Essay on “The End of Men”
Since the beginning of time, men have been the dominant gender. The so-called patriarchy has been oppressing females and violating their human rights. The late 20th century however has been characterized by the redstockings movement and feminism in general. Now in the 21st century the world is finally starting to meet the demands of the feminists. In her article “The End of Men” from July/August 2010 in ‘The Atlantic’ Hanna Rosin addresses how the world is adjusting to the wave of dominating feminists, and how a matriarchy could be starting to occur. But could this change in the end be “The End of Men”?
Rosin sets of her article with statistical facts stating ...view middle of the document...
”(p.2 ,ll. 19-20) Rosin’s uses her interview with Ericsson to give the reader a historical perspective on how the patriarchy ones was the only social norm. One might even call Ericsson an allusion in this text, because of his past as a male chauvinist and his hindsight after growing old.
He says: “Now they just call and say outright ‘I want a girl.’ These mothers look at their lives and think their daughters will have a bright future their mother and grandmother didn’t have, brighter than their sons, even, so why wouldn’t you choose a girl?”(p. 2, ll. 33-36) Rosin repeats the last sentence to emphasize that this is a revolution, a retired male chauvinist asking that question. Rosin starts explaining how the patriarchy has dominated all time, just to point out that this one sentence is a clear example of how far, feminism has come.
Rosin continues to find examples that prove how women are becoming more dominant as men using logos as her main appeal for example: “Women live longer than men, they do better in this economy, more of ‘em graduate from college.”(p.2 ll.58-59) Rosin states these facts in order to prove herself right, when she claims that women are taking on a more dominating position compared to men.
She states that these improved living standards for women, are for some feminists only a catch-up on a long awaited equality, but she asks a an interesting rhetorical question: “What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men? […] what if the new economics are better suited to women?”(p.3 ,ll.83-84) The interesting part of this rhetorical question is how she expresses doubt on the feminists fight for equality. What she is asking is, what kind of equality is it if women are better off than men? The short answer would be, it is not equality and her rhetorical question can therefore be considered as a criticism towards feminists that fight for equality, without considering how their fight for equality might violate men’s equality.
Then again she turns...