The End of Men

[MercyfulFate]

The End of Men - Magazine - The Atlantic

Good article about the shift in power that's happened and will continue to happen over time.

Frankly it'll be weird but hell, if I get married and my wife makes tons of money and I can be a stay at home dad...I don't think I would mind too much.

What do you ladies think of the shift?

 

[B_TonyK8483]

One reason women do better is also because they often try harder in order to succeed in an environment they generally perceive to be male dominated.

Regardless, I don't think the attitude that "women are superior to men" or "men are superior to women" are really good attitudes to live by -- it encourages sexism and discrimination. I think both men and women have their own strengths and the two complement each other quite well.

 

[B_subgirrl]

Can't read the article because my internet connection has been slowed beyond belief.

On the stay at home dad thing - I'm fine with it in theory, but it isn't for me. There's no way I'd give up those years at home with my imaginary babies for anyone!

 

[HiddenLacey]

Personally I'm more attracted to the alpha male persona. I like the big quiet yet larger than life men. I would rather spend time with any babies when they are really little vs having the male figure do it. But it suits my personality. I realize sometimes jobs and life don't allow for that any longer and sometimes the man takes the homemaker role while the woman stays in the workforce.

Hopefully if I ever have kids the job I have now will allow for me not to miss those special little moments when they are small and cuddly.

 

[D_Sparroe Spongecaques]

I'm all for equality and if it suits both the guy and the gal for him to be a stay at home dad then that's fine by me.It's far easier to go out to work than it is staying at home being mum.....parenting is THE hardest job ever.

IF i was to remarry and have another child i'd go back to work after the 6 or 12 month maternity leave (plus needing to get over the surgery) if not sooner and let 'dad' stay at home with sproggy.I earn more than him and he'd do a fabby job of the childcare......otherwise i'd employ a nanny.

 

[deleted356736]

In my experience in recent times, a lot of women do put a lot of effort into their jobs, more effort than many men. They get results too. At the moment I'm the only male in a workplace with about 20 women, and they many are often surprised or even stunned that I get so much quality work done with much less effort. Some have even taking to copying my style of working set hours, prioritising work, and concentrating on that which is important rather than trying to do everything at once, and perfectly.

I think men can should learn from women, and women should learn from men too. In the workplace, which is what this article is about, men and women approach work and tasks differently. My experience in a previous role as a consultant was that female clients got annoyed, angry or hostile that I didn't do my work like a woman would. I did it the way a man does. It was ridiculous that the pendulum had swung to such a degree that someone like me, with decades of success behind them, was being subjected to such treatment.

As long as we understand and respect the differences between genders, the world will be a happy and productive place. But as soon as men expect women to behave like men, or women expect men to behave like women, then the wheels fall off.

To correct the article: men have not been the dominant sex since the beginning of time. Society was formed by women, and men took over society by inventing a middle-aged male God to take over from the Goddesses, and who ran society and made male priests and men more important than females. What we are seeing now is the decline of patriarchal religious beliefs and the emergence of something which has been repressed for thousands of years.

My twenty year old son is a security guard and my eighteen year old daughter is at university, studying marketing communication. Enough said.

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

We are both retired, from careers that involved supervising an almost all-female workforce for me and entirely all-male one for him. While there were a million little crises with the women, everything always worked out fine in the end because as long as I kept talking to them I could get through with enough patience. With the 5-10% of my male employees in various jobs there was often a headstrong reckless quality; the more you patiently explained to them the more defiant they became. Maybe it's just me but this fits the experience of my professional colleagues. From my partner's description of his work life supervising men, it sounds like testosterone poisoning makes for defiant and unpredictable employees. On one hand, male employees are less likely to annoy the boss with petty squabbles; on the other hand when they majorly fuck up they are much harder to deal with than women. Surely the structural factors mentioned in the article are the main reason that 3/4 of the jobs lost were by men. But if downsizing gives the opportunity to get rid of problem employees first, I suspect that the axe fell on more men than women for that reason as well.

 

[sbat]

That article pegs it about right; future society will have men at the very top and very bottom of the social totem pole (what was it, engineers and janitors? haha).

On a serious note, the increasingly bureaucratic nature of "middle class employment" provides a work environment that is more in line with how women are raised (maybe even female biology/psychology). As the need for people in administrative roles expands, the greater viability of women (being more educated and more suited for working with others indoors) will bear itself out. However, I say that men will probably retain the very top positions (C-level) simply because a huge chunk of employment around the world is small business, which means start-up; and there is a certain type of personality necessary for startup success, including risk tolerance and analytical ability in the abstract (requisite for the "visionary" trait so lauded by companies producing things "ahead of their time"), traits that still appear to be dominated by men.

And then of course, the "shit cleaning" jobs that ex-blue collars will be retained to do. Women may traditionally dominate those in the household (cleaning up after kids), but they aren't going to do that at the workplace when they've busted their butts to get that masters degree.

 

[D_lkjhgfdsa1234]

I don't mind women bosses as long as they aren't feminist that have a bone to pick with men for what happened in the past. I had a really crappy woman boss with Verizon and now I have a nice one in Con Ed who I like and we work well together because she has a great attitude. Sex and gender does not really make a difference in any boss or worker. You can have stubborn and disobedient men or women or nice men or women. The workplace tends to have equal opportunity for both men and women. The reason more men are cut is because there are more men than women in the workforce.
However, where women have more rights is marriage and dating and that's where men have to be careful who they choose or else lose half their life savings. But I will save this story for another time.

 

[B_bxmuscle]

Well, I'm over 40 now and came out over 20 years ago. I can tell you from experience that the "end of men" occurred in some circles a good 10 years ago.

 

[sbat]

A more accurate title for the article should probably read "the end of white men" as men of minority groups have also statistically benefitted from the "new rules" of American society.

Naturally, the title of the article is a bit more inflammatory and definitive than the actual content. Though, theoretically, with sperm banks, stem cell research, and in vitro fertilization techniques, we could have a sustainable society that had only women. Can't see that being enjoyable for the non-lesbians and non-die-hard spinsters. Just imagine, where once women were viewed as weak and emotional, now men are the ones that are kept - viewed as too emotional and mentally weak to handle real work and left to take care of the house (the image comes to mind of the nurse and her "rock band" boyfriend from season 1 of Parks and Rec). We men would merely be pets to satisfy the nurture instinct.

I hope I have daughters and no sons.

 

[helgaleena]

Sbat, that sounds like the planets Dathomir or Hapes in Star Wars.

Having grown up feminist, I know well that stressing one sex over another is no cure for the handicap of having to deal with human beings as a whole.

 

[sbat]

Afraid I could never stay awake through even a single star wars film.

But for what it's worth - the "which gender is really more powerful?" argument has always been a matter of paradigms and one's definition of power. Weirdly enough, the discussion around that question is always dominated by the most bitter of either gender. Witness some of said conversations here on LPSG

 

[B_TonyK8483]

sbat,

Weirdly enough, the discussion around that question is always dominated by the most bitter of either gender. Witness some of said conversations here on LPSG

Soooo true

 

[TheAlpha2]

"Frankly it'll be weird but hell, if I get married and my wife makes tons of money and I can be a stay at home dad...I don't think I would mind too much."

Of course you won't.
The problem is *she will*.
They cannot help it; women have a built-in emotive drive to be taken care of by their man.
It's not so bad until you have children.
Then she will resent the living hell out of you if she works and you don't.
Even if you do work, if she makes substantially more money she'll still resent you - and she's can't help it. It's not a choice; it's built-in emotion.

Most people do NOT have a career. Most people have a job that pays the bills.
Feminism is good for lesbians and high-powered career women which is only about 15% of women; for most women it's a raw deal. It means both partners have to work now just to make ends meet and she misses out on a good chunk of motherhood.
(The bottom-line effect of feminism is sky-rocketing real-estate prices - "keeping up with the Jone's.")
(Do not confuse feminism with women's suffrage.)

"Hopefully if I ever have kids the job I have now will allow for me not to miss those special little moments when they are small and cuddly."
Look how dettached from reality young women are (because they are fed BS their whole lives about how they can 'have it all').
They actually think they can be a mother /and/ work - that they can work and "not miss those special little moments".
- If she works then when her toddler falls down and scraps their knee they will cry for their >care-taker< not their biological mother. That's the "special-moment" you will get to partake in.


More tenaciously, men's right have been trampled.
Women have reproductive rights and option that we do not.
Women (I am *not* kidding) are allowed to rape boys and then sue them once they turn 18 for child-support and they get it (multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions.)
One example: GlennSacks.com
That is how far the insanity has gone now.

If you have a son and you give two shits about him, instruct him not to marry.
The first tool in the box is marriage-strike.
Don&#8217;t Marry
No man in America should ever marry again until the laws are fixed.

In 95% of cases custodial custody has been awarded to the woman.
That is the custody that matters; the one that determine which side of the child-support table (and payment) you are on.
In any other area of life, if there was a 95%:5% discrepancy an affirmative-action plan would be put into place to correct the obviously sexist system.

On top of this, studies have demonstrated that children that grow-up in single-father homes fare far, far better in life than children that grow-up in single-mother homes.
The reason, like it or not, is because money matters and women, generally speaking, are incompetent. They cannot take care of themselves much less provide in excess for their children so single-mother spend their child-support money on >their< expenses; on their rent/mortgage, food, gas, etc... etc... (the /steal/ from their kids to compensate for their low-quality jobs.)
When Dad has custody all the money stays in one-place and doesn't get split to support two households and if the kids are young they go to day-care where they are taken care by educated and experienced child-care professionals; not frustrated and exhausted mothers.

Once you understand all of that, you final come to understand the real reason we have "child-support" is so that men that bang these incompetent women have to pay. If they don't pay, then the state has to pay them (welfare). Money. Money. Money.
It's incompetent-mother-support.
If you don't pay the incompetent mothers then their brats grow-up destitute and become hoodlums. So the choice is pay for their first 18 years of life or the next 20 (through prison).

So ironically the next great step that is necessary for men's right is to fight for competent mothers. That means she has to finish her education.
That means she can't have a child as a teenager nor young adult.
It means promoting Family Planning.
We went forth. We multiplied. That mission is accomplished.
She has 10,000 eggs; all of them cannot become children.
She now has the tools and the right to control when and if she procreates.
Abortion is the only method that is 100% effective.
Even if she is abstinent she can be raped.
If she does not control when and if she procreates then her entire life is dictated by when and if she gets pregnant.
It is insanity, utterly incompatible with the post-feminist world.
Rights come with responsibilities.

America has the highest-rate of teenage pregnancy in the first-world.

 

[HiddenLacey]

Actually the job I have now allows me to set my own hours. I have kept this job rather than take a job making more money so that if and when I do have kids I can work while they sleep.

Personally I would rather quit my job all together while they are small, but I'm realistic and I know it takes a lot of money to support a family. It wouldn't be fair for me to put that burden on a man.

I'm not detached from reality at all. I think the reality sucks, because I would much rather be a Mom and a Wife than anything else, the exception being to have time to paint.

 

[Riven650]

*snip*
Frankly it'll be weird but hell, if I get married and my wife makes tons of money and I can be a stay at home dad...I don't think I would mind too much.

*snip*

My wife and I sold our businesses then she got a job and I stayed at home. It made sense because I can save us loads of money by doing diy and car maintenance etc. What we didn't predict is that by doing that I ended up without a peer group and I became lonely. I'd take our son to school or pick him up and I realised I was one of very few dad's doing that. The women (mums and grandma's, child-minders) grouped together and I was not really welcomed. Staying at home and getting things done is all very well but not good if you get to feel sidelined. If you're at a party and someone say's "and what do you do?", and you answer "I'm a house husband", they generally look awkward and change the subject.

A friend of mine always said he was jealous of me and would love to be able to give up work and stay at home. He was made redundant a couple of years ago and within a month had a full scale nervous breakdown. He completely lost his self esteem along with his job description.

My wife and I came to realise that men are defined much more by what they do than women. A woman can acquire her husband's status (ie. wife of doctor, or wife of businessman, etc. has more status than wife of bus driver, etc.) whereas a man doesn't get introduced as husband of doctor, etc. He has to have his own job description to be taken seriously. So we're in a period where men have it quite tough really.

 

[helgaleena]

My full intention when marrying was to keep my maiden name for my professional life but then my career fell through when I abruptly was made a single parent. I had to invent an whole new identity to begin my life upon the great sea of e-publishing. But for the sake of the kids, I am known as Mrs. ex's Surname, as it is their surname too. And when dealing with the tradesmen, as it were, I prefer that to the overly familiar custom of being known by my given name. I have always hated my given name anyway.

In Pakistan a woman does not take her spouse's family name but his given name! If she married John Smith, she would be Mrs. John. Even the extended family rejects her. Though the children, if there are any, would get the husband's surname, the daughters would lose it when they marry anyway.

 

[BS76]

Some solid rebuttals to the article and pointing out flaws in the author's thinking:

Rebuttal to &#8220;The End of Men&#8221;

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/06/08/another-triumphalist-piece-consigning-men-to-irrelevance/

The End Of Beta Providers

 

[sbat]

Weirdly enough, the discussion around that question is always dominated by the most bitter of either gender. Witness some of said conversations here on LPSG

Case in point below:

"Frankly it'll be weird but hell, if I get married and my wife makes tons of money and I can be a stay at home dad...I don't think I would mind too much."

Of course you won't.
The problem is *she will*.
They cannot help it; women have a built-in emotive drive to be taken care of by their man.
It's not so bad until you have children.
Then she will resent the living hell out of you if she works and you don't.
Even if you do work, if she makes substantially more money she'll still resent you - and she's can't help it. It's not a choice; it's built-in emotion.

Most people do NOT have a career. Most people have a job that pays the bills.
Feminism is good for lesbians and high-powered career women which is only about 15% of women; for most women it's a raw deal. It means both partners have to work now just to make ends meet and she misses out on a good chunk of motherhood.
(The bottom-line effect of feminism is sky-rocketing real-estate prices - "keeping up with the Jone's.")
(Do not confuse feminism with women's suffrage.)

"Hopefully if I ever have kids the job I have now will allow for me not to miss those special little moments when they are small and cuddly."
Look how dettached from reality young women are (because they are fed BS their whole lives about how they can 'have it all').
They actually think they can be a mother /and/ work - that they can work and "not miss those special little moments".
- If she works then when her toddler falls down and scraps their knee they will cry for their >care-taker< not their biological mother. That's the "special-moment" you will get to partake in.


More tenaciously, men's right have been trampled.
Women have reproductive rights and option that we do not.
Women (I am *not* kidding) are allowed to rape boys and then sue them once they turn 18 for child-support and they get it (multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions.)
One example: GlennSacks.com
That is how far the insanity has gone now.

If you have a son and you give two shits about him, instruct him not to marry.
The first tool in the box is marriage-strike.
Don’t Marry
No man in America should ever marry again until the laws are fixed.

In 95% of cases custodial custody has been awarded to the woman.
That is the custody that matters; the one that determine which side of the child-support table (and payment) you are on.
In any other area of life, if there was a 95%:5% discrepancy an affirmative-action plan would be put into place to correct the obviously sexist system.

On top of this, studies have demonstrated that children that grow-up in single-father homes fare far, far better in life than children that grow-up in single-mother homes.
The reason, like it or not, is because money matters and women, generally speaking, are incompetent. They cannot take care of themselves much less provide in excess for their children so single-mother spend their child-support money on >their< expenses; on their rent/mortgage, food, gas, etc... etc... (the /steal/ from their kids to compensate for their low-quality jobs.)
When Dad has custody all the money stays in one-place and doesn't get split to support two households and if the kids are young they go to day-care where they are taken care by educated and experienced child-care professionals; not frustrated and exhausted mothers.

Once you understand all of that, you final come to understand the real reason we have "child-support" is so that men that bang these incompetent women have to pay. If they don't pay, then the state has to pay them (welfare). Money. Money. Money.
It's incompetent-mother-support.
If you don't pay the incompetent mothers then their brats grow-up destitute and become hoodlums. So the choice is pay for their first 18 years of life or the next 20 (through prison).

So ironically the next great step that is necessary for men's right is to fight for competent mothers. That means she has to finish her education.
That means she can't have a child as a teenager nor young adult.
It means promoting Family Planning.
We went forth. We multiplied. That mission is accomplished.
She has 10,000 eggs; all of them cannot become children.
She now has the tools and the right to control when and if she procreates.
Abortion is the only method that is 100% effective.
Even if she is abstinent she can be raped.
If she does not control when and if she procreates then her entire life is dictated by when and if she gets pregnant.
It is insanity, utterly incompatible with the post-feminist world.
Rights come with responsibilities.

America has the highest-rate of teenage pregnancy in the first-world.