The End of Men Analysis

In a tremendous article that displays the superiority of women – the article screams as an Ad Hominem to men everywhere. Bias taints the article, however it doesn’t remove from the fact that it provides solid evidence to prove every claim. However, in some instances, hasty generalizations are made. The article is an ode to feminists everywhere – a sort of “feminist Nirvana” and although the drawbacks of women are portrayed, the article circles the central idea that women are far more superior today than ever before. Generalizations are portrayed all throughout, with history even logically flawed. It was since the beginning of time that men have been seen as substantially superior to women, globally. No evidence then did suggest that that belief was indeed truth. In fact, there is no reason why any gender is inferior to the other – which brings to question why women are increasingly superior now, rather than achieving societal equity.

To begin, Rosin doesn’t really take into consideration the male standpoint in the whole debacle she is addressing in her lengthy article. The article is making the assumption that men have no care or consideration for their family and portray them as merely opting to receive government aid and refuse to pay child support. She is not taking into consideration every individual situation that has caused each man to fall in the grips of unemployment. A false analogy is in play when comparing the power of men decades ago to now, as legally women too have gained more rights which has aided substantially in their social and economic growth.

She is also making the hasty generalization of painting the image of women’s rights growth but portraying this image in free democratic countries meanwhile hundreds of direly oppressed patriarchies still exist with not many advancements made to mitigate them. To support her claim, Rosin also makes the hasty generalization that today’s society values communication and intelligence more than strength and attitude, which may not be the case everywhere in the world. And although she does make the strong case for women, she presents the parallel side where male dominance is still seen at times, which is contradictory to the case she is attempting to establish which is that that men are falling behind and their role in society is also becoming obsolete.

Rosin also makes several generalizations throughout the article, not taking into consideration the women that still fall for subliminal and traditional roles in society or choose to not obtain an education due to their personal circumstances or the many women that value marriage and having a family heavily. Rosin also seemed to skim over existing disparities, such as the wage gap and lack of women in careers such as STEM, in order to amplify her conclusion. The article also fails to investigate the advancements of women of color, as Rosin makes little to no race distinctions for men or women in the article, as statistics are vastly different if those factors were to be taken into consideration – it could be white women who are advancing and men of color staying behind.

Rosin’s highly acclaimed article, overall, shouldn’t be a cause for women to rejoice. Yes, it is a great thing that women have become increasingly powerful in society, however, applying the same stereotype that for years has kept women down to men now, isn’t helping towards reaching equity. Claiming and assuming that all women are better suited for work, more intelligent and and biologically superior to men is a hasty generalization in itself and many factors are ignored in the process. Rosin chose to only highlight the advancements of women, but she failed to see that for many women, they still feel like the shadow in society.

Men continue to dominate, not with as much potency (especially in first world country) but the social stigma and whole “machismo” ideal is still much alive. Rosin also failed to admit to these failures – for example: unemployment rates. They are substantially high for women as well, especially among women of color. They earn about 20-30% less in almost every field and dominate part time jobs. It is true that women are dominating several job fields, but these are the same fields that for the most part are low income and don’t require extensive education. Also, putting beside the whole feel and proud feeling for women empowerment, a one income household or one where the man or woman is the primary of only source of revenue, is never a good thing. Rosin depicted unemployment as a man crisis, but in reality it is the byproduct of recession and capitalism. Rosin fails to accept all classes and race, examining only the wealthier, white women and their success that has left many men in the dust. This allowed for an open window of opportunity for men to blame women for their “cruel circumstances.” meanwhile many women today – especially of color – have low paying, arduous work.

The article may even be considered a work of radical feminism – the type that gives feminism a bad name in society. The article depicts women from being a second class citizen to becoming a matriarchy and that’s not the goal. The goal of feminism is to attain equity between all men and women, regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation – not to raise women to a superior pedestal. And it is the women who fight for this cause in its true meaning, they are not the ones that portray men as losers in society – it’s the wealthy and power hungry misandrists. Rosin also has a false notion of masculinity, portraying those that aren’t the strong leaders of their home to be wimps. Men who garden or host dessert parties are weak.

The article, as well as Rosin’s book by the same title, depends heavily on anecdotes to support her claim and minimizes the important issues that women still face. Rosin further perpetuates stereotypes regarding what it means to be a women to the most fickle things such as having the ability to “sit still and focus” in oxymoron an article in ode to the growth of women. In Rosin’s perspective – the rise of one gender means the fall of another, a false analogy. Rosin holds to a high pedestal the hero of this feminist movement and it is not the women involved – but the economy. Rosin claims that it is this economy’s new found appreciation for intelligence rather than strength to be what has catapulted women to the rise. But could the end of patriarchy really be thanked due to merely economy? What about the social dogmas that have thrived throughout centuries? Rosin uses hand picked, vague facts about entire countries to support her claim. For example, she mentions how women in India are learning english faster than men and are controlling the call centers. Is that really all she can get from an entire country? Not to mention that India remains largely patriarchal and this small advancement for women isn’t even close to freeing them. This bright future for women that Rosin paints is in the United States – not elsewhere.  

Rosin’s article is not the feminist Nirvana, it is merely further separating the genders, this time a mirrored image of the distinctions before. By writing and amplifying how she predicts women will become the dominant gender, she is not aiding in bringing about equity: the true goal of feminism. Thus, instead of aiding the feminist cause, she is further deteriorating it and giving it a bad name in society. This so called “end of men” seems a lot more than the end of a manufacturing based economy rather than the failure and insularity of an entire gender. And all of this is happening in the lower and middle classes – not the wealthy – which Rosin failed to address. And in this shiny ode to femininity and power – how could it ever be known that women won’t reach this “fall” the previously superior men have? How can we know the savior that was the economy won’t shift again? Guess we have to ask the men who have ended.