The End of Men?
We subscribe to The Atlantic, but since most of our copies head straight to Mike’s gym bag for reading while exercising, I generally only see them months later. So the first I heard of Hanna Rosin’s recent controversial article ”The End of Men” was through Twitter. More specifically through tweets mentioning “the sin of America” and “the destruction of our country” which generally were a reply to or a retweet of @pastermark (Mark Driscoll). So with my interest peaked and my guard raised, I had to find out what all the neo-reformed guys in my twitter list were heralding as the harbinger of destruction for our country. Not surprisingly the answer was women.
Read the article. It’s a fascinating report on the state of gender in America. Most specifically it cites the statistics showing that by far more women than men are receiving higher education degrees these days and that women are now the majority in the workplace and in managerial positions. I’ll admit, I am not a fan of Hanna Rosin nor her approach to writing about gender issues (her piece on breastfeeding seriously pissed me off). And this article is as equally annoying as it is fascinating – most fascinating of course being who is responding to it and who is most offended by it.
The article basically tries to explain why women dominate schools and the workforce these days (numerically at least, men still earn more and hold the top positions of power). She explores why men are more likely to be out of jobs, unmotivated to get higher education, and unwilling to adapt to the current age. She writes –
What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men? For a long time, evolutionary psychologists have claimed that we are all imprinted with adaptive imperatives from a distant past: men are faster and stronger and hardwired to fight for scarce resources, and that shows up now as a drive to win on Wall Street; women are programmed to find good providers and to care for their offspring, and that is manifested in more- nurturing and more-flexible behavior, ordaining them to domesticity. This kind of thinking frames our sense of the natural order. But what if men and women were fulfilling not biological imperatives but social roles, based on what was more efficient throughout a long era of human history? What if that era has now come to an end? More to the point, what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women? … The postindustrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength. The attributes that are most valuable today—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly male. In fact, the opposite may be true.
When the world no longer defines success according to certain supposedly male characteristics, then those men no longer dominate. Women have opportunities to achieve that were denied us before and we are ready and willing to take advantage of them while the men mope about the changed world. And moping they are. Predictably, the loudest outcry about these statistics is coming from the strict hierarchicalists within Christianity. Those that believe women should be at home in the kitchen while men prove their headship by providing are naturally upset that that women now comprise a majority (albeit slight) in the workforce. As Al Mohler writes regarding the importance of this article –
God intended for men to have a role as workers, reflecting God’s own image in their vocation. The most important issue here is not the gains made by women, but the displacement of men. This has undeniable consequences for these men and for everyone who loves and depends on them.The failure of boys to strive for educational attainment is a sign of looming disaster. Almost anyone who works with youth and young adults will tell you that, as a rule, boys are simply not growing up as fast as girls. This means that their transition to manhood is stunted, delayed, and often incomplete. Meanwhile, the women are moving on.
What does it mean for large sectors of our society to become virtual matriarchies? How do we prepare the church to deal with such a world while maintaining biblical models of manhood and womanhood?
The elites are awakening to the fact that these vast changes point to a very different future. Christians had better know that matters far more important than economics are at stake. These trends represent nothing less than a collapse of male responsibility, leadership, and expectations. The real issue here is not the end of men, but the disappearance of manhood.
According to those who uphold the so-called ideas of biblical manhood and womanhood this trend spells disaster. Matriarchy! The end of manhood! The fearmongering has begun. Not only can they blame women for original sin, the demise of the church, but now the complete destruction of our culture. And in part they are right. The idea of manhood as defined by strength, aggression, and dominance that they have constructed and sold as the universal way God created all men to be is under attack. For a time in history that definition of a man (which played into men’s selfish desires of what they wanted to do anyway) prevailed, generally at the expense of women, racial minorities, the disabled, and men who did not fit those molds. But culture has changed and those traits assumed to define manhood are no longer most suitable for success in our society. In fact aggression, rugged individualism, and testosterone driven egotism won’t get you very far these days (except in the church).
Rosin rightly points out that perhaps the gender stereotypes that we once viewed as universal are in truth merely cultural. If we keep defining men according to what put them on top in ages past, there is going to come a point where men are going to fail (which according to the article is happening now). Men don’t have to fail for women to succeed, but they will if they keep being fed lies about what it means to be a man. There are two ways we can respond what this article reveals. We can value the character traits that work in a postindustrial age – which are neither masculine nor feminine – and encourage people to develop those skills (social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus according to Rosen). Or we can keep banging the drum that our cultural stereotypes are universal and in fact God-given and freak-out about the end of the world.
In my opinion these proponents of biblical manhood and womanhood are sailing a sinking ship (and aren’t that biblical either). They are so afraid of their cultural assumptions being challenged that they’ve lost sight that those assumptions are in fact cultural. While others will read this article and celebrate that women now have opportunities and then work hard at helping men and boys overcome years of false programming regarding what they were told a man had to be, some will continue to live in fear of the idea that God values and gifts women as well as men. That truth is finally being seen in society in major ways. The question remains if Christians find ways to help both men and women succeed, or will the church continue to fail men in its attempts to keep women down?
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Great response.
Hi Julie, thanks for highlighting both the article and the response. We are absolutely on the same page re: cultural and non-biblical expectations of gender, so I just wanted to start with that.
What I really wanted to say, though, is "How funny!" that her piece on breast-feeding pissed you off. I LOVED it. It was so liberating to me to hear that perspective and to have her shine a spotlight on the reverse oppression and judgment that can come from allowing attachment parenting to become dogma.
I fear becoming a parent because of how easily I could fall into believing I was a bad mom because I didn't want to be stuck as the comforter for my kids as a consequence of my milk-making abilities. I know that Mike is a master diaper-changer so that probably wasn't going to be an issue for you two but it is a real fear for me. Also, the line "breastfeeding is only free when you value a woman's time at nothing" was really powerful.
Maybe this is a discussion better held somewhere else because it is off-topic but I'd be interested to hear what you didn't like about it.
I love reading your stuff. Have you already posted something on what you think "biblical man/womanhood" is? If not, are you willing to do it in the future? I hear stuff from the complimentarian camps all the time. I haven't found much that takes male and female differences and scripture seriously.
Thanks,
Tim
Thanks Chad.
Tim – I'm confused. It is the complementarians who have the strict ideas about biblical manhood and womanhood, generally prooftexting and imposing modern cultural ideas on to scripture. I personally don't people that the bible sets strict guidelines for what it means to be a man or a woman – simply tells us how to be good Christfollowers reflecting the image of God.
Rebecca – Interesting. I can see where you are coming from. I should say that I also disagreed with Mothering Magazine's (the attachment parenting flagship) response to the breastfeeding article. Both were too extreme for me. Rosin portrayed basic care of children like breastfeeding and babywearing as this elite thing for the rich. It's like the people who deride organic eating as only for the elite. Labeling something that is basic and natural as elite is the quickest way to turn people off of it. What bugged me most about Rosin's approach was the idea of defining loving and taking care of other people (especially our kids) as oppression. Yes, the AP groups go to far at times, but to say that it is oppressive for women to be expected to make sacrifices for their kids is messed up. Taking care of kids is work, and doing it well is even harder work. I'm not one of those who think strollers are evil, or that the family bed is best, or that my kids must never eat junk food. But I do think that babies need comfort and touch and that breastmilk is the best thing for them. It was hard to give that to my kids (and in truth they were not exclusively breastfed), but it was worth it. I don't think other moms are bad if they don't do it, but I also don't like people advising moms to not do it because it demands too much of them. These are kids, of course they demand time.
Painting love and sacrifice as too hard for the modern woman misses the point. Women don't need more guilt, but we also don't need to be told that caring for our kids and caring for ourselves must be at odds. It just puts all the pressure and blame on women when in fact it is society that needs to change. When the definition of what it means to succeed is not determined by the family ignoring male and when men get over themselves and start acting like dads then women will not have to bear all this alone. There are ways we can care for ourselves while still caring for others, the choice does not have to be between losing ourselves or shortchanging our kids. And I just wish journalists would stop spreading that lie.
Great response–both to the article and the breastfeeding question. I absolutely agree that our stereotypes are cultural and that if we continue to define men accordingly (most women will not be defined as they have been in the past, already) they will fail, they will be angry about it and they will be without the support of family or the greater society. It may take another 20 years to change so that we know that it truly has but I believe it is happening.
I loved your response to the article, Julie, particularly with regards to the church, as Rosin wasn't interested in that aspect. Sadly, I think the church has been making itself irrelevant for years with the gender issue. I'm a middle-aged female who grew up in a Christian school and church environment which taught me that 'girls can pray silently in their hearts' while the boys led our high school worship services. I remember thinking how bizarre that women are CEO's, professors, etc, yet when they come to church they not only aren't allowed leadership roles, but so often underqualified, bumbling men were utilized because not enough talented men could be found to fill those roles. It just does not make sense on any level, but unfortunately America's current cultural climate appears to be one of anti-intellectualism. I hope and pray this will change, because then the church at large will change and hopefully become more relevant, not only for women but for the 'lost' men Rosin's article speaks to. Thank you for your beautifully written response.
I agree with your response.
I do, however, understand the whole sitting still and social skills not being a naturally male trait, though.
I teach special education (learning disabilites, nothing severe) at a middle school to almost exclusively male students. These are skills that males often lack in adolescence and often adapt to have with the onset of responsibility and obligations of family life.
Follow me here for a second and realize that I get that these are sweeping generalizations. I have to wonder if part of the reason that males are not developing these skills and are not adapting has to do with the breakdown of the traditional family and the prevalence of the single mother. (Traditional family= two parents in a committed, co-habitating or married situation, not necessarily the evangelical definition).
Many single mothers are single mothers because of divorce or death of a spouse, of course, but I have found with my students (even from traditional Catholic families in the Latino community, where it was unheard of five or six years ago and Bible Belt, God-fearing folks who kept it hush hush long ago and had shotgun weddings) that many couples have children and then do not want to stay together or commit to raising them as a team. The responsibility often falls on the mother who is forced to grow up quickly and raise the children, going to school, getting further education to support her family. The father typically is more free, thus not having that impetus to move beyond those adolescent traits as quickly and early as once was the norm when it was expected that upon the birth of children he would settle down and become the breadwinner.
Then you end up with a generation of aggressive, go-getter women and men without as much direction (evangelicals may call this "purpose") as they tended to have in past generations.
I realize that this is not every situation out there, but it has become far more acceptable and common than it was twenty years ago, and praised as ideal by the media quite often.
I am not making an evaluative statement in this, either. I am simply observing and thinking that there is at the very least correlation, if not causation at play here.
Julie,
I enjoyed reading your response. I haven't read the article or seen any of the huff and puff about it on Twitter (guess I tuned most of those guys out).
I did hear about the article on NPR/PRI's MarketPlace Tuesday afternoon though as they interviewed the author.
From what I heard in the interview, it made sense. Men aren't willing to adapt to the changing economy and thus will suffer because of it. Doesn't mean I like that sentiment, but I would say it seems fairly true to what I've seen.
Here's the link to the interview if you're interested:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/22/pm-economic-troubles-lead-to-end-of-men-q/#
Systems of power are only interested replicating themselves throughout each generation. Unfortunately, the church has for hundreds of years been more interested in replicating it oppressive power structure than focusing its attention on those in need of Christ's healing(the poor, the orphans, widows–true religion in the words of James). With that being said, the church chooses to blame feminism, socialism–well, any "ism" for culture shifting away from the 1950's, Victorian-esque stereo-types. What the church has failed to realize that its own ideal stereo-types are built upon a facade.
In order for change, there has to be a disruption of the facade. I would not go as far as to say this is the end of "patriarchy," but I hope this is the beginning of the disruption for the facade of oppressive "biblical" womanhood.
Julie,
I've been following your blog for about a year now and have recommended your book to study groups and more recently a campus ministry group. I give it out as gifts. I find it uncanny the detail with which I agree with your posts/ideas. I'm a proud feminist Christian (even though that term is limiting, especially to non-white women), grew up in Texas, attended a uber-conservative Christian school- all kinds of stuff that makes your blog fun for me. So, thanks for all the time you take to write.
Anyway, instead of talking about how much I loathe biblical gender roles or how I'd like to get in a UFC ring with Mark Driscoll, I thought I'd mention that I loved Rosen's breastfeeding article. Not every word of it, but most of it. It was extremely liberating for me. There are numerous factors that go into healthy co-parenting. Spending 8 hours a day on the couch in pain did not make our family healthier. It's interesting to me that, in the case of breast feeding, ultra-conservative Christians are in the same camp as crunchy liberals (the latter a term I don't shy away from). One camp uses Scripture to put women in their place and the other one uses over-inflated scientific findings. In the end, though, there is only one "choice" for a "good mom". I don't want any part of that.
Jennifer- good questions. I see it less as the women being aggressive and more as the women being responsible. While the men feel like they can be free and indulgent and abandon their kids, the women are too responsible to hurt their kids in that way. But of course the pattern gets modeled for the kids who only see men caring about themselves and not other people.
Jamie – thanks for sharing. I agree telling women what she has to do in order to be a good woman is hurtful. But I honestly don't think the route of advising women to abandon breastfeeding is always the best advice either. I'll admit, I sacrificed a lot to have children and breastfeed them. I do believe in the scientific and psycological studies that recommend breastfeeding and the presense of poisons in most baby formulas freaked me out. But that was me. I made those choices. I am just as uncomfortable being told that a good women devotes herself to a career and her own desires first as I am being told that women must stay at home. Both of them put women in a box. I also am wary of how both patriarchy and second-wave feminism have pushed women to hate our bodies. Patriarchy turns us into sex object and insists we look a certain way for the pleasure of men. And some feminisms insist we deny our female body (especially our God given functions like menstration, childbearing, and breastfeeding) so that we can be more like men and complete equally in a man's world. Both of those messages harm women imho. I don't think all women must be mothers or breatfeed or whatever, but I also don't support messages that deny those things as part of what it can mean to be a strong woman.
I once heard an interview with singer/songwriter Sinead O'Conner in which she is discussing breaking the spiral of power and viable social-structure as we know it in a more co-operative action. But what has always stuck with me in her interview was a comment she made in passing. Simply "the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy..but rather faternity." I think this is something all our institutions need to consider..and maybe it IS women who will find the trick of cooperation to make this happen.
..and now am returning to a fussy baby..(yes..I do see the irony here)
I tend to agree with your comments and assessment. However, are we being naive to the fact that with just one major event, i.e., financial collapse of America or world money systems; the violent takeover of nation states; the riots and total anarchy that would happen in such situations.
What will we do in the face of a world that makes no sense – when what was once deemed success is not longer available or attainable; and just finding scraps to put in our mouths will be our one and only duty as women or men? Who will fend off the evil hoard of demented perverts and take whatever we want people when those days potentially arrive? Please don't tell me they won't because we have already caught glimpses of this madness during the Tsunami where innocent young women and ladies and even young boys/men were being snatched up and turned into sex slaves because their parents were missing; the same thing happened in Haiti after the earthquake. Humankind in general is evil and when the crap hits the fan – will gender matter then? I am not saying it will or won't but…., if you look at the times the bible was written, war and fighting and a man's ability to defend his turf and family were what made a man. Will it/could it return to that? Will it matter then if a man or woman has a degree in psychology and was making some 6 figure income at a cushy practice?
I know, I know.., I sound like some end of the world whacko – but.., it could take only one major event to change things.
Until then, I agree with what your saying – but somehow we have to get better at learning to live with the tension and celebrate the differences in women and men while recognizing their individual value to the conversation and the world. I do however think (not worry) that some weird event could potentially destroy that in one brief moment.
Signed,
Not Crazy.com (LOL!!)
Absolutely fantastic response. I hope you don't mind, but I quoted your last paragraph or so in a blog post I did about gender today. This impacted me and helped to articulate some of the issues that I was struggling with after reading the article and a few other items that came up around the same time. Thank you, sister.
Julie, I really appreciate your thoughtful response to this article. I'm in the midst of a metamorphosis of my spiritual life and am delighted to find your site and Emerging Women. I've been stuck in neo-reformed circles for ten years now (14 if you count college – private Baptist school with a dress code and -gasp- required church attendance). It's refreshing to read different interpretations and applications. I will definitely be back!
Julie –
Excellent post on an article with an unfortunate – but provocative – title. In fact, this was so good, I bookmarked it for myself to read again.
It is unfortunate that so many who espouse the cultural traditions of "biblical" manhood and womanhood refuse to see the fact that their arguments are cultural and not biblical. I appreciate the reasoned and balanced arguments and writings presented by women like you.
I stumbled across this blog today and was very grateful to see a balanced, thoughtful female response to the Atlantic article. It's refreshing to hear someone making sane and gracious statements about it.
I was wondering though, if you (or any of the commenters) might help me weigh something that I can't quite shake after reading it. It seems to me that women are not exactly dominating / displacing men / establishing the world-ending matriarchy in any of these work or educational fields. It seemed like there were areas where they had, at most, a 10% edge on men, areas where they were about 50-50, and areas where they were in the minority by 10-20%. To me, that sounds like men and women are coming out roughly even, give or take a few percent. It wasn't an even split in every career, but it seems like it should end up striking a balance overall.
The main reason I even care to pick the nit is that, for myself, I was extremely bothered that there was panic of, "OMYGOSH women are taking over the WORLD!", when, basically, it just means that women are actually present in the job market about as often as men are. Are women taking over, or are things just finally evening out?
I noticed the same thing too Amanda. I guess Rosin's point was that while things are currently evening out, the ongoing trends are all in women's favor, so they will likely surpass men soon if the trends hold.
It's very clear women are taking over the country, if not the world. The power is economics/income/job defined and has tilted in women's advantage with the foundational changes over the past 40 years of educational changes favoring girls over boys, pro female government policy, pro female media, and the pro female courts. In essence all our institutions have tilted policy wise towards girls and the results show the ramifications. It's done.
What no one talks about are the ramifications of an emasculated gender. Do men just become Manatees or Grass Eating Omnviores as they have in Japan? Or do they become violent? or do they just become irresponsible? What are the consequences to our society? Self defense? Law enforcement? Family protection/vulnerability?
I've seen this coming for a long time. I hear feminists celebrate their gained power and the gender re-engineering which will be forcibly taking place due to wage economics. I hear some men burning their jock straps in celebration of having the masculine shackles finally coming off. But as the demise (not the end)of men perpetuates the fascinating impact will be on whatever remains of the family.
Will many of these high achieving women with a minuscule pool of marriage material men available turn sexually to other women? Few want to really be alone, or alone with a child. If someone breaks in are they prepared to confront the attacker as the man hides under the bed?
The change is easy. But my response to women is be careful what you wish for………
Bill
I don't think Hanna Rosin's "The End Of Men" is about a changing economy. Its about an economy in severe decline which spells increasing economic hardships for female and male alike. America was sold snake oil that said you could ship the USA's manufacturing economy overseas while building an economy here at home mainly on services and retail. Men and women both, in large numbers, are paying a heavy price for this economic myth. If men and women alike, in ever greater numbers, are finding themselves poorer, who cares which gender thinks its on top. It a waste of time. The greatest power of the human mind is self delusion. We will fall or rise together, male and female as one people.
Julie,
We are showing Father Richard Rohr's webcast after our church this Sunday.
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/conferences/webcast/2010-series/end-of-men/
Thought you might like to know this is happening.
Peace!