If you had even bothered to doing research or perhaps watched a few of the older Star Trek movies you would have known the original Kirk had done the exact same thing. 'New" Kirk and the original Kirk are nearly exactly the same. The difference? The age. How many of us did stupid things when we were younger? I know I did, and my brothers even more so because they were boys. This did not stop when they turned eighteen, in fact this behavior went well on into their mid twenties which is around the age we see the new Kirk. As for our lovable womanizer, he's obviously still there. The only reason Uhura did not immediately fall into Jim's arms is because she was already involved with Spock. I though that would have been obvious by their notable snogging on screen. You say he was rejected repeatedly? I only saw that happen with one. Everyone strikes out once in a while. Neither original Kirk or the 'new' Kirk are oh so perfect. That's what the film makers were trying to show. Something which seems to be missed completely by a lot of people. So before you start bashing our new Kirk I think you should take a step outside the box and do a little research. Go back and watch the Wrath of Khan. And I am done.

I can't believe that "feminism" is responsible for wussifying men. I can believe that anti-feminists would like us to believe that.

One of the things that helps a boy grow into a man is experiencing consequences. This Kirk has experienced rewards for his childish, immature, and thoughtless behavior. Those aren't the kind of consequences that are likely to cause him to grow into the man we're hoping for.

Of course, there's always the fallback "willing suspension of disbelief" to have some grave event completely alter his character into a true hero.

Not holding my breath, here.

This movie isn't at all insulting to men. And many movies are.