I recently ran across a lengthy article in the Winter 2008 issue of City Journal that was titled “Child-Man in the Promised Land” (and subtitled “Today’s single young men hang out in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood”). It’s written by Kay S. Hymowitz, and I must say it was an interesting (in an odd sort of way) read.
In a nutshell, it’s a woman taking exception with the way that guys have changed over the last four decades. Let’s look at her “before” and “after” descriptions.
Here is how Ms. Hymowitz describes the good old days:
“It’s 1965 and you’re a 26-year-old white guy. You have a factory job, or maybe you work for an insurance broker. You’re married, probably have been for a few years now; you met your wife in high school, where she was in your sister’s class. You’ve already got one kid, with another on the way. For now, you’re renting an apartment in your parents’ two-family house, but you’re saving up for a three-bedroom ranch house in the next town. Yup, you’re an adult!”
That was then. And this is now:
“Now meet the twenty-first-century you, also 26. You’ve finished college and work in a large Chicago financial-services firm. You live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face - and then it’s off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes. They come from everywhere: California, Tokyo, Alaska, Australia. Wife? Kids? House? Are you kidding?”
And apparently women are displeased with that progression. Imagine that!
They’re not sure what to call this “new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance”, but “legions of frustrated young women” have decided that…
“The limbo doesn’t bring out
the best in young men”
The article bemoans that state of affairs at great length (4577 words, to be exact), but you get the general idea: we’ve evolved and they don’t like it.
But surely they can’t be that naïve? What did they expect???
After all, look how much women have changed in 40 years. So of course we’re going to change to take into account those new realities … duh!
As it turns out, the article at one point does become introspective and in that process it betrays a partial understanding of what’s going on:
“How did this perverse creature come to be? The most prevalent theory comes from feminist-influenced academics and cultural critics, who [see this as] symptoms of backlash, a masculinity crisis. Men feel threatened by female empowerment, these thinkers argue, and in their anxiety, they cling to outdated roles.”
A backlash? That’s a loaded word (used to put down someone who does not respond they way you wanted him to respond).
And we cling to “outdated roles”??? The whole article castigates men for exactly the opposite: we’re fleeing those old outdated roles!
But the male cultural evolution over the past four decades is in large part a response to the changing gender-relations environment which feminists have engineered during that same time frame. This is true.
It’s a package deal, because everything in life is interconnected. Change one thing and everything else will change in response.
That’s a very elementary concept
If women wanted us to stay the same as we were 40 years earlier, then they would have had to stay the same as they were 40 years earlier. Want radical feminism and a politically correct country?
Then you also end up with single young men hanging out in “a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood”.
Do men feel “threatened
by female empowerment”?
Or is it that they recognize a lousy deal with rapidly diminishing returns when they see one … and then vote with their feet?
I’m guessing it’s the latter.
If marriage to and settling down with “today’s empowered woman” was an attractive option, then men wouldn’t be opting for “Plan B” in droves.
We live in a world in which the “exchange” concept is the core arrangement: if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.
It’s a two-way street. So, ladies, you want what you want? Then what’s in it for us?
Most women I’ve met don’t like that concept
They prefer the “entitlement” concept, where they get what they want and they don’t have to do anything in return. It’s the same sort of relationship that young children have with Santa Claus: he gives and they receive.
There’s also a scientific term to describe that sort of arrangement: “parasitic”.
It seems that the real problem is that guys are finally starting to wise up: perhaps it’s better to be the star of our own life rather than being a bit player in someone else’s?
If the old deal (described at the top of the page) was a good deal today, we would still be taking it.
But it isn’t … and therefore we’re not.
Stay tuned,
-Mack Doppler
