What do you think?
Rate this book
The Munk Debates
هل عفا الزمن على الرجال؟
For the first time in history, will it be better to be a woman than a man in the upcoming century? The twelfth semi-annual Munk Debate pits renowned author and editorHanna Rosin and Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Maureen Dowd against New York Times–bestselling author Caitlin Moran and academic trailblazer Camille Paglia to debate one of the biggest socio-economic phenomena of our time — the relative decline of the power and status of men in the workplace, in the family, and society at large. Men have traditionally been the dominant sex. But now, for the first time, a host of indicators suggests that women not only are achieving equality with men, but are fast emerging as the more successful sex of the species. Whether in education, employment, personal health, or child rearing, statistics point to a rise in the status and power of women at home, in the workplace, and in traditional male bastions such as politics. But are men, and the age-old power structures associated with “maleness,” permanently in decline? With women increasingly demonstrating their ability to “have it all” while men lag behind, the Munk Debate on gender tackles the essential socio-economic question: Are men obsolete?
127 pages, Paperback
First published February 25, 2014
9 people are currently reading
614 people want to read
About the author
Hanna Rosin
10 books58 followersHanna Rosin was born in Israel and grew up in Queens, where her father was a taxi driver. She graduated from Stuyvesant High School in 1987, where she won a number of competitions on the debate team with her partner David Coleman. She attended Stanford University, and is married to Slate editor David Plotz; they live in Washington, D.C. with their three children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
January 16, 2016
This book was recommended to me by my boyfriend (I know, right?)
(He knows I'm a big Caitlin Moran fan and he works in a bookshop)
I both liked and hated this book.
I've always been a feminist. I come from a family with 2 very strong empowered women, who always stood for what they believe despite what patriarchy told them they had to do.
I also have a very sexist dad, who thinks women are inferior and they should be grateful for what men allow them to do (except me. I'm the best female driver he's seen ("You drive like a man!"), I was damn right to go to uni, and my boyfriend should do his own damn clothes, because "you're no one's maid!").
Both these things made me a feminist from a very young age, and I've always believed men and women ARE EQUALS. None of that "women are better" crap. That's sexism as well. Like Caitlin Moran says I'm a Humanist.
I bought this book waiting to hear more form both sides of feminism. But instead, I found myself even more in love with Caitlin and HATING everyone else.
Things like: when men disappear (which is already a WTF thing to say), they will take "video games, Game of Thrones on continuous loop and cold pizza in the morning with them" made me hate this book. Now I'm a BIG fan of video games, Game of Thrones AND cold pizza. And I'M A WOMAN. Sentences like this are just stereotyping men. And guess what? When men stereotype women IT'S CALLED SEXISM. Way to go!
So anyway, this book was full of contradictions, dubious science (the Y chromosome is about to be extinct in 10.000 years? I would like to see a scientific article about it. On a proper scientific magazine, please, not on Vagina Today), and very little humour (despite being considered a "humour" book). It just made me really want to read more of Caitlin Moran. She's the only one worth listening to.
(He knows I'm a big Caitlin Moran fan and he works in a bookshop)
I both liked and hated this book.
I've always been a feminist. I come from a family with 2 very strong empowered women, who always stood for what they believe despite what patriarchy told them they had to do.
I also have a very sexist dad, who thinks women are inferior and they should be grateful for what men allow them to do (except me. I'm the best female driver he's seen ("You drive like a man!"), I was damn right to go to uni, and my boyfriend should do his own damn clothes, because "you're no one's maid!").
Both these things made me a feminist from a very young age, and I've always believed men and women ARE EQUALS. None of that "women are better" crap. That's sexism as well. Like Caitlin Moran says I'm a Humanist.
I bought this book waiting to hear more form both sides of feminism. But instead, I found myself even more in love with Caitlin and HATING everyone else.
Things like: when men disappear (which is already a WTF thing to say), they will take "video games, Game of Thrones on continuous loop and cold pizza in the morning with them" made me hate this book. Now I'm a BIG fan of video games, Game of Thrones AND cold pizza. And I'M A WOMAN. Sentences like this are just stereotyping men. And guess what? When men stereotype women IT'S CALLED SEXISM. Way to go!
So anyway, this book was full of contradictions, dubious science (the Y chromosome is about to be extinct in 10.000 years? I would like to see a scientific article about it. On a proper scientific magazine, please, not on Vagina Today), and very little humour (despite being considered a "humour" book). It just made me really want to read more of Caitlin Moran. She's the only one worth listening to.
January 13, 2025
يمكننا تعريف النسوية بكل بساطة ووضوح على أنها حركه تهتم برفع الظلم الواقع على النساء. هذا هو التعريف الذي ورد في الكتاب، واعجبني بشدة لأنه اهتم بكل النساء ولم يقم باقصاء مجموعة منهن بناءًا على فكر معين. نقطة قوة الكتاب تكمن في المقدمة التي شرحت تعريف وتاريخ الحركة النسوية وأنواعها.
لمن ستكون الغلبة والسيطرة في المستقبل؟ الرجل كما اعتدنا منذ قرون، أم المرأة التي بدأت تتقلد مناصب كان يصعب على مثيلاتها تقلدها في وقت سابق، حققت المرأة الكثير من الإنجازات التي قيل في السابق أنها لن تكون بقادره على تحملها، فهل عفا الزمن على الرجال؟ والمقصود هنا الرجل وليس الذكر، فمن الطبيعي أن نجد جميع الأجناس على الكوكب. لكن هل عفا الزمن على الرجل المسؤول، القوي، الصلب؟ سنجد في دول كثيرة أن المرأة هي العائل الرئيسي لكثير من البيوت فقد أصبحت الآن أم في المنزل وأب خارج المنزل.
كتاب مهم جدًا لفهم حقيقة النسوية، بعيدًا عن تشوهات مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي وتأويل الجهلاء.
تقييمي ⭐⭐⭐⭐
لمن ستكون الغلبة والسيطرة في المستقبل؟ الرجل كما اعتدنا منذ قرون، أم المرأة التي بدأت تتقلد مناصب كان يصعب على مثيلاتها تقلدها في وقت سابق، حققت المرأة الكثير من الإنجازات التي قيل في السابق أنها لن تكون بقادره على تحملها، فهل عفا الزمن على الرجال؟ والمقصود هنا الرجل وليس الذكر، فمن الطبيعي أن نجد جميع الأجناس على الكوكب. لكن هل عفا الزمن على الرجل المسؤول، القوي، الصلب؟ سنجد في دول كثيرة أن المرأة هي العائل الرئيسي لكثير من البيوت فقد أصبحت الآن أم في المنزل وأب خارج المنزل.
كتاب مهم جدًا لفهم حقيقة النسوية، بعيدًا عن تشوهات مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي وتأويل الجهلاء.
تقييمي ⭐⭐⭐⭐
October 9, 2015
A classic example of the posturing of the Anglo-Saxon middle class ogling at 'public intellectuals' performing like seals in pseudo-debates relying on predictable position-taking.
There is merit in some of Hanna Rosin's analysis of the economics underpinning power shifts between genders but even she is speaking of a game played by the middle classes that scarcely affects the lack of power wielded by most working people of both sexes.
The only one who has something of value to say is the redoubtable and ultimately humane Camille Paglia and even she is not at her best in the cheapening format of the public performance debate.
Good basic truths like the need to see men and women as persons who are equally under pressure (Moran) are lost in over-clever grandstanding. I am not sure what the point of Maureen Dowd actually is. Certainly it is not the elucidation of anything meaningful here
These debates purport to be political education but real political education is participative and consultative whereas these events are simply people who often confuse cleverness with genius speaking at or down to an open-mouthed audience of worshippers.
All the jocularity and in-jokes about American politics, cheap debating points and posturing in the end amount to less than a hill of beans. Go direct to Paglia and Rosin and make a judgment on their more considered writings.
Perhaps intended as 'edutainment', these debates are for intellectual lightweights. Here we have very little useful information and if you are entertained by this sort of thing you would probably be a bore at a decent dinner party. Otherwise, don't bother ...
March 12, 2019
This reminds me of my friend Gloria's Facebook polls, in that it's a disingenuous yes/ no question where the reality is complex and nuanced. Toxic masculinity is obsolete. Men themselves aren't in any danger of going extinct, and the sociopolitical structures that were built for their benefit continue to run in much the same biased way.
On the "pro" side, the "No, men are not obsolete" argument, I found Caitlin Moran charming and persuasive (I've read her How to Be a Woman book previously) and Camille Paglia utterly repulsive. I'm tempted to read some of Paglia's other work just for the fun of getting all riled up.
All in all, reading the debate was a good way to spend International Woman's Day.
On the "pro" side, the "No, men are not obsolete" argument, I found Caitlin Moran charming and persuasive (I've read her How to Be a Woman book previously) and Camille Paglia utterly repulsive. I'm tempted to read some of Paglia's other work just for the fun of getting all riled up.
All in all, reading the debate was a good way to spend International Woman's Day.
December 12, 2016
Don't be misled by the clickbait title - this is not the work of the stereotypical "Angry Feminist" suggesting that we do away with half the human race. Nor is it jut the work of Caitlin Moran (but that's a Goodreads admin point!)
This is a transcript of one of the Munk Debates, pitting four brilliant women (Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran) against each other on the topic of gender equality and the future of men in a world where women are outperforming them across sectors.
I picked this up in the library for the exact reason I'm telling you not to judge it - the title made me laugh because it's totally absurd. In the opening words of the 'For' argument, Rosin admits:
So you can see there is a lot more to this debate than an outlandish proposition. It's not a clear cut topic by any means, and the four speakers agreed on a number of areas. There was far too much ground to cover in a relatively short debate, but the speakers touched on areas such as the crisis of masculinity, the intersection with class in the case of the 'working class man' and the many faces of feminism.
There will no doubt be critics who will scream "but how can four women be debating whether or not men are obsolete?! How dare they!" To them I say - men have been debating the value of women for many centuries, so frankly it was refreshing to have the tables turned and have an all-female panel offering up eloquent, balanced arguments. Certainly the male chair, Rudyard Griffiths felt safe with Moran and Paglia arguing against the motion:
This is a transcript of one of the Munk Debates, pitting four brilliant women (Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia and Caitlin Moran) against each other on the topic of gender equality and the future of men in a world where women are outperforming them across sectors.
I picked this up in the library for the exact reason I'm telling you not to judge it - the title made me laugh because it's totally absurd. In the opening words of the 'For' argument, Rosin admits:
"For one thing, we haven't figured out how to harvest their sperm without, you know, keeping them alive"
So you can see there is a lot more to this debate than an outlandish proposition. It's not a clear cut topic by any means, and the four speakers agreed on a number of areas. There was far too much ground to cover in a relatively short debate, but the speakers touched on areas such as the crisis of masculinity, the intersection with class in the case of the 'working class man' and the many faces of feminism.
There will no doubt be critics who will scream "but how can four women be debating whether or not men are obsolete?! How dare they!" To them I say - men have been debating the value of women for many centuries, so frankly it was refreshing to have the tables turned and have an all-female panel offering up eloquent, balanced arguments. Certainly the male chair, Rudyard Griffiths felt safe with Moran and Paglia arguing against the motion:
Caitlin Moran: Aren't you enormously grateful that I'm not saying that men should be exterminated?
Rudyard Griffiths: Thank you.
Caitlin Moran: We're not going to come around and just put you all in big dumpsters -
Rudyard Griffiths: My Y chromosome will live to see another day.
The debate started with the audience voting against the motion 82-18...but how did they vote after closing arguments? I'll mark the rest of my review in spoilers for when you've had a chance to read the arguments...
Aside from my obvious interest in the content, this book really piqued by interest in the art of debate, and I would encourage all to read this with that in mind; in this new, uncertain age of Brexit and Trump, we must never lose our ability to speak and debate.
February 23, 2017
This is a book about a bunch of rabid feminists rambling non-stop about how men are evil and are somehow going extinct and that in the coming future, the proper role of a man would be that of a sperm-slave. The only thing good about this book is that it has Camille Paglia refuting those rabid feminists.
April 5, 2022
to be totally frank, i found the forwarding more appealing and informative than the whole debate. it seemed that they were debating without any sort of organization or linear thoughts; instead thoughts were thrown here and there. they were interrupted.. Thus, I didn't find both teams convincing. I like to point out their mention of Miley which i found rather dull and out of point in there- talk about feminists tearing other feminists down. but it has been always like this. In all fields, old generation will always disapprove of new generation ways.. it doesn't matter if we're on the same side of change, if we're walking towards the same direction.. it's always their way that's right, accepted, wit, and well-fit. why? i wonder.
not the best book to understand feminism concepts and principles ( except the forwarding).
not the best book to understand feminism concepts and principles ( except the forwarding).
November 20, 2017
I think it was a short interesting debate and apart from Maureen Dowd, the rest of the debtors had interesting insights to share. I, of course, was on the side of Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia, especially the latter.
December 27, 2017
This book had a very catchy title; but wasn't really the heart of the debate as it sounds more towards obsolete as useless; whereas the debate was really centered on the change of gender roles and the rose of women in the workplace and in high ranking positions globally. I very much respected the points made that as North America has exported middle class trade/labour jobs; there has been a trend to assume that men are less capable or valued when they aren't. A fascinating read.
February 29, 2016
I hate Caitlin Moran. I'm going to read her oh-so-popular book solely to turn my irrational hatred into a rational fire of loathing inside of my soul.
February 3, 2020
This is a transcript of a Munk debate that took place in 2013. The question was “Are men obsolete?”, and it was understood slightly different by the different debaters.
Hanna Rosin, author of “The End of Men”, and Maureen Dowd, author of “Are Men Necessary?”, pleaded for a for the motion.
Caitlin Moran, author of “How To Be A Woman”, and Camille Paglia, author of “Sex, Art and American Culture, pleaded against it.
Rosin and Dowd argued that women are largely outperforming men in school, education, and soon the labour market, and that the concept of masculinity as it was understood for centuries is becoming outdated. Even in working class environments women are now raising kids by themselves and fathers are mostly absent. They insisted they didn’t want to be misunderstood as men-hating feminists but urged the audience to acknowledge the existence of a “crisis of manhood”.
Paglia and Moran admit that masculinity may be going through a crisis but argue that the world doesn’t gain anything from letting the concept of man die; instead they argue that the diversity of genders and the sexual tension that arises from it, is a beautiful thing to maintain and to foster. They also point out that only looking at changes happening in higher social classes ignores the large portions of society, both in America and globally, where traditional gender roles haven’t changed an ounce. Also, Paglia points out the importance to acknowledge all the vital, tough work that men have done and are still doing without which society wouldn’t be running (think of builders, sewage cleaners, etc.).
Sometimes it felt as if the participants were arguing on a different motion and talking at cross purposes, and that in reality they didn’t disagree very much.
After the transcript of the debate, the book also contains a couple of analyses of the debate by other authors. One criticism pointed out was the lack of facts that were given to support the argument.
As this was an originally oral debate, the debaters tried to keep it fresh by making lots of supposedly funny references to American pop culture from the year 2013, which I frankly didn’t relate to much.
I was hoping that this little book might be an easy introduction into the debate about broken masculinity, but my expectations weren’t really met. Good thing it’s a very tiny book that is read quickly though, so I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a waste of time. Still picked up a few thoughts and ideas here and there.
Hanna Rosin, author of “The End of Men”, and Maureen Dowd, author of “Are Men Necessary?”, pleaded for a for the motion.
Caitlin Moran, author of “How To Be A Woman”, and Camille Paglia, author of “Sex, Art and American Culture, pleaded against it.
Rosin and Dowd argued that women are largely outperforming men in school, education, and soon the labour market, and that the concept of masculinity as it was understood for centuries is becoming outdated. Even in working class environments women are now raising kids by themselves and fathers are mostly absent. They insisted they didn’t want to be misunderstood as men-hating feminists but urged the audience to acknowledge the existence of a “crisis of manhood”.
Paglia and Moran admit that masculinity may be going through a crisis but argue that the world doesn’t gain anything from letting the concept of man die; instead they argue that the diversity of genders and the sexual tension that arises from it, is a beautiful thing to maintain and to foster. They also point out that only looking at changes happening in higher social classes ignores the large portions of society, both in America and globally, where traditional gender roles haven’t changed an ounce. Also, Paglia points out the importance to acknowledge all the vital, tough work that men have done and are still doing without which society wouldn’t be running (think of builders, sewage cleaners, etc.).
Sometimes it felt as if the participants were arguing on a different motion and talking at cross purposes, and that in reality they didn’t disagree very much.
After the transcript of the debate, the book also contains a couple of analyses of the debate by other authors. One criticism pointed out was the lack of facts that were given to support the argument.
As this was an originally oral debate, the debaters tried to keep it fresh by making lots of supposedly funny references to American pop culture from the year 2013, which I frankly didn’t relate to much.
I was hoping that this little book might be an easy introduction into the debate about broken masculinity, but my expectations weren’t really met. Good thing it’s a very tiny book that is read quickly though, so I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a waste of time. Still picked up a few thoughts and ideas here and there.
December 30, 2019
This was a big fat disappointment!! The debaters were not really debating the point in question- Camille Paglia was stubbornly fixated on how we don't value manual labor anymore (which acc to her is intrinsically male) (whose side you on Camille??), Maureen Dowd mentioned Ted Cruz one time too many and Caitlin Moran didn't like the question. Hanna Rosin seemed to be the only one who actually debating the thing but even her argument didn't reach into the depths and answer whether the structures our world functions on (build by men, for men) are being eroded or molded or what! That left out families, politics, sex, gender, masculinity and femininity and oh, about everything else too.
Some fault, it seems to me, lies in the phrasing of the debate question. Maybe if the debate was titled, 'Are women winning?', they would have concentrated on how well women are doing, and not whether men going obsolete is a good thing or not. It's too bad de Beauvoir is dead, because she would have been so so good in this debate. There's this 1967 video (on yt) in which she says that things are worse for women more than they had been when she wrote The Second Sex (49). What would she have to say for today?? Have (some) women achieved subject status or have men just been bought into object status along with women? So much to be said!! And this 1 and a half hour debate didn't even tap on it.
Lastly: a big boo to the men in the YouTube chat (there were ONLY men) who truly deserve to be obsolete, why did the sponsors of the debate look so sleepy and washed out?, the panelist was also kinda off, the after debate interviews were better and should have been longer (as should have the debate).
Some fault, it seems to me, lies in the phrasing of the debate question. Maybe if the debate was titled, 'Are women winning?', they would have concentrated on how well women are doing, and not whether men going obsolete is a good thing or not. It's too bad de Beauvoir is dead, because she would have been so so good in this debate. There's this 1967 video (on yt) in which she says that things are worse for women more than they had been when she wrote The Second Sex (49). What would she have to say for today?? Have (some) women achieved subject status or have men just been bought into object status along with women? So much to be said!! And this 1 and a half hour debate didn't even tap on it.
Lastly: a big boo to the men in the YouTube chat (there were ONLY men) who truly deserve to be obsolete, why did the sponsors of the debate look so sleepy and washed out?, the panelist was also kinda off, the after debate interviews were better and should have been longer (as should have the debate).
February 20, 2017
I thought this was going to be satire, co-authored by Caitlin Moran and some people I'd never heard of; the blurb makes it sound that way. In fact, it is the transcript of a (mostly) serious live debate, with pre- and post-debate interviews and some (very short) commentary by journalists. It was still an okay read, just not what I was expecting.
Read
October 13, 2020in the more serious parts, basically a forum on the fate and valuation of working-class men in the current economic juncture... in the less serious parts, all participants winkingly engage in a tongue-in-cheek, exaggerated, humorous exchange that recognizes and embraces the absurdity of the topic, that nevertheless gives them a chance to exhibit their debate and oratorical chops
January 21, 2018
I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would.
First of all, I think the format in which the arguments are presented isn't the best to get the speaker's ideas across. I found that sometimes I couldn't get a clear idea of what the speakers were trying to say. This could be in part because of the format and also because the arguments were contradicting in themselves, so it was hard to understand everyone's postures.
I thought there wasn't clearness, even in the speakers themselves, of what they were arguing for and against. It came across as people just throwing ideas around about a topic in general and not a real debate.
Finally, from a more subjective angle, I didn't agree with a lot of what was said about genre dynamics and the differences between men and women. I tended to agree more with Moran but I thought her comedic delivery style kept her arguments from being as convincing as they could have been.
First of all, I think the format in which the arguments are presented isn't the best to get the speaker's ideas across. I found that sometimes I couldn't get a clear idea of what the speakers were trying to say. This could be in part because of the format and also because the arguments were contradicting in themselves, so it was hard to understand everyone's postures.
I thought there wasn't clearness, even in the speakers themselves, of what they were arguing for and against. It came across as people just throwing ideas around about a topic in general and not a real debate.
Finally, from a more subjective angle, I didn't agree with a lot of what was said about genre dynamics and the differences between men and women. I tended to agree more with Moran but I thought her comedic delivery style kept her arguments from being as convincing as they could have been.
March 15, 2018
A panel of four women (mostly academics and journalists) debate whether it is resolved, that "men are obsolete." Ultimately, the debaters didn't sufficiently rebut each others positions for it to give any sense of resolution. Despite this, there were some interesting positions taken, and some good stats that gave food for thought.
In particular, I was pleased to discover Camille Paglia (from the Con side); a witty orator, academic and sometimes writer for Hollywood magazines, with a charismatic faculty for highlighting contradictions. I enjoyed her response to the overshooting narratives of some third wave feminists... i.e., she finds the vitriolic claims that men have rigged the economic system against women absurd. She recalls that it was in fact male creations (like the washing machine) that were the largest contributors to women's emancipation in the West, thus making men unlikely conspirators in this so called plot to oppress women.
In particular, I was pleased to discover Camille Paglia (from the Con side); a witty orator, academic and sometimes writer for Hollywood magazines, with a charismatic faculty for highlighting contradictions. I enjoyed her response to the overshooting narratives of some third wave feminists... i.e., she finds the vitriolic claims that men have rigged the economic system against women absurd. She recalls that it was in fact male creations (like the washing machine) that were the largest contributors to women's emancipation in the West, thus making men unlikely conspirators in this so called plot to oppress women.
August 29, 2018
This book is typical idiocy on the subject. The only person who made sensible remarks was Camille Paglia. The rest are not able to think critically; people with STEM education would have been beneficial here. Maureen Dowd was there to play the clown, and did it badly. Mainstream thinking on this subject is so driven by ideology that anyone who thinks differently gets ruthlessly attacked.
I’ve now read most of the Munk Debates, and I can say that they are generally rather poor, representing the intellectual-yet-idiot position on the subject, which is usually wrong. But they are quick and easy to read, and add to my tally.
I’ve now read most of the Munk Debates, and I can say that they are generally rather poor, representing the intellectual-yet-idiot position on the subject, which is usually wrong. But they are quick and easy to read, and add to my tally.
July 13, 2025
A 90-MINUTE DEBATE THAT COVERS A WIDE VARIETY OF TOPICS
Editor Rudyard Griffiths wrote in the Introduction to this 2014 book, “The Munk Debate on Gender took place on November 15, 2013, in front of a sold-out audience of 3,000 people… Fuelling the hour-and-a-half-long discussion was the debate’s contentious resolution, ‘Be it resolved: men are obsolete.’ … The debate tackled the surge of female performance relative to men in the home, the workplace, our schools, and society, and addressed the implication of this trend for our collective future… The decline in the performance of men relative to women… was the crux of the Munk Debate on Gender. Specifically, are post-industrial nations witnessing a fundamental shift in the status and power of men vis-à-vis women, one that will fundamentally change not just women’s place in society but our collective expectations of the role of men in the economy, in family life, and in traditionally male bastions such as politics? Or are the power structures … created by men for men… still firmly in place, suggesting that men and ‘maleness’ are anything but a spent force?” (Pg. xi-xiii)
Camille Paglia (from the ‘Con’ side) states, “A peevish, grudging rancour against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings, and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment… Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women… find themselves in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life in the early stages of their career? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments.” (Pg. 10-11)
She continues, “Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now… most feminists seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings… The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic in which women have found a productive role. But women were surely not its author.” (Pg. 13)
Caitlin Moran (from the ‘Con’ side) asserts, “We urgently need to stop describing things as ‘problems of men’ and ‘problems of women,’ and to start seeing all problems for what they are---the ‘problems of humanity.’ Women cannot win if men are losing and vice versa, because we all life quite near to each other; we keep having sex with each other and giving birth to each other and being related to each other.” (Pg. 19)
Later, she adds, “This isn’t a question of women overtaking men; it’s a question of the economy changing. I think it’s a massive diversionary tactic that we phrase it as men against women, whereas it’s the underclasses and the peasants that need to revolt against the oppressive [society]...” (Pg. 23)
Camille Paglia recalls, “I was raised in the 1950s, when it was unheard of for women to be ambitious. The women’s movement in the late 1960s paved the way for young women---now they feel that every career path is open to them. I am concerned that feminism has painted itself into a corner and is now completely invisible, really. There are sites on the Web that attract committed feminists, but they are completely invisible, and feminism has no important profile right now in the U.S. ... I feel that feminism has drifted from any sense of what most people are looking for---value in life.” (Pg. 45-46)
Hanna Rosin observes, “I don’t like to construct this argument such that women become men, like the world flips in a totally predictable way, where women want to become CEOs. They don’t… [Women] have a different sense of where power comes from, of how power, aspiration, and ambition work, so they don’t just want to be the head of Fortune 500 companies. It’s not the way women are built. Power comes in all different ways; maybe the economy will change to accommodate that. … but it’s not as simple as men stay home and take care of the children and women become CEOs. There is no way it will play out that way.” (Pg. 73-74)
In a later conversation, Camille Paglia asserts, “women who choose to have children have categorically different lives than men, who can take on fatherhood almost as a sort of a social duty, as a social responsibility. But a woman who is pregnant is involved with a fetus in a way that is absolutely primal and instinctual: there are biological forces that take her over… Feminism is in a state of delusion and losing ground the longer it denies this overwhelming fact of nature.” (Pg, 76)
She adds, “I’m saying that women cluster at the median point of the intelligence ranks; they do not produce great geniuses, nor do they produce the morons, criminals, and mass murderers. Men are overwhelmingly the people who pick up guns and weapons and massacre children, acting out distorted fantasies that emerge from the male mind.” (Pg. 78)
This debate will be of great interest to anyone concerned with male/female issues.
Editor Rudyard Griffiths wrote in the Introduction to this 2014 book, “The Munk Debate on Gender took place on November 15, 2013, in front of a sold-out audience of 3,000 people… Fuelling the hour-and-a-half-long discussion was the debate’s contentious resolution, ‘Be it resolved: men are obsolete.’ … The debate tackled the surge of female performance relative to men in the home, the workplace, our schools, and society, and addressed the implication of this trend for our collective future… The decline in the performance of men relative to women… was the crux of the Munk Debate on Gender. Specifically, are post-industrial nations witnessing a fundamental shift in the status and power of men vis-à-vis women, one that will fundamentally change not just women’s place in society but our collective expectations of the role of men in the economy, in family life, and in traditionally male bastions such as politics? Or are the power structures … created by men for men… still firmly in place, suggesting that men and ‘maleness’ are anything but a spent force?” (Pg. xi-xiii)
Camille Paglia (from the ‘Con’ side) states, “A peevish, grudging rancour against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings, and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment… Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women… find themselves in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life in the early stages of their career? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments.” (Pg. 10-11)
She continues, “Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now… most feminists seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings… The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic in which women have found a productive role. But women were surely not its author.” (Pg. 13)
Caitlin Moran (from the ‘Con’ side) asserts, “We urgently need to stop describing things as ‘problems of men’ and ‘problems of women,’ and to start seeing all problems for what they are---the ‘problems of humanity.’ Women cannot win if men are losing and vice versa, because we all life quite near to each other; we keep having sex with each other and giving birth to each other and being related to each other.” (Pg. 19)
Later, she adds, “This isn’t a question of women overtaking men; it’s a question of the economy changing. I think it’s a massive diversionary tactic that we phrase it as men against women, whereas it’s the underclasses and the peasants that need to revolt against the oppressive [society]...” (Pg. 23)
Camille Paglia recalls, “I was raised in the 1950s, when it was unheard of for women to be ambitious. The women’s movement in the late 1960s paved the way for young women---now they feel that every career path is open to them. I am concerned that feminism has painted itself into a corner and is now completely invisible, really. There are sites on the Web that attract committed feminists, but they are completely invisible, and feminism has no important profile right now in the U.S. ... I feel that feminism has drifted from any sense of what most people are looking for---value in life.” (Pg. 45-46)
Hanna Rosin observes, “I don’t like to construct this argument such that women become men, like the world flips in a totally predictable way, where women want to become CEOs. They don’t… [Women] have a different sense of where power comes from, of how power, aspiration, and ambition work, so they don’t just want to be the head of Fortune 500 companies. It’s not the way women are built. Power comes in all different ways; maybe the economy will change to accommodate that. … but it’s not as simple as men stay home and take care of the children and women become CEOs. There is no way it will play out that way.” (Pg. 73-74)
In a later conversation, Camille Paglia asserts, “women who choose to have children have categorically different lives than men, who can take on fatherhood almost as a sort of a social duty, as a social responsibility. But a woman who is pregnant is involved with a fetus in a way that is absolutely primal and instinctual: there are biological forces that take her over… Feminism is in a state of delusion and losing ground the longer it denies this overwhelming fact of nature.” (Pg, 76)
She adds, “I’m saying that women cluster at the median point of the intelligence ranks; they do not produce great geniuses, nor do they produce the morons, criminals, and mass murderers. Men are overwhelmingly the people who pick up guns and weapons and massacre children, acting out distorted fantasies that emerge from the male mind.” (Pg. 78)
This debate will be of great interest to anyone concerned with male/female issues.
July 3, 2017
A fairly superficial treatment of the "why are boys falling behind" premise with good snarky remarks on all sides. The Munk debates seem interesting, but if this is a 100% transcript, they seem too short to accomplish much.
April 7, 2020
Cogent and entertaining arguments from four brilliant women. While I don't necessarily agree with all the arguments put for the motion, there was something to take away from each woman's speech.
Especially loved Caitlin Moran's part.
Especially loved Caitlin Moran's part.
October 22, 2014
The debate premise is misleading because it's more about the shifting roles of men, and certainly no one thinks men are obsolete. Interesting read. Loved Caitlin Moran's part especially!
February 15, 2020
Nice Valentine's Day read but unfortunately ultimately only thought this little book was just okay. My biggest complaint about Are Men Obsolete?, a transcript of a debate with supplementary interviews and commentaries, is that it was seldom clear what it would mean for men to be "obsolete."
Historian Stephanie Coontz pointed out the obscurity of the debate in her post-debate commentary, where she challenged debater Hanna Rosin, who led the charge in the argument that men are obsolescing. Coontz pointed out that one major negative aspect of changing gender relations "is that in many countries women's relative improvement in employment stems less from their absolute progress than from men's losses." Coontz notes, "In the United States, more than a quarter of women's gains relative to men result from men's declining wages."
Coontz's observation, however, does not discredit Rosin's thesis but underscores it: men aren't dealing well with the changing social and economic conditions, hence why Rosin hyperbolically calls mean "obsolete."
Unfortunately, Rosin does not lead with the conclusion she is arguing for. Her conclusion does not appear in the actual debate but in the debate's post-interview where she tells the moderate, "My central thesis is that the global economy is changing really rapidly and for whatever reason a lot of women are having an easier time adjusting to that than men."
I understand why Coontz and pretty much everyone else, including those who appeared on the debate stage, had difficulty understanding what was at stake in the argument. A lot of the confusion stemmed from the fact that Rosin failed to articulate the thesis and the moderate failed to clarify what it would mean for it to be "the end of men." How can you debate something when you don't know what you're debating?
To get a sense for how frustrating all this is to decipher, you can check out the debate on YouTube. Godspeed.
Historian Stephanie Coontz pointed out the obscurity of the debate in her post-debate commentary, where she challenged debater Hanna Rosin, who led the charge in the argument that men are obsolescing. Coontz pointed out that one major negative aspect of changing gender relations "is that in many countries women's relative improvement in employment stems less from their absolute progress than from men's losses." Coontz notes, "In the United States, more than a quarter of women's gains relative to men result from men's declining wages."
Coontz's observation, however, does not discredit Rosin's thesis but underscores it: men aren't dealing well with the changing social and economic conditions, hence why Rosin hyperbolically calls mean "obsolete."
Unfortunately, Rosin does not lead with the conclusion she is arguing for. Her conclusion does not appear in the actual debate but in the debate's post-interview where she tells the moderate, "My central thesis is that the global economy is changing really rapidly and for whatever reason a lot of women are having an easier time adjusting to that than men."
I understand why Coontz and pretty much everyone else, including those who appeared on the debate stage, had difficulty understanding what was at stake in the argument. A lot of the confusion stemmed from the fact that Rosin failed to articulate the thesis and the moderate failed to clarify what it would mean for it to be "the end of men." How can you debate something when you don't know what you're debating?
To get a sense for how frustrating all this is to decipher, you can check out the debate on YouTube. Godspeed.
August 14, 2021
I agree with Hanna Roisin that men are becoming obsolete but only in relation to women, not to society, the society that men built would collapse without men maintaining it, the vast majority of the work goes unnoticed and unheralded which makes it easy for us all to be ignorant of the scale of the daily effort required to keep the game running smoothly. Her claims that women are outperforming men in all the metrics related to "success" in western society are correct, but I don't believe for a second she is unaware of the reasons for this or that she believes it to be an organic development. Decades of agendas to elevate women and downgrade men are bearing fruit for those behind them. I believe women have been used a trojan horse and their short term benefits, if you can call more opportunity to be a 50 year wage slave a benefit, will not be good for them in the long run. We are already seeing the very early stages of the single 30+ woman epidemic, and its only going to get worse as more and more men are economically priced out of the game by minimum requirements. There was a relatively natural balance that made marriage and family a mutually beneficial arrangement for men and women in the West, but that has been destroyed and the ruins will be interesting to see over the next 20 years. Horrifying, but interesting.
Read
April 1, 2025the fact that they let dowd breathe the same air as camille paglia is insane... a weird 'debate' with no structure wherein the debaters can't even agree on what the original question means. and again i found myself sighing and rolling my eyes whenever dowd spoke, especially in the opening statements right after paglia, giving five hundred pop culture references per sentence and spewing random facts, name-dropping, no substance and all sensationalism.
would like to read more from moran and paglia, but this format didn't work and also their levels of eloquence and general knowledge clash constantly
would like to read more from moran and paglia, but this format didn't work and also their levels of eloquence and general knowledge clash constantly
August 28, 2021
كتاب يتناول موضوع النسوية و ضرورة الرجال (او عدمها) من خلال مناظرة بين اربع نساء كاتبات و ناشطات في النسوية. اللاتي يؤيدن انه الزمن عفا على الرجال يركزون بشكل اكبر على الجانب الاقتصادي و التعليمي و يتناسون دور الرجال في التربية و في اتمام النهوض الحضاري. اما المعارضين للفكرة يركزون على ما انجز في السابق على يد الرجال و ما الضرر في اهمال و تهميش نصف المجتمع و اضافة مسؤوليات جديدة للمراءة التي تتولى رعاية البيت و الاطفال مسبقا.
ما جعل الكتاب احسن هي المدخل للكتاب و التعريف بالنسوية و مشاكلها و طروحاتها و التعقيبات اللاحقة من عدد من الكتاب بعد طرح المناظرة بصورة مكتوبة.
ما جعل الكتاب احسن هي المدخل للكتاب و التعريف بالنسوية و مشاكلها و طروحاتها و التعقيبات اللاحقة من عدد من الكتاب بعد طرح المناظرة بصورة مكتوبة.
November 15, 2021
This was my first time reading a book like this and I was surprised that I did enjoy reading it.
The participants had some interesting points but it felt a little off. For some reason it felt like it was written in favor of Camille Paglia, doesn’t seem fair to me. I can barely remember the points the pro team brought up, and half of the arguments on the con side annoyed the shit out of me. I think I enjoyed the post debate commentary the most.
Worth a read, its food for thought regardless and could be the start of interesting conversations with friends
The participants had some interesting points but it felt a little off. For some reason it felt like it was written in favor of Camille Paglia, doesn’t seem fair to me. I can barely remember the points the pro team brought up, and half of the arguments on the con side annoyed the shit out of me. I think I enjoyed the post debate commentary the most.
Worth a read, its food for thought regardless and could be the start of interesting conversations with friends
January 12, 2023
انصح بهذا الكتاب للمبتدئين المتحمسين في عالم النسوية ليوضح لهم جوانب اكثر من معنى النسوية و مطالبتهم و ليس فقط ان يكرهون الرجال و يكونون غاضبات كما كان تفكيري في وقت المراهقة حيث كنت في صف هانا و مورين ، و لكن مع مرور الوقت الان انا اتفهم كايتلين و كاميلي و اتفق معهم . كوني قارئة عربية أغلب القضايا و الجوانب التي طرحت ليست أساسية في مجتمعنا كوننا نصارع لأجل الحقوق الأساسية كنساء .
December 15, 2020
A fun read, if that's really the right word. Well, except that Camille Paglia still annoys the h3ll out of me & Maureen Dowd is Maureen Dowd. Caitlin Moran, on the other hand, is as awesome & hilarious as ever. It's worth reading solely for her comments. (Why I guess it's why I thought it was fun.)
April 6, 2021
As is clear with oh so many of the reviews, you like the bits from the writers/thinkers you like (for me: Moran, Rosin) and dislike the other (I would be absolutely fine with no Paglia evermore) - but it's a quick thing to read, some genuine laughs from the usual suspects.
July 19, 2021
Tutto sommato interessante, almeno come istantanea del femminismo anglosassone mainstream in era pre-gamergate, pre-Trump, pre-metoo.
Tra le (tante) opinioni invecchiate malissimo spicca la lode di Caitlin Moran alla bravura di Joss Whedon nel caratterizzare personaggi femminili.
Tra le (tante) opinioni invecchiate malissimo spicca la lode di Caitlin Moran alla bravura di Joss Whedon nel caratterizzare personaggi femminili.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews