The C is for Crank
Misreading the "Mancession"
Over at Crosscut, Anthony Robinson has a piece today bemoaning the so-called "Mancession" and arguing that the real victims of the lousy economy (and, by extension, of women's continued employment) are boys and men. (The Mancession, in brief, refers to the fact that women now outnumber men in the US workforce). As evidence, Robinson cites Hanna Rosin's Atlantic
cover story, "The End of Men," which posited that men are being rendered powerless in post-industrial society, in large part because women are doing better. (Imagine if a major national magazine said that white people were over because we elected a black president. Oh, wait. They did.)
Oh, please. This again?
First, let's get one thing out of the way: The reason more women have kept jobs in this economy is that the fastest-growing industries happen to be female-dominated industries (nursing, child care, retail, hospitality) that pay less money than industries dominated by men. At the top, women are still lagging far behind men: While there are a handful of female CEOs and federal officeholders, they're the exception, not the rule. And even in the middle, women still make less than men for equal work. You know, the wage gap? Remember that?
Second: The fact that women's opportunities to succeed are now marginally more equal to men's indicates that traditional gender roles are changing, not that good old American manhood is ending forever. Privilege is painful to give up; I understand that. But it's ludicrous to argue that men have traditionally made more money, had more opportunities, and dominated the top ranks of corporations and government because of some kind of innate masculinity that is now being "diminished" and "neglected" due to women's success. Men's financial success, throughout history, has been greased by women's unpaid labor and good old sexism. Now that that's changing---a little---some men are worried that they won't get theirs.
Fortunately, though, equality is not a zero-sum game. Men are limited, too, by a culture that defines "real men" as brusque, emotionless automata with no interest in "girly" things like child-rearing, cooking, and culture. Men can take comfort in the fact that as women make inroads into traditionally male-dominated fields, new opportunities will open up for them to display qualities that aren't traditionally "manly"---to carve out new roles for themselves that aren't dictated by hoary, and limiting, gender standards.
Some, of course, say “About time” or "Turnabout is fair play,” and I suppose they have a point. The only problem is that increasingly it seems we live in a society of lost boys and bewildered young (and not so young) men. Have they internalized the mix of diminishment and neglect aimed at their gender? The results aren’t good for anyone. [...]
And so in the matter of genders and “The End of Men,” there are many factors at work, but among them the tendency for a generation or more to celebrate and advance girls but ignore or diminish boys in schools and culture because it fits this script. The result is not only that women are getting three bachelor's degrees for every two earned by men, but the failure on the part of too many men and boys to find their own place in the sun.
Oh, please. This again?
First, let's get one thing out of the way: The reason more women have kept jobs in this economy is that the fastest-growing industries happen to be female-dominated industries (nursing, child care, retail, hospitality) that pay less money than industries dominated by men. At the top, women are still lagging far behind men: While there are a handful of female CEOs and federal officeholders, they're the exception, not the rule. And even in the middle, women still make less than men for equal work. You know, the wage gap? Remember that?
Second: The fact that women's opportunities to succeed are now marginally more equal to men's indicates that traditional gender roles are changing, not that good old American manhood is ending forever. Privilege is painful to give up; I understand that. But it's ludicrous to argue that men have traditionally made more money, had more opportunities, and dominated the top ranks of corporations and government because of some kind of innate masculinity that is now being "diminished" and "neglected" due to women's success. Men's financial success, throughout history, has been greased by women's unpaid labor and good old sexism. Now that that's changing---a little---some men are worried that they won't get theirs.
Fortunately, though, equality is not a zero-sum game. Men are limited, too, by a culture that defines "real men" as brusque, emotionless automata with no interest in "girly" things like child-rearing, cooking, and culture. Men can take comfort in the fact that as women make inroads into traditionally male-dominated fields, new opportunities will open up for them to display qualities that aren't traditionally "manly"---to carve out new roles for themselves that aren't dictated by hoary, and limiting, gender standards.
