Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of Men

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: The End of Men

#81

Post by noodle »

dfranke wrote: post #12
acangiano wrote: post #6

> What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? Alternative theory: Society is failing our boys.

How is that an alternative theory? It reads to me as the same statement, except with an implicit value judgment (men deserve/should-be-entitled-to something better suited to them) layered over top of it.

imo, it isn't the same statement. or it doesn't have to be. the original sentiment was more that this aspect of society has evolved into this state naturally. the alternative theory is stating that this aspect of society was molded into shape due to specific pressures.

/not a value judgment on either statements

Re: The End of Men

#82

Post by d0mine »

hugh3 wrote: post #38
sabat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but they're often wildly overstated. There are many more exceptions and variations than those who would generalize will admit. This is anecdotal, but I'm an example of what I'm talking about: higher verbal scores than math, as right-brained as I am left-brained -- and I'm male.

Some of them are often wildly overstated, others are kept hidden. In polite society you can only mention a difference between male and female cognition if it either (a) advantages females or (b) it is strictly neutral. See also: Larry Summers. Also there's some evidence of differences in cognition between different races; you definitely can't mention these in polite society so I'm not going to. See also: The Bell Cur…

intragroup variability vastly swamps intergroup variability

It should be the opening for any discussion on such topics.

Re: The End of Men

#83

Post by gaius »

sliverstorm wrote: post #35
dfranke wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "caref…

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.

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.

Re: The End of Men

#84

Post by Retric »

rubashov wrote: post #70
scott_s wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As perhaps [he] is suggesting"? He suggested nothing of the sort. He didn't even come close to implying it. Please don't play those kinds of games here.

Nobody is playing games and perhaps you should look up "perhaps". He presents the idea that poor people are incapable of raising their children as a useful fact. The only way this information could be useful is some sort of policy of intensive state interference in child upbringing. We've two competing hypotheses here, both unpleasant: 1) Genetics explains a lot of group differences. 2) Poor groups can't raise their…

This is not a black a white world and nothing says you need to act on information.

Is also possible for poor diet to represent 25% of the problem, poor DNA to make up 25%, bad luck to hit 25% and few options to make up the last 25%. Given that breakdown there would be plenty of options outside forced adoption or sterilization.

PS: Most "black" people in the US are less than 1/2 black genetically. And there are also plenty of poor white, Latino, and Asian’s.

Re: The End of Men

#85

Post by noarchy »

Alex3917 wrote: post #37
rubashov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ignores the nature over nurture reality of the situation, I'm afraid. Genes matter.

Not it doesn't. The Hart & Risley study the article is addressing looked at the possible influence of genes, and found that the maximum influence they could have over verbal ability was maybe 20-30%. (I don't have the book in front of me, so I don't know the exact amount, but it was relatively small.)

While I don't think that this should be over-emphasized, 20-30% is greater than "zero", meaning that genes do matter, right?

Re: The End of Men

#86

Post by 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.

Re: The End of Men

#87

Post by dfranke »

gaius wrote: post #83
sliverstorm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: The End of Men

#88

Post by 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.

Re: The End of Men

#89

Post by sliverstorm »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23
axle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The…

They go somewhere, and they are instantly assumed to be less competent. That's a correct assumption for many groups (e.g., college students) due to the effects of affirmative action. By lowering the standards/imposing quotas for group X, that group will probably not meet the higher standards of everyone else. Thus, everyone will have to assume that members of X are less competent. Oh, to answer your question: if I co…

> Oh, to answer your question: if I could become black, I would.

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the pros and cons?

Re: The End of Men

#90

Post by Retric »

jtbigwoo wrote: post #65
sliverstorm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Speaking from my experience, men are responsible for their own emasculation. I know plenty of good guys who'd make great nurses, physical therapists, or home health aids. These are jobs that require a fair amount of physical strength and stamina in addition to individual initiative and focus. (That's what men are supposed to be good at, right?) Unfortunately, they're also jobs that are stereotypically female and some…

There is a stereotypical male nurse. Generally employed by mental hospitals or mental institutions (granted it's often portrayed as a hulking female, but it’s still a reasonable job for a body builder). Also, EMT's are fairly gender neutral or even male biased.
Post reply on HN