The below is the response to the article you mentioned by Kay S. Hymowitz. This was sent to the City Journal.
Everyone- read her article first and you’ll see where I was coming from
————————————-
I honestly cannot believe you’re employed as a professional journalist. I would love to read your article aloud in front of an audience of empowered young women so I could bask in the boos and jeers. “The punchline,” I would wryly state as I dodged rotten vegetables, “Is that this article was written by a woman, Kay S. Hymowitz.” I’m sure the crowd would love it.
On this note, lets begin with your degradation of women… it doesn’t take too long to get to that if we just skip the first few sentences of your degradation of men. Ah, here we are, we’ve arrived at the sentence: “[Women are]particularly interested in single young men, for two reasons: there are a lot more of them than before; and they tend to have some extra change.”
They tend to have some extra change? You’ve just claimed that one of the two reasons women like single men is that women are prostitutes. Cheap ones at that. Further comment is unnecessary here, your words speak for themselves.
Next, overlooking bland vocab choices and clumsily cobbled sentences, we come to your analysis of one of the most monumental events in human history: the rise of Maxim magazine. The only thing dumber than the magazine itself, is you for giving its success weight in a broader historical sense. The only thing dumber than you is your boss for paying you to write this drivel.
Since you put so much weight behind this “Maxim child man”, and draw logical(this word is used tongue in cheek here. I figured you’d need this fact pointed out, considering how poor your grasp of literature seems) conclusions, I’ll do the same with you.
We’ll call the class of women who would enjoy your writing “Kay S. Hymowitzs” or KSH for short. Single and aging, the only thing drier than these women are the articles they read in City Journal. KSH’s like to read columns filled with broad generalizations derived from trivial pieces of information, otherwise known as fluff or filler. KSH’s prefer the tone of an out of touch, elderly curmudgeon who’s got a bone to pick with that which she can not have: young men.
KSH’s enjoy logical fallacies. For example, the use of a straw man argument despite the fact that doing so makes the author’s motivation painfully obvious. It has been said that “Everything we say, we say to ourselves.” Here, had this piece been written in the Onion, I would add Shakespeare’s take on the previous quote, “Many a truth is told in jest”, however, unfortunately for the literary world and journalists everywhere, you’re not joking.
No, you take yourself seriously. Even more shocking is that your employers take you seriously. Seriously enough to pay you to put forth the pedestrian tripe that you call journalism. It is a sad state that the City Journal has come to, the Journal, bastion of wit and concept.
To all the KSH’s out there, I suggest you put down the magazine and pick up a book.
