The teenage-ification of manhood

National Post ^ | 17 Oct 2009 | Robert Fulford

[AreaMan]

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Presented by

The teenage-ification of manhood

Robert Fulford,  National Post 

Parents often complain that kids grow up too fast these days. But many adults, it seems, aren't growing up at all. In an ongoing series, the National Post comment pages have been probing this annoying phenomenon. In today's final instalment, Robert Fulford explains the social construct we now call "the teenager."

---

The word "teenagers" appeared in the late 1940s, signalling the arrival of a new tribe of young people, the replacements for what were once called adolescents. These self-important newcomers were not just adults-in-training, as young people had been through history. They had a unique identity and some independence. They had money to spend and they wanted to spend it as they chose.

[ktscarlett66]

It’s not a speedy ‘growing up’ but rather a pseudo-sophistication that teenagers have these days. They have way more knowledge of the world, of technology and of sex, but very little maturity. There’s a difference between growing ‘up’ and being mature. Some people are mature at 18, others aren’t mature at 40. It’s a sense of society, of responsibility and some people just never get it.

[HerrBlucher]

The current admin perfectly illustrates the theme of this article.

[Sherman Logan]

I think it’s really very simple.

Historically a boy became a man by assuming the roles of husband and father. These gave him a place in society. He was needed and felt the responsibility to those who needed him. He was respected by others for assuming this responsibility.

Today a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and often tells him so. Why should a man assume responsibility that doesn’t really exist? The government is always there to be substitute husband and father.

The basic “natural” family is mother plus children. The idea of having a man around as husband and father appears increasingly dispensable.

[Joe 6-pack]

I would be remiss if I let this thread slip by without mentioning this book...

It's about a father's role in helping a son transition from boyhood to manhood, setting goals, and marking achievements along the route.

[trisham]

The current admin perfectly illustrates the theme of this article.

*****************

Good point!

[Nonstatist]

Thanks to Obamanomics, there will be less jobs out there to help turn boys into men. Thank you, Zerobama.

[MrB]

Destroy the concept of “man”,
and you destroy the concept/role of “father”.

Destroy the father,
destroy the family.

Destroy the family,
destroy the society and nation.

The commies (and Satan) know this.

[Soothesayer]

Excellent article. Years ago I used to detest the working class little did I realize that they were the core of our civilization.

[r9etb]

A good article, the final paragraphs of which could easily become a book-length discussion.

In many respects, "teenage-ification" is a mark, not just of great wealth, but probably also the harbinger of societal decadence. Leisure is a wonderful thing, but great wealth has a way of allowing leisure to become an end in itself, which is poison.

We have, indeed, belittled "the value of craftsmanship and manual labour," not least by insisting that a college education is an absolute necessity.

[Dick Bachert]

I have often remarked that this country required a serious wake-up call from its periodic idiotic dalliances with leftist “leaders” and suggested that we needed a dedicated Marxist in the White House to rub our noses in the REAL DEAL. We got one with Obama and he may prove to be the best thing that ever happened to the cause of freedom here.

While making that suggestion, my fingers were crossed. On one hand, I feared that the majority of modern-day, government schooled folk and welfare leeches would come to embrace Marxist philosophy and practice and America — the IDEA — would come to an end. On the other hand, I held out hope that my fellow citizens would reject this alien ideology and rebel in a demonstrable way. I thank God that the latter is happening as I write this. The anger and outrage are palpable to even the hard-core leftists now infesting the White House. Barring some catastrophe — which malignant Machiavellians like Rahm “A crisis is too good to waste” Emanuel are fully capable of orchestrating — they will be shown the gate at the next election.

But what has puzzled me most through the run-up to this point (with some notable exceptions of which Georgia’s Dr. Broun and Dr. Price are but two) – is this: WHERE ARE THE PRINCIPLED MEN — REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE — WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING UP TO THIS GUY?? In order that they might avoid the tough questions inherent in governing this nation, have they shipped so much of THEIR power down Pennsylvania Avenue that they are now AFRAID to reclaim it? Why has it fallen to Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rep. Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush, Boortz and a handful of others – in Washington and without — to do the job of those we elected to office – and swore an oath — to guard the Constitution from “...all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC?” They have largely been MIA!

And, while they have been missing, Obama has appointed more czars than the Russians had through their entire history. I asked Chambliss and Isakson (REPUBLICANS from Georgia) if they were just a tad worried that Obama was forming a politbureau here to replace THEM. I’m still waiting for a response that makes sense.

And one final thought as we look forward to replacing the Marxist-n-Thief come 2012: What sort of people have we elected when a small, attractive mother from Alaska named Sarah has BIGGER CAJONES than the alleged MEN now warming seats and wasting expensive space on that hill at the eastern end of Pennsylvania Avenue?

I’m just asking the question we all should be asking.

Have YOU asked the question?

[SamAdams76]

What a sucker I am!

When I got out of high school, I left home to join the Marine Corps. As soon as I was discharged, I got a full time job and my own apartment. Within a few years, I had gotten married, purchased my first home and started raising kids - all this while working 60+ hours a week in my job while twenty years of weekends were spend running endless errands, taking kids from here to there and doing yard work, etc.

Now I'm in my late 40s and I look around and see some of those "kids" I grew up with back in the 1970s. A good amount of them are still living at home with mom and dad and well, living the good life.

One childhood friend in particular comes to mind. He never married and never left his childhood home. He was never charged rent by his parents (who seemed to just love having him around) so virtually all his income was disposable. Always had a new car in the driveway. Had season tickets for all the local sports teams. Got to vacation wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.

He didn't even really have to work that hard. While he usually (claimed) to have a full time job somewhere, I never actually saw him at it. Everytime I ran into him, he always seemed to be out on some sort of disability, workman's comp, etc. When it comes to getting paid for doing nothing, this kid knows all the angles!

Do I need to tell you that he's pretty much seen every movie ever made and is an expert on video games? Last time I was in his house, he had bookshelves full of "cheat guides" for pretty much every computer game ever made and he's got the time on his hands to make full use of them.

Now his last remaining parent passed away this past summer and he inherited the entire house (which was paid off by his parents some 10 years ago) free and clear. It's a pretty large house for a 48-year old kid and it's valuated (as he proudly announces) at $420,000. So he's pretty much set for life and never really had to lift a finger!

I guess the bottom line here is that many of our "kids" don't have the drive and energy to succeed on their own in life because quite frankly, they don't have to. I believe that true maturity can only be achieved when you are forced to attain success by the sweat of your own brow and not on the backs of others.

[Pessimist]

“A good article, the final paragraphs of which could easily become a book-length discussion.”

It already has. Read “The Death of the Grown Up”. Really interesting stuff...

[TopQuark]

"It’s not a speedy ‘growing up’ but rather a pseudo-sophistication that teenagers have these days."

I am not sure this is an explantion. It seems to me that they are simply indulged with what they don't deserve. They are actually TOLD that they are more sophisticated in technology (as if pressing buttons were synonimous with understanding how to use the technology); that they should master mechanics of sex as if that all there is to loving and even making love; that their FEELINGS are paramount and nobody has the right make them feel badly...

In a word, they are simply spoiled.

Remove these entitlements and make them contingent on work and sucess, as it was done for millennia. All the "problems with youth" will disappear.

[r9etb]

WHERE ARE THE PRINCIPLED MEN — REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE — WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING UP TO THIS GUY??

You're really asking the wrong question, you know. It's not "where are they," but rather "why aren't they?"

When you put it that way, the matter becomes a great deal more tractable, in that you can begin looking at the cultural dynamics that allow such a thing to happen in the first place.

The first answer to "why" is that, over time, "government" has become a profession in itself. Some people go into business themselves, or work for major corporations ... and some people go into government.

Government, in that formulation, is no longer a matter of duty and responsibility; it is more a matter of career selection. And of course, the people who go into politics as a career, tend to be rather narcissistic and self-serving. (I once saw a psychological study that purported to show that trial lawyers and politicians were clinically indistinguishable from sociopathic criminals....)

[thulldud]

Ever hear of “Demographic Winter”?

[Trailerpark Badass]

He went on to say that it's a good thing to play video games with them. He's annoyed when anyone suggests that this might not be a bright idea.

Why not?

Would it not be a bright idea to play Monopoly with them? or is there something unique to video games that wouold make it a bad idea?

Game play is useful, probably vital, exercise for the mind, and many good video games are just as challenging and stimulating as more traditional ones.

[r9etb]

Remove these entitlements and make them contingent on work and sucess, as it was done for millennia. All the "problems with youth" will disappear.

No, they wouldn't. For one thing, you've got to find something for them to do that involves actual "work and success."

How do you propose to provide that?

[tired1]

What a sucker I am!”

I have a feeling that there’s no way you’d wish to trade places with him.

[Graybeard58]

Years ago I used to detest the working class

Expand on that a little.