The End of Men?

[Gentlemanjohn]

Just happened on this provocative article. Hanna Rosin asks “What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men?”

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

Earlier this year, for the first time in American history, the balance of the workforce tipped toward women, who now hold a majority of the nation’s jobs. The working class, which has long defined our notions of masculinity, is slowly turning into a matriarchy, with men increasingly absent from the home and women making all the decisions. Women dominate today’s colleges and professional schools—for every two men who will receive a B.A. this year, three women will do the same. Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women. Indeed, the U.S. economy is in some ways becoming a kind of traveling sisterhood: upper-class women leave home and enter the workforce, creating domestic jobs for other women to fill.

She goes on to say that during the recession “three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men. The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance. Some of these jobs will come back, but the overall pattern of dislocation is neither temporary nor random. The recession merely revealed—and accelerated—a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years, and in some respects even longer.”
This is partly because “The postindustrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength. The attributes that are most valuable today—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly male.”
This is not to argue that woman do dot continue to have it bad in all sorts of ways, only that in the late capitalist bureaucracies they in certain ways have more power than men. In the future we could be living not in a world of gender equality, but matriarchy.

The article also ties in nicely with a piece on the unemployment crisis in the US rust belt that has primarily affected men, leading to an epidemic of suicide and opioid abuse.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/men-women-rust-belt/525888/

Any thoughts?

^ Should say "I would hope that as what society and the economy requires changes"

squishy, you're in a sense right but at the same time you're saying that working class men should adapt to capitalism. All these guys in Wisconsin/Glasgow an't just get degrees in marketing and high-flying careers.

I was thinking more longer term than that Gentleman - that unfortunately not many of that generation of men in Wisconsin and Glasgow will be able to adapt, but that younger generations will respond to physical strength and macho-ness being in less demand by valuing it less.
To some extent, it is not new that many groups of people are being left behind by capitalism, whilst others are able to adapt.

All these guys in Wisconsin/Glasgow an't just get degrees in marketing and high-flying careers.

So they can be cleaners, work in supermarkets, become barbers, plumbers, gardeners etc. They can share child-rearing with their partners. In short, they can do what any other person (woman) would do given their current job being phased out or they had other demands on their life, and find a new one - unskilled if necessary.

I confess, I'm not really up for yet another thread where John tries to blame all ills on Capitalism and make feminists divert their efforts into promoting socialism.

To some extent, it is not new that many groups of people are being left behind by capitalism, whilst others are able to adapt.

Yeah, sure, but I think over the last decade that divide has increased to a whole new level. I see where you're coming from, but the problem is that when we picture a 'metrosexual' male, we tend to imagine a successful, cultured, urbanite. As I say, I think the people who find it easier to adapt to the role of fluid subject demanded by postmodern capitalism - continual self-reinvention, changing careers, selecting partners on online dating platforms - are women. Far more so than men.

Feminism's current predicament is that it finds itself in a world where there is no tradition on which one can base one's identity, no meaningful frame of life. The dominant cultural aim of our time is twofold: the drive to succeed and make money, along with the strict regulation of the body (nutrition, exercise, beauty regimes) and the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure (sex, drugs, alcohol, entertainment). Feminism has to reject the old order of the family and the patriarchal state, which means it has to find liberation within the context of capitalism - in the form of careers, money, promotions. That too is inadequate.

So they can be cleaners, work in supermarkets, become barbers, plumbers, gardeners etc.

That is what they increasingly are doing, while for women the trend is the reverse.

www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/dramatic-rise-in-men-in-low-paid-part-time-work

Spaghetti, if you're' not up for' this thread (which I started) you don't have to comment on it. No one is forcing you to.

You don't think there will be any more wars or physical aggression then? Until male violence ends the patriarchy will continue. Regardless of the needs of the workplace or women's academic success.
High paying roles which see an increase of female participation tend to become lower paid and valued less, e.g. Medicine

I confess, I'm not really up for yet another thread where John tries to blame all ills on Capitalism and make feminists divert their efforts into promoting socialism

The thing is....I don't know if we will survive as a species if we don't do something about our a) present level of resource consumption/carbon creation and b) the inevitable military conflicts that will occur because of it. It will be worse than anything any of us can really comprehend.

One of the great things about feminism (aside from its obvious morality) is that it seeks to replace this patriarchy (so potent under Capitalism) which has created our current terrible state.

Your (our) mission is much bigger than you (we) think.....you(we) must save the world.

Considering Trump was just elected, I question whether we have time.

"Feminism's current predicament is that it finds itself in a world where there is no tradition on which one can base one's identity, no meaningful frame of life"

I don't think that statement is entirely true, but whatever system you have, whatever "meaningful frame of life" you have, you will have some individuals who do not fit into that frame, and who feel at odds with the tradition upon which their identity is based.
That's not to say that things can't be made much better than they are, bu there is no utopia where everyone is simultaneously able to enjoy their individuality whilst belonging to a shared "tradition".

You don't think there will be any more wars or physical aggression then?

Oh yeah - but it won't be violence between state armies, but will involve rag-bag militias like ISIS, terrorist attacks.

If you're waiting for violence to end in total, you're going to be waiting a long time. Did you know Aung San Suu Ky could be accused of war crimes? This idea that if women run the world there won't be any violence is based on some very dubious premises. The main reason they haven't been guilty of much so far is that haven't had the power to inflict it; but Le Pen, Suu Ky, Thatcher, May have all demonstrated themselves to be corruptable by power. There are lots of women leading far right parties in Europe - Petry, Jensen etc.

I don't know if you've noticed this recent spate of films like the '40 Year Old Virgin

It's 12 years old.

The thread title is interesting - when you say "the end of men, I take it you don't litterally mean the male half of the population?
Are you using the word "Men" to mean a certain stereotype of macho, beer drinking, weight lifting, bread winning arse slapping "real" men? As supposed to the type of man who is often looked own on by this group; not necessarily urbanite professionals, but the kind of man who is caring, shares the housework, enjoys childcare, thinks about their health and doesn't consider physical strength to be the be all and end all. Because I don't think it would be a bad thing at all for the first group to be increasingly replaced by the second. Yeah, there will be a backlash against it and no progress (no matter how good) is good for everyone. But if that is the adaptation that capitalism demands, its an adaptation I can get behind!

but I find that men losing some of their privileges is perceived by many men as the "triumph" of feminism and the doom of men, whereas it is merely one stage in the long march to equalising opportunities for women.

John said: I don't think men losing their jobs is a stage on the path towards anything good.

Just for clarification. I said losing privileges, not jobs. Agree no one losing a job is any good.

I do think that men will have to become as adaptable as women have had to be though.

"Did you know Aung San Suu Ky could be accused of war crimes?"

Slight derail, but:

Suu Ky's lack of action against the atrocities currently occurring in Myanmar is awful, but it is not as straight forward as if the atrocities were directly (or even indirectly) ordered by her. She may be the democratically elected leader of her country but her power is limited and she is not in control of the military, nor does she seem to have a full grasp of the situation.

That's not a defence against inaction, but insufficient condemnation of a war crime is not the same as being directly responsible for it. (And I don't think Myanmar is a member of the ICC, so not sure how far accusations of war crimes would get anyway).

but I find that men losing some of their privileges is perceived by many men as the "triumph" of feminism and the doom of men, whereas it is merely one stage in the long march to equalising opportunities for women.

I firmly believe that culture will put an end to equalising opportunities for women and the movement is in it's last throes without really realising it,.

One of the great things about feminism (aside from its obvious morality) is that it seeks to replace this patriarchy (so potent under Capitalism) which has created our current terrible state.

Yeah absolutely - and I think this is feminism's true potential. The woman as newly politicised agent is a great thing, but she is being co-opted by capitalism, her potential squandered. A lot of the solutions proposed by feminism to patriarchal capitalism - like micro-finance for example - are completely compromised by what they're supposed to be fighting. It's just brutal capitalism with a gloss of pseudo-progressive entrepreneurialism. Or it's more a kind of 'men are bad, but women should be able to get even them with them by making lots of money, shagging around, and being just as aggressively self-seeking. That sounds like less a rejection of patriarchy than an adoption of its values.

I see Trump as not representing a new patriarchy, but more as its' last anguished howl. Because try as he might, he can't bring all these guys jobs back. They're gone. In fact, people like him are part of the reason they disappeared. He's like King Canute.

I think feminism lacks an ethical frame to be honest. Obviously opposition to sexual violence etc is cast iron, but beyond that the argument seems to be for more freedom within capitalism, rather than a more radical freedom outside of it. Even left-wing feminists premise everything on choice. Choice to do what? Anything? This isn't specified.

Choice is a supreme value of capitalism, in which it is conceptualised as choice between limitless alternatives (strawberry or vanilla ice cream?) rather than more meaningful acts of freedom. Falling in love is a free act but you don't choose to do it in the sense of capitalist choice. Neither is any kind of revolutionary action the result of a deliberative choice.

Choice in the capitalist sense means a choice between things, utilities - with even people recast as things. This concept of choice should be rejected by capitalism in my view.

I don't think violence will end, I think men are violent because they can be and they will continue to use this physical power to control the female population through access to resources.
A PhD in Art History won't be much good when the water runs out.

Squishy I mean the end of men as a dominant socioeconomic class (the thread title was taken from that of the article I was referring too, and I believe the title of the woman's book - I didn't coin it).

Simply put, my view is that patriarchy is in its' death throes as a result of globalisation, automation and the rise of the service sector economy. These developments will not be able to sustain patriarchy.

Capitalism is supported by the war economy, I don't think women are responsible for capitalism nor can they end it as 'newly political agents' (wtf read your history books John)

You think automation and the service sector will end the war economy? Bollocks it will.

Furthermore, I'm all for men being housekeepers. But, you're assuming that the majority of men in the future will live in houses and have partners? Why?

House are more and more unaffordable. More and more people are renting, house-sharing - finding a partner gets in the way of having a career and being prepared to relocate and retrain.The unit of one man and one woman, in a house, surviving on a single income, will not I believe be a dominant way of life in a century.

I'm 37 and share a flat with a 23 year old girl who isn't my partner.

You think automation and the service sector will end the war economy?

I didn't say that. There will be war, but the nature of it will change - indeed has changed.

When did I say that women created capitalism or deny the existence of a war economy? Can you please stop imputing things to me that I have not said.

I said war is no longer primarily entails large state armies but more technological and chemical warfare, privatised militias and guerilla conflicts. I never said anything about a war economy, which absolutely exists.