But why? Typically, feminists like Rosin attribute the changes to larger impersonal forces, forces that are impossible to resist. They argue that there's something about the modern economy that favours women; the onward march of capitalism is what is putting men out of college and out of work.
What feminists like Rosin fail to acknowledge is that if men's position at work and at university is declining it is due in no small part to the rigging of the system by feminists like herself. Wherever men seem to dominate it is considered intolerable and steps are taken to reverse the situation. But if women seem to have an advantage it is ignored. If this strategy is played out for long enough, then of course the position of men at work and in education will decline over time.
And here is a classic example. Early this month the Gillard Government placed a bill before parliament which will force any company seeking government contracts or financial assistance to meet promotion targets for women:
COMPANIES that get taxpayer-funded assistance or win government contracts will in future have to meet promotion targets for women.
The Federal Government's Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 will force companies to promote women to management positions and provide them with equal opportunities.
The plan has been rejected by employer groups but welcomed by work-life balance advocates who want companies to be forced to set equality targets and meet them.
Note the odd language: the bill forces companies to promote women to management positions and this is justified as equality of opportunity. Clearly it is not equal opportunity, in which the best applicant wins out, but a rigging of the system to make sure that a female applicant is promoted.
Note too that the bill is not being demanded by the capitalists. Employer groups are worried that companies which either don't need or are unable to afford to create new management positions will thereby miss out on government contracts and assistance (presumably such companies will be under pressure to sack existing male employees).
But the major point is this. According to Rosin the problem is that men can't compete with women in a modern economy. But the truth is very different - the truth is that men can compete and that the state is therefore stepping in to alter the gender balance.
Finally, I'd like to encourage men not to be thrown by such developments. It can be demoralising when you're a young man starting out and you realise that the system is acting against you and that your female peers are all revved up in a career sprint that leaves you behind.
It can be difficult, too, to get motivated when middle class women seem to be delaying family formation for so long and focusing in their 20s on career and casual relationships and a single girl lifestyle.
But men who persevere are still likely to do well in the long run. Younger men can let me know if they think I'm wrong, but from what I've observed of the younger women I know it's typical for middle class women in their early 20s to suggest that they might not ever want to have children; by their mid 20s they are still uncertain but starting to waver; and by their late 20s many have shifted to positively wanting children.
From their late 20s and through their 30s a lot of women will scale down their career commitments. It can be relatively straightforward at this time for a man to push ahead and do well in his career. The statistics show that by their 40s men are generally doing better in the workplace than women - something that not even Hanna Rosin denies.