Titles like “The End of Men” are euphemisms.
The titles sound almost like they are a joke. First there was Maureen Dowd’s 2005 book, Are Men Necessary? And then, in 2010, Hanna Rosin’s article in The Atlantic, “The End of Men.” And, most recently (September 2011), a debate at NYU on the resolution, “Men are finished.”
The idea that the gender that has always been the dominant one worldwide could be in trouble might strike some as ludicrous and others as payback. And it is hard to feel sorry for grown men, especially those in positions of power and influence. But there is something that makes me much less than amused by those hyperbolic but not terribly off the mark titles: I am the father of three sons and the grandfather of three grandsons.
Perhaps there seems to be little need to worry about mature men. But there is a group that we should be very worried about: boys and young men (which includes my youngest son and all my grandsons). In the United States, indeed throughout the developed world, they are clearly not doing as well as girls and young women.
You may have already seen data comparing how young American males and females are doing today, but one of the best comparisons comes from Tom Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, in his oft-cited “For every 100 girls .. ” Here is a sampling of his statistics: “For every 100:
- tenth grade girls who play videogames for an hour or more a day, there are 322 tenth grade boys who do.
- girls who are suspended from high school, there are 215 boys who are suspended.
- young women who earn a bachelor’s degree, there are 75 men who do.
- women ages 25-29 who have at least a bachelor’s degree, there are 83 men who do.
- women ages 25-29 who have a doctoral degree, there are 80 men who do.
- females ages 15-24 who kill themselves, 586 males do.
- women ages 18-24 who are in correctional facilities, there are 1439 men who are behind bars.”
I don’t think anyone can legitimately argue that, as a group, boys and young men aren’t having more problems than girls and young women, including falling behind them at every educational level, and yet, politically, this is still not a front burner issue. Why not?
Part of it is that those titles claiming the end of males or questioning their necessity all say, “men,” a word that does not generally elicit concern or compassion. However, given the data, it is high time to think of those titles as applying to those who will become men: that is, boys—our sons and grandsons. I would urge that any time you see a reference to “The End of Men,” think of it as “The End of Boys” because, ultimately, that is what it truly means. And ask not whether men are necessary, but whether boys are necessary. Think of that debate resolution as “Boys are Finished.” Or, if you prefer, our sons and grandsons are finished.
♦◊♦
I do understand that, for many, a shift to concern about males of any age will be difficult. I am well aware of the damage sexism has done. I always come close to tears when I talk about my late mother-in-law, a brilliant woman, born into relative poverty in the early 1920s, who worked at jobs far beneath her intelligence and abilities because that is what women did before the modern women’s movement. At the age of 70 she graduated with honors from a prestigious college, but died four years later. I have rarely met someone so able to challenge arguments with great counter-arguments; she would have made a wonderful attorney. So I do get it.
But my three daughters-in-law, all born between 1961 and 1983, knew they could do whatever they wanted. They are, of course, the beneficiaries of a women’s movement that was necessary and important—and still very much is in many parts of the world. But in our country today, and in much of the developed world, even the most casual look at statistics will show that it is our young males who need our help and attention far more than our young females.
Ultimately, I believe the impetus will have to come from the parents and grandparents of boys, though I can sense in feminists with sons the conflicts they feel around this issue. As author Phyllis Chesler has written, “Having a son, not a daughter, was a challenge to my passionate, woman-centered feminism.”
♦◊♦
Closer to home, I have listened to a feminist friend talk with concern about her only child, a son in his early 30s, who has struggled with work and relationships. In her own work, as a professor in the humanities, she has seen her classes dominated by young women, not only in numbers but in participation and academic performance.
“Why do you think this is happening,” I asked her, referring to her classes.
She replied without hesitation, “It’s the women’s movement.”
I know she is worried about her son, but, as I have seen so many times when parents talk about the problems their sons are having, she sees it as an individual problem, not as a social one. I am sure it is hard for her to accept the possibility that the feminism she so strongly believes in might have, by ignoring boys, allowed a progressively more unbalanced situation to develop, one in which her son is caught up.
A good role model for feminists today could be Dottie Lamm, former first lady of Colorado and well-known in her state for her activism, often on behalf of women. In an oped piece in the Denver Post in April 2010, titled “Boys Are Falling Behind in Education,” Lamm begins with these words, “What’s the next battle for an aging feminist? Boys.”
“Granted, the battle for women’s rights and equality has not been completely won, but the new reality is that in the future, it will be males who are most endangered.”
And she ends with this:
“If a men’s movement develops for boys, I’ll join it. And, as an aging feminist, I’ll still fight to take big chunks out of that glass ceiling for women. But as a grandmother of three young boys, I’m going to do my darnedest to keep young boys from sinking into that academic mud floor.”
I admire Dottie Lamm’s courage, and feel that she represents the future, if we are to prevent the end of boys.
♦◊♦
And lest you think “the end of boys” is too strong a term, consider the fact that, given the current situation, where so many boys are struggling and girls appear to have an unlimited future in our country, a growing number of prospective parents is using reproductive technology to enhance the likelihood of having girls.
Hanna Rosin starts her “End of Men” piece with a reference to biologist Ronald Ericsson, who, in the 1970s, found a way to separate the sperm carrying the Y-chromosome from those carrying the X, thus providing a means for determining the sex of one’s child. By the 1990s Ericsson found that couples in the clinics using his technique “were requesting more girls than boys, a gap that has persisted…In some clinics, Ericsson has said, the ratio is now as high as 2 to 1…” Rosin also cites “a newer method for sperm selection, called Microsort … The girl requests for that method run at about 75 percent.”
And finally there is this from an August 10, 2011 New York Times magazine piece on “twin reduction,” the highly controversial practice of doctors delivering only one of two twins by aborting the other. Doctors choose randomly which fetus to eliminate when both are healthy and equally accessible—unless they are of different sexes. Then “some doctors ask the parents which one they want to keep.”
“Until the last decade, most doctors refused even to broach that question, but that ethical demarcation has eroded, as ever more patients lobby for that option and doctors discover that plenty opt for girls.”
Other than infanticide, could anything more literally be the end of boys?
♦◊♦
This is a very slightly edited version of a piece which originally appeared on my blog on Psychology Today.
You may also enjoy: Men in the Margins
Photo credit: Flickr / Shayan (USA)
About Mark Sherman
“tenth grade girls who play videogames for an hour or more a day, there are 322 tenth grade boys who do.” -
I was never much of a video game player but I think that video games encourage independent thinking and problem solving skills. I don’t think that saying that this is a harmful male behavior will discourage many men (Although I was personally always sensitive to this kind of rhetoric) I think that it will keep more young women from these kind of activities. Saying its a guy thing makes it a guy thing.
I think the assumption that video games are a social problem that limits the development of social skill is wrong. I actually think its that attitude of your a “socially deficient video gamer that isn’t worth my time” that has effects that eat at our society on larger scale than we are able to acknowledge.
II think the woman’s movement does benefit women in the academic sphere especially in the humanities but it doesn’t always allow for a degree of breaking from the mold. Your in or your out and I think that alienates everyone.
Depends on the game, of course. I’ve been seeing more and more monotonous FPS games on the market these days. The same point-and-shoot that only varies in graphics and story.
I will say though, the idea of alienating them does seem to create a self-fulfilling prophecy:
-”Men who game are socially deficient”
-Gamers are thus avoided.
-As such, they don’t get much contact, and become socially deficient.
-You end up with a statistic linking gaming to social deficiency.
-”Gaming is the problem”
-Rinse and repeat.
Games are simply movies with interaction. Tabletop RPGs are books with interaction. WOuld people rather their kids rot their brains in front of the tube? Our shows aren’t getting any smarter, but our games sure are. Gaming might actually become a saving grace in the end.
“I am well aware of the damage sexism has done. I always come close to tears when I talk about my late mother-in-law, a brilliant woman……”
I hear ya on this paragraph. And you can’t argue with straight-up facts, that we missed out on some brilliant women. But who would they be holding a grudge on? There were just as many women holding onto the gender roles as men.
I see some people who think these statistics are giving guys a taste of their own medicine. Whose medicine? Even if such guys were alive today, were they REALLY individually at fault? And what about the women who felt the roles were fine, there was certainly plenty of them.
This is a distinction I make early on when conversing with Feminists that gives me a clear idea of how the conversation is going to go. Some blame men for the roles of the past, for the hardships of their grandmothers and mothers. Thinking that because the ones on top of the food chain were men, that men as a whole were on top of the food chain. (Maybe all presidents were men, but almost no men are presidents.)
The ones I like to talk to are the ones who blame gender roles and expectations. They understand that guys were oppressed, too, just in different ways, and that it all falls into the cultural context of the time.
But this blame game – this “Ignore them, they’re ‘privileged’.” thinking – just leaves me depressed and frustrated at times. It reinforces the primary way MEN had seen oppression. Men were already hit with the phrase “man up” any time they needed help. But the idea of men not being ALLOWED to need help is in no way progress, and is in no way different from how things had been throughout history. It’s just more of the same, in a different package.
Now, men are struggling more than ever, and who is listening? People listen when women make less money, or earn fewer jobs, but when men dominate suicide, dropouts, failing grades, and become noticeable minorities in college, who is listening? You hear about it, sure. It’s always “oh, here’s an interesting fact.” But the moment people claim it’s a social issue, rather than a personal failing, it seems the response – from the larger perspective – is “Who cares? Women are the oppressed ones. they’re the ones with REAL problems.”
I just watched a psychology video about how men and women both have the potential for violence, and that, while men have more testosterone, they develop a higher mental resilience to its effects. As one lady put it, and I paraphrase: “One of the most violence-provoking situations is not having a voice. Pleading for help, and people turning their heads. You feel cornered, and like a cornered raccoon, you lash out to force someone to notice.”
Depression and frustration is what happens when you deny someone options, success, or a position of power.
Violence is what happens when you deny someone help.
The only reason men’s problems don’t get a voice is because of the #1 men’s problem: “By being in need of help, men forfeit their right to it.”
“One of the most violence-provoking situations is not having a voice”
If this were the case, wouldn’t we have a history full of women waging war because they had to “let the men speak”?
“sees it as an individual problem, not as a social one” This really stood out with me. I think this really holds true for many and accordingly is a big part of the problem.
I appreciate the references of the feminist who are recognizing the problems but what’s being done? Words are cheap …. Now what? ““If a men’s movement develops for boys, I’ll join it” ummmm, open your eyes, it is for boys AND men. Men/fathers are an important part of the development of boys. Why did she exclude “men?” These “men” were boys throughout the years of the feminist movement, didn’t give a rats ass back then. Now that stats show how it’s screwed men in a big way, now they’re going to pay attention?
Then there is “And finally there is this from an August 10, 2011 New York Times magazine piece on “twin reduction,” the highly controversial practice of doctors delivering only one of two twins by aborting the other. Doctors choose randomly which fetus to eliminate when both are healthy and equally accessible—unless they are of different sexes. Then “some doctors ask the parents which one they want to keep.” …. Wow, the ultimate control by women.
The Chinese are having boys and Americans are having girls. Seems like it should all balance out. I don’t see a problem here. And selective abortion…why would that be controversial? A fetus is not a human being. Long established that mothers can bring to term whatever they want.
If boys are falling behind and then at some point dropping out who’s to say that’s not a good thing. Maybe they can create a better society than what we have now.
Nope. China has billions of people. Our population is a small fraction of theirs.
Chinese abort girls (by law) so that levels it out? My stating what I did wasn’t about abortion, it was about control and the fact society is trying to make aborting boys okay.
This was excellent! Seeing the lack if feedback is also very disappointing. You see the “objectification of women” article which is ridiculous and it has hundreds of comments, and then you have this which is infinitely more important and it is getting very little attention.
I’m hoping the lack of replies is because this idea is uncontroversial. That’s what I’m hoping anyway.
I am a little dismayed by the idea that we have to reframe this to be about children to get anywhere. I understand, realistically speaking, why that is- and I agree that it’s a good first step. But it’s sad that we live in a society that only cares what happens to a male until he turns 18 (or, probably 16 more like)
“I am a little dismayed by the idea that we have to reframe this to be about children to get anywhere.”
I found that to be disheartening too, but not surprising.
Oh I didn’t find it surprising in the least
The sad truth – “truth” because so many people and institutions act accordingly – is that once you are an adult, you had better be able to help yourself, or you really are disposable.
I totally agree.
@ Collin
I made a comment early on and I don’t think it was even modded out. I think it was deleted so it’s not like people didn’t try. I think part of the problem may be that men and MRAs are too depressed to comment on the article. We don’t know how many people read it. I also think that the feminist component of the user base either doesn’t think that it’s a problem warranting their attention (except for Julie, but I’ve read enough from her to not question her heart) or (very scaring thought) they feel that it is a solution to the problem.
I have little idea why some articles get many comments and some don’t. Sometimes it’s because people read it and think, ‘Yeah, right on.” and so they don’t comment. The articles that get hundreds are usually one’s with arguments embedded in them. Objectifying is contentious, this one may not be. I’ve put up several articles here about human issues with very few comments. It’s probably because people read them and agree and move on.
John, what comment did you put up? I’ll go look and see what I can find out.
I have little idea why some articles get many comments and some don’t.
Also, What ive noticed is that often there is one large comment thread a day, that just seems to suck up all the ‘commenting energy’. and people seem to have nothing left for other articles
I broadly agreed with this article however i didnt want to expand on my agreement or just type a ‘great article’ comment.
I wouldnt mind having the option to just acknowledge ive read an article, by having the following poll options;
1. agree strongly with the article.
2. mostly agree with the article.
3. neutral about the article
4. most disagree with the article.
5. disagree strongly with the article
Dr. Sherman, I’ve read your writings elsewhere, and they are really on-point. I wish that our leaders at every level of government would start listening to your message. It is sad how much of a blind eye people turn to these issues. The U.S. government has rejected and stonewalled Warren Farrell’s proposal for a White House Council on Men and Boys http://whitehouseboysmen.org/blog/ . How is this controversial? The sad thing is, I think the opposition is two-pronged: (1) people don’t believe boys (and men) have legitimate problems as a group (or if they do, it is their own fault); (2) some people are afraid that it will divert funding/attention/power from programs for girls (and women).
Until more people are convinced that boys (and men) have legitimate problems, there won’t be progress. Thank you for helping spread the message.
Males, especially young and/or minority males are disposable in American culture. These days, the perceived previous dominance of society by men is driving the positive discrimination that relegates boys to a lower tier of priority for educational and other resources.
If you are male, you are on your own. If you are a male living with a female, look out. You have a lot more liability than you would were you to be living alone.
In my mind, we’re not discussing the end of boys or men. We’re discussing the end of humanity because I think both sexes lose when one sex Is ended.
Agreed. I don’t worry so much about the genders ending, though I do think the roles, personas, expectations and stories change and end. And those changes are often very hard on a culture.
Of course, if you’re an essentialist about gender, then any role change is evidence of degeneration. The unspoken assumption behind much of the MRM – maybe even an unthought assumption – is that masculinity is a fragile state. And why shouldn’t it be? It’s defined by peers and fashion, and men must constantly test others’ and defend their own. But point this out and you’re weakening the movement!
when viewing the argument historically, Its hard to pinpoint the “problem” with boys not growing into men.
Women in the past were uneducated because it was ILLEGAL. they were also poor because it was illegal to have a job unless thier husband allowed it and even then, any money made was given to the husband because it was ILLEGAL for women to own land, have money, education or job.
Since Feminist movement, Women have been given the same opportunities as men and have “risen to the occasion”
But the falling of men/boys isn’t because the law is restricting their opportunities. Men still have the rights that their previous generations had. Education, property, career, etc. The only difference I see now (on an idividual basis) is that now women are part of the “competition”. Men still have the same oppotunity that they have alway (historically) had.
Its hard to say that feminism has caused the fall of men/boys (in regards to their social expectations: education, job, marriage, etc.)
men still have the same opportunies and CHOICE to pursue these opportunities just as their past generations have. The problem is that they are choosing not to pursue and education, chosing NOT to find a decent job, Chossing NOT to do anything.
And maybe the ONLY reason men follow (or used to follow) these social expectations were to attain a woman. And from what Ive read regarding men’s “logic” is that their is a mentality of doing things only if there is reward involved.
Maybe boys should stop being taught that the only usefull things they do are things that garner reward. for expample, Cleaning the house?? unpaid grunt work. Where’s the motivation? it’s sacrificial work with no reward.
the only difference I see in today from the past is that women are offered equal opportunity. That men now have to compete with the whole other half of the population, and they chose not too.
maybe the problem is that boys are still raised with mostly traditional expectations yet live in a world where what they are told is not what is seen and experienced. To be a MAN you must be breadwinner, earn a living, make a good salary (whats the point if you have a wife who “wins her own bread”? To be a breadwinner, a MAN will need a good education in order to get said job. (but whats the point of getting an education to get a good job if I’m only going to be breadwinner to myself?) This maybe be way off base, but I would think the whole work/reward mentality is an importnant factor to look into.
One major problem with that synopsis is sentencing disparities. Men still face harsher sentences and I’m convinced are charged more often with felonies that women. Women are often allowed to plea bargain to misdemeanors especially when having committed a crime in conjunction with a man. A felony conviction often prevents you from obtaining a good job.
It odd that feminists complain about a glass ceiling, but women have been allowed in the workforce for decades and what stops them from starting their own companies or that there hasn’t been a woman president even though women have had the right to vote for about a century and comprise the majority of the electorate and CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR MEN, but if men have issues, well they have the legal right to it except that they don’t. Women have the right to health care says the ACA, but there are items for women like HIV screening/prevention that are not available for men.
Men suffer stress from sexual harassment, but the law is LEGALLY applied in a discriminatory manner. Check the reasonable woman and reasonable man standard if you don’t believe it. Male inmates also don’t have the same protections as female inmates when it comes to cross gender supervision and searches, but if that causes stress and impacts health, what of it?
Do you also think that we should fund suicide prevention because people CHOOSE to do it?
“Women in the past were uneducated because it was ILLEGAL. they were also poor because it was illegal to have a job unless thier husband allowed it and even then, any money made was given to the husband because it was ILLEGAL for women to own land, have money, education or job. ”
Citation?
I know of no time period (especially within the last 200-300 years) in which it was illegal for a woman to have a job, period. Illegal to hold certain jobs? Certainly, but any job whatsoever? Not a chance. Also not true that it was illegal for women to learn to read. (unless you mean slave women, in which case it was also illegal for slave men to learn as well) Was it very common? No, but up until very recently it wasn’t terribly common for men to learn to read and get an education (beyond a trade) either. For one thing it was terribly expensive (public schools are a relatively recent invention as well) and it just wasn’t really neccessary for the average person.
I’m also highly skeptical of the idea that women weren’t allowed to own property, legally. Maybe in some countries and in some time periods, but for the entirety of human history up until, what, 1960? Not likely. Again, you have to remember that land and property ownership was restricted to a relative handful of people.
This whole “man leaves home to work, women takes care of kids.” thing is literally a blip on the historical timeline. It existed for about 40 years or so in the early/mid twentieth century, yet people seem to believe it dated back to Rome or something.
@ Collin
That’s why I’m a firm believer that success must be celebrated. It keeps a movement alive. Recently in Michigan a law was passed allowing biological fathers to establish paternity for children they fathered with someone else’s wife. The feminist lobby (NOW) in Michigan opposed the law as the feminist lobby in Illinois opposed criminalizing interference with visitation. I guess NOW is pro infidelity or at least when women are doing it. It is much more important to protect a woman’s right to cheat than to have a man father his child probably while vilifying the man for not being a real father.
Take heart.
http://jeannehannah.typepad.com/blog_jeanne_hannah_traver/paternity/
@ Julie
I’m not too worried about the comment. I try not to sweat the small stuff, but if you’d like to write about the Michigan law, it’s not perfect, but I think it would cheer some people up.
Thanks for that link. That makes no sense to me. I’m going to have to do some research on why NOW would reject it. Do you have any idea? Are they using reasons of monetary support or fears of abuse should the cheating come out? While I can understand that, it still seems like fathers should have the rights to see their children just as mothers should and infidelity is wrong no matter what gender performs it.
I did a cursory search of the NOW site, but if you have links as to why they opposed that would be helpful.
I only have a link to a site that reported that they opposed it.
“The bills were backed by the National Family Justice Association, Friend of the Court Association, Department of Human Services, Michigan Probate Judges Association and the Family Law Section of the Michigan State Bar.
The Michigan branch of the National Organization for Women opposed the bills.”
http://www.necn.com/06/10/12/Mich-bills-would-extend-biological-dads-/landing_politics.html?&apID=da7cfb404f9c49a8b8a0c82f88b5e895
It might be concerns over issues of abuse. I remember in Illinois there initially was a push to require mothers put their information into a registry that men could search if they were concerned that their child would be placed for adoption. The feminist lobby complained that it was an invasion of privacy and so the state established a putative father’s registry.
I’ll see if I can find a chapter web site.
“The feminist lobby complained that it was an invasion of privacy and so the state established a putative father’s registry.”
Which is totally NOT an invasion of privacy… oy.
Historically, under the law there has been a “presumption” (legal term of art) that a child born within a marriage is a child of the husband. In many states this presumption is irrebutable. That means the court will not accept evidence to the contrary, no matter how overshelming The purpose for this irrebutable presumption was to protect the sanctity of marriage. (Yes, we could debate the hypocrisy of that idea when you are talking about an unfaithful wife. I’m only reporting.) it seems like this is a historical artifact from a different era when DNA testing did not exist and proving who the father was might be very difficult, and require all kinds of lurid testimony about who had sex with whom when, and there might never be a clear answer. Now that we have DNA testing and sexual infidelity is, if not accepted, at least not the scarlet letter it used to be, it seems like there is no reason to keep this particular law.
P.s. in past discussions on this topic, I’ve gotten into arguments with people who think when I use the term “irrebutable presumption ” I’m making a moral statement or something, and they get very heated about it. It’s a LEGAL concept, people! Google it.
Oh, and another issue was (a) to protect children from being labelled “bastards” or at least from having their “legitimacy” called into question. Obviously that stigma is gone as well. And (b) to protect innocent husbands from the social stigma of having their wife accused of infidelity,which I guess was seen as more awful (in those days) than raising another man’s child, and (c) to protect women from the same smear on their reputation. Again, this all hardens back to days before DNA testing when paternity was more difficult to establish.
If I read their statement correctly, that’s precisely why the Michigan chapter of NOW is against the laws, it’s because now (no pun intended) paternity can be proven. I still think the primary; underlying reason is to prevent the discovery of illicit affairs. It might be because they fear abuse to the mother or child. I don’t know. If I have time, I’ll see if I can find what their arguments were, but seeing as I’ve never had any success getting comment from feminist leaning websites (it could be my approach), it would probably take someone officially affiliated with GMP to do it.
“it seems like this is a historical artifact from a different era when DNA testing did not exist and proving who the father was might be very difficult…”
Yes, Sarah, that is true and also it dates forom a time when extra kids,whatever the paternity, were a boon of extra labor to a family, not an extra burden of expense, so no one much cared really.
Here from the chapter web site.
” The putative father’s rights bills (HB 4067, SB 256, SB 557, 558, 559, 560) have passed the Senate and House Judiciary Committee. We testified against the bills as they take away a protective mother’s rights. The bills are supported by the Family Law Section of the State Bar, the DHS Office of Child Support, the probate judges, and of course the father’s rights groups. Now that there is DNA testing, biological fathers can be identified should they wish to come forward and make a claim. The logic of allowing putative fathers to gain access to and some control over their progeny seems to hit sympathetic chords with legislators in the silence of the affected women and children.”
http://www.michnow.org/capitolreport-2012-03.htm
@ Julie
I looked for their testimony or reasoning on-line and couldn’t find it. They had stuff listed for other legislative action, but not this one. I found the meeting minutes for one committee meeting and didn’t see them on it, but I saw the other organizations. I’d contact them directly, but don’t think they’d want to talk to me.
I do understand that, for many, a shift to concern about males of any age will be difficult. I am well aware of the damage sexism has done.
Maybe it’s me but I think part of the problem is right here. When I see this I see that maybe the difficulty of showing concern for men comes from the idea that a “shift” needs to be done and following with one saying they know what sexism has done.
About the “shift”. People aren’t going to like that because it’s seen as an implication that it’s time to stop focusing on women/girls and put the attention on men/boys. Be on the look out for zero sum game enthusiasts.
About the mention of sexism here. Sounds like the sexism is being seen to mean sexism is “something that men do to women (and that it doesn’t happen to men)”. If you’re dealing with people that can’t even acknowledge sexism against men (or boys) good luck getting them to speak up about it.
Part of it is that those titles claiming the end of males or questioning their necessity all say, “men,” a word that does not generally elicit concern or compassion.
While I fully agree with the importance of focusing on boys (because they will become the men of the future) I think it’s worth wondering why “men” doesn’t elicit concern or compassion. In fact it seems to elicit scorn and dismissal. I mean look at how in (at least American) mainstream media coverage of foreign tragedies the death tolls are usually reported in terms of how many “women and children” are among the dead.
“Until the last decade, most doctors refused even to broach that question, but that ethical demarcation has eroded, as ever more patients lobby for that option and doctors discover that plenty opt for girls.”
I find it interesting that this is happening in the States but when the opposite happens in foreign countries (boys being picked over girls) it’s treated like some grand crime against girls/women.
A recent quote ….
“In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men,” Obama wrote. “This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.”
This is a great thing … for who?
I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that it’s because women make up a larger portion of the population, but men are more populous at younger ages. We just die faster. He also can’t be clueless about the size of the disparity in higher education, can he?
Great for Obama and the Democrat Party, of course.
The guy’s a politician, don’t forget. And women vote more for Democrats and give more of their money to Democrats. That’s why it is important for Democrats to celebrate women’s accomplishments, worry publicly and obsessively about the few remaining spheres where women aren’t on top, and to disproportionately fund women’s health and women’s education and women’s empowerment. There are campaign donations (e.g. EMILY’s List) and footsoldiers and votes to be won for Democrats.
There is no men’s lobby. Politicians act out of fear of embarassment, political retribution, and loss of positions where they receive praise and exercise power. Until politicians are afraid of men, the way politicians are afraid of women, men will be treated as second class citizens.
If you don’t like it, do something about it.