Adolescence delayed beats adolescence denied

When I read this very thoughtful book review — “Women on Top, Men at the Bottom” — I once again found myself contemplating Kay Hymowitz’s criticism of men who seemingly remain boys.

Sit on a bench on the Thompson Hall lawn — the “green” at the University of New Hampshire — and watch the students walk past. Scattered among legions of women you may sight the occasional male. Observe his attire, and you will likely see a discordant trifecta: Timberland work boots, sweatpants and a backpack. Is he headed to the field and manual labor, to his dorm room for a Donkey Kong marathon, or is he shooting towards a professional career? We’re told to dress for the job we want. If their dress is any indication, these young men reply firmly, “I don’t know.”

It’s not this way just in college. When male students graduate — if they do — uncertainty is often what they tenaciously hold to. Glancing off jobs and relationships, they remain undecided about what to do and whom to love for the better part of a decade. This is the thesis Kay Hymowitz explores in her new book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women is Turning Men into Boys. Well, not boys exactly, but rather “preadults,” a term Hymowitz coins and uses frequently. Either way, the implication is an unflattering metamorphosis.

I see a contradiction here, and I wonder whether the state of boyhood Hymowitz condemns is actually a genuine, traditionally male form of rebellion, which may be more manly than she is willing to admit.

I’ll make a stab at an explanation, and I hope I don’t offend too many people if I generalize.

Typically girls are the conformists to society’s mores. They conform earlier than boys, and they rebel less. This can be seen in school, and it should not surprise anyone that it persists throughout life. With justification, women are called the civilizers of men — the stereotype being that men are often crude, boorish slobs, and have a tendency towards perpetual adolescence which women can turn around, or at least keep in check. (Provided, of course that the man goes through the traditional socialization process, and actually finds, courts and marries a woman.)  But even the men who have been properly socialized still enjoy their private “man spaces” in which they keep the forever cherished trophies of boydom. Whether baseball or football memorabilia, girlie pics, a beer keg, action adventure flick movie posters, whatever. Call this immaturity if you will, but it remains as a constant temptation. Men who overdo it are said to have “a midlife crisis,” and many a man is known as (and often loved for) being a “perpetual adolescent.”

Now, if we assume that women are now “on top,” why should men not simply accept their fate and decide to relish life at the bottom? And if such a life means permanent adolescence, hey, why not perpetual adolescence? What real man would want to be an “Allstate man” if that means pushing papers around for an Allstate woman? I say this not to be sexist or judgmental of anyone, but only as an attempt to recognize the animalistic nature of our species. Men may allow women to civilize them under certain conditions, but when those conditions become intolerable, then civilization itself becomes intolerable. And so it is not surprising that some men are deciding early on in life to stick with that adolescent rebellion which society wants to take away from them.

“We don’t need your stinking civilization!”

And why not? The normal adolescent rebellion was denied them; it was met with “zero tolerance” policies which treat even self defense as violent, bans toy soldiers and rough games, makes them read stultifying (and sickeningly girlish) books, and force-feeds Schedule II speed to the boys who refuse to submit. In this context, little wonder that adolescent rebellion now surfaces when a man matures. What if it represents a manifestation of the normal rebellion he was never allowed to have?

An added problem (which I hope explains why Glenn Reynolds linked the two fascinating posts in sequence) may involve having to start out life saddled with hopeless student loan debt. It is all too easy to condemn irresponsible borrowing practices of the students, but the traditional remedy for such irresponsibility was bankruptcy. An irresponsible young person who ran up a huge credit card debt can march into court and have it discharged. Sure, he will ruin his credit for seven years, but not for life. Now, most of us if we sat down and thought about it would agree that wild credit card spending is more irresponsible than signing a student loan contract. But as we all know, the remedy which is available for the credit card spendthrift (or a defaulting home borrower) is not available for students, even though they are encouraged to think of student loans as the responsible and mature thing to do. As Karl Denninger explains:

This is why bankruptcy was written into the Constitution and why it’s so important.  The threat of the borrower declaring bankruptcy and avoiding the debt taken on is the only market check and balance that works to restrain predatory and abusive behavior by lenders.  With it no lender intentionally makes a foolish loan because while the borrower has their credit rating ruined the lender loses their actual investment.

This intentional distortion, which the lenders and government pressed for and profit from, must be addressed.  There is no student and no family that should ever consent to a non-dischargable student loan under any circumstances and no adult worth the title “parent” should be willing to provide or file any document related to qualification for same, including but not limited to a FASFA.  Among other things it is none of the damn government’s business what income and assets a parent has in relationship to their now-adult offspring, as their obligation to provide for said offspring ended at the age of 18 years.

We will never solve the problem of out-of-control educational costs until parents and students stand en-masse and simply refuse to cooperate with this rank corporate-sponsored and government-assisted financial rape.  Neither the universities or the lenders are your friends — they’re predators, you’re their “meat”, and part and parcel of their predation is capitalizing on our youth’s inexperience and a drilled-in “trust in authority” (false and malicious) claim that has been foisted off on them during their previous years in school.

It’s that simple.

Well said. And when I read it, I began to wonder about whether or not having to start out life with hopeless debt might also be a factor in making adolescence an attractive option. I found an intriguing study providing lots of evidence that it might be doing just that. There seems to be a direct relationship between student loan debt and marriage avoidance, as well as marital discord:

There is also some new evidence suggesting that student loan debt encourages cohabitation at the expense of marriage.  In a new study published in Journal of Marriage and Family, a research team examines the factors affecting decisions regarding marriage by cohabitors from the working and lower middle classes.  The researchers find that economic issues shape the decision whether or not to marry; specifically, “cohabitors believe marriage should occur once something has already changed—in this case, their financial status.”  In-depth interviews with 115 cohabitors produced statements including:

“I’m still at a financially unstable point because of like school loans.  And I don’t want to impose that upon anybody else. Like that’s one of my major things before I get married.  I want to be paid up.”  [Andy, a 26-year-old computer technician]

“[My girlfriend wants a] big 30, 40 thousand [dollar wedding] and I’m not quite ready for that…we need to get some more of my student loans paid off and stuff like that before I can even do that.”  [Wesley, a 22-year-old factory supervisor]

Overall, the research team concludes that cohabitors defer marriage until they meet a package of financial goals: “Most commonly, this economic package includes home ownership, getting out of debt, and financial stability (not living from paycheck to paycheck).”[25]

This finding is echoed in a 2005 report prepared by the Rochester Institute of Technology, Living With Debts.  Author Robert D. Manning reports that nearly half of the young singles interviewed “indicate that their current debts will probably delay their plans to start a family.”[26]

Even so, indebted young people do still marry.  Indeed, 67 percent of women and 74 percent of men now enter marriage with at least some debt, ranging from credit cards and auto loans to student loans.[27] There is growing evidence that such debt burden influences the quality of marriage.  In his survey of marital strengths (based on a sample of 21,501 married couples with average ages of 35 for husbands and 32 for wives), David Olson found that 76 percent of “Happy Couples” agree with the statement “Major debts are not a problem.”  This compared to only 35 percent of “Unhappy Couples.”  Viewed from another angle, 56 percent of “Unhappy Couples” affirm that “Major debts are a problem for us.”  Olson concludes that: “Major debts are an issue for over half of married couples, and many couples have disagreements over who should control the money they have.”[28]

Little wonder they would have such disagreements. It is bad enough to be starting out life in debt, but when you marry someone you are marrying into even more debt.

Sorry I don’t have the answers here. But I am very sympathetic to the plight of the men who are condemned for being in a state of adolescence.

I suspect that Tom (not Sidney) Sawyer* and John Galt would be too.

* A lot of people say that Tom would be on Adderall today, which I think he would. And the message?

“Give me liberty, or give me meth!”