Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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!

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)

The general premise of this book is fine, there are problems with younger men in "today's society" so to speak. The book however fails to address many of the root causes of why men might not be interested in their futures anymore. That said were the book only trying to force an acknowledgement of various problems facing men I really would not have issue with it, preferably it would address the aforementioned cause(s) that either have or have the potential to cause these problems but again I could view this book as simply a finger pointing at a problem which would fit the title quite well actually. The comparatively few conclusions and "solutions" reached in this book however indicate to me that the overall purpose of this book was to wrap up some general feminist ideology and pass if off as thought provoking and/or a proactive way for men to fix their own problems.
Essentially it has a bit of the "genderless" society notion in it, which in principle is fine because really who cares who does the job so long as it is done well. Where this notion falls apart however is the way this is put forth throughout this book essentially you can infer from what it says that men are responsible for all the problems of inequality in the past but had no real hand in addressing them this was done instead exclusively by proactive women whilst men sat around enjoying their priviledged lifestyle (of course it isn't as blatant as that but this is supposed to be a short review not a book report). Essentially the only way for "men" to be "real men" is to essentially become as much like women as they can, which I personally found insulting and made the book harder to read for me admittedly because I'm tired of books being about opposite sexes rather than the complementary ones that they are.
Again, if the author wanted men to fix the issue of "The Decline of Men" by essentially behaving more like women then it implies that he thought the issue could be repaired rather than simply addressed and it is with his specific ideas as to how this should be done that I find fault with.

The book by and large makes essentially passing reference to sexism on behalf of men against women but really doesn't acknowledge that the sexism of women against men even really exists. This issue again raises the question in my mind as to who exactly this book is geared towards; frankly the best answer I can come up with is of course women. Now, there is no problem with gearing a book towards one sex or the other however in this particular instance it comes off as disengenuous at best to imply that not only are men for all intents and purposes solely responsible for their own decline but also solely responsible for stopping it which again of course is done by essentially changing the definition of what "being a man" is which in the future seems to be the same thing as being a woman only..you know different. Feminism was a fight against male sexism, fought exclusively by women for women....in todays age where men are discriminated against (for those that disagree I would ask why the existance of male victims somehow makes female victims nonexistant or why anyone with common sense could believe this)it is up to men to fight their own failings to halt their own self caused decline. So if men are "lesser" in society today and it is their own fault and this is only exacerbated by the superiority of the women around them who fought their own "lesser" status that wasn't their own fault but was instead pushed upon them. Again it is this idea that ruins the book for me, if I wanted to read about how women are victims and men were their aggressors there are a million books for that, I bought this book because it implied the address of issues facing men.



*************
Personal note:
It has been awhile since I read this book and really it wasn't that memorable in regards to its implied subject matter so I can sum up a fair bit of the basic vibe that I got from reading it with some typical sexist comments I'm sure one could find amongst the forums of many websites including Amazon I'm sure and I have to admit that it is this coupled with the general lack of real discourse in the book that made it a poor read for me whereas others (most likely with more feminist leanings in my opinion) surely would perceive it differently. "Men aren't needed but women are necessary," "Men are bad parents because they continue to choose to watch football (or whatever) rather than spend time with their children," "There are no bad mothers" "There are no good fathers," "All men are rapists," "All women are victims," "It is alright if men face discrimination in society because women still face more/have faced more/face more in Africa, Saudi Arabia..." "Men can't face discrimination/sexism because they are in charge," "Feminism empowers women and that is why men don't like it" "Anti-feminists promote rape" and so on. Again it's this "heads women win tails men lose and deserve it for being such bastards" feeling that I found to be underlying is what turned me off from what otherwise could have been an interesting read if only for its acknowledgment that there is an issue at all. Again I am trying to impress upon people that this is how I felt while reading it.

"The Decline of Men" isn't what you expect. When I first read the summary I envisioned some sort of counter-feminist rebuttal of women's rights, but what I found was an interesting venture into the plight of the modern day man. The author (Guy Garcia) dives headfirst into understanding the implications of modern society on the male gender and examines how work toward gender equality has impacted men. Written with a focus on modern society and pop-culture The Decline of Men manages to inform while entertaining.

Garcia weaves together a variety of topics from men's health to action figures in order to show how men are perceived in today's society. He doesn't make excuses for men, but instead shows how various elements of progress for women have displaced men or created confusion regarding their place in society. He looks at where men are losing traction (such as jobs and education) and he looks into areas where men have avoided taking care of themselves (such as preventative health). The cross-section of information that Garcia references is worth picking up the book in and of itself, his explosion of facts provides plenty of resources for additional research.

Instead of throwing together a droll recollection of history and explanation of gender, Garcia manages to present a powerfully entertaining glimpse of the male gender. I found it reminiscent of the stylistic prose found in "Freakonomics". He also works to explain where females are in relationship to males and where both genders are headed. I didn't find "The Decline of Men" to harp on any one particular perspective but in the same vein it can be a little hard on men. The facts concerning men can be somewhat difficult to accept as Garcia shows that the male position at the top of the foodchain is rapidly dissolving. He attempts to show the weaknesses in the male position and how those weaknesses should be addressed in order to prevent a disruption in establishing equality in gender relationships.

If you are interested in understanding how gender affects our position in modern society, "The Decline of Men" of men provides an excellent insight. While it is important to understand gender in a traditional sense, Garcia also enables the reader to think critically about how gender will shape society in the future. He allows us to understand that we must be constantly aware of how gender alters our communications and shapes our perceptions. "The Decline of Men" is really a warning about society overall. We can't ignore the needs of one group just because they are doing okay at that particular moment, Garcia points out that all of our actions need to be holistic and comprehensive to prevent marginalization of a previously dominant group.

In The Decline of Men, Guy Garcia begins and ends his discussion of the American male's loss of power at the Burning Man festival. In front of a sign that says "TRUTH" he sees an effigy of a man who is half-built, headless. The image of a man is being reconstructed after having been burned to the ground by surprise, ahead of schedule. Garcia sees the first man as traditional Western patriarchal man, and the burning symbolizes his loss of economic and political primacy in the United States and around the World. At the book's end, he muses that "through this failure and destruction [men] just might gain the freedom to re-create themselves as the men they know they can be."

His choice of exemplar here is telling. Gerald Levin, former architect of the disastrous AOL/Time Warner merger, was approached by a woman who wanted to start a New Age treatment escape in Santa Monica (Moonview Sanctuary). He left his job as a NYC executive and now spends his time managing a center that specializes in healing the rich and famous with New Age therapies ranging from drum circles to "brain painting" and "holotropic breathwork." (New York magazine, 2007) A convert to his new wife's "more feminine" ideology, Levin states in Garcia's book that his ultimate mission is now to "break down male culture."

The Decline of Men is a fairy standard, mostly one-sided catalog of men's issues with a particular emphasis on pop culture. His perspective feels tony and coastal, and his understanding of blue collar men outside of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles seems to be confined to observations in the "I once had a friend who had a friend who dated a blue collar guy once, and this is what she said about him after they broke up" insight bracket.

Garcia offers a 12-Step program for men, which feels like an afterthought, and insults men with suggestions that they "Admit [we] have a problem," "Apologize," "Admit mistakes" but to "Never Blame Women." He refuses to look honestly or thoughtfully about the way women wield their new power, and shames men who do by calling them "unmanly." In doing so, Guy Garcia reveals himself a media-saavy opportunist, trying to make a buck off The Decline of Men by expanding his claim to expertise as a speaker and media consultant who helps corporate clients interpret the new marketplace, without offending or challenging women (likely his potential clients) in any way. The Decline of Men flatters the egos of women, and offers no real direction for men beyond some sort of New Age awakening to grateful goddess worship and uncritical subservience. Garcia's 12 Steps might as well be condensed to three: Stay Male, Fail and Obey.

(Edited from a longer review first published at The-Spearhead.com)

I appreciate the effort in which the author put forth in his attempt to highlight some of the social concerns plaguing both sexes and ultimately causing friction between men and women in America. However, after actually reading the book, I found "The Decline of Men" to be little more than standard male-bashing propaganda angled towards a predominantly female consumer market. Judging by the title alone, I was under the impression that this book was akin to Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" (great book) but to my dismay I find that it's little more than a manuscript on male inferiority in virtually all categories across the board.

J. Bailey

Mr. Garcia is a fine journalist, but not a scholar. He will represent his view of the "decline" and disappearance of men at a conference in New York paid for by the Foundation for Male Studies, the confused itinerary of which is pro-masculinity in an era of decreasing support for masculinity. One reviewer of this book points out that Kathleen Parker, another journalist, has recently published a book that is male-positive. To warn the public of the decline of men (a social status) is not to demonstrate the decline of males (a kind of organism), which has been done by the anthropologist, Lionel Tiger. It is better at this point to get clear on what is being talked about -- a longstanding social status, a kind of organism, or a changing presentation of the male body (masculinity). The confusions continue to accumulate with this sort of critique and the get-togethers that are based on them. What is needed is solid, scholarly work from a multidisciplinary perspective, not an American Men's Studies Association (a few decades old, with 125 members nationwide, also meeting this week) or a Foundation for Male Studies (a few months old, essentially driven by bitterness and looking for donations, as a visit to its website reveals). Good luck to all, but this is all about behavior, not about experience. First of all is needed understanding, not statistics. They have been out there for years and years, and are simply ignored. Understanding doesn't promote or sell anything. That's why it comes last.

The Decline of Men: How the American Male Is Tuning Out, Giving Up, and Flipping Off His Future
Review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.

In 300 pages, using statistics, examples, and his own experience, Guy Garcia, a staff writer at TIME Magazine for 13 years, where he covered business, international and arts, and entertainment, supports the thesis that "too many guys are slacking off and opting out of their manly obligations, producing an entire generation of men who are ditching their own potential and failing the moms, wives, and girlfriends who love them" (from the front jacket). There is no question that Garcia knows how to write because this is a well-written, informative, and entertaining book. Whether or not he makes his case successfully is up to the reader, however, if you want an enjoyable book that supports a point that I completely agree with (and have written essays about as well), this is a book you will find interesting.

This book was generally very thought provoking. There are several different discussions pertaining to men and their behavior and interactions with modern society. While I didn't agree with the book in it's entirety, there are many things mentioned that are observable both in media and in simply walking down the street. This would be a good book to read and discuss with a group of friends and parts might make you a little heated. The title also serves as an excellent conversation piece at work. Be open-minded and you just might get a little something out of this one!