02.02.08
Reaction to ‘Child-Man in the Promised Land’
Child-Man in the Promised Land by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Winter 2008
Hymowitz offers at best anecdotal and circumstantial evidence for her contention that men are somehow locked into “adolescence” in the form she calls the “man-child”.
The fact that some adult males today play video games a couple hours a day (is that a median? or is it sufficient to just say “some”?) doesn’t prove anything. Video games didn’t exist 50 years ago. Are children today more childish than children 50 years ago because they play video games?
Nevertheless, let’s accept Hymowitz’s evidence for what its worth. Why is Hymowitz intent on deeming such trends as adolescence? Her argument seems to be circular: single men who haven’t settled down with a wife, kids and mortgage by their mid twenties are like children because a wife, kids and mortgage are what makes one an adult. Of course, if your definition of an adolescent male is “someone who plays video games, enjoys sexual imagery, comedy (sometimes base), is single, has no children and doesn’t own a house” then there is no surprise that when you find more men today fitting that category you draw the conclusion that men are more adolescent.
What I really object to whoever, is Hymowitz’ clear bias against men (adolescent or otherwise). According to Kay, watching teary-eyed dramas like Grey’s Anatomy makes one more adult, while enjoying comedy or ribaldry in the same makes one adolescent. Men who go to clubs and pick up women in ways that Hymowitz finds objectionable are man-children… but what of the women who are going to clubs and getting picked up by these men? They are apparently “emerging adults”, as are the women who hang out with their girlfriends spending their earnings on shopping, while “man-children” are spending their earnings on the things that appeal to them: video games, racy magazines and beer.
If Hymowitz’ social commentary is to be accepted, it must be said that such commentary ought to cut both ways. If adult males today are to be compared to adult males of the previous generations, then let’s also do so for women. Should we call today’s young women “women-men” because they are working outside of the home, making their own money? Or perhaps the label “woman-child” for a women who chooses to have sex in her 20s without getting pregnant. The difference? Hymowitz would no doubt argue that the decisions of the one gender are “responsible” while the decisions of the other are not. Thus it boils down to a question of moral judgement.
Unfortunately, such insistence on berating men who don’t fit Hymowitz’s standards of adulthood, while leaving the fairer sex out of any sort of judgement clouds what might otherwise be an interesting article.
