The Sorry Lives and Confusing Times of Today's Young Men

[Forlorn Drifter]

Menegrothx- That picture man. It describes my life.

I just don't see how things are really supposed to go. You know the phrase "You have to have money to make money"? Its ringing too true nowadays, and if you don't have money to begin with, you're fucked. Another issue, now that I do have my license, is that I can't get any kind of job because of one of the following: not enough experience, too many people hired already, not enough education, or they aren't willing to give any flexibility in hours. FFA, one of the things I'm most dedicated to is something I need a flexible schedule for- especially considering it is one of my best ways to get scholarships if one is going for an ag degree.

[Hatta]

I just don't see how things are really supposed to go. You know the phrase "You have to have money to make money"? Its ringing too true nowadays, and if you don't have money to begin with, you're fucked. Another issue, now that I do have my license, is that I can't get any kind of job because of one of the following: not enough experience, too many people hired already, not enough education, or they aren't willing to give any flexibility in hours. FFA, one of the things I'm most dedicated to is something I need a flexible schedule for- especially considering it is one of my best ways to get scholarships if one is going for an ag degree.

That *is* how things are supposed to go. What you are experiencing is the deliberate destruction of the middle class by the ultra rich. This is the harvest that was sewn with Reganomics. Those who control the economy don't care if you can't improve your life, if you could you would be competition. You're more valuable to them as a tenant, student, and debtor than a skilled professional. It's not a mistake that after the last financial crisis the "recovery" accrued *only* to the rich. This is how the world works.

[finnSomniac]

I remember reading this article, and having a great laugh about it. There's a lot flat out wrong with what this person said, hugely inaccurate stuff based upon views, and not actual fact.

First off is the men whom the writer was portraying seemed to me being what most others would called NEETs, Not in Education, Employment, or Training. These are people that go under the radar, aren't necessarily homeless, and live in usually poor conditions. I'm not entirely sure what the percentage of NEETs are in the US, but I really doubt they're even close to a tenth of a percentage. Reading this article and not knowing a damn thing, you'd assume there's some strange epidemic of lazy men out there not willing to do a damn thing, but no, this person is just pulling stuff out of thin air.

Second is how sexist the article comes off as. It's not that video games are some mind-control, it's that MEN are stupid, lazy, and simple. Men won't be men, they need to grow up and be MEN, they're acting like BOYS, why won't they grow up? This is the kind of thing that usually people will scoff at, but seriously, isn't this the same thing feminists are fighting? Being forced into gender roles, being manipulated by others because they're not who they're "supposed to be"? Whether you think me taking issue with this is silly or not, people actually believe that if you don't fit the requirements of who they think you should be, then you're a miserable person who should be treated poorly. It's abuse, no matter which way you look at it.

Last bit about the article, I'm not entirely sure the author is to blame here. Misinformation aside, there's something all gamers battle, and that's stereotyping. If you're a guy and you're a gamer, you're a fat, greasy virgin. If you're a girl and you're a gamer, you're a whore, you don't really like gaming, or you're a whale. Maybe that hurts to hear, but that's what most people think about those who choose to identify themselves as "gamers". To me, I see this just like rock and roll, people don't understand a particular thing, so they'll paint it with the face of something they don't like so they can dismiss it.

I think it's soon to change though, as the kids who grew up around video games become more influential. Pro-gaming and let's plays are becoming not only profitable, but popular, and both of these ventures allow people to see that gaming has a varied face. I think in the next couple decades, gaming will be more accepted and expected, just like how Star Wars and Star Trek is known less as a fanatic group and more of just a thing that everyone sort of loves. It just depends on whether we gamers are ok with admitting that we love video games, and discuss them, or keep to our own groups, silent. The more we call out people who stereotype gaming culture, the more society will realize that these people are wrong, that gaming doesn't really have a face, but is just a bunch of people.

[Key-Glyph]

I can't even get where this guy is coming from. He's discussing the hypothetical situation of advising his professionally successful daughter to make sure her boyfriends are okay with being outearned by her, but then he gets riled up about the existence of today's "weak" young men -- which, from the example he paints, sounds a whole like the portrait of a guy who'll be -- you guessed it! -- outearned by his daughter. He's trying to have it both ways, and nobody's buying it.

He's angry about men who aren't ferociously ambitious in the business world, period. This guy believes in the concept of a "real man," and chiller dudes like those don't make his cut. Sure, he frames the tale to make it seem as if he's really looking out for his daughter's assertive interests, assuring us that he's being supportive of her being the breadwinner by making sure she doesn't marry a dude with a ridiculously fragile ego -- equality all the way, amirite?! -- but in reality he's telling men to shape up so that his daughter won't be put in the breadwinner situation in the first place, because he finds that dynamic so personally embarrassing. Quite the sleight-of-hand.

This is not even to mention he's subtly implying that 1) marriage will be the ultimate goal in his daughter's life, and 2) her success will be the potential destabilizer in her union, not her future husband's lack of success. Only women are allowed to fall short of their professional potential, I guess. I'd be interested to know if this guy has a son, and if he tells that boy he's supposed to run himself into the ground at the expense of his personal life "just because."

[dsheinem]

I can't even get where this guy is coming from. He's discussing the hypothetical situation of advising his professionally successful daughter to make sure her boyfriends are okay with being outearned by her, but then he gets riled up about the existence of today's "weak" young men -- which, from the example he paints, sounds a whole like the portrait of a guy who'll be -- you guessed it! -- outearned by his daughter. He's trying to have it both ways, and nobody's buying it.

He's angry about men who aren't ferociously ambitious in the business world, period. This guy believes in the concept of a "real man," and chiller dudes like those don't make his cut. Sure, he frames the tale to make it seem as if he's really looking out for his daughter's assertive interests, assuring us that he's being supportive of her being the breadwinner by making sure she doesn't marry a dude with a ridiculously fragile ego -- equality all the way, amirite?! -- but in reality he's telling men to shape up so that his daughter won't be put in the breadwinner situation in the first place, because he finds that dynamic so personally embarrassing. Quite the sleight-of-hand.

This is not even to mention he's subtly implying that 1) marriage will be the ultimate goal in his daughter's life, and 2) her success will be the potential destabilizer in her union, not her future husband's lack of success. Only women are allowed to fall short of their professional potential, I guess. I'd be interested to know if this guy has a son, and if he tells that boy he's supposed to run himself into the ground at the expense of his personal life "just because."

The author is a woman. Somewhere in this thread I also posted a link to her follow up response I think.

Yes, her arguments are largely grounded in poor research, sexism, etc. BUT the point of my sharing the article last year was that it does a very good job of encapsulating some very prevalent stereotypes (even if they aren't true) about gamers in general and about men in their 20s in particular. I think it is useful to know what those who are misinformed believe (and why) in order to productively combat these views, educate, etc. I felt she does a nice job of capturing the "logic" that a lot of people use to "understand" this demographic.

[Key-Glyph]

The author is a woman.

Nono, I meant the video linked in the more recent article. I was directing my comments at the MSNBC host, not your original article. I already commented on that many moons ago.

[dsheinem]

The author is a woman.

Nono, I meant the video linked in the more recent article. I was directing my comments at the MSNBC host, not your original article. I already commented on that many moons ago.

OHHHHH Scarborough. Yeah, he's a doofus.

[Key-Glyph]

The author is a woman.

Nono, I meant the video linked in the more recent article. I was directing my comments at the MSNBC host, not your original article. I already commented on that many moons ago.

OHHHHH Scarborough. Yeah, he's a doofus.

Clearly that's what I should have said, instead of my long-winded post. Could've been much more succinct about it.