
The End of Men - jtg
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/
======
hugh3
For a fun exercise, try replacing "men" with "black people" and "women" with
"white people" throughout this article, and speculate on whether The Atlantic
would have published it.

 _"What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to white
people?"_

 _"White people live longer than black people. They do better in this economy.
More of ’em graduate from college. They go into space and do everything black
people do, and sometimes they do it a whole lot better. I mean, hell, get out
of the way—these white people are going to leave us black people in the
dust."_

 _"Researchers have suggested any number of solutions. A movement is growing
for more all-black schools and classes, and for respecting the individual
learning styles of black people. Some people think that black people should be
able to walk around in class, or take more time on tests, or have tests and
books that cater to their interests."_

~~~
mynameishere
_try replacing "men" with "black people" and "women" with "white people"_

Well, try replacing "women" with "black people" and "men" with "white people"
and they would most certainly publish it. In fact, any time the slightest
improvement in the fortune of _any_ allegedly-mistreated group occurs (women,
blacks, whatever) it is trumpeted and paraded endlessly.

Anyway, the article didn't point out two salient facts:

1\. Women still lag in almost everything that matters (engineering,
entrepreneurship, science, math) and

2\. Parents prefer girls over boys for the same reason they used to do the
opposite: Because that is the gender more likely to take care of them in their
old age. No one wants girls because of "empowerment" or whatever PC bullshit
journalists happen to be obsessed with.

~~~
hugh3
_Parents prefer girls over boys for the same reason they used to do the
opposite: Because that is the gender more likely to take care of them in their
old age. No one wants girls because of "empowerment" or whatever PC bullshit
journalists happen to be obsessed with._

I'm not sure to what extent people think that far ahead. If there's an
expressed preference for girls over boys it's because:

a) Girls are often easier to deal with as parents than boys are (I'm thinking
in the 7-10 age range and then again in the 14-17...)

b) Mothers prefer daughters while fathers prefer sons, but fathers tend to
keep their mouths shut about it.

~~~
bad_user
> _Mothers prefer daughters while fathers prefer sons, but fathers tend to
> keep their mouths shut about it_

Hahaha, so true.

Myself I couldn't care less ... I actually wanted a girl because I see girls
being more close to their parents (a selfish thought) ... but now my wife is
carrying a boy, and I started thinking of all the father-son stuff we can do,
and I'm really excited.

About the article ... I wouldn't be too worried, unless there is a provable
reason for the current bias towards girls. In other countries women that don't
get pregnant with boys are getting abortions at an alarming rate, making it
very hard for men in their 20-ties to get mates (guess they should come to the
US :))

------
Groxx
_What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?_

What if modern, postindustrial society is simply hostile to males in return
for all the past hostility to females?

edit: apparently axle replied while I had my lament on the state of
scholarships. Summarized: out of literally thousands available after pre-
filtered (however poorly), I had to toss out all but a dozen or two because
I'm white and male.

~~~
axle
The problem is really that you likely have not been anything else apart from a
male WASP. See, there is no institution working against you. These things you
are complaining about not getting are not the main product, they are
shortcuts. A scholarship is not the normal way of studying, it's a shortcut
way, for people who have something working against them.

A woman (and a black guy) have institutions against them. They go somewhere,
and they are instantly assumed to be less competent. That's why these things
are given to them - to help out the weak, not to push YOU down. Those things
are legs-up to equalise the playing field - you, as a WASP already are at the
starting line, asking to get those things is to get another 10 yards.

And no, it's not a socio-economic program. If you took a white bum and a black
bum, and you cleaned them up and dressed them nice and sent them to interview,
the white will likely get more jobs than the black guy. There is an inherent
issue that non-WASPs have to deal with.

A poor black kid from a farm and a poor white kid from a farm don't have the
same chances of succeeding in life. The white kid is neutral (everything is
always open to him), but the black kid has things working against him right
from the start.

It's going to be difficult for you to understand because you have never BEEN a
woman in a managerial position. You have never BEEN a black guy applying for
jobs.

Let's do this test: Imagine I say you'll get ALL the perks that black people
get from the government, do you think you will have a better life being black?

~~~
rubashov
> the white will likely get more jobs than the black guy.

All else held equal, that is simply not true in modern America. There are very
powerful incentives to hire the equivalently qualified black guy in order to
avoid lawsuits.

Anyway, all this affirmative action stuff will have to be dismantled in the
next twenty years when whites are a minority. It will simply become impossible
for institutions to function if they have to make sure their
loans/admissions/hires correspond to the new population profile.

~~~
axle
An the lawsuits are there because people recognized that if the place were
left as it were, discrimination would persist.

~~~
Groxx
Replace "are" with "were" and nearly everyone would agree with you.

For _today_ , "are" is what's in question. A _vast_ amount of laws exist
simply because they _did_ exist. How many worthless laws lie around, outdated
by 100 years? Is it really _that_ hard to believe that a law could obsolete
itself in the past low-double-digit years?

------
codingthewheel
This article is okay, _somewhat_ sexist. I'm surprised it passed the first
round of editorial review. Imagine the uproar if a man published an article
flirting with "the end of women" in a major publication. This is a feminist
claptrap with a lot of anger behind it, and intended to push buttons. It
amounts to "girls are better than boys HAHA!"

I'm quite sure men will do just fine over the coming decades, thank you
kindly, Ms. Hanna Rosin, and sorry to disappoint. :)

In the meantime I'll make a note not to do any more reading over at the
Atlantic. Sad for me; they were once a great rag.

(edited for tone)

~~~
rada
I am surprised you saw the article as angry. I've read it as being very
sympathetic towards boys and men. I thought it factually presented the decline
of male participation in college and at work as well as in family life and
sounded an alarm at what's happening. All the anecdotes were along the lines
of, what do we do to involve men more?

~~~
paylesworth
For example, try reading it with a woman's voice trying to encourage her dog.
"Awww, look at the poor little puppy, errr man."

~~~
rada
You mean sort of like suffering from paranoid delusions, but on purpose? Are
you saying that since the article isn't mean in and of itself, we should see
what kind of imaginary voice we can assign to it so that it _does_ begin to
sound mean, and then we can rest in peace knowing that the universe is a
lonely and hostile place bent on humiliating us? Knock yourself out dude :)

------
acangiano
> What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?

Alternative theory: Society is failing our boys.

~~~
sliverstorm
I'd argue not failing but carefully emasculating. Old-fashioned masculinity
has been systematically devalued, and many of its' traits demonized.

~~~
dfranke
I've seen this asserted dozens of times before, and even though I agree with
the observation, the way I see it phrased invariably drives me nuts. Out of
all the traditionally "masculine" traits that are in decline, the ones most
worth saving are ruggedness and personal responsibility, yet the subtext of
your assertion is a portrayal of men as helpless victims. Social change is not
a conspiracy. There's nothing "careful" or "systematic" about masculinity
being devalued. If men don't like it, and we shouldn't, then the way to
reverse the trend is simply for us to stand up for ourselves and refuse to
take part.

~~~
sliverstorm
How would you phrase it?

I know it's not a conspiracy, and I know there's no orchestrating hand. I was
phrasing it the same way as the 'Invisible Hand' theory of economics. There
sure as hell is no Invisible Hand, but we call it that because that's what it
sometimes looks like.

~~~
gaius
Of course there is an orchestrating hand. This is what teachers are taught to
teach in teaching colleges. This is why men who want to become teachers (here
in the UK at least) are forced through the humiliating process of proving that
they are not paedophiles.

Perhaps the political theorists behind it haven't thought it through, but
emasculating men _is_ policy.

~~~
dfranke
_Perhaps the political theorists behind it haven't thought it through, but
emasculating men is policy._

The first part of this sentence contradicts the second. Emasculating men is
not policy. Emasculating men is an unintended side-effect of policy. The
creators of that policy, in turn, were shaped by their own education, and so-
forth in a cycle of positive feedback. Even if you want to find some ruling
class to single out and assign blame to, which I don't think is a worthwhile
exercise, then the number of bad actors is too large and their individual
crimes too slight for an "orchestrating hand" to be anywhere close to an
appropriate metaphor.

~~~
Groxx
Policy A is explicitly intended to cause B and C.

Policy A _also_ causes D.

How is D not part of policy A?

If there were a policy where vehicles were not allowed to be within X miles of
the coast (to prevent pollution / damage to the flora), wouldn't it also be a
policy against living that close to the coast? Sure, some people would still
do it... just as some men are still teachers in the UK.

------
foco24
Women currently make up the majority of workers and college graduates because
of corruption. Colleges decide admission and grant scholarships based on
grades from high school that are 75%+ non math/science * and 90%+ taught by
women, who like women more. They then graduate and go into jobs, like teachers
or bureaucrats, where being a pedantic, to-the-letter PITA is good for your
career.

*Of the 25% that is "science", the bulk of it isn't really, it's just memorizing definitions. I remember in my 9th grade physics class we had to memorize that the definition of a "virtual image" was an image that appeared behind a mirror. They never went into any detail about the physics of lenses, they just found a science term and made everybody memorize it.

------
lukev
Who gives a crap? Even if there are measurable statistical differences in
competence at various activities between the sexes (which is far from proven),
the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the
average variation between the sexes at large.

In other words, treat people like the individuals and stop ANY form of
discrimination based on irrelevant categories, sex-based or otherwise.

Also, the article makes much of the fact that women are getting more
education. But this is probably because it is both harder and less necessary
for them to jump into the workforce straight out of high school, not because
they're any better or more prone to academia. I have no hard data to back this
up, but I strongly suspect that your average woman in her 20s is FAR more
likely to be at least partially dependent on a husband or parents than a man
of the same age.

~~~
Eliezer
> the average variation between two individuals is far, far more than the
> average variation between the sexes at large

You might want to stop and think about how the world would have to look for
the above statement _not_ to be true. I don't think it's as strong as you
think it is.

~~~
lukev
I didn't intend it to be a strong point. It's actually more of a truism.

But you'd never know it from reading the subject article, so I felt it needed
to be restated.

------
doron
Choice Quote: "Men dominate just two of the 15 job categories projected to
grow the most over the next decade: janitor and computer engineer"

~~~
sliverstorm
All the more reason for men to work as hard as they can to introduce more
women to the field of engineering. What could possibly be more engineer than
replacing yourself?

------
FlorinAndrei
Well, the modern society is less like the savanna, which was the environment
that shaped men throughout the evolutionary history of our species, and more
like the cave, which was the environment that shaped women. Less physical
confrontation, more squabbling. Less concrete, immediate dangers, more
abstract worries. Less ass-kicking, more cooperation.

Heck, even spatial abilities are so last-century, now that everyone has a GPS.

So then you get things like men's constantly decreasing fertility, for decades
now. Decreasing testosterone levels, again trending downwards for many years
now.

I'm not saying this is either good or bad, I'm just saying this is an
environment which creates different evolutionary pressures, and our species is
responding to it.

I'm not sure I can imagine the destination, though.

~~~
gambling8nt
Half a century--two human generations--is not nearly enough time for
evolutionary pressures to have the sort of effect you are talking about. Least
of all in a society of abundance in which the majority of members reproduce.

Instead, I'd suggest you look at the various changing environmental factors
for an explanation of these phenomena: BPA in plastics
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A>), the growing use of soy in human
diets (with its attendant phyto-estrogens), and the growing quantities of
synthetic human estrogen in the environment (already known to have effects on
fish, see for instance
<http://www.seattlepi.com/local/124939_estrogen04.html>).

~~~
FlorinAndrei
Sure, phyto- and xeno-estrogens are strong suspects in this case. But here's
another data point:

Measure the testosterone level in your bloodstream.

Then for a few weeks start doing heavy squats (weight lifting) every other
day, go car racing, skydiving, etc.

Now measure T again. See the difference?

There are all sorts of things like that. The bottom line is, the more secure
the environment, the less the need for men to be "men".

Also, I was not implying that the new evolutionary pressures have already made
changes, I was just saying the changes are being made now - but how long
before they will become visible, I have no idea. Probably not tomorrow.

~~~
gambling8nt
I agree that lack of physical activity is another likely factor for changing
hormone levels and their secondary effects.

However, I know of no reason to think that these changes are heritable, or
that naturally low T is actually a reproductive advantage in our society.
(Indeed, given that we have inverted the more typical historical trend of the
wealthy out-reproducing the less wealthy, and the selection of low-T for
wealth here asserted, one might expect that this society actually reflects
reproductive pressure against low-T, rather than in favor of it.)

------
thinkdifferent
Well, for the academic insuccess of men I have an easy explanation: nurture.

Look at any movie, telefilm, sit-com ecc where the main character is a youg
boy. He's always a good-looking,athletic, funny,street-smart guy. And at
school sucks.

The smart guys are always nerds, losers.

The girls are always pretty, shy, serious and very good at school.

I think that for a school boy there is a lot of social pressure to be good in
sports, get many girls and be the leader of your class. They can't afford to
lose time studying.

For the "good" girls there is social pressure to be more serious and
academically good.

------
carpdiem
I actually spent a bit yesterday writing a short response piece to this.
Here's an excerpt:

"The problem with "The End of Men" is that it isn't an isolated problem,
putting males today and males tomorrow out of jobs. Instead, it's part of a
larger pattern. That pattern is the replacement of human labor with
automation."

Check out the whole thing here:
[http://www.intellectualpornography.com/2010/06/one-oclock-
da...](http://www.intellectualpornography.com/2010/06/one-oclock-daily-the-
end-of-men-part-2.html)

------
sbt
being a white male sometimes feels like the entire fucking universe is
suffering from some sort of inferiority complex.

~~~
ontheroad
that's funny, because it seems to me like the entirety of white males have
some sort of superiority complex.

~~~
WiseWeasel
As a human, it seems to me like other humans, especially those who identify as
part of a group, have some sort of superiority complex.

~~~
hugh3
I'm so glad I'm better than those identifying-as-part-of-a-group people!

~~~
Groxx
Hear hear, fellow-group-person!

------
nerme
On the bright side, I don't think many people reading Hacker News fall in to
the category of brutish, construction worker-type. :)

I did work construction when I was younger, and I must say, I enjoyed it
immensely. I always love to help out someone build a shed or throw up some
drywall.

It's just plain fun to build things with your hands, even if you're mainly
doing the work with your finger-tips these days.

~~~
doron
Not to say that physical work is always great, in fact many times it isn't,
but i find the devaluation of it a little troubling, I did physical work on
and off several years, there is immense value and satisfaction in building and
creating with your hands.

~~~
r0s
Very much agree. I've really come to accept the best way for me to work is
with my brain sitting at a desk.

If I want to create with my hands the fight for free time becomes imperative.
I've been working to find a sustainable lifestyle that has room for a little
extra time off for years. Free time has the single biggest effect on quality
of life in my opinion. Having time for physical work is great, but the beauty
is free time can be used for anything.

------
cageface
It will be very interesting to see if the arc of human development begins with
primitive matriarchal societies and ends with hi-tech matriarchal societies.

It will also be interesting to see if history bears out the current theories
that men skew to the extremes. In 20 years women may make up the majority of
the white-collar workforce, but will they also dominate at the executive
level?

~~~
hugh3
What makes you think that human development started with primitive matriarchal
societies? There are anthropological studies of thousands of stone age tribes,
very few are matriarchal.

Wikipedia goes even further than my hedged and uninformed "very few" statement
and says:

 _There are no known societies that are unambiguously
matriarchal,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] although there are a number of attested
matrilinear, matrilocal and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous
peoples of Asia and Africa,[9] such as those of the Basques, Minangkabau,
Mosuo, Berbers or Tuareg. Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred
to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological
delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy._

which is no doubt enough to keep anyone occupied for hours, but anyway, I see
no evidence that early societies were matriarchal.

------
hooande
_Men dominate just two of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most
over the next decade: janitor and computer engineer. Women have everything
else: nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation._

The entire premise of this article is pretty weak, which isn't surprising for
The Atlantic. While more women may be employed than men, the jobs they have
are associated more with support than with production. As long as our economy
doesn't become based on social work and child care, men don't have too much to
worry about.

In fact, it seems to hide the real problem of getting more women involved in
math and science. Technical skills will be even more important 20 years from
now, and women are sorely underrepresented in those fields. I think the
society that has the most women involved in tech will be big winner in the
long term.

------
gyardley
I can't help but think that the trends in this article are only medium-term
cultural changes that'll be countered by demography in a century. Fertility
rates for highly-educated women in first-world countries have fallen to too
low a level for this to be a permanent societal change.

------
r0s
The article touches on relationship desire among professional women a bit.

I know a few recent nursing school graduates, they tell me the running joke in
the medical profession is that all the successful women are merely hunting for
a successful mate(with a doctor being the brass ring).

Career as means to long term relationship might seem misogynistic, but there's
also the common male stereotype of men chasing money primarily to attract
women.

I'm not presenting real evidence here, maybe a survey of professional women
and their relationship goals would be enlightening.

------
raintrees
Single page: [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-end-
of...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/)

------
tjmaxal
This article just makes me want to scream Correlation is not Causation!

------
numeromancer
This article is doublepluspink. Right honey?

GTG girls, Big Sis is on the screen, and it's time for the two-minute bitch.

------
wicknicks
The End of the World

------
zeynel1
Is this a duplicate submission <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1416811>

------
0ffworlder
So what is the point of this article? Wymin will or have already taken over
and men are either puppies or thugs. End result: a whole bunch of feminists
running the matriarchy of the USA and possibly south Korea, they decide men
are beneath them and become lesbians. Then the USA either starts a war and
drafts some of the wymin and recovers or stagnates and turns into a failed
socialist state, like Canada.

