Everyone can see the Female Future

When even a conservative male commentator can see it happening We/we truly live in new times.

"Why Men Fail
By DAVID BROOKS 

You’re probably aware of the basic trends. The financial rewards to education have increased over the past few decades, but men failed to get the memo.
In elementary and high school, male academic performance is lagging. Boys earn three-quarters of the D’s and F’s. By college, men are clearly behind. Only 40 percent of bachelor’s degrees go to men, along with 40 percent of master’s degrees.
Thanks to their lower skills, men are dropping out of the labor force. In 1954, 96 percent of the American men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. Today, that number is down to 80 percent. In Friday’s jobs report, male labor force participation reached an all-time low.
Millions of men are collecting disability. Even many of those who do have a job are doing poorly. According to Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project, annual earnings for median prime-age males have dropped by 28 percent over the past 40 years.
Men still dominate the tippy-top of the corporate ladder because many women take time off to raise children, but women lead or are gaining nearly everywhere else. Women in their 20s outearn men in their 20s. Twelve out of the 15 fastest-growing professions are dominated by women.
Over the years, many of us have embraced a certain theory to explain men’s economic decline. It is that the information-age economy rewards traits that, for neurological and cultural reasons, women are more likely to possess.
To succeed today, you have to be able to sit still and focus attention in school at an early age. You have to be emotionally sensitive and aware of context. You have to communicate smoothly. For genetic and cultural reasons, many men stink at these tasks.
But, in her fascinating new book, “The End of Men,” Hanna Rosin posits a different theory. It has to do with adaptability. Women, Rosin argues, are like immigrants who have moved to a new country. They see a new social context, and they flexibly adapt to new circumstances. Men are like immigrants who have physically moved to a new country but who have kept their minds in the old one. They speak the old language. They follow the old mores. Men are more likely to be rigid; women are more fluid.
This theory has less to do with innate traits and more to do with social position. When there’s big social change, the people who were on the top of the old order are bound to cling to the old ways. The people who were on the bottom are bound to experience a burst of energy. They’re going to explore their new surroundings more enthusiastically.
Rosin reports from working-class Alabama. The women she meets are flooding into new jobs and new opportunities — going back to college, pursuing new careers. The men are waiting around for the jobs that left and are never coming back. They are strangely immune to new options. In the Auburn-Opelika region, the median female income is 140 percent of the median male income.
Rosin also reports from college campuses where women are pioneering new social arrangements. The usual story is that men are exploiting the new campus hookup culture in order to get plenty of sex without romantic commitments. Rosin argues that, in fact, women support the hookup culture. It allows them to have sex and fun without any time-consuming distractions from their careers. Like new immigrants, women are desperate to rise, and they embrace social and sexual rules that give them the freedom to focus on their professional lives.
Rosin is not saying that women are winners in a global gender war or that they are doing super simply because men are doing worse. She’s just saying women are adapting to today’s economy more flexibly and resiliently than men. There’s a lot of evidence to support her case.
A study by the National Federation of Independent Business found that small businesses owned by women outperformed male-owned small businesses during the last recession. In finance, women who switch firms are more likely to see their performance improve, whereas men are more likely to see theirs decline. There’s even evidence that women are better able to adjust to divorce. Today, more women than men see their incomes rise by 25 percent after a marital breakup.
Forty years ago, men and women adhered to certain ideologies, what it meant to be a man or a woman. Young women today, Rosin argues, are more like clean slates, having abandoned both feminist and prefeminist preconceptions. Men still adhere to the masculinity rules, which limits their vision and their movement.
If she’s right, then men will have to be less like Achilles, imposing their will on the world, and more like Odysseus, the crafty, many-sided sojourner. They’ll have to acknowledge that they are strangers in a strange land."

i think Brooks gets it about right on some key points. i feel he downplays, a bit, Women's innate talents and abilities that give them an edge in today's economy though he does acknowledge Their advantages. The core point he (actually Hanna Rosin, he just agrees with Her) makes however is that many men are still trying to live in a world that no longer exists. The failure of many males to acknowledge and accept the emerging role of Women as societies leaders is holding men back and making them miserable. There still exists an element of male ego out there that clings to the notion of the male as the breadwinner and leader despite the actual facts showing these roles being taken on, more and more, by Women. i feel that men will be far happier and more productive for themselves, their relationships and for society as a whole if they just accept the new order. It's OK that your Female partner out-earns you, that you work for a Female boss, that more and more of society's leadership positions are going to Women. Women are great decision makers and wicked smart. Why shouldn't They lead? In fact it's about time and for the best. Men have, through the ages, dominated through aggression and brute force.  This has had the many miserable consequences that i am sure You/you are all aware of. Why is it OK for a man to be the decider, the leader? Is it because he has a pair of balls swinging between his legs that he has some innate quality that gives him the divine right to dominate? Clearly not when you look at the impressive successes today's Alpha-Women are having compared with males. It would seem those balls are in fact a disadvantage, except perhaps in football or furniture lifting.

It's OK for the Girls to run the show, there is still plenty of fulfilling work in the supporting cast.

Small update : In reviewing this article Goddess pointed out to me that at Her company some 70% of the employees are Women. Amazing!

i did not know that.