The Death of Macho - By Reihan Salam | Foreign Policy

This is an article about how the "macho" world order is coming to an end. It is classic woman loving bullshit and I will refute select snippets for you so you don't have to wade through it yourself. Here we go:

The era of male dominance is coming to an end.

No it isn't.

Worse still, men are falling even further behind in acquiring the educational credentials necessary for success in the knowledge-based economies that will rule the post-recession world. Soon, there will be three female college graduates for every two males in the United States, and a similarly uneven outlook in the rest of the developed world.

And these degrees will be completely fucking useless. That is what nobody seems to get. College education itself is a bubble and a degree doesn't do you any good unless it is in the right field (science or medicine) and you have skills to go with it. And guess who is still getting all of the important degrees in 2009? That's right: Men! Women can take their BA's in Women's Studies and shove them up their asses. Those diplomas will in the end just be pieces of paper that don't do shit for them in the real world.

It was, said Halla Tomasdottir, the female head of one of Iceland’s few remaining solvent banks, a perfectly reasonable response to the “penis competition” of male-dominated investment banking. “Ninety-nine percent went to the same school, they drive the same cars, they wear the same suits and they have the same attitudes. They got us into this situation—and they had a lot of fun doing it,” Tomasdottir complained to Der Spiegel. Soon after, tiny, debt-ridden Lithuania took a similar course, electing its first woman president: an experienced economist with a black belt in karate named Dalia Grybauskaite. On the day she won, Vilnius’s leading newspaper bannered this headline: “Lithuania has decided: The country is to be saved by a woman.”

Oh really now? And tell me, who are those women surrounded by in their governments? Who will be in charge of actually enforcing the policies that these women led governments set? The answer to both of those questions is: Men.

The great shift of power from males to females is likely to be dramatically accelerated by the economic crisis, as more people realize that the aggressive, risk-seeking behavior that has enabled men to entrench their power—the cult of macho—has now proven destructive and unsustainable in a globalized world.

Uh... no. The world will always be dominated by the smart, strong and aggressive. And the smart, strong and aggressive will always be men.

For several years now it has been an established fact that, as behavioral finance economists Brad Barber and Terrance Odean memorably demonstrated in 2001, of all the factors that might correlate with overconfident investment in financial markets—age, marital status, and the like—the most obvious culprit was having a Y chromosome.

This part of the article has infuriated the bitches on Feministing, because it is "gender essentialism" and promotes the belief that men are more aggressive than women.

I, of course, agree with the douchebag author that men are more aggressive and that male aggressiveness helped cause this economic apocolypse; but I disagree that it means the end of "macho" or the end of male dominance. Under this line of reasoning, we would expect that the era of male dominance would have come to an end after testerone driven men drove the world into WWI and then came back for a repeat performance 21 years later. But that is not what happened.

And yet, the housing bubble is just the latest in a long string of efforts to prop up macho, the most powerful of which was the New Deal, as historian Gwendolyn Mink has argued. At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, 15 million Americans were unemployed out of a workforce that was roughly 75 percent male. This undermined the male breadwinner model of the family, and there was tremendous pressure to bring it back. The New Deal did just that by focusing on job creation for men. Insulating women from the market by keeping them in the home became a mark of status for men—a goal most fully realized in the postwar nuclear family (Rosie the Riveter was a blip). In this way, according to historian Stephanie Coontz, the Great Depression and the New Deal reinforced traditional gender roles: Women were promised economic security in exchange for the state’s entrenchment of male economic power.

Guess what, dipshit? The United States was on the verge of revolution before the New Deal came and put *some* men back to work. The government wanted fewer women (and elderly) in the labor force because there simply were not enough jobs; just like now. It was not some masculine conspiracy to keep women down.

Despite early talk that the stimulus would stress shovel-ready infrastructure projects, high-speed rail lines, and other efforts that would bolster heavily male sectors of the economy, far more of the money is going—directly or indirectly—to education, healthcare, and other social services

Oh, so you mean fields that produce no actual wealth! I would also like to point out that the stimulous has largely been a dud so far and any effect it does have over the next two quarters is likely to be muted as the economy continues its decent into hell.

Already in the United States, women make up nearly half of biological and medical scientists and nearly three quarters of health-industry workers

Women are so dominant in the health industry because few men go into nursing, that has always been the case and mr. Mangina's statistic about it is useless. That women have achieved near parity in biological and medical sciences with men likely stems from men having little interest in those fields, but I will look into it further.

No less an authority than U.S. President Barack Obama has weighed in on the shift of power from men to women, telling the New York Times that, though construction and manufacturing jobs won’t vanish altogether, “they will constitute a smaller percentage of the overall economy.” As a result, he said, “Women are just as likely to be the primary bread earner, if not more likely, than men are today.”

First of all, Obama is an effete mangina douchebag who is certain to be a one term President. Second of all, his statement that women are maybe more likely than men to be the primary breadwinner is bullshit that I doubt even he believes.

Also, it doesn't matter anyway. In Orthodox Judiasm, women earn all the money and the men do nothing all day and nobody can reasonably claim that Orthodox Jews aren't patriarchal.

Surly, lonely, and hard-drinking men, who feel as though they have been rendered historically obsolete, and who long for lost identities of macho, are already common in ravaged post-industrial landscapes across the world, from America’s Rust Belt to the post-Soviet wreckage of Vladimir Putin’s Russia to the megalopolises of the Middle East. If this recession has any staying power, and most believe it does, the massive psychic trauma will spread like an inkblot.

And this is supposed to be good for women, how?

The first is adaptation: men embracing women as equal partners and assimilating to the new cultural sensibilities, institutions, and egalitarian arrangements that entails. That’s not to say that all the men in the West will turn into metrosexuals while football ratings and beer sales plummet. But amid the death of macho, a new model of manhood may be emerging, especially among some educated men living in the affluent West.

While there is a large amount of manginas in the West, almost all relationships are absolutely NOT equal. The single income family largely vanished in the 70's, but with most married couples, the man earns more. Women want higher status men and men want lower status women. There are exceptions, but the rule stands.

Meanwhile, the West is about to get a whole hell of a lot less affluent.

Then, however, there’s the other choice: resistance. Men may decide to fight the death of macho, sacrificing their own prospects in an effort to disrupt and delay a powerful historical trend. There are plenty of precedents for this. Indeed, men who have no constructive ways of venting their anger may become a source of nasty extremism; think of the kgb nostalgists in Russia or the jihadi recruits in search of lost honor, to name just a couple. And there are still plenty of men in the West who want to “stand athwart history, yelling Stop.” These guys notwithstanding, however, Western developed countries are not for the most part trying to preserve the old gender imbalances of the macho order this time around.

Here we have a standard tactic of Left wing writers: what I want is inevitable, so don't bother fighting it cause you can't win!

Yeah we can, dipshit. Not only that, we will and it is men's victory that is inevitable. The West has spent the last 40 years building up an unsustainable, woman friendly economy. That world is just beginning its collapse.

I don't know what the day after will look like, but I know for certain that it won't be some egiltarian dystopia that this faggot obviously craves.

Look at Russia, where just such an effort has been unfolding for the past decade. Although there are 10.4 million more Russian women than men, this hasn’t translated into political or economic power.

Which should tell you something.

It might be tempting to think that the death of macho is just a cyclical correction and that the alpha males of the financial world will all be back to work soon. Tempting, but wrong. The “penis competition” made possible by limitless leverage, arcane financial instruments, and pure unadulterated capitalism will now be domesticated in lasting ways.

No, it won't. Hell, they are still going strong as we speak!

As women start to gain more of the social, economic, and political power they have long been denied, it will be nothing less than a full-scale revolution the likes of which human civilization has never experienced.

No, that isn't going to happen. What you are likely going to see is male dominance increase even more than it is already.

Have you guy's noticed that this faggot's article is just him repeating over and over again that women will achieve equality and offering no proof whatsoever?

The only examples he does provide show that women are likely to fall even further behind men then they are already.



what a piece of shit.