
The Death of Macho - robg
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/the_death_of_macho
======
bilbo0s
Good article, but the author uses a few logical fallacies, and ignores some
inconvenient facts, to prove his point.

\----

Firstly, on the Great Depression in 1933

The Great Depression did not threaten or undermine "...the male breadwinner
model of the family..." economic model. It undermined the ANY breadwinner of
the family economic model. The author falls into an intellectual trap that
many of us fall into from time to time. We equate the suffering of the day to
some well known hardship of the past. However, the reason that the hardship of
the past is so well known is because it was a hardship greater than any that
had come before it, or since. Subsequent generations have found it to stand
the test of time, and our posterity are likely to find it to stand the test of
time as well. Apart from the fact that statistics were calculated differently
back then, so that 25% Great Depression unemployment rate means nothing in our
terms, there was much less to go around to start with. So while I was not
there, I have very little doubt that the situation today would have to
deteriorate a good deal before we could say we went through anything
approaching the level of deprivation that the Greatest Generation lived
through. And, believe me, that is true whether you are a man or a woman,
black, white or polka dot purple.

\----

Secondly, just a pet peeve of mine. We have a tendency to create bubbles to
drive our economy. The bubble I see forming right now is in the health care
industry. For instance, because of the overbuilding of hospitals, we are
already beginning to see the start of the health care bubble bursting. In
Houston, I know of several hospitals that have laid off large numbers of
workers. In addition to entire new hospitals being moth balled. Yes, that's
right, I mean there are buildings that cost between US$300 and US$800 million
to build. They were completed recently in Houston's Medical center area. And,
yes, they are sitting empty with no people in them. Bing or Google Baylor
College of Medicine if you want an example.

Houston is not the only place this has happened, or will happen. Many cities
seem to want to replace their jobs base with jobs that cannot be outsourced,
and are well paying. Jobs in female dominated fields like, say, nursing.
However, this just sets up another bubble. Like in Houston, most of these
facilities are financed through bond issues or philanthropy. Both of which are
drying up at a fairly fast clip right now. Which is why the government is so
anxious to throw money into health care. The bubble is beginning to pop,
hospitals are mothballed, and a lot of the people in those female dominated
fields are starting to be laid off.

A lot of it is just plain old overbuilding. I've personally done a good deal
of number crunching on the national level in this field. Take an analysis of
Cleveland health care market for instance. Total patients required to be
served in the strategic plans of Cleveland's hospitals: ~250,000. Population
of Cleveland: ~500,000. Now to be fair, Cleveland Clinic expects to pull a
large population from outside the area, but that population is only so large.
And it is impacted by the fact that all of the other cities in the country are
trying to do the same thing. Similar story all over the country, obviously
Houston, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, deep south, west, everywhere.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Don't even get me started on the outlooks
for bio sciences, pharmaceuticals and nano tech. Suffice it to say that I
believe the coming right sizing of these industries will be fairly violent. I
could be wrong however, the government is trying to pump a lot of money into
them. That doesn't make these entities economically viable however, it just
means they will have guaranteed access to finance as long as the government
can afford it.

Anyway, I think it morally unconscionable to be encouraging women to go into
these fields when we have numbers right now pointing to the likelihood of non
trivial layoffs in the near future. It is akin to having encouraged
homeownership when it was clear that stormclouds were forming.

\----

Lastly, the author seems to fall victim to the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
<<See Wikipedia for a definition of that logical fallacy>>. The author asserts
that men have only 2 options, go with the flow, let the woman be the
breadwinner and do more house work. Or fight the changes that the author
assumes the men don't like. I won't get into why I believe neither of these
methods would work very well. I mean really, a single income in this economy?
But how about the men consider getting a job as a teacher AND doing a little
housework? Just because you are the breadwinner, I don't see any reason you
can't do laundry every now and again.

------
pohl
The flip-side of the risk-taking, power-seeking, macho man is the nameless
feminine counterpart that exists to gravitate towards them: gifted with
symmetry, proportion, and charm they flock towards hubs of power to climb the
dogpile towards the best local-maxima alpha-male they can attain before their
sexual market value fades. In turn, an endless supply of these fresh, nubile
creatures becomes a primary benefit, to men, of seeking such careers.

While Salam's article is interesting, he seems to ignore the fact that even a
Great Recession is a tiny blip compared to the deeply-rooted biology behind
the male drive to take risks for access to females.

------
SamAtt
To me this is a cycle. One of the traits that defines "Macho" is being a risk
taker. People who take risks are usually more successful than those who don't.
Especially in the "Great Risk, Great Reward" world of getting financed. The
problem with this recession was that these risk takers became increasingly
bold until they got to the point where they were taking foolish risks. And
with that it all came tumbiling down.

But everything will recover eventually and when it does those same people who
bankrolled the risk takers in the first place will again be looking for ways
to beat the market. Which will again mean investing is those who take risks.
If you need proof of that ask yourself this question

"how long did it take after the 90s dot.com bust for investors to start
pouring money into web startups again?"

As long as there are rich people not satisfied with a standard market return
there will be risk takers and as long as there are risk takers there will be
"Macho" men.

(and Women. I'm man enough to say I know a few women who could kick my @$$)

~~~
msluyter
_People who take risks are usually more successful than those who don't._

Or, rather, we tend not to hear about or remember the failures...

~~~
po
AKA, Survivorship Bias:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias>

------
daviday
printable:
[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/the_death_o...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/the_death_of_macho?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full)

------
mgenzel
Pfeh. The guy lost me with "For years, the world has been witnessing a quiet
but monumental shift of power from men to women". When I see an ERA amendment
pass & when any woman running for office is not met with a sexist circus (like
it was with Hillary Clinton or "omg she may have pms" Sotomayor), call me.

