I need a homework break so I went to go read something that wasn’t inside of blackboard.
This article bugs me. I don’t know if it is the head/sub-head combo or the premise of the author. It feels like it is one of those stories that is there to be sensational in an effort to generate traffic.
The author says we are witnessing the end of men because women do not need them for anything (except procreation, which is stated in the second graph), they are succeeding men in the workplace and that men are increasingly effeminate deadbeats who are less horny then women.
I disagree (otherwise I would probably not have pressed this).
If men are obsolete because more women are the alpha in their relationships does that mean the only “competent” men are alpha personalities? Does that mean that all relationships have an inherent burden where one partner overcompensates for the inefficiencies of another?
The thing about this piece is that there are no citations in some of the points of the article and the credibility of the story is reliant on the credibility of the author, who is some speaker trying to plug her book.
And a lot of the claims feel loose:
Now in every part of America young single women under 30 have a higher median income than young men, which is really important because that’s the phase of life when people imagine what their future will look like.
If your going to write an article, even an opinion piece like this – which it would be nice if it was labeled that way – just give us some stats. I get this is what the author does and we should take her for her word. But without proof it is just words. And everything after the comma is just complete filler. People can plan for or change their futures at any time.
There is a funny line at the end of her last paragraph in the first point where she writes:
Many men, meanwhile, still see school as a waste of time, a girl thing.
Aren’t people entering colleges at all-time rates because of the poor job market and the fact that projected future jobs will require more collegiate degrees? Without any proof, how is that statement acceptable?
The whole article feels like a ranting, nihilistic indictment of men. In a paragraph at the end of the piece she does kind of a cliché “that doesn’t mean we don’t like men” and “I wonder what the world for my son will be like” which makes the whole thing just feel like a big ole niche waste of time (like country music). But there is one thing, in the second to last paragraph, that caught my attention:
Obsolete does not mean worthless. It means outmoded. The twin combustion engine made the bicycle obsolete but that doesn’t mean we hate the bicycle. We just use it the way we want to, while recognizing the necessity of efficiency and change. We don’t have to turn men into eunuchs. We can keep whatever we like about manhood but adjust the parts of the definition that are keeping men back.
I underlined the part that struck me. Does the new woman look at man as a matter of achieving some sort of life pre-requisite? If so, then I would like to write some sort of “death of women” answer to this article because I do not live in a world where the concept of “do anything for the other person” love is no longer available.
I don’t care who makes the money, who wants to fuck more or who has less hair on their body – the experience of living life with another person that respects and appreciates who we are is something that matters and is still present in society.
But I have no links or sources to site to prove that.
Maybe I can write for Time.