Jason! ([info]jason0x21) wrote,
@ 2008-01-30 15:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
After all these years...
Some women still figure it's ok to blame all their unhappiness on men.

I think what bugs me the most about this is that there's an implication that settling down, marrying, and spawning is still the thing that must be done and that men (and she makes no bones about saying this is a problem with all men) are only delaying the inevitable wife, child and mortgage. That future is something that these men need to accept in order to be mature and grow up.

What. The. Fuck.

Seriously? I fail to see the problem with her "man-child". Her whole argument rests on the assumption that what they are, right now isn't good enough. Who is she to say that? Good enough for whom? If she's frustrated with the class of guys she meets (which seems to be the whole thrust of this article. I mean, really, complaining about sports, beer, and fart jokes is so... antique! Her only nod to these modern times is video games), then, well, SUCKS TO BE HER. The guys she describes seem to be fine, they're not trying to be anyone else, and apparently enough women think that's just fine that these "man-children" don't seem to lack for female companionship (although those women are in the minority, and she stops just short of denigrating them).

Looking around, I see plenty of people hooking up and having kids, so I don't believe that there's a gross shortage of men interested in her official future, but I also don't believe that that's the future men (and women) must accept in order to become adults. That's an imaginary 1950's way of thinking, and it shows the real message in her thesis: It's not ok to be single. It's not ok to be queer. It's not ok to be childless. It's not ok to rent. It's not ok to watch sports, laugh at fart jokes, and enjoy explosions. It's not ok to live together without being married. It's especially not ok for women to be in any of these camps. The men, poor sods that they are, would wallow pig-like, in adolescent filth for all eternity if it wasn't for us. Conform. Conform. Conform.

And it's that message that's sadder than any airbrushed Maxim cover.

You've come a long way, baby.

PS: There's a very real concern of mine about these mythical "man-children" in the workplace. If, indeed, this genus of men really does exist, they'll have a profound inability to relate to women in a professional manner. This isn't a _new_ problem, per se, it's just a different twist on the same old problem that some men apparently have treating women like people. However, I'm surprised that her article doesn't mention it at all. Well, ok, not really.



(Post a new comment)


[info]jay
2008-01-30 08:34 pm UTC (link)

He/She lost me with "adulthood's milestones".

And well... her track record.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jason0x21
2008-01-30 09:43 pm UTC (link)
Anyone that lists "culture wars" as an area of research needs a serious over the head wedgie.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jay
2008-01-30 09:46 pm UTC (link)
werd

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]meep
2008-01-30 09:05 pm UTC (link)
I don't see what the problem is with 20-yr-old guys farting around. It's not like they've got the biological sell-by date that women have.

Guys "sowing their wild oats" has been an old stand-by in history for quite some time; it's only for short periods of American history that guys were expected to be married soon after achieving chronological adulthood. A guy can wait until his 40s to pick up some PYT to settle down with....

Seriously, this woman seems to know about this "phenomenon" only through stats and mostly fiction. She's married and has kids herself, and from her pic I would guess she's in her 40s at least. It doesn't sound like she's complaining about her own dating prospects.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]theevilhalf
2008-01-30 11:34 pm UTC (link)
A guy can wait until his 40s to pick up some PYT to settle down with....

Hey! I wasn't forty yet just damned close.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kaligrrrl
2008-01-31 06:25 am UTC (link)
"it's only for short periods of American history that guys were expected to be married soon after achieving chronological adulthood."

bing-bing-bing!

the '50s in particular is a bad decade to hold up as the exemplar of "how it used to be" as it was anomoulous in almost every way from previous decades (and following)--median age of marriage, number of children and age of bearing, home ownership, single-income families, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nagsheadlocal
2008-01-30 09:10 pm UTC (link)
Sadly I've worked enough years and in enough places to know that there are a lot of women who can't deal with other women as people.

Anyone who's had to work with an over-aged sorority Sue will know what I'm talking about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]strontium90
2008-01-30 09:36 pm UTC (link)
I worked for an all-female nonprofit organization in California (the only actual employee and the only male) and do I ever know what you're talking about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jason0x21
2008-01-30 09:48 pm UTC (link)
We Demand Stories.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jason0x21
2008-01-30 09:37 pm UTC (link)
No doubt. One of my friends was askance at the fuss the women in H.R. were putting up at hiring back a woman who'd been there some years before (not even in the H.R. department! Somewhere completely different!). Apparently the H.R. women found this smart, competent, affable paralegal "annoying". Maybe because she was also pretty.

I told my friend to go striding into H.R. and say "sounds like someone's got the chicken coop in a ruffle." As long as H.R. were being sexist he might as well join in.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]strontium90
2008-01-30 09:38 pm UTC (link)
Just more "Peter Pan Complex" horseshit. Don't people get tired of this pap?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jason0x21
2008-01-30 09:40 pm UTC (link)
Not as long as there's money to be made off of indignation!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lauramander
2008-01-30 09:54 pm UTC (link)
Well, what does it take to make a woman in her mind? Dare i guess it might be motherhood? Well, sign me up for Brownie scouts, because I wants none of that grown-up business! Fuck a buncha that!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Sing it sister!
[info]sylvia_wrath
2008-01-31 01:58 am UTC (link)
It sounds like the hyper-achieving, new world order(TM) of women she describes are not having much fun (so who are these man-children hooking-up with?). In her (logic-free) world, it sucks to be a woman. I am glad that her world is not mine! Yaay, for grown-up children-folk!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kickaha
2008-01-30 10:20 pm UTC (link)
*laugh* Oh that's a good one, I always love it when they... er...

Wait.

That *WASN'T* an Onion article?!?

Wow.

(Reply to this)


[info]sarendipatree
2008-01-31 12:00 am UTC (link)
I have to agree that the only thing sadder than her conception of manhood is her conception of womanhood.

You know the world absolutely needs more babies. Clearly there aren't enough of us.

Personally I think the underlying problem is that consumerism makes us all ugly.

OTOH, my wife is sitting on the wife, playing Halo. Put that in your fancy article, Ms. Sociocultural Analysis with an ENGLISH MA lady.

(Reply to this)


[info]anne
2008-01-31 12:54 am UTC (link)
For some reason, I couldn't get worked up about this article. It just didn't bug me. Must be the case of mellow I've got going on. Or maybe it's because I know that women are delaying marriage as well. The age at first marriage is rising quickly for both women and men. Lahdeedoodillydah.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jason0x21
2008-01-31 01:17 am UTC (link)
Well, the fact that the article isn't really... I don't know... grounded in reality is probably a good reason to stay mellow. So it's just another nosy broad trying to stir up trouble?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]anne
2008-01-31 02:08 am UTC (link)
nosy broad

Well, when you put it like that...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]principaltogar
2008-01-31 01:27 am UTC (link)
Being a childless, VIZ-reading renter, I guess I don't fall within her definition of adulthood. Fine with me.

Despite the rude comments about my lack of chirren and mortgage, I have a clear advantage over guys: I make my choices and live with them without any legal or financial penalty.

Guys, however, get legally and financially screwed by this crazed notion that the grown-up world is made up solely of daddies busting their butts to take care of mommies and babies and mortgages. Women also bust their butts to take care of babies and mortgages, of course, but they started off with a choice. Men don't have a choice.

Enter Thomas Lynch and an elegantly simple idea for ending the battle of the sexes:

"But if the choice as to when one is ready, willing and able to parent is a good thing, wouldn't it be good for my sons as well? And if that choice may be exercised by women after conception, then shouldn't men have the same option: to proclaim, legally and unilaterally, the end of their interest in the tissue or fetus or baby or whatever it is that sex between a man and a woman sometimes produces?"
(New York Times, 2000, http://www.thomaslynch.com/nytimes-mansright.html )

Betcha Kay Hymowitz wouldn't approve of that at all. Where would the grown-ups come from if the guys couldn't be forced into parenthood?

(Reply to this)


[info]psychocosm
2008-01-31 01:36 am UTC (link)
I don't know, after trudging thru this article of bitterness and statistical guesswork, I think by her definition, I don't know any adults. At least not any happy ones.

First, if she's siting a 26 y/o male adult in 1965 as having a wife and kids and that # has dropped in the 21st century, my FIRST thought was that since homosexuality is now more readily accepted, a statistical number of them are no longer hiding in false marriages. That should up the number of single men nowadaze.

AND who exactly are those women that they're bedding and not marrying? They're out there in the bars, too. Independent women aren't feeling the tugging need of marriage security and family as a way to define themselves.

And what about men who are now in their 20s/30s? I imagine a high percentage of them are from divorced homes. Would the example of my parents shattered lives want me to rush into marriage? Better think on that one awhile, I'd say.

Personally, a man who is a child at-heart is much more appealing than a man who's shackled to a job and mortgage that he feels obligated to and oppressed by. But don't get me wrong, I would think twice about a man who's still living in his mother's basement.... :D

(Reply to this)


[info]arthane
2008-01-31 03:02 am UTC (link)
Bob save us from moral absolutists. *sigh*

(Reply to this)


[info]babbleon1
2008-01-31 02:57 pm UTC (link)
TROLL!!

I mean, come on - it has to be, right?

She says women are out there "shopping and having lunch with friends" like it is so much better than playing WOW. She talks about men's media choices being bad (models, cyborgs, toilets and football), as if women aren't driving soap operas, HSN and *truly crappy* reality shows (yes, I sometimes watch America's Next Top Model - but I know it's crap).

She can't really think that there's any more or less validity to 20-something women's choices than there are to men's... How incredibly dumb, sexist, prejudiced, etc. And they let her publish?

Oh wait - now I get it - she's stupid, the *newspaper* is trolling. That actually makes sense - trolling is good for their business. Bad for news, but hey, not like the media cares about that anymore.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]tree_ish
2008-01-31 06:09 pm UTC (link)
I noticed the hypocrisy as well, and couldn't get through the article for it.

This also strikes me as a "Kids today...In our day we used to..." kind of rant.

Bleh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]franktheavenger
2008-01-31 03:18 pm UTC (link)
I'm confused; she talks about how awesome it is that young women are focusing on their careers, doing well in school, and "packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling and dining with friends." Essentially 'living their own lives.' But if men do something similar it's wrong?

As near as I can figure out her core comment is 'men need to be what I want them to be when I want them to be it.' It appears that she believes women should be able to do whatever they want, but once they're ready for marriage and kids, men should immediately shift whatever focus they have to sync up with the woman's. Which is a viewpoint she also decries men for later in her article, seeing the opposite sex as only that which relates to your desires (IE men seeing women as sex objects).

She's dumb.

(Reply to this)


[info]idontreadlj
2008-02-01 03:19 am UTC (link)
. i'll relay my thoughts on this via an xkcd.com cartoon : http://www.xkcd.com/150/

(Reply to this)

Im New
(Anonymous)
2008-03-15 04:39 pm UTC (link)
Hello All
Im New...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Im New
[info]jason0x21
2008-03-15 05:23 pm UTC (link)
I can tell. I can see the turnip truck receding in the distance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…