September 11, 2012
DAVID BROOKS, another human hot air balloon, writes glowingly today of Hanna Rosin’s new book on the “End of Men.” Brooks lends support to her theory that men are lagging behind their former employment and academic success rates because women are more “fluid” and “adapatable” in the modern economy. Men just don’t get it. He writes:
Rosin is not saying that women are winners in a global gender war or that they are doing super simply because men are doing worse. She’s just saying women are adapting to today’s economy more flexibly and resiliently than men. There’s a lot of evidence to support her case.
Brooks makes no mention of the 50-year feminist campaign to remake our schools and regulate the job market. Nothing about the millions of dollars in fines and damages companies have paid for failing to comply with sex discrimination laws. Nothing about the rewriting of history so that every male achievement is suspect or any musing over whether men could be, I don’t know, demoralized?
Not a peep from Brooks on these remarkable changes, or on the grotesque aggression and self-centeredness of the modern woman careerist. Nor does he truly lament the declining employment rate of men. Women are doing “super,” according to the “conservative” Brooks, as if women could ever be “super” while dumping men and children by the wayside.
——- Comments ——
James P. writes:
David Brooks does not lament the end of men because he is not much of a man himself.
You’ve hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head.
Fred Owens writes:
David Brooks offers some persuasive evidence concerning the emerging matriarchy, but I have something to say about this — It ain’t over til the fat lady sings and she doesn’t work for the New York Times.
It’s only going to get worse. It seems that there is now, after “more than half a century” of research, a serious effort to eliminate or dramatically narrow the gap in the one important remaining advantages that these broader-shouldered losers have over women.
As much as the expression grates, girls do, in general, throw like girls.
Janet Hyde, a professor of psychology and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has studied the gender gap across a broad spectrum of skills. She believes that men and women aren’t as different as they are often portrayed, and she has mined data on social, psychological, communication and physical traits, skills and behaviors to quantify the gap. After looking at 46 meta-analyses, Hyde found what she defined as a “very large” difference in only two skills: throwing velocity and throwing distance.
There doesn’t appear to be a muscular or structural reason for the difference.
If you say something is biological.” he says, “people think you should just give up and go home.” Janet Hyde agrees: “The more we argue for gender differences, the more we feed people’s stereotypes. A belief in large gender differences is incompatible with equal opportunity.” Still, Hyde readily acknowledges that there are some biological differences, and throwing is one of them.
There’s no doubt in my mind that David Brooks throws like a girl, a pre-puberty girl.
Daniel S. writes:
From the article quoted by Buck:
Janet Hyde agrees: “The more we argue for gender differences, the more we feed people’s stereotypes. A belief in large gender differences is incompatible with equal opportunity.”
What an utterly stupid statement, though one very revealing of the minds (if we may call them that) of leftist academics. There is not pursuit for truth here, not even a pursuit of empirical or scientific facts, rather all that most be ignored or rejected as it would stand in the way of “equal opportunity” (the most sacred totem of modern liberalism). Liberalism, which feminism is but a manifestation of, is founded upon the hatred and rejection of natural reality, it is the resentment of reality itself.
“[T]he resentment of reality itself.”
What an excellent way of putting it.