How does an overview of gender issues fail to note the continuous attacks on women's reproductive rights going on in GOP-dominated state legislatures all over the country?

OMG, is there actually an article that does not ONLY concern itself with women reproductive rights???? What about the man's rights, so if a man and a women have sex and the women gets pregnant, ONLY the women can make the determination to have the child or not (even though that child is his too), but if SHE decides to have the baby, the man will be financially obligated. For me its one or the other, you want all the power, fine, but then you carry all the responsibility. This of course is indicative of the feminists movement, women want all the choices, but non of the consequences, choices BTW men NEVER had.

Oh, are legislatures all over the country passing law after law regulating men's bodies and eliminating their rights to personal sovereignty? Somehow I missed that news.

No, but they're passing laws to give women all the rights and men all the obligations. While they're at it, they pass a plethora of anti-male legislation including VAWA, the rape shield law and the new law that denies young men on college campuses their Constitutional right to due process when being accused of rape.

Interesting how the only gender debates that seem to matter are those between rich white elites. How pathetic. The only thing this article illuminates is how out of touch the MSM is.

Better not speak so loudly around Women's Studies departments, Jill. They may report you.

Seems like most other people are concerned with things like putting food on the table and making rent.

Oh, now, Ciaran, you're so ungallant. It should be "middle class/ white feminist every state educated liberal elites in every major media source." And I wouldn't rule our conservative women either.

Do minority women not go to college, work in corporations, get married and divorced?

Hardly any of these are relevant. Women in combat? Transgender issues? Masectomies? Princess debates? These are marginal, if not completely irrelevant gender issues. How about men opting out of marriage en masse. Staggering rise in single motherhood (50% of births to women under 30 are illegitimate). Rates of depression and mental illness skyrocketing in women. Suicide epidemic in men (80% of successful suicides are men). These are real gender issues.

We're not the only guilty parties in the decline of marriage - single women rate their "life satisfaction" very highly (way higher then married women) and rate "getting married" as either a low priority or none at all. Just over 70% of divorces are filed by the wife. By and large, young Americans in general are turning their backs on marriage as an institution.

What people need to realize is that a "post gender roles" society will turn into a post-marital society. This has already happened in Japan, where a staggering 75% of young women view romantic relationships as either simply unappealing or actually revolting (seriously) and an equally staggering 70% of young men describe themselves as "herbivores" (men who have simply decided that sex and romance are not worth the trouble, and don't partake in them). This happened because the traditional definition of marriage was so unappealing to young women that they opted out of it, young men weren't interested in non-traditional marriage and opted out of that, and now both genders have just given up and don't respond to increasingly panicked offers of cash and prizes from a government desperate to get them reproducing. The situation in Europe isn't quite as dire, but it's not great either.

This is a known issue - men are only interested in marriage so long as the definition of such remains fairly traditional, women tend to be less and less willing to accept that role as a society becomes more affluent, and it leads to demographic crisis. If there's a solution to this problem, no one has found it yet.

You hover near, but never actually touch on, the point that marriage was and is an economic partnership as well as personal partnership. It always has been, regardless of what type of marriage has taken place.

In countries where women are given the right to own their own property, rather than having it be controlled by a male relative or a husband, fewer women marry. Sometimes it's by a desire to remain single, sometimes it's because legal civil marriage is not something they are interested in, and now that it's open and visible, some are in same-sex partnerships where they are not allowed to marry. Then there are lingering holdovers from the day when women couldn't own property--the goal in that case was to marry somebody with as many resources (not necessarily money, but social standing, stable home arrangements, stable extended family considerations) as possible. Now that women can own their own property, they are still looking for partners with resources, and if none are available, they don't marry.

I don't know quite what you mean by "men are only interested in marriage so long as the definition of such remains fairly traditional." Do you mean man-works-woman-as-homemaker? If so, I strongly suspect--and there is research to support the notion--that that is socioeconomic class dependent, and not strictly true for everybody.

While I think the changing norms can have a dramatic change on marriage (for both good and bad reasons), I don't think Japan is a good example. Japan has so much culture-specific baggage, including a much higher dedication to tradition than found in the United States, that I think that it does not definitively indicate a trend in either direction. I would think trends in Europe would be a better comparison to the United States.

I would agree with this.

The concerns of single men are mostly ignored in the debate. The solution seems to be to appeal to their sense of shame, like marriage is something they owe women and their honor and manhood is in question if they don't get married. The whole extent of the analysis ends with "men are afraid of commitment", it's their fault, and they just need to get over it. Why they may be afraid is of no concern.

The very idea that men may have valid concerns is sacrilege.

Personally I think marriage as an institution has run it's course. I just don't see any upside with getting married. I found it even more bizarre that some homosexuals actually want a part in that train wreck.

Agree. It's not that men are "afraid of commitment", it's that marriage has become an outmoded institution that doesn't have much to offer either gender.

As women gain access to education and employment - traditional marriage becomes something that offers a lot of limitations but because they can be their own breadwinner now, little value. In turn, a non-traditional/gender-equalitarian marriage where the woman doesn't feel compelled to be a homemaker has little to offer men. It actually makes perfectly logical sense why both genders would opt out of the institution.

This is all fine and good for childless men and women; it gets messy in what it means for the next generation, though.

I don't know about that. I think a lot of women would love to have a traditional marriage as a way out of their dead-end job. Something that's usually lost to feminist writers is that not every woman is going to be a CEO or COO or write for The Atlantic. The problem is, most men aren't able to offer this or even willing (think about the risk of getting cleaned out in a divorce).

I agree with your last point, although these days it's controversial to make it.

In my observation, traditional marriage is still very available to women willing to accept it. There is an absolute glut of men desperately seeking such a woman, the problem is that they exist in vanishingly small number. Hence the common suggestions for men to go somewhere like Russia or the Philippines to find a bride. That route is fraught with so much risk (the likelihood that the woman is only tolerating you for citizenship, stability, or money is huge) that men are even willing to consider it speaks to that desperation.

When what both genders want out of a partner is so completely out of sync, marriage is going to drop off as a natural consequence (we're not the first society this has happened to).

Your last sentence really tells the tale. Sweet, kind, nurturing, gentile, feminine, traditional, and chaste women are non-existent in America. Dating these feminist, manly, career girls is so empty. It's like a flower that has all the petals stripped away. Bare. Empty. Unnatural. Beauty that's been ripped away and rubbed in the dirt. So sad to see.

It's not just America, really - it's most "developed" countries (like I said before, the situation in Japan is even worse). To an extent, it's a natural consequence of a more affluent, technologically advanced society - women are no longer dependent on men for resources and protection, so there's no longer any motivation to behave in the way men find attractive.

Sad thing is, there's no real solution to this - both genders just "meeting in the middle" seems unlikely, but the results are terrible for our long-term demographics because it causes either a rise in single motherhood or a drop-off in reproduction altogether.

What you have on your hand then is pretty much another man with different plumbing. Not at all appealing.

Yep.

Everything cycles, in the long run hopefully it will be a good thing

What do you mean by in your observation? I'm looking at it from the economics side. Raising a family on one salary would mean cutting down hugely on standard of living or simply be impossible.

When it comes to marriage, most men are rather ignorant of the risks ;) Interestingly enough, those marriages to foreign women seem to be more stable, statistically speaking.

There is of course a bit of stigma attached to it. Here in Germany it's mostly men marrying Thai women. German women hate it, unless the guy is a total loser...

The average marriage between a white, American male and a female born in Asia lasts 3.1 years, and the divorce rate is ten points higher then the general population. Not sure if it pans out better for German guys or not, but for us Americans it's a very risky bet. Some men are still willing to take the chance despite those terrible odds because they're THAT frustrated with American women, and I think that in itself tells you a lot.

Most Americans could cut down to one income if they were willing to make the sacrifices required. Even lower income families, for the simple reason that in the U.S, daycare costs almost as much as a lower-income earner even makes, wiping out a low-earning working mom's salary altogether. It's a choice being made, to the frustration of men, not generally a necessity. That situation may be quite different for you though, isn't daycare subsidized in Germany?

I like how you think JamesAllen, you've done your research & yes it's true, if women want the old worn out version of marriage (look after your man) then yes, there are heaps of men wanting to be looked after when they come home from work.

Trouble is now women are also working & they also want someone there to look after them when they get home & not just have to do one paid job, then get home & do their unpaid job.

For women now it's meet me halfway in an equal partnership of marriage or they'll just do the lot on their own.

Men need to ask themselves, if you'd hate to have to do what women had to do in the traditional marriages of years ago, then you also need to realize most women lived very unhappy lives back then & had no choice but to live that way.

Times have changed & women have a choice & marriage has to enhance their lives not burden them & for men it's the same. I have no idea what the answer is apart from who needs who more?? It can be hard to make it work as the link below shows, but again it takes two to work at it to get the best outcome.
http://www.phdinparenting.c...

Not sure where you are getting your facts, love to see the source...yes I am sure there are men wanting traditional marriage, but how you figure that exceeds the number of women is truly questionable. I work with universities, and one of the greatest challenges right now is the dropping of male attendance in higher education. The concern for colleges is if the male attendance drops at your college, the women will leave because women want to attend college to find a husband. Not sure if that offends or not, but its a fact none the less. Males are the ones running from marriage...

Sorry, but that's a very outdated view of women.
Yes, even 20yrs ago it may have been the case, but if you look now girls are already starting to outnumbering boys in higher education & they're still going for the education regardless of how many boys are there.
It would be interesting to know which colleges you work with ? Most countries now, girls just want the best education they can get to provide for themselves if needed, as they're being told don't rely on a man to provide !

Well said, it always amazes me how the costs to men in society are never considered, as if working is a luxury, not a necessity. You make another good point that not all women end up as CEO's, though that's not what the media machine cranks out. Its the old adage, be careful what you wish for...I wish women all the things men have, along with the consequences...

"I wish women all the things men have"

Yeah me too, including a wifey at home making me dinner. Everyone needs a "wife" not just men.

When it comes to people, 7.1 billion is enough, maybe we must learn to live in a natural cycle of population increase and decrease, instead of the Wall Street model of never ending growth (which we know is a fallacy).

Its America, and the onus of all social ills falls upon men, period. If a women does something social unacceptable, it is considered empowerment, like "sleeping around", or dating a younger guy, but if a man does it...marriage is a trap, set to confine men to social norms that are not of his making nor to his nature.

I'll call a WAAAAmbulance for you ;^P

How you could say women are the ones turning from marriage, as if men are the ones making out in the marriage dynamic is ridiculous. It is men that are turning from the constraints of marriage not the other way around.

Statistical evidence doesn't seem to support that - married males describe themselves as being much happier then either single males or married females, and females are almost always the ones filing for divorce.

Very true JamesAllen, all evidence points to married men living longer than single men & the opposite is true for women. Unmarried women live longer than married women. Hence why women are turning away from marriage.

You'll also find men will look quickly for a new partner when he losses one & women will just adjust to life on their own & do just fine!!
http://www.worldlifeexpecta...

Well said.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, seems the media can't move past the "war-on-women" mentality, instead of really looking at issues that are effecting all Americans. It seems with the media its more about marketing and building brand loyalty, than it is dissecting the social structures in America.

Let's see... gay marriage, women, women, women, women, women, women. Ad nauseum. All I see in most of these debates is a lot of bitching and moaning predicated on dubous feminist doctrine as to what's "good for women". Leaning in? Great! Opting out? Only great when feminism says it is - IE only OK if it's a choice made completely independent of the pressures of working (AKA never). Apparently the workplace is supposed to miraculously transform its environment from one predominantly profit-drive to one driven by an overwhelming desire to mollycoddle women.

Let's continue ignoring the ongoing issue of chronic male underperformance in education (http://www.huffingtonpost.c... and focus on the message being sent by fantastical female characters in Disney movies. Why? Because "monolithic view of society premised on patriarchy" says men should matter less.

As for casting sexual assault in the military as a women's issue, the majority of those reporting suffering a sexual assault were men: http://www.nytimes.com/2013...

But again, the presence of penises confounds. If only all these pesky penis-possessors would just take themselves and their penises somewhere and off themselves. Oh yeah - they are: http://www.bcmj.org/article.... Good news!

Now back to the important issues - like whether the "lean in" debate is too rich and white.

Great comment, and unlike so many other not so well written comments on here, you actually cite.

No discussion on the continuing deterioration of men in the workforce and boys in our education system? I suppose gender only matters when it comes to issue effecting women.

Yes it does, and it's affection, not effecting. WOMANPOWERRRRRRR!

HAHAHA, lets see how you feel in a few decades when you start to pay the price for your "emancipation", as your heart disease and suicide rates rise in accordance with your new found responsibilities. I am all for women's lib, because I know in reality, its men who are truly being liberated. You can't have feminism without a good dose of hypocrisy.

Makes me happy to see the number of "up votes" on your statement, like to challenge those who vote it down. The "war-on-women" is pure propaganda intended to tell the selfish that it is ok to be selfish. Women fight for choices men never had. How working as a cashier at Walmart is preferable to staying home and raising YOUR kids is pure lunacy.

You called it exactly right. Gender issues are only discussed from the female perspective in our society, especially in the media.

Such is "The Sexes" section of the Atlantic; made of women, for women by women.

When the harsher side of life bites ....as life dishes out every now and again , as a man, I'll do my part to make gender-room and "opt out" while those wars rage, and I'll "opt out" during the ensuing socio-economic reshuffling created by human abandonment of responsibilities and principles long evolved via the ancient, but now contorted divisions of labor, revised by modern, energy-fired machinery, and by fiat pay-scales servicing cubicle-sitting "work" environments (like THAT'S gonna last very long in THIS economy). After all, if life can now be about "opting out" when times get harsh, then when it does, genders of all kinds can sit back and kvetch as some seem to do lately. So, dear worthy gender-ites....you may certainly have equality but you'll have to take the whole serving. Equality comes not as a smorgasbord of privilege, but an industrial strength personal requirement tied inexorably to market values.

You bring accountability into the equation, that's not the feminist's purview, that's man's.

I'm a guy; at the moment almost all my meaningful relationships are with women--as friends, coworkers, mentors, advisers, etc. Because we're so close I forget that our genders differ. That's a biproduct of integration; it happened before, when I was the only white guy working amongst a business full of black and hispanic men and women. Not all differences dissolve, of course, but true integration, true constant and consistent proximity, allows our core lowest common human denominators to rise and dominate; differences weaken, and many are brushed aside. You eat with someone, buy beer together, go camping, lament parenting failures, compare plumbers or oncologists, posit God's existence--pretty soon you forget what color you are, or whether you have a Y- or second X-chromosome. Integration dispatches a lot of mere talk to the bargain bin.