March 15, 2012

  • Defending "Male Slackerhood" (Ramble)

    Of late, I've been reading a lot of articles bewailing the decline of men in our society, and posting several of them to "other social networks." These articles point to statistics showing that men are going to college less, getting married later, and essentially wearing away their 20's at their parents' house in a haze of video games, failed music/artistic careers, and porn (but not at the same time. I think.)

    Those articles have a point. But I think that the articles fail to realize that the men of this generation have learned from the previous generation. Our fathers were hardworking men, loyal to their corporations and their wives. And they got fired and divorced as their skills declined. These very committed, single-minded men found themselves not being rewarded for those traits. And traits that are not valued in a society will be driven out of society. I remember as a young man, hanging out with older men at church or at sporting events, and being struck by how alone those men were...devoted quiet family men, left alone while their more socially active wives and children were talking to others.

    I am, at heart, an economist. When we see bad behavior in our society, that we deem to be irrational, there must be incentives in society that allow it to exist. Clearly, someone is paying, feeding, and dating these so-called slacker men, or they'd have stopped slacking long ago. Our current culture values flexibility and options above all else. Specializing is valuable, but commitment and slowness to change will get you nowhere. Changing careers and dates (I didn't say wives...) quickly is key to advancement. In such a culture, the rewards that once existed for being a faithful provider to a family or wife, or aligning oneself closely to a corporation, have atrophied. Given a lack of incentives, and based on what many men have seen happen to their fathers, is that young man truly making a mistake by pursuing his solo singing career? He certainly will get more dates than the boring accountant next door, right? Better to take your time and leave your options open, switching from branch to branch on the career tree, rather than committing too quickly.

Comments (10)

  • So many thoughts, so little coherency. Yet another issue you've hit the nail on the head with.

  • "These very committed, single-minded men found themselves not being
    rewarded for those traits. And traits that are not valued in a society
    will be driven out of society."

    There is a lot of truth to this.

    However, I would also say that singlehood doesn't necessarily correspond with slacking. There are many cases of single men who are hardworking or seek to perform at the peak of their fields; but because they aren't married, they're assumed to be "slacking." Likewise I'm sure we've heard of too many examples of married men who were "slacking" and not providing for the family.

    I don't know if there's much truth in this next statement but I wonder if it's not just because there's an incentive to remain a bachelor, but if there is a reduced risk at the same time.

  • I've read a lot about the feminization of males more than the slacker males in our society. This is all part of our master plan, of course. Yes, un bel di, you boys will realise that you are our slaves. (insert sinister laugh)...

  • I think you are exactly right, slackers are just a part of the dating supply-and-demand chain. However, maybe if women had higher standards, fewer slackers would get dates, thereby reducing demand, ultimately reducing supply!

  • Abbot and Costello prove slacking, loafing, it's all good LOL http://youtu.be/Q_TGQ7rGL-Q

  • Nice post. A lot of what you say is also said here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4

    I think you'll find a lot of it rings true.

    Your timing is bizarre as that video was just posted today haha.

  • We have become a nation of incompetents, but at least we know how to spin on it.  

  • Men are caught in a perpetual Catch-22, and so are women really, in our culture. Men are told to be stong and silent and provider, then they are told to be open about emotions and let the women provide if she is able, otherwise they are prideful and pretty much being a jerk. Women are told to be doclile and to be the reciever of things from men. they are taught to express emotions and be quiet. but women are also told they should be strong, yet when they are, they are considered not feminine and sometimes called a "Bi*ch".

    All of this comes with the newfound equality and how soem dont seem to understand the difference between generalities, sterotypes, and individual personalities. We should appreciate strong men for the way they work hard and provide but enourage them to be a little more open at times. We should encourage men in touch with thier emotions to also be wise and strong when it is called for. Women who are docile and shy should be encouraged to have more confidence to go out and figure out who they are apart from others, especially men. women who are strong-willed should be respected, yet they should also make room for others in thier life and feel they do not have to do everything on their own. You can see the obvious things that strong and weak (more emotional) personalities deal with here, among men and women it is the same and yet also slightly different too.

  • There's also many cases where children are forced to achieve, achieve, achieve throughout their school career. When they become adults, they haven't had play time like they probably should have as kids, so they "slack" as adults. Then again, there are probably lots of reasons why adult men "slack". And you're right, something has to be promoting the behavior.

  • @DuckTapeJourneyman - I think there's some truth to the "never time to play" theory.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment