January 02, 2013
Are we witnessing the decline and fall of men?
From The Spiked Review of Books:
Ignore the hyperbolic title. Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men and the Rise of Women is filled with worthwhile insights and raises serious questions about the meaning and implications of shifting gender roles. Rosin, an editor at the Atlantic and founder of Slate’s ‘DoubleX’, has emerged as one of only a handful of American writers who has understood the centrality of so-called ‘women’s issues’ to American culture.
Her thesis goes something like this: our society is in the midst of a whole host of social and economic changes that women are benefiting from more than men, and perhaps at the expense of men. It’s a compelling idea, not least because it seems to confirm what many people have observed in the course of their own experiences. It is not simply that men have lost their jobs, or even that those jobs are gone for good, or that it is mainly women doing the jobs that are now being created. It is more a sense of creeping demoralisation and ambivalence about the future that is as much in evidence in Charles Murray’s discussion of the decline of marriage, in his book Coming Apart, as it is in ‘The Myth of Work/Life Balance’ debate that appeared in the Atlantic last summer. Rosin intuitively understands that discussions like these are related to, and have been shaped by, changes in women’s status over the past 30 years. What isn’t so clear is whether the current situation is the inevitable consequence of a shifting balance between men and women or a symptom of something else.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 05:31 AM | Permalink






















Comments
This particular diatribe as been thoroughly discredited in Time and the NYT among many others: "Stephanie Coontz highlights misleading inferences drawn from a marketing-firm study"
and..."the women and men being compared had very different characteristics. Metropolitan areas tend to attract white and well-educated women along with Hispanic and poorly educated men."
Philip Cohen "asserts serious interpretive mistakes in an opinion column in The New York Times and a cover story in Time. He also takes a hilariously skeptical look at the Alabama “matriarchy” featured in Ms. Rosin’s book."
At its core - the book fails miserably because comparisons of young men and women who are unmarried and childless don’t tell us much about the dynamics of earnings inequalities related to the intersection between a traditional family division of labor and a modern market economy.
Posted by: SteveRR | Jan 2, 2013 7:53:22 AM
Ignore the hyperbolic title.
No. The title says everything.
'cause, y'know, gender equality is a zero-sum game. As a white male, I pine for the days before my various rights were taken from me: the right to deny women abortions, the right to impose my standards of sexual morality on them, the right to control who governs them, the right to deny them access to positions of influence, the right to rape them after I marry them, etc. How much better my life would be if I could only win these rights back!
Posted by: Nick | Jan 2, 2013 9:02:18 AM
It is not necessary to put men down to raise women up.
Posted by: Olavi Valo | Jan 3, 2013 12:01:44 PM
"It is not necessary to put men down to raise women up."
But it is if you're a baby-boomer with a chip on her shoulder. True equality will only come when fossilized attitudes like those of Ms Rosin have passed on.
Posted by: Feynman | Jan 3, 2013 1:36:59 PM
Nick, you sound like a woman.
Posted by: blackbird.young | Jan 4, 2013 12:18:59 AM
Blackbird, you sound like a fucking idiot. Clicking through to your "writing", I discovered that the impression is correct.
(Abbas, delete this comment if you want, but you'd better delete his, too, which is no less hateful.)
Posted by: Nick | Jan 6, 2013 2:51:03 PM
Post a comment