[The release of Hanna Rosin's new book The End of Men has sparked a veritable inferno of comment and criticism. Regular readers shouldn't be surprised to learn that I have a lot of thoughts about the book and accompanying commentary, and over the next week or two I'll spell them out in a series of blogs, here and elsewhere.]
—————————————————————————-
“The year is 2012. England, traditionally a land of heroes and great statesmen, is in the grip of a new regime. The country is being run by women. They are the breadwinners, the rulers. Their state police strike terror into the hearts of the subjugated male. In short, the roles have been completely reversed: It is the man, not the woman, who now wears the frock.”
No, this is not the introduction to Hanna Rosin’s new book, The End of Men. It is in fact the opening of The Worm That Turned, a series of satirical sketches that first ran on the BBC in 1979. You should be able to tell them apart. One is an ridiculous dystopian fantasy peopled by domineering, violent, oversexed dominatrices and deploying hyperbole, sexist stereotyping and fanciful distortion to great comedic effect, while the other stars The Two Ronnies.
Yes, a cheap and easy shot, but not entirely undeserved. The very title The End of Men is so overblown the author apologises for it repeatedly through the book. The subtitle “…and the rise of women” is a far better reflection of the contents, but presumably might be expected to shift fewer units. Since the publicity machine began to roll on both sides of the Atlantic, informed critics have pointed out umpteen instances where factual and statistical claims are either misleading, cherry-picked to fit the narrative or downright false. The sociologist Philip N. Cohen has diligently unpicked her use of US social statistics and found them wanting, Stephanie Coontz has dug further into the economic stats, while Mara Hvistendahl has done the same for Rosin’s claims about Asian (particularly South Korean) women. That’s the quantitative side, the qualitative evidence has also been queried with this damning account by one of Rosin’s interviewees which suggests his experiences have been severely distorted to fit the narrative.
I’ll add one little credibility bomb of my own. In the chapter on the supposed increase in female violence and aggression, Rosin states baldly that:
“A recent British study found that women were three times more likely to be arrested for domestic violence [than men].”
From this you might reasonably assume that three times as many women as men are arrested for domestic violence in Britain. I recognised the study she references – it found that where a woman is identified as the primary offender in an incident, her chances of being arrested are three times higher. That tells you something about arresting policies of police officers, but literally nothing nothing about the prevalence of female violence. (Actually it’s a bit more complicated than that, but never mind). In truth the study found that nine men are arrested for every one woman.
When you know that so many claims in the book are unreliable, it becomes very difficult to trust anything Rosin says. That is frustrating, because had the research and statistics been reported accurately, the issues she wants to address would have been no less compelling. The relative underachievement of boys and men in education and employment is indeeed a hugely pressing concern. The changing roles of women in the workplace and family may be the most significant sociological phenomenon of our times. The impacts of changing gender roles upon criminality and sexual habits are fascinating. This pudding has quite enough eggs already.
Rosin adopts the cloak of observer rather than polemicist. In the New York Times, Jennifer Homans criticised the book for being ‘carelessly apolitical‘ but I disagree – a Panglossian acceptance of the status quo is a political stance. A running theme through the book is that if women can learn the rules and play the game of turbocharged neoliberal capitalism, they can succeed in anything and everything. Rosin argues that the continuing predominance of men at the pinnacle of power – in politics, industry, business and culture – is the last gasp of patriarchy and destined to crumble. This betrays a spectacularly naive view of how true power is attained and retained. She also, perhaps unwittingly, suggests that if women of all social classes, nationalities and backgrounds are prepared to put up with sexual harassment and sexist environments in the workplace, sacrifice relationships with their partners and their children and work like huskies from dawn until midnight, then the world is their pearl-bearing oyster. I can’t be the only one to find this message less inspirational than deeply depressing. Parallel to this runs the implication that men’s underachievement is of their own making, not enough males are prepared to devote their lives to chasing every position, every promotion, every penny, whatever the cost to their personal lives. Rosin never explicitly states that modern men are just too lazy, but that is the portrait she paints. For women and men alike, the problem is not that we don’t know the rules of the game, but that the rules of the game stink.
Reappraising and reinventing our gender roles will be one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Passing legislation against discrimination and introducing family friendly policies is the easy bit. Adapting our cultures, our identities, our social habits and our deeply entrenched beliefs about the nature and expression of gender will take far, far longer. The End of Men conveys a sigh of resignation about our newly configured world, when what is needed is an alarm call. It is entirely unacceptable that generations of young men are considered increasingly obsolete by economics, society and themselves. Rosin seems to recognise this problem while also contributing to it.
The year is 2012, and the worm has not yet turned, although it is certainly wriggling in some very interesting directions. For all its shortcomings, Rosin’s book should be welcomed as a spark to an essential discussion. This is not the End of Men, but it may be the beginning of a vitally important debate.
No its not the beginning of the debate. Debates about masculinity have been going on for decades. and from *my* reading and research, the real ‘revolution’ in masculinity has been the metrosexual revolution. and that was first identified back in 1994.
Of course debates about masculinity go back to the Ancient Greeks (and probably beyond) but to what extent do they reflect or explain current underperformance in education and employment? How are theories of metrosexuality relevant to the practices of family courts or parental rights & expectations in the workplace? Where does it fit into the decline of the heterosexual nuclear family and the consequences of that upon men, women and children? What light does it shine on the economics of the feminization of labour under globalised capitalism?
You’re right that these questions are not new, but the context against which they are being asked is changing rapidly.
do you want me to answer those questions because I can! I just feel you are not interested in metrosexuality you think there are ‘more important’ things.
I will answer them though, in a blogpost. when I am at liberty to write one!
Would be very happy if you want to try!
my comment is in spam. nobody likes poor QRG!
Fogg:
Parallel to this runs the implication that men’s underachievement is of their own making, not enough males are prepared to devote their lives to chasing every position, every promotion, every penny, whatever the cost to their personal lives
Yep, that argument keeps cropping up in gender debates (judging from the Guardian extract, Rosin thinks its men’s own fault they don’t become nurses).
[@EllyTams]: You’re right that these questions are not new, but the context against which they are being asked is changing rapidly.
Try Ros Coward’s Sacred Cows – over a decade old, and still a better guide than most recent work – or Laura Kipnis’ The Female Thing.
I dont need to ‘try’ I will do so I just have some restrictions on my ‘expression’ online at the moment.
it’s not rocket science it’s gender.
This is not the End of Men, but it may be the beginning of a vitally important debate.
I don’t share you measured confidence Ally. Men in my experience have a depressing lack of interest in challenging the powerful feminist lobby in this country over the issues that clearly put men and boys at a disadvantage.And which girls can also suffer from as a result as well.
How many male journalists working for the Guardian for instance have ever consistantly challenged the stranglehold that female journalists have in that paper over issues relating to gender . ? And what about male politicians? How many of them are remotely interested in equal custody rights of children for fathers?Or ensuring that as many resources go into fighting prostate cancer as go into fighting breast cancer ?Or that mental health services are adapted to the needs of men who make up the majority of suicides ? And what about the plight of men.lesbian women and children living with abusive women ? Or the underachievement of boys at school? Or the discrimination men face when applying for jobs that were once deemed only suitable for women ? Plus there’s the evidence which shows the judiciary are often tougher with men than women even when they’ve committed similar crimes ?
I could give you more examples but i’m sure i’ve made my point.The powerful feminist lobby has made it clear it’s primarily interested in women and girls and is looking for resources to create structures that suit their needs. Boys are increasingly being left in the wildnerness and half way decent male role models are becoming incresingly scarce in their everyday lives.Men really do need to start getting their arses in gear and recognizing that their input is desperated needed in any debate about the issue of gender in the 21st century. This isn’t just about men responding to the demands of women but rather about men asserting themselves so that women don’t get to have a monoploy in setting the agenda here.
[...] economic figures and even the accuracy of her case study interviews. I’ve thrown in a little credibility grenade of my own here. The apocalyptic case for The End of Men is far from [...]
[...] economic figures and even the accuracy of her case study interviews. I’ve thrown in a little credibility grenade of my own here. The apocalyptic case for The End of Men is far from [...]
[...] economic figures and even the accuracy of her case study interviews. I’ve thrown in a little credibility grenade of my own here. The apocalyptic case for The End of Men is far from [...]
You say:
No it isn’t in education as the following indicates:
8% of boys’ papers score top grade, compared with 7.9% of girls’
But girls record more grades of A and above
Number of grades of A or above awarded falls for first time in 21 years
In total 26.6% of exams were given an A or A*, down from 27% in 2011
Maths and sciences gain popularity but exam boards warn of ‘crisis’ in modern languages, with falling entries in French, Spanish and German
I suggest there’s been a short term impact where boys have been demotivated by the loss of manual job prospects but are now realising that they need qualifications if they’re going to succeed. And girls have been motivated to succeed in education, particularly by the women’s movement and increasing numbers of women role models, and the increasing numbers employed in the professions as a result of equal opportunities legislation.
I agree with your points about the long hours culture we have willingly marched into and that we need to reverse. But if some men are now objecting because some women are showing that they can compete as well and even better than men, then complaints by the men seem to me to be a serious case of sour grapes.
As I said on Cif, you can always pick out one stat that goes against the trend. And in a way, the A* results back up what I say, which is that from an early age boys / young men are polarising into successes and failures to a much greater extent than women.
The same goes for your blog post about Physics results which is pingbacked somewhere on this thread. Can’t remember where I saw it, but I think the latest figures were that more women than men are graduating – and graduating with better results – in 26 of the top 30 subjects – the exceptions being physics, maths, engineering and IT. (Don’t quote me on that – if anyone can find the accurate figures I’d be grateful)
The reality is that young women now outnumber men by three to two in higher education, leave with significantly better grades, and are much more likely to find work when they do (sources here).That’s the bigger picture.
This isn’t really aimed at you, but I also think there’s something quite telling about the way the media picks out one subject where men are still doing better (eg physics) and present it as some sort of scandal. Even in a perfectly egalitarian society, if we allow for even very minor social / neurological differences between boys and girls, we should expect boys to be doing slightly better in about half the subjects and girls to be doing slightly better in the others. That’s how statistical distribution works.
hetpat:
This isn’t really aimed at you, but I also think there’s something quite telling about the way the media picks out one subject where men are still doing better (eg physics) and present it as some sort of scandal. Even in a perfectly egalitarian society, if we allow for even very minor social / neurological differences between boys and girls, we should expect boys to be doing slightly better in about half the subjects and girls to be doing slightly better in the others. That’s how statistical distribution works.
And if that were the case there’d be no cause for concern, but to take the case of physics, the Institute of Physics (IOP) has found that nearly half of all state schools in England do not send any girls on to study A-level physics.
Whereas:
Girls were two-and-a-half times more likely to go on to study A-level physics if they came from a girls’ school. The same is not true of other science subjects, suggesting that physics is uniquely stereotyped in many mixed schools as a boys’ subject.
IOP president Prof Sir Peter Knight says many girls are not receiving the education they are entitled to.
So if as redpesto points out the evidence appears to show that there’s no reason why girls and women shouldn’t be as successful or more successful in physics as their male counterparts, it must be the men who are teaching physics and to a lesser extent the men in charge of state schools that are the problem. I could also suggest that the way the media and some parents characterise physics and to a lesser extent the other sciences and IT, hardly makes it the most attractive subject to learn and it’s good to read that the government are giving the IOP £6.85m over the period 2011-14 to provide an inspiring, engaging and innovative programme of physics lessons and continuing professional development for teachers.
Hi BTH
Shouldn’t the under-performance of girls in physics be seen in the context of the under-performance of boys in a number of subjects relative to the performance of girls ?
Thank you for this Ally. You seem to be one of the few men’s writers that speaks on behalf of us men first, without falling into the crazy trap that so many MRA’s seem to be caught in. I wish you luck.
I had a chance to speak with Rosin when she called into our local NPR station. I specifically asked her if she thought men would be able to organize a movement to deal with problems facing our gender like the feminists had for women. She said that it would never happen. Let’s prove her worng!
*”wrong”, lol, not off to a good start I see.
[...] existing evidence, and reading too much into too little evidence. But it gets much worse. A good tip from Ally Fogg (who elaborates here) pointed me toward a case where Rosin doesn’t just [...]
[...] He expands on his theme here. [...]
hetpat:
This isn’t really aimed at you, but I also think there’s something quite telling about the way the media picks out one subject where men are still doing better (eg physics) and present it as some sort of scandal.
See also this piece on women and technology in the Guardian yesterday.
On one level, this could be the result of lobbying by campaign groups (Fawcett, Institute of Physics). On another, ‘where are all the women’ has become such a well-used ‘news angle’, especially as a substitute for actually featuring women in the first place.
The physics story is interesting because in the past women were getting better grades in that subject at A level, even if fewer of them were taking it. I’m sure the Institute of Physics would welcome more A level and degree students (male and female), but there’s not enough women to go round to ensure every A level subject that women are under-represented in rises to 50% while overlooking the subjects in which women are over-represented in (e.g. English) remains the same. In other words, no-one’s going to campaign to get more boys doing English, Dance or modern languages, or get better grades in those subjects: hence no ‘scandal’; nothing to see here; move along.
I’d like to add a little bit to what I just said: given the Guardian datablog entry of A levels by gender (scroll down to view), it’s clear there are extremes of gender over/under-representation at both ends of the scale. Yet to qualify what I wrote above, it may be that simply getting more girls to stay on for A level and take Physics (or ICT or Maths) would shift the overall gender balance in those subjects – but that would mean the overall gender gap between boys and girls studying A levels getting even wider.
bitethehand on October 4, 2012 at 8:44 am:
“the Institute of Physics (IOP) has found that nearly half of all state schools in England do not send any girls on to study A-level physics”
Firstly, no school ever sends any student to do any subject; the students choose for themselves what subjects they want to do. And in the report it stated that if we include private schools the figure changes from 49% to 46%. They haven’t provided the figure for Private schools separately, despite the fact that this would give us a straight comparison and would be the scientifically valid thing to do. I find the inability for a scientific organisation, with an admitted agenda, to provide raw data in its report suspicious; hmm, It’s almost as if they had a result they wanted to find from the beginning.
Secondly, the evidence doesn’t support your claim that “it must be the men who are teaching physics and to a lesser extent the men in charge of state schools that are the problem”. Pro-tip: Beware relative percentages in news articles. Two-and-a-half times could mean that only 0.5% of girls from state schools and 1.25% from girls schools studied physics at A-level. But then that wouldn’t support the agenda that the iop is trying to push, so it goes with the relative figure as it’s more headline grabbing. The actual figures from the report are 1.8% to 4.9% for coed and 4.3% to 7.2% for single sex, that’s an increase of a half, 1/2, 0.5. Can’t say that that impressed when given the absolute percentages, and I’m sure they wouldn’t have made news.
But even if we accept that there was a significant difference it still wouldn’t support your position. Firstly, where’s the figures for the control in all the reports? kinda suspicious that they weren’t included considering that the numbers given are meaningless without them. The actual figures for boy’s independant schools mirror the girls (http://www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/file_58196.pdf page 15) and in fact in terms of pure number the difference is greater (from 10% to 18.7% in the case of coed schools – 8.7% more rather than 3.1% for girls)
You see, anyone who isn’t an ideologue with an agenda needs this stuff to rule out such things as the possibility that private grammar schools tend to have more intelligent students, and perhaps more intelligent students study Physics. Even if intelligence isn’t a factor perhaps those who went to a paid-for school had additional outside tutoring, as perhaps the parents on state school students can’t afford the tutors that the students need. Maybe the parents of private school pupils are pushier and don’t allow their children to do A-Level Media Studies, reducing the number of choices so we naturally have more doing Physics. There are many possibilities like this which the iop report doesn’t cover. Perhaps a lot of state-school six-forms had to cut their A-level physics subjects due to lack of funding, which isn’t a problem for private schools. Or maybe the schools are just better in general.
Secondly, since you love iop studies so much perhaps you’ll like the iop study (Murphy and Whitelegg 2006) which found that girls often have different learning patterns from boys. This opens up the possibility that perhaps, just maybe, girls, on average, aren’t as good at learning physics than boys, but then that runs against feminist theory so that can’t be true can it? What about the possibility that Physics as a subject appeals more to those with autism, and it’s a fact that more boys suffer from autism than girls at a ratio of 4.3:1 which more than accounts for the gender disparity in the students taking physics, which is 4:1. I’m not certain that that is the answer but anyone who doesn’t have pre-decided views based on ideology must take into account the possibility.
I really find ideologues like you annoying. You jump on anything which supports your own world-view and this behaviour makes it really difficult to take *anything* you claim or believe seriously.
Adiabat, you say:
Firstly, no school ever sends any student to do any subject; the students choose for themselves what subjects they want to do.
Strange as my understanding is that schools tend to group subject into arts, languages, sciences, economics/business and so on. But this rather misses the point, namely that so few girls studying physics in state schools is a national disgrace.
You say:
I really find ideologues like you annoying.
Well that’s cheered me up a lot as what you’ve demonstrated is the poverty of Ally’s hypothesis that “It is entirely unacceptable that generations of young men are considered increasingly obsolete by economics, society and themselves.”
They’re not in any way considered increasingly obsolete, quite the opposite. We have a education system that is the envy of much of the world and until they’re 18 it’s free. But what they’re realising in a time of austerity, is that they need to study hard, get qualified and make themselves attractive propositions to those who might consider employing them. In short they need to take some lessons from the young women who have shown such massive improvements in recent years.
But this rather misses the point, namely that so few girls studying physics in state schools is a national disgrace.
Why is it any more of a national disgrace than,say, A-Level English (arguably the most important for most students) where there are more than twice as many girls as boys entering or passing A-Level?
Or modern languages (again, pretty important) which is more than twice as many girls, or any of the other subjects?
The final bottom line is that last year 39,000 boys sat A Levels in total as against 46,000 girls. Although as you said above, slightly more boys than girls got A* this year, many more girls than boys got A and every other pass mark.
And of course the disparity is bigger at both GCSE level and degree level.
Yes, I will willingly agree that there are occasional statistics here and there, such as male predominance in STEM subjects and proportion of A* A Levels, which still buck the trend. I’ve never denied that or attempted to hide it. But to use that to deny the trend is to be just wilfully obtuse/
Hi Bitethehand. I find it interesting that you ignore my whole substantive post to respond to a simple throwaway line about how you poorly worded your claim, then go on to make further unsupported claims without substance. No retractions of the claims I’ve shown to be false at all and no rebuttal either.
Tbh, I’m happy to finish the conversation at this point. I’m quite confident that with your reply anyone reading this will agree that I’ve “won”, inasmuch as one can “win” a debate.
Bitethehand:
So if as redpesto points out the evidence appears to show that there’s no reason why girls and women shouldn’t be as successful or more successful in physics as their male counterparts, it must be the men who are teaching physics and to a lesser extent the men in charge of state schools that are the problem.
Except that there may be men teaching the successful female students (though the report doesn’t show this either way). Alternatively, either there are no female physics teachers, or girls need to be taught physics by women, or this is yet another example of how single-sex schools for girls is a ‘good thing’ (which especially nice for private girls schools, which produce more female A level physics students – if you can afford the fees: see p 15 of the report).
Oddly enough, the report makes no mention of the percentage of female/male physics teachers, or whether that correlates to the number of girls taking the subject or cites any evidence of a correlation between the gender of the head teacher and the number of girls taking physics A level. Maybe it’s all Gove’s fault instead – but presumably that’s because he’s a man, rather than because he’s Education Secretary.
I’ve no figures for England or the UK but this paper from the USA says:
Teachers of physics also illustrate this gender discrepancy; at the high school level, only 29% of physics teachers are women
And this report states:
Attainment levels of boys and girls in physics/science at age 16 are quite similar with, if anything, girls doing slightly better (JCQ, 2011a). This demonstrates there is little if any inherent difference between boys and girls in their ability at physics.
There is a strong influence of gender on intended physics participation and the gender gap in perceptions of teachers, lessons and physics increases as students get older.
Boys report far more positive responses about teachers’ encouragement, personal relationships with physics teachers and competence of physics teachers.
Is it any wonder as they get older, the girls “just don’t want to do Physics”.
Great stuff Adiabat and redpesto, thanks
but I also think there’s something quite telling about the way the media picks out one subject where men are still doing better (eg physics) and present it as some sort of scandal.
Ally-I missed your post upthread and i think your above quote from it just about hits the nail on the head.It almost feels like there’re ”forces at work ” which will only be happy when females outperform males in every subject and at every stage of their education.So girls underperforming at physics can only be explained by these ”forces” as being the result of the system working against them.Whereas boys underperforming at practically everything else is attributed to them not being more like girls and therefore only having themselves to blame for their under-performance.The under-performance of course being most apparent amongst working class boys..
Yep, exactly this.
With regard to working class boys in particular there’s also the issue of a relatively high proportion of them coming from families which are dominated by women.And being educated in schools which are almost entirely staffed by women at primary level and increasingly so at secondary level.
I read some interesting research a few years ago which was conducted in South America and for the life of me i can’t remember the source.Anyway it basically looked at the link between matriachy and machismo and concluded that a matriachal -based society can encourage machismo in young men and boys.And machismo of course goes that extra mile in encouraging young men and boys not to do anything that could be seen as being ”girlie” -which may include working hard at school and behaving yourself.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily as straightforward as that but i’m inclined to believe there some strong elements of truth in it.
hetpat: “Yep, exactly this.”
But isn’t what your agreeing with essentially the “paranoid anti-feminist” stuff you deride elsewhere on this blog? This kind of thing (the not-enough-girls-studying-physics “news” articles) are precisely the kind of thing anti-feminists refer to when they talk about how feminist theory damages men in many areas of life and how institutionalised it is. The bbc, other major news outlets, the iop, the government are all involved in the narrative that is being pushed here: a narrative that promotes women/girls ahead of men/boys based on basically no evidence. Even more resources will be diverted from the teaching of boys because of reports like this. Boys will receive substandard teaching because all teachers will have to devote more time to the girls in class to ‘get them enthused’ because, according to a recommendation of the report, a school cannot be ofsted rated as ‘Outstanding’ if there isn’t (a loosely defined) ‘gender equality’ in its Physics results, even if the girls at the school just don’t want to do Physics. Then we end up with another subject where boys are failing and “it’s there own fault for not being like girls”.
Adiabat
I didn’t read Paul’s post to mean that there is some grand feminist conspiracy. It’s a much broader cultural habit which has as much to do with old fashioned benevolent sexism and chivalry as feminism.
And it goes without saying that the structural inequalities in the educational system mean that middle class boys are probably outperforming working class girls in most subjects.
Adiabat
But isn’t what your agreeing with essentially the “paranoid anti-feminist” stuff you deride elsewhere on this blog? This kind of thing (the not-enough-girls-studying-physics “news” articles) are precisely the kind of thing anti-feminists refer to when they talk about how feminist theory damages men in many areas of life and how institutionalised it is.
Excuse me i can assure you i’m not a ”paranoid anti-feminist ”and i’m quite offended that you’ve made that assumption without ever engaging in any discussion with me about this .In my experience people who are quick to wrongly label people like you’ve just done often have an agenda which at least seeks to stymie open and honest debate.
Paul: Hmmm, maybe I should explain.
I don’t believe that there are *any* “paranoid anti-feminists”, in the way that Ally claims in his first thread on this site, so I definitely don’t think you are one. I agree with your post. My point is that those who Ally categorizes that way in the other article are often only pointing out the same thing as you did there, which we all agree with. I found it strange that he agreed with you yet calls the same views “paranoid” elsewhere.
Now he has explained above that he thinks that making up areas where girls/women are being “oppressed”, or whatever, to the point of promoting false science, deciding it’s men’s fault, and demanding that everyone else changes what they are doing to focus on your hobby horse is an old fashioned “Patriarchal” position, and not what is obviously a feminist one (not that all feminist causes are made up of course, but there’s no checks on which are and which aren’t as any criticism is soundly suppressed as ‘misogynist’), his position makes more sense, even if I now disagree with it.
“In my experience people who are quick to wrongly label people like you’ve just done often have an agenda which at least seeks to stymie open and honest debate.”
I didn’t label you and I do apologize that it came across that way. I can definitely see how you read that into my post and the fault is completely mine. As far as agendas go: my “thing” is people and groups who misuse science and statistics to push an agenda. And also, to a slightly lesser extent, those who use what basically is unproven bullshit “theory” to promote their views. Obviously these ‘bugbears’ of mine have over the years drawn my attention to feminism. Before that it was creationism, but that is mainly a damp squib nowadays.
Hetpat: “It’s a much broader cultural habit which has as much to do with old fashioned benevolent sexism and chivalry as feminism”
There’s a blog I quite enjoy reading called Genderratic.com where the authors quite convincingly make the point that “old fashioned benevolent sexism and chivalry” forms the basis of much of modern feminist advocacy. I recommend you have a look, if you don’t already know about it. Essentially, to use feminists own terms, modern feminism is largely “Patriarchy” repackaged and sold as “progressive”. Don’t know if I fully agree with that, especially re Feminism’s early days, but for the last couple of decades it seems increasingly true. It is getting harder to see where feminist causes end and plain old-fashioned chivalry begins.
As for this case, I would argue that there is nothing “old fashioned” about it. Reforming the education system to boost the performance of girls, at the cost of boys’ performance, is a relatively new phenomenon, which coincides with the rise of the feminist movement and the acceptance of feminist ideology in various institutional bodies including the education system. It may have served a valid purpose once, which various feminists rightfully take credit for, but now it is just damaging a whole gender suddenly it’s the “patriarchy’s” fault, if the damage is acknowledged at all.
Now, I’m *not* claiming that feminists are behind closed doors ‘plotting’ this stuff, I know they’re not, but rather that feminist theory has contributed to a culture where we can have a situation where boys are failing in every area but one, and everyone in power thinks that means girls are being unfairly treated. Also a situation where organisations need to show their “feminist credentials”, even to the extent that a scientific body willingly promotes bad science, just to avoid criticism. I don’t think *anyone* thinks there is actually a grand feminist conspiracy, but rather that things feminists say and do contribute massively to this culture.
“soundly suppressed as ‘misogynist’”
that should of course be “roundly suppressed”. Why would I criticise suppression which I thought was “sound”?
Adiabat
No worries and thanks for clarifying your position.
[...] Comments « Has the worm really turned? Reflections on the End of Men, part 1 [...]
Well done Ally. I must say the whole navel gazing Physics debate here rather links to your comments about Question time. In that broad and damaging trends in our society go ignored as we are asked to focus on the minor upsets of the already privileged. I really enjoyed physics by the way.
[...] existing evidence, and reading too much into too little evidence. But it gets much worse. A good tip from Ally Fogg (who elaborates here) pointed me toward a case where Rosin doesn’t just [...]
[...] previous blogs on this topic, please click here and [...]
[...] previously explained my reasons for rejecting the theory of The End of Men, and I don’t for a moment believe that [...]
Howdy! Someone in my Myspace group shared this website with us so I came to
look it over. I’m definitely loving the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers!
Fantastic blog and outstanding design and style.