Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Growing Up to Be Boys

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, In These Times. Posted March 23, 2006.


Since the rise of 'lad' culture in the '90s, grown men act like boys -- and are richly rewarded for it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Lakshmi Chaudhry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

When CBS unveiled its short-lived series "Love Monkey" in January, leading male television critics could barely contain their enthusiasm. The New York Times' Alessandra Stanley was far less impressed, especially with its lead male character, thirty-something music producer Tom Farrell, whose "endearing foibles" included "self-absorption, wanting what he cannot have and an inability to commit."

Based on the eponymous 2004 novel by Kyle Smith, "Love Monkey" offered the latest iteration of "lad-lit," a genre popularized by the likes of Nick Hornby, whose novels inevitably featured a confused, neurotic, discontented man-boy being dragged kicking and screaming into adulthood, usually by his girlfriend.

But where "lad lit" authors disguise the dumbing-down of adult masculinity with witty prose, advertising executives are less subtle. Commercials for cell phones, fast food, beer and deodorants offer up an infantilized version of masculinity that has become ubiquitous since the rise of "lad" culture in the '90s. These grown men act like boys -- and are richly rewarded for it. A recent cell phone ad, for example, features a guy who responds to being dumped by his girlfriend -- because "you're never going to grow up" -- by playing, on his cell phone, an '80s pop song that tells her to get lost. Of course, this immediately earns him the attention of a younger, prettier woman walking by.

While these ads pretend to mirror a male fantasy -- say, of walking down the wedding aisle armed with a six-pack of Bud Light -- they in fact reflect a corporate executive's dream customer: a man-boy who is more likely to remain faithful to their product than to his wife.

This shift in the dominant image of manhood is most evident in the evolution of the so-called "Family Man." The benevolent patriarch of the '50s has been replaced by an adult teenager who spends his time sneaking off to hang out with the boys, eyeing the hot chick over his wife's shoulder, or buying cool new toys. Like a fourteen-year-old, this guy can't be trusted with the simplest of domestic tasks, be it cooking dinner for the kids or shopping for groceries.

These pop culture images are all the more striking because they directly contradict the experiences of men in the real world. Women may still bear the greater burden of domestic work, but American males today do more at home than their fathers, and are happy doing it. According to the Families and Work Institute, the percentage of college-educated men who said they wanted to move into jobs with more responsibility fell from 68 percent to 52 percent between 1992 and 2002. A Radcliffe Public Policy Center report released in 2000 found that 70 percent of men between the ages of 21 to 39 were willing to sacrifice pay and lose promotions in exchange for a work schedule that allowed them to spend more time with their families.

Yet popular culture continues to fetishize the traditional, '50s model of masculinity, but in a distilled form -- kick-ass machismo stripped of the accompanying values of honor, duty and loyalty. We seem to have carried with us the unreconstructed sexism of the past -- the objectification of women, inability to connect or communicate -- but discarded its redeeming virtues. Where traditional masculinity embraced marriage, children and work as rites of passage into manhood, the 21st century version shuns them as emasculating, with the wife cast in the role of the castrating mother. The result resembles a childlike fantasy of manhood that is endowed with the perks of adulthood -- money, sex, freedom -- but none of its responsibilities.

At least part of this image is rooted in a real cultural trend, according to State University of New York at Stony Brook sociology professor Michael Kimmel. His upcoming book, Guyland, argues that men "are resisting becoming men longer and longer," doing their best to postpone all the decisions that mark the passage into adulthood -- getting a job, moving out of their parents' home, getting married, and having kids -- in order to enjoy the lad lifestyle of "online porn, drinking, and poker." This trend has its big-screen avatar in the hero of the film "Failure To Launch," which stars Matthew McConaughey as a thirty-something slacker whose desperate parents "hire the gorgeous and talented girl of his dreams to get him to move out of the house."

More significantly, however, this resistance to adulthood is closely associated with a market-driven consumerist culture that feeds and sustains a Peter Pan version of masculinity. "To be grown up is to be settled, comfortable, stable, responsible, and secure," Kimmel says. "Those are bad conditions for advertising, which depends on our sense of insecurity, anxiety, and incompleteness."

The market also has little time for the old-fashioned male virtue of self-denial, the imperative to do the "right thing" at the expense of pleasure. A stoic John Wayne has been replaced by the "metrosexual," a man who is all about self-indulgence and defined almost entirely by his wallet. At the beauty salon, designer boutique or exclusive health club, a metrosexual spends, therefore he is.

Susan Faludi foreshadowed the rise of the metrosexual in her 1999 book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, which describes an "ornamental culture" that tells men "manhood is displayed, not demonstrated. The internal qualities once said to embody manhood -- sure-footedness, inner strength, confidence of purpose -- are merchandised to men to enhance their manliness. What passes for the essence of masculinity is being extracted and bottled and sold back to men. Literally, in the case of Viagra."


Digg!

Lakshmi Chaudhry is a senior editor at In These Times and a former senior editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yep...
Posted by: Narco-NYC on Mar 23, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well. I couldn't agree more. One sees this man-boy everywhere now. The cable ad with a man gleefully exclaiming, "tunes!" Or the cell phone commercial with a man dancing in place to delirious. On the other hand, the idea the persona is a attempt by advertisers to create a perfect consumer is pretty whacked too. Yes, it's stupid. It's TV!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yep...but Posted by: nedwylie
I've seen lots of classic movies
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Mar 23, 2006 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And in loads of movies from the 50s (Doris Day films come to mind), men are searching for lives of pleasure, either playboys with well paying jobs or idle rich investors. Only the love of a good woman drags them to the altar and gets them to 'grow up', and even then, with reluctance.
American culture has revered the bachelor for decades, and portrayed wives as nagging kill-joys who insist that nights of playing poker and drinking with the boys must be limited.
I see nothing new in the modern culture except in that slackers(minimum wage earners) as well as playboys(rich) may be on display. And that the women may not be keen to drag them to the altar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've seen lots of classic movies
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Mar 23, 2006 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And in loads of movies from the 50s (Doris Day films come to mind), men are searching for lives of pleasure, either playboys with well paying jobs or idle rich investors. Only the love of a good woman drags them to the altar and gets them to 'grow up', and even then, with reluctance.
American culture has revered the bachelor for decades, and portrayed wives as nagging kill-joys who insist that nights of playing poker and drinking with the boys must be limited.
I see nothing new in the modern culture except in that slackers(minimum wage earners) as well as playboys(rich) may be on display. And that the women may not be keen to drag them to the altar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The blame lies with the advertisers
Posted by: NIKUZAI on Mar 23, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lad culture is mirrored by the ladette culture - the ads for a six-pack of beer are matched by ads for pretty shoes aimed at women. Certainly, the ad-people are appealing to male consumers boyhood desires and attitudes (reckless, tastless humour, immature attitude to women, etc, etc) but that is only because the same approach has already been proven with female consumers (pretty shoes, being transformed into a princess, etc). I also think all this rubbish talk about 'emasculated masculinity' (new man, metrosexual, etc) is simply an attempt by advertisers to get a grip on the male demographic in the same way that they have got a grip on female consumers with weight-loss - they are simply trying to find the male weakspot, something that they can raise a doubt in the average male consumer about their manhood/appeal to the opposite sex(i.e. 'women now prefer well-groomed men, the age of macho men is over' or whatever bollocks) to which they can offer a product as a solution (i.e. a variety of pricey skincare products).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the symptom is not the problem
Posted by: Finnegansawake on Mar 23, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is being missed in the article is that it is not the media/advertising industry trying to wrangle masculine identity away from an old ideal and then packaged and marketed to the masses that is the problem, but that this can be appealing due to the lack of true male role-models in the world today. I'm not talking about someone on the TV or movie screen. I'm referring to the absence in the living room, at the kitchen table, and in the back yard.

We are looking at a generation that a large percentage of which have grown up without a male in the household to serve as an example of what a man is really supposed to be. We are a generation that has been largely been raised by women, and while there is no shame in being a single-mother, it certainly leaves a void in a young man's life to be filled by hair products, skin moisturizers, and advertisements for the latest model Hummer.

You can decry the advertising industry all you want for creating a consumerist man-boy ideal in society, but the ad industry is only doing what it was made to do and moving a product on as many people as it can. The problem lies in the household where a boy doesn't learn what a real man is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Second that! Posted by: stuck_in_FL
» Careful there... Posted by: Juergo
» RE: Careful there... Posted by: Finnegansawake
Failure to commit
Posted by: Dr_Gno on Mar 23, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Missing from the discussion is the power imbalance now prevalent in the marriage relationship. Guys know that even if they do everything right (be a good hardworking husband, caring lover, devoted father) they can still lose everything if the female partner choses unilaterally to leave for whatever reason. Guys are asked to commit their entire lives to marraige under a contract that does not protect them. They know the odds are quite good that they'll wind up living in a dumpy efficiency apartment eating out of an Aldi's bag, with no role in parenting, no real interaction with their children whom the they love and miss dearly, and no say over their own economic future. They know because they've see this very scenario played out time and time again. Every guy knows of a Mr. Cellophane who is invisible, slogs thru life paying support for decades and barely getting by, an emotional wreck torn from his family, still making the payments on the hot tub his ex and her new beau are soaking in.

Facing that prospect, being a Love Monkey looks like a better choice to many young men. Pre-nups for young first-weds are still taboo, so until men have better expectations of security in marriage, this is not likely to change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: MrVetinari
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: KJack
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: monkeybrig
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: Dr_Gno
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: KJack
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: Dr_Gno
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: Petros
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: Failure to commit Posted by: the poet
Also...
Posted by: RudiTuzla on Mar 23, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So..... are you looking for a return of "Father Knows Best"? I thought we had had enough of Patriarchy. While eternal immaturity is hardly to be seen as the ultimate expression of masculinity, returning to the rigid sex-roles of the 50's seems like a mighty conservative solution.

Advertising is based on lowest common-denominator theory. It's always been moronic. Nothing new here, and if it doesn't represent the real lives of men then what are you so worked up about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Also... Posted by: Dr_Gno
Barbara Ehrenreich's "Hearts of Men" made this point years ago
Posted by: janvdb on Mar 23, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And there has still been no adequate social response.

The trend seems to have picked up steam since she wrote it. And, yes, it was starting in classic movies -- Barbara Ehrenreich tagged the start of the phenomenon earlier, but saw the big take-off with Hugh Heffner (that big toddler in his pajamas running around the house all day playing with his Playmates) and the "playboy" culture.

It probably really took off with the increased availability of non-marital sex once reliable birth control became available and women were no longer living "under the gun" every month.

What can be done about it? Well, I think that newborns should be wards of state and up for adoption until until they have a SS# and no newborn should be issued a SS# until that # can be linked, by DNA test if necessary, to a FATHER. The federal tax bill of a non-custodial parent(s) (probably the father) would instantly and automatically increase by about a child support payment; the money would be deposited in the name of the child in a special account managed by a regulated, high-quality daycare system. Custodial parent(s) or grandparent(s) could make application to the account for the payment of daycare, medical costs, educational costs and other legitimate child-related costs. Anything unused when the child is 21 would be turned over to the child.

Any man who failed to pay a minimum would be arrested, charged with a special misdemeanor, put to work inside a jail or prison and paid market wages to do any of the hundreds of jobs inmates now do for 17 cents an hour. All wages would be garnished until his unpaid minimum is covered.

I think this would address the worst outcomes of the problem Lakshmi is talking about -- scattered broods of abandoned, fatherless, unsupported children and men who don't think that birth control or abortion rights are their problems, but are something they can shrug off onto the backs of women.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mm.
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 23, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would have liked this article to have had some comparative analysis between old traditional manhood and new traditional manhood. It is easy to decry confident expressions of masculinity as patriarchal. Yet, as feminists champion the right of choice for women, expanding gender boundaries to affirm both masculine and feminine behavior in females, they should not being denying masculinity to men. We need to define and encourage happy, strong, respectful masculinity and discourage controlling, misogynist masculinity. Masculine people of all genders should be proud and happy to grow into themselves!

This piece seemed more centered on immature modern masculinity and did not provide a link to the sources of masculinity in years past, when the same immaturity probably took on a more patriarchal face. At the same time, it did not draw distinctions between old mature masculinity and what mature masculinity should look like today. It is not the same as apples vs. oranges, but there are some pieces missing from the argument.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good discussion. But ain't nothing new or current about it. It's chronic
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 23, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was my critique (but I didn't see it until then) of Playboy in the early '70s. The problem was not the beautiful naked girls, nor the 'joy of sex' mystique, but the display ads that really paid the printing tab. Still, it was only an extension of Esquire.

So 'lad culture' goes way, way back, because it is the way males have been merchandised--since Salome and her seven veils?

Yes, the difference is the intensity of it these days. That's because it works. And it's because both males and females choose to be entertained rather than educated. We even have the permission of our Freudian shrinks, who peddle the benefits of primary narcissism. Our healers are sick. Is it any wonder the rest of us are, also?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A note
Posted by: bettsoff on Mar 23, 2006 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is in my personality to be playful, even as an adult, and I think many people also have this urge. However, there's a difference between having fun and being crass, and I think the consumerist culture encourages the latter--individualism, isolationism, you are cool and unique for having the clothes and the gadgets that make others feels bad about themselves, blah, blah). I admit the article pissed me off with its opening shots, because I thought, "What? Now that I'm a grown up I can't be goofy anymore?" Upon reading further, I realized the examples labelled as 'play' were actually pretty rude and mean-spirited. I don't know that I'd call them immature--most kids are not jerks by virtue of their age! The only link I could see was that these images of immature men showed crass behavior having no repercussions or even positive effects vis-a-vis that annoying break-up by phone-mp3 commercial.

However, even if children don't always grasp the extent of the repercussions of their actions, I think most of them learn quite early that actions do have effects. If anything, I think this article subconsciously illustrates the effect marketing has on our perception of *children* as gleefully callous, selfish, irresponsible gadget collectors. Comparing a fake image of masculinity to a fake (but perceived as real) image of childhood. Interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apples, oranges and ads
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 23, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chaudhry seizes upon a real -- and really annoying -- trend, the strange prolongation of adolescence -- and then mixes apples and oranges into a recipe for male-bashing.

Yes, many ads depict young men as immature bozos, but they do the same for young women, which Chaudhry chooses to overlook. Further, Chaudhry seems to equate male maturity with a willingness to subject one's self to the many horrors of marriage as it is practiced today. (For men, a marriage is usually a few years of domestic servitude followed by divorce and many more years of financial exploitation by the ex-wife.)

Yet Chaudhry seems to think men should rush to embrace this fate as part of their "responsibility" as adults. Nonsense! To their credit, young men are increasingly harder to "catch" -- as some women so accurately describe it -- and rightly so.

Yes, those brainless, narcissistic boys and girls on TV are annoying, but they are just phantoms conjured up by our consumer culture. Real-life coupling is much more serious and potentially dangerous, and men are justifiably much more wary of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Right on the mark
Posted by: Sixties Girl on Mar 23, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. You hit it on the head regarding marketing/advertising/consumerism's nemisis--growing up. This is true of both sexes, but it is most visible with respect to men, or rather, laddie-men, because, well...they are the more visible, financially powerful. What's that book we women all read 20-some years ago about the Peter Pan theory? It's alive and well and living on reality shows, sit-coms, movies, novels, news casts, blogs, articles, billboards, magazines, pod casts, music...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The internal qualities once said to embody manhood...
Posted by: gdieken on Mar 23, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...sure-footedness, inner strength, confidence of purpose are exactly the qualities we now beat out of boys in our post-feminist, politically correct education system. See the PBS program Raising Cain.

With a broad societial rejection of boyness, how could a young man grow up to be anything but a pallid, indistinct metrosexual?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Jessica Simpson really wants..
Posted by: Sundance98 on Mar 23, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't have to wonder any more.....what Jessica Simpson really wants...this article is what "hip and trendy" really means..now if you can only get the wardrobe to go with ..... Remember "Roll Models"? Like Dennis Rodman, Pete Rose, Kobi Bryant, George Clooney, Al Franken, Mike Tyson, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers and Bill Clinton? And those are just the mature ones we can remember! Why does the term "Girly man" come to mind? Suppose people like Ted
Williams, Dandy Don Meredith and Muhammed Ali....are too
tough for the youngsters to understand.
rw

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Was thinking about this the other day
Posted by: gjames on Mar 23, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see how this man-boy is substantially different than anything that has come before it. The issue isn't types of masculinity, the issue is patriarchy. Who cares if men moisturize, that does not lend itself toward politicizing gender.

We have to politicize gender because men of the white and straight variety still overwhelmingly dominate every post of leadership be it civic, commercial, industrial, political, military. Patriarchy is flourishing and THAT is the story--the man-boy distracts from that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not masculinity, it is the society and culture
Posted by: ghoster on Mar 23, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, men today seem transparent and shallow in some areas, but look at our society, culture what do they put forward as something to be admired. Rampant consumerism, (hummer purchase) instant gratification, walk away responsibility, and many other points, first if we want our male children to be better people, we better become better people as parents too. Self discipline, integrity, honesty, and fairness, are just a few of the attributes that need to be re-enforced in our youngsters. With the large amount of return to the nesters coming home to the grandparents house, it is no wonder that they are doing the heavy lifting of child rearing these days. Until we make it possible to survive on a single wage earners income we are doomed to keep on having these societal problems. But the good news is that this society is unsustainable so maybe pretty soon we will see a change in the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder if...
Posted by: sln70 on Mar 23, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the man boy is actually the result of classism.

A lot of respondents want to blame feminism (*sigh*) but I think it goes much deeper - I think it's about men feeling like they have no way of attaining real power and therefore abandoning all attempts to get it. Immasculation comes frm the top downward.. no? Women can't immasculate men, other men have to do it.

In today's world there are arguably more barriers than every before to wealth, powerful positions, and even more barriers to marriage prospects for men. As a result, they rebel by acting like they dont' care anyway. To prove it, they get as irresponsible as possible.

It isn't about our education system or women in the workforce or even advertising and media. It's about a lack of hope that he will ever attain traditional "respect" from other men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» make that emasculate? Posted by: sln70
Am I missing something?
Posted by: twerquie on Mar 23, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All I really took away from this article is that advertisers are trying to stuff a pre-made self-image down men's throats that they don't actually seem to be buying when you look at the statistics. I think it's great that you've managed to establish that most men in the real world are smart enough to make their own decisions, and do, refusing to let the marketocracy remake them in its own image. So, what exactly is the problem?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"i don't want to talk about it"
Posted by: saywhat? on Mar 23, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is a book by terrance real that maps out the depression that men go through, and clearly draws the senerios of grandiosity/ withdrawal behaviors exhibited by men.......(and no mooray, it is not a 'how to get and keep your man ' book)....pop culture and technology certainly impact all of our behaviors ....the man/ boy slacker syndrom has alot to do with poor coping skills on the part of men, and pop culture media has found a way of capiltalising on men's vulnerability....especially young men.........until men begin to introspectively analyze themselves as perceptively as they analyse , say politics or money, they will forever be caught in their own web of denial and depression...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Does It Mean to Be "A Man"?
Posted by: kwfryatl on Mar 23, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . what does it mean to be "a woman"? What does it mean to be "straight"? What does it mean to be "gay"? What does it mean to be "an American"? What does it mean to be "successful"? What does it mean to be "committed"?

A wise man once told me, "Everbody needs to figure out who they are, and then go be that on purpose."

I don't need anyone's acceptance, approval, or understanding for me to live my life the way I need to - and my life is chock full of love, support, success, peace, and joy.

Bottom line: if you don't want a "lad" in your life, don't hang with him, date him, or marry him. But that doesn't mean he's not going to be happy, successful, and content with his life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on Now
Posted by: Blue Heron on Mar 23, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are men that frail that they cannot define their own masculinity? Culture does dictate many aspects of our lives, I know. But give me a break. Feminism was not just some horrible monster that threw male identity head first into a crisis. Let's just stop demonizing women already. And if a man doesn't want to commit, well just leave him a the fringes of society where he belongs, and probably wants to be anyway. It's not that bloody complicated people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Traditions, they are a changin'
Posted by: Jobu on Mar 23, 2006 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, sorry for posting my own comment and not adding onto something someone else has said; seems this is the trend for this article.

Second, I appreciate Lakshmi's attention to this topic. The trend of overgrown idiots being used to sell anything and everything to us males has become very tiresome and insulting to men, in my opinion.

What I wanted to add is that more and more, our society seems to be questioning our traditions, which is at least partly evident in these men. The term "emerging adulthood" has been used to describe late 20 year olds who are increasingly putting off getting married and starting a career. As one of these older 20somethings, I know that I am nauseated at the thought of settling for the most commonly offered career, that of a corporate lackey, climbing the ladder, etc, especially at a time where employee loyalty and worker's rights are in such decline.

Marriage hasn't proven to be much more reliable in the past some odd years. We are continually questioning such man-made concepts and wish to make meaningful choices, not rash ones.

In the meantime, we're offered copious amounts of entertainment, all readily available, which helps us (or at least me) postpone such complicated, heavy decisions. So i guess in part I'm saying that this is this generation's "fuck off" to some traditions which have proven to be empty in many ways, and I'm also saying that now more than ever, we have such an array of vapid, mindless entertainment available to us...such temptation!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"There are millions of such men." - what a load
Posted by: fleurdelamer on Mar 23, 2006 6:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As Neil Chethik, author of the newly published book VoiceMale: What Husbands Really Think About Their Marriages, Their Wives, Sex, Housework, and Commitment, found, most American men -- the flesh-and-blood variety -- embrace their roles as fathers and husbands. But they recognize that being a 'real man' requires that they are honest and respectful and willing to sacrifice. There are millions of such men."

What BS. Chethik must be living in an alternate universe from me. I am surrounded by whining, sniveling, scared, game-playing, lazy, crude, irresponsible, no-spine, 40-something males who act, dress, and behave like teens.

Not only can these boys not make commitments, they can even make the simplest of decisions. They want, need, and crave women who will instruct them on what to do and where to be every minute of every day. Some of us simply cannot operate in that model, and no woman should stand for that crap.

That is why I no longer use the word "man" or "men". I reserve those terms for when I meet someone who truly fulfills them.... which happens about once a year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a lot of claims
Posted by: insulafortune on Mar 26, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a late 20's man whois unemployed and single this article hit home a bit for me. I'm neither of these things by choice however and my days are not spent "having fun".

For me, growing up isn't just about accepting responsability and sacrifice it is also playing around and having fun. My failures in relationships was not due to so much to a lack of proper guilt or feeling of responsability but not being able to relax and accept my partner or my job. I was failing to generate fun in them as well. Depression and anxiety threw me off everytime, not a night out with the boys or porn or toys or getting my hair done.

The article is right about adversting and tv in general not wanting people to relax and making us always want something new, not noticing the world is always changing regardless.

I may not be a "man" yet by the article's standards but I'm not blaming feminists, my dad, or lack of values. I've always been pretty responsable at work or in relationships but I get depressed and anxious. Not cuz I'm habituated to too much easy fun, but because I'm not relaxing or I get "bored" which is usually the same thing. Which may or may not be influenced by advertising / cultural expectations.

a little self absorbed introspection for ya :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 27, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, a "Man" is someone who acts upon his convictions.

Convictions for me, at least, involve an understanding of how I interact with the others in my community, my nation, my world.

"Growing up" is in no small part, the amount of consideration for others that one can demonstrate in their own lives.

There are a lot of "Responsible" Americans who have their finances in order, but treat their fellow Americans like garbage.

I'm hard pressed to think of them in terms of being "Adults".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Irony
Posted by: Petros on Mar 27, 2006 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it amazing to hear liberals bemoan the disappearance of traditional masculinity (or at least the parts that women still want). Weren't you folks the primary proponents of a feminism that for years has treated maleness as a pathology to be medicated; that denied that any significant difference exists between the sexes (except that all males are inherently evil); and that set about eliminating any trace of traditional masculinity from our young boys? No? I must be mistaken then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consumer families everywhere
Posted by: Takeit on Mar 29, 2006 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that men being single forever is what advertisers want is ridiculous.
Almost every ad today is not anywhere near focused on an unwed demographic.
How many cars do single men have? 1
Families? 2 or 3
How many diamonds do single men buy? 0 to 1
Families? 1 to 10 or more.
And this is the same for nearly every product.
And the very idea that marriage is a part of adulthood is equally idealistic and naive.
You don't need to be forced into being with someone forever to raise children in a loving home.
And whats wrong with online porn, and beer (gambling is just stupid)?
Women in the adult industry always have two detractors.
Chauvanist right wingers who want to protect (FUCK) them.
And feminist lesbians who want to protect (FUCK) them.
Not every man associates one pair of breasts on a website with every other woman in the world. And no one is holding guns to their heads.
And beer has been around almost as long as prostitution, which predates Abraham and the National Orgainization for Woman.
I work my ass off to take care of a woman I've been with for 5 years. And when I get home I cook and clean as much as there is to do. And I'd never marry her, because this is 2006, not 1492.
Sure I got a few "luxury items" as you like to dismiss them, as toys, but going to work day in and out, working weekends, just toput food in our mouths, I think I deserve some R&R when I can get it.
The reason there are these man-boys out there is quite easy to understand.
They've ALWAYS been here.
Some dudes are slobs who go no where and make no plans.
Big deal. Let them spawn their bastards and live with their parents.
Bush, Kerry and all the ad execs would prefer a married and complacint buying public, than a bunch of singles who can think for themselves.
Come on now, this article could be repeated just as easy by a Tom DeLay or Pat Robertson if you just switch all the party affiliations around.
It's a bunch of "Blame the Culture" winger garbage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hmm...?
Posted by: EliotKing on Apr 30, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand. It seems to me that the author is presenting conflicting information--he both states that authors of books on the subject are reporting that men are more willingly and increasingly personally responsible in home life--but yet he also says ads and popular culture are perpetuating a breed of Peter Pans that shirk the admirable and healthy tenets of adulthood. How can these things occur simultaneously? Are they not contradicting?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]