Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Men and women

I came across this article on the wall Street journal last day Where have all the good men gone? ( )

The article describes the modern "guy" as something in between an adolescent and a man. A state of extended adolescence. This was something I've been thinking about recently, although I never really got a full grip around it that much. The description does succinctly capture a contemporary social phenomenon happening in present day society. I guess it's galvanized to a good extend also by a lot of contemporary movies where actors who are way too old act the roles of 17-23 year old guys. I tend to think people identify age by sight, and when they see people the age of those actors acting like adolescents, it probably underwrites a subliminal psychological trend towards this extended adolescence or the "guy state".

The modern day "guy" is chronologically a man, biologically a man, but psychologically and emotionally a teenager.

However, the article does injustice to the men, because the phenomenon is as present among women albeit in a slightly different fashion. One of the comments on the article was noteworthy. The spread-easy emotionally insecure modern girl claims she wants a stable man who respects her and has his act together but repeatedly fall for the guy, and better yet spreads her legs for him without much effort on his part. Many psychological evaluations tend to suggest that there are two major driving factors for people's actions, recognition and sex; at least that's what I remember reading from some of Dale Carnegie's works. So if the "non-commital" girls of today are so abundant, and sleep with guys more easily than men (because men have a higher expectation from a relationship), wouldn't one say there's more incentive to an adolescent to guy transition than an adolescent to man transition?

And then there's another major influence here. Who're the beneficiaries of a boom in the "guy" and the "non-committal girl" populations? Almost everyone - media, because they plonk on the couch and laugh to those shows which wouldn't get a dimwit laughing, restaurants - because they can't cook and order out, bars - because that's their only perception of fun; contraceptive companies - for obvious reasons; technology companies - because they play video games, watch youtube, stuff their iPads in their ears, communicate on facebook, and dawdle on their iPhones; the list goes on..  BUT who's the beneficiary if they all grew up into men? Nobody really - the man fixes his things himself if he can, cooks his own meal (or the woman cooks - no gender stereotyping intended, just either can cook), has a ton of fun without going to the bar, doesn't sleep around nor buy lingerie from victoria's secret, and uses a phone to call people - there's not a lot of profit to be made out of him, nor is he a dimwit that can be duped easily. So what does the lobbyist work towards? The farming of "guys" and "non-committal girls".


No comments:

Post a Comment