Why Are Our Men Still Acting Like Boys?

As many of you know, I am very busy with my new job so it is not often that I have a spare moment to put up a post, but I thought this was worth it.  One of my favorite publications to check out during my commute is Newsweek, which this week brings us this fascinatingly relevant article about Guyland, aka the post-collegiate but pre-responsible-adult-phase that so many twenty something males seem to get sucked into. (It should be noted that the term comes from Michael Kimmel’s new sociological study on the topic, from our very own SUNY Stony Brook.)

For those of us familiar with the fratastic college life, one doesn’t need to look far to encounter this sort of character.  But what is most puzzling and perhaps disturbing about this is that the behaviors exhibited in the average college male are now spilling over into later life.  To be sure, both males and females are guilty of being “Twixters” or “Boomerangers” (i.e. not-quite-adults who live out the 20something lifestyle as if they were still in college, except often while living in their parents’ homes), but there seems to be a particularly strong aversion to “growing up” among American males.  Chalk it up to social conditioning or the biological clock or both, but women on average are simply more willing to “get it together” earlier in life, by which I mean holding a stable job, seeking out long-term relationships, and often living away from home.  Recently, studies showed young women in major U.S. cities are now earning more than men of their same age bracket.  (There are many possible reasons for this: women in cities marry later, women earn more college degrees than men, or simply women are just more concerned about “getting it together” than the Peter Pan Guyland crowd.)

Question:

Notwithstanding Amy’s plea, I have a question about one criticism of Palin that I’m not sure sits well with me. So we’ve documented many of the problems with Palin’s candidacy, but one in particular comes loaded with all sorts of women’s right/gender role questions. It boils down to this: Do her five children matter? The refrain is often something like this “how can she raise her five children if she is going to be Vice-President?” The question has two concerns- the first is that her children will suffer as a result of her “ambition” (or dedication to the job), the second is that the country will suffer as a result of her devotion to her children. Now, some may argue that being Vice President and raising five children are not mutually exclusive goals. If that is the case, then the question is moot. What I am concerned about, however, is whether this question is in itself legitimate. Can the question be similarly asked of Barack? Now, traditional gender roles say that the question applies to Sarah more than Barack. But recent developments, especially in the face of ambitious young (or old) mothers, speak to an increased role of fathers in the development of children. So, is it a legitimate question?

I Like Using Colors to Get My Point Across. (Think the Color-Coded Terror Alert System, but Roy G Biv Style.)

I know we all love being snarky liberals, and I know we all love utilizing our hard-earned online researching skills from undergrad to prove our general argument about Obama’s serious upcoming pwnage of the white house. And I know I created this website and molested MS Paint to create the wonderful banner that we have (teeheehee); I know I logged on to post this wonderful op-ed from Thomas L. Friedman from yesterday’s NYT, and I know that I live in DC.

…but seriously, guys, can we try to englighten our blue readership about something OTHER than yellow journalism on red state problems for a little while? I mean, if complaining blogging about ideas that compel you to read past the Politics page of major media websites is just too much physical exertion, then I guess I’m going to have to read the paper myself, you lazy, good for nothing fucks. =)

Best Paragraph I’ve Read Today

Care of the LA Times:

The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper’s scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain’s medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history. 

Let’s Lay the Word “Maverick” to Rest

This is something that has been bothering me since the start of the general election cycle, but has become worse since I caught a glance at the RNC last night while at a diner with some fellow PSAP contributors: McCain is not a maverick. Not by a long shot. The word may have described him four years ago, but it is laughable to describe him as anything other than a party-line republican.

1) His voting record this year was 95% Bush. That is, when he showed up. 

 

Independent?

 

2) His Vice-Presidential pick is a hard-line conservative whose beliefs on abortion, creationism, and drilling are, if not identical to the republican platform, then to the right of them.

3) In addition to his recent love of President Bush, he has flat-out changed his position on a number of issues to- you guessed it- score political points among the conservatives. He opposed Bush’s tax cut before he supported them (what’s more politically expedient than offering tax cuts?). He made a good faith effort to develop a coherent immigration policy before switching to the well-worn strategy of obsessing with security over efficacy. Finally, as one last demonstration of his total rejection of the “maverick” label, he has actively courted the “agent of intolerance” (McCain’s words, not mine), Jerry Falwell. Have you no shame John?