I have a lot to say, but some of it would get me in really hot water, so I'll try and simmer.

 

I believe that there has been a feminization of boys (children) as a result of the "women's movement." Boys are now taught not to fight, to have indoor voices, and a myriad of other things that could form a separate thread.

 

Certainly the conversion from an economy in which we made things to a service economy is a factor. Women can get paid for what formerly was household duties.

 

The equalization of the sexes by operation of law, without the concomitant equalization of results. An example, women now work just as much or more outside the home, but are still treated preferentially by the courts in custody decisions, in most cases (I have long experience with this) for no discenrible reason other than they are a mother.

 

There are others but I'll start with those, for discussion.

 

Those are all worthy issues to discuss. But I thought the discussion was about the decline of men as it relates to being the "breadwinners", not so much as it relates to them being men.

 

I'd love to discuss some of those other issues as well though. But are those points salient to the premise of the article? Would it be threadjacking if we went there? On the other hand, it IS your thread. :lol: I suppose you could take it any direction you liked.

Good thread, it’s given me a lot to think about. I look forward to the discussion.

 

I think the author has identified a potentially major shift in society. I also think it’s worth amplifying her caveat that women have yet to break into the upper echelons of society, making up less than 3 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs and not much better in the political ranks. I also think it’s still much more advantageous to be a man, but I think there’s starting to be a very rapid change in what it means to be a man these days. Or, perhaps, what it means to be a man isn’t working anymore.

 

I read somewhere before that around twice as many men as women begin their college education in pre-med programs, but women make up the majority of medical school students. I have a few guesses as to why that is. Men could be excessively cocky, thinking that they are far smarter than they are, but aren’t able to pass the tougher classes required in pre-med programs. Women could also be more diligent workers, spend more time studying, and thus more prone to excel. Frankly, I think it’s a little of both. I think Rosin’s generalization of men being dragged through the college application process by their parents versus women who have all of their ducks in a row is fairly accurate. That extends beyond the college application process as well, where I think men are far more likely to be found in their rooms playing video games or drinking rather than in the library. And I wouldn’t be surprised to find that women spend the majority of their time there. This, of course, extends beyond college.

 

Why is this? Why do men increasingly appear less ambitious and simultaneously more confident? I don’t know. My guess is that women are working harder because they believe they can succeed without relying on marriage to a man to achieve the “good life” and more men are entering college who would have otherwise gone into manufacturing, mechanical, or labor fields. I suppose this is what Rosin means when she describes the post-industrial economy as geared toward women. However, I think it’s more plausible that men have fallen behind the curve in a society where women can succeed without them and they haven’t picked up the pace.

 

I have a lot to say, but some of it would get me in really hot water, so I'll try and simmer.

 

I believe that there has been a feminization of boys (children) as a result of the "women's movement." Boys are now taught not to fight, to have indoor voices, and a myriad of other things that could form a separate thread.

 

What does it mean to feminize a boy? I think there are a lot of things about being a man that are societal impositions that are reinforced through generations. For instance, you’ve said that boys are taught not to fight. But what happens when a boy doesn’t fight? They are usually labeled a “pussy” or a “queer” or any number of feminizing words that wouldn’t pass the filter. This is to say that as a society we spend a lot of time policing boys’ behavior by telling them that certain behaviors are effeminate, which is to say inferior, and if they behave in that way they will be chastised for it. And I’m not exactly sure what is inherently inferior about not fighting, or expressing emotions outside of anger, or becoming a nurse instead of a steelworker. Is spending all night studying instead of heading to the bar to watch the game something only a “pussy” would do? It’s not unsurprising then that we have a generation of men who think they are a lot better than they are and simultaneously underperforming versus women.

Apparently China didn't get the memo.

I have a lot to say, but some of it would get me in really hot water, so I'll try and simmer.

 

I believe that there has been a feminization of boys (children) as a result of the "women's movement." Boys are now taught not to fight, to have indoor voices, and a myriad of other things that could form a separate thread.

 

Certainly the conversion from an economy in which we made things to a service economy is a factor. Women can get paid for what formerly was household duties.

 

The equalization of the sexes by operation of law, without the concomitant equalization of results. An example, women now work just as much or more outside the home, but are still treated preferentially by the courts in custody decisions, in most cases (I have long experience with this) for no discenrible reason other than they are a mother.

 

There are others but I'll start with those, for discussion.

 

I've been mulling this post over. It won't go away. It's actually really disturbing to me.

 

First, you mention the feminization of boys. That's one issue. But the second in that same sentence is the way you punctuate the phrase "women's movement". It's as if you feel that the terminology is a sham. But to get back to the feminization of boys, you specify that boys are now taught not to fight and to have indoor voices. I beg to differ. And I back it up with conversations I made a point to have over the last couple of days with much older women, all of whom are still married. Raising boys (and girls) to settle their differences civilly, to respect other human beings, to adhere to the basic common decency that is called civility is not new. And all children should be taught to moderate their tones. Good grief! A house full of shouting people would be exceptionally grating!

 

Your next point is the conversion of the economy to a service economy. You say that women "can" get paid for what formerly were household duties. Well, having made a career in the service sector, I can tell you that there's nothing demeaning in that, nor is any position one that a man could not do. But your post is indicative of the thought-process many men have of household duties: They're "women's work" and they're worthless, in terms of wages.

 

Then you mention the equalization of the sexes by operation of law, without concomitant equalization of results. I would agree there's no equalization of results. But the door doesn't just swing in the direction of men's butts. Women still earn less than men, as a whole, when doing the same work. Yet people, many (if not most) cite that women have to take more sick days because their children are sick, or some such drivel. Here's an example for you: For the majority of my work life, I've been a single parent. For a considerable amount of that time I was an hourly employee. At no time was it ever acceptable that I be late to work for any reason, not the least of which were child care issues. Even as a female manager in a salaried position, I was cautioned that my performance would be judged upon my "dedication to the job...the company". Yet where I work now, a married male co-worker consistently uses the excuse that his day care doesn't open until 8am as the reason he can't be in earlier if needed. And it's a flat out lie. It's a lie his (and my) boss knows, because my boss called the day care himself to find out what time they open (6am, as per normal). Yet nothing changes. The co-worker is aware that he's been found out. The boss knows he knows. Yet nothing happens.

 

I agree with you that in custody decisions mothers more often are awarded custody for the simple fact that they are the mother. I too find that to be galling. There are many loving fathers, much more fit to be a parent than the mother. And there are many mothers who want custody for no more reason than to hurt the father of their children. But I also think that there are just as many men who actually enjoy the fact that they have an ever-other-weekend arrangement. Custody issues are ugly, hurtful, and rarely simple. Yet the measure of a man isn't whether he has custody or not. It's how involved he is whether he's the custodial parent or not.

 

I typically find your posts to be well-reasoned and free of acrimony and emotional reaction. But tone of this post makes me feel that maybe your job, or the results of your work, have been disappointing. Not that you performed disappointingly, but that the results were not what you wished. I can definitely understand that. But your assertions do not, IMO, add up to the "end of men".

 

In many ways society as a whole is still driven by the idea of men as the breadwinners, the strong ones. That idea is fueled by a history that has downplayed (at best) and ignored (at worst) the contributions of women, and the fact that men have been good and bad throughout history. There is no "end of men" unless men themselves make it so. Men need to stop clinging to the "ideal" of a white-washed history and do what women have done...adapt. Loose the stereotypes. Accept that this is the "new reality". Follow the cheese, because it's not going to come to you.

Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I don't see men as becoming obsolete. The world will always be in need of:

 

those who are good at math

skilled drivers

decisions not tied to emotional swings

Jesus (he was a man)

moods not tied to how your hair looks or the color of your nail polish

those who can kill without remorse (in limited circumstances only)

chauvinists who post stuff on BGP

Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I don't see men as becoming obsolete. The world will always be in need of:

 

those who are good at math

skilled drivers

decisions not tied to emotional swings

Jesus (he was a man)

moods not tied to how your hair looks or the color of your nail polish

those who can kill without remorse (in limited circumstances only)

chauvinists who post stuff on BGP

:lol:

Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I don't see men as becoming obsolete. The world will always be in need of:

 

those who are good at math

skilled drivers

decisions not tied to emotional swings

Jesus (he was a man)

moods not tied to how your hair looks or the color of your nail polish

those who can kill without remorse (in limited circumstances only)

chauvinists who post stuff on BGP

 

Nice. :thumb::lol:

Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I don't see men as becoming obsolete. The world will always be in need of:

 

those who are good at math

skilled drivers

decisions not tied to emotional swings

Jesus (he was a man)

moods not tied to how your hair looks or the color of your nail polish

those who can kill without remorse (in limited circumstances only)

chauvinists who post stuff on BGP

 

:lol:

 

Nice. :thumb::lol:

 

:madman:

 

Just kidding...:clap:

Unlike some of the other posters in this thread, I don't see men as becoming obsolete. The world will always be in need of:

 

those who are good at math

skilled drivers

decisions not tied to emotional swings

Jesus (he was a man)

moods not tied to how your hair looks or the color of your nail polish

those who can kill without remorse (in limited circumstances only)

chauvinists who post stuff on BGP

 

For some reason I was thinking women were better than men at math. Sure seemed that way when I was in school anyway.

For some reason I was thinking women were better than men at math. Sure seemed that way when I was in school anyway.

 

Me too, but the rest of it..... :clap::lol:

For some reason I was thinking women were better than men at math. Sure seemed that way when I was in school anyway.

 

Just from my personal experiences, math skills have seemed to lean heavily towards men. I'm sure it's different in other places though.