Hanna Rosin has a snark-infused rebuttal to Suzanne Venker’s piece “The War on Men“. Venker drew fire for pointing out that men are less interested in marriage than women. She explicitly blames women for this. As expected, Rosin disagrees. In response, Rosin summed up her thesis:
When I was writing the End of Men I mulled over many reasons why men in certain segments of society were dropping out of work and family life: the end of the manufacturing era, the housing crisis, their unwillingness to get a college degree. I talked to hundreds of men and pondered their stuckness, their general sense that they were ill equipped for the modern economy and didn’t quite know how to fix that. I arrived at an imperfect explanation that men were suffering from some kind of “masculine mystique,” trapped in an all too narrow set of social roles which were no longer serving them well. What I did not consider was that the true and complete answer was right under my nose, or more precisely, all over my face, staring back at me from the mirror. The reason men could not move forward was ME.
Leave aside the burgeoning flame war and the fact that Venker’s essay was a bit imprecise in placing blame on women for men’s fortunes. Women, by and large, are reacting to their reality – a reality that was largely created by someone else, including feminists and culture writers like Rosin.
It’s funny that Rosin’s entire premise is that men aren’t adapting to a quickly changing work and social environment because of some “masculine mystique”. Men hold fast to masculine ideals and don’t seem as willing to adapt as women do. Women have adapted well because they were never at the top of the social hierarchy. They’re like immigrants, according to Rosin, and have a nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic.
But who helps perpetuate this mystique if not women?
Women aren’t embracing a new masculine ideal as quickly as men need to adapt in order to keep their heads above water. Plenty has been written about women who struggle with this shift – struggle with being attracted to men of lowered status. Just a personal example: my girlfriend makes twice as much money as I do, and I’m struggling finding a better-paying job than my current one. I suggested that maybe it’s at the point where she could just be the breadwinner. “Fuck it, here’s the bread sweetheart, you won it.” If we have kids, I could be a domestic dad. She’s not cool with that idea though. She prefers that I get a better job which would allow her to pare back at her current job. There’s not much adaptation in any of this. It’s the same old model.
Look at engagement rings. They’re a good enough model for this slow-moving two-step. I tried to find data on this, but it is harder to come by than I assumed. So I have to revert back to my senses. Even as women are increasing in status and in the workplace, in order to get married many men still have to go through the engagement “ringamarole”. Spending on engagement rings has decreased some during the recession, but it has not kept pace with men’s loss of status and relative income. You’ll still see men who earn less money than women forking over thousands of dollars in order to get married. He also sacrifices some of his masculine spirit whereas women seem more comfortable in the domicile. All of these cost disparities are figments of a bygone era, but they’ve for some reason been amplified even as that era has become more and more bygone. Over the really long term – say, post-War up until now – men’s relative status has declined immensely even as the average spent on The Ring has increased several fold. And anyone wonders why men are less enthusiastic than women about marriage?
This undermines Rosin’s argument that men just aren’t adapting quickly enough. Men respond to cues and signals from women, and what they’re receiving is mixed. Maybe she mentions women’s role in maintaining the status quo in her book, but she doesn’t focus on this point to highlight the thrust of her book, and I’m certainly not going to spend money on the thing to find out.
Like this:
Like Loading...
I talked to hundreds of men and pondered their stuckness
Maybe I’m just engaging in selective recall, but there was a time when there was an intellectual left that had intellectual credibility, such as Gore Vidal. Obviously that time has passed, if it ever existed. I imagine Rosin’s defenders would say ‘stuckness’ was a witty neologism, at least those who know what a neologism is, but it is nothing of the sort, just plain bad writing.
Nice post Chuck. I’ll believe true equality has reached the first time a guy doesnt buy an engagement ring and the immediate thought of frinds and family is not ‘what a cheapskate’.
Best part of Rosin’s essay was her epic freakout at the suggestion of getting in touch with her femininity.
Hilarious because Roosh had just predicted EXACTLY THIS in a recent tweet:
“Easiest way to piss off an Amer. girl: say ‘I like feminine women.’ She knows deep down she’s not feminine, so she hears ‘I don’t like you.’”
Some great points. I would like to add that my wife makes more money than I do, so when we go out to dinner we alternate who pays. Very progressive of us, eh? But when we go out with friends (who all know that she makes more money than me) they all act like I just took a big dump on the table if it’s her turn to pay and I let her pick up the tab. Our server likewise will also often give me a look that says, “Seriously, you’re going to make your wife buy dinner? You suck, dude.”
WR: You have stupid friends. My wife makes slightly more than I, but because I spent most of my adult years in the military, and was often deployed, she handles the family finances. We combined our finances years ago, since I was often gone for 3-6 months a year. So, I don’t care who picks up the tab, it’s our money.
But we’ve been married for 33 years, so our situation is a little different from most other people.
I make way more then my GF and I made her pick up a $130 dinner bill the other night.
Don’t ever give up the pimp hand. Her money is your money.
@Mike: our friends are good, smart people. They’re just still on the blue pill. I was simply pointing out that in spite of decades of female empowerment the social expectation that the man should pay for dinner is still going strong, even when the man is married to a woman who is also working and making her own money.
“”It’s funny that Rosin’s entire premise is that men aren’t adapting to a quickly changing work and social environment because of some “masculine mystique”.”
She’s an idiot. What she hasn’t realized is that men have adapted.
Years ago, one of our sons was playing in an international youth soccer tournament. There were teams from several nations, yet despite that, the team did quite well winning all their games and ending up in the tournament final. We looked over at the other team, and it was evident that they were quite a bit older than our 12 year olds. (How many 12 year olds have mustaches?) And of all 22 players, they were born in the same month and year. So obviously, their documents were forged. We protested to the tourney officials but they said they had to honor their documents and we had to play or forfeit. The coach gathered the team, and said essentially, look the game is way stacked against us. So we will play, but the goal is not to win but to survive and without injury. We played, lost and then spread the word. The following year the tournament was cancelled due to lack of teams, the word had gone out and it was impossible for coaches to get their teams enrolled. The parents would have none of it.
Men are the same way. They have seen the game stacked against them, and so their playing is at a minimum. They won’t invest heavily in the marriage/career game when the chance for injury is so great. Besides, there are many other options for them, and evidently, if they don’t like the game – they won’t play.
It used to be said that women were responsible for civilization; that they nagged men into building it. In some ways, that’s probably true, but men have decided that they don’t want to be nagged. Too bad, but it’s an adaption.
I just had Thanksgiving Day at two different homes in two different counties of the state where I live. The homes were filled with very attractive women of different ages. Only two older women were with a man, and that was their husband, all other females were totally alone. Any correlation here?
She thinks she’s being snarky but if you read that straight, she’s exactly correct.
Women … have a nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Also, I don’t buy the argument that men are not adaptable. Men seem to have adapted to pretty much every environmental/social situation since day one. Men are adapting to the “new economy” and will continue to adapt (it’s not so much a new economy as it is a new playing field where women are given extra points for having a vagina). For all of history men have been warriors, fighters, workers, bosses, kings, slaves, dictators, democrats, communicators, teachers, gurus, war mongers, peace makers, poets, scientists, hunters, providers, caretakers, lovers, haters, teachers, thinkers, givers, takers, etc, etc. Men will adapt to just about any situation you throw them in. Anyway, it was men who started working in the “knowledge economy” first – before female affirmative action in the schools and workplace came into being. Like I said, not so much a “new economy” as a new playing field (biased against men).
My wife used to make more money than me. For several years now I’ve made more. Having been on both sides, it’s easier when the man makes more. Her innate desire to be cared for is satisfied. Also, and I say this as a man who truly enjoys having three kids, you do not want to stay home with the kids.
I was a waiter when I bought her engagement/wedding ring. I spent $650 and she still wears it without compunction. If she’s into you, she’ll be more excited about the idea than the tangible value of the symbol.
There are other ways to be of value to a woman besides making a lot of money. Plenty of high earning men get cheated on and dumped.
“Hanna Rosin” …. now what is it about that name that reminds me of so many other radical feminists out there?…. hmmmmm…
“Women … have a nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic.”
Gonna have to echo Y here. True LOLs were had.
Gentlemen,
On “nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic”…this is Rosin’s characterization.
I have all the income, the education, the work ethic, and the attributes women supposedly can’t find in men anymore. But women generally treat me like an uninteresting zoo animal they see on the way to looking at the tigers. That suits me fine, but anecdotally it tells me that “no good men left” actually means “no men that fit my colossally inflated standards will marry me after they blow their wad in my vagina.”
Mike43: Excellent allegory.
@ CR
On “nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic”…this is Rosin’s characterization.
Yes, we know. Now if only Hanna would take her own nose to the grindstone.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/archive/2010/11/1_123125_2274387_2274108_101126_hive_hannatn.jpg
“If we have kids, I could be a domestic dad.”
haha, that took ballz…
surprized the macho types like Ryu haven’t called you a mangina for that….
¨Women … have a nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!¨
And I will add,
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL AND ONE MORE LOL
These people want to bend reality to their interests.
A couple more hit-jobs on Suzanne Venker’s piece,
http://jezebel.com/5963264/arming-yourself-for-the-war-on-men-you-didnt-know-you-were-already-fighting
http://www.vice.com/read/youre-a-pussy-if-you-think-theres-a-war-on-men
I sense a fear of losing control of the narrative by this mob.
¨I’m certainly not going to spend money on the thing to find out¨
You work too hard to waste much on this drivel.
My son had a mustache when he was 12. College girls asked him for dates.
He also played soccer very well.
women work very hard
harder than men certianly
there is a reaosn that women are making gains in the workforce
i know a female who works in fanacial service, has an MBA, works 80 hours a week and still heads many volunteer groups
she is also dead gorgwuos
some pepole are just aseosme
Makes me wonder, is it possible to counteract the whole “bad provider” feeling of making less than the woman by being a “good provider” in other ways, say like doing the majority of car repair and maintenance yourself, learning enough to build a room extension or replace a broken toilet, or is it all about the benjamens? If so, I’m screwed.
@Spike I did well for years by being good at other things. Making more money just makes it easier. You can put off fixing shit without issue when your paycheck is larger.
It’s ironic that a debate about the status of men in today’s gender landscape can only be delivered by women to be taken seriously.
Only in a fem-centric society are two women allowed to debate the pros and cons specifically about men and gender issues. Only in girl-world is a woman considered a legitimate authority and a credible assessor of issues that are uniquely male. No man could ever vocalize the points that Suzanne Venker makes and expect any rational discourse beyond the dismissive screeches of “MISOGYNIST!”
In girl-world only women are allowed to advocate for men.
Spike,
Being handy around the house is worth a lot of money. I’ve paid a lot of money to have people do those things.
Being a bad provider can be countered by being a good charmer, if the experiences of the semi-employed hipsters I know who manage cute and nicely employed girlfriends is any indication.
I agree with heartiste. I’ve seen some crum bums clean up the ladies and delight the fellows. If people like you, sexually, platonically, etc, they will allow you to get away with a lot, especially in the responsibilities arena.