Men, Women, And Why You Should Not Worry:
Glenn Reynolds links to another post on the topic that seems to be causing a constant fret among blogosphere academics, the Men/Women ratio at college. The post is by Ginny at Chicagoboyz, and treats her thoughts and experiences in dealing with young men and women.
The lady has some good thoughts, and I think she even backs into the answer to the problem that concerns her. Unhappily, being overly concerned with people's feelings, she doesn't recognize the solution when she strikes it. That more or less captures the entire business.
After describing herself as "quiet and embarrassed" over a dispute with a colleague on the question, she then reflects that "anger speaking is seldom thought speaking." Her "gut-level anger is also from mothering," which gives rise to fears that her own sons will be distorted by being taught that they are oppressors of women [UPDATE: or possibly that her daughters will be bent by believing men are their enemies?]. She thinks that famed blogosphere psychologist Dr. Helen "is right to draw our attention to this, to worry us with it." And then she proceeds to worry a lot more.
As does Dr. Helen. There, and here also, in spite of some very sharp comments that ought to assuage the concern.
Well, don't worry. Men are pretty good at sorting out problems. It's what we do.
For example, you shouldn't worry -- as she does -- that "The twenty-first century, like the nineteenth, may lead to an even more intense feminization of American culture." Let's examine that for a moment.
When you think of the 19th century, what do you think of? There are some notably feminine images: Queen Victoria, the suffrage movement, the temperance movement. That's about it, though, right? Maybe a few poets and writers?
Queen Victoria was no problem for men. Quite the opposite. Victoria presided over a great masculine reawakening in England, in which art and poetry and literature were joined to engineering and warfighting. The image of the youthful Queen, thrust suddenly into the perils of power, caused the whole nation to remember the King, Arthur, and to take up the sword he cast away. The writings of Lord Tennyson are some of the highest expressions of what men are and ought to be: and they came right out of this dynamic.
The suffrage and temperance movements were certainly problematic for men, who were beaten about the heads by them for half a century. Still, in time they ran their course; women still vote, but beer is back on the shelves. Men survived.
The rest of the 19th century is a great masculine canvas. We remember the Kate Chopins, but only because they were women. The great writers of the 19th Century, with the possible exception of Jane Austen, were all men: Herman Melville, Mark Twain, Sir Walter Scott, Tennyson and Lord Byron, the writers and poets who can stand on their own are almost exclusively men. And that's in the very temple of the female empire of the modern academy, literature. Take any other field of human endeavour, and see where the women are. The 19th century was a grand adventure of engineering, war, travel, thought, and right at the forefront were men in every case.
Is it really any different today? How many of the great bloggers are women, even with women making up the grand majority of students of writing and literature? How many bioengineers are women, as we stand poised on the start of a new adventure? How many soldiers, as we look towards decades of trying to keep and extend the peace and the order of the West? How many police officers, with terrorism and smuggling the two great concerns of the day?
More, certainly, than in the 19th century. We have made room for women. More than that -- we actively encourage and support them. We are glad to have them along. Some of them, the best of them, stand equal with any of us. I myself don't know what I would do without two of the three most important people in my life, my wife and Sovay. Both are women, and quite remarkable ones.
Yet we are told we ought to worry because a lot more women are getting degrees in literature, psychology, sociology, and the like. If I spare a moment to worry about this, I'll worry about the women. Good luck to them: but it sounds like they're being set up to spend their lives not making much of a difference in the world around them.
If the 19th century is the model, it is the century that saw the foundation of the Texas Rangers and the gambling of Doc Holliday, the great British adventures in India and Afghanistan, the end of slavery on the high seas, the Civil War, and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt. If the 21st century does as much for muscular masculinity as the 19th, we'll be in fine shape indeed.
Ginny backs into this answer at several points, but never quite seems to realize it. She mentions the winning of the West. She hits the answer full on right here:
I suspect they will find other worlds to conquer – and if they have to learn something to get there, they will teach themselves. And, because they want to make money and women want them to make money, our system may be changed in ways that by-pass an increasingly hostile establishment.
That should have been the moment that this whole train of thought went
roaring off White Oak mountain. That's exactly right. Society, and the market, will adjust itself -- and men will meet them halfway. They'll learn what they need to know to be where they need to be. If the great concerns of the new century are terrorism, homeland defense, technology and engineering, guess who will be there filling the largest part of the critical roles? The most dangerous jobs, which will consequently -- and increasingly -- command greater and greater respect and pay? The movement is already on: Border Patrol Agents, for example, have in the last few years received an increase in their maximum rate of pay to the GS-11 level. The military has seen one pay raise after another, as the volunteer military tries to compete with the market for manpower. Both jobs increasingly involve academic pursuits, even if they don't involve formal college: second (and subsequent) languages, studies in regional history and cultural awareness. It used to be that every man, however poorly schooled, knew how to mix black powder and pour bullets out of liquid lead. Now, it may be that men who don't go much beyond high school can still speak several languages and know the internal structures of a number of local tribes. If men turn less often to the old institutions for education, they will still be out there learning whatever they need to know.
It may be, in other words, that it is the institutions that are becoming obsolete -- not the men. That's a problem for someone, but I don't see why it should be a problem for men. It seems to me like a problem for those people -- say, women -- who are increasingly attaching their hopes to a foundering social institution. The liberal arts college is not necessarily the best place to learn even the liberal arts, anymore. It's certainly not the best place to get a classical education. The Marine Corps reading list will introduce you to many of the great classics of literature, and they'll teach you discipline and manners and the school of arms, too. If you're an officer, you'll spend half your life in schools of one type or another. You want to be a man like Washington or Robert E. Lee, Roosevelt or Jefferson? Join the military.
I think there is no cause for concern. Let as many women go to college as wish to do so. Good on them! Good luck to them! It does not hurt us men at all. We have our own concerns, and our own adventures, and let each man choose his according to his best hopes and abilities.
