Hanna Rosin said that men are obsolete. That’s silly. Here’s why she’s wrong.
—-
“But in order to win this debate we have to prove that men, quote unquote, as we’ve historically come to define them — entitled to power, destined for leadership, arrogant, confused by anything that isn’t them. As in: “I don’t understand. Is it a guy dressed up like a girl? Or a girl dressed up like a guy?” They are obsolete.”
Right from the jump, we disagree. I don’t know who besides Hanna Rosin defines men this way, but it’s a pretty crappy definition and not the one that I would use. So, I suppose I could stop my criticism now because her argument is built on a shaky foundation, but I’m going to press on.
Her first point: “It’s the end of men because men are failing in the workplace.”
She cites the fact that women are earning the majority of college degrees relegating the now obsolete man to “ball and chain” status. I’m calling shenanigans. The facts and figures may be accurate but I think she’s turned in completely the wrong direction. Rosin notes that some studies suggest boys start falling behind girls in school as early as the first grade. How the hell can ‘men’ be obsolete by the time they turn six years old? Seriously? I was obsolete twelve years before the government considered me a man? Twelve years before I could vote. Ten years before I could drive. Nineteen years before I could rent a car. Apparently, instead of reading, writing, and arithmetic, my first grade experience would have been better served learning to latch on to a successful girl in class like a millstone around her neck.
“Many boys start falling behind as early as first grade, and they fail to catch up. Many men, meanwhile, still see school as a waste of time, a girl thing.”
That just reads like schadenfreude. She spends the entire article describing this fictional obsolescence while every word is just shy of smug. Hanna Rosin seems to be enjoying the “decline” of men as if that will somehow benefit anyone. She seems to forget that we’re all in this together and if half the ship is sinking, the whole sonuvabitch is going under.
So, let’s talk about why boys start falling behind as early as first grade. Ms. Rosin was not so kind as to link to any of her sources (though, I’m sure they’re all quite reliable). So, I’ll offer an anecdotal theory. Before a boy goes to school, he’s probably concerned with a couple of major issues: running, jumping, swinging, swimming, chasing, etc. You know, the big important things. The average boy at age 5 is an action verb. He’s probably not taught to sit still and be quiet; his energy is probably channeled instead. “Go outside and play” or something along those lines. What do we expect to happen when we sit that boy down in a desk for seven hours with forty-five minutes of play time somewhere in the middle. It’s a wonder that more boys don’t start to vibrate so quickly that they phase through their desks and onto the nearest playground.
Maybe men aren’t “obsolete”; maybe we’re forgetting about the boys. And I don’t think Hanna Rosin should be so damn pleased about that.
Moving on!
“TWO: It’s the end of men because the traditional household, propped up by the male breadwinner, is vanishing.”
Her points in this section actually aren’t that stupid. Some of them are quite encouraging; women are making great strides in the world. This is an exciting time to be alive. However, that does not mark the “end of men” or “obsolescence”.
The economy destroyed the idea of a sole “male breadwinner”. She goes on to say that women are starting to “marry down”, as in, marrying men with less money. That’s not the end of men; that’s the liberation of women. They can marry whomever they please, because they have their own money. This isn’t either/or. Women’s liberation doesn’t signal men’s demise.
“THREE: It’s the end of men because we can see it in the working and middle class…as men lose their jobs and lose their will to be fathers, and women do everything alone…Why don’t these women marry or live with the fathers of their children? As many a woman told me, “He’d be just another mouth to feed.”
Yet again, shenanigans. I want quotes, sources, links, something. Just another mouth to feed? Are you sure she’s talking about a man and not a german shepherd? Rosin makes another crucial mistake here: this isn’t an indictment of men or the “end of men”. This is a statement about losers. Women can raise their children without the monetary aid of losers. Good. Losers are obsolete.
“FOUR: It’s the end of men because men have lost their monopoly on violence and aggression.”
Hmmm. Okay. Well… 1) Bullshit. 2) Why is that a good thing? Women can be violent and aggressive now and so that means men are obsolete? I don’t even follow this one. Since a woman might be aggressive enough to punch me in the face, I am now unnecessary? What was that necessary function before? And, considering that a violent response from me would land me in jail, I would argue that Hanna Rosin is very wrong on this point. Very few people think that women have an equal capacity for physical violence. Also, why would she want that?
“FIVE: It’s the end of men because men, too, are now obsessed with their body hair.”
There it is! The coup de grace. No true man gives a damn what he looks like. If you shave anything other than your face, you’re some kind of sub-man thing. You’re like a poodle with a man(ish) body. And as Hanna Rosin has made very clear, you’re obsolete. Or wait, no. If you shave then you’re not a man so you’re not obsolete.
Quick recap: Men are obsolete. Sexless, clean-shaven, bipedal, poodle people serve some kind of function. Not sure what. She’s unclear.
This is how she ends this 1000-word mash-up of mixed metaphors and general malarkey:
“We can keep whatever we like about manhood but adjust the parts of the definition that are keeping men back.”
What are those exactly? Because it seems to me that Hanna Rosin has been defining manhood as some kind of 1930’s World’s Fair idea of the knuckle-dragging proto-human. Seriously, how is this Time magazine quality? Did she steal some usernames and passwords while the Time staff was out to lunch? Editor was nursing a cold with heavy doses of cough medicine?
Also, she trots out Rob Ford as the epitome of manhood. Rob Ford?! That idea is pissing me off more and more the longer I think about it. “Toronto’s mayor, a shining example of modern manhood is what I would call the canary in the coal mine, only he’s not quite as delicate as the canary.”
Why did she waste her time and mine by actually typing those words in that order? I feel like I should help her out. So, let’s try a new order: “Toronto’s mayor is what only I would call a shining example of modern manhood. A coal mine is not delicate and some flawed metaphor about canaries.” See. Better.
Why does none of this signal the “end of women”? Is it because Hanna Rosin defines women in a favorable way? Therefore, shedding the bonds of patriarchy is still womanly. However, a man bucking the trends of patriarchy is un-manly.
No, thank you, Hanna Rosin. I’ll keep what I like about manhood. I don’t need your approval.
Photo— Flickr/ Himy Syed
Read More: Men Aren’t Obsolete
By making life so much easier for these selfish over-grown children known as females, we have really dug our own graves, men. It’s sad that under the patriarchy, men would traditionally put the safety and security of women before themselves. BUT, today, when everything is more matriarchal, women honestly don’t give a damn how they’re effecting us… including their own sons. So, maybe, just maybe there was some genius behind patriarchies. I mean, in order for a society to thrive, BOTH men and women have to work together. Women have to be willing to stand behind and support men, just… Read more »
I don’t mind becoming “obsolete.” It means I won’t be defined by my usefulness, which is how men have traditionally been defined. I’ve never felt that “need to be needed” that I’m supposed to pretend to feel. I’d like to opt out of being defined primarily by how useful I am to women or how useful I am to society at large. I would rather be a completely unnecessary luxury item. Let me be a cool, retro throwback. I’ll be one of those nifty, valuable, completely decorative items on Antiques Roadshow. Besides, men would be in excellent company among all… Read more »
This article signals the end of Hanna Rosin.
First I agree. If it’s the end of man, we’re all in trouble, men and women. So, I think we do need to understand why men are “falling behind”. If it’s because men have decided that they are happier with “work / life balance”, that would be a good thing. If not, then we need to address it. Everyone deserves a fair chance at happiness. I have a different take on boys falling behind girls in school. I remember wanting to run and jump. I also remember a bunch of boys who didn’t do much reading or studying study their… Read more »
“as men lose their jobs and lose their will to be fathers” “This is a statement about losers. Women can raise their children without the monetary aid of losers. Good. Losers are obsolete.” That is extremely harsh or is it because they are men that they are disposable. Woman doesn’t have a job state provided child care, financial and medical assistance until she can get on her feet, and training to make her marketable. Men, they’re losers. Good they disappear. When boys/men spend pretty much their entire lives being raised to believe that their ability to work and bring money… Read more »
Take that a step further where it is far more clear and that is if there is a married couple with no kids and wife decides to stay home and not work, she is simply making a choice but if a man does the same, he’s a bum.
We’ve made headway with dads at home but when it comes to men/husbands only… choice is not available to them at all.
Wanted to ass, listen to the daughter … wonder where she got her views from?
That should have said “add”…. sorry
I linked to her site and there was a video banter between her and daughter vs husband and son. Ya wanna make yourself nuts, watch the video in her bio.
Read Men On Strike by Helen Smith as to why men are dropping out of marriage, college and
careers.
I’m no fan of Hanna Rosin, by any means, but I think that your understanding of her point may be a bit off.
The “end of men” that she’s referencing is about the concept of masculinity that we’ve come to know, not about the end people who are male. What she seems ‘happy’ about are the old stereotypes breaking down, not about the fact that men are struggling.
She is deliberately using ambiguous and misleading language, so that on an emotional level she can reach the big audience that really hates men, thus generating clicks and sales, while at the same time maintaining plausible deniability for political correctness’ sake (“I never meant all men, just the system, just the system!”). It’s a business strategy, a quite amoral one.
I agree with both you and Wylee, but I believe there is one subtlety that is being missed. Traditional masculinity was to protect and provide. Your ability to provide is measured in the amount of money you make, but money = privilege in this society. Men are becoming less privileged or if women are surpassing men in income, women are becoming privileged. In theory she’s suggesting that we’re moving from a patriarchy to a matriarchy and wasn’t that always a feminist fantasy at least among some of the more radical feminists?
Rosin always struck me as being oddly anti-feminist, as with the statement that a woman marrying a man who earns less is marrying down – as if women need to be dependent on men earning more, and as if there’s nothing else but money that a man can bring to the table.
I agree. From what I’ve read of her, I can’t really tell if the fault is that she uses old fashioned terminology or if she actually believes what she’s implying. There was a time when marriages were more like business transactions and marrying someone with less money was ‘marrying down’. But I don’t think that that’s been the case for a while. When the term is used now, it generally refers to personal traits. Using the old definition in a current article does seem really anti feminist.
Rosin draws income and a steady flow of notoriety from this meme – she is invested in the idea regardless of its validity.
As noted just above, until this number rises to about 80% or so, it better not be the “end of men”, at least not just yet…
The economy destroyed the idea of a sole “male breadwinner”. She goes on to say that women are starting to “marry down”, as in, marrying men with less money. That’s not the end of men; that’s the liberation of women. Indeed, and a sign of equality would perhaps be that the proportions are about 50/50, but we’re not there yet. According to Pew Research, ca 22% of married women in 2007 earned more than their husbands. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/19/women-men-and-the-new-economics-of-marriage/ Forty years ago, the typical man did not gain another breadwinner in his household when he married. Today, he does — giving his… Read more »
Is it the liberation of women or would that be signaled by 50% of marriages being imitated by women? If women are “settling” for men who earn less while wanting men who financially contribute equally or to a greater extent, is it really “liberating” women or is it “liberating” men?