
How the rise of women turned men into boys - bound008
http://wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html?1=1,1+1&1=1,1#printMode
======
tokenadult
I asked about this article elsewhere in cyberspace, and several of my married
women friends upvoted a comment, "The good men are where they have always
been, far away from self-absorbed women like her."

~~~
hollerith
Good point. All this article tells me is that many priviledged women who live
in New York City and write for prestigious publications are having trouble
finding men who meet their exacting standards.

------
noonespecial
In some ways, I can't help but feel we've created this with our current
economic and political climate (and not especially by some "rise of women").

I can tell you for certain that with my own children, when you tell them that
they have an important roll to play, they instantly rise to it and never fail
to impress me. When they are told that they are not important, they just go
and play xbox.

We tell our twenty-somethings that they really don't have an important roll in
our society and they agree... and go play xbox.

------
dkarl
_the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude,
stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing_

I am far from a Biebersexual, but when I read something like this, that's who
I side with. Woman want to see certain things, but men can't honestly
advertise them. You can't prove your ability to withstand hardship without,
you know, _actually experiencing some hardship_. When a woman looks at a man
and visually measures his "fortitude," all she sees is how impressed he is
with himself. It's hard to feel impressed with yourself when you've never gone
hungry, never even had to sleep on a friend's couch, and never had anyone
close to you die. In this privileged life, the men who advertise the ability
to withstand and endure are almost all posers, and the women who eat it up are
willing suckers. I'm not going to pose for anyone. Hang around until a
challenge comes my way, and you'll see how I handle it. Manufacture a
challenge for me, and I'm going to raise an eyebrow and ignore you.

Now, a second point. There's a lot of cognitive clean-up everyone needs to do
to accommodate the advances of feminism, and it's taking a few generations.
Women complaining about the lack of real men are suffering cognitive
dissonance from an incomplete assimilation of feminism. Take me, a male who
measures up pretty well by most of the standards of the article. I watch
grown-up movies and don't play video games. I play a sport. (Wait -- is that
good or bad?) I don't smoke pot. I have a corporate job where I fit into a
hierarchy and make good money. That's all fine, but I bet I'm not a "man" by
the author's definition. Why? Because I don't cultivate that authoritative "I
know everything and have everything under control" presence. That's the
missing element of "manhood" I refuse to take up. _They are more like the kids
we babysat than the dads who drove us home,_ she says. Nice choice she
presents us with. Did patriarchy come back in fashion when I wasn't looking? I
refuse to pretend I'm anyone's dad. I won't talk down to people. I don't have
all the answers.

Do women really like guys who control everything and think they know
everything? No. Yet some women want men to _act_ that way. They are programmed
to find that macho arrogance comforting, and they refuse to deprogram
themselves. They want to feel that reassuring and directing masculine
presence, right up to the moment when there's a disagreement, and then they
want to deal with him as an equal. I won't accommodate that immaturity; I
refuse to impose that cognitive whiplash on myself. I don't have all the
answers. You run your life, not me. I won't let you treat me like an autopilot
that you turn on when you want to be possessed by a manly man and then turn
off again when you want control back. (Except in bed. Anything is fine in bed
or on the way to it. I'll be John Wayne or Justin Bieber or Marv Albert or
Daffy Duck in bed.)

I'd say the men who are showing fortitude right now are the ones who are
enduring unemployment without letting it crush their spirits, but this author
probably thinks they are slacker guy-children who show an irresponsible lack
of concern for their failure to win bread. They should stop acting cheerful
and optimistic; instead, they should watch Humphrey Bogart and Steve McQueen
movies and practice their rugged, haunted, stoic looks. It may have as much to
do with real manliness as a bag of silicone has to do with breast tissue, but
that's what this author wants. That's how she can tell the difference between
an unemployed "man" who is manfully enduring hard times and an unemployed
"guy" who is goofily refusing to grow up.

------
entangld
Writer was heavy handed when it came to criticizing "guys." Our society is in
a transition, just like our economy is. There are hundreds of undertrained and
unemployed who don't seem to have a use in our economy. Same goes for guys.
They've broken stereotypes now and they wonder why guys aren't falling in
line.

------
noahth
Gotta wonder if this is an "adaptation" in the same sense as the "tiger mom"
piece.

------
CapitalistCartr
Like most aspects of our country, us Americans re-invented our culture after
WW II, then changed a lot through the 60s-70s. We tend to be quick to change
whatever isn't working for us.

The nuclear family is largely a post-war invention. The modern schooling style
is largely a post-60s invention. I think there are aspects of our choices that
are mistakes, like any new system. Older cultures, like older software, has
been tested by time more. But overall, I'd rather live in our more fluid way.

------
steveklabnik
> Kay S. Hymowitz argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new
> kind of extended adolescence.

And other people say it's not just men, it's everyone:

> JEFFREY JENSEN ARNETT, a psychology professor at Clark University in
> Worcester, Mass., is leading the movement to view the 20s as a distinct life
> stage, which he calls “emerging adulthood.” -
> [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html)

~~~
entangld
That article smacked a little bit of bitterness. It seemed to argue guys are
enjoying themselves too much instead of debating the benefits of a stable
family unit.

~~~
steveklabnik
The original article? I totally agree. It's insanely condescending, projects
its own image of adulthood onto everyone, and is borderline sexist...

------
lhnz
This article doesn't really explain how women rising has turned any men into
boys...

------
prodigal_erik
See also <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239323> from a few days ago.

------
fletchowns
I think a big part of it is that most people these days aren't rushing to
start a family right after college, and instead focus on their careers.

------
ddkrone
Complete nonsense. Flagged.

