Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

The Decline of Men

April 17th, 2013 by Adam G.

Men with high school diplomas have seen their hourly wages fall by 20% since 1979 (women’s have risen).
Women now make up nearly 60% of those receiving a college degree. The percentage is expected to increase.
At all levels of primary and secondary education, teachers are disproportionately female, more than ever before. Male students do worse than female students, more than ever before.
The Great Recession has hurt male employment much worse than female employment. Men are disproportionately dropping out of the workforce and going on disability.
Illegitimacy rates among blacks, hispanics, and whites are at an all time high, in large part because men are checking out of marriage in large numbers and because the number of men who are unmarriageable has increased.

There are those in the Church who think they know better than the prophets. What is their solution to these problems?
Making 12-year old girls pass the sacrament.

Comments (22)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
April 17th, 2013 11:09:28
22 comments

Jenn
April 17, 2013

I think you may need a reminder in how correlation does NOT equal causation. This whole post reads like a lesson on how NOT to use statistics.


Adam G.
April 17, 2013

Lesson: don’t use statistics to suggest truths that Jenn is uncomfortable with.

Anyhow, one wonders what post you were reading. I nowhere claim that the feminist activist demand to have women do the Mormon priesthood has *caused* the decline of men. I am merely pointing out that it *correlates* with it.


John Mansfield
April 17, 2013

The triumph over patriarchy may be short-lived. As it becomes tougher for many men to be marriageable, the smaller group of men who would be desireable husbands will, like aristocrats of past centuries, marry at age 35-45 to women fifteen to twenty years younger than their husbands. There will be more used-up former girlfriends, men without families, and widespread bastardy. We’re already there on many counts. The women smart enough to not be used, but not smart enough to attract a husband early will have all the equality they can bear with themselves as old maids. Most people will be a lot worse off.


Bookslinger
April 17, 2013

Oh tongue, be still.


Bookslinger
April 17, 2013

(I was refering to _my_ tongue, in case anyone didn’t get it.)


Zen
April 17, 2013

Two thoughts.

First, regardless of correlation/causation arguments, priesthood gives men a place and a way to serve and that is increasingly becoming more and more important. It gives men a way to be MEN and be Manly in the best possible sense. Regardless of what ever was in the past, this is most certainly a present need for a lot of men out there.

I have often said, I will support women getting the priesthood when they start running out of ways to serve.

Second, this is setting up a nasty pendulum and is going to swing back and make things a thousand times worse for women than it has been in a very, very long time, if ever. This worries me because I have 2 daughter, and a great many sisters.


Michael Towns
April 17, 2013

Turns out patriarchy is actually GOOD for women. Who woulda thunk it?


Bookslinger
April 17, 2013

Adam, upon re-reading your post several times, I finally realized that you implied that the decline of men was the cause of the agitation for women to hold the priesthood. That implication is contained in your assertion that agitation for the priesthood is the [feminists'] proposed _solution_ to the decline of men.

Jenn was unspecific about what she thought that you were putting forth as the cause and what was the effect.

However, your post and her comment focus on two entirely different things. You focused on the decline of men. She was focusing on your mocking, almost-throw-away comment at the end.

Even though she apparently missed the point, I think she’s technically right in her statement. I don’t think any of the agitators see agitation for the priesthood as a _solution_ to the decline of men. Nor do they likely see the decline of men as a precipitator, initiator or any sort of prompt towards that agitation.

But she also failed to see your main point, or failed to indicate that she saw your overall point. Which point you left unstated, for the reader to infer.


Adam G.
April 17, 2013

*I finally realized that you implied that the decline of men was the cause of the agitation for women to hold the priesthood. That implication is contained in your assertion that agitation for the priesthood is the [feminists'] proposed _solution_ to the decline of men.*

I did not imply any such thing. If I listed our nation’s economic woes and then said that the President’s solution was gun control, it would be pretty clear what I meant.


Scott W. Clark
April 17, 2013

2 Nephi 14:1

1 And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.

But of course this is figurative, right?


Bookslinger
April 17, 2013

Uh, no, it wouldn’t be clear. It would be equally obtuse.

By saying that “B” is someone’s solution/response to “A”, you’re claiming, or implying, that _their_ alleged or ostensible reason for proposing “B” was “A”.

Whether or not you actually _meant_that is separate from the implication your words gave. A solution is a repsonse. A response comes after a prompt, an initiating cause, a stimulus. Justification or rightness of either the initiating cause or response is a separate issue.

I realize that that is not what _you_ believe. (IE, you don’t believe that women want the priesthood _because_ men are in decline.) But the literal parsing of the last 2 or 3 sentences does point there, because a solution being offered is ostensibly caused or prompted by the problem. I say “ostensibly” because those who offer the solution may have ulterior motives, as in the political machinations of the Hegelian Dialectic; masking a bad thing by claiming it is a solution to something ostensibly worse.

I eventually inferred that you were mocking the agitation-for-priesthood thing as trivial in light of the much bigger problems regarding gender roles in society. If that is not what you meant, then I’m still in the dark as to your intended meaing of the last three sentences in the OP.


Bookslinger
April 17, 2013

SWC: you beat me to it. (Nephi was quoting Isaiah 4:1) The marriageable but “left over” women might just demand polygamy.

That’s one reason why we need to open China to missionary work. They have about 20 million more men than women due to the abortions and murder of baby girls under the one-child policy. Maybe we can match up some of their marriageable but left-over men with our marriageable left-over women.


MC
April 17, 2013

While I don’t think that feminists are trying to solve any of men’s problems by giving women the priesthood, there may be some causation in the sense that feminists feel like they have the patriarchy on the run and need to press their advantage.


John Mansfield
April 18, 2013

It may also be that men failing to uphold their responsibilities has led some women to want to get on without those who aren’t doing them a lot of good. I joked a year and a half back about By Common Consent becoming Grouchy Ex-Wives Blog, but that seems to be a large portion of what it is now. Those who want gender equality in the workplace don’t really want women doing the jobs that cause a male occupational fatality rate twelve times that of women. If priesthood served the needs of the Church and the world more thoroughly, fewer women would lament that only men are ordained.


John Mansfield
April 18, 2013

Correction to my comment about hazardoud jobs: There are people who want woman serving in combat for the sake of their ideology, but I never hear a desire for more women roofers or miners. Of the ten most fatal occupations, the only ones anyone wants more women doing is police and airplane pilots. Police is a highly visible, authoritative job, so of course it makes some people sad that so many of the visible authoritators are men. Flying is an interesting exception from the other highly fatal jobs; it’s very all-or-nothing when something goes wrong I would guess, with a much higher death to maiming ratio. A living 55-year-old pilot will be less beat up then a 55-year-old logger.


Adam G.
April 18, 2013

*And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man*

The Decline of Men hasn’t been even across the board, and the ill effects on women haven’t been felt evenly either. It is disproportionately the working class and lower middle class who have been affected. You’re on to something, perhaps.

*I eventually inferred that you were mocking the agitation-for-priesthood thing as trivial in light of the much bigger problems regarding gender roles in society.*

Bingo.

*visible authoritators*

Awesome phrase.


Pauline Kael
April 19, 2013

These stats can’t be right. All the women I know are marrying and settling down as homemakers:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/guess-which-moms-are-staying-home-with-the-kids/


Bookslinger
April 19, 2013

Pauline, congrats, you must be among the elite.

As at least one of the linked-to articles points out, the problems are disproportionately in the lower and lower-middle class.

Or as one social commenter once put it, in regards to the tolerant leftist elites and opinion shapers, who somehow seem to avoid the behaviors that result in so much social-meltdown: “The elites need to start preaching what they’re practicing.”


John
April 25, 2013

But it has always been the case that non-working women were the pride of their elite husbands who could afford having non-working wives – elite women have always been the cultural pinnacle of womanhood (the definition of which varies a bit with the times). It has also always been the case that poor women don’t have that luxury. That’s nothing new, and nothing feminism has effected either way. If anything, gender equality goes in the opposite direction (see my home country of Sweden, one of the most family-oriented and egalitarian cultures on earth).


Adam G.
April 25, 2013

John,
what your theory ignores is (1) the increase in all these numbers–you can’t see a huge change in trends and respond that things have always been this way– and (2) elite feminist rhetoric, which pushes behavior that elite feminists don’t indulge.


MC
April 25, 2013

The stats I’ve seen indicate that 1/3 of married women have always had to work outside the home, but the proportion is now at 2/3. So John’s “It was always thus” proclamation doesn’t ring true.

Leave a Reply