The End of Men

[Lynx]

The End of Men (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/1/)

Exaggerated title, but all in all an interesting article, that touches upon several topics.

By your estimate, is it accurate? Are these changes as significant as they are made out to be? Are they positive developments? Do you feel threatened by them?

I've been seeing these types of articles for years now, even on mainstream media. I don't know whether this is total bs or what portion is grounded in reality.



Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences.

~
p.s. I don't know where to put this, so I'm putting it here (in OI).

[Positivist]

Even if women are better suited for labor in a post-industrial bourgiose economy, that doesn't mean that the same will be so under socialism, nor does it suggest that women are inherently superior (just as men being better suited for labor in an industrial bourgiose economy doesn't mean that men are inherently superior.)

Also it has to be considered that unfortunately capitalists can still get away with paying women less than men in our modern economy.

[¿Que?]

I've read plenty of articles like this as well. I didn't finish reading the article, because I have to go somewhere, but I will and will provide a more elaborate response.

My basic argument is that there are trends that indicate gender roles shifting, which is no surprise and lends credence to what many here have been saying (particularly feminists), that gender is a dynamic as opposed to rigid construct.

Furthermore, these shifts in gender roles do not necessarily indicate any kind of female dominance, or matriarchal social structure (as opposed to the current patriarchal one). It's possible that in the long run, this could be the case but we are nowhere near that.

Which leads me to my last point, which is to say that these sorts of articles, which outright suggest that we are quickly progressing towards a Matriarchal order where the a preponderance of actual power is in the hands of women, rely on overemphasizing a number of selective statistics to argue their point, while ignoring many others. Also, their arguments are usually grounded on trends, not actual conditions. If the rate of say, women in a particular field traditional dominated by men, is increasing, that does not necessarily mean that such trends will continue to increase. They may level off or may decline in the future. We have to look at the facts and make predictions based on them, which involves looking at more than simply trends.

Some things to keep in mind: The all too often quoted women outnumber men in Bachelor's degree, true as it may be, does not take into account what types of degrees are being sought. Men still outnumber women in STEM degrees, and women are still underrepresented in doctoral programs. Again, I have not finished reading the article, but since it seems so preoccupied with trends, why gloss over the fact that in some of these women dominated professions, such as nursing, the number of men in them is actual increasing?

I see these articles as reinforcing the patriarchal order by suggesting that either it doesn't really exist, or is in rapid decline. The first claim is rather ludicrous, whereas the second claim, while it may be true, the actual suggestion that the result is some kind of female matriarchal order is ridiculous and insulting as well.