Scan barcode
A review by martha_is_reading
Are Men Obsolete? by Caitlin Moran, Hanna Rosin, Maureen Dowd, Camille Paglia
4.0
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...The crux of this debate is really around the definition of obsolescence (a word which I am now in love with). As Rosin argued in her opening statement, the fundamental biological need for the male half of the population remains. However, it was her eloquent closing argument that really sealed the deal in the minds of the voting audience: "I think there is some confusion out there about what you are voting for if you vote for us. When we say men are obsolete, that doesn't mean they are worthless, or that we want to stomp on them, or that we hate them....the twin combustion engine technically makes the bicycle obsolete. That doesn't mean that we hate the bicycle or want to throw it away...You are allowed to preserve the parts of manhood that you love and value...while at the same time recognising that there needs to be some adjustments if men, and particularly certain men, are going to survive the modern world.
Arguably it was this closer that swung the audience from 82-18 opposed, to 56-44 opposed - a huge swing that was deemed a victory for Rosin and Dowd arguing for the motion.
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.