An American feminist, Hanna Rosin, has given a speech in which she smugly charts the demise of men. She notes, in support of her case, that American women are doing much better than men when it comes to education, employment and wages.
My own response to her speech? First, I think it's going to become much harder for feminists to claim that women are oppressed victims when high profile feminists like Hanna Rosin are triumphantly declaring the "end of men".
Second, Hanna Rosin comes across as insufferable. If she is a representative of triumphant womanhood, then humanity is staring into the abyss.
Third, she's wrong. Yes, young women are doing much better than young men when it comes to education and employment. That does have significant consequences, particularly when it comes to family formation.
But her argument that changes to the economy are the death knell for men is too simplistic. First, it's not true that all blue collar work has been made redundant. In Australia, a hard-working tradesman can make a good living, certainly a better one than my own white collar profession (teaching).
Nor do most women end up wanting to spend their lives working full-time. At my school, there are no married women with children who work full-time. They are all part-timers.
The important thing for young men is to hold their nerve. They might be temporarily outcompeted when in their 20s, but if they commit to a job and keep at it, chances are that they will eventually move ahead when their female peers start to downscale their career commitments.
And it's clear that men are still needed by women. I have yet to see any evidence that modern women find emasculated men romantically attractive. Social dysfunction and poverty are much higher in fatherless families. Middle-class women, in particular, are still reluctant to embark on motherhood without the support of a husband.
What all this means is that the men who refuse to become demoralised are likely to find themselves a much sought after commodity.