Book author Kay S. Hymowitz examines the trend in young men who fail to launch.
This appeared as a guest post on Earl Hipp’s blog, Man-Making.
In her book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women has turned Men into Boys, author Kay Hymowitz looks at the social trends which have created what she terms the “child-man.” She defines a child-man as a male in his twenties or early thirties who lacks the motivation for taking on the various responsibilities often used as metrics for manhood—such as holding down a “real job,” marriage, and starting a family. Instead, the stereotypical child-man is a responsibility-shirking, slovenly-dressed, video-gaming, South Park-watching slouch.
According to Hymowitz, child-men find themselves lost in a world where women make more money, are more educated, and are less likely to want to settle down (with them) and build a family.Publisher’s Weekly (which panned the book) quotes the author, describing pre-adult men as, … living in a world where social demands no longer equate manhood with maturity, (thus) frat dudes, nerds, geeks, and emo-boys can remain in suspended post-adolescence, while women, whose biological clocks are ticking, are forced to choose between single parenthood and casting their lot with a child-man. Hymowitz explores the many cultural forces she believes have brought about this unanticipated and disconcerting effect in males.
Manning Up is less a prescription on how to reverse the child-man trend (though some ideas are presented), than a concise (fewer than 200 pages) historical and cultural analysis of the forces in society that have raised and tolerated the child-man. In a Forbes online interview with Hymowitz, the author describes some of the confusion for men resulting from the feminist movement. She said, . . . the culture at large is uncertain about what it wants from its men. We give a lot of mixed messages. We say, on the one hand, that fathers are so important. At the same time, we say that fathers are optional. Many women seem to want men that are confident and have a strong sense of themselves. At the same time, they are put off by too much masculine, authoritativeness. I think a lot of men react to these mixed signals by retreating into themselves, becoming passive and reluctant, and often waiting for women to make the first move.
Though she points to a number of factors driving men toward child-manhood, Hymowitz zeros in on the rise of the knowledge economy as a chief determinant. In the knowledge economy, it’s not male-favoring brute strength that is most highly prized, but emotional intelligence. She feels this emotional intelligence not only levels the job-market playing field for both genders, but may actually give women the upper hand.
Hymowitz suggests another important change she has witnessed over the last few decades is the infatuation with girl-power. The author doesn’t say empowering girls and young women is a bad thing – but this trend has changed the expectations and aspirations of women and, in response, altered the landscape for males in regards to education, marriage (marrying much later in life), and career opportunities. Hymowitz believes, in many ways, the pro-girl-power movement has come at the expense of boys and younger men. In just one example of many, she cites the major investments made in public schools to bring girls’ scores in math and science to par (or even better) with boys’ scores. She points out similar investments have not been made to raise boys’ reading scores to levels comparable to girls’.
The author also identifies another shift in the last few decades where popular culture increasingly portrays women as in-charge, competent, and sophisticated, while so many movies and TV shows portray men as the opposite: incompetent, unreliable, immature, and often foolish –and only good for a laugh (think Adam Sandler, in Big Daddy, or Seth Rogen in Knocked Up).
What hit me as the most tragic result of changing social conditions Hymowitz describes is the absence of a positive and achievable life script in the lives of too many young men. In the past, Hymowitz writes,
The life script for most men was pretty simple: you’re born; you grow up; you learn to do the hunting, fishing, building, farming, and the like expected of you; you get married, you have children, you get old (if you’re lucky); and you die. There were exceptions [… but] despite the variations, we can make several generalizations. First, men were required to provide, or to help provide, for their wives and children, and in many cases for other family members. Second, in the face of danger, they had to protect these others as well. This is why so many pre-modern cultures had initiation rituals testing boys’ courage, perseverance, and competence.
In the past, societies needed proven men—especially at times of war and high risk. In the modern knowledge economy, men are simply not needed in the same way. It’s a mistake, though, to assume that men are, therefore, dispensable. It frustrates me that we have allowed society to diminish the role of the strong and responsible man—or have so dumbed down manhood so as to equate it with sex, beer, computer games, sports and foolish pursuits.
It can and should be argued, as this blog often does, that the risks we are and will be facing in our world will require tested, proven, and responsible men. This in no way precludes a role of strong women and women of character. But a clear template for men does seem to be missing.
Manning Up shows us how the challenge of coming of age for a young male in a culture without a desirable prescription for a positive and mature manhood, combined with a lack of guidance from older men, has resulted in something like the child-man phenomenon the author describes. In spite of what you might consider to be its flaws, the book does provide the reader with a greater awareness of social trends affecting not only our young men, but also women and society as a whole. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in what Earl, in this blog, terms man-making.
—Photo credit: Cookies and milk image from Shutterstock
About Earl Hipp
Oh my god, you guys are all such misogynists for not wanting to marry women and settle down. You failed to launch, bro! *insert shaming tactic here*
Stop playing goddamned videogames! Go marry some woman so she can have your kids and divorce you so you can only see them on the weekends!
Do you want to get married or do you hate women?
Those are the only two options. Your dreams and ambitions are no longer important. Because you have entered the *creepy music* Feminist Zone *creepy music*
In fairness, this doesn’t strike me as much of a feminist argument. I don’t hear feminist organisations often complaining about men not hitching up.
No, but they do fight shared parenting tooth and nail.
In other words, they know divorce laws are unfair to men, and they like it that way.
It is difficult to comment on this article without saying anything negative about feminism. Can the censorship rules be relaxed within the limited scope of comments to this specific article? I don’t think that this would create a “slippery slope” situation that would cross-contaminate other articles.
The problem is: Men who chose to “grow up” face an impossibly hostile world. This world is made hostile by specific forms of feminist discrimination (institutional and legal). Many men respond by rejecting the hostile world, because they have the “wrong” genitalia and consequently have few legal rights or institutional protections.
Aye
When Shakespeare made the assertion that “Tis better to have loved and lost…” he had no understanding of modern day divorce court, child support and alimony, VAWA, or how men are treated in cases of rape and sexual assault accusations.
“Tis better to play videogames and watch Southpark than to ever get married at all.”
When a woman doesn’t study law, get a nice six figure salary right out of college and get married, is it ever called failure to launch? Nope.
When a woman doesn’t get married and have kids it is. Feminism has done a lot for women in terms of being able to pursue lives outside traditional gender roles…but there are still huge chunks of society that don’t see a woman as an adult until she’s married with kids. Or at the very least, settled down with kids.
Which, I should point out, I’m not saying that it’s somehow worse for women or something with this. I’m just saying it’s not as if women are free to do whatever we please without mainstream culture kicking us about.
I guess the real question is why would we care whether other people see us as adults?
Well on the one hand, it doesn’t matter. We are an individualistic society, so to some extent it doesn’t matter how others perceive you. On the other hand, we are social creatures and we have to interact with other people daily. How other people view you affects how you see yourself, and how you see yourself affects how you present yourself to other people. It becomes quite cyclical. Not to mention, being perceived as an adult is part of the changing identities people go through throughout their lifetimes. The way others interact with you (friends, family, strangers) changes as your perceived social identity changes.
” How other people view you affects how you see yourself, and how you see yourself affects how you present yourself to other people.”
Remember schrodinger’s rapist and the presumption of male guilt? Before those were bet articles they were our reality. This is all relatively new in the grand scheme of things but it’s all we young men have ever known. A lot of us have gotten to the point where except for our family, friends, and coworkers we don’t really care how other people perceive us anymore.
I think many of the comments here are not quite getting the whole point. If boys are choosing this path and are happy with it and where it takes them, I think most would agree that is fine. The issue is that boys (and young men) are defaulting into this path because they don’t have the knowledge of what would make them happy and the tools to achieve that. This leads many boys and young men to feel lost, confused, directionless, and depressed.
“Failure to launch” isn’t about choice. There was just an article the other day in the news about how young women had much higher ambition than young men. This is not an accident. This is the result of concerted efforts at all levels of society to empower girls and women. At the same time, boys and men have been ignored and treated worse by cultural and governmental institutions. Boys are given the message in advertising, television, movies, schools, laws, and at home that they are less capable, less intelligent, less desirable, and have less of a future than girls. They are faced with a script that tells them they are more violent, more dangerous, more lazy, more disposable, and more to blame for anything wrong in society. Programs for boys (and men) are rejected at all levels. Take the treatment of the White House Council on Boys and Men proposal, or go through some of the ACLU’s litigation history if you want examples.
Sites like this are important because it is unacceptable in modern society to care about “boys” (or men) as a group, unless it is done through the “proper” feminist lens. There is no need for a return to the “traditional” model. The traditional model, in general, actually sucks for men.
There needs to be a national campaign implemented all all levels that tells boys that they are awesome and they can achieve. That shows them all the amazing things they can do and HELPS them to take the steps to get there. That promotes healthy ways for boys to develop mentally, emotionally, and physically. That rejects the negative cultural/societal/personal messages bombarding them. So when they are at the point where they can make decisions about their life and how they want to live it, they know and are capable of deciding what will make them happy.
Empowering boys to be able to decide what will bring them happiness and giving them the tools to achieve that. I wish it wasn’t such a controversial idea.
“The issue is that boys (and young men) are defaulting into this path because they don’t have the knowledge of what would make them happy and the tools to achieve that.”
Ah the old “they don’t know what’s best for them. Why don’t you ask young men before you “decide” what their motives are.
@Jimmy, it doesn’t matter how often you blame feminism for the state of modern men, it’s still going to get worst. Where’s the MRM when it comes to housing? Where’s the MRM when it comes to job training?
How’s bashing feminist “Manginas” and White Kights going to save under educated men from this economy? What is this gender war accomplishing?
Budmin: “How’s bashing feminist “Manginas” and White Kights going to save under educated men from this economy? What is this gender war accomplishing?”
If they’re going to insist that men should be free from their gender roles while turning around and calling the men in these articles “Man Child”, lamenting the lack of real men in society, pretending to care about boy issues then saying that it’s either their own fault for being left behind in the public education system or it’s anon-issue compared to girls then they have no one to blame but themselves. Continue to insist that feminism is the answer for men and boys while dismissing their concerns, you suppy the paint and brush then plastered that bullseye on your back willingly.
In other words if you display hypocracy then don’t complain when someone points it out.
Hey, whenever the plight of men is called to attention, they insist there isn’t a problem along with society.
What is this gender war accomplishing?
Unfortunately there is a short term lesson to be had from the way the gender wars have been going on the last few decades (no there should not be a gender war but as of right now there most certainly is on going on).
That lesson being that if you gain enough influence and control for your side you can help yourself and your side out and mow down the other.
@Jimmy
I think that when Reese said, “The issue is that boys (and young men) are defaulting into this path because they don’t have the knowledge of what would make them happy and the tools to achieve that. ” I think they were making the point that boys and men are not getting the guidance they need to figure out what they want much less how to get it.
The common belief is that they are sitting around and playing video games and moping because they didn’t get the keys to the kingdom that they were promised. But if we look deeper we see its not that simple (and folks don’t like it when you dig past that superficial surface). As has been said boys are being diagnosed with learning disordered at much higher rate than girls, are disciplined more than girls, and are falling behind girls in educational performance in nearly every measure.
Contrary to what some would say this is not a case of just looking at the today’s 30 year olds and just saying they are lazy and waiting for success to fall in their laps. No the things I named off in that paragraph above are happening to boys in the lower levels of education and have been for quite some time now. Time enough that at least an entire generation of them have gone through school and are out in the world. But people will keep right on pretending the “problems” didn’t start until these guys got into their 30s.
The key here is to not only help the men that are already out in the world now but to also go to today’s young boys and help them from repeating history.
Danny, I’m one of those young men. I’ve got a degree and a nice job so that gives me different options but I would still rather pursue my own interests than start a family. It’s not just the shitty way we were raised and taught. And it’s certainly not some sulking over not being given the keys to the kingdom, although the fact that we were given none of the opportunities that you all gave the girls is really fucked up. No it’s much more complicated than that. But two causes that you and everyone else seem content to ignore are divorce court and liklihood and how men are treated by the media and consequently by women. We saw a generation of women divorce our fathers and put them in the poor house, did you really think we’d forget about that? This is the safest move for us. And when we hear every day in the media and from young women that we’re all idiots and pigs, we figure “fuck it, if I’m not gonna get respect either way I may as well play the part.”
“We saw a generation of women divorce our fathers.”
60% divorce rate means that 40% of marriages are “successful.” Of that 60%, not all were initiated by the women. So no, you didn’t see an entire generation of women divorce men.
70% were initiated by women for the most common reason of dissatisfaction and that doesn’t count cases where the wife was cheating on her husband.
60% is a phenomenally high number the majority of which I’m sure were either precipitated by the wife or by her actions. No gambler in the world would take those odds considering the potential payout vs potential risk.
We saw fully half of the older generation of women end their marriages, that can’t be argued away lol ask the other guys
I don’t know whether your 70% stat is accurate, but we’ll pretend it is. 70% (of divorces) of 60% (of marriages) is actually around 40% (of marriages)…so even if all of your stats are correct, you actually saw the same number of women get divorces because of dissatisfaction (40%) as you did marriages that were ‘successful’ (40%). Blaming a high divorce rate for not wanting to get married, and then worse blaming women for that high divorce rate is just an opportunistic way of interpreting the stats.
Not that I’m saying you have to get married. I’m just saying it’s an individual choice, not an institutional issue.
Not at all. When 70% of divorces are decided by the wife (again mostly for “dissatisfaction”) and then you count in the number of wives who cheated on their husbands causing the husbands to get a divorce, you can pretty confidently place almost sole blame on women for the precipitously high divorce rates. That’s not interpreting the stats in any opportunistic way or twisting them to suit a purpose, that’s just objectively looking at them and saying “60% of marriages end in divorce, that’s a lot. In the vast majority of these divorces, who caused it?”
And to put things in perspective, imagine if you saw 50% of the women in the generation before you get killed by bears. Would you ever repeat the same behavior that got them killed by bears? No freakin way! You would learn from their mistakes and avoid bears!
It’s absolutely an institutional issue. If I could walk away from a marriage with no child support or alimony or losing my house or really any financial reprecussions whatsoever then I wouldn’t even worry about divorce. But the fact is that institutions have been set up in such a way that a man is financially *ruined* when his wife divorces him. he. loses. everything. And then if he can’t pay, they call him a deadbeat and throw him in jail. It’s the only place in our legal system where you can jail someone for not being able to pay.
So you’re right, it is an individual’s choice, a choice that is based on the way that society has been set up in regards to marriage and divorce. Marriage is not equal because divorce is not equal. It is a financial deathtrap for men. One that young men are wise to avoid at all costs.
And of the 70%, how many were because the husband cheated on the wife? (That’s rhetorical). My point is that you can’t say that women are to blame for initiating divorce, and then also say women are to blame even when men are the ones who initiated it. What happened to male agency? (Also rhetorical). Blaming one group of people (whether it’s men, women, African-Americans, whatever) is easy and lazy and often very wrong.
I’m not even saying that in divorce, men and women are treated equally. And I’m not even saying that can’t be a factor in an individual person’s choice on whether to get married or not. But your making these huge generalizations based on a narrow interpretation of some not-cited stats.
Did we not determine that in roughly 42% (70% of 60%) of marriages the woman files for divorce?
And can we also not agree that due to discriminatory divorce court practices divorce is financially disastrous for men but usually quite lucrative for women?
If a young man gets married today he has a roughly 42% chance that his wife will divorce him and financially ruin him.
That’s neither a huge generalization or a narrow interpretation. It’s a cold hard fact.
Alrighty, I’m going to try once more and then I’ll call it quits…cuz we’re starting to go in circles. If a man gets married he’s also got a roughly 40% chance that things go swimmingly. So, what I’m saying, is it’s a glass half full/half empty sort of situation. It’s all about perspective and how you, individually and personally, view the statistics. Some marriages work, some fail because the wife screws up, some because the husband screws up, some because both individuals decide they shouldn’t be married any more. Sometimes (rarely) it’s amicable. Of the divorced couples I know, only one is in a situation where the ex-husband is paying through the nose for no reason except that his ex-wife worked the system. For the others, things were divided up pretty dang evenly, and really with lawyer fees and what-not both parties ended up financially screwed by the divorce.
My point is that citing a single statistic (perhaps not even an accurate one) doesn’t tell you anything about the circumstances surrounding all of those divorces. Stats need context to give them meaning.
And in regards to male agency, you’re totally right. Many young men are now exercising their agency and refusing to marry despite the shaming cries of those around us.
And if we are free to do what we want then why is everyone (times, wall street journal, washington post, forbes) veritably *screaming* at us to get off the couch and go get married?
So this seems like hyperbole to me. There are magazine articles on this topic yes. But they aren’t actually screaming at you. I hate the title here Rise/Demise. Just the same old binary bullshit about win/lose. Yes, people are changing roles. Yes it’s a societal and cultural identity shift/crisis. Yes some people rally forward and find personal power in their own selves and strengths, accept and welcome new roles and explore new relationship and role dynamics. And some people find themselves flailing, internalizing bullshit media messages about zero sum/win lose dynamics.
Don’t read the articles. Write letters to the editors. Don’t get married, I really don’t think there are that many actual people in the world (real people not magazine articles) that care. Find your own way to be happy.
Magazines write articles about trends they see. If you don’t care about the trend, don’t read the article and don’t take it personally.
Yeah, this is sort of what I’m trying to say…only Julie says it better.
You are leaving out the possibility that even if more woman than men initiate the divorce, the men also want the divorce, it’s just the woman who finally files the papers. It’s not like 70% of men are begging their wives not to leave. A lot of them are saying “good riddance, b@tch” as she walks out the door. I have a lot of friends who got divorced, and most of the time, the marriages were in shambles by the time the woman sees a lawyer. I’ve also known a lot of women who work to save the marriage for a long time but can’t get any cooperation from their husband. He won’t go to marriage counseling, won’t talk about the problems in the marrriage, acts like a jerk all the time, etc. (Not that I’m only blaming men in that situation because the woman may be making things difficult b her own behavior. It’s a two way street.) And yes some men want a divorce but stay in the marriage because they don’t want to lose the house, or pay child support, or they are afraid of losing contact with their children, but the wife eventually gets tired of being in a loveless marriage that’s full of conflict all the time. It’s very complicated; obviously there are many reasons why marriages end.
“but the wife eventually gets tired of being in a loveless marriage that’s full of conflict all the time”
As should men. The longer people stay in a situation that is loveless, passionless, at times unkind (without making real attempts to change it) the more animosity and resentment builds.
Any long term partnership can be filled with rewards. It can also be extraordinarily hard work. If the work is more than the reward, it’s time to examine. If you aren’t willing or able to commit to the process, don’t do it.
For the record, I’ve known of several couples in my general circles where it was the man that initiated the divorce. Both? It was for another woman. Have no idea what that means, but there you have it.
We could blame the chick for not being a good enough wife, or the husband for being a philanderer, or both for making a bad match to begin with.
“We could blame the chick for not being a good enough wife, or the husband for being a philanderer, or both for making a bad match to begin with.”
It’s the system, man. Stop feeding into the system.
I was just being a bit ridiculous there…but seriously I do think that’s the important thing. From all the divorced couples I know, there is very rarely any single cause of the divorce. Oh sometimes it’s more because the man (or woman) did something that the other can’t forgive. But more often than not it’s due to a whole lot of different factors.
And Julie, the juice can be worth the squeeze, the work can be worth the reward, but *not* in a system where failure is equivalent to financial ruin.
Another factor may be that in the 30% of the divorces in which men filed it’s entirely possible that the wife made the husbands life so unbearable (safe in the knowledge that divorce laws favor her) that he had to call it quits.
From what I have seen women are VERY aware of the divorce laws that hugely disadvantage men.
As per this article detailing a 4-state study of 46000 divorces, women routinely initiate divorce for simple dissatisifaction/boredom.
ht tp://www.livestrong.com/article/146100-why-do-women-initiate-divorce/
Women are 66% more likely to initiate divorce over men. In the handful of states that have shared parenting divorce laws the divorce rate plummets.
I don’t know that the statement that women are driving high divorce rates is fair, but neither could anybody argue that their is not a clear gendered disparity in individuals seeking divorce. The likeliest conclusion is that this is CLEARLY to anti-father divorce laws.
“It’s the system, man. Stop feeding into the system”
That’s exactly my point. The system is set up to benefit women who get a divorce and to punish men. Divorce court is extremely biased. So it’s no surprise that more women want a divorce than men, but it’s also almost a non-issue.
Because the point is, if divorce had no financial implications then marriage would seem a whole lot more attractive to a lot of young men. Hell who doesn’t want to spend their life with someone they care a whole lot about? But as the system is set up now, women make out like bandits and men foor the bill. It is an extraordinarily raw deal and one that many guys just won’t sign up for.
One thing you’re neglecting Heather is that regardless of who initiates, Jimmy and others are correct that a whole generation of young men have seen their fathers or friends fathers get eviscerated in family court.
Fathers get primary custody 6% of the time to mothers 80% of the time. Are mothers really the better parents 14 times as often? Of course not.
Who initiated isn’t as important as the clearly one-sided bias against fathers in family court and the stark lesson taught to young men in the 80′s and 90′s.
The damage from divorce is *clearly* much higher for men (both in money, parental rights, quality of life, mental health etc..) than for women.
Obviously, the unfairness of family courts is the #1 contributing factor the Hymowitz “child men” phenomenon.
And yet–no pundits who talk about the “child men”, want to discuss the unfairness of family court. They are much more interested in shaming these men rather then confronting what is causing this.
I agree that family court is generally extremely unfair to men when it comes to child custody, and I totally agree that’s a factor that men probably consider when thinking about whether they want to get married and have kids. In terms of finances, well see now there I’d need to see a lot more data and analysis of that data, because frankly I know plenty of women and men who both end up financially screwed over because of getting a divorce. Contrary to what a lot of people say, divorce is not a picnic for women either.
My point with my dialogue with Jimmy, though, was that an entire generation of kids didn’t see their mothers steal everything from their fathers in a divorce. Also, that you can’t somehow blame divorce on women. Plus, what, were young women were seeing some model for how to get rich quick or something? No. I saw quite a few of my parent’s friends get divorced, and it tore up everyone in the family. It was not a happy process for anyone involved.
More importantly, though, I find the idea of a a ‘child man’ epidemic absolutely ridiculous. As I said somewhere else here, the idea that because these men aren’t conforming to traditionally masculine characteristics they must not be growing up properly is idiotic. Let them create new definitions of man and masculinity. Just because they aren’t interested in getting married (regardless of the reasons) doesn’t make them child-men.
My boyfriend’s father left his mother for a younger woman when my boyfriend was 14 and his sister was 8. His mom had been a stay at home mom for years and had no job skills. She hadn’t even gone to college. Dad emptied the joint bank accounts before he left, disappeared for several years, filed false tax returns, hid assets and perjured himself in court in order to avoid giving a fair share of the family assets to my boyfriend’s mom. He never paid a dime of child support, Their divorce battle lasted for nearly a decade and when it was done, there was virtually no money left because of all the legal fees. He had absolutely no interest in having a relationship with his kids He left them and never looked back. He honestly didn’t give a crap about his kids. So I think my boyfriend would dispute the claim that women are always responsible for divorce. In fact thinking about most friends of mine, divorce was a mutual decision in the majority of cases, and when men leave its almost always because of another woman.
Sarah:
Please point to where I said that women were responsible for divorce.
It saddens me to hear about your boyfriends situation.
However, the exception doesn’t disprove the rule.
As sad as it is, your story doesn’t disprove the rampant evidence of family courts extreme mother bias.
I’m not necessarily blaming women for getting divorced. Quite frankly I’m not surprised. It’s human nature to take advantage of incentives even when the person knows they are at another persons expense.
I am talking here about the *system*. And the system is *clearly* rigged in favor of females. Mothers win custody 80% versus fathers 6%.
We should all be fighting for shared parenting. This reduces conflict and resentment in divorce by removing the “winner takes all” result. It develops compromise and cooperation by getting the parents to work out an equitable parenting schedule. It also guarantees that a child does not have to lose one parent during divorce.
It also reduces divorce.
I don’t necessarily blame women for getting divorced, but I do blame women for not speaking up about how unfair the laws are. Where is women’s concern for their sons? Some women *are* choosing to fight for the men in their lives.
Almost 50% of the members and board of fathers and families is women. Many of these are paternal grandmothers, 2nd wives and others that see the tragic harm that anti-father laws reap for children and society (90% of men in prison from violence hail from fatherless homes, even though those homes represent only about 30% of all such parental situations).
Glenn Sacks was replaced by Rita Fuerst Adams as the executive director of fathers and families.
A woman the executive director of a fathers rights group????
These are women who “get it”. When one sex wins, we all lose.
The rates of custody have been frozen for the past 40 years, while women have blazed a trail of groundbreaking in all sorts of endeavors.
Quite frankly, I find family court one of the largest sectors of systemic bias in our society today.
HeatherN, would you have an elective surgical procedure donr with a 40% success rate?
I found this interesting “Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower.”
Where was he feminist-bashing in this comment? Or are you referring to other comments made my him.
But anyway, is what’s frustrating is the MRM has almost no economic or political power yet. Just the name is politically-incorrect. What makes ME pull Feminism into the discussion is often the fact that Feminism claims to be about equality, but only helps women when they are screwed over. Then it bashes anything that ISN”T Feminism.
For instance, when women were doing bad in school, they established grants and scholarships to help women out and encourage them to go to school. Now College is made up of some 38% men, 62% women, yet no sign of removing the grants. And the idea of helping MEN out in the same way results only in laughs. “It’s not OUR fault they decided to get lazy!” is a common response.
That’s not equality. If it was about equality, they would be up to helping men out as well, and this would also encourage many more men to join.
So the MRM would certainly be up to helping out with these problems, but we don’t have the power to yet. And also, one of the large men’s issues is that we’re taught not to trust each other, especially when gender discussions are woman-oriented, and tell us that men like us are rapists and thugs. It forces us to be suspicious of one-another.
It’s kinda hard to get us together and fix men’s issues when one of men’s issues is GETTING US TO TRUST EACH OTHER in the first place.
@Web Isn’t that like saying that to defeat “feminism” …(what ever that means)…
we’ll have to imitate it’s successes?
Namely…
*Ending gender policing,
*Achieving domestic & Economic confidence,
*Addressing one’s own Emotional pit falls before the overwhelm you,
*Embrace the Education economy,
*And not calling Men Fags for living communally with other Men.
I’ll try to stay optimistic but I have big doubts.
Reese has a point. Society (including hardline feminism) has spent a lot of time and effort to tell young men that they are not only worthless, but actually a negative factor. Too many men have accepted that label without a struggle.
Is it their fault for reacting with withdrawal and indifference? No; after all, society said loud and clear “We don’t want you, we don’t like you, just go away.” But it is still a problem that men have to deal with. Saying “OK, screw you” and pursuing a solo existence is certainly ONE valid response… but it shouldn’t be the only option available to us.
“Is it their fault for reacting with withdrawal and indifference? No; after all, society said loud and clear “We don’t want you, we don’t like you, just go away.” But it is still a problem that men have to deal with. Saying “OK, screw you” and pursuing a solo existence is certainly ONE valid response… but it shouldn’t be the only option available to us.”
No, it shouldn’t be the only option, but damn if it isn’t a great option! Watching women such as Ms. Hymowitz throw a tantrum as more of us walk away from their unfair game (marriage) and live lives to satisfy ourselves is very amusing. Hold on…I’ll be back in a sec. Gotta finish up my game of Halo…
I’ll see your Halo and raise you a World of Warcraft.
Come get me when they make divorce fair.
It also looks like everybody from feminists to social conservatives are collectively crapping their pants at this trend of men seeking their own fulfillment rather than sticking to the one only legitimate path for approval for men in self-sacrificing for others.
Women fought for (and largely got) the right to do whatever makes them fulfilled, but society just doesn’t want men getting off the hamster wheel.
Too much is at stake for men to just start opting out. Society is built upon male self-sacrifice. However, the powers-that-be are going to refuse to sweeten the pot, so expect a lot more shaming action for so-called child-men (I would call them “men who have wised-up”).
John, John, John…we’ve had conversations about this before…but I’ll say it again…the vast majority of the feminists I know are actually for men redefining their gender and moving away from traditional gender roles. This book is very much in the realm of what social conservatives want. There are feminist conservatives, and there are feminist sites and groups out there that are all about keeping men in traditional roles…but of the various feminists I know from all over the world, I can honestly say I don’t know a single one who would agree with what this book is saying.
Yep
Heather’s right. It’s not feminism that expects men to become responsible and hard working in order to be in position to provide for a family. Feminism is in theory anti-gender roles. Men who buy into feminist theory cecome more likey to be content to sit around the house and have someone else support them, preparing to eventually becoem a home-maker or stay at home dad.
The extremists Feminists however are the ones who have government funding and have an impact upon the well being of men; and the mainstream feminists sit back and blame men for it. How do you explain an Australian government policy being formulated that assigns ownership of children to the mother and not to the father? How do you explain divorce courts favouring women getting custody 70% of the time (Australian Family Court), how do you explain a Minister for Women, University Womens Officers, quotas for women in tertiary study and workplaces and none of these things for men? Mainstream Feminists claim not to agree with extremist Feminists but they still enjoy the fruits of their misandrist laws.
Feminism is not concerned with the well being of men, the actions of influential Feminists demonstrate that despite their contradictory rhetoric. Hence the MRM is essential for gaining any benefits for men. it is early days but it is gaining momentum.
Of course some people, perhaps feminists, want men to redefine themselves as unmotivated slugs. Anything goes and that’s great! NOT. Men are retreating in society for a reason. I would be curious to see how many of these men who are discribed could be diagnosed with depression. Naaa …. people would rather look at this as redefining them rather then seeing it as a problem or better yet a symptom.
I hate the whole “withdrawal” rhetoric that’s sometimes used against men, either individually or collectively. (This is not a reaction against your message, I’m just reminded of this when reading your message.) Saying someone is withdrawn can actually be a very self-centered way of seeing the situation. I have expectations for him to act a certain way, and he does not conform to my expectations, so there must be something wrong with him. Clearly, he’s withdrawn, because he is not doing what I want him to do. It can’t be that I’m wrong to expect these things of him.
When, in fact, perhaps the expectations themselves are unrealistic, unhealthy, or unfair. Not conforming to expectations may show that there’s a problem with the expectations, not with the “failed” men.
Bingo.
But to be honest I don’t think any amount of shaming or “withdrawal” language is going to do the trick. I don’t know if you’ve ever read Crime and Punishment but there is this scene where this man is whipping a horse. It is a very old and weak horse and he just keeps telling more and more people to crowd onto the cart. The cart is impossibly heavy and he starts brutally whipping the horse and beating it with a crowbar. And it pulls and pulls as hard as it can but fails to move the cart more than a few steps. Other men join in and start beating the horse until it dies, all the while they are laughing.
Our society has crippled our young men and they can’t pull the cart no matter how much you whip them now.
The issue is that boys (and young men) are defaulting into this path because they don’t have the knowledge of what would make them happy and the tools to achieve that.
________________________________________________________________
You miss part of a point. They (young males) really are messed and do not know what will make them happy… But (good thing) they seems to get very well – what will make them unhappy – marriage.
Now, official indoctrination push them accept loose/loose paradigm- you have 2 options :
1. To get married (get kids , house , divorce , loose kids , house , be totally destroyed)
2. Be “child-man”, looser and so on
Solution is not to play into hands of those man hating indoctrination , that see male as simply utility to supply female/ state their needs. Solution is to teach young males to find their pass to happiness outside death road of marriage and some one else interests
I think the article was right on. I look around at young men and I just don’t see the fire that I once saw. Open your local newspaper under “events” and you will more likely see seminars, conventions or groups promoting women in business, women’s financial resources or a variety of programs developed for the betterment of women. Go to a news stand and look at the countless numbers of magazines devoted to women. I just did a quick google search for “grants for male business owners” and low and behold what came up were grants for women and minorities.
@Web, you’re right, MRM’s don’t have the financial support and you’re right about the “trusting” other men aspect. It’s not that men don’t trust one another, IMO it’s more like men aren’t sure if men are on the same page. Sorry to say but many men appear to be feminists and struggle to see men’s issues the same. Men have greatly been influenced by feminism and accordingly are totally confused.
I remember years ago when the father’s rights movement got log jammed because some felt that it should be “parents” rights and include women in the movement. The crisis at the time and remains a crisis for men.
I’ve seen it more then once here at GMP that there be a focus on stay at home dads which is outstanding but at the same time, there are many men that don’t want to be stay at home dads. It’s as though if they don’t have that in them, then they’re falling short. When do we start talking about the dads that work and how they can be better dads? When are we going to start promoting the entrepreneurial men? Sometimes I get the feeling that the promotion of stay at home dads in the feminist movement is no more then their throwing men a bone to shut us up. No offense to ANY stay at home dads … I can’t commend them more. Their achievements have been great for men. But that’s not where we should stop.
It’s called “hopelessness.” Guys simply don’t care as they used to. They totally lack male role models. The boys I work with don’t see much of a future. Many of them believe that if they can’t make it rich in sports or music, then there isn’t much for them.
“Go Red For Women from the American Heart Association” Having had a quintuple bypass at the age of 41, I struggled with this campaign. Yet there has NEVER been an campaign for men …… See the following stats
•Heart disease is the leading cause of death for men in the United States. In 2006, 315,706 men died from it.1
•Heart disease killed 26% of the men who died in 2006—more than one in every four.1
•Heart disease is the leading cause of death for men of most racial/ethnic groups in the United States, including African Americans, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and whites. For Asian American men, heart disease is second only to cancer.2
•In 2006, about 9.4% of all white men, 7.8% of black men, and 5.3% of Mexican American men were living with coronary heart disease.3
•Half of the men who die suddenly of coronary heart disease have no previous symptoms.3 Even if you have no symptoms, you may still be at risk for heart disease.
•Between 70% and 89% of sudden cardiac events occur in men.
Even worse, men with heart disease are more likely to get blamed for it than women with heart disease. If only you men didn’t eat so poorly and take on so much stress, you wouldn’t get so many heart attacks. With women, however, heart disease is a killer, an epidemic sweeping the nation, not really anyone’s fault, except for the medical profession which needs to do more to prevent it.
(I was just thinking that on TV a man having a heart attack is sometimes used as a source of amusement. [Fred Sanford, for example.] But, you don’t see a woman having a heart attack placed in a comedic light. With men, it’s funny and it’s all our fault anyway.)
Tom B writes:
“I think the article was right on. I look around at young men and I just don’t see the fire that I once saw.”
Quite right. Of course a lot of this is due to society’s and feminists desires to angelicize the female role and demonize the male role. When a man completes college, works overtime, bucks for promotions, woos clients after work hours, sires children and provides his wife with every want she could possibly fathom he is called a misogynistic patriarch.
Society has dummed down the role of male self-sacrifice so that it is actually reviled rather than congratulated. These men are doing the only rational thing, when the classic male role is demonized. They are opting out of a rigged game.
For a much better explanation see:
ht tp://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2012/03/transcript-of-men-not-marrying-how-deep.ht ml
(spaces at the beginning and end to evade the spam blocker)
Girl writes what is the most candid woman I have seen blogging (and vlogging?) about men’s issues I have ever seen. She gets the male narrative better than any woman I have ever seen.
The problem isn’t with the men but the denigration of men that is rampant in our society. As Peter Gibbons says in Office Space to the efficiency experts: “It’s not that I’m lazy, it’s a problem of motivation see?”
Interesting read, I don’t think I agree 100% on all of it but there is quite a lot that seems to fit. To me marriage sounds like just a title, you can date someone and still love them, care for them, be a defacto relationship (for tax etc in Australia at least). I do notice some women seem to go overboard with the wedding, it’s really making me wonder if some just want a fancy day to go nuts over, most guys I see seem to be indifferent to it all.
I am also noticing more n more men not wanting to date women, feel like women are quite difficult to be around even (don’t worry girls, I see this in reverse with you amongst some female friends). Maybe some folk just simply are too selfish to have decent relationships and it’s burning their partners in the process? Trouble is we notice the bad news more than the good I think, at least it hits the sensational popularity, stories of men divorcing and losing a lot or women supporting lazy partners etc. We all need to pay attention to the good in our lives, the success stories, the strong relationships that some people have.
Of course there is also various custody issues, anti-male bias in courts etc to deal with, etc which I don’t know enough on but hear it plenty talked about here so I’ll leave that up to others.
Yea GWW gets it, man. I’ve never seen a woman so honestly and passionately defend men to the ground. It brought tears to my eyes.
Yeah, it’s a beautiful thing.
Publishers Weekly is a very gentle, generous publication that generally tries to find the good in any book. If PW pans your book, you know there is something seriously flawed in it.
It would take a book to explain what’s wrong with her book. I’ll stick to two main problems:
1. Her language suggests that the problem with men is that we are not behaving in the way that she wants us to behave. Our choices are making it harder for women to find their preferred mates, so we are making women increasingly disappointed. Somehow activities that are unrelated get lumped together as being immature – playing video games, not finishing college, being unable to hold down a job, and dressing casual are all essentially symptoms of a lack of maturity. Well, they could be. Telling half the population that they need to behave differently if they want to avoid disappointing the other half strikes me as a somewhat childish argument. Perhaps my video gaming habit has given me this false idea that I should decide on my own how to spend my time.
Getting married and having children are often taken as evidence of maturity, even a measure of success in life, but let’s be real. You don’t have to be mature, stable, employed, or even sane to get married and/or have a child. All you need to have children together is to be fertile, which is generally not a major accomplishment.
2. This is a massively uphill struggle, but I’m constantly trying to tell people DON’T assume that people in past generations led simpler lives than we do. This is a deeply entrenched myth that is virtually indestructible but virtually always wrong. It’s a classic case of what nostalgia does to people’s examination of the past. It’s an illusion that masculine roles were simpler, more predictable, and more straightforward in previous generations. In some ways, yes, in other ways not. This sounds like the “Greatest Generation” baloney repackaged as the Golden Age of Masculinity. Gender roles in any period of history are usually in some sort of flux, being redefined constantly. Maybe in the early 21st century U.S. the roles are more diverse or perhaps more contradictory in some ways, but there have always been mixed messages about masculinity.
The Baby Boom era (1946-60) was actually a very extreme period in terms of marriage and parenting patterns. Since 1800 the average age of (first) marriage has been increasing. It’s not so weird that people are getting married later than their parents did. It’s actually a long American tradition!
Even if the roles were simpler in some ways, simpler does not always mean better. Sure, it’s looks simple when you buy into the myth that for American men you either joined the military in WWII or if you couldn’t then you killed yourself out of shame. Ignoring the fact such suicides were extremely rare, is this really a great ideal?
I do appreciate the fact that Hymowitz looks at changes in the economy and changes in the nature of the job market when explaining changes in American men’s approach to education and careers. That is a very strong point to make about the change in the options that men face and the changes in their expectations. Here she could have made a better case that it’s not so much men turning down great careers as recognizing that those opportunities aren’t as common as they used to be. I doubt there are very many men who have turned down lucrative careers because they’d rather stay at home and play video games. Not a lot of couch potatoes resigning as stock brokers to spend more time watching TV on the couch.
Am I alone in thinking this article was seeded to start a huge comment debate? I feel like statistics are being taken on our responses.
For me it all boils down to a big philosophical question:
Which is better, to follow a bad script or no script at all?
Sounds like Hymowitz is suggesting that it’s better to follow the older, flawed script than to try to struggle writing a new one yourself. I tend to think it’s the opposite, and I’m guessing many men agree.
I think the deeper question is “who gets to define good and evil?”
Do women like Hmowitz get to define what a “good man” is based on how men provide value to her or other women?
Or do men get to define what a “good man” is based on how we perceive ourselves and not based on our value to others?
There’s a discussion that needs to happen here, and one I’ve mentioned before. “Who gets to define masculinity?”
It’s my contention that men and only men are the arbiters of what makes a good man. Women do not get a say in our process of redefining ourselves.
“It’s my contention that men and only men are the arbiters of what makes a good man. Women do not get a say in our process of redefining ourselves.”
I agree completely. I saw you bring that question up before and I remember a woman immediately claiming that she got a say. I was stunned because women have ALWAYS demanded that men don’t get a say in what makes a “good woman.” Also, “good” is relative and describes benefit, so any woman’s definition of a “good man” is going to be predicated on how that man benefits her. A man’s definition is going to be based on self-perception.
So, to all of the women who think they get a say in what makes a “good man”: Back. Off. We get to define ourselves and you are being oppressive and manipulative by trying to have your say in this. It really isn’t. your. call.
And men have no say in what makes a woman a good woman. And so forth and so on in any race, orientation or culture. OR…we all have a say in what makes us good human beings.
I respectfully disagree. I don’t think that anyone gets to define what makes another person “a good human being” because that judgment is really just about their benefit to you.
I would never presume to tell you how to be a “good woman,” because I don’t demand that you *be* good. I only expect that you be decent, in that you treat other people with decency.
This may sound like semantics but here’s the difference: In order for someone to be “good” they must provide some type of benefit to either me or someone else. That benefit is what makes them “good.” If instead they provide some type of harm, then they are “bad”. In order for someone be decent they need only treat others with decency by *not* doing certain things. Much in the vein of Adam Smith I only demand that you *not* disrespect me, attack me, try to define me, etc. etc. and I in turn show you the same respect.
I think by trying to define “good” for other people you are actually committing an evil act. You are taking away their personal decision to define themselves as a good or evil protagonist in their own story. You are usurping their role of narrator.
When women look at men and define good, it is based on men’s benefit to women, and vica versa. When men look at one another and define good, it is not only based on their benefit to men but also on a comparison of the other man to our own perception of self. “If I am a good man for these reasons, does he also meet those criteria?” While not perfect this is by far a more accurate and respectful way of defining the good in ourselves than by letting women decide this for us.
Because in defining a good man, you treat men as a means to your end. When we define ourselves as good, we treat each other as ends in and of themselves.
Sorry, Julie, but I think you’re wrong on this one. What happens when men and women’s definition of what a “good man” is clash? Who trumps who?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen women, especially feminist women, ever welcome a man’s input on what a “good woman” is. In fact it strikes me that there would be a backlash to even using the phrase “good woman.”
Look at SlutWalks. (and I don’t really want to get into debates about the efficacy of slutwalks or their ethics or whatever, because it’s tangenital to my point, and I’m not opposed to Slut Walks anyway) Slut walk, while yes about rape and victims of rape, are also a clear rejection of men’s (or some men’s anyway) attempt to define how women should act.
So, clearly,women (on the average) are not terribly receptive to men’s opinion on their behavior unless those opinions line up with their own. And that’s perfectly fine.
My point being, that all of us set judgments on each other all the time. And reject those judgements. So it can’t be both ways. If men get to talk about men and women get to talk about women, we’ll have nothing but echo chambers and I suppose if we all lived separately that might be something. But we live together, work together and affect each other. My actions as a human, a woman, affect men. Vice versa.
Right now, it feels as if perhaps everyone ought to take a xanax and try to work on themselves rather than telling each other what’s what no matter the gender, race or anything else. Myself included. I could use one today!
Agreed Copyleft. “Good”, be it man or women, is frequently being used instead of the term “Desirable”. We know men’s desire for women is not the same as women’s desire for men. Each sex values different things about the other. However, when it comes to Good Men, women have no meaningful input. At the moment there is no Good Human Project, men and women are not in this together. At least not yet. Men have to decide for themselves what they value, what they respect and what they wish to set aside.
Whether this alters their desirability to women is a different debate.
Augh, this lady.
“Many women seem to want men that are confident and have a strong sense of themselves. At the same time, they are put off by too much masculine, authoritativeness.”
A person with a strong sense of himself will also know where his self ends and other selves begin — that’s like the OPPOSITE of authoritativeness right there.
So much of the above discussion misses the point of ‘manning-up.’ For example, divorce is an unfortunate development that occurs so often because of the child-like (in the negative sense of the phrase, obviously) decisions made by not-quite-men in regards to relationships (and yes, immature woman are not blameless either, but a responsible man will own-up to what is happening in his life.) The problem is conspicuously noticeable before the “divorce” stage. Too often, the child-man enters into a relationship because he’s horny and she’s pretty – or some equally superficial reason. This is a disconcerting trend. But alas, we live in a society which promotes freedom that is untethered to responsibility. Where are the sane voices (parents, relatives, mentors, responsible friends) in guiding young men (and women too) in their relationships? A big part of being a responsible man is, well, actually being responsible. A “man” is setting himself up for failure if he myopically enters into a relationship without seriously considering the consequences and the costs (I mean, seriously, is she the one?). Once in an established relationship, a real man will work to keep the relationship alive and thriving.
Burre, you touched on part of the malaise that afflicts marriage. For some reason, inexplicable to this happily unmarried man, is why men seem to be so easily verbally beaten into submission by their wives. Once the ring goes on her finger it is as if the man has agreed to move in with a version of his mother and in all decisions he must defer to her. If he doesn’t, the misandrist divorce court will very swiftly punish him for his rank disobedience.
So, either behave like an adult in a relationship and be financially ruined, or behave like a child in a relationship and be financially ruined a little later.
I do my part in guiding men, and being guided by men, that I know. Marriage is not to be entered lightly, if at all. Men are not beasts of burden for women, the golden yoke has been forsaken.
Burre writes:
“decisions made by not-quite-men in regards to relationships (and yes, immature woman are not blameless either, but a responsible man will own-up to what is happening in his life.)”
This has me wondering. Are you saying that you hold men to a higher standard to state his unhappiness in a relationship or society does?
Either way, this seems like a sexist attitude. You place more responsibility on men for stating dissatisfaction (or making wise choices, or whatever) but give women a free pass?
Burre writes:
“Too often, the child-man enters into a relationship because he’s horny and she’s pretty – or some equally superficial reason.”
Women never are horny or get involved with men guys because he’s in a band, or looks good in a military uniform?
There’s a little bit of gender essentialism in your post burre.
One other factor that could be a play here is that we are seeing the coming of age of the Ritalin generation. I personally know of classrooms of grade school kids (now in their mid 20s) where almost 75% of the boys were on that mind controlling drug during their formative years.
This is also the generation where all the focus was on fixing the disparity in the classroom concerning “male focused educational techniques”.
I believe it is a combination of factors. Drug suppressed formative years, a subtle message throughout school that supports girls in favor of boys, and half of them growing up without their fathers in the house (for whatever reason), Tim Allen as the bumbling idiot helpless without of his strong wife as the major media role model. I’m not at all surprised a significant number them have chosen the fast food career and xbox lifestyle.
“divorce is an unfortunate development that occurs so often because of the child-like (in the negative sense of the phrase, obviously) decisions made by not-quite-men in regards to relationships”
I just snarfed my milk, bro. So we should blame the last generation of men for getting destroyed in divorce court because they weren’t mature enough? I’m dyin laughing over here dude.
” Too often, the child-man enters into a relationship because he’s horny and she’s pretty”
Yea cuz us young men (refer to shaming language manual: see man-child) don’t care much about traditional relationships where men get obliterated in the aftermath, we just like sex. In that respect pretty girls are all we want from women.
Great effort couching your shaming language in a supposed attempt to “help” young men because if we acted “like adults” we wouldn’t get divorced. You seem out of touch with reality and comfortable blaming young men for not doing something YOU want us to do. We don’t need your help, buddy.
After reading through the responses, it appears that a lot of emphasis has been put on marriage and relationships. Relationships are not the only thing that define men. There also appears to be a void in the discussion where it related to general societal attitudes that have clearly affected men in todays society. The fact remains, we are a society that’s made and continues to make an effort to promote women in every area and totally neglects men.
VAWA and the health care proposal clearly proves my point.
Fatherless homes is another reason I see these guys lacking the fire to do something with their lives. And if ya want to loop relationships as a factor …. yeah, what do men have to use as examples when many live in households without active dads in their lives much less the male role models being guys that ocassionally bed down with mom.
It’s clear, society promoted fatherless homes.
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I am quite sure I will learn lots of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!