By far the most important philosopher of the Menaissance is Charles Darwin. The theory that human sexual preferences evolved from the time that hominids successfully reproduced in the primeval African grasslands can explain the mystery of women’s preference for macho—or alpha—males. At the same time, evolutionary theory gives the former wuss permission to pursue massive amounts of sex with an endless assortment of women. Finally, the emphasis that Darwinism places on natural selection encourages him to adapt to the brutal current sexual ecosystem. Culture, in both its feminist and Emily Post forms, hasn’t won him any favor with women, so he will embrace Nature in all its rude harshness.
[T]he problem with the Darwinian tenor of the Menaissance is neither antipathy to women’s equality nor a misguided reading of female nature. It is an uncompromising biological determinism that makes no room for human cultivation. We are animals, the new Darwinians seem to say; get used to it. They define manhood as alpha-style toughness and unsentimental promiscuity. And in that spirit, they cultivate manipulation, calculation, and naked (in both the literal and metaphorical sense) self-interest. “Nature doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings,” explains dating coach Mike Pilinski. “It cares ONLY about reproductive success.”
On many levels, Hymowitz is probably correct. Frustrated with mixed signals and erratic behavior of women, word has been getting around in the man-o-sphere about a Truth That Works. It's called 'game'. Under game, non-alpha men adopt (or feign) alpha-male behaviors while cultivating an image of an ability to exercise (and sometimes practice) unreconstructed promiscuity--both steps that help them succeed with women where they previously were coldly rejected. As Hymowitz herself alludes, game is to men what cleavage revealing tops and short skirts are for women--addictive catnip for the opposite sex. Slightly underhanded, possibly. Manipulative? Definitely. But effective? Inarguably so.
Where Hymowitz errs is in the temporal ordering of the phenomena that she describes. She assumes that the Menaissance was the catalyst, the pilot ship, the seminal event that created the current climate of nasty brutish (and likely short) state-of-nature relationships. She could not be more wrong, and tragically so, since she all but names the parties whose innate mercenary behavior, when unfettered from patriarchal customs and traditions, "makes no room for human cultivation" and instead reduces us to animals:
Forty years after they threw off the feminine mystique, women continue to prefer bigger, stronger, richer men, at least as husbands. They almost always marry men who are taller than they are, men who are several years older than they are (though the age difference has declined in recent decades), and men who earn more than they do (though that number, too, has declined a bit). Most of the women interviewed by Jillian Straus say that they’re looking for a man who can be the primary breadwinner. A June 2008 New Scientist article reports on two studies that even suggest that women are biologically attracted to “jerks”; researchers speculate that narcissistic, risk-taking men had an evolutionary advantage.
There you have it. Women were the original Dating Darwinists, and it was feminism's subversion of patriarchy that set both men and women free to maximize reproductive success (defined for men as oat-sowing and for women as resource and power acquisition, as well as oat-receiving to a lesser extent). It was women and feminism that destroyed the culture that "tame[d] natural selfishness" and redirected it toward the common good. It was women and feminism that led society to expect nothing "more of their men than muscle and promiscuity". And it was women and feminism that led society to expect nothing more of their women than crass materialistic consumption and promiscuity.