»» Columnists

George Will Would Like To Bizarrely Criticize Your Lack Of Manliness

by Glenn Davis | 1:05 pm, March 2nd, 2010

» 7 comments

Criticizing the American public for the role its own immaturity plays in political gridlock is all the rage lately. Jacob Weisberg did it in Slate early last month, (rightly) pointing out it’s unrealistic to expect government to tackle the biggest issues facing the country while also getting smaller. And Evan Thomas does it in the latest Newsweek, similarly blaming a “culture of entitlement.” (Still, Weisberg and Thomas might allow that there’s a bit more those in Washignton could be doing to work together and get things done.) But the most…interesting “cultural immaturity” critique also comes from this week’s Newsweek, in the person of George Will. Will’s argument: that men are getting more and more immature and less and less, well, manly. Now, Will might even be right about this, but his methods in making his point leave something to be desired.

He gets off to a questionable start when he bemoans men “defecting from the meritocracy:”

The Pew Research Center reports that 28 percent of wives between ages 30 and 44 have more education than their husbands, whereas only 19 percent of husbands in the same age group have more education than their wives. Twenty-three percent of men with some college education earn less than their wives. In law, medical, and doctoral programs, women are majorities or, if trends continue, will be.

One might look at that and think, “Wow – good job, women.” George Will did not think this. In fact, there seems to be a bit of “Oh-God-no-women-are-taking-over” undercurrent here, even if, as is likely, he didn’t mean for there to be. Also, “twenty-three percent” – is that really a cause for alarm of some kind? (Taking that a step further, is a subset of men earning less than their wives a cause for alarm either?) And re: his last point, he’s getting all worked up about something that 1) hasn’t even fully happened yet; 2) again, doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. The problems continue when he talks about marriage:

In 1956, the median age of men marrying was 22.5.

I’m 22. Trust me: 22.5 is too young. Also: entirely different era. Some more fun with numbers:

A recent study found that 55 percent of men 18 to 24 are living in their parents’ homes, as are 13 percent of men 25 to 34, compared to 8 percent of women.

18 to 24? Isn’t that awfully young to start getting judgmental? A lot of those parents’-home-dwellers on the younger end of that spectrum are kids commuting to college, no? Remember, college? The thing he was just saying not enough guys are going to? And…18? Forget college, most people are still in high school at that age. And the wheels are about to fall off.

If you wonder what has become of manliness, [Penn State historian Gary Cross] says, note the differences between Cary Grant and Hugh Grant, the former, dapper and debonair, the latter, a perpetually befuddled boy.

Ah yes, Cary Grant and Hugh Grant. Very analogous. You can tell by the “Grant”s. Another instructive example: think of the differences between Theodore Roosevelt and this delicious roast beef sandwich. One was our 26th President, a Rough Rider, a passionate hunter – a true man’s man. The other? None of these! What is happening to manhood? OK, so Cary and Hugh are both handsome leading men, they’re both English-born – but wouldn’t, say, George Clooney be a better modern-day Cary Grant comparison as far as suaveness, dapper-ness, etc. is concerned? Or would that just defeat the purpose of the comparison?

Permissive parenting, Cross says, made children less submissive, and the decline of deference coincided with the rise of consumer and media cultures celebrating the indefinite retention of the tastes and habits of childhood. The opening of careers to talented women has coincided with the attenuation of male role models in popular culture: In 1959, there were 27 Westerns on prime-time television glamorizing male responsibility.

There is probably more “permissive parenting” than ever today, yes. How that directly segues into talking about how there aren’t any Westerns on TV anymore to tech men how to be real men is anyone’s guess. Just another bizarre paragraph in an increasingly confounding article.

>>>NEXT: Just about everyone is ruining George Will’s ideal vision of a man.

Pages: 1 2

baseball, Cary Grant, Evan Thomas, fisking George Will, George Will, Hugh Grant, Jacob Weisberg, Newsweek, roast beef sandwich, Slate, Theodore Roosevelt, Tiger Woods

Jim R

“In 1959, there were 27 Westerns on prime-time television glamorizing male responsibility.”

Riiight, male responsibility is exactly what I think of when fondly recalling the westerns I grew up on.

Hey, George, better stick to climate denialism and Lassiez Faire economics; subjects where you’re no less laughably incorrect but at least you have the repetition thing going for you.
Azarkhan

Glenn, you seem a little touchy about this. You, uhmm, don’t live with your parents, do you?
Glenn Davis

Azarkhan –

I sure do. But then again…as i said, I’m 22. No shame in it for me…yet. (Been out of school less than a year – George isn’t giving me a ton of breathing room to work with.) Didn’t mean to imply “touchiness” so much as, “Wow, some of these points are really strange,” but yeah, I’d allow my own situation colored my view of his piece to some extent.

To me, the really weird thing was he included 18-year-olds in the “living with parents” analysis. Seems like they kind of SHOULD still be at that point, unless they’re in college already.
Azarkhan

Big points for honesty, Glenn. And there is no shame. In fact, if I don’t get a job soon (laid off a year ago) I may have to clean out Moms basement and move in myself.
scott w

Good job, Glenn.
I’d like to see the methodology Mr. Cross employed in quantifying and analyzing the vanity levels of every generation in history, and then concluding that the Boomers rank #1.
“Infantilized” ? I think this “aging academic” and former “student leftist” should speak for himself -and maybe he is speaking about himself.
jophis

A generation of “youth” that spends all of its money on I-phones and then demands free healthcare is beyond vain. …yeah, Will is wrong- keep beleiving it. The biggest shame is not that many of these adult infants will be eaten by the world, but that they are completely unprepared to take the reins of social and political responsibility from their elders whom they detest. As the greatest generation fades, the final one stumbles to its demise.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Thompson/1389669429 Bob Thompson

Why it is that when men were better educated, higher paid, move out faster and climbed the ranks higher than women, everyone had a fit about it (re: the “glass ceiling”). But when the scale tips the other way and women get a full 60% of Bachelor’s degrees, everyone sings Kumbaya. So, Glenn, you don’t think the male drop-out rate in high school and college is a problem?

As for the 22.5 median marriage age for men in 1952, I wonder what the divorce rate was back then, compared to today’s? Before you denigrate 22 as being “too young” for marriage, why don’t you look at the consequences of immaturity and what it’s done to our society. People weren’t shooting up schools in 1952.

Also, about the 55% of 18 – 24 year olds who still live at home, remember that once upon a time people went away to college or joined the military at 18. Was that so bad? I think the 13% between 25 and 34 who still live at home, compared to only 8% of women, is a bigger problem, don’t you? Oh that’s right, men are in the minority. Now, if it was 13% of women then NOW would be whipping up a media storm about it.

One last point. Last November, when all of Tiger Wood’s infidelity problems hit the media, one reporter said, “Leave the poor kid alone”. That “kid” was 34 years old.