The Myth of Male Decline - NYTimes.com (Comments need a trigger warning)

DavidByron · 2012-09-30T23:45:11+00:00

Can we avoid the stupid "trigger warning" language please? Leave that crap to the feminists.

EpicJ · 2012-09-30T17:51:44+00:00

This article in the comments is quite interesting

2012-09-30T20:26:41+00:00

I had the feeling while reading this, that the author realises that too many books and articles describing the decline of men destroys the justification for the many government sponsored women only entitlement programs.

So it's important to her to keep selling the story of male power, privilege and wealth whilst portraying the contrasting view that women are unfairly and cruelty disadvantaged in a "man's world".

And that, rather than the truth, is the basis for her article.

Liberhat · 2012-09-30T21:28:14+00:00

I get the idea that men are to blame whenever we are in "decline" or not. If we are, it's because we aren't smart enough to compete with women in our "equal society", and our natural failings are now being cruelly exposed by today's smart, intelligent, and liberated women. But if we are NOT in decline, then we are still in the wrong, because it proves women still have to work harder to get half as far, that men still stand in the way of women's equality, and all this proves we still need feminism to empower women and bring about equality.

So either way men get screwed, since either eventuality means more misandry, and more perks for women.

notscrubsjd · 2012-09-30T21:47:19+00:00

I feel dumber for having read the comments. Most of those people are utterly clueless. Here's a prime example:

Right on, sista! While working for a top management consulting firm, I learned that my direct report who had an MBA was making $40K more than me and he was basically being trained by me. My master's degree was seen as less worthy than an MBA.

I guess this keen businesswoman has forgotten that "MBA" is short for "Master of Business Administration," which Wikipedia defines as "a master's degree in business administration." I guess she feels that her Master's degree in eleventh-century Italian basketry should be treated just like a high-level business degree that most companies expect their higher-level employees/managers to hold. It must be sexism when they don't!

That same poster goes on to related the following anecdote:

A friend at the same company had complained that her salary was too low so I encouraged her to advocate for herself to obtain an increase. When all was said and done, it did happen and they had to give her a 32% increase just to make her comparable to her male colleagues - what a joke!

It couldn't possibly be that the men negotiated their salaries when they were hired whereas the female friend did not. Or that the men had been employed longer and/or were doing harder/more important work, and the company only increased the woman's salary because it was cheaper than a lawsuit. No, it must be sexism.

But my favorite post - from a commenter with a male name, no less- is this one (emphasis mine):

After 30 years as an academic, I saw men become the followers and women the leaders in college. ODK, a leadership academic society, went from 80% male to almost 100% women in 25 years. Many colleges trying to maintain 40% males lower the bar for SAT/ACT and GPA. Males with the same SAT/ACT scores have a final GPA about 0.3 points less (4.0 scale). And women so not take easier courses. A larger percentage of our pre-professional women finish our rigorous programs. The myth that women less well than men in math and the quantitative sciences has been disproved. SAT and GRE scores indicate women perform as well as men on quantitative portions of these exams. Change does not occur overnight. I believe if current trends continue, the cohort of today's women graduates will outperform men and hold higher office for those who choose to work continuously throughout their careers. Thirty years ago every high administrative office at our college was held by a man, while eight years ago all but one of these posts was held by a women, including the president. I see this replicated at our peer institutions. Many young men have given up trying to excel and it is higher among those who do not finish HS as a recent well-researched article in the Atlantic magazine attests. Unless males begin to perform better in school, society will lose an enormous pool of potential talent.

It's the old feminist narrative. * Women perform poorly in school = sexism, the patriarchy has stacked the system against the poor dears so let's arbitrarily give them more points on standardized tests/easier grade curves/admissions preference. * Men perform poorly in school = men are lazy and need to work harder.

When will our culture learn not to blame the victims? /s

bucketh3ad · 2012-09-30T20:00:12+00:00

It was painful to watch this article struggle to find a "But..." for every instance of women clearly outperforming men.

theguesser10 · 2012-10-01T01:10:58+00:00

I never understand these articles. Aren't we still being led by a past generation? You can create a totally equal society, but you're not going to see it until that first truly equal generation grows up and takes control.

2012-10-01T05:54:04+00:00

I read a book by this author, Coontz. "Marriage: A History." It was one of the most gynocentric views of marriage I've ever come across.

Children were treated as a side-issue in marriage; the only time children are mentioned is when they related to women, but never in a way that would implicate women for the mal-treatment of children. The result is that there was a lot in the index about women and children and women and child-rearing, but little about women and child abuse.

What really amazed me was the author's take on women and paid labor during the Depression and during WWII. Her take on the situation turned 180 degrees over the span of a decade.

The Depression: Women were forced, by economic necessity, to go-out and work so as to help make ends meet for their families. BAD.

WWII: The number of men in combat required women to work men's jobs in factories. GOOD.

Her reasoning was that in the first case, it was bad because women who worked were viewed as being married to failures. (Who viewed their husbands as failures? 'Society', not the women themselves.) But in the second case, they were working "men's jobs" which were wonderful, and it was a feel-good experience, etc.

Given very quick mention was the fact that men were suffering during the depression as well and that men were being drafted into conflict during WWII. These were but minor details compared to the really important question: whether or not women were adequately happy in the workforce.

truthman2000 · 2012-10-01T03:19:27+00:00

Please don't use the term "trigger warning". We aren't little liberal feminist girls who are terrified of seeing something that might offend us. At least I'm not. :)

Title	The Myth of Male Decline - NYTimes.com (Comments need a trigger warning)
Author	HighOnLife
Upvotes	29
Comments	18
Date	September 30, 2012 5:35 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10pugi/the_myth_of_male_decline_nytimescom_comments_need/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-myth-of-male-decline-nytimescom-comments-need.1012373 https://theredarchive.com/post/1012373