"Why Men Fail" - Overview

David Brook's article, "Why Men Fail", creates an argument that generally states that females are doing more successfully, not because the abilities of men are declining, but because females are adapting with current societal context.  Because women are able to adapt, they have lost the feminist quality, whereas males still possess the masculine, 'dominant male' traits; which limit their potential as a part of the human race.   Brook uses much logos, mainly statistics of male versus female school results and involvement in the workforce.  He states that three quarters of males earn D's and F's in elementary school and high school; along with only 40 percent of them recieving bachelor's or master's degrees.  Due to the failing performance of males, the employment rate from males between 25 and 54 had dropped from 96 percent to 80 percent.  Though it is stated that men are still at the top of the 'corporate ladder', women still dominate twelve out of 15 of the fastest growing jobs.  There are many tasks in modern society that men must adhere to, such as being sensitive and paying close attention, but they are not culturally and genetically capable of accomplishing such tasks as fluently as females do.  Ethos plays a large part as well, because he claims many sources such as Michael Greenstone of the Hamilton Project who concluded that over 40 years the median income for prime-age males had dropped by 28 percent.  He also uses more credible sources such as Hanna Rosin and her book, "The End of Men", and the National Federation of Independent Business.  Brook uses pathos in a form that is subtle but effective.  The entire article carries on with pathos, but does not contain any specificities.  The article may make a male more self-conscious of the decline of his kind, while females may find it appealing to know that because they have adapted well and became the "clean slate" in today's  society, they are more prone to be introduced to opportunities.