NY Times columnist (and Obama supporter) David Brooks writes Why Men Fail
Over the years, many of us have embraced a certain theory to explain men’s economic decline. It is that the information-age economy rewards traits that, for neurological and cultural reasons, women are more likely to possess.
To succeed today, you have to be able to sit still and focus attention in school at an early age. You have to be emotionally sensitive and aware of context. You have to communicate smoothly. For genetic and cultural reasons, many men stink at these tasks. ...
There’s even evidence that women are better able to adjust to divorce. Today, more women than men see their incomes rise by 25 percent after a marital breakup.
He refers to a Hanna Rosin article
What if that era has now come to an end? More to the point, what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?
Once you open your eyes to this possibility, the evidence is all around you. It can be found, most immediately, in the wreckage of the Great Recession, in which three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men. ...
It may be happening slowly and unevenly, but it’s unmistakably happening: in the long view, the modern economy is becoming a place where women hold the cards.
on the article back in 2010, and you can also watch her TED talk
on the subject. Her article has now been expanded to a book, and reviewed
But Rosin’s real focus is the United States, and here she delivers a blizzard of numbers, studies, statistics. Consider: By 2009 there were as many women as men in the work force, and today the average wife contributes some 42.2 percent of her family’s income — up sharply from the 2 percent to 6 percent that women contributed in 1970. The future, Rosin says, looks brighter for women still. For every two men who will get a bachelor’s degree this year, there will be three women graduates. And even if they remain underrepresented at the top of just about everything, they have “started to dominate” in lower-profile professions like accounting, financial management, optometry, dermatology, forensic pathology and veterinary practices, among “hundreds of others.” ...
And so, a new matriarchy is emerging, run by young, ambitious, capable women who — faced with men who can’t or won’t be full partners — are taking matters into their own hands. For the poor, things are especially tough. One single mother Rosin interviewed fell asleep standing in the elevator of the community college where she was studying to get her degree — between caring for three children and working a night job. No wonder these women don’t want to get or stay married: unless a man can pull his weight, he is just another mouth to feed. But as Rosin herself points out, the new matriarchy is no feminist paradise. To the contrary: we have been here before with African-American women, and it is not a happy story.
Someday girls will be asking why their feminist grandmothers destroyed marriage as it had been known for generations.
1. The male of all higher species does not give birth.
2. The female of all higher species mates hypergamously.
These are the only two reasons patriarchies survive. Everything else is a variable.
This is not the end of men. This is the end of Western Civilization.
All matriarchies implode. Read a history book. Feminism is doing more to destroy Western Civilization than the Klan, skinheads, neo-Nazis, all the Mafias, street gangs, serial killers, COMBINED! The Klan does not sit on Senate subcommittees. Fembots do. The neo-Nazis are not invited to address Congress. Fembots are. The Sicilian Mafia does not have private meetings with the President. Feminists do.
People, we are going away. The future is not female. It's male, and his name is Abdullah.
George, thanks for getting back on track a little.
The worrisome thing to me is the glee in the rhetoric of purported female superiority, that the message is so freely disseminated (hmm, that's a male biologically based concept, isn't it?) and freely accepted by a wide swath of the public.
This really is the same kind of hate tactic used to spread the National Socialists policies of a master race, I see little difference, really. Esp if you read the comments that go along with those articles. I do, however, appreciate the reviewer's retorts to the author's suppositions and views. A female prof from NYU.
This is current background in which reform of family law, and saving the concept of the family based on eons of biology, has to work from, not screaming about commies and all that. The public has to swayed that this thinking is wrong, and give sound reasons why.
Then start working on the political front to start changing the legislation. But you can't do that until you start fighting the propaganda. And hate-based propaganda is the hardest to fight.
the author of that article that's part of the end of men chorus is Greg Hampikian, Dept of Biology, Boise State. He's a supposed forensic DNA expert and head of "The Idaho Innocence Project". Another academic w/a few screws loose, how being a a DNA biochemist qualifies you to make broad sociological and anthropological comments like that escapes me. But then those aren't real sciences, are they?
Again, the comments to the article are as startling, if not more so, than the article in the NYT.
Here is the Greg Hampikian article.
"...what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women?"
Counter proposal: What if the politics of the new era were more friendly to the male of the species? No more VAWA. Family court turned on its head. Death to alimony. What if the education system catered to boys rather than girls? What if we assassinated affirmative action?
Hanna Rosin's career would vaporize.
Post a Comment