The Sorry Lives and Confusing Times of Today's Young Men

[dsheinem]

I would be interested in hearing the complaints/arguments that you hear from your students. What are the counter-arguments from your students?

I am having them read this specific article in a few weeks and so can report back, perhaps. If I had to guess, I'd say that they think that a lot of contemporary gender issues are grounded in a combination of media influence and upbringing/socialization (both are points the author makes and neither is very surprising), but we haven't talked specifically about this article yet, so it should be interesting to see what they say. I have seen that a lot of the complaints about men by women and about women by men boil down to "insensitivity," "ignorance," and "selfishness," and I think a lot of the behavior identified in the article are just the modern instantiations (in men) of those long-running complaints. Some of what is interesting to me is A) what specifically is seen to be "ignorant, insensitive, or selfish" amongst this demographic today, B) who is complaining about those behaviors and why, and C) what, if anything, do people interested in healing rifts between the sexes think can or should be done about it?

[prfsnl_gmr]

I read the article, and I think that it is yet another take on the centuries-old "problem of the eligible bachelor." Here is a short article that explains the problem, its persistence, and perhaps why articles like this are written by - and contain copious quotations from - women:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2008/04/the_eligiblebachelor_paradox.html

In any event, young men today are not biologically different from their forefathers, and I do not think that it the proportion of "lazy" or "undesirable" men has increased over the last fifty years. While we can certainly debate the causes of unemployment among young men, I personally do not think that "video games" or "general generation-wide refusal to grow up" are the causes.

[Key-Glyph]

First off, I find it interesting that I had not assumed this article was written by a woman while I was reading it. It's not that I expect male writers to have trouble understanding a female's perspective; it's just that I was less likely to anticipate a woman, who has presumably occupied the same world as me and done so under similar circumstances to my own, to so misrepresent my worldview.

The author's blanket statements are so firmly entrenched in the idea that traditional gender roles are the only way for society to function that I'm surprised she's interpreted as "feminist." Assertions like "Young men [enjoy] a long, long stretch of sowing wild oats—while young women tap their feet impatiently" and "The more that women try to set an example of responsible adult behavior, the more the guys shout... 'We’re full-grown men but we act like kids!'" are the result of exactly the sort of inflexible binary thinking that 1) dismisses nontraditional lifestyles as bizarre and inferior, and 2) which also underpins the whole fabricated perception that men and women are engaged in an oppositional rivalry that yields but one winner.

We should not be thinking in these terms anymore. I'm not saying that it's not statistically convenient or interesting to examine different behavioral patterns by the categories of biological sex; I'm just saying that when the rhetoric is stoked with the preconception that men and women are fundamental opposites with motivations totally alien to one another, well... when that message is internalized, it's precisely the attitude that gives rise to the sort of BS the author believes in concrete fact: "If boys see girls behaving in a certain way—working hard and excelling in school—they define masculinity in opposite terms: A real man doesn’t work hard at school or get good grades."

I find it very difficult to believe that any intelligent man looks at women's scholastic achievements and says, "No WAY am I going to get good grades now that this stuff's for GIRLS!" Talk about insulting to all parties involved in this discussion.

Also, I do not understand the fixation with marriage (and home-ownership) as the benchmark of success. Marriage and offspring do not a mature person make. There are far too many abusive and/or distant spouses and parents in existence for us to kid ourselves into believing otherwise.

[MrPopo]

I read the article, and I think that it is yet another take on the centuries-old "problem of the eligible bachelor." Here is a short article that explains the problem, its persistence, and perhaps why articles like this are written by - and contain copious quotations from - women:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2008/04/the_eligiblebachelor_paradox.html

I'm always a fan of game theory; that article was a good read.

[o.pwuaioc]

I think the major problem here is that the journalist is in no way able to competently judge the causes of some of these real problems. She's ignorant not only of basic biology, but also psychology, sociology, and history. You know who else spent most of their time away from women, pursuing pleasures, both carnal and of entertainment, without their "significant other"? The ancient Greeks and Romans. This woman has done something that too many people do: they construct an imaginary "golden age" when life was perfect, but has now fallen and will continue to fall until we all perish. Sound familiar? It was a trope common to peoples as far back as the ancient Sumerians. Life changes, yes, but you need much more research and nuance than "omg porn! video games! halp!!!" to both understand the changes and also come up with a sensible plan for directing our society in the right direction.

Honestly, if you think this woman has a point at all, you should start with "the first shot in the culture wars", i.e. Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's much more piercing and as a professor since the 50s, was much more qualified in writing the book than this woman a hacked up article. I'm not sure why we should care to hear the opinions of someone so uninformed when much better already exists?

[J T]

I'm the type of person that doesn't believe growing up means you can't have fun anymore. I have a bachelors degree, a masters degree, and I almost have a PhD (I actually have a defended dissertation, just waiting on internship to specialize the degree). So, I meet some of those old fashioned criteria for "success". And while I've worked hard to get a good education, I got married, we bought a house, and we're trying to have children; that doesn't mean I've given up on everything I ever enjoyed when younger. I still play video games. I still act silly. I still do a lot of "childish" things. I just have the ability to also turn that off for a minute to sit in a meeting, or teach, or write a scientific paper.

In many ways, I would look like I fit the profile for this article. I didn't move out of my parents house until I was 24, I never stopped playing videogames, I didn't really bother much with relationships for a long time, I spent my money on music equipment, CDs, and gaming. But I worked 30 hour weeks while going through undergrad; I paid for my own education though I lived with my parents. Once I moved out, I never went back. My studying was so intense that I didn't have a lot of time for social actiivities beyond playing game and going to clubs; so I didn't develop any serious relationships. I guess I just don't think that living with your parents and playing games is necessarily a bad thing if you're going somewhere with it or you are a help to your family. I think it's actually a little strange that we place so much importance on independence. Why should your goal be to live on your own? That's kind of lonely. I believe you can't be lazy or not contribute, but there's no need to demonize people that actually care for their families.

[Menegrothx]

Also, I do not understand the fixation with marriage (and home-ownership) as the benchmark of success. Marriage and offspring do not a mature person make.

Its not about maturing, its about keeping the economy rolling.

Like I said, the world has changed a lot in the past few decades. More women are competing for the same jobs as men, it takes a longer time to get an education and there arent much good jobs left where you dont need an education, there are a lot less long term jobs around, many people have to re-educate themselves etc. It just isnt financially rational to get married, buy a house and get kids while you are sitll paying your student debt and looking for a job. That doesnt mean that these people wont get married etc later on in their lives when its more rational in an economic point of view. As a result of increasing education requirements and changes in economy, it is more rare these days to be financially ready for home-ownership and kids at the age of 25 than it was 20, 40 or 60 years ago.

Also there is the fact that especially in the United States there isnt much of a reason for a man to get married. Why bother with it? If a woman really loves you and isnt after your money, what difference does it make whether you are married or not?
And there is also the fact that living alone, not getting married etc lifestyle choices are more socially acceptable these days.

I also hate the downright irresponsible notion that having kids is the last benchmark in adulthood. Thats really what this overpopulated world really needs, more people getting kids just because they feel obligated to do so. You dont need to care about your kids, be able to take care of your kids or have the resources needed to raise a child, you just need to make some god damn babies if you wanna be a REAL MAN! The government will take care of the rest. Its your kids problem if they are born into a world where they have to fight for resources if they want to stay alive, not yours. Survival of the fittest is what mankind needs! Thats why people in many third world countries are so happy.
There are people who are unfit to be parents, there are people who dont have the money and time needed to be a parent, there are people who dont want to be parents and so on. The children are our future, so its our responsibility to make sure that our future doesnt end up being like the one in the movie ”Idiocracy”.
Japan seems to be the only developed, rich country that is voluntarily doing something about the problem with out one child policy or forced sterilization, and now people are starting to think that they are the one with the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=116w5U3QnbA
That video reminds me of OPs article in a few ways. Overall they both come across as conservative and judgemental- we dont live like in the 1950s anymore and that needs to change.

The author's blanket statements are so firmly entrenched in the idea that traditional gender roles are the only way for society to function that I'm surprised she's interpreted as "feminist."

If educated, working women are having trouble finding educated, working men of their age to start a family with, why cant they have stay home dads instead of stay home moms? If we are truly gender neutral these days, that shouldnt be a problem (besides breastfeeding of course).

[dsheinem]

I think the major problem here is that the journalist is in no way able to competently judge the causes of some of these real problems. She's ignorant not only of basic biology, but also psychology, sociology, and history.

This article, as full of traditional views about gender roles as it is, is primarily an article meant to report what some people (especially the women and experts she interviewed) think about the men who fit this profile. I'd venture that many of those interviewed are also ignorant of the basic biology, history, etc. that you allude to...but they operate under these beliefs nonetheless. Disregarding their views as uneducated and therefore worthless ignores the fact that those beliefs persist and have material consequences for contemporary relationships. I was sort of glad to see someone synthesize a lot of stereotyping, selected stats, and choice interviews into an essay that captures a very real sentiment that's out there. The essay provides an outline of a view that may be largely baseless or misinformed, but nonetheless plays a significant role in contemporary life.

Honestly, if you think this woman has a point at all, you should start with "the first shot in the culture wars", i.e. Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's much more piercing and as a professor since the 50s, was much more qualified in writing the book than this woman a hacked up article. I'm not sure why we should care to hear the opinions of someone so uninformed when much better already exists?

I'm familiar with Bloom's book and there's obviously a ton of better and more nuanced scholarship out there on the issues raised by the author (hell, she even cites some of it in her essay), but I've found in the past that people on the forum are much more likely to read an article written for a popular audience than they are to read a scholarly article. I'd love to think we could read a book or a series of books on a topic and discuss, but that's a bit untenable I believe.

As I said before, the stuff about gaming in particular is an ongoing stereotype that's "out there" about "life long gamers," and I thought it would be interesting to see what people make of that, if people have encountered it, if there's a need to combat it, etc.

[gtmtnbiker]

If educated, working women are having trouble finding educated, working men of their age to start a family with, why cant they have stay home dads instead of stay home moms? If we are truly gender neutral these days, that shouldnt be a problem (besides breastfeeding of course).

Stay-at-home dads are definitely more common than they used to be. In my circle of friends, I know 3. Two are married to investment bankers and one is married to a general manager. In their situations, they wanted someone to stay home with the kids and the wives had the better paying jobs.

Being a stay-at-home parent is tough on the career It's harder to resume your career after putting it on hiatus for a long time. My wife is in this position now.

[puke_face]

Harper says, is performative: Young men are simply following a script, doing what they think they’re supposed to.

I personally feel like it's not just today's young men that do this. In the past, men have all done this to some extent. The article keeps referencing the difference between the amount of men that went to school, got married and had kids in the 1960's as compared to much lower percentage today. Would that not fall into the same sort of "script" she is talking about? It was what they thought they should be doing back then. Like MrPopo said, the men of older generations got into things other than video games. They had sports, cars, etc.

I think a lot of the laws in today's society affect men's decision to get married. If the marriage doesn't last, unless you have a prenuptial agreement, you will be getting all possessions split down the middle. You also have child support, and alimony, which are things people really didn't have to worry about so much back in the 1960's. Those laws did exist so some extent, but they weren't as heavily enforced as they are today.