Men in their mid 20s and 30s need to put down the Xbox controller and grow up, says writer Kay Hymowitz in an opinion piece published in the Dallas Morning News.
Thanks to the emergence of pop culture such as television and gaming today's mid-20-something male "lingers happily, in a new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance," argues the article.
In fact compared to the last generation of young men today's 20 to 30-year-old blokes can't be considered adults, she says. "Adolescence appears to be the young man's default state," a phase which the writer with the funny name has chosen to call "child-man", encouraged, she says, by gaming.
As a 21st Century, 26-year-old bloke, reads the article, "you live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face - and then it's off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes." So far, so good then.
Does this typical modern young man have a wife, kids or house though, she asks: "Are you kidding?"
Back in the 60s, says the opinion piece, the average man in his 20s had achieved most of life's milestones such as a good job, marriage, a house and even a few kids in the bank.
These days, argues the Dallas Morning News piece, the vast majority of 25 year old men have neither a house, wife nor children, says Hymowitz, which is definitely nothing to do with the invention of either the pill or Ayia Napa.
"With women, you could argue that adulthood is in fact emergent," Hymowitz writes. "Single young males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3 and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it's receding."
"Underachieving"? We've got over 10 thousand achievement points, lady. The clue's in the title.
We're now living in a culture different from the one of 40 years ago, when you'd marry at school, get a factory job and live in the old family home? Education fees and houses aren't cheap in 2008...
Today's generation has far more time to develop a career, build a home and find a partner than before. When you consider that we're the first generation to grow up with control pads, it's obvious why it's become a target in this debate.
We bet their parents said the same thing about how 25-year-olds play too much sport on a Sunday instead of bringing up the kids...
"The problem with child-men," the article continues, "is that they're not very promising husbands and fathers. They suffer from a proverbial 'fear of commitment'".
What about the demographic of men who have a job, house and kids and still play games, then? Perhaps this writer should realise that some blokes are adult enough to decide what their hobby is.
source
Doesn't Texas execute more prisoners than any other state in the country? Maybe if there were more "men" playing video games they could get their testosterone fill with a game and not have to pull the plug on so many people's lives to get off.
Yeah, this is some chick talking about something she knows almost nothing of. It's not video games, it's society. Just as in the 60's and 70's teens/young men grew their hair long, listened to then alternative music (rock), and experimented with mind altering (and destroying) drugs, today we are finding new escapes from reality.
What she fails to mention (even contradicts) is how young females also have this attitude. For every straight young man looking to hook up there is a "loose" woman willing to do so. It's normal to see women in th late twenties, thirties, and even up to their forties who aren't married because of various reasons.
And there is little reason to get married at a young age this day and age with the divorce rate where it is now (nearly 50%). I'd love to argue this with her for a good amount of time.
As a 21st Century, 26-year-old bloke, reads the article, "you live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face - and then it's off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes."
Sounds good to me! I'm not lucky enough to have that lifestyle though.
The next part might shock some of you so you might want to look away.
Does this typical modern young man have a wife, kids or house though, she asks: "Are you kidding?"
Well, let's see. I have been married for ten years and have a nine-year old daughter. The Wii allows us to play the games together and we have a lot of fun doing so. Normally my wife does her thing, my daughter does her thing, and I do my thing but the Wii brings us together more often than in the past.
Back in the 60s, says the opinion piece, the average man in his 20s had achieved most of life's milestones such as a good job, marriage, a house and even a few kids in the bank.
These days, argues the Dallas Morning News piece, the vast majority of 25 year old men have neither a house, wife nor children, says Hymowitz, which is definitely nothing to do with the invention of either the pill or Ayia Napa.
Hmm, I have a pretty good job in my opinion, I have a house, a condo, and I'm currently building a 7 floor building to have a 2 floor penthouse, I'm opening an English language school on another floor, I'm opening a restaurant on the ground floor, and the rest will go for office rent.
I'm done here.
Wow, what a dumb b!tch, to put it simply.
I will admit, I have dated a LOT of guys, a LOT of gamers, and yes, there is a new generation of boy-men who dont have to "grow up" until their thirties--by her definition, growing up being ready to get married and have kids. What she is neglecting to examine, however, is that with longer life expectancies and societal shifts in what is expected of women (no longer do we have to quickly get married and settle down), that a LOT of twenty somethings are able to stay in an adolescent phase and put off familial responsibilities until they are in their thirties or later--male OR female! And lemme tell ya the females are enjoying it as much as the males are! There is nothing wrong with that!
I also resent the image she presents, that all these guys are self absorbed and sexually promiscuous (sp? Its early and I'm brain dead). Of all the boy-men I knew, they were AT LEAST responsible enough to provide for themselves and contribute to society, so what does it matter that they werent ready to settle down and take on more serious responsibilities yet? Maybe they dont want those things, and if they dont, then thats no one's business but their own, and we dont live in a world that expects you to domesticate yourself as soon as you're physically able to breed, anymore. Her values are based upon a scale that is out of touch and doesnt exist with the current generation.
And for the record, (I wish there were a chance she was reading this), my bf is a post-25 year old (27 in a few months) gamer....and he has been dying to get married since he was legally able to do so, has a very successful career as a software engineer/computer programmer, and begs me to have five children with him as soon as possible.....oh yeah and he games nonstop, usually with me by his side either playing with him, or playing another system on another TV set up adjacent to his...I make a good living with my photography and web design...but we spend the vast majority of our time playing video games....so I guess that tired stereotype she'd like you to believe can stick that up its pipe and smoke it.
A persons fondness for video games has nothing to do with the level of responsibility they are willing to take on in their personal lives.
She also forgets that women in the 60s were much different and much less "capable" compared to how they are now. There isn't as much of a need for parents to push their daughters out of their house and into a marriage due to the fact that women are much more self-sufficient and have better opportunities. Education plays a role in it as well, as more people are going to secondary schools (colleges) which delays the rat race.
Why should we be in such a big hurry to settle down, find a job, get married, and get stuck with the debt of a house? Society is changing, and this lady cannot accept it.
Is it bad that I can actually understand where this lady is coming from and that I have a really tiny, quiet voice in the back of my head telling me she's right in a way?
Are they encouraging teenage parenting here?
A lot of my friends [personal note] are either pregnant or have a kid. Mind you im just 20. I have some friend that are just 18-19 having kinds. Starting a family, but that kind of stuff doesnt last were Im from. Sometimes they do sometimes they dont. Im glad im not having kids. Its not like I do not want to be married. because i do. jut not in no real hurry.
Is it bad that I can actually understand where this lady is coming from and that I have a really tiny, quiet voice in the back of my head telling me she's right in a way?
Yes. Opinions are for the weak. 
But seriously, I agree with Z6 and Holly on this issue.
I also have many friends who are married with kids and also enjoy gaming together. She is just generalizing and it shows that she is talking about something she has no clue about. She's probably someone who is so boring or has such a boring personality that she can't keep a man's (boy-man) attention. I really hope she becomes a gamer so that she won't care about getting married and having kids. We don't need any offspring from her.
This woman... where to start? WOW.
We aren't living in the 50's you +w@+
I'm sorry I haven't started a goddamn baby factory.
While we're at it, since video games are just the NEWEST form of media, why don't we blame men who partake in other forms of not growing up--YOU! 80 YEAR OLD RETIRED SENIOR CITIZEN! STOP WATCHING TELEVISION! YOU'RE A CHILD!
Just as in the 60's and 70's teens/young men grew their hair long, listened to then alternative music (rock), and experimented with mind altering (and destroying) drugs, today we are finding new escapes from reality.
Just FYI, psychedelics are perfectly safe physiologically. They don't eat holes in your brain, they don't make you go insane, and they won't send you on killing rampages 
(the only problem arises when the taker is already prone to mental illness, in which case tripping can cause psychotic episodes/breaks, but that only happens in people who have a family history of schizophrenia and the like)
On the whole, psychedelics (such as Marijuana, Psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and so on) are leaps and bounds SAFER than any legal intoxicants (that is, Nicotine, Caffeine, and Alcohol)
legalize it, noodle
Just FYI, psychedelics are perfectly safe physiologically. They don't eat holes in your brain, they don't make you go insane, and they won't send you on killing rampages
(the only problem arises when the taker is already prone to mental illness, in which case tripping can cause psychotic episodes/breaks, but that only happens in people who have a family history of schizophrenia and the like)
Umm, better do your research there. Psychadelics are not physiologically safe. By definition, they do not promote normal functioning of a living organism. If you're ever around someone on a psychadelic drug and you're stone cold sober, it's easy to see.
For one, marijuana can cause cancer, and by most studies it is more carcinogenic than tobacco (granted it's typically used less). They've also shown it impairs your memory, even if it is only temporary.
Also, I knew a guy who did LSD, and as a result it as distorted his vision permanently. LSD also increases your heart rate, which can lead to other medical problems. Not to mention it severely impairs judgement.
Anyone can say anything online, but I wouldn't trivialize the effects of drugs on a website that likely has kids still in middle possibly grade school. I hope you remove that last sentence on psychadelics, as it's not a wise thing to say given the circumstances. It's easy to make blanket statements, and sadly it's also easy to back it up with meaningless stats. That doesn't mean we should.
Just FYI, psychedelics are perfectly safe physiologically. They don't eat holes in your brain, they don't make you go insane, and they won't send you on killing rampages
(the only problem arises when the taker is already prone to mental illness, in which case tripping can cause psychotic episodes/breaks, but that only happens in people who have a family history of schizophrenia and the like)
Umm, better do your research there. Psychadelics are not physiologically safe. By definition, they do not promote normal functioning of a living organism. If you're ever around someone on a psychadelic drug and you're stone cold sober, it's easy to see.
For one, marijuana can cause cancer, and by most studies it is more carcinogenic than tobacco (granted it's typically used less). They've also shown it impairs your memory, even if it is only temporary.
Also, I knew a guy who did LSD, and as a result it as distorted his vision permanently. LSD also increases your heart rate, which can lead to other medical problems. Not to mention it severely impairs judgement.
Anyone can say anything online, but I wouldn't trivialize the effects of drugs on a website that likely has kids still in middle possibly grade school. I hope you remove that last sentence on psychadelics, as it's not a wise thing to say given the circumstances. It's easy to make blanket statements, and sadly it's also easy to back it up with meaningless stats. That doesn't mean we should.
Actually, marijuana does not cause cancer. Of the 303 studies done on marijuana's relation to lung cancer, only 3 showed any link. Many studies showed the opposite effect, that marijuana significantly delayed or prevented the onset of lung cancer from cigarette smokers, as it promoted a function of the lungs that effectively cleans them out, so to speak. The UCLA study showed that the THC actually fights and cleans out the aging cells that become cancerous.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marij...use-cancer
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html
First one is a study from John Hopkins University, the second, from UCLA.
Honestly, I could post dozens of sources.
My doctor recently warned me that a study saying otherwise was going to pop up soon. He also warned me that it was being paid for my alcohol and tobacco companies, and to pay it no mind. Sure enough, it appeared. I looked the other way.
Studies have also shown, on the memory issue, that all short term and long term memory effects are not permanent, and disappear with abstinance from marijuana.
Studies have also shown that if marijuana does indeed cause carbon build up in the lungs, or causes cancer, that all ill effects can be prevented simply by using a vaporizer instead of smoking it.
You know, people used to tell how cigarette smoking was healthy, and there were plenty of studies to show it. It was pushed by the tobacco companies.
Perhaps this lately slew of studies is because of a push from groups wanting to legalize it? Your doctor predicted that studies supporting both sides of the debate would surface? They always do! That's why it's always supporting materials and not facts. A lot of these "benefits" of marijuana smoking are limited in scope and do not take into account how the body as a whole is being affected. For instance, the studies you posted are half of the coin on the debate of whether it causes cancer in the lungs. I'll also point out that study by the UCLA team may have been skewed considering the team was doing the study for a pro-legalize company (if you can accept it, why can you not accept studies from anti-legalize companies?). I'll also point out that they have long since know about the destructive nature of marijuana on bronchial tissue, but they cannot find the link to cancer. It still damages the bronchial tissue. This is from your own study.
At the very least, explain to me why tobacco and alcohol companies would want to keep marijuana illegal? Marijuana is popular to use with alcohol, so the increase in one causes an increase in the other. Cigarette manufacturers are in the PERFECT position to jump in and distribute legal marijuana if it ever comes around. They have the fields, the production facilities, the capital, and the distribution system. With their shrinking cigarette market in the face of negative public opinion, you should think they would be begging to legalize a product they could sell.
Just as common sense should have told people that cigs are bad 50 years ago, in spite of the studies, people should stop trying to justify the health risks associated with your lifestyle choices, or shift the blame and claim you didn't know better. I can assure you that if it is legalized tomorrow, which would cause a heavy increase in the frequency of use for most users, we would start seeing a lot of health problems.
so she doesn't like males in todays society compared to that of the 60's? does that mean she thinks all women should revert back to the kitchen and laundry rooms too? or maybe shes just a sexist dyke. who knows.
At the very least, explain to me why tobacco and alcohol companies would want to keep marijuana illegal? Marijuana is popular to use with alcohol, so the increase in one causes an increase in the other. Cigarette manufacturers are in the PERFECT position to jump in and distribute legal marijuana if it ever comes around. They have the fields, the production facilities, the capital, and the distribution system. With their shrinking cigarette market in the face of negative public opinion, you should think they would be begging to legalize a product they could sell.
Uh, they would want to keep it illegal because a lot of people would stop drinking and smoking cigarettes if pot were legal. Legalization would be something they could not control, because people have already taken it into their hands too much. What, Jose Cuervo is going to resort to growing pot if it were legal...? *rolls eyes* People are growing this **** in their homes, their basements, their garages--you cant exactly do that with tobacco, whens the last time you saw a tobacco seed? And distilling your own alcohol is illegal. Marijuana's future is too much in the hands of the user for them to get any control.
It still damages the bronchial tissue. This is from your own study.
Hey, no one said it was perfect. That damage can be avoided 100% by using a vaporizer. They had a responsibility to be honest, something you seem to not think possible considering who funded the study. If thats your theory, then hey, EVERY study is suspect and NONE of them can be trusted, right? I guess I could go ahead and post links to articles about EVERY study done, but the article links would source to NORML, and they must be so biased that they'd post misinformation right? Despite the fact that the results are published in easily verified medical journals?
Still damages bronchial tissue does not equal cancer, death, or even all the negative of a consequence. I'm sure even mild alcohol use or casual cigarette smoking or second hand smoke is worse. But then, the naysayers will hold on to whatever they will, so long as its an argument against marijuana.
There are a lot of things we do in life that cause just as little damage to our systems while over all improving our life. Regular aspirin use, for one.
Oh and by the way.
If marijuana was at least as harmful as cigarettes, or even half as harmful, we'd already be seeing the effects: cancer, emphysema. Those things show up in as little as 20 years with cigarettes, yet there is not one documented case of lung cancer from marijuana....hmmm...
How I wish she could read this thread...all of you bring up great points which poke holes through her logic entirely...(of course me being a 13 year old boy I can't really relate, but my comment stands ^_^)