This post is reactionary- The Wall Street Journal published "Where Have the Good Men Gone?", written by Kay Hymowitz last Saturday. The article's title, sexist in itself, struck my interest on a friend's Facebook page, and I clicked on the link. I am immediately drawn to (and wary of) this type of article, which seeks to make generalizations about an entire group (in this case, the male gender).
The article names a new stage of life that has emerged for men-"pre-adulthood", as Hymowitz calls it- and discusses where it came from and what the implications for men and women are. This "pre-adulthood" stage is apparently what you get when you have financially stable, young adult males (ages 22-28ish) who have the means to support themselves and have a fun recreational lifestyle, but desire nothing more serious, romantically. They are stalled between adolescence and "real" adulthood, with a family and responsibilities. The article goes on discuss the fact that women are the "top sex" right now (Hymowitz's words, not mine), and that their college GPAs, graduation rates and professional success have left men out in the cold. The article postulates that this creates a gender gap between the successful and put together young professional women and the "aging frat boys, maladroit geeks [and] grubby slackers".
Although the tone of the article isn't entirely condescending, the suggestion that all young men fall into the categories of aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers is offensive, even if watching any romantic comedy would probably not make you believe any differently. And even if, at the ripe age of 23, I have experienced "guys" almost exclusively as part of one of these three categories (can you guess which?), I refuse to believe that this new or different. Isn’t the old saying men just mature later than women? Or is that just what my mother has told me since I was 13, to quell my fears that I will always be more mature than my male counterparts…
The strangest part of this article, by far, is one of the main conclusions drawn by Hymowitz seems to come to the conclusion that it is actually society that is mostly responsible for this new category, as these men are “struggling” with this new life stage. To sum up what the problem is, Hymowitz says “Today's pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn't say. He has to compete in a fierce job market, but he can't act too bossy or self-confident. He should be sensitive but not paternalistic, smart but not cocky. To deepen his predicament, because he is single, his advisers and confidants are generally undomesticated guys just like him."
Oh well then! If he can’t act too bossy or self confident, has to compete extra hard in the job market and has to be surrounded by ‘undomesticated’ guys (whatever that means!), it sounds to me like he may be experiencing what it has been like to be a woman in the professional arena for approximately 80 years. Since the beginning of global patriarchy (read: for thousands of years) men have had far more options at their disposal, for outlets of identity, life choices, job market perks and the general ability to feel secure in knowing they were within their gender bounds to have the ability to be “successful”. And now, all of a sudden, they are struggling!
What the article lacks is a true celebration of the fact that women are succeeding both professionally and personally, without any sort of lingering “but”. Somehow, backhandedly, I get the sense that this new male “pre-adulthood” is women’s fault- if we hadn’t been so successful, then men could have maintained their status and would be so darn confused now!
This article ends with the depressing conclusion that the only smart choices that seem available to women are to “put up with [a man] 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”. Now, this conclusion may be intentionally overstated for effect, but I can’t help but leave the article feeling depressed and argumentative about it (clearly stated by the epically long post about it). Is this article the type to get feminist writers in trouble-typical man-hating? I don’t think so, because Hymowitz actually lets men off the hook for any of their shortcomings by blaming society for all of their problems. Has the author-as my male friend so delicately put it-just not gotten laid in a while? I doubt her recent sexual experiences have much to do with the article, and I give her more credit than to assume she wrote it out of spite or sexual frustration.
So what is it then? Have all the “good men” really gone? Or, perhaps, is our definition of what makes a “good man” and a “good woman” changing? OR, even more radically-should we abandon those two-dimensional notions altogether?
In closing, I am surprised that the Wall Street Journal would publish an article so shallow and incomplete. As a feminist, I take issue with Hymowitz categorization of an entire gender. In the same vein, I take issue with the fact that implicitly this decline of men has come because of (and consequently as an expense to) successful young professional women. This article dances on the surface of the real questions that are much deeper than what Hymowitz addressed-how does the success of so many young women affect and change a society? In order to do that more thoroughly, we have to look at more factors than what TV networks “pre-adult” men are watching. The societal shifts that we are seeing are monumental, and deserve more time and consideration than just merely pointing the finger at each other. This is serious, people!
In addition, I’m deeply concerned that the author sees no other alternative for men to go enjoy “another beer” because all the women have gone to the sperm bank…
Until next time,
Sarah
