Forever young?

Shots at the bar, high fives, toilet humor, tales of romance, shots at the bar, shots at the bar . many male Boise State University students may recognize this as a typical weekend, likely thinking little or nothing of it. But a recent discourse on the vacant core of “single young men” attacks the demographic for simply living as it sees fit.

A recent Newsweek article titled “Why I Am Leaving Guyland” (Tony Dokoupil, Aug. 2008) describes the empty, vacuous lives of young men ages 22 to 30. Apparently, the college graduate male has nothing left for him. Dokoupil paints a vivid picture of men who are out purely for hedonistic endeavors, left with an eventual non-fulfillment directly relating to their non-mobile lifestyles. As a result of disinterest and lack of ambition, the apparent majority of these men are floundering in a world of permanent adolescence. Citing a book called “Guyland” by Michael Kimmel, the single young male population has “moved downfield as the passage from adolescence to adulthood has evolved from ‘a transitional moment to a whole new stage of life.’” Is this necessarily a negativistic notion? I posit that we are not what’ve lost direction and identity – society has.

What doesn’t seem to enter into the conversation is that rather than a condition of social apathy, perhaps this is a conscious choice made with what some in younger generations may see as societal ills in mind. Dokoupil notes that many men feel redundant because of socioeconomic factors. Perhaps those choosing less “constrained” lives see the redundancies of some systems in society – mainly marriage – and therefore choose to avoid them.

Dokoupil calls this bent “a bad attitude.” I can say that, yes, I know many men who are reticent to commit to anything for reasons that have nothing to do with philosophy or ethics in general; mostly, these few are just under informed. But there are certainly others who put plenty of consideration into their relationships and career decisions before getting involved in any manner. I cannot help but think of my friends and myself when it comes down to this.

Certainly we enjoy debauching occasionally: we spend weekends having a few drinks, pursuing women and generally carousing to levels of shame. Does this mean we have no consideration for society, our communities or the greater good? I hardly think so. Stagnation is not the same as relaxation and the pigeonhole is, as usual, the cop out. I have a male friend who works very low-income jobs at various charitable organizations to better his life and the lives of those around him. Is he mobile? No. Is he consciously happy of his decisions? Absolutely. Another friend spends his days as a consultant for an engineering firm and he loathes it. However, he spends his nights writing page after page of short stories and novels. Is he upwardly mobile? Yes, but only fulfilled insomuch as his ambitions lie somewhere completely different.

Where does the criticism enter into the conversation that many women, too, are making similar choices of independence or stasis in lifestyle? A female friend has two kids, goes to school full time, works full time, and still can party, somewhat recklessly if need be. Is she married? No. Is she upwardly mobile? Hell yes. Does she date? Responsibly and respectfully. In my realm of perspective, these cases are not the anomaly.

In another, more caustic article published in London’s City Journal on the topic, “Child-Man in the Promised Land” (Kay S. Hymowitz, winter 2008) the author makes distinct note that although young men are clearly wasting their lives staying single, hanging out with their friends and playing video games, young women making similar choices in consumerism and lifestyle are in a “New Girl Order . shopping, traveling and dining with friends.” Hymowitz lauds the “New Girl Order” for its utilization of leisure hours, for its independence and vitality, its resources.

It’s a general fallacy to indicate a double standard, but there isn’t one here, only corollary. The “New Girl Order” is no different to me than the single young male: a loosely defined, stereotyped demographic utilizing the market for distraction and leisure. Dokoupil and Hymowitz both emphasize the sexual drive of single young men as primary; my question is, as young men are “hooking up,” just who are they hooking up with? Conscious choices are made on both sides of the line.

I appreciate the strides in equality, but the gender emphasis here is huge to me. For each guy I know who parties every weekend, I know at least one female as well. Perhaps Boise is a bit of an anomaly, given the statistics Dokoupil touts, but this honestly doesn’t seem to be a gender issue – it’s a sociological one. As the helm of tradition falls away, we having nothing left but ourselves. Our choices become more and more our own as temporality and individuality become central. Young people of both sexes are making choices to not pursue traditional lifestyles as proponents of a clearly evolving society.

I’m not lauding partying as a lifestyle or promiscuity as a hobby. Heck, I’m not saying romance should even be included in the conversation. The fact is, the 1950s era of career, kids and commerce does not work for many of us. I ask only that the clearly aging take note that perhaps we understand what we’re doing – it might be just a few who simply don’t care.

DALE W. EISINGER
CULTURE EDITOR

Related Posts: