Heard about this book through Mark Levin's Facebook feed ...
The subtitle is "Why Men are boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream, and why it matters". Seems like an interesting read. Best I can tell, her theory is that we have eroded the institutional incentives toward marriage, school, and work, and that men are having an 'Atlas Shrugged' moment. Deals with inequity in family courts ("When it comes to procreation: women have rights, men have responsibilities.") disparities in school enrollment, rising divorce rates, falling marriage rates, high unemployment among men, etc.
Since I haven't read it ... I can't comment on how well reasoned it is. But, it seems like an interesting theory.
One chapter is available here: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/05/why_men_are_avoid...
Can't speak to the rest, but this doesn't describe my college or any I've ever worked at or attended. Is it a concern? Sure: what's described there must be stopped. Is it something a college man can reasonably expect to encounter in his 4 years -- harassment, "Leading a Double Life," no competition, winning only if the administrators like you? Not so much.
But I still want to read her other chapters, to see if the non-campus bits are true -- or if they're interesting mistakes.
Just finished reading this book actually. Definitely seemed like an interesting premise but the execution is pretty bad. Her sources are like, "this one guy who commented on my blog said..."
Heh. Good grief. Maybe a better author will steal the premise and do a better job.
I haven't read the other posts, so here's my opinion.
There is no declared war on boys. No one has come out with a Congressional declaration of war. However, there have been some serious shifts in society and the economy that has put up some serious road-blocks for men:
1 - Economy. Many factories have been moved to China, Mexico, Taiwan, etc. These tended to be physical and dangerous jobs that mostly men took. Furthermore, as more women entered the workplace -- in an economy that no longer valued braun as much -- men were out-classed and have a hard time adapting. Combine this with import of outside talent (someone with an H1-B visa) or illegal immigration, whether you're in a white collar profession or doing landscaping, you have one heck of an economic uphill battle.
2 - Society. Divorce is very easy to get nowadays. Too easy. What incentive does a man have to get married and start a family when getting out of this arrangement is like going to a gas station and filling up? Furthermore, while there has been sexism and misogyny, the reaction has been to whole-sale blame all men. As a result, when boys grow up, they're now the "bad guy". Why would you give a damn about anything if you're assumed to be the offender?
3 - Role models. Or rather, lack of them. This problem is especially acute for African Americans. Basically, there are fewer fathers as having a father is no longer viewed as terribly valuable (the state can help you with welfare and subsidies and most men are already having a hard time making an income). Add to this that increasingly more households are headed by women, men don't have appropriate role models. And if they do have a role model, it's usually someone of questionable character that makes most men think that to be a man, you need to be a thug, a criminal or engage in other anti-social behavior.
After a while, this turns into a vicious cycle. It's not particularly popular in our nation, but I'd recommend a reversal of past "free-trade" policies. You have more factories and production in this country, which drives up wages and creates employee protections such as unions.
Independence was the path we took to pursue equality for both sexes. But the (possibly unforseen) consequence of this is that we are now a nation of independent people who are taught that to NEED someone is betraying that equality.
So women reinvented themselves and their role in society to give them fair shots at college, career, etc. They learned that pleasing a man was not the purpose of woman. So far so good, right, sounds fair.
Problem is, so much of being a traditional MAN is about taking care of, or being needed by, women. So we tried to reinvent ourselves, and we got the sensitive man, and most women didn't like or respect this at all. So now men are trying to figure out who we are, what is our place. I know we love to shout the word freedom to the rafters in every context, but finding where you fit in, your place in the world can be a good and necessary thing.
So, here we are, and we now have no idea what to teach our boys (not even adding how many of them are raised by thier mothers, and visited on the weekend only by thier dads).
I think that women and men need to stop categorizing each other based on gender and learn that each person has strengths and weaknesses. It does make the world much more complex to deal with however.
If we stop saying your reproductive role is the categorization for social status or role and start focusing instead on the role of being a supporting loving partner and an active member of the community I think we will do much better.
The old role models are out, but the new role models need to be created by celebrating the scientists, teachers, engineers and business people who go to work every day working hard making small improvements over time that lead to great things with a stable family. It is not about gender it is about good role models.
Another similar discussion.
I think that women and men need to stop categorizing each other based on gender and learn that each person has strengths and weaknesses.
That's neither reasonable nor sensible. People categorize each other all-the-time. It is a necessary part of living in a world where you can't know, and don't need to know, the individualized strengths and weaknesses of every person you come across. Stereotypes and generalizations won't give you the right answer 100% of the time. But, they don't need to. If they give you the right answer 75%, sometimes they're still worth making in lieu of lengthy and unnecessary individualized judgments that don't matter. Sometimes a 75% guess is good enough.
Generalizations and stereotypes exist for a reason. Generally true, with lots of exceptions. Most women aren't as physically strong as most men ... if you're the exception, then we're not talking about you. Most men aren't as nurturing as most women ... if you're the exception, then we're not talking about you.
There are general sex-based differences between men and women that are noteworthy. It would be foolish to ignore them because your ideology wishes they didn't exist.
Kids need same-sex role models. As it turns out ... boys have a very hard time learning to be good men from women. Fathers have a specific role in teaching boys to be men ... a role that can't be filled by a mother. There is a reason that fatherless boys are more susceptible to poverty, crime, degeneracy and general failure. There are exceptions. There aren't enough to disprove the observation.
I agree that stereotypes are actually critical to living and navigating in the world. Heck I am using a stereotypes when I reference Scientists, Teachers, Engineers and Business people.
That being said we have to be careful what stereotypes we propagate and use as guides for our selves and our following generations.
According to at least one study, homosexual couples raise kids better than heterosexuals, which I suppose means that lesbian couples are just as good as a "father figure" and boys must not do too shabbily "learning to be good men from women."
As a general stereotype, despite the sexing of the couples, couples generally fall into gender specific roles. I would suggest, same sex families are generally better parents, because they generally put more thought into starting the family.