Is this writer just bitter or does she have a point?

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: loki8481
ah, women.

they make me glad I'm gay.

I'm straight but after reading this crap article I'm seriously considering of becoming gay

 

[Madwand1]

Hymowitz writes well, although it's at a level generally higher than her subject audience. I guess that's fine if you're trying to reach them through secondary influences.

The heart of the matter, I think, is in this section:

The superficiality, indolence and passionlessness evoked in Mr. Hornby's novels haven't triggered any kind of cultural transformation. The SYM doesn't read much, remember, and he certainly doesn't read anything prescribing personal transformation. The child-man may be into self-mockery; self-reflection is something else entirely.

That's too bad. Young men especially need a culture that can help them define worthy aspirations.

Adults don't emerge. They're made.

These are great ideas, but she hasn't substantiated and gone beyond them. She refers passingly to correlation of responsibility and adulthood with family, which is fine as far as it goes, but that isn't enough. In a way, it's selfishness taken to the next immediate level, necessitated by a form of accident. While it teaches something about responsibility and sacrifice, it doesn't teach why beyond the needs of the immediate next-to-self.

I think she fails to recognize that it is in the noise and busyness of the mechanisms of modern economic sustenance, which are further intensified while raising a family, that what she's referring to -- transformation, self-reflection, and worthy aspirations, are not necessarily more easily achieved. Let's be clear -- they're not easily achieved at all, and her positioning of the nuclear family as somehow achieving such lofty goals significantly by itself could at best a reduction of those goals to domesticity.

Domesticity is better than the alternative. I don't disagree with that. But I disagree that domesticity is the goal, and that the SM or SF would be non-reflective, to the point where I might claim that some of them, not unlike the sinner turning saint, might indeed be ones given to greater self-reflection and emergence of values beyond the immediate self and next-to-self.

Cheers.

 

[Svnla]

Oh yeah, get married quickly to the wrong girl...divorce...then 18 years of child support * number of kid(s)...plus alimony..and lawyer fees and emotion distress...and on and on....sure ..let do it now baby.

Another thing the author forgot to say was having a kid now is expensive. In the 50s and 60s, the hubby could work (with a highschool diploma or less) and provided for the whole family. Now, two parents are working (with college degrees or higher) and barely getting by.

She said men are sleeping around without any committments...well...there must be a bunch of FEMALE accomplices in order for those guys to do so.

This is not an objective article but a male bashing collection.

LOL @ the author's comment about choices of serious drama...yeah...like shows from the Lifetime and Oxygen channels..and those paperback romance novels and magazines like Cosmo and Shopping.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Domesticity is better than the alternative. I don't disagree with that. But I disagree that domesticity is the goal, and that the SM or SF would be non-reflective, to the point where I might claim that some of them, not unlike the sinner turning saint, might indeed be ones given to greater self-reflection and emergence of values beyond the immediate self and next-to-self.

Cheers.

I would absolutely love to hear your explanation as to why domesticity is better than the alternative. It is different from the alternative, certainly. But I do not see what makes it "better".

Whenever someone speaks of how wonderful it is to be domestic I am reminded of a poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay:

Grown Up

Was it for this I uttered prayers,
And sobbed and cursed and kicked the stairs,
That now, domestic as a plate,
I should retire at half-past eight?

It is worth noting that among the definitions of the word "domesticate" is, "to bring to the level of ordinary people" (emphasis mine). Domesticity is nice, and it's comfortable. On tired days it is even desirable. But in the end it is choosing to become dust rather than ashes.

It is possible to have a family life without falling into domesticity and such is my own goal.

ZV

 

[waffleironhead]

when did feminism go from being pro-female to being anti-male...


stupid me...its always been that way

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead
when did feminism go from being pro-female to being anti-male...


stupid me...its always been that way

That's not true...the feminists of old would be outraged at their modern equivalents. There was a time when it actually was about equal rights and respect.

Not in my lifetime, mind you.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: zig3695
my gf cooks and cleans. i make money. call it oldschool or whatever but it works pretty damn good.

ROFL :thumbsup:

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Young (people) especially need a culture that can help them define worthy aspirations.

This may be one of the few useful ideas from the article (obviously I changed it to include women). People need aspirations or goals that allow them to achieve their self worth and contribute something of value to society.

I disagree with her assertion that marriage, domesticity and a career are the only "worthy" goals in life. They can be worthy to some, but not all. In fact, to make a "lasting mark on society", one may need to eschew some or all of those so-called worthy aspirations.

She has a point that modern culture makes it difficult for young people to define their aspirations. When they're out socializing, playing video games, etc., many young people have a short-term mindset, only thinking ahead to tomorrow night, the weekend - the instant gratification. Women are just as guilty of it as men - whether a person achieves instant gratification from buying a new pair of shoes or getting that headshot, it is the same, and the author's double standard does not recognize that.

In generations past (generally), people were able to think more long-term - read literature, engage in discourse, and plan for the future. Contrast this with the current generation. Many people don't read outside of work or school, they cannot form coherent arguments or debate effectively, and they get into massive debt instead of investing.

The culture that will foster growth for young people is the culture of exploration: young people who travel, learn about other cultures, experiment with art, music, writing, sports, and hobbies, and discuss ideas with others. Notice that young people don't necessarily need to be married or in a long-term career to do these things.

It's not that young people need to give up video games, drinking, or hooking up, nor that they need to do these things in the first place; rather they need to balance mass-produced, mainstream entertainment with an exploration of who they are and what they can contribute to the world. Anyone can get married, have children and work in a cubicle for 40 years. Some young people aspire to something different, and they use their twenty-something years to explore those possibilities.

The culture of exploration ensures that humans continue to evolve and grow, rather than merely procreating and passing the status quo on to the next generation ad infinitum.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: waffleironhead
when did feminism go from being pro-female to being anti-male...


stupid me...its always been that way

That's not true...the feminists of old would be outraged at their modern equivalents. There was a time when it actually was about equal rights and respect.

Not in my lifetime, mind you.

Good to know it wasnt always this way.

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: waffleironhead
when did feminism go from being pro-female to being anti-male...


stupid me...its always been that way

That's not true...the feminists of old would be outraged at their modern equivalents. There was a time when it actually was about equal rights and respect.

Not in my lifetime, mind you.

Good to know it wasnt always this way.

oh it was, they just pretended not to be anti male until they had a good foothold.

 

[Fritzo]

I can't say I disagree with a lot of that article. I see a LOT of mid-20's people with decent jobs still living at home to maintain their 16 year old life style. They're like teenagers with large incomes!

Yeah...I'm jealous

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Domesticity is better than the alternative. I don't disagree with that. But I disagree that domesticity is the goal, and that the SM or SF would be non-reflective, to the point where I might claim that some of them, not unlike the sinner turning saint, might indeed be ones given to greater self-reflection and emergence of values beyond the immediate self and next-to-self.

I would absolutely love to hear your explanation as to why domesticity is better than the alternative.

[...]

It is possible to have a family life without falling into domesticity and such is my own goal.

I simply meant that I believe "family life" is better than a philandering lifestyle. I'm non-specific about sorts of "family life", and I'm also not going to argue in detail about possible variations of "philandering lifestyles", or why I might believe one is better than another.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Whenever someone speaks of how wonderful it is to be domestic ...

I didn't.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
I simply meant that I believe "family life" is better than a philandering lifestyle. I'm non-specific about sorts of "family life", and I'm also not going to argue in detail about possible variations of "philandering lifestyles", or why I might believe one is better than another.

So one vague and un-defined lifestyle is, in you opinion, preferable to another vague and un-defined lifestyle.

If you cannot define what you mean by "domesticity" or "family life" and similarly cannot define what exactly is a "philandering lifestyle", then you have no base on which to establish support for your opinion. I can see it being a valid opinion but you leave it utterly unsupported if you cannot even define your terms.

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Whenever someone speaks of how wonderful it is to be domestic ...

I didn't.

How can the phrase, "Domesticity is better than the alternative." be taken as anything other than an endorsement of being domestic? Leaving aside the false dilemma this implies (i.e. that there is a single alternative as opposed to multiple alternatives), the phrase still has only one possible interpretation, which is that to be domestic is preferred over not being domestic.

ZV

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
How can the phrase, "Domesticity is better than the alternative." be taken as anything other than an endorsement of being domestic? Leaving aside the false dilemma this implies (i.e. that there is a single alternative as opposed to multiple alternatives), the phrase still has only one possible interpretation, which is that to be domestic is preferred over not being domestic.

By interpreting "the alternative" as a specific alternative in mind, which was referred to in the original article, and expressed in my previous response.

And by trying to understand what I was trying to say instead of focusing on an interpretation which is also contradictory to what else I said.

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
If you cannot define what you mean by "domesticity" or "family life" and similarly cannot define what exactly is a "philandering lifestyle", then you have no base on which to establish support for your opinion. I can see it being a valid opinion but you leave it utterly unsupported if you cannot even define your terms.

I don't want to get into such details here because I simply think it's dull and dense to do so, and not particularly material to what I was saying, and finally, in general terms, I'd say: It's your life, you get to figure it out for yourself.

 

[BudAshes]

considering we live longer now, it only makes sense we would want to extend our childhood.

 

[MaxDepth]

I am 42 and this year I will be marrying my girlfriend, who is 32.

She and I are both ready for marriage and having kids. I think many of my peers are nearly the same: date around, then date date long term, then get married with the expectations of having children after marriage.

Maybe we have seen too many of our other peers who have gotten married and then divorced right out of college or high school.

 

[Orsorum]

God I still re-read this article from time to time and it still irritates me.

 

[HannibalX]

Read the OP but I didn't read the replies (hate me if you want).

I think the big thing to remember is a lot of people left the Church in the 60s and 70s. These people had kids that didn't grow up in the Church. The Church sort of steers people into this thinking that they must immediately get married, have kids and then find their place in the Church.

I don't think that EITHER life style is good or bad. I think you have to pick what is good for you. If you don't ever want to marry then by all means don't. If you want to marry at 17 then that's ok too. I think most people are somewhere in between.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: senseamp
She has a point, and of course she is bitter too

 

[rh71]

one word: laziness

two words: less drive

This is what I see more and more of. What is it that these people think will happen by continuing to live a bachelor's life? They're just postponing the inevitable, not to mention making it harder for themselves as opportunities pass them by.

And just in the last 2 days alone on Anandtech, there were people speaking up about how great being a father is.

 

[Journer]

i like how the article puts all the blame on the men. she never stopped to think about how much women have changed. they are bitchier, now more than ever, and want shit they typically can't handle. i know it is funny, but in 1965 she really would have shut her fucking mouth. why? because she would've known that no one would listen or put up with her shit. the entire society has been pussified so much that we put up with this. another note she didn't think about is how some men just want to be happy and that is something often lost in marriages, especially with American women. i'd rather be called adolescent my whole life and live happy/free instead of putting up with some money sucking bitch and annoying kids for 20 years then having her take what is left of me in court.