Hanna Rosin’s Article the End of Men

The End of Men

Hanna Rosin’s article “The End of Men” was published in The Atlantic in July/August in 2010. As the title suggests, Rosin’s article questions whether women are equal to men, or even outmatching them. Through various facts to support this statement, Rosin creates a debate about the subject in a rather provocative, yet humorous manner. In order to convey her points, Rosin has interviewed a retired biologist named Ronald Ericsson, to whom she refers throughout the article. Rosin’s own opinions do, mostly, not come to light in this article, since she tries to remain unbiased - however, she does not fully succeed in doing so. Her purpose of this article is to create a debate on the subject and the consequences that could follow.  

Hanna Rosin commences her article by creating an appealing atmosphere around the subject. Rosin does this to catch the reader’s interest, and accentuate the pivot of the debate in this article. Rosin makes use of critical, yet intriguing questions which allow the reader to participate in the discussion. Furthermore, Rosin makes some rather bold claims that could perhaps be considered somewhat controversial or provocative. As a result of this, Rosin succeeds well in presenting the pivot of the debate in an intriguing and provocative manner which catches the reader’s interest. Rosin’s method of engaging the reader is consistent throughout the article, as she asks thought-provoking questions multiple times; “Why wouldn’t you choose a girl?” and “What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men?”. Rosin’s method of creating thought-provoking questions engages the reader in the article, thus making them participate in the debate. This is a linguistic feature often used in articles in an attempt to achieve what Rosin achieves well in “The End of Men”.

Rosin’s way of provoking a discussion is significant for this article. Rosin pivots her article around an old biologist, Ronald Ericsson, that she continuously refers to throughout the article. Ericsson was the first in the world to introduce a method for predetermining the sex of the child. Since Ericsson is not a typical lab-coat scientist, but - as described by Rosin - a cowboy who “wore cowboy boots and a cowboy hat, and doled out his version of cowboy poetry”, he is Rosin’s debate-provoking point of view in this article. As a result of Rosin’s attempt to remain unbiased on the matter, she makes use of Ericsson’s opinions to create a debate; “Did male dominance exist? Of course it existed. But it seems to be gone now. And the era of the firstborn son is totally gone now”. Therefore, through Ericsson’s point of view, Rosin accentuates that the preference for firstborn sons has perhaps reversed. Rosin’s ability to make Ericsson the main person of focus in this article also ensures that Rosin cannot be held responsible for some of the rather provocative claims made in this article. Thus, Rosin is merely creating a debate through Ericsson’s opinions, and does not actually partake in it herself - mostly, that is. Rosin’s use of Ericsson can be considered a use of ethos. Ethos is the rhetorical appeal that appeals to the authority or credibility of the writer. Since Ericsson is a well-known biologist with a great amount of experience in this field, he could perhaps be considered an expert source, however many of his claims could be considered just that - claims without evidence.