In a recent article in The Atlantic entitled "The End of Men", Rosin brings up a controversial topic of the rising female domination and the deterioration of male superiority in society today. She argues that men 'have nothing. The men were just annihilated in the recession of the '90s, and things never got better' and that the postindustrial society is simply better suited for modern women.
Although she makes it clear that women now stand higher than men in the economy, I disagree that men are in a crisis. Yes, it's true that 'the balance of the workforce tipped toward women, who hold a majority of the nation's job'. But that's only because men are the ones who are getting majorly affected while women are taking the advantage of this economic shift. It may be true that women are increasingly entering the workforce, but men still dominate the two most important fields: technology and engineering. And without men in these fields, we would be in a more serious economic crisis.
Throughout her article, she argues the problem of traditional gender stereotypes. She cliams that '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 food providers and to care for their offspring, and that is manifested in more- nurturing and more flexible behavior, ordaining them to domesticity'. She believed that both men and women were beginning to fulfill their social roles instead of the stereotypical roles. However, it's interesting that when she says 'but they have proved remarkably unable to adapt' because she uses the same stereotype that's been used for so long to keep women's role down.
The title of her article captured a lot of readers but I'm sure many of those readers had a lot to say against her arguments. I think Rosin wanted to dispute the changing roles of women by throwing random statistics and reference to pop culture but in doing so, it contradicted her main argument.
