Live data from Hacker News

The End of Men

theatlantic.com

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: The End of Men

#91
post #57

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 kind…

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?

Well here are a few of the things that bugged me:

- The Title. "The End of Men". Sensationalistic. Aggressive. Inappropriate. Simply reverse the title: "The End of Women." OR: "The End of Blacks." Or: "The End Of Jews." This is not a worthy title, though I understand it's a catchy one.

- "A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way and its vast cultural consequences." Vast is a weasel word. Used here, an attempt (in the "hook" paragraph, and just above the fold) to dramatize what's to follow, which is well-written but (let's face it) mostly devoid of hyperlinks or factual supporting evidence. Opinion piece stuff at best.

- "Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing, and with shocking speed." There have been and are many matriarchal cultures around the world, many of them predating and enveloping the dominant male patriarchy she refers to. But what I object to here is the use of the word shocking.

- "As thinking and communicating have come to eclipse physical strength and stamina as the keys to economic success, those societies that take advantage of the talents of all their adults, not just half of them, have pulled away from the rest." Bad rhetoric. Sophistry. You can't argue that men have forced women into a subservient role of child-rearing-and-raising while at the same time arguing that we as a society haven't leveraged the "talents" of the female half of the population. Bullshit. Back when it was tooth and nail, men fought and hunted, women gathered and took care of the kids. As our powers to control the world around us improved, so too improved the plight of women (and of men). Universally. Across the board. In a process that is still continuing to this day.

- "With few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the country’s economic success." Correlation does not imply causation, and it especially doesn't imply reverse-causation. This should simply read: "With few exceptions, the greater the country's economic success, the greater the power of women. And men. And children." I can take any two correlated statistics and assign bidirectional causation to them too, if I want. A and B are correlated? Well obviously B caused A. Or A caused B. Depending on whatever makes my article sound better.

- "As they imagine the pride of watching a child grow and develop and succeed as an adult, it is more often a girl that they see in their mind’s eye." According to what official source? Stereotypes like this need to be backed up with hard numbers, and from better organizations than the OECD.

- "Yes, the U.S. still has a wage gap, one that can be convincingly explained—at least in part—by discrimination." A tired old chestnut. Most companies today are deathly afraid of being perceived as discriminatory. There may be an "old boys club" around the upper echelons of the corporate power structure, but it's not just women who are excluded. I'm excluded. And you're excluded. Far more important is the fact that women don't seem to be interested in certain occupations or positions at all. Take computer programming as one example.

Well, whatever. I didn't intend to write a book on it. She came across (to me) as self-satisfied, smug, and sure, very "sympathetic" towards us broken and outdated Men 1.0 models. I read this type of material in the 60s, and in the 70s, and in the 80s, and in the 90s, and the "shocking" effects that are prognosticated never actually happen. So what's the point of this article? To take a recent employment statistic and weave it into a sermon of the marginalization of men. I found it tiresome, and there are feminists out there who actually have original thoughts (take Camille Paglia as an example).

Re: The End of Men

#92
post #20
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They go somewhere, and they are instantly assumed to be less competent." So, why are "they" the majority of the workforce, a clear majority of college graduates, and trending up in both cases? At some point it's time to stop arguing about theory and look about you . It's over. The male-WASP free ride is over. Maybe we've hit balance, maybe we haven't, but if we don't want to shoot right past the balance we better st…

Exactly. So you believe your life would be better and easier if you were black or a woman, right? Would you agree to be black if it were possible right now?

As a WM I would have no problem becoming a BM. At 30 it's less of an issue, but at 18 it would have been very helpful.

Re: The End of Men

#93
post #57

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 kind…

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?

I heard a kind of pity, which isn't the same as sympathy. There was definitely a tone that men deserved it.

Re: The End of Men

#94
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

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 :)

Re: The End of Men

#95
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All three categories of emergency responder are, from my experience, still male biased. I don't have extensive first hand experience with EMT's, but it seems the police force has more females than the paramedics or the firefighters.

Re: The End of Men

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Pros: At this point in my life, the main benefit would be with women. Black guy, white girl poses little problem, while white guy, black girl is difficult [1]. Honestly, this dwarfs everything else.

Affirmative action might have been helpful when I was in school, though it's probably irrelevant to my life now.

Most ethnic groups besides whites have secret networks unavailable to white guys. Their quality tends to be lower than more focused networks (random HN reader or random lisp user > random black guy), but they are still useful.

In the future, the prospect of selling to government under the WOB and MOB (woman/minority owned business) quotas might be useful, though I doubt I'll actually get into that sort of business.

Cons: Racial profiling. Since I rarely shop or drive, this isn't much of an issue for me.

More difficult to live in the still-racist parts of the country. Even as a white guy, I'd like to avoid them.

The main reason I answer so readily is that being white isn't a significant part of my identity. So it would take only a very minor perk to make me change.

[1] This only applies to black American women, African women don't seem to have any real problem with white guys.

[edit: genuinely curious why I'm being downmodded.]

Re: The End of Men

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, to answer your question: if I could become black, I would. Out of curiosity, what do you see as the pros and cons?

Pros: At this point in my life, the main benefit would be with women. Black guy, white girl poses little problem, while white guy, black girl is difficult [1]. Honestly, this dwarfs everything else. Affirmative action might have been helpful when I was in school, though it's probably irrelevant to my life now. Most ethnic groups besides whites have secret networks unavailable to white guys. Their quality tends to be…

> The main reason I answer so readily is that being white isn't a significant part of my identity.

This is what I'm wrestling with myself. I feel like it is some kind of wrong to say I would not want to change my race. Yet, while being white is not really part of my identity, it IS a part of my self image, the same as how I am blond. I feel like I would be kind of unsettled if my body image suddenly was radically different from reality.

I also like the physical ramifications of my ethnicity; the blond straight hair, potential for awesome silver hair later, and cool red facial hair. My body build is similar to that of African runners (though MARKEDLY less muscular and fit), so that at least wouldn't be very different.

Now that I think about it, your point about women is pretty valid too, though in my case that would actually be a con. I have met some black women I find extremely attractive, but that is not the mode, and I have never (personally) seen a black man with an asian woman.

All that said, I wouldn't fight a race change. I just don't think I'd seek it out.

Re: The End of Men

#98
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…

> 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 the…

> 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.

What about the audit studies that would appear to indicate otherwise? For example, an audit study from 2004 states in its abstract that "White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size."[1], and earlier experiment would appear to show that white applicants with criminal records are called back slightly more often than black applicants without one[2].

1. Bertrand and Mullainathan: "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination" http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mullainathan/files/...

2. Devah Pager: "The mark of a criminal record" http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf

Re: The End of Men

#99
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Individualists unite!

Re: The End of Men

#100
post #9

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 peo…

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.

Post reply on HN