The Decline of Men or Just the Rise of Women?

August 11, 2011

Looks like the progressive Libertarian Gender Engineer Feminists are taking note that they are no longer in the perceptual moral lead. It must be scary for them.If women are more likely to be employed then men are, then why would they reward men who work hard? women who are autonomous are not in need of cash. could it be that our entire culture is deteriorating because we are not rewarding men for hard work? The other question is how do we reward women’s libido? working hard and getting ugly from it would not quench a woman’s needs.
Cato Unbound has an interesting symposium on the changing status of men in society, including a lead essay by Kay Hymowitz arguing that men are in decline and “falling behind.” The idea that the men are declining is not unique to Hymowitz. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger has a book advancing the same thesis. Other writers have also taken up this mantra.

Nineteenth and early century anti-Semitism flourished in part because many Europeans didn’t understand that the economy wasn’t a zero-sum game in which gains for Jews can only come at the expense of gentiles. Today’s fears that economic gains for women somehow harm men are similarly misplaced. Even if women end up out-earning men (which they are still far from doing), that does not mean that men have been harmed, any more than gentiles suffer because of the much higher average income and educational attainment of Jews. But the evidence underpinning the case for male decline doesn’t add up. Most of it consists of the well-known facts men now have slightly lower levels of educational attainment compared to women, and never-married men trail comparable women in income. However, there is no actual decline in male performance in either field. Rather, what has happened is that women are doing much better than before thanks to economic and social changes that have opened up new opportunities for them. When several European nations lifted legal disabilities imposed on Jews in the 19th century, the percentage of Jews in various occupations and educational institutions rapidly increased, and the percentage of gentiles in the same fields fell. Obviously, gentiles were not “in decline.” Rather, Jews were doing better because of the easing of discrimination against them. Much the same can be said of women over the last few decades. On balance, men actually benefit from the rise of women, just as gentiles benefited from that of the Jews. Everyone is better off when society is able to more fully benefit from developing the talents of more of its people.

Comparing Jews to women is rather silly. It is fair to say the attributes are not the same. Jews might not have expertise in the same skills as women and vice versa. To bring up economic issues one must take this into consideration.

It’s also worth noting that men continue to dominate the highest levels of achievement in many occupations, in part because the variation in male achievement is greater than that among women. Men are more likely to become high school dropouts than women(thereby explaining some of the data cited by Hymowitz), but they are also more likely to be at the top of the class or their profession. yes,

but a minority of elite men who make more then women will not effect the ecosystem

Hymowitz also argues that men have suffered because of the “collapse of marriage norms.” However, the data shows that only about 20% of men aged 40–44 have never been married. And even that twenty percent doesn’t all consist of people deprived of marriage opportunities by social change. Some men (like some women) simply don’t want to be married, and anywhere from 3 to 9 percent of men are gay (gay marriage is a recent phenomenon, and is still available in only a few states). Marriage continues to be available to those men who want it.

er… marriage is not available for men who argue against these progressive points. just look at MoveOn.org advertising. the progressive are openly saying to their peers to use sexuality to further their agenda. There is no doubt in my mind that a person like myself has a harder time getting a mate because we are not open to women taking our jobs.

And despite Hymowitz’s concern that men have lost their status as providers for the family, married men who live with their spouses still have incomes about a third higher than those of married women.

The married men are expected to share the income. I’m not certain the same is true with women.

Whether or not married men should be the primary bread-winners in their families, the majority still are.

Hymowitz does identify two genuine areas of male decline. It is certainly true, that men have suffered a relative loss from the diminishing importance of occupations where physical strength is a key job qualification. On balance, however, men — like women — have benefited enormously form the rise of modern technology that has displaced work previously performed by human brawn. It has made an enormous range of goods more readily available to a wide range of people at lower prices. Men who rely on physical strength to make a living were relatively more in demand fifty years ago. But their overall standard of living was far lower than today.

that is if the men can afford the goods at all Also I’m not sure if this assumption is true at all. not sure where they see that.

Hymowitz is on firmer ground in pointing to the extremely low marriage rates and high rates of single-parenthood among poor African-Americans and Hispanics. This is a genuine social tragedy. But it has little to do with any broader decline of the male gender. Rather, it is in large part caused by the War on Drugs, which imprisons a high percentage of young inner city males, thereby making family formation extremely difficult. The best way to begin to restore family values in poor minority communities is to end the War on Drugs. That’s likely to be a lot more helpful than worrying about the supposed decline of males.

if you take all the jobs away from men then the black market is the only solution.
I’m not sure I see any argument here either.

UPDATE:…Hymowitz doesn’t, in so many words, say that men are in decline, merely that they are “falling behind.” That phrasing is consistent with a view that men are better off than before, but merely haven’t made as many gains as women have in recent years. Still, it’s hard to justify concern about men “falling behind” unless there is some actual harm to men involved, as opposed to merely having slightly lower educational attainment (and among the never-married, slightly lower income) than women.

do a Google search for, “Mancession”. It is real. The men are feeling it. The reason this topic has come up is because obviously the feminists can feel the angry breathing down their necks. I would go much further then say that women have cost men jobs. I would go so far as to say all our economic ills relate to this Gender revolution dating back to the mid 20th century and reaching it’s zenith in the early 90s. I’m glad we now have cancer suffering Barbara Ehrenreich (Karma is a BITCH ain’t it?) and Gloria Steinem’s attention, but our society is now in decline. The cultural engineers are now screaming about proof. They are attempting to obscure… but when you are talking about social science there is no proving anything. The rage begins while the feminists play socratic after censoring men in the University for decades. Consider this Larry Summers’s revenge. It isn’t a matter of asking if women caused damage at this point. It is a matter of asking where the terrorism will launch. Gabrielle Giffords is the start. Our friend Anders in Norway is one of many. While the progressives point fingers at bloggers,,, there are zillions of men who are about to react. See how Socratic the feminists are in the University when faced with a gun…. oh… and don’t send the police to my door. That was tried already. I’m here to give the message. I’m not here to kill anyone. There will be others to do it for me. Till that point… go ahead and make little arguments about if the feminist movement has effected men or not.

Randy: “. No wonder 75% of divorces are filed by women. What is the economic incentive to stay married when you can take the kids and most of your ex-husband’s paycheck.” Yes, every single divorced woman I know says that she is so much better off working a full time job and taking care of the kids.With all that free time they have, they write about how rotten men are. “Women say they want equality but then parade around in their Slut marches acting like they are completely blameless when it comes to sexual misconduct and sexual violence. Just don’t fault a female college student because she goes out in a top with her boobs popping out and a skirt that barely covers her behind, then flirts with men endlessly because the attention makes her feel good, doesn’t bring a dollar to buy her own drinks because she is going to con men into buying them all for her, then dance in a sexually suggestive manner with a man, and then off all things don’t expect a man to get any ideas that she might want something more than to wave “ta-ta” at the end of the night and go home. If women truly think that kind of behavior is acceptable and risk free then they really are from Venus.” So why do you keep falling for such behavior? ” In the USSA, women use marriage and politics to gain wealth, status and opportunity that by their merits they would not deserve.”

You can PROVE Anything About Boys Without Fathers
Why are we playing Lysenkoism with children?

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” is a peer-reviewed reseach publication by Drs. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, forthcoming American Economic Journal: Economic Policy http://bpp.wharton.upenn.e​du/betseys/papers/Paradox%​20of%20declining%20female%​20happiness.pdfEach year since 1972, the United States General Social Survey has asked men and women: “How happy are you, on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being very happy, and 1 being not too happy?” This survey includes a representative sample of men and women of all ages, education levels, income levels, and marital status–1,500 per year for a total of almost 50,000 individuals thus far–and so it gives us a most reliable picture of what’s happened to men’s and women’s happiness over the last few decades. As you can imagine, a survey this massive generates a multitude of findings, (see the full report by Wharton Professors Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers) but here are the two most important discoveries. First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are. (The one and only exception: African-American women are now slightly happier than they were back in 1972, although they remain less happy than African American men.)

the economy has killed blue collar jobs. and yet the stimulus money was used to attempt to push pink colar (where there is real growth) into taking jobs from men.
[Video comment]
image by


This Is What Leftism / Feminism Has Done To Rachel Maddow

September 26, 2010
Perturbed

I don’t need to say anymore. This picture I found of Rachel Maddow explains it all.  Imagine this pretty, blonde, feminine young woman who looks like a man now. This saddened me. I just can’t believe how far a person can sink.

This person, in this link provided has a little opinion of her…he seems to be taken with her ‘intellect’…. What ‘intellect?’  Screwing America with sarcasm?  Whatever.. G’ Damn, Rachel.

why would someone want to do this to themselves and why do we encourage it?

   


Sexual Revolution like the Socialist Revolution – biggest victims the vanguard of the very Revolution

September 26, 2010
the Biggest victims of the social engineering revolutions are always it’s firebrand vanguard… the community of the revolution and the children of the movement.
The Story of Two Revolutions

The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus BoschBelow is the latest in an occasional series of essays by our Russian correspondent Dimitri K.

The Story of Two Revolutions
by Dimitri K.

Suddenly he made a face
As if his mouth burned.
The officer noticed
My large red-skinned passport…

I take it out of my trousers
Like a copy of the priceless item
Look — I am a citizen
Of the Soviet Union
— Vladimir Mayakovsky

In this short essay I would like to compare two revolutions, the consequences of which I observed during my lifetime. One was the Socialist Revolution in Russia, that occurred in October 1917. Please notice that half a year before that, in February 1917 a Democratic revolution occurred in Russia, so by that time Russia was already a democratic republic governed by the elected parliament. Of that revolution I know a lot, mostly because it was studied in Soviet schools, and also from my grandparents, who observed it in person. That revolution officially finished in 1992 with the collapse of the Soviet union, so it lasted for seventy-five years.
The other revolution, which has not finished yet, is the Sexual Revolution of the sixties in the West. Of that revolution I know less, but its consequences can be observed throughout the world, and are still here. That revolution was not solely sexual, just as the Socialist Revolution in Russia was not only or exactly about Socialism. However, if people ever use the word “revolution” with respect to the events of the sixties, they usually talk about sexual revolution.
There must be some reason for that. It’s probably because sexual norms were transformed the most radically. Some like to argue that it was about equality and freedom of women; similar arguments were often presented for the Russian Revolution. However, just like in Russia in 1917, the formal equality of sexes and personal freedom were already in place at the time of the revolution.
There are many similar features in the two events. I heard from my grandmother that in the 1920s in Moscow she saw demonstrations of naked people, walking in the streets with signs that read “No more shame!”. And in the USA, the 1960s were the time of the struggle for social rights as well.
For this essay I chose as the epigraph a few lines from Vladimir Mayakovsky’s poem “The Poem of Soviet Passport”, translated by myself. Mayakovsky was a great revolutionary poet both in the sense of his poetical form and also because he praised the Russian Revolution. Later he became disillusioned with revolution, and in 1930 he shot himself.
This poem was studied in Soviet schools, and as a child I thought it was about the greatness of the Soviet Union. Later I started to suspect that it was actually about something else, though most people around me still cannot believe it. The reason for our misunderstanding was actually because we grew up in a completely different time than Mayakovsky did. He saw the beginning of the revolution, we witnessed the end.

It is quite obvious from the works of Lenin, which we studied at school but could not fully understand, that the Russian Revolution was not about Russia. It was planned to be the beginning of the worldwide revolution, and Bolsheviks stopped short of their aim not because they didn’t want it, but because they couldn’t attain it. At first, they did not plan any Soviet Union, nor any Soviet passport; they rather wanted to show the red-skinned items from their trousers to the capitalist world.
Now consider the Sexual Revolution of 1960s. It had no Lenin who would clearly state its goals, but there was John Lennon, probably the most famous of its poets. Recall what he said: “Imagine there’s no countries” (Lenin: revolution cannot win in one country), “And no religion too” (Lenin: Religion — the most despicable of human superstitions), “All you need is love” (Lenin: all we need is the revolutionary party). According to Lennon, revolution should be driven by sex, not by a party; that’s why it’s called “sexual”.
The Sexual Revolution is now turning 50: this is the time at which revolutions ripen. What do we see around us now? Sexual minorities, the vanguard of Sexual Revolution, are now attacked in the streets of Amsterdam. Revolutions eat their children. Just like the vanguard of the Russian Revolution was completely eradicated, the vanguard of Sexual Revolution is under attack. It is not performed by an analog of KGB or any official authority, but the authorities are strangely reluctant to stop it.
When something cannot be stopped, it is likely to be a trend. Isn’t that the second phase of the Sexual Revolution? It is hard to recognize, because it is strikingly different from the first one. As with Mayakovsky’s poem, it does not look like what we expected. Just like the Russian Revolution deposed political liberties and produced the “aggressively obedient majority” (the term used by historian Jury Afanasiev), the sexually-liberated West suddenly stopped defending sexual liberties and somehow obtained a large mass of aggressively homophobic people. However, if we read Lenin carefully without prejudice, we find that he never ever talked about freedom, but only about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” enforced by the political power of the proletariat.
According to Lenin, the revolution was caused by social conflicts and desperation brought on by capitalism. If we follow this analogy, the Sexual Revolution was not going to increase sexual or personal freedom, which had been already achieved, but vice versa. It was caused by sexual frustrations and social problems in the world with too much sexual freedom and love replaced by money (capitalism). Its aim, though not openly stated, was the enforcement of sexual dictatorship by an organized majority which holds political power.
Like its Russian predecessor, the Sexual Revolution will inevitably collapse under its own contradictions, leaving devastation and a confused populace. It will happen unexpectedly, and very few people from inside the system will be able to see it coming.

true!