????如今，許多黑人女性似乎都很難找到一位合適的伴侶。羅森認為，類似于亞歷山大市的經濟困局也將導致接受過高等教育的白人女性出現類似的趨勢，她們或許“會與黑人女性一道，形成一種新型的中產階級，結婚正逐漸成為一件稀罕事?！?/p>

????羅森的理論并不牽強。畢業(yè)于大學的女性多于男性。有關方面列舉了30個有望成為未來10年最具就業(yè)前景的專業(yè)領域，女性在其中20個領域的就業(yè)人數占據了壓倒性優(yōu)勢。男性（特別是在類似于亞歷山大市這樣的地方）卡在了就業(yè)方式的舊有格局及其未來發(fā)展趨勢之間?！艾F代經濟正逐漸變?yōu)橐粋€女性制定規(guī)則，男性緊緊追趕的場所，”她這樣寫道。

????非常令人遺憾的是，羅森并沒有使用整本書的篇幅來研究類似于亞歷山大市這樣的地方。在這些城市，“男性的終結”似乎正在成為一個切切實實，令人不安的現象。在每個篇章中，她對場景及其采訪對象的描述似乎跟用于實質性內容的著墨一樣多。這本書讀起來令人愉悅，但無論筆觸多么動人，她的整體描述并不令人信服。

????比如，羅森在書中提到瑪麗莎?梅耶爾時，說她是“谷歌公司（Google）職位最高的女性”。但其實并非如此。任職谷歌公司期間，梅耶爾確實是曝光度最高的女性高管【她現在是雅虎公司（Yahoo）掌門人】，但谷歌公司高級副總裁蘇珊?沃西基的職位排名始終比她高。雖然這是一個小失誤，但沃西基的職位是眾所周知的，羅森無意間犯下的這個錯誤使我不由得對書中許多總括性的陳述產生了質疑。

????此外，羅森還指出，在與科學和工程相關的研究領域，年齡在25歲至39歲的女性多于同一年齡段的男性。雖然這個陳述本身沒錯，但讀者覺得她是在有意操縱這些數據，以進一步佐證她的整體論點：受過更好教育的女性正在促使勞動力群體的女性化?，F實情況是，大學畢業(yè)后，女性在醫(yī)學、法律和商業(yè)領域表現得非常優(yōu)異。但在科學、技術、工程和數學等領域，女性的優(yōu)勢就沒有那么明顯了。

????另一項值得商榷的觀點是：“也許我們正在接近這樣的時刻：男性不再追憶過去，不再為所有的‘真男人’已經死了感到煩惱，而是任由自己被一種全新文化重新塑造，盡管其方式或許不那么令人舒適?！蔽蚁蛞晃缓糜牙首x了這段話的內容——我們倆都23歲，剛剛在喬治城大學（Georgetown University）度過了4年時光，其間就生活在羅森所說的那些將在一個女性世界中展現“靈活性”的新一代男性中間。我的朋友笑出聲來，他說：“但愿這是真的，然現實并非如此。”

????羅森似乎更擅長人物特寫，而不擅長宏大敘事。相較于每個章節(jié)包含的動人的個人故事，她對宏大性別議題的描繪似乎要遜色得多，關于種族、社會經濟、宗教和代際轉移等方面的陳述往往給人淺嘗輒止之感，這也使得羅森的“男性過時論”很難讓男性讀者接受。與那些探討探討女性暴力和單身母親現象（為了量入為出，這些婦女不得不長時間工作）增長的文字比較起來，書中對大學校園“逢場作戲”文化、視婚姻為奢飾品的現象，以及富有權勢的女性高管（特別是硅谷中的女性高管）的分析就顯得非常瑣碎。

????羅森在書中為韓國單獨設置了一個篇章，試圖以此說明全球經濟正變得越來越“依賴女性的成功，盡管這個進程受到了韓國本土大男子文化的阻撓?！边@個章節(jié)雖然讀起來挺有趣，但卻讓人覺得有些格格不入——特別是當它出現在本書結論之前的時候。羅森是否在暗示，在任何地方，無論其制度、宗教文化、家庭結構和經濟地位有多么不同，男人的霉運都已經注定了。就如同凌晨3點鐘飲下的美酒一般，這段針對亞洲女性的短暫陳述非常引人入勝，但或許會讓讀者感到頭暈目眩，百思不得其解。

????女性新發(fā)現的經濟自由是一條引線，防止本書一眾隨機性的描述對象墜入截然不同的方向，但這條引線還沒有達到足夠強大的程度，足以支持羅森就美國男性、女性和婚姻的未來發(fā)表的那些總括性結論。

????毫無疑問，美國夢現在已經改頭換面——被涂染了一層睫毛膏。但羅森撰寫的這部著作并沒有表明，女性在受教育程度方面的主宰性優(yōu)勢和經濟獨立性意味著男子氣概的滅亡。接受羅森采訪的耶魯大學（Yale）校友克萊爾?戈登認為，接受過高等教育的女性“需要花點時間仔細想想她們究竟想要什么，以及如何提出這些要求等問題?！泵鎸α钊苏痼@的經濟和文化變革，所有的男士或許也應該這么做。

????譯者：任文科

????Today, many black women seem to have trouble finding a suitable man. Rosin believes economic woes in cities like Alexander City will cause a similar trend among college-educated white women, who may "join their black counterparts in a new kind of middle class, where marriage is increasingly rare."

????Rosin's theory isn't far-fetched. Women graduate from college in larger numbers than men. They dominate 20 of the 30 professions projected to add the most jobs in the next 10 years. And men, especially in places like Alexander City, are stuck between the way things were and the way things are progressively moving. "The modern economy is becoming a place where women are making the rules and men are playing catch up," she writes.

????It's a shame Rosin doesn't dedicate the entire book to studying places like Alexander City, where "the end of men" seems to be a real and troubling phenomenon. She pays as much attention to the descriptions of setting and her interviewees as she does to the factual meat of each chapter. The book is an enjoyable read, but her entire portrait, no matter how beautifully painted, is unconvincing.

????At one point, Rosin refers to Marissa Mayer as the "highest-ranking woman at Google." That's not true. Mayer was certainly the most visible female Googler (GOOG) during her tenure at the firm (she now runs Yahoo (YHOO)), but senior VP Susan Wojcicki always ranked higher. Though a minor point, Wojcicki's position is well known, and Rosin's careless error made me question the reporting behind many of her sweeping statements.

????Rosin also notes that women aged 25-39 are crowding out men in fields of study related to science and engineering. While that's true, the numbers feel manipulated to further her overall thesis that better-educated women are feminizing the workforce. The reality is that women are doing well after graduation in medicine, law, and business. But science, technology, engineering, and math? Not so much.

????Another pause-worthy moment: "Maybe we are approaching the moment when men stop looking back, fretting that all the 'real men' are dead, and allow themselves to be molded by the culture in new if uncomfortable ways." I read that passage to a friend -- we're both 23 and spent the past four years at Georgetown University with the new generation of men Rosin believes will be 'flexible' in a women's world. My friend laughed out loud. "Wish that were true -- but yeah right."

????Rosin is better at close-ups than landscapes. Her attempt to cover gender at large -- with fleeting focus on race, socioeconomics, religion, and generational shifts -- detracts from the fascinating personal stories each chapter contains, and also makes Rosin's argument about the obsolescence of men hard to follow. Analyses of the college hook-up culture, marriage as a luxury good, and powerful women executives (particularly those in Silicon Valley) feel trivial next to those that discuss a rise in female violence and single mothers working long hours to make ends meet.

????A sole chapter about South Korea, representing a global economy becoming "dependent on women's success … despite resistance from local versions of macho culture," is interesting but feels out of place -- especially as it comes just before the book's conclusion. Is Rosin suggesting that men are doomed everywhere, regardless of varying regimes, religious cultures, familial structures, and economic statuses? Like a 3 a.m. nightcap, this brief excursion on Asian women is tasty but will probably leave readers dizzy and confused.

????Women's newfound economic freedom is the thread that keeps the slew of random subjects from falling in very different directions, but that thread isn't strong enough to support Rosin's sweeping conclusions about the future of men, women, and marriage in America.

????No doubt the American Dream has gotten a makeover -- with an extra coat of mascara. But Rosin doesn't demonstrate that women's educational dominance and financial independence spells the death of manhood. Claire Gordon, a Yale alumna whom Rosin interviewed, believes that college women "need a little time, to figure out what they want and how to ask for it." Amid shocking economic and cultural change, maybe that's all the guys need, too.