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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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...
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.
