[Gaston]

"'The End of Men' documents the unexpected phenomenon of women, not men, who insist on no-strings connections, keeping things casual, and ditching a sex partner at the first sign he’s getting clingy. In particular women in their early 20s “before children and complications kick in. The male fantasy of free sex from the 60s and 70s is almost the reverse now,” she says."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/960...f-Men.html

[Nineteen84]

(10-17-2012 10:05 AM)Gaston Wrote:  

The male fantasy of free sex from the 60s and 70s is almost the reverse now,” she says."

Which means it's exactly... the same

[RichieP]

lol "the end of men and the rise of women". Ugh. Even the title is dripping with nastiness. What made her so angry?

Actually, the conclusion in that piece is reasonably sensible and considered:

"She references “the underdog adaptability” that women have had to develop in recent decades, and compares it to migrants who are often able to accommodate economic shifts in their adopted countries more easily than natives can.
There’s the unspoken future in this – as society reshapes itself along feminine lines, when will the now-underdog men who are now in their twenties bounce back? And what form will that take? When the pendulum swings, it might bring some unwelcome retro attitudes along with it both in the bedroom and the boardroom.

We’ve ended up with a society where, as I remark to my mother later that evening, men still ‘only want one thing’, except it’s not the thing our parents told us it was. They only want unconditional acceptance. The same thing women want, in fact. And perhaps it’s our misunderstanding of that basic human truth, our endless arguments over child leave and access rights, hook-up culture and glass ceilings, that keeps us from seeing why Rosin’s The End of Men really doesn’t have to be that at all."

[bacon]

i read the article the jist of her argument is that now unlike the 60s thru possibly the 80s women are not looking for husbands in college like they used to. women are more inclined to get their career in order then start to look seriously when dating men.

the problem that this author doesnt adress is that women may achieve more career success before looking for a man but that doesnt necessarily help them find a man. most men really dont care what job a women has rather what her age, looks and personality are. most men would trade dating a sucessful 37 year old for a 22 year old in a low level gig.

all this social experiment willl lead to is more bitter middle age spinsters who never found a man who measured up to their standards.

[Tuthmosis]

This imbecile has been the subject of several threads around here. She did a TED Talk by the same name, which the Internet--not only us--tore apart.

[SVK]

(10-17-2012 11:03 AM)bacon Wrote:  

i read the article the jist of her argument is that now unlike the 60s thru possibly the 80s women are not looking for husbands in college like they used to. women are more inclined to get their career in order then start to look seriously when dating men.

the problem that this author doesnt adress is that women may achieve more career success before looking for a man but that doesnt necessarily help them find a man. most men really dont care what job a women has rather what her age, looks and personality are. most men would trade dating a sucessful 37 year old for a 22 year old in a low level gig.

all this social experiment willl lead to is more bitter middle age spinsters who never found a man who measured up to their standards.

Precisely. And this is their endgame a decade or less later.

Quote:

There’s the unspoken future in this – as society reshapes itself along feminine lines, when will the now-underdog men who are now in their twenties bounce back? And what form will that take? When the pendulum swings, it might bring some unwelcome retro attitudes along with it both in the bedroom and the boardroom.

Fixed that for you. And can't argue with that. Feminism simply isn't a sustainable attitude in the long term. At the end of the day (meaning around age 30), 99% of women care more about their wedding dress than feminism.

[Caligula]

Rosin was on Newsnight on the BBC a few days ago. Guess what, they had some ultra-radical feminist Cambridge professor arguing with her so all you had was moderately extreme feminist talking to batshit crazy feminist.

The feminist academic said she didn't like the book at all because it pretended that we were beyond patriarchy which in her personal experience was just not the case at all.

She made Rosin say a bunch of sensible things like this situation for men wasn't necessarily a positive development and that the move to matriarchy-lite wasn't necessarily a good thing (I'm paraphrasing from what I remember, wasn't taking notes).

Many of the case studies in Rosin's book are from towns where male jobs have dried up, leaving women to be both breadwinners and taking care of domestic duties. While the feminist professor screeched that this proves that this is just another patriarchal plot to make women take on a greater share of the burden while men reap the rewards, Rosin was more measured saying that this kind of unbalanced situation was likely to leave neither party happy - no one wins. She seemed less triumphalist than you'd expect from a glance at a summary of the book.

However, that might just have been the effect of her bat-shit crazy interlocutor making her seem reasonable in comparison.