Girls, we've all been there: dealing with the guy who just can't grow up and face the relationship in a mature way. As frustrating as it can be, however, your immature male counterpart may not be the only one responsible. According to writer Kay Hymowitz, an alumna of the Tufts master's program in English literature, we are in fact dealing with a recent cultural phenomenon.
In her latest book, "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys," Hymowitz praises the rise of women in society, which many have attributed to both the birth control pill and feminism. The first three chapters extol the virtues of the female sex, citing endless statistics about how women earn more bachelor's degrees, dominate in the advertising and marketing worlds and have progressed in general over the past half century.
This shift in girl power is manifest not only in "real life" but also in the development of TV shows and movies. Hymowitz cites shows such as "Friends" (1994−2004) and "Sex and the City" (1998−2004), both of which, she says, portray women as sexy and successful, which set a precedent for how women would model themselves in real life. Though the entertainment industry is not solely responsible for the reversal of gender roles in many respects, Hymowitz argues that it played a significant part.
The next four chapters focus on Hymowitz's overall concept of the "child−man," the 20−something of this generation who moves back in with his parents after college, spends his days playing video games and "looking for jobs" and gets his kicks watching Adam Sandler movies and Comedy Central. Hymowitz argues that the rise of women has contributed to the spawn of this generational hybrid, and having these men as dating and husband prospects is the price that successful women must pay for their own accomplishments.
Hymowitz's arguments seem, at the outset of the book, to be valid. Women have definitely overcome a great deal of gender−related adversity over the decades, and so their success (as she praises) is every bit as deserved as she makes it out to be. When commending one gender's achievements, however, it doesn't seem necessary to condemn a portion of the opposite gender that appears to have regressed.
I, for one, don't consider myself to be a raving feminist. I think women have accomplished a lot in recent years and that definitely deserves commendation. But I found myself becoming offended by Hymowitz's chronic reference to the "child−man." She cites the fact that men are more frequently becoming beta testers, bloggers and social media professionals — careers that barely existed 10 years ago — instead of working in the financial sector, or an equally traditional job, as a sign of regression. Yes, technological advancements and societal factors beyond our control have created a slew of careers as far from the financial district as can be. Yet societal constraints should not contribute to such grave overgeneralizations of an entire gender.
Hymowitz seems to have something to prove with her book. She is an English scholar exploring a sociological topic: Clearly, the fact that she is branching out of her comfort zone must mean that she has a serious point to make. Was she perhaps wronged by a child−man herself? This doesn't seem likely, since she cites other women's experiences with this unique breed rather than her own personal anecdotes. Is she experiencing her own great success as a 20−something and wanting to exalt her gender? No, since she graduated from college in 1970. Then it's settled: She must choose to victimize the opposite sex in such a way because she is herself forever doomed to spinsterhood.
Wrong again. She is married and lives in Brooklyn with her three children.
"Manning Up" presents itself as a little out of context. Hymowitz makes many valid points, but they would be better bolstered with personal anecdotes and stories. On the whole, the fact that she is not part of the generation of the "child−man" makes her seem generally out of touch with the age group she is so thoroughly criticizing.
On a side note, she refers to Charlie Sheen as an "adorable bad boy." Clearly this book went to print before certain recent events transpired.
