There's been a kerfuffle in the news lately about the end of men: Hanna Rosin just wrote a cover story by that name for The Atlantic -- then the "Today" show joined the discussion. And it's true that women are taking over the traditional cultural roles. We're smarter, more streamlined, more capable.As the article points out, when it comes to our jobs, our lives, we don't need men anymore. And guys have allowed this shift to happen, because we haven't given them a choice. Equality is our God-given right, no question. And it's true: Women are better at running the world.
But is this truly the end of man?
I don't think so. I think we have a different issue. Not the end of man, per se, but the end of men. Real men. As the roles between the sexes continue to blur, I find fewer and fewer men who are unabashedly male. All it takes is a quick look around to see that many men have gotten a bit too much in touch with their feminine side.
Where have all the cowboys gone, indeed?
I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm happily married to a man's man, a gentleman, a scholar, a romantic. He can cook if he's going to starve, manages the finances and the house, is the primary breadwinner, looks good in a pair of jeans, likes sports and beer, and takes good care of me. He's one of a kind. If I were out in the dating world right now, I might just throw up my hands and give up.
In the beginning, women had to be protected, because they were the only way to propagate the species. Since men can't nurse, the dynamic was born – men hunted, women tended the home fires. Tended them extensively, since myths show that early hunters spent several days in seclusion following a kill in order to thank the Gods, and show respect for the animal's spirit through reflection and prayer. Someone had to cure the meat, and that fell to the women.The pattern that developed stood for a millennium, until the men started going a wee bit overboard and took away all of the rights of women as partners in a human world -- education, voting, you know, the little things. I don't know many modern women who aren't filled with horror at the idea of being forced to wear a burqa, not be allowed schooling, or a voice in both your marriage and the legal system.
I think it's safe to say the end of man began with the death of manners.
Our divergent social roles aside, in recent modern societies, women were cherished, protected, treated with the utmost respect. Men rose when a woman entered the room. They scrabbled for a chance to share a dance. Duels were fought over their honor and attentions. Men were courtly, refined, intelligent, witty and, when in the presence of a woman, watched their mouths, their actions and their dress. Can you imagine a chevalier in jeans that hang off his ass and oversize sunglasses, calling you "be-atch" when he ends his text message? Sigh.
Clint Eastwood is a great example of a real man. He could go from "Bridges of Madison County" to "Dirty Harry" to "Unforgiven" without batting an eye, and is completely convincing in all those roles because there was never any doubt that he was a man. And the way he seats a horse, you just know he's going to rock your world. There aren't a lot of actors nowadays who can play those roles, but there is one. Watch "Justified," with Timothy Olyphant as Raylan Givens, a federal marshal from the deep south of Kentucky. Givens is a real man. He's rough, tough and ready, unfailingly polite, incontrovertibly sexy in jeans and boots and a hat. He plays the role of the protector to perfection. And, yes, I'm well aware I've had to choose fictional men as an example.
What makes a man manly? That's a personal preference, obviously, but eyeliner and lipstick doesn't quite scream "caveman" to me. We're all in love with the idea of the perfect man, but when we find one -- that casual, smart, witty guy who's cool and somewhat reserved -- we toss him over in favor of a man who'll go shopping with us, who understands the difference between Louboutin and Choo.
Air dry, wear a pair of Levi's and an old shirt, play golf with the boys on Sunday afternoon, drink a beer. And what's with all the crying? Keep it manly already -- misting up or a cough to cover the emotions is more than enough.The past few generations have been so busy worrying about Janie getting a fair shake that no one's bothering to teach either of the sexes proper manners. There's a reason Emily Post was so popular. Being treated well is addictive. It's pleasant. Having a chair pulled out for you, having a man open your door, escort you to your door, heck, buy you dinner without expecting to be paid back with sex ...
The current crop of reality television is supposed to be an example of the empowerment of women. It fails miserably. "The Bachelorette," for example, is time and again consigned to the annals of history not for finding true love, but for being cuckolded by her choice.
Look at "Sex and the City"; talk about a massive step backwards for womankind. There's something so sad about their lives, all of which revolve around finding and keeping a good man. If we're going to talk about true empowerment, then finding a hottie to date can't be paramount.
Real men do exist. They're out there. It's not too late. We can teach them how to treat us. They've shown themselves malleable. Let's take back the gel and the hairdryers, ratchet back the designer jeans, get them some movies and start asking to be treated as women again. We can resurrect the good stuff, and leave the bad in the dust.
J. T. Ellison is the international and bestselling author of the critically acclaimed Taylor Jackson series, with novels published in 21 countries. Read her blog on Red Room.Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy













Comments:
Add a comment
Tuesday 20 July
By ugh
what a stupid article. if a guy like fashion, then he likes fashion. no one is forcing you to date him if what you want is a guy who is unemotional, only drinks beer, and watches sports all weekend.
Reply
Tuesday 20 July
By LollyB
Totally agree with you about Sex and the City. Beyond pathetic. My first dating rule was always to avoid men who spent as much or more time on their hair than I did.
It worked out very well.
Reply
Tuesday 20 July
By littlemissr17
I understand the "Sex and the City" comparison, but I don't think watching sports and drinking beer defines a man, just as red wine and nail polish don't define a women and to say otherwise is stupid. Yes, women are more equal now that ever before, but that doesn't mean men are less equal or somehow losing. It means that neither sex need depend on each other for anything but companionship. Which is a good thing. If everyone were self-sufficient and only needed other people for company, there would be fewer instances of people remaining in an abusive relationship.
Reply
Tuesday 20 July
By JAC
This is indeed a stupid article, and the Atlantic column is similarly useless.
I prefer to view people as individuals, not to broad-brush them by gender. However, in the broad-brush spirit of this article, here are a couple of comments:
1. This article defines a good man by how he treats the woman he is in a relationship with. Not by his intellect, his contributions to society, or maybe to his church, but by how he treats his girlfriend. Self-absorbed women much?
2. Women are better at running the world, huh?
This comment is so stupid and broad-brushed that it can scarcely be responded to.
However, if you take a step back and broadly review men's and women's interests (measured by, say, occupations, leisure choices, magazine and web reading choices, and personal funds allocation), at least in the developed world, it is very noticeable that men's interests range more widely and are more evenly divided among news, politics, economic/market concerns, outdoors, and home improvement, while women are far more likely to favor Clothes, Shoes, Boys.
The phenomenal success of Twilight and Sex and the City (where the Clothes Shoes Boys slogan originated, I believe) illustrates the more narrow focus. Twilight is, face it, centered on a girl and her relationships with two boys, and Sex and City morphed from a show about bright modern women into a show about shallow, pathetic, relationship-obsessed women. And female viewers ate it up for a decade and two movies.
Go to the gym and poll what the people on the treadmill are reading. The men are more likely to be reading a book or a newspaper, while women are more likely to be reading a gossip magazine that devotes half of its pages to who's dating who or advertising luxury women's goods. It's frustrating to see.
In fact, I bet the readers of the Atlantic Mag (a cultural/political/poetry mag) are probably 66% men, while the readers of OK/People/Cosmo are 95% women.
I consider myself a genuine feminist, in that expect far more from equal women that Clothes Shoes Boys.
CAJ
Reply
Thursday 22 July
By verplanck colvin
you don't like making generalizations, but you'll spend 5 paragraphs doing so anyway.
In your example, you need to compare similarities. If you use Sex in the City as a feminine baseline (i.e. pop culture), then the parallel on the male side isn't the Atlantic, it's Maxim, 24/7 ESPN sportscenter broadcasts, and UFC. That's a wash, in my book.
Using pop culture to judge the sexes, or in any other 'serious' analysis ruins us all. Stop feeding the monster and start looking at people as individuals.
Tuesday 20 July
By Cassandra
This entire article is an observation of one individual about the relationship she has with her husband. Honestly, today each one of us, male and female have different preferences on what they find attractive qualities in prospective partners. What this author finds to be the ideal man may not measure up to the person sitting next to her. The "real men" haven't gone anywhere. They're still here, and there are people who find the aforementioned qualities of a "feminized man" more attractive than its opposite.
It's all about a person's preference, and being a "real" man (or woman for that matter) has nothing to do with personal appearance or what potential stereotype they can be catagorized in. It has everything to do with how they choose to live up to their own self imposed standards. What makes me a "real" woman has nothing to do with what I watch on the weekends or what magazine I am reading. It has everything to do with how I choose to carry myself through the day to day. The same goes for a man.
People today need to realize that we can no longer catagorize people into the black and white. We're a giant melting pot of grey, the most important thing is finding the person who makes YOU happy. It doesn't matter how that person acts, dresses, their nationality, gender, or what their shopping and tv preferences are.
The bottom line is people are changing. Expectations are changing, or moreso evolving. Can we say with an absolute, this is better than that or that was better than this? No, we can't. It's all about perspective. You'll find women and men lamenting about the old days, the days of "manners" and the predefined roles men and women were expected to uphold. On the other hand, you have other men and women scoffing at these old fashioned ideals.
Each one of us has an ideal of how they want their mate to be like. And it could be a Cary Grant or an Audrey Hepburn for one person, and it could very well be a Jersey Shore Guido/Guidette for another.
Reply
Tuesday 20 July
By Drew
What is this mess?
Where you say "women were cherished, protected, treated with the utmost respect." I think you mean "women were treated like children that happen to also be made from the most fragile porcelain, assuming that they were not poor or with a poor reputation." Why in the hell are you romanticizing the period of time where women were completely objectified?
What the hell is "We've managed to turn all the men into us"? How the hell did this happen? Who is this "us" you are talking about?
Apply that to this line, then "...when we find one, that casual, smart, witty guy who's cool and somewhat reserved, we toss him over in favor of a man who'll go shopping with us, who understands the difference between Louboutin and Choo."
MAN: casual, smart, witty, cool, and somewhat reserved
WOMAN: goes shopping and knows the difference between Louboutin and Choo
Sweet angry Jeezus, didn't anyone teach you not to make broad generalizations? Especially broad generalizations that aren't true?
I agree that manners are important (for everyone). I hate everything else in this article. You could have had something going here, but then you threw in the concept of "getting too in touch with their feminine side" and kept going with it.
This was posted yesterday morning, then disappeared, and then for some reason it's back again. Back to piss on logic, back to piss on equality, back to piss me off.
Reply
Sunday 25 July
By WOAHOH
Hell Yes! Everything in this comment is how I felt!
Wednesday 21 July
By jkyc
Lemondrop edotors - you can do better than this!
Next time someone submits a poorly written article full of gender stereotypes and narrow-mindendess, please think of your readers and hit delete.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By A Male
Are you seriously this stereotypically sexist?
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By Mel
While I think the author is a bit over-the-top in her article, I do believe she is on to something in regards to the lack of manners shown by men these days. Women are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" by trying to be overly independent and self-sufficient, while at the same time they are dreaming of finding the perfect man to sweep her off her feet. For starters, women need to realize that they don't NEED a man to be happy. And second, when the DO find a man they want to spend their lives with, they should demand to be respected and treated like a lady - there is nothing wrong with a man that holds a door for a lady, or pulls her chair out for her. It's romantic, gentleman-like, and just plain polite.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By John
If this article is any indication, women are certainly just as good or better at chauvinism as "real men" ...
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By jones
i don't believe women want real men anymore. They want male girlfriends.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By dmitryb
Anyone who can in all seriousness write an article like this needs to stop watching TV and start spending more time in the real world (by which I mean the vast area outside the few blocks of the chic downtown area of whatever large city you live in).
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By John
You're an idiot. Real men (or women) don't find your feinged cutsey-sexism attractrive, or even acceptable for more than a nights' entertainment. It's boring. If you were half as together, capable, self confident, and 'equal' as you wished you were, you'd never find it necessary to write this kind of drivel. My equals, my peers, don't ever even think this way. But you'd never know that. Congrats on your job. It's apparently all you have. Go buy some shoes....
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By Redman
The decline of America has gone hand and hand with the rise of feminism.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By tsotha
As the article points out, when it comes to our jobs, our lives, we don't need men anymore. And guys have allowed this shift to happen, because we haven't given them a choice. Equality is our God-given right, no question. And it's true: Women are better at running the world.
Yeah, sure. Until the first time the oil needs to be changed. I'm always floored by the female's capacity for self-delusion.
You want to know why men started wearing oversize sunglasses and pants falling off their ass? Why they call you "be-atch" at the end of a text message? Because those are the guys who get attention from women. If this is a problem for you, talk to your sisters - it's not our fault, be-atch.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By Sam M
"And it's true: Women are better at running the world."
The bigotry here is so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut it.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By Mike Jackson
From working with the public at a non-profit for several years after retiring, I can say with confidence that the type of person who will make an obviously bigoted comment such as "We're [women] smarter, more streamlined, more capable." has a headful of similar prejudices simmering below. If one is willing to declare gender supremacy, in a public forum, you can be assured that she is comfortable with racial supremacy as well. Bigotry is a way of looking at life and it's challenges, That is the way of ignorance. It doesn't limit itself to one area of possibility.
Granted, many women make such remarks and are rarely chastised by other women. I don't know why that is, but maybe those women can explain their tolerance for intolerance better than I.
Reply
Wednesday 21 July
By Ben
Ummm.... Are you equal or not? If you're equal, then you're a hypocrite if you expect men to hold doors open for you. And if you really think you're better than men, then you should hold doors open for us.
Go home, think about your inconsistencies and bigotries, then try again.
Reply