now. What's missing is the man's perspective and any sense of equality within natural differences. How much more one-dimensional can a man be painted?
Re Jean Gannet’s recent article in the magazine, I want to know part of your editorial policy allows for the public advocacy of misandry and heterophobia:
<< It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him. >>
How is this a statement that comports with your sensitivity policy, which I assume you have? Or are “straight men” omitted just like we are from the rainbow flag?
The writer (who plays with prominent, public visual imagery akin to incest with her sister, sitting in what is called yab-yum intercourse position, see below) is pleading to know why men are not interested in her — the same men she says should be embarrassed to be men?
The same men whom the Times excoriated as predators for 18 months on page one during the #metoo era from late 2017 into early 2019?
Where were the men quoted in this article to respond to this? Did any “straight man” read this before it went to press? I get the image of a features department staffed with women and queers like Marie Claire. I am probably not far from the truth.
The Times has bared its ass on its bigotry toward heterosexual men, which in some form can be found in the newspaper several times a week.
But this is truly outrageous.
I must ask, speaking as a professional editor of long standing: what is wrong with you people? This is on the level of needing a psych eval.
If you want to know who I am, type my name into your search engine.
Like most, I couldn't get through the entire article due to the author's self-absorbed perspective and style of writing. The article illustrates how our culture continues to shun men for having feelings. Did anyone she writes about in her article even think to ask "what's making you anxious? Help me understand what you're going through." As a mental health therapist, I was put off by the lack of open curiosity demonstrated by the author and her therapist friend. The article was oozing in arrogance.
Empathy is a confusing topic. Supposedly, professionally trained therapists already begin with heightened empathy, and then there is the training effect.
But I read the other day, I can't remember where, the opinion that women do not really have empathy. The commenter was using an evolutionary argument to buttress his argument that females are on average more narcissistic than males: women have evolved to feign affective empathy, but lack real empathy. That was his view, if I recall correctly his argument.
This reminded me the controversial E-S theory of Autism, also known as "extreme male brain theory" which hypothesizes that during pregnancy, the fetus is exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone (perhaps environmental toxins suppress other hormones and that's the source of the imbalance). This becomes manifest by becoming a zero-empath, and that score of zero (or almost zero) empathy refers to a measure of "cognitive empathy" (reading people's faces, intentions.)
But the normal female brain, and the hypothetical extreme female brain, excels at this "cognitive emptahy" construct. That's the attempt to explain why there are much more male autists than female autists.
And the other side of empathy in this theory, the emotional empathy or affective empathy, is simply not a valid scientific concept. Pop culture. Nonsense.
I happen to think empathy is real. It's just that many academics never knew it.
Could not plow through this. Reads like a bad Netflix RomCom without the comedy (or actual romance). No love, no connection, not even good porn. I take it as a way to sell the NYT aka *headline eyecandy*. Recommendation? Don't waste time. Any cheap best-selling novel would describe the current state of affairs (pun) better.
The chaos it reflects is part of the zeitgeist. My Facebook feed pounds me with dating advice due to my interest in Emily King. There are several things glaringly missing from this narrative -- one of which is the presence of any male point of view. Then there are a few other omissions. I think this article is a bellwether.
One could notice the global lack of male point of view in any "romcom." Not advocating, just noticing. And of course, this is NOT any romcom, it's the NYT loosely disguising best-seller BS as some sort of "news." This in turn promotes a way of disjointed thinking...as you say, the 'reflected chaos.' This is indeed a narrow arrow pointed in one direction, one meant to stir up controversy and disconnect, not to advance any real information or news.
Side note: but sadly reflects on the lives of many people I know who do not seem to differentiate between what is real, what could be real, and what has been fed to them as real.
There is an organizing principle missing: male desire. Read one way, they are complaining that "nobody wants to fuck me." They also don't seem to be offering anything except the sex nobody wants; and we are informed that all white hetero men should be embarrassed about being male. Gee!
I will focus this thought: << It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him. >>
TRANSLATION: WOMEN SHAME MEN FOR BEING MEN. I cannot find the Times article from about two years ago with the approximate headline, "How to tell your son he might be a rapist." If someone can find this, I will cook you and all your friends dinner!
If she thinks being a man "must be embarrassing," then she is a dominatrix. She wants men to be humiliated. These women do not want sex or romance. They want to dominate men. They want men to pay them a thousand dollars to eat their own jizz out of a dog dish, and then maybe fuck them on command.
We are not admitting the extent to which FEMDOM has taken over sex, porn, onlyfans, Chaturbate, etc. This "mild embarrassment" is exploited for money. A standard trope is, "you gooner loser, you will pay me to not fuck me."
To R above: Your job is not to "make men hard." Your job is to build trust with your male partner and let him know that you trust him and are willing to risk the encounter. If he doesn't want to fuck you or eat you, masturbate with him there. If he doesn't want to fuck you or eat you then, he's not into you.
<< I have a type. He is gentle, goofy, self-deprecating, rather deferential, a passionate humanist, a sweet guy, a “good guy.” He tends to signal, in various ways, his exemption from the tainted category of “men,” and it is perfectly understandable that he would wish to do so. It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him. >>
Why does he try to signal that he is not tainted?
-- Because he does not want the consequences of the false accusations to fall upon him.
By writing that, the author is demonstrating an awareness of this dynamic in society.
The phrase << the tainted category of "men" >>.
The author's use of the word "category" is demonstrating understanding the fallacy of throwing all into a single category, painting everyone with the same brush.
Quoting the word, "men" is similar. She is acknowledging it is a category which some women (call them "feminists" if you wish) use, the category of "men" in which they include every single man, and which they claimed to be evil. (No man is "men.")
The author is simple acknowledging this categorization has been made by some in society, and naturally, men wish to avoid being thrown into it.
<< It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, ... . >>
There are clearly assumptions being made here. The author's assumption is that the entire category of single men feel slightly embarrassed. (Of course that is not true -- perhaps many in the population she engages with.)
But this statement can also be interpreted as a clumsy attempt at empathy, if it is allowed that she has left out something she expects to be obvious to her readers. Which is, the very things discussed above. Including those into the sentence:
<< It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man [facing the flurry of false accusations and assumptions which have been made about about his gender], ... >>
To be clear, these broad brush accusations can only be embarrassing to those who lack the strength to stand in their own self-knowledge; without the need for validation from others.
This assumption of hers may reveal short-sightedness, assuming the entire world is similar to her day-to-day experiences. But, it could also be attributed to sloppy writing/thinking, or even heavy-handed editing.
~ ~ ~
Essentially, the entire article is about her trying to figure out her experiences (and those a subset of women who are similar), and a subset of men with whom they are engaged.
Most importantly, she gives an example of the ideal she wants to achieve:
<< Jessica Benjamin imagines how we might collaborate, ... , to create an “intersubjective third,” a space in which your needs and mine, your desires and mine, recognize and accept each other without competing for dominance. ... >>
The numerous ideas she cites merely represents a search, a struggle, to find an answer [The Answer] which will give her clarity and understanding to reach that goal.
The chaos is just flailing, one might say floundering, because she is not presently equipped to align those ideas, to assign each a proper value, or even full to understand her own ideal. So, she fails.
How is it possible to not have compassion for these failures? For the frustration, the suppressed sorrow, the "quiet desperation" [Thoreau] of these fellow humans who are not yet awake?
It's testimony to the feminist phenomenon (ironically) of the Puella Aeterna -- the woman stuck in perpetual girlhood, ostensibly seeking short-term "fun" while trapped in chronic "desire." I find it endlessly amusing that feminism, of all things, actually made adult sacrifice an object of scorn. The ex-husband with the open marriage doesn't help matters much, but while she's thrashing about in an endless, adolescent quest for love, her child is tagging along, learning that life is all about chasing boys.
What a caddy, insensitive person this author is. No softness. I’d not want her in my crowd for sure. Yup, sounds like Manhattan - harsh, analytical, wants quick results. Men would be smart to stay away from her and her friends.
Out of curiosity about the author, I have been searching her date of birth, to look an apporximate birth chart..
Without confirmation, it's possible that Miss Garnett was born on Brooklyn, on December 1st 1983. This date appears mentioned in a website that doesn't work properly, and it may refer to a different person, so I can only read a couple of lines in the web search. But it seems this author has a twin sister, and there was another Garnett born in Brooklyn on that day, with a remarkably similar name and job.
Not knowing the hour, little can be said. But there are two things that stand out in the chart. By the end of November 30th, the Moon was void of course, about to enter Scorpio. If we pay attention we see the first hard aspect on December 1st is Moon Conjunct Pluto. All day, the Moon passes between Pluto and Saturn, and by the end of December 1st, the Moon is conjunct Saturn in Scorpio.
Second, There are four planets in Sagittarius, which are: Mercury, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune. Plus the Sun, if that's a planet in astrology. Plus the South node.
Chiron is retrograde on the anaretic degree of Taurus. Eris is right in the middle of Aries, forming an almost exact trine aspect to the South node, and an almost exact sextile to the North node in Gemini. Pholus is exactly conjunct Eris,
Last curiosity: there is a long separation between the Sun and Venus, more than 40º.
About sexuality, we can look at Nessus and Lilith. The former is in Leo, around 12º. The latter is near Pisces 6. So, Moon trine Lilith and Sun trine Nessus.
I think no one should take anything that is published in this NYT comic magazine seriously.
But I cannot read that website. It's not loading for me.
PS: I put "Brooklyn" because there were many results for obituaries for older "Jean Garnetts" so I narrowed it down by the location related to where she works. But I have no idea if she was born in Brooklyn. Only I think that's possible because there is a sister (we know that by an article on her sister) and there is the same date of birth and place quoted for some "Catherine Garnett" from Brooklyn.
For those more interested in understanding the causes of Feminism gone bad, a video describing the psychological basis of four archetypes of "toxic femininity."
Part 1 The Femme Fatale [sadism with manipulation for power], and part 3 Mean Girls [subtle means of controlling] seem the most applicable.
The entirety very revealing in ways of self-sabotage and maladaption to the world.
For completeness, a matching video about "toxic masculinity" [surprise, it is not about being too masculine, and the solution is not to become more feminine].
I begin to form the view that all of these errors (by both genders) ultimately stem from fundamental self-centeredness and lack of regard for others.
Underlying that would be the fear of death, and the desire to control to achieve [mythical] "safety."
Of course, it is appropriate to confront injustice. But, it seems to me much of the "battle" of the accusations which are raging over these matters, are distracting from the work on self-awareness and emotional growth necessary to correct them.
Brings to mind the closing courtroom scene from "Bonfire of the Vanities" wherein the judge says [to the effect] "Go home and be descent people."
I will not exclude them from humanity, but what the Chinese would call xiaoren "little people" -- [profoundly] immature by all measures. Tempted to say more animalistic than human, except that animals are not cruel.
They are just posing, trying to convince themselves they are not weak. The embodiment of the femme fatale archetype, having an underlying motive of destroying others [men] ... to "prove" a kind of power.
This self-centered, willful, preying on others is evil. ("driving pain into the world")
All that said, I still pity them. Maybe monetary success for this pair, but even that is extremely unlikely to bring true happiness (or anything true).
~ ~ ~
“Unless a man has pity he is not truly a man. If a man has not wept at the world's pain he is only half a man, and there will always be pain in the world, knowing this does not mean that a man shall despair. A good man will seek to take pain out of things. A foolish man will not even notice it, except in himself, and the poor unfortunate evil man will drive pain deeper into things and spread it about wherever he goes.”
I found this reference linking #metoo and Garnett in a Post column. It makes an almost passing reference to to the problem of women destroying men in #metoo
<< One oft-cited effect of the #MeToo movement was that men became reluctant to approach women in the wild environs of real life. This may have been a good thing, on balance, but good things also inevitably bring with them unintended consequences. >>
So now going out is a “wild environment”? I would not call it unintended, either. The whole point seems to have been getting between men and women.
And also right before #metoo was the pickup artist panic. I am sure I sent you my interview with the guys from Waking Life Coffee in Asheville...
-----------------------------------
Opinion
Shadi Hamid — WaPo
Men are struggling to find love. Here’s why.
Women have complained for years about the difficulties of finding a good man. It’s getting worse
August 8, 2025 at 7:30 a.m. EDT
Men are disappointing. I’ve heard it from so many of my female friends that I’ve lost count. The data backs it up too: Men are falling behind women on most of the metrics that matter, whether it’s being employed, graduating from high school and college, or just having friends. My friend Richard Reeves wrote a whole book, which I strongly recommend, popularizing this view of what he calls the “male malaise.”
The picture of a lonely young man playing video games in his parents’ basement is, by now, a cliché, but it’s one of those clichés that speaks to something true. Women, for their part, are growing increasingly frustrated that men aren’t showing up — in a quite literal sense. But this paralysis isn’t limited to the stereotypical underachieving male. Even men who are professionally successful or otherwise “together” find themselves frozen by the overwhelming complexity of modern relationship choices. In the 1970s and 80s, the percentage of men who weren’t married by age 40 was in the single digits. By 2021, that number had increased, remarkably, to 28 percent.
The topic has gained fresh urgency, with a spate of viral essays examining the perils of modern dating dynamics. The problem with men is getting worse. Or at least that’s what several pieces in the New York Times seem to suggest. At a party recently, I found myself embroiled in a long debate about “heterofatalism,” drawing on a long essay by the writer Jean Garnett, which provoked dueling reactions from both sides of the gender divide.
In her article, Garnett recounts a promising first date with a man. A week later, he pulls back from her, with the admittedly lame excuse that he is going through “some intense anxiety” and needs to “lay low.” Garnett writes that “a man should want me urgently or not at all,” but that single, straight men appear to be lacking such urgency. They’re not sure. Even at middle age, they don’t know what they want — or they know what they want but seem helpless to act on that knowledge. They’re nervous about relationships, and so the easier option is to dabble and deflect.
In another piece from June, an intellectual property professional in Chicago named Rachel Drucker goes out for dinner on a Saturday night and observes “a noticeable absence of men,” which she believes reflects a “collective shift” in public life. “Men, where have you gone?” she asks (which led some men to reply, “we’re right here”).
These accounts are both new and old. For a few years now, reaching a peak after the covid pandemic, women have been noting the difficulties and disappointments of finding a good man, leading some to exit the dating game altogether. To the extent men complain about dating women, they tend not to do so in major newspapers or magazines, since that would probably seem retrograde. At the party I went to, some of the participants tried — to various degrees — empathizing with men. If men are struggling, perhaps we should understand why.
[OH THAT!!!!]
One oft-cited effect of the #MeToo movement was that men became reluctant to approach women in the wild environs of real life. This may have been a good thing, on balance, but good things also inevitably bring with them unintended consequences. Dating apps, meanwhile, create the illusion of unlimited choice, but it’s just that: an illusion. Where men, once upon a time, would look for partners in their own social circles, now anyone in a 10-mile radius (or, for that matter, a 100-mile radius) is potentially within reach.
But the problem, for men, is that most of the women they swipe right on will not swipe back, creating an expectation of abundance that can never be met. I remember the first time a female friend showed me her Tinder profile. She had thousands of likes, and it was impossible to sort through even a fraction of them. This is the free market of sex and relationships, and in any free market, there will be winners and losers — and likely more of the latter than the former.
As the narrator in French author Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Whatever” despondently reflects:
“It's a fact … that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. … Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none.”
My colleague Damir Marusic insists that it’s always been this way, but men used to know how to weather rejection (say, at a bar) and not take it too personally. Young men, today, seem less resilient, complaining on podcasts and Reddit about the so-called 80/20 rule, according to which 80 percent of women, allegedly, only go for the top 20 percent of guys.
“Gender polarization” is another culprit, furthering the sense of male resentment. In recent years, young men have veered to the political right, while young women — particularly in big, blue cities — have become more reliably liberal. In an era where the political is personal, this creates a new set of dealbreakers. Mixed marriages are approaching extinction. Only about 4 percent are between Democrats and Republicans.
But it's not just politics that creates these impossible middle grounds. In our fragmented culture, many of us find ourselves caught between competing identities and values, making it increasingly difficult to find someone who fits our different worlds.
I happen to be a single person who would like to get married. So this is a personal interest for me as well as an academic one. As I’ve written previously, I have regrets about not prioritizing finding a partner earlier in life. As we get older, we get more particular, more set in our ways. My own situation is somewhat unique. I would like to raise my kids Muslim, so this limits my potential pool of partners to either Muslims or non-Muslims who are willing to raise their kids Muslim (which can be a difficult thing to ask of someone).
In other ways, my problem is representative. I try to practice my religion, but I’m also not as religious as a lot of other Muslims. At the same time, I’m more religious than most cultural or “secular” Muslims. Islam matters to me. Living in a free, liberal society, I often find myself stuck in the in-between.
But so many of us find ourselves stuck, wanting to want to get married, longing for connection but also stubborn, desiring but not knowing how to fulfill that desire. How to choose when there are so many choices? How to prioritize politics and religion when deciding who to spend the rest of our lives with? We only have one life. So, we should live it. But we also hover in the knowledge of all the other lives we could have lived but never will. And that will never be an easy thing.
‘a man should want me urgently or not at all. I was about to collapse into a ritual of frustrated horniness’
Great coping skills!
'I get what Mom is for, but what are you for?’
No child thinks this!!
He tends to signal, in various ways, his exemption from the tainted category of "men," and it is perfectly understandable that he would wish to do so. It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him.
Yeah and as soon as a man she's not interested "wants her urgently," she will dial #metoo911. What she means is she wants the man SHE wants to want her urgently. So let me tell you all something. I demand that Sydney Sweeny want me urgently. It's not enough that she merely want me. It has to be urgently...nothing less than anaphylaxis will do. I will be her EpiPen or nothing at all.
Hi Eric, it seems like the missing link is self-awareness. That's probably too simplistic, but she seems to be focusing on men and their problems when she needs to focus on those needs within herself.
I, too, could not finish this. I listened to the audio version.
it takes a few guts to comment, I see your point on hetero men, but I got a strong point on hetero women tough.
This article nails down my experiences for 3 decades.
As long as he his not downright poor or even holding some mental issues, it seems I get no chance for relating with a smart funny guy.
Are women so hysterical, clinging, bossy, patronizing, bullying that potential partners need to act that way? What she descibes is so common, you want believe it.
dina, would you give me an example of how men act that way? And just one example of your experience?
Also -- maybe help me here if you would. All things feminist are marked by either no viewpoint of men, and/or the notion that men materialized out of thin air like the crew of the Enterprise and that women did not raise them. Most boys are raised by their moms.
It is not 1940 when boys have no idea that women have brains (which was always a trope). So who and what are these men?
Also, the article omits the recent news that if a man texts a woman anything saucy or says anything saucy or is attracted to her BANG, #metoo. There is NO accounting for this horror story that so many good men and many observers were put through.
The women in this article wonder why the guys don't want to fuck them. Well, did they promise not to call the police the next morning? Or is it true that all sex is rape?
I am happy about your respond and of course I would like to explain my latest tales.
I got on a dating site 2 month ago, that was hillarious. Not one out of four didn´t bother to meet for a cup of coffee. First one liked a photo of my boobs please before the scheduled first meeting, second one could just make a few spare hours on a nude bathing spot.
Third one could not meet me because my ex partner had not moved out the flat yet, and he himself didn´t want to tell his wife that he is going out for a few hours unattented from the daily schedule they´re up to regulary. We texted for 3 weeks, a coffee was not possible, cause obviously the lead to my bed was missing. Forth one chatted me up frequently, although I told him at the start that he his too young with his 26 years.
All together, in sweet and saucy talking they where masters, all of them four.
My Ex, who is leaving the conjoint flat now, signed up on that dating site as well, he is writing with a few women. Since he observed my scores, he asked along his chat partners and got told that my experiences are something like the norm.
Probably it is the generation of the mid/end sixties, Boomers as we say in German.
Lately I had a strong vibe with an 30 years old (I am 58) and he showed genuine interest, but when I told him my age he withdrew, what was quite understandable.
That maybe tells that I am not looking too unattraktive, at least not always.
I think what that article wants to point out is that relations on eye level are really hard to establish and, even more explicit, men do not bond easily. Long testing phases, and she has to be the right one, oh boy, so right that mama can just loose that game to such an extent!
Another sentiment that stroke me lately might be, that men are more sensitive than we (women) have ever assumed. Maybe men feel at the first second, that she is good, but not the right one, at least not right enough to give it a try. And since a broken relationship is hurting, why to bother for something that feels not 110 percent?
In nature a male lion got several girls in his pride, and they share that superb boy without being envy or jealous. To me it seems like their semen should be available for all the good girls.
And this is why feminism is a hot fart for me, in my opinion the concept of equality of the sexes is not enbodied in our species.
Sorry for writing about „ men“ and „women“, of course it’s not all stereotypes, but in rural areas…
Have you considered that the problem is not men and women but rather meeting people online, where there are no men and no women? Only pixels, bits and bytes?
And feminism never was about equality — not for a day, not for a minute.
Ok, you have that point that online dating is online. But dating in my hometown is not a matter of distance, though of making it happen. This is not New York, Downtown is down.
My theory is that we have to match in a way that is miraculous, or that the relationship is massively imbalanced. There is more women than men. I think women need bonding on a daily base much more than men.
You might test that theory of who needs bonding. I have always offered it to women and sought it out. No go. I have found women to be restless, self-obsessed and shy about commitment — till they meet a guy who gets them pregnant that they end up hating.
The New York I am in has more cows than people. There is no downtown; there is barely "town."
"No relationship — regardless of gender, orientation, number of people — is immune from power dynamics; unequal distribution is always, so to speak, on the bed."
Truly, Eric, every Yang has its tiny bit of Yin and viceversa. In sheer madness we can find shameful confessions of mental health. Because accepting the fact of inequality, also known as Nature's way, is a clear sign of mental health fighting to become manifest. That author deserves all our support for that noble effort.
READER COMMENT:
Wow. I can't even read very much of this right now. What's missing is the man's perspective and any sense of equality within natural differences. How much more one-dimensional can a man be painted?
To the Times:
Re Jean Gannet’s recent article in the magazine, I want to know part of your editorial policy allows for the public advocacy of misandry and heterophobia:
<< It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him. >>
How is this a statement that comports with your sensitivity policy, which I assume you have? Or are “straight men” omitted just like we are from the rainbow flag?
The writer (who plays with prominent, public visual imagery akin to incest with her sister, sitting in what is called yab-yum intercourse position, see below) is pleading to know why men are not interested in her — the same men she says should be embarrassed to be men?
The same men whom the Times excoriated as predators for 18 months on page one during the #metoo era from late 2017 into early 2019?
Where were the men quoted in this article to respond to this? Did any “straight man” read this before it went to press? I get the image of a features department staffed with women and queers like Marie Claire. I am probably not far from the truth.
The Times has bared its ass on its bigotry toward heterosexual men, which in some form can be found in the newspaper several times a week.
But this is truly outrageous.
I must ask, speaking as a professional editor of long standing: what is wrong with you people? This is on the level of needing a psych eval.
If you want to know who I am, type my name into your search engine.
Eric F. Coppolino
Senior Producer - Investigations
Pacifica Radio - Planet Waves FM, Kingston
(845) 337-5095 - cell
I read the whole article -it was just like watching a bad movie waiting for the point.
What a lot of words and over-thinking! What was the quote from Marshall McLuhan’s grandson - ‘The body is everywhere assaulted.....’
For sure!
Like most, I couldn't get through the entire article due to the author's self-absorbed perspective and style of writing. The article illustrates how our culture continues to shun men for having feelings. Did anyone she writes about in her article even think to ask "what's making you anxious? Help me understand what you're going through." As a mental health therapist, I was put off by the lack of open curiosity demonstrated by the author and her therapist friend. The article was oozing in arrogance.
Diane, this would be classified as "emotional labor" and fit with the genre of women saying to men, "I am not your therapist."
Empathy is a confusing topic. Supposedly, professionally trained therapists already begin with heightened empathy, and then there is the training effect.
But I read the other day, I can't remember where, the opinion that women do not really have empathy. The commenter was using an evolutionary argument to buttress his argument that females are on average more narcissistic than males: women have evolved to feign affective empathy, but lack real empathy. That was his view, if I recall correctly his argument.
This reminded me the controversial E-S theory of Autism, also known as "extreme male brain theory" which hypothesizes that during pregnancy, the fetus is exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone (perhaps environmental toxins suppress other hormones and that's the source of the imbalance). This becomes manifest by becoming a zero-empath, and that score of zero (or almost zero) empathy refers to a measure of "cognitive empathy" (reading people's faces, intentions.)
But the normal female brain, and the hypothetical extreme female brain, excels at this "cognitive emptahy" construct. That's the attempt to explain why there are much more male autists than female autists.
And the other side of empathy in this theory, the emotional empathy or affective empathy, is simply not a valid scientific concept. Pop culture. Nonsense.
I happen to think empathy is real. It's just that many academics never knew it.
Could not plow through this. Reads like a bad Netflix RomCom without the comedy (or actual romance). No love, no connection, not even good porn. I take it as a way to sell the NYT aka *headline eyecandy*. Recommendation? Don't waste time. Any cheap best-selling novel would describe the current state of affairs (pun) better.
The chaos it reflects is part of the zeitgeist. My Facebook feed pounds me with dating advice due to my interest in Emily King. There are several things glaringly missing from this narrative -- one of which is the presence of any male point of view. Then there are a few other omissions. I think this article is a bellwether.
One could notice the global lack of male point of view in any "romcom." Not advocating, just noticing. And of course, this is NOT any romcom, it's the NYT loosely disguising best-seller BS as some sort of "news." This in turn promotes a way of disjointed thinking...as you say, the 'reflected chaos.' This is indeed a narrow arrow pointed in one direction, one meant to stir up controversy and disconnect, not to advance any real information or news.
Side note: but sadly reflects on the lives of many people I know who do not seem to differentiate between what is real, what could be real, and what has been fed to them as real.
There is an organizing principle missing: male desire. Read one way, they are complaining that "nobody wants to fuck me." They also don't seem to be offering anything except the sex nobody wants; and we are informed that all white hetero men should be embarrassed about being male. Gee!
I will focus this thought: << It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him. >>
TRANSLATION: WOMEN SHAME MEN FOR BEING MEN. I cannot find the Times article from about two years ago with the approximate headline, "How to tell your son he might be a rapist." If someone can find this, I will cook you and all your friends dinner!
If she thinks being a man "must be embarrassing," then she is a dominatrix. She wants men to be humiliated. These women do not want sex or romance. They want to dominate men. They want men to pay them a thousand dollars to eat their own jizz out of a dog dish, and then maybe fuck them on command.
We are not admitting the extent to which FEMDOM has taken over sex, porn, onlyfans, Chaturbate, etc. This "mild embarrassment" is exploited for money. A standard trope is, "you gooner loser, you will pay me to not fuck me."
To R above: Your job is not to "make men hard." Your job is to build trust with your male partner and let him know that you trust him and are willing to risk the encounter. If he doesn't want to fuck you or eat you, masturbate with him there. If he doesn't want to fuck you or eat you then, he's not into you.
<< I have a type. He is gentle, goofy, self-deprecating, rather deferential, a passionate humanist, a sweet guy, a “good guy.” He tends to signal, in various ways, his exemption from the tainted category of “men,” and it is perfectly understandable that he would wish to do so. It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him. >>
Why does he try to signal that he is not tainted?
-- Because he does not want the consequences of the false accusations to fall upon him.
By writing that, the author is demonstrating an awareness of this dynamic in society.
The phrase << the tainted category of "men" >>.
The author's use of the word "category" is demonstrating understanding the fallacy of throwing all into a single category, painting everyone with the same brush.
Quoting the word, "men" is similar. She is acknowledging it is a category which some women (call them "feminists" if you wish) use, the category of "men" in which they include every single man, and which they claimed to be evil. (No man is "men.")
The author is simple acknowledging this categorization has been made by some in society, and naturally, men wish to avoid being thrown into it.
<< It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, ... . >>
There are clearly assumptions being made here. The author's assumption is that the entire category of single men feel slightly embarrassed. (Of course that is not true -- perhaps many in the population she engages with.)
But this statement can also be interpreted as a clumsy attempt at empathy, if it is allowed that she has left out something she expects to be obvious to her readers. Which is, the very things discussed above. Including those into the sentence:
<< It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man [facing the flurry of false accusations and assumptions which have been made about about his gender], ... >>
To be clear, these broad brush accusations can only be embarrassing to those who lack the strength to stand in their own self-knowledge; without the need for validation from others.
This assumption of hers may reveal short-sightedness, assuming the entire world is similar to her day-to-day experiences. But, it could also be attributed to sloppy writing/thinking, or even heavy-handed editing.
~ ~ ~
Essentially, the entire article is about her trying to figure out her experiences (and those a subset of women who are similar), and a subset of men with whom they are engaged.
Most importantly, she gives an example of the ideal she wants to achieve:
<< Jessica Benjamin imagines how we might collaborate, ... , to create an “intersubjective third,” a space in which your needs and mine, your desires and mine, recognize and accept each other without competing for dominance. ... >>
The numerous ideas she cites merely represents a search, a struggle, to find an answer [The Answer] which will give her clarity and understanding to reach that goal.
The chaos is just flailing, one might say floundering, because she is not presently equipped to align those ideas, to assign each a proper value, or even full to understand her own ideal. So, she fails.
How is it possible to not have compassion for these failures? For the frustration, the suppressed sorrow, the "quiet desperation" [Thoreau] of these fellow humans who are not yet awake?
Is it this one? https://nypost.com/2023/07/07/my-son-is-a-repeat-sex-offender-but-im-hesitant-to-report-him/
wow.
That's a lot. It's possible that she has Moon trine Lilith, if my research is on the right track.
This is a very Plutonic piece she has written.
It's testimony to the feminist phenomenon (ironically) of the Puella Aeterna -- the woman stuck in perpetual girlhood, ostensibly seeking short-term "fun" while trapped in chronic "desire." I find it endlessly amusing that feminism, of all things, actually made adult sacrifice an object of scorn. The ex-husband with the open marriage doesn't help matters much, but while she's thrashing about in an endless, adolescent quest for love, her child is tagging along, learning that life is all about chasing boys.
What a caddy, insensitive person this author is. No softness. I’d not want her in my crowd for sure. Yup, sounds like Manhattan - harsh, analytical, wants quick results. Men would be smart to stay away from her and her friends.
Out of curiosity about the author, I have been searching her date of birth, to look an apporximate birth chart..
Without confirmation, it's possible that Miss Garnett was born on Brooklyn, on December 1st 1983. This date appears mentioned in a website that doesn't work properly, and it may refer to a different person, so I can only read a couple of lines in the web search. But it seems this author has a twin sister, and there was another Garnett born in Brooklyn on that day, with a remarkably similar name and job.
Not knowing the hour, little can be said. But there are two things that stand out in the chart. By the end of November 30th, the Moon was void of course, about to enter Scorpio. If we pay attention we see the first hard aspect on December 1st is Moon Conjunct Pluto. All day, the Moon passes between Pluto and Saturn, and by the end of December 1st, the Moon is conjunct Saturn in Scorpio.
Second, There are four planets in Sagittarius, which are: Mercury, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune. Plus the Sun, if that's a planet in astrology. Plus the South node.
Chiron is retrograde on the anaretic degree of Taurus. Eris is right in the middle of Aries, forming an almost exact trine aspect to the South node, and an almost exact sextile to the North node in Gemini. Pholus is exactly conjunct Eris,
Last curiosity: there is a long separation between the Sun and Venus, more than 40º.
About sexuality, we can look at Nessus and Lilith. The former is in Leo, around 12º. The latter is near Pisces 6. So, Moon trine Lilith and Sun trine Nessus.
I think no one should take anything that is published in this NYT comic magazine seriously.
Investigative bureau confirms -- you have this right
great!
what was your source for birth info?
I searched the name of the author "Jean Garnett Brooklyn date of birth"
This result appeared, citing a date: www.mylife.com/jean-garnett/e4626163218612
But I cannot read that website. It's not loading for me.
PS: I put "Brooklyn" because there were many results for obituaries for older "Jean Garnetts" so I narrowed it down by the location related to where she works. But I have no idea if she was born in Brooklyn. Only I think that's possible because there is a sister (we know that by an article on her sister) and there is the same date of birth and place quoted for some "Catherine Garnett" from Brooklyn.
For those more interested in understanding the causes of Feminism gone bad, a video describing the psychological basis of four archetypes of "toxic femininity."
Part 1 The Femme Fatale [sadism with manipulation for power], and part 3 Mean Girls [subtle means of controlling] seem the most applicable.
The entirety very revealing in ways of self-sabotage and maladaption to the world.
Almost one hour, but not too technical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMV0BHKafsM
For completeness, a matching video about "toxic masculinity" [surprise, it is not about being too masculine, and the solution is not to become more feminine].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF6zWPDE92c
~~~ ~~~ ~~~
I begin to form the view that all of these errors (by both genders) ultimately stem from fundamental self-centeredness and lack of regard for others.
Underlying that would be the fear of death, and the desire to control to achieve [mythical] "safety."
Of course, it is appropriate to confront injustice. But, it seems to me much of the "battle" of the accusations which are raging over these matters, are distracting from the work on self-awareness and emotional growth necessary to correct them.
Brings to mind the closing courtroom scene from "Bonfire of the Vanities" wherein the judge says [to the effect] "Go home and be descent people."
here is the WAP video she's talking about. To my senses, these creatures on the screen do not even register as "women" or even "human female"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm4poTWjMs
I will not exclude them from humanity, but what the Chinese would call xiaoren "little people" -- [profoundly] immature by all measures. Tempted to say more animalistic than human, except that animals are not cruel.
They are just posing, trying to convince themselves they are not weak. The embodiment of the femme fatale archetype, having an underlying motive of destroying others [men] ... to "prove" a kind of power.
This self-centered, willful, preying on others is evil. ("driving pain into the world")
All that said, I still pity them. Maybe monetary success for this pair, but even that is extremely unlikely to bring true happiness (or anything true).
~ ~ ~
“Unless a man has pity he is not truly a man. If a man has not wept at the world's pain he is only half a man, and there will always be pain in the world, knowing this does not mean that a man shall despair. A good man will seek to take pain out of things. A foolish man will not even notice it, except in himself, and the poor unfortunate evil man will drive pain deeper into things and spread it about wherever he goes.”
― William Saroyan
I found this reference linking #metoo and Garnett in a Post column. It makes an almost passing reference to to the problem of women destroying men in #metoo
<< One oft-cited effect of the #MeToo movement was that men became reluctant to approach women in the wild environs of real life. This may have been a good thing, on balance, but good things also inevitably bring with them unintended consequences. >>
So now going out is a “wild environment”? I would not call it unintended, either. The whole point seems to have been getting between men and women.
And also right before #metoo was the pickup artist panic. I am sure I sent you my interview with the guys from Waking Life Coffee in Asheville...
-----------------------------------
Opinion
Shadi Hamid — WaPo
Men are struggling to find love. Here’s why.
Women have complained for years about the difficulties of finding a good man. It’s getting worse
August 8, 2025 at 7:30 a.m. EDT
Men are disappointing. I’ve heard it from so many of my female friends that I’ve lost count. The data backs it up too: Men are falling behind women on most of the metrics that matter, whether it’s being employed, graduating from high school and college, or just having friends. My friend Richard Reeves wrote a whole book, which I strongly recommend, popularizing this view of what he calls the “male malaise.”
The picture of a lonely young man playing video games in his parents’ basement is, by now, a cliché, but it’s one of those clichés that speaks to something true. Women, for their part, are growing increasingly frustrated that men aren’t showing up — in a quite literal sense. But this paralysis isn’t limited to the stereotypical underachieving male. Even men who are professionally successful or otherwise “together” find themselves frozen by the overwhelming complexity of modern relationship choices. In the 1970s and 80s, the percentage of men who weren’t married by age 40 was in the single digits. By 2021, that number had increased, remarkably, to 28 percent.
The topic has gained fresh urgency, with a spate of viral essays examining the perils of modern dating dynamics. The problem with men is getting worse. Or at least that’s what several pieces in the New York Times seem to suggest. At a party recently, I found myself embroiled in a long debate about “heterofatalism,” drawing on a long essay by the writer Jean Garnett, which provoked dueling reactions from both sides of the gender divide.
In her article, Garnett recounts a promising first date with a man. A week later, he pulls back from her, with the admittedly lame excuse that he is going through “some intense anxiety” and needs to “lay low.” Garnett writes that “a man should want me urgently or not at all,” but that single, straight men appear to be lacking such urgency. They’re not sure. Even at middle age, they don’t know what they want — or they know what they want but seem helpless to act on that knowledge. They’re nervous about relationships, and so the easier option is to dabble and deflect.
In another piece from June, an intellectual property professional in Chicago named Rachel Drucker goes out for dinner on a Saturday night and observes “a noticeable absence of men,” which she believes reflects a “collective shift” in public life. “Men, where have you gone?” she asks (which led some men to reply, “we’re right here”).
These accounts are both new and old. For a few years now, reaching a peak after the covid pandemic, women have been noting the difficulties and disappointments of finding a good man, leading some to exit the dating game altogether. To the extent men complain about dating women, they tend not to do so in major newspapers or magazines, since that would probably seem retrograde. At the party I went to, some of the participants tried — to various degrees — empathizing with men. If men are struggling, perhaps we should understand why.
[OH THAT!!!!]
One oft-cited effect of the #MeToo movement was that men became reluctant to approach women in the wild environs of real life. This may have been a good thing, on balance, but good things also inevitably bring with them unintended consequences. Dating apps, meanwhile, create the illusion of unlimited choice, but it’s just that: an illusion. Where men, once upon a time, would look for partners in their own social circles, now anyone in a 10-mile radius (or, for that matter, a 100-mile radius) is potentially within reach.
But the problem, for men, is that most of the women they swipe right on will not swipe back, creating an expectation of abundance that can never be met. I remember the first time a female friend showed me her Tinder profile. She had thousands of likes, and it was impossible to sort through even a fraction of them. This is the free market of sex and relationships, and in any free market, there will be winners and losers — and likely more of the latter than the former.
As the narrator in French author Michel Houellebecq’s novel “Whatever” despondently reflects:
“It's a fact … that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. … Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none.”
My colleague Damir Marusic insists that it’s always been this way, but men used to know how to weather rejection (say, at a bar) and not take it too personally. Young men, today, seem less resilient, complaining on podcasts and Reddit about the so-called 80/20 rule, according to which 80 percent of women, allegedly, only go for the top 20 percent of guys.
“Gender polarization” is another culprit, furthering the sense of male resentment. In recent years, young men have veered to the political right, while young women — particularly in big, blue cities — have become more reliably liberal. In an era where the political is personal, this creates a new set of dealbreakers. Mixed marriages are approaching extinction. Only about 4 percent are between Democrats and Republicans.
But it's not just politics that creates these impossible middle grounds. In our fragmented culture, many of us find ourselves caught between competing identities and values, making it increasingly difficult to find someone who fits our different worlds.
I happen to be a single person who would like to get married. So this is a personal interest for me as well as an academic one. As I’ve written previously, I have regrets about not prioritizing finding a partner earlier in life. As we get older, we get more particular, more set in our ways. My own situation is somewhat unique. I would like to raise my kids Muslim, so this limits my potential pool of partners to either Muslims or non-Muslims who are willing to raise their kids Muslim (which can be a difficult thing to ask of someone).
In other ways, my problem is representative. I try to practice my religion, but I’m also not as religious as a lot of other Muslims. At the same time, I’m more religious than most cultural or “secular” Muslims. Islam matters to me. Living in a free, liberal society, I often find myself stuck in the in-between.
But so many of us find ourselves stuck, wanting to want to get married, longing for connection but also stubborn, desiring but not knowing how to fulfill that desire. How to choose when there are so many choices? How to prioritize politics and religion when deciding who to spend the rest of our lives with? We only have one life. So, we should live it. But we also hover in the knowledge of all the other lives we could have lived but never will. And that will never be an easy thing.
That was just hard self-indulgent going. Does the author really want feedback or is she whinging for the sake of it.
‘a man should want me urgently or not at all. I was about to collapse into a ritual of frustrated horniness’
Great coping skills!
'I get what Mom is for, but what are you for?’
No child thinks this!!
He tends to signal, in various ways, his exemption from the tainted category of "men," and it is perfectly understandable that he would wish to do so. It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him.
Yeah and as soon as a man she's not interested "wants her urgently," she will dial #metoo911. What she means is she wants the man SHE wants to want her urgently. So let me tell you all something. I demand that Sydney Sweeny want me urgently. It's not enough that she merely want me. It has to be urgently...nothing less than anaphylaxis will do. I will be her EpiPen or nothing at all.
What’s so embarrassing about being a straight man?
It's because straight men are so ridiculous losers, they should all be embarrassed for one another
Hi Eric, it seems like the missing link is self-awareness. That's probably too simplistic, but she seems to be focusing on men and their problems when she needs to focus on those needs within herself.
I, too, could not finish this. I listened to the audio version.
Hi Eric,
it takes a few guts to comment, I see your point on hetero men, but I got a strong point on hetero women tough.
This article nails down my experiences for 3 decades.
As long as he his not downright poor or even holding some mental issues, it seems I get no chance for relating with a smart funny guy.
Are women so hysterical, clinging, bossy, patronizing, bullying that potential partners need to act that way? What she descibes is so common, you want believe it.
I am really up for discussion on this topic.
Love your work
Best regards from Bavaria
Dina
dina, would you give me an example of how men act that way? And just one example of your experience?
Also -- maybe help me here if you would. All things feminist are marked by either no viewpoint of men, and/or the notion that men materialized out of thin air like the crew of the Enterprise and that women did not raise them. Most boys are raised by their moms.
It is not 1940 when boys have no idea that women have brains (which was always a trope). So who and what are these men?
Also, the article omits the recent news that if a man texts a woman anything saucy or says anything saucy or is attracted to her BANG, #metoo. There is NO accounting for this horror story that so many good men and many observers were put through.
The women in this article wonder why the guys don't want to fuck them. Well, did they promise not to call the police the next morning? Or is it true that all sex is rape?
I am happy about your respond and of course I would like to explain my latest tales.
I got on a dating site 2 month ago, that was hillarious. Not one out of four didn´t bother to meet for a cup of coffee. First one liked a photo of my boobs please before the scheduled first meeting, second one could just make a few spare hours on a nude bathing spot.
Third one could not meet me because my ex partner had not moved out the flat yet, and he himself didn´t want to tell his wife that he is going out for a few hours unattented from the daily schedule they´re up to regulary. We texted for 3 weeks, a coffee was not possible, cause obviously the lead to my bed was missing. Forth one chatted me up frequently, although I told him at the start that he his too young with his 26 years.
All together, in sweet and saucy talking they where masters, all of them four.
My Ex, who is leaving the conjoint flat now, signed up on that dating site as well, he is writing with a few women. Since he observed my scores, he asked along his chat partners and got told that my experiences are something like the norm.
Probably it is the generation of the mid/end sixties, Boomers as we say in German.
Lately I had a strong vibe with an 30 years old (I am 58) and he showed genuine interest, but when I told him my age he withdrew, what was quite understandable.
That maybe tells that I am not looking too unattraktive, at least not always.
I think what that article wants to point out is that relations on eye level are really hard to establish and, even more explicit, men do not bond easily. Long testing phases, and she has to be the right one, oh boy, so right that mama can just loose that game to such an extent!
Another sentiment that stroke me lately might be, that men are more sensitive than we (women) have ever assumed. Maybe men feel at the first second, that she is good, but not the right one, at least not right enough to give it a try. And since a broken relationship is hurting, why to bother for something that feels not 110 percent?
In nature a male lion got several girls in his pride, and they share that superb boy without being envy or jealous. To me it seems like their semen should be available for all the good girls.
And this is why feminism is a hot fart for me, in my opinion the concept of equality of the sexes is not enbodied in our species.
Sorry for writing about „ men“ and „women“, of course it’s not all stereotypes, but in rural areas…
Have you considered that the problem is not men and women but rather meeting people online, where there are no men and no women? Only pixels, bits and bytes?
And feminism never was about equality — not for a day, not for a minute.
Ok, you have that point that online dating is online. But dating in my hometown is not a matter of distance, though of making it happen. This is not New York, Downtown is down.
My theory is that we have to match in a way that is miraculous, or that the relationship is massively imbalanced. There is more women than men. I think women need bonding on a daily base much more than men.
You might test that theory of who needs bonding. I have always offered it to women and sought it out. No go. I have found women to be restless, self-obsessed and shy about commitment — till they meet a guy who gets them pregnant that they end up hating.
The New York I am in has more cows than people. There is no downtown; there is barely "town."
"No relationship — regardless of gender, orientation, number of people — is immune from power dynamics; unequal distribution is always, so to speak, on the bed."
Truly, Eric, every Yang has its tiny bit of Yin and viceversa. In sheer madness we can find shameful confessions of mental health. Because accepting the fact of inequality, also known as Nature's way, is a clear sign of mental health fighting to become manifest. That author deserves all our support for that noble effort.