Male Status Objects in the Wall Street Journal
Kay S. Hymowitz's Wall Street Journal article "Where Have The Good Men Gone?" purports to spotlight a problem with young men. But this article only reveals her personal bias as to what makes a man "good," and points to the larger issue of some women treating men as status objects. Hymowitz starts:
Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This "pre-adulthood" has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it's time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn't bring out the best in men.
Surely, this provocative assertion must be the result of rigorous psychological and historical studies? Nope. It's something a comedienne said:
"We are sick of hooking up with guys," writes the comedian Julie Klausner, author of a touchingly funny 2010 book, "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Felons, Faux-Sensitive Hipsters and Other Guys I've Dated." What Ms. Klausner means by "guys" is males who are not boys or men but something in between.
Ouch! The comedian is "sick of us!" I guess men should consult Dane Cook for his observations on women today. The comedienne-philosopher goes on to say:
"Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home."
OMG! It is sooooooooooooo totally lame and stuff that men enjoy Star Wars! The educated women of America have much more sophisticated tastes, like Twilight. And what's up with the "dad" reference? TMI, Julie. TMI.
Hymowitz goes on to discuss some demographic trends that point to more and more young people staying single. But though this trend is evident in both genders, the author portrays it is a sign of empowerment in women and boorishness in men.They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace.
Oh yes, the women be kicking them male butts for sure. Even "the professors" say so! But of course, this female achievement wouldn't have anything to do with gender bias against males, would it? Of course not. Must not even consider that possibility.
Despite that women are out-achieving men, they're not satisfied. The author writes:Still, for these women, one key question won't go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers—a gender gap neatly crystallized by the director Judd Apatow in his hit 2007 movie "Knocked Up."
Again with the pop culture references! Hmmm...haven't women told us for 40 years now that pop culture has unrealistic portrayals of girls and women? But the portrayals of men are hunky-dory I guess. You betcha! Also, this is where Hymowitz's agenda starts to come clear: Men are only "good" when they meet or exceed a woman's status requirements.
Hymowitz does make one fair point when she talks about how many of today's jobs require young people to remain mobile. She writes, "Fields that attract ambitious young men and women often require years of moving between school and internships, between internships and jobs, laterally and horizontally between jobs, and between cities in the U.S. and abroad." Very true. This is why some of my peers have been leery of serious relationships. They have no idea where their jobs will take them next. But Hymowitz has little respect for young people not aiming for a glamorous job."Those who don't get a four-year college degree are not in a position to compete for the more satisfying jobs of the knowledge economy." Well, excuse me but who is she to declare what job is satisfying? Not everyone wants to be a glamorous "knowledge" professional. Many people, especially men, enjoy working with their hands. And trade-oriented careers can result in a nice middle-class income. Why doesn't she discuss them? I guess those men simply aren't worthy of today's fabulous women. Pop culture is once again cited to bash young men:They watched movies with overgrown boy actors like Steve Carell, Luke and Owen Wilson, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Will Farrell and Seth Rogen, cheering their awesome car crashes, fart jokes, breast and crotch shots, beer pong competitions and other frat-boy pranks...What explains this puerile shallowness?
Would it mean anything to Ms. Hymowitz if I mentioned those movies have a large following among young women too? Or if I pointed out that many young men (including me) can't stand that style of humor? Nope! We are just puerile and shallow! Surely, today's young women have better things to do than put up with us. After all, they have Sex And The City and Gossip Girl reruns to watch.
Next, the author points out something about gender roles which I generally agree with:
It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills.
But then she again slaps us across the face:
and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.
Oh REALLY? So, all the young male soldiers fighting and dying around the world lack fortitude and stoicism? Young firefighters and police officers lack courage and fidelity? I guess those professions are unremarkable, compared to the courage required to write illogical and hypocritical male-bashing screeds. Hymowitz concludes:
Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man.
So to recap: What is a "good man" to Hymowitz? An ambitious, highly-educated professional in a glamorous industry. All you tradesmen, soldiers, and public servants are unworthy. And what does Hymowitz expect of this "good man" to prove his goodness? Get married and be a husband, of course! That's right, lads. Forget your intellectual, athletic, and artistic pursuits. Forget your empathy for worthy causes around the world. To be a "good man" you have to be a status object for a woman, a husband, and a father. That's the ONLY way you can be good, so you best hop to it! Obey Mommy! Nowhere in the article does Hymowitz show even a shred of concern for why men are falling behind. Nope, her only issue is our attributes as a status symbol for women. Nor does she show any curiosity as to why upwardly mobile young men refuse to be married. Were I her, I would take a hard look at why XBox 360 is more compelling to men than a steady relationship with a modern woman. But that would require Hymowitz to look in the mirror. An action which no doubt fills her with fear and loathing.
For further reading:
Tom Matlack of "The Good Men Project" weighs in on the article.
The Spearhead contributor Elusive Wapiti has an interesting take on it, with several other links.
Rob Asghar writes a solid response here.
