And Brooks need to take every last anti-choicer back in the kitchen with him.

My feminist self is embarassed that when I read this article yesterday I actually found it to be... well, accurate. Without the misogynistic tones, I think the trend he is observing is a real one. I don't see it as a failure, however. I think it's good and empowering- for young people of both genders.

Those courtship rituals needed to be scrambled!

I found it fairly accurate too... as did many people; although there do seem to be some "holier than thou" letters who think that their generation was not just DIFFERENT but BETTER.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/opinion/l11odyssey.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Letters&oref=slogin

Ahhhh, the horrible good ol' days!

I might question that reading. See, Brooks calls these Odyssey Years a "sensible response to modern conditions" and later in the piece, gives a bunch of different ways in which it's a different life phase, not a fatal flaw. The former implies significantly less judgement/rejection than the latter.

Also, I don't think it's anti-feminist to point out that women's (thankfully) expanding options for professional and personal relations have forced a renegotiation of relations between the sexes and made supposedly-comfortable patterns difficult or impossible to cling to, outside certain traditional communities. That just seems to be a factual statement of the way things are! And while it provides both women AND men a better chance at a more-evolved relationship, it's also undeniably more complicated. These attempts to identify, elucidate and negotiate what exactly you want in your romantic partnerships can lead to the extended young-adult period of nebulous relationships -- that was my reading of Brooks' commentary.

Now, an anti-feminist reading to me would be to privilege men's discomfort with the changing landscape ABOVE women's personal, professional, and political empowerment...

I'm so sick of another generation (Davis) telling the younger generations (mine) how "wrong" they're getting it. I mean, do these people not realize that what was THEN isn't necessarily NOW? And don't even get me started on his opinions of women.

Makes me want to find this hilarious rant from a Gen-Xer to a Baby Boomer and how sick they were of hearing about the good ol' days.

"Young people are much less likely to be financially secure, married and having kids by 30 today than they were in 1960"

And he says that in the article (your quote was shorter), like it's a bad thing. The average life span has gone from less than 70 to darn close to 80 and it's only getting longer. Why in the world would anyone think that it's a good idea to tie folks to marriage and child-bearing so soon in the life span of someone who could conceivably live to 100 or more? Would that not constrain their chances of having the other things that Mr. Brooks seems to think important, like financial security and education?

I don't see the problem. Do you dispute the employment trends he points out? Do you dispute the courtship trends he points out? Do you dispute that they could be connected?

Xana and Christina - I see where he points these trends out. Where in this article does say this is "wrong", or a "bad thing"?

It's not hilarious so much as totally pissed off by I wrote one. Aug.25th

noname, Jessica is disputing the tone of horror with which he "reports" this. Though given that Brooks is not known for actually, well, doing research, I'd take all of his observations with a shakerfull of salt.

It seems to me that Brooks is contradicting himself. On the one hand, he's claiming that "Young people are much less likely to be financially secure, married and having kids by 30 today than they were in 1960." On the other hand, he's claiming that part of the "problem" is that women's wages have risen, and we can get many of things we need, including income and status without marrying.

So which is it? Are young people less likely to be financially secure and more likely to be directionless, or are young women more likely to have good incomes and high status? Or when Brooks says "young people" does he really mean "young men"?

I will also note, because I am a leftist, that if people are having a harder and harder time becoming financially secure by 30, that could well account for putting of kids, and just might, call me crazy, but just might have something to do with the kind of economic shifts and loss of union power that has marked the change from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.

Just a thought.

You must know that I absolutely loathe David Brooks and his smarmy pop-sociology (and his apologia for perpetual war), but I have to agree with the people who think that this evisceration may be a bit premature.

In other words, wait for the next column where he will inevitably say the things you expect he will (the blame column).

EG - "tone of horror"?

Or when Brooks says "young people" does he really mean "young men"?

Exactly, EG. So glad you said this--I couldn't find a place in my post to address this. Women's advances (which he clearly thinks have made men worse off) are nothing more than something that has negatively affected a generation. And by generation, he means guys. (You know, real people.)

I can see how this article is more even handed than it is being given credit for, in terms of what is actually on the page. He doesn't really complain about the situation per se, but actually makes a case for its validity. His last line seems to me to be the only one that takes a dig at us young 'uns, by implying that we're all like the people in Friends or Knocked Up, and "wrought" is not the most cheerful sounding verb he could use, but otherwise I agree with some previous posters who don't particularly see a cause for upset.

I may just be overcompensating for my anti-Brooks bias, however. He has such an illustrious history of writing really stupid articles that I can't help but think "ew, david brooks" every time I read his name. I had the same knee jerk reaction when I saw this excerpted in adbusters not too long ago. Pink doesn't want a guy to buy her a drink! Things are spiralling out of control! (Or, more unnervingly, buying someone a drink at a bar warrants "romance" in Brooks's book?!) But I agre with his claim that "young people still need intimacy and belonging," I just think the way he arrives at that conclusion showcases a lot of flaws.

All I'm trying to say is dude really rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not one to ordinarily defend Mr. Brooks, but he does specifically say that the differences in life phase are "not about slacking off. His point about the changing power between the genders fits more-or-less with his thesis that "new norms have not yet been established" to reflect the change.

Of course, it could be said that the new norms have been established, he just doesn't recognize them as such, but that's a milder criticism, I think, than is leveled above.

noname: What EG said. While the tone of the piece appears rational, there is a thin veneer that indicates he does not approve. Ending the piece with references to "Friends" and "Knocked Up", media that focuses on white, and in the case of the characters on "Friends," affluent, Americans just shows how out of touch he is with real people.

This piece, and others like it, continue to remind me of "I'm going to explain the younger generation's behavior to you" analysis that people from older generations enjoy waxing poetical on.

Brooks past writing also lends itself to my skepticism of him.

"there is a thin veneer that indicates he does not approve." - Xana

Where? Is it possible you are projecting instead of actually reading what is in the article? This is an easy mistake to make (I have certainly been guilty of this in the past).

OMG, women's wages are starting to catch up with men's! Something must be done!

Noname,

Because all of it is in the section wherein he defines the "problem" about which he will address. The stats and examples one uses to illustrate what one is defining as a problem worthy of column inches (or bandwidth, as the case may be) says something about one's attitude toward those situations. Taken in context with other statements he's made about changing gender roles, I stand by my assessment of the tone of the piece. The swipe at Friends and Knocked Up is also noteworthy in illustrating my point. He's no fan of anything Gen Xers do/are/believe.

Where does he call it a "problem"?

The fact that the Times continues to showcase his drivel is hardly surprising I suppose.

Before I'll reiterate that no one's generation is "perfect" in terms of job opportunities, education, or courtship rituals (which is why so many of our moms ended up in unpleasant marriages), I'll address the financial angle in that people of his generation weren't sodomized by Sallie Mae. Education is costly.

Jessica notes that what Brooks is really saying is that "women's advances (which he clearly thinks have made men worse off) are nothing more than something that has negatively affected a generation. And by generation, he means guys. (You know, real people.)"

Brooks could scarcely be more irresponsible than to blame women's advances on young men's problems, as if life were a seesaw, with males and females pitted against each other. Womens' success does not mean men must fall behind, period.

Perhaps the question for Mr. Brooks ought to be turned on its head: Why are young white males, who generally have no legitimate excuse for wanting advantages, falling behind in education? (The college admission numbers are becoming so lopsided that there definitely IS a problem.) The answer, I suspect, lies more in some twisted notions about masculinity that has infected our society and that makes it not "cool" to study. It elevates immediate gratification over working for a long-term goal. There are multiple exceptions to this generalization, and I hate attributing negatives to an entire class, including (especially) my own gender. But irresponsibly scapegoating women isn't addressing the problem. And guys, there IS a problem.

clearly some of what he's saying is correct factually, although i must call into question how widespread this trend is given that a large numger of young people are unable to take such a sabbatical. i argue this is largely a middle and upper-middle class thing.

anyway, i really can't take any more books/articles/soundbytes of old people flipping the fuck out over how directionless/lazy/promiscuous/selfish/narcissistic/irresponsible my generation is.

also, stop with the stupid naming. "odyssey"? wtf are we trying to get back home from troy? that's almost (but not quite) as bad as calling us "millennials."

I mean, we might as well just revert back to only a few generations, when we all married at 16 and extruded 10 kids to help with the farm chores (keeping in mind you would lose 3 before the age of 18). What makes HIS generation superior to that one, not to mention tomorrow's?

Brooks's sentiments would be better suited to the NY Post.

JaneMinty, exactly.

how does that song go? "how we gonna keep 'em down on the farm, now that they've seen paree?"

Sorry, correction -- I meant to say "Brooks could scarcely be more irresponsible than to blame young men's problems on women's advances."

rileystclair, I got the impression that Brooks was talking about a trend in attitude, not that saying that all young people take a sort of sabbatical from life/college/work. I thought he was commenting on the fact that for this generation there it is not as important to settle quickly- be it in love or work or anywhere else.

I think I can see that thin veneer as well, but I don't think he actually makes any outright arguments that this generation is failing or outright blame women for it. I didn't see how he "clearly" thinks that being less financially stable or unmarried is bad. I guess I'm with noname, here... I'm confued on where he calls it a "problem."

I agree with Jessica, too, however. He does ignore important issues like the wage gap, when he mentions money. But "transparent"? Like I noted earlier, I feel somewhat embarassed, like I missed something obvious.

If you think about it, aren't sabbaticals essentially the same as retirement, just taken at different intervals? Most people who take a significant amount of time off to pursue education or travel don't have a union job with benefits, and guaranteed time on the golf course past the age of 55. They tend to still be working to some degree until past the age of 70 (at least in the case of my dad - he still loves to teach and write music).

I have some Polish friends who came to the States several years ago. They moved to Chicago for 4 years and had 3 kids. The father drove (and later purchased) and 18 wheeler and worked very long hours (after he owned the rig, he made $150,00 a year). They saved up enough money to go back to Poland and take it easy while raising their kids. Both of them can now work part-time, go back to school, and teach music after a few years of sacrifice. How does this fit in to Brook's plan for how things ought to be?

I just don't understand why some people of Brook's generation get their panties in a bunch over when we choose to change careers or take a break. He neglects to mention that pretty much everyone I know is going to be working past the "traditional" age of retirement. Our longer life expectancy is directly proportional to the shrinking level of Social Security, and then again proportionate to inflation. These sabbaticals are necessary if we are to be working into our 80s.

Noname,

Please refer to the basic template for a persuasive essay. Present problem, provide examples, discussion paragraphs, conclusion.

Didn't you learn that in senior high school English like I did?

"Wah!!! Women don't need men anymore!"

Well, I'd rather be wanted than needed if I were a man...or a woman...or a rational, dependency-issue-free human bean. I think that's a much more functional basis for a relationship, yeah? You'd think everyone would be happier with that situation - being independent, self sufficient, and in it coz they just really wanted to be with the person based on who the person was?
Crazy.

ok, a shift in attitude yes, but in practice, plenty of young people go straight from high school to the workforce just like our parents' generation.

i'm from texas and nearly all of my close friends from high school were married within a year of graduation from college. i realize that's both anecdotal and not representative of the nation as a whole, but it's important to put the shifts brooks is observing in perspective.

i do think the idea of settling down by one's mid-20s has eroded somewhat (thank goodness!) but brooks seems to think that we wander aimlessly for awhile or something when i don't think that is the case for most. we aren't all going for "permanent employment" right off the bat because that concept is outdated and at least he acknowledges the "modern conditions" that cause this (well, "possibly" to him).

While most of Brooks' argument is nonsense, I do have complaints about the hook-up culture. I really believe that it's connected to the new masculinity = boyhood trend. Simply hooking up, while never dating and certainly never pursuing a real relationship, gives young men an excuse to never grow up. I've dated far too many men my age (late 20s-early 30s) who still are incapable of meaningful interaction with women. Of course, if they can count on sleeping with a woman without having to interact with her beforehand, what's the point in developing conversational skills, social grace, or just working on being an interesting person?

Forgive my ignorance, but I really fail to see how lowering marriage rates is a sign of the coming apocalypse. I mean really... so what? How does that affect me personally or society in general??

And people who like to wring their hands over "hook-up culture" vastly over-exaggerate its pervasiveness. They act like every college student in America is playing musical sheets every night, when in reality it's something like less than 10% engaging in that kind of behavior.

Of course, if they can count on sleeping with a woman without having to interact with her beforehand, what's the point in developing conversational skills, social grace, or just working on being an interesting person?

OK, I'll bite: so it's slutty women's fault that certain men don't mature? Last I checked, developing conversational skill and social graces, and working on being an interesting person -- these were goals in their own rights, and not just means to the end of sleeping with a proper lady who wouldn't consider you otherwise. Please.

Of course, if they can count on sleeping with a woman without having to interact with her beforehand, what's the point in developing conversational skills, social grace, or just working on being an interesting person?

Because... men want more out of life than sex? Because maybe at some point they'd like to make friends, or have a meaningful romantic relationship, or suceed at their jobs or school? All of which require conversational skills, social graces and generally being an interesting person?

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) look for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) look for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) look for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) looks for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

ksaik, well said: "I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful."

Instead, the older guys (let's avoid calling them "old men") ought to be saying to themselve, "Hmm, the women are doing it right. Why can't the guys keep up in school? Why aren't our young men going to college? What aren't we teaching our boys about what it is to be a responsible man?"

Here's an epiphany: Maybe the men ought to start emulating the feminists to help boys break free of the suffocating gender constrictions that seem to be holding them back -- like, it's not cool to study, or to read. Or it's not cool to waste time in college when you, as nature's preordained breadwinner, could be out earning money right out of high school. There's nothing wrong with not going to college -- if it's a rational choice as opposed to something you've chosen not to do just because you're a guy.

“Noname,
Please refer to the basic template for a persuasive essay. Present problem, provide examples, discussion paragraphs, conclusion.
Didn't you learn that in senior high school English like I did?� – Christina

Most high school essays consist of an introduction and thesis, a discussion illustrating or proving that thesis, and a conclusion restating the thesis explaining its significance. At no point is it necessary to present a problem, and at no point are the trends in this particular article presented as problems.

Brooks leaves it up to the reader to assign value judgments if they must; he simply presents trends and suggests that they are connected.

Tim, unfortunately the anti-intellectualism in this country is staggering for both genders, but that's another topic altogether.

getting over being threatened by female success is apparently a huge hurdle for some of these men and it's easier for them to just blame feminism for taking jobs away from the menz and for making boys frustrated because it's complicated to treat women like people.

EG Wrote

"I will also note, because I am a leftist, that if people are having a harder and harder time becoming financially secure by 30, that could well account for putting of kids, and just might, call me crazy, but just might have something to do with the kind of economic shifts and loss of union power that has marked the change from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.
Just a thought."

Call you crazy EG, if you mean to suggest that artificially high wages above the market rate enforced by means of legally protected monopsony with organized crime ties is a good thing.

I was also going to comment that, the fact that the real wages of a single individual in their twenties IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FAMILY, has EVEYTHING to do with whether young people are settling down and having kids in their twenties OR NOT.

Gah, talk about privilege and agist myopia! In my generation, only about one IN TEN people in my cohort have children at all, because THEY DID NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO SUPPORT A FAMILY in a LOWER middle class way until they were in their late THIRTIES.

By which time many were infertile.

This trend has Everything to do with Economics and NOTHING to do with the wimminfolks and their uppity ways.

Try as they might to convince us, MOST PEOPLE do not want to have children that they can't take reasonable care of. IOf you make a "relatively" good wage of $12 an hour, you still are far from being able to support a family, even for a few years.

THe foks I know who DO have kids, either were still fertile after forty, inherited money, or worked split shifts so that someone was there to care for the preschoolers (Mom worked days, Dad worked nights, family was never together and everyone was exhausted for years on end; plus, Mom and Dad never got to see each other, it was all just childcare and work.)

Oh, and purdueattorney? You are describing FASCISM. Not Socialism.

Get a dictionary, and get over your Nixon-era vapors.

While you are at it, you might do some research into the best countries to live in on Earth.

Finland, Norway, France, Sweden, Canada...ALL of them are socialist democracies.

The United States is becoming a third world country because of the worldview of people like you, who, I take it, don't want healthcare to be a right, but would prefer to reserve it only for the wealthy.

Honestly, edumacate yourself!

One of my worst intellectual experiences in college - being made to read David Brooks' Paradise Drive by a sexist asshole of a government professor - as if Brooks were an actual political scientist (or any kind of social scientist for that matter), whose anecdotal evidence about American life I should take as actual fact.

Then again, this was the same professor who is notorious for liking rich, white, jock guys, and ignoring girls... and in my case, straight-up hating me because I was a smart, ambitious, liberal girl who asked too many questions in class.

"artificially high wages above the market rate"

Let's take a look at that for a minute, specifically, the market rate. If company A is looking to hire a secretary and attempting to determine a fair wage for that position, they refer to the industry standard wage for that position. Sounds fair, yes? But..how did companies B-Z come up with their determination of the fair wage? By referring to the industry standard wage, of course. And where does the industry standard wage come from? By averaging the wages paid for a particular position by companies A-Z. It's a very lovely closed circle in which the average stays flat. So, the reality is that wages are artificially depressed and have been for 20 yrs. Oddly enough, that corresponds almost perfectly with the breaking of the unions by the government weighing in on the side of business.

kmtberry, very good points.
i think there is a very strong feeling that you shouldn't have kids until you can afford to provide for them and do it well. also, when both parents have to work to support the kids, often lots of that income goes directly to child-care.

although mr. brooks and others like him might be more inclined to argue that this waiting later to settle down/have kids for financial reasons is based more on selfishness and the desire to maintain a certain standard of living that would be greatly altered with the presence of a child.

I wonder what would happen in a conversation between Robert Bly and Brooks...Bly says there are too many 40-year old adolescents and wants them to grow up, start taking responsibility. My question for you: what is the roll for the left side of the men's movement (if any)? We may not need men anymore, but we do have to share the planet with somewhere shy of three billion of them...

I wonder what would happen in a conversation between Robert Bly and Brooks...Bly says there are too many 40-year old adolescents and wants them to grow up, start taking responsibility. My question for you: what is the roll for the left side of the men's movement (if any)? We may not need men anymore, but we do have to share the planet with somewhere shy of three billion of them...

rileystclair,

"i think there is a very strong feeling that you shouldn't have kids until you can afford to provide for them and do it well."

Which would mean only rich and upper middle class people would have children. The poor and working class would not EVER be able to afford them. Of course, Mr. Brooks et al don't wish THAT, who would wash their cars, work in their factories, clean their pools and fix their plumbing (not to mention serve as the scapegoats for all their misanthropic policies) if the poor and working class don't reproduce themselves? No. This is just a another way to further the Social Darwinist thinking--if you don't have the money to have children but do anyway, then you (and they) shouldn't ask for help. If you wait to have children until you can afford them, you are being selfish and prolonging your odyssey.

Ugh, stuff like this drives me crazy. I hate being told that my generation is lazy. Older people don't seem to get that the world is different now than it was when they were in college, and that traditional markers of adulthood are outdated. Not owning a house or having kids by the time you're thirty is being realistic- college is stupidly expensive so pretty much everyone who goes has some debt afterwards, and also credit cards are marketed heavily towards young people, so a not-insignificant chunk of young people are dealing with that problem as well. Not to mention that to get most jobs you're expected to have some sort of usually unpaid internship experience- which means that we end up doing the boomers' grunt work FOR FREE. And also, most entry-level full-time positions are horribly underpaid. And all of that isn't even counting how expensive necessities like housing or health insurance are now! The older generation is screwing us over, and then telling us its our own fault for being "lazy." (Note- I realize that this rant was very middleclass-centric, but that is the group that Brooks is referring to. Which is a whole different problem.) It's like when men historically (and currently) refused to allow women to do things, and then used that as evidence that women don't want to do those things. It's the exact same bullshit argument.

"And guys, there IS a problem."

Not the one you are suggesting. The gap isn't the result of boys doing worse in school or caring about their futures less, it's just this weird side effect of gendered jobs, the wage gap, and the rising cost of higher education.

Men still have more career options than men do, and the ones that are considered "men's jobs" tend to pay better than "women's jobs". Despite all the talk about the glass ceiling, this is almost more true for blue collar jobs than for white collar jobs.

More men are choosing to go to vocational schools instead of getting bachelor's degrees because it's often a smarter choice for them economically. Women don't have as many options available in terms of vocational schools, especially when it comes to jobs that will pay a decent amount. Technically, women can certainly learn to become mechanics - many do - but realistically, they usually pay a higher cost for their education than men do and are less likely to have gotten the training at home to help them get started on that path. So it's less likely to be the easy option that is is for many men.

Car mechanics might not be rolling in it, but they damn well make a lot more than part-time day care providers. Plus, if one want to advance in early childhood education, one needs a degree - often an advanced degree, simply to get full time w/ benefits. The same isn't really true of being a mechanic. On top of all that, a lot of the schools for things like video game design and the like are much less flexible than community colleges, so women - who tend to spend more time doing little things like taking care of kids and keeping the house running, are less likely to choose to go that route.

So, college is, economically, a smarter choice for women, but the same isn't always true for men. The big gaps you see are being driven by people for whom college - even state and community college - is a huge investment. Since the cost of even state and community colleges has risen dramatically over the last few decades, the gender gap in college students has increased as well.

So, the problem isn't that we are failing men (by not caring about boys), it's again that we are failing women (by limiting their options) and that we are failing everybody (by making college increasingly cost prohibitive for even the middle class).

The only other real problem is the one has been around for a while - that minorities have less access to higher education. White boys are doing just fine academically. It's the non-white boys that aren't doing so well, and that's hardly news and therefore doesn't by itself explain the recent gender gap at colleges.

um....that should be "Men still have more career options than women do..."

obviously

Mickle, I agree with you've said. Please allow me to clarify what I mean when I said, "And guys, there IS a problem," I was not referencing the fact that men are falling behind in a wage race to keep ahead of the women (they are not, and I would never advocate that they engage in a wage race -- women still need to catch up). I was suggesting that women were availing themselves of a liberal arts education, learning things that will make them better-rounded human beings, and at alarming rates, young men are not. I agree with the economic reasons you've suggested for men taking this route, and my point was that this is not especially good for anyone in the long run.

I did not mean to suggest that women have as many options as the young men; in fact, as I noted somewhere above, exactly the opposite. Young white men, who have ALL the options and thus no excuses, are going to work out of high school or, as you suggest, availing themselves of tech schools, in order to start earning money more quickly. I have no doubt they believe this is a better econcomic decision for them (in the long run it generally is not, it will bar the great majority of our men from the professions, and many white-collar jobs).

My point was that masculinity seems to be speaking to our young men by failing to pass on an appreciation of the benefits of a well-rounded education. (I am biased in favor of a well-rounded college education, for reasons beyond the scope of this comment. I accept that some might challenge that bias as lacking in the importance I am admittedly attributing to it.) I do not mean to disparage those who opt for a job out of high school, but I believe that more and more, men are not opting to go to college because men are caught up in some twisted notions about what it means to be a man -- e.g., it's not cool to study (which I think is a terrible problem), and, yes, because they still perceive themselves to be nature's ordained "breadwinners" who need to start earning money fast.

I certainly agree we are failing our women by limiting the de facto options men enjoy. But we (and especially the men) are failing everyone by teaching our young men these confining, wrong-headed notions of masculinity that are gradually turning our liberal arts colleges into places only attractive to women. As noted above, this is not the fault of the women's movement, but of the "patriarchy," or whatever you prefer to call it and it's effect on mens' thinking. But these trends will hurt educated women in the long run because they will be speaking a different language than the vast majority of men, making the "gender" divide all the wider for those women who choose to seek a relationship with a man. And it will hurt society to the extent it contributes to the anti-intellectualism that another commentator noted above.

Mickle, I agree with you've said. Please allow me to clarify what I mean when I said, "And guys, there IS a problem," I was not referencing the fact that men are falling behind in a wage race to keep ahead of the women (they are not, and I would never advocate that they engage in a wage race -- women still need to catch up). I was suggesting that women were availing themselves of a liberal arts education, learning things that will make them better-rounded human beings, and at alarming rates, young men are not. I agree with the economic reasons you've suggested for men taking this route, and my point was that this is not especially good for anyone in the long run.

I did not mean to suggest that women have as many options as the young men; in fact, as I noted somewhere above, exactly the opposite. Young white men, who have ALL the options and thus no excuses, are going to work out of high school or, as you suggest, availing themselves of tech schools, in order to start earning money more quickly. I have no doubt they believe this is a better econcomic decision for them (in the long run it generally is not, it will bar the great majority of our men from the professions, and many white-collar jobs).

My point was that masculinity seems to be speaking to our young men by failing to pass on an appreciation of the benefits of a well-rounded education. (I am biased in favor of a well-rounded college education, for reasons beyond the scope of this comment. I accept that some might challenge that bias as lacking in the importance I am admittedly attributing to it.) I do not mean to disparage those who opt for a job out of high school, but I believe that more and more, men are not opting to go to college because men are caught up in some twisted notions about what it means to be a man -- e.g., it's not cool to study (which I think is a terrible problem), and, yes, because they still perceive themselves to be nature's ordained "breadwinners" who need to start earning money fast.

I certainly agree we are failing our women by limiting the de facto options men enjoy. But we (and especially the men) are failing everyone by teaching our young men these confining, wrong-headed notions of masculinity that are gradually turning our liberal arts colleges into places only attractive to women. As noted above, this is not the fault of the women's movement, but of the "patriarchy," or whatever you prefer to call it and it's effect on mens' thinking. But these trends will hurt educated women in the long run because they will be speaking a different language than the vast majority of men, making the "gender" divide all the wider for those women who choose to seek a relationship with a man. And it will hurt society to the extent it contributes to the anti-intellectualism that another commentator noted above.

Sorry, correction -- I should have said: "I certainly agree we are failing our women by keeping them from de facto options men enjoy."

I agree with much of what Tim said just above.

Call it what you will: "failure to launch", "extended adolescence", the "flight from responsibility" -- whatever it is, it's a nearly exclusively male phenomenon. And it's not women's fault, or the fault of supposedly feminized environments. It's the absence of strong male role models who meet responsibilities, embrace egalitarianism, show up for life -- and can alternately love young men just as they are and give them a kick in the ass from time to time to keep them moving towards a goal.

This kind of blaming of the younger generation for not being able to afford to live away from the family home really pisses me off!

In many regions of the country, the real estate/rental market is still so inflated that it is impossible to find affordable housing, and that still applies, even if you can find a job that doesn't pay bottom dollar in retail.

Are some young people (men and women) slackers? Oh yeah, but I think the bigger problem is the fact that many young people (even those from middle class backgrounds) have been priced out of higher education, and out of affordable places to live other than their parents' homes.

Those young people who do go to college without having the cash on hand to do so find themselves at 22 or 23 in a shitty job market with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. No wonder we're not financially secure enough to want kids! We can't even support ourselves!

Prof. Schwyzer's comment, above, hit the nail on the head better than I could ever do. I could not agree more.

Tim, I agree with the gap being a problem in the sense of people relating to one another.

I'm not so sure about the anti-intellectualism, though. Not because I don't think it's a problem, but because I don't really see this contributing to it that much. I think that there are a lot of other things that do and - will continue - to play a larger role in that particular problem.

So, I don't think the solution is to have as many people go to four year colleges as possible. I think the solution is to create as many opportunities for adults of all ages to continue learning, and to work for changes in our political, social, and business climates.

I guess my point is that we are never going to send everyone to college - at least not anytime soon - something more along the lines of Chautauqua would reach more people and address that particular problem better.

(sigh, but then, I'll also admit to being mostly annoyed that, for example, WB can say that having only 15% of their movies feature female leads and casts shows a deep commitment to quality storytelling, but women start making more than 50 % of college graduates for a few years and it's a national crisis.)

Mickle, I agree with your thoughtful post. And I especially agree with your comment at the end ". . . but women start making more than 50 % of college graduates for a few years and it's a national crisis." I am very sensitive to this issue and do my best to put myself in a woman's position who saw her gender held back for so long, and as soon as advances are finally made, for the first time in all history, a bunch of men start bemoaning it! I can't put myself entirely in a woman's shoes, but I'm trying -- I'm with you, and I absolutely am not bemoaning women's successes. We need to keep pushing for them. I don't want the guys to "beat" the women at enrollements, and I don't care if their numbers lag (I would like them to be in the same ballpark). I'm just perplexed that white guys have all the advantages and no excuses, but choose not to take advantage of college. My point is -- it's the f***ing patriarchy! It hurts women by the most; it also also hurts men in ways most men don't realize; it hurts everybody. (And I agree about the WB idiocy, too.)

Mickle, I agree with your thoughtful post. And I especially agree with your comment at the end ". . . but women start making more than 50 % of college graduates for a few years and it's a national crisis." I am very sensitive to this issue and do my best to put myself in a woman's position who saw her gender held back for so long, and as soon as advances are finally made, for the first time in all history, a bunch of men start bemoaning it! I can't put myself entirely in a woman's shoes, but I'm trying -- I'm with you, and I absolutely am not bemoaning women's successes. We need to keep pushing for them. I don't want the guys to "beat" the women at enrollements, and I don't care if their numbers lag (I would like them to be in the same ballpark). I'm just perplexed that white guys have all the advantages and no excuses, but choose not to take advantage of college. My point is -- it's the f***ing patriarchy! It hurts women by the most; it also also hurts men in ways most men don't realize; it hurts everybody. (And I agree about the WB idiocy, too.)

Let's take a look at that for a minute, specifically, the market rate. If company A is looking to hire a secretary and attempting to determine a fair wage for that position, they refer to the industry standard wage for that position. Sounds fair, yes? But..how did companies B-Z come up with their determination of the fair wage? By referring to the industry standard wage, of course. And where does the industry standard wage come from? By averaging the wages paid for a particular position by companies A-Z. It's a very lovely closed circle in which the average stays flat.

I somehow doubt that most non-union industries are particularly concerned with a "fair" wage. I think it would be more accurate to say that they seek to pay as little as they can without losing out on applicants. And given the extremely high cost of job loss and unemployment in the US, no matter how little you pay, there's going to be someone who needs the job just to avoid eviction.

Tim,
I think the reasons males are not doing as well in school have to do with the ways they're raised. I think there ought to be a study investigating a link between boys' perceptions of gender and the ways their parents encourage boys' self-identity. I bet there is a strong link between boys'gender identities and the outdated ideas about males still being instilled by their parents. A good example is the book,"The Dangerous Book for Boys." The authors, brothers Iggulden, believe 'normal' boyhood has been eroded by women's advancementsa. The authors feel the need to reestablish traditional 'boy identity." Because their book topped Amazons bestseller list, I challenge how many parents still identify with these outdated (and sexist) gender roles. It is as if some parents of boys have not acknowledged that girls are different than they were 30 years ago. It appears some parents of boys want to uphold gender roles, because it becomes an extension of themselves which allows them to plug into a privilege that is maintained only by upholding sexism in society.

I think that Brooks' article is under the same umbrella as those that claim the 'feminization' of school is to blame for boys' academic schizophrenia. However, statistics show boys are less likely to come to school prepared and do their homework. Adherents to reversing female achievment such as Brooks, are against female advancement,regardless, as it displaces their views about themselves.

I certainly agree we are failing our women by limiting the de facto options men enjoy. But we (and especially the men) are failing everyone by teaching our young men these confining, wrong-headed notions of masculinity that are gradually turning our liberal arts colleges into places only attractive to women.

It used to be the opposite: true gentlemen had a very well-rounded education (studying the arts, the classics, literature, and languages).

I think some of it is related to the mechanisms of how women advanced through academia. It used to be that women could write - think the Bronte sisters - as they could do so under pseudonyms and later be revealed as great writers. Also, well-bred ladies were supposed to have knowledge of such things.

As women advanced through literature and the humanities, they became less popular with men, who looked down upon any subject that women's supposed inferiour intellects could master. Psychology was a revered science back when it was dominated by men.

Women then moved, naturally, from literature and writing to psychology, sociology, and the like. Those areas then fell into relative disrepute. As women moved into biology, it became a "soft science."

Now, mathematics, physics, and engineering are considered the real, tough, macho subjects - precisely because women do not study them in great numbers.

The earning power of people who study those subjects has followed the same pattern. When women enter, the field pays less. As such, it makes sense that men would retreat to the few male-dominated fields left - vocational training and technology training. (I predict, however, that the latter will crumble in the next decade. Women who would consider bio are going to think about chem and physics; women who considered chem and physics and math are going to be engineers.)

The other issue is that work that is physically demanding pays more. Men are more willing and/or more able to do some of it (working in a quarry, for example), so they will continue to get paid well, even as women who do physically demanding work (such as being a housekeeper in a hotel - highest rate of on-the-job injuries) are paid much less.

I would qualify your last paragraph, oenophile, to say that work that is physically demanding pays more if those physical demands are considered masculine. Home health aides do an incredibly physically demanding job, lifting adults into and out of baths, wheelchairs, etc. and their wages are dreadful.

...which, now that I reread, I realize you said. So amend that to be adding another example of underappreciated female labor. I had eye-skip when I read it the first time; sorry.