The Decline of Men: How the American Male Is Tuning Out, Giving Up, and Flipping Off His Future [Hardcover]

This is a rather disingenuous book. While Garcia does a fairly good job of outlining how men are underperforming relative to women in various ways in contemporary American society -- something which seems to be positive to men, in terms of bringing light to the issue -- his proposed solution to this perceived "decline" is breathtakingly anti-male: men need to redefine what they feel is appropriately "masculine" by becoming more feminine. Essentially, this book is a call for the feminization of men by replacing the substantive content of the word "masculine" with items that are now under the rubric "feminine". Far from being a pro-men book, this is really an exercise in 3.5 wave feminism: now that second and third wave feminism have redefined what is acceptably "feminine", it's time to redefine, for men, what is acceptably "masculine", even if men are not clamoring for this, as women clamored to redefine their own identities. This is essentially a feminist book, clothed in the language of men -- which makes it rather subversive and disingenuous.

For Garcia, the continued decline of men relative to women is irreversible and inevitable. Our only option, as men, is to accept this, and to basically get over it, and get on with our future as the second sex, with much of our masculinity replaced by so-called feminine behaviors, ideas and values -- because it is inevitable that women will be the dominant gender very soon in the United States. For Garcia, men need a "12 Step Program", basically so that we can get over our disease of being unfeminized men, and accept our inevitable feminized male destiny. This pathologizing of masculinity is astonishingly anti-male, but I'm sure that feminist writers would agree with Garcia that men are all basically like alcoholics in being addicted to their masculinity and powerless to overcome their reluctance to embrace feminine traits, values and behaviors.

Of course, all of this is misguided nonsense. Garcia takes a few shots at the more radical feminist writers, but takes great pains to repeat the mantra that men should not blame women for their relative decline. It's fair enough that not all women are to blame, as they are as diverse a group as any. But the feminist revolution, with its disproportionate impact on education in particular, has systematically disadvantaged boys, while the family law system has created a widespread incidence of boys being raised solely by women. Neither of these developments is immutable, and both must be addressed seriously if there is to be any kind of real gender equity as we move forward. Garcia notes these issues, of course, but his solution for men to change their self identity would not solve them -- boys *are* different from girls, they learn differently from girls, and they *are* being systematically messed up by the educational system -- talking to a 7 year old boy about getting in touch with his inner female and embracing a more gender-holistic self definition will not help him in the least, nor will it help the millions of American fathers who are screwed by the family court system, which has been itself heavily influenced by radical feminism. So, sure, we shouldn't blame women collectively -- but *some* women *are* to blame for what has happened, by their short-sightedness about the broader implications of changes they advocated on behalf of women, and, in some cases, by their hatred for men and their disregard for boys and so forth. That's where the blame lies.

As for the way forward, it certainly isn't for men to redefine masculinity to be more feminine. The way forward is, first, to change the institutional favoring of girls and women -- because it isn't needed, and if it isn't changed, it will very soon become a favoring of the gender that is out performing -- which makes no sense. The next step is for men and women to truly appreciate their differences more effectively. Here, again, feminism -- with its rhetoric of female superiority to men -- has to take the blame for creating attitudes of disdain and distrust between men and women. The path forward isn't a retreat to the 1950s and its rigid gender roles. But it also isn't to be found in a move towards more feminized men and masculinized women -- men and women need to rediscover a way to appreciate the fascinating, tantalizing and alluring differences between each other, and how these provide the creative tension that moves our species forward. We don't need to mush ourselves together into some kind of individualized, androgynous identity. At the end of the day, this really isn't what either men *or* women (at least women who are not radical feminists) want, or need.

So while this is an interesting read for its broad coverage of the current problems facing American men, in my opinion, it is fundamentally and fatally flawed in its prescriptions for the future. If you're interested in these kinds of issues, Kathleen Parker's new book, "Save the Males" is an entertaining read, with less specific prescriptions, but a better understanding, in my opinion, of what is needed, and what is not.

The provocative title caught my attention, but while reading I kept hunting for explanations about why men are declining. Why do women out-compete men in the workplace? His book is a fairly well documented term paper chronicling this problem from different angles (popular media, voting patterns, college attendance, etc) but he doesn't explain WHY men are declining and I will try shortly.

He notes the growing consumer power of women who realize "we just don't need men anymore". Women are learning to be financially independent. There are signs everywhere of the rise of women and the fall of men. In the last presidential election, as we're all aware, a woman candidate narrowly missed a shot at the top job. Powerful female executives seem to be more prevalent.

In my view, the pattern of male decline is one part of a much broader set of issues. The decline of men is not THE problem but only one problem wrapped up with many others, some of which are larger and thornier (e.g. decline of democracy, breakdown of citizenship, fallout from technological change). Marriage, itself, is on the decline, as individualism and personal choice undermine the shared sacrifice necessary to make marriages work. Birth control and abortion rights have undermined the classic marriage bargain of exchanging sex for a commitment. This was a kind of glue that encouraged both men (wanting sex) and women (wanting status and children) to marry. But today sex is possible without commitment, and women can achieve status without men. And competitive pressures have made it mandatory for all adults today to work, and this has brought women of all ages into a highly competitive workplace. There is terrific freedom for individuals but at the expense of families which are struggling.

So the prospect of marrying, seen through the eyes of a single woman considering tying the knot, is much less attractive today than in the 1920s or 1950s. Marrying doesn't mean an increase in status as before, but it often means downgrading her lifestyle as well as ending a chance for a variety of future sexual partners, and settling for a less robust lifestyle particularly if babies come along. Child rearing expense = $250K before college, according to a Wall Street Journal report a while back. So, why marry? Many single women opt out.

Generally I agree with the author when chronicling statistics pointing to a trend of downward mobility for men. The evidence is considerable. And I agree with another reviewer who criticized Mr. Garcia for insisting men become more like women, but I lack alternative strategies here.

But why do men have trouble competing with women in a typical Fortune 500 company? I have a working theory drawn partly from personal experience as well as extensive reading. I think men have a natural drive which equates competing and work with physical force and aggressiveness. For men, competing is scaled-down fist-fighting -- it's physical, intense, rough and tumble. In an all-male company, there would be no problem -- men would jostle for the top posts, kid each other, joust and achieve hierarchies of respect based on skill and smarts and physical presence. And there are long traditions of aggressive rivalry from our genetic past, from hunting, fighting in a war, building commercial enterprises.

But when women become colleagues and competitors too, there is a powerful shut-down mechanism at work -- because men have been conditioned over centuries NOT to hurt women, NOT to physically attack them. So this new situation is confusing. Should we all-out compete or play gentle? With women in the mix, the game is NO LONGER physical and fierce and fun but dwindles into a boring tea party. And the natural male impulse to punch, kick, out-compete runs smack dab into this powerful countervailing impulse to protect women, and the result is male shut-down.

I loved after school touch football with my buddies until a girl showed up one day wanting to play. Instantly the game was downgraded into something less fun. Playing rough and possibly hurting this girl was out of the question -- there are strong drives within all men to protect women, to be gentle, and men who hurt women have in the past been shunned, punished, killed. So we tried to play for a little while with this girl but our hearts weren't in this game. Luckily she left; but in the corporate world, women don't leave. And I think to varying extents this same problem is repeated in board rooms, in businesses, in newsrooms, on college campuses -- women seem to be everywhere, and men want to drop out.

I sometimes imagine a world where marriage worked for most people, although my cynical side suggests there has never been such a place. But wasn't there a time when each sex had it's own turf -- men in the work world, women in the home world? Each sex dominated its world, understood its rules. They separated during the day (and separating added an element of mystery) and rejoined at night. Clearly, this has broken down, and in many ways, there is much more freedom than in the past -- freedom to get out of a bad marriage, to find personal happiness, but the breakdown in the structure sometimes makes it harder to find love and form families.

There's a huge loss of respect when both sexes compete as equals in a company. Women see men are vulnerable, imperfect, flawed creatures not much different from them. They have to look at men this way to have a competitive edge. Any mystery has vanished. As a result, mens' status has dropped from breadwinner to co-competitor. It's a big plunge into nothingness, and I think men as a sex have collectively lost prestige. Women don't send signals-of-respect to men as much as before since much of this respect has evaporated -- and when men don't get these signals, there's no sense flirting, risking rejection. We retreat to our caves where our manhood and self-image are affirmed in video games or drugs or World War II reruns. Working for a female boss can be the ultimate downer, for she's somebody you can't punch if you're angry, but who can criticize you, judge you, fire you -- in such a situation, many men decide it's time to leave the firm. And women are much more adept at reading people emotionally -- their steady conversation is a competitive edge helping them to get inside peoples' minds -- but men are not genetically predisposed to respond appropriately to this amount of conversation. Men need a new mindset -- some way to keep competing while disregarding the negative signals. Many seek out professions where men still have an edge (lawyers, handymen, firefighters). It's tough today.

American men seeking marriage but having trouble connecting with independent-minded American women should consider dating foreign women, particularly from cultures which value marriage and families. Fly to the Philippines, for example, and stay there a month or two. Philippine women are beautiful, smart, like American men, value families, send the right signals, and will make you forget quickly any uppity high-maintenance arrogant American women you've had bad luck to bump elbows with.

Overall, a semi-competent book with an intriguing title that chronicles an important problem but which doesn't dig deep enough into the psychology of male-female relations underlying this problem. And it's wrapped up with bigger problems that need further exploration.

Thomas W. Sulcer
author of "Dating and mating in the twenty tens"
(google title + Sulcer)

It is disheartening that a man wrote this to appeal to a female audience who always want to read about why they can't find a man who meets their impossibly high expectations, or who is subservient to their modern independent lifestyle.

As a man in America today I am constantly being told that natural male behaviour is unacceptable. I see females all over the TV beating up men; I am only allowed to pursue females only on their politically correct terms. If I were stupid enough to get married she has too much power to file for divorce and ruin me financially. At school and at work I see more effort invested in making sure females advance and succeed without equal attention given to males.

Our society and women have basically said to us that men are disposable, that we don't matter as much as we used to. Now why the hell should I work hard for women who don't appreciate you? And also, I see a lot of negative and destructive behaviour coming from females (Britney Spears, Paris Hilton etc) Why aren't their just as many books written about female shortcomings?

We are tired of the male bashing. The author should be a little more balanced in assigning blame, and insist women change some of their behaviours!