5 ms·

The Sorry Lives and Confusing Times of Today's Young Men

16 points by gyardley 15y ago

cafard 15y ago
During the 30+ years I have lived in Washington, DC, about every 10 there has been an article or book about the unsatisfactory nature of Washington men. I don't say that we/they are not boring, unreliable, etc., etc. But I never got that feeling that the writers set a standard that we ought to live up to. They were invariably longer on snark than reflection. And here we have 'Bruno Mars seems to have articulated an entire gender’s worldview in last summer’s hit “The Lazy Song”:' As no doubt Bachman-Turner Overdrive did with "Taking Care of Business" or Madonna with "Material Girl".
- cal5k 15y ago
  For what it's worth, I've noticed that practically every article in this genre is written by women. Is this really a new phenomenon, or is it perhaps a well-worn trope that garners attention? The men are all "losers", not worthy of the attention of achieving women. I think there's a fundamental bias in this line of reasoning, not to mention the lack of actual evidence to supplement the string of anecdotes.
ShabbyDoo 15y ago
My father, formerly a union rubber worker in Akron, once noted that, when the big tire manufacturers stopped paying workers in cash on payday, their wives were ecstatic. This was because, on payday, a not insignificant fraction of guys would take their wads of cash and head off to the bar. Or, they would take out $20 and hand the rest over to their wives, telling them that the remainder was the amount they had earned. Apparently, it was not until the 1960's that paychecks became the standard in Akron for union laborers at the Big Three. My dad's view, from having talked to many men working in the factory, was that the majority of the era's blue collar married men simply turned their checks over to their wives, asked for a few dollars for beer/cigarettes, and allowed the women to manage the financial matters of the household. This is in stark contrast to anecdotes I've read/heard about the wives of white collar men during the same period who were largely in the dark about household finances. Perhaps a significant fraction of men were never terribly ambitious, but they maintained social acceptability through the ease by which they could earn a middle-class living as a union factory worker? Their wives seemed content to "wear the pants" by taking care of financial affairs. Of course, to outsiders, they likely allowed the man to maintain some sense of dignity by feigning subservience (my presumption of the era's cultural standards). I'm not suggesting that factory work was not physically taxing, but jobs were generally available for anyone who wanted one. My dad recalls collecting factory job offers from Firestone, Goodyear, and BF Goodrich in a single day. Some guys who couldn't read or write very well would bring someone with them to fill out the application forms. Is it that today's men lack the ambition of those from a generation before, or has the disappearance of union manufacturing jobs and other for-the-asking means of maintaining a middle-class lifestyle take away the false floor keeping men grounded?
malandrew 15y ago
It's the 1950s. There are a hundred jobs. Many women are expected to stay home, so most jobs go to men. Of those 100 jobs, most are occupied by men. Fast forward to 2012. Productivity has risen due to technological innovation. Old jobs eliminated. New jobs created. Between population growth and productivity gains, let's assume that there are the same number of jobs per capita for the adult population. Many women are now working so the adult working population has probably doubled relative to population growth. The jobs that pay the bills are now distributed among both men and women and don't just go to the men by default. By arguing for equal rights and equal pay, women have also gained equal expectation to be the breadwinner and to be the pursuer in sexual relations. Complaints like this are absurd. It's simply a "market" becoming more efficient. Women cannot be simultaneously upset about this without also be upset with equal rights to labor without being contradictory. To do think otherwise it to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you are interested in this article, read up about women and part-time work in the netherlands. Fascinating stuff. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/why-do-so-many-dutch-women-work-part-time/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/why-do-so-many-... Regarding this article from Philly mag: I 100% agree with John Mayor's sentiment about porn and women. Porn is oftentimes more satisfactory than sex with most women. Some women are exceptions, but in my experience many bring little more than looks to a sexual relationship. Sex with most women is often more trouble than it is worth because of all the expectations involved, emotional and financial. I've met women with jobs that still have expectations that men pay for things.

16 points by gyardley 15y ago

During the 30+ years I have lived in Washington, DC, about every 10 there has been an article or book about the unsatisfactory nature of Washington men. I don't say that we/they are not boring, unreliable, etc., etc. But I never got that feeling that the writers set a standard that we ought to live up to. They were invariably longer on snark than reflection. And here we have 'Bruno Mars seems to have articulated an entire gender’s worldview in last summer’s hit “The Lazy Song”:' As no doubt Bachman-Turner Overdrive did with "Taking Care of Business" or Madonna with "Material Girl".

cal5k 15y ago
For what it's worth, I've noticed that practically every article in this genre is written by women. Is this really a new phenomenon, or is it perhaps a well-worn trope that garners attention? The men are all "losers", not worthy of the attention of achieving women. I think there's a fundamental bias in this line of reasoning, not to mention the lack of actual evidence to supplement the string of anecdotes.

ShabbyDoo 15y ago

My father, formerly a union rubber worker in Akron, once noted that, when the big tire manufacturers stopped paying workers in cash on payday, their wives were ecstatic. This was because, on payday, a not insignificant fraction of guys would take their wads of cash and head off to the bar. Or, they would take out $20 and hand the rest over to their wives, telling them that the remainder was the amount they had earned. Apparently, it was not until the 1960's that paychecks became the standard in Akron for union laborers at the Big Three. My dad's view, from having talked to many men working in the factory, was that the majority of the era's blue collar married men simply turned their checks over to their wives, asked for a few dollars for beer/cigarettes, and allowed the women to manage the financial matters of the household. This is in stark contrast to anecdotes I've read/heard about the wives of white collar men during the same period who were largely in the dark about household finances. Perhaps a significant fraction of men were never terribly ambitious, but they maintained social acceptability through the ease by which they could earn a middle-class living as a union factory worker? Their wives seemed content to "wear the pants" by taking care of financial affairs. Of course, to outsiders, they likely allowed the man to maintain some sense of dignity by feigning subservience (my presumption of the era's cultural standards). I'm not suggesting that factory work was not physically taxing, but jobs were generally available for anyone who wanted one. My dad recalls collecting factory job offers from Firestone, Goodyear, and BF Goodrich in a single day. Some guys who couldn't read or write very well would bring someone with them to fill out the application forms. Is it that today's men lack the ambition of those from a generation before, or has the disappearance of union manufacturing jobs and other for-the-asking means of maintaining a middle-class lifestyle take away the false floor keeping men grounded?

malandrew 15y ago

It's the 1950s. There are a hundred jobs. Many women are expected to stay home, so most jobs go to men. Of those 100 jobs, most are occupied by men. Fast forward to 2012. Productivity has risen due to technological innovation. Old jobs eliminated. New jobs created. Between population growth and productivity gains, let's assume that there are the same number of jobs per capita for the adult population. Many women are now working so the adult working population has probably doubled relative to population growth. The jobs that pay the bills are now distributed among both men and women and don't just go to the men by default. By arguing for equal rights and equal pay, women have also gained equal expectation to be the breadwinner and to be the pursuer in sexual relations. Complaints like this are absurd. It's simply a "market" becoming more efficient. Women cannot be simultaneously upset about this without also be upset with equal rights to labor without being contradictory. To do think otherwise it to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you are interested in this article, read up about women and part-time work in the netherlands. Fascinating stuff. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/why-do-so-many-dutch-women-work-part-time/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/why-do-so-many-... Regarding this article from Philly mag: I 100% agree with John Mayor's sentiment about porn and women. Porn is oftentimes more satisfactory than sex with most women. Some women are exceptions, but in my experience many bring little more than looks to a sexual relationship. Sex with most women is often more trouble than it is worth because of all the expectations involved, emotional and financial. I've met women with jobs that still have expectations that men pay for things.