The Newsweek article “Basement Boys” is an interesting perspective on a growing trend of contemporary societal structure. In sum, author George F. Will discusses the phase-turned-lifestyle of a “basement boy,” or “a culture of immaturity among the many young men who are reluctant to grow up” (Will). While this trend is quite visible, it is somewhat of a paradox within the confines of the working world where machismo – for both men and women – still seems to be a prevailing requirement for success. It is also disconcerting that part of the rationale for the rise in number of “basement boys” in this article is attributed to the increasing presence of women in the public sphere. While the author frames this in terms of an “injury to men” and male confusion, what you actually see is a shift in the visibility of women that is a step closer to a more egalitarian society. Accordingly, basement boy culture is a response to changing cultural norms, which includes an apparent decrease in male overprivilege as women’s access to and presence in the working world increases.
Gary Cross, a Penn State University historian, states that the influx of large numbers of women into the workforce has made “many men” feel marginalized, and
that the “opening of careers to talented women has coincided with the attenuation of male role models in popular culture” (Will). Together with permissive parenting that began with the baby boomer generation and a rise of consumer culture that idealizes the retention of childhood, Cross contends that all of this led to a generation of men who were seemingly confused about what it meant to grow up as a male. The children of the baby boomers have continued the trend and can even visit restaurants such as Dave & Buster’s, popular venues where adults can play games and drink beer. All of this may exist, but I think it is more a reflection of changing cultural norms than a few generations of confused males. One online comment on the article supports this viewpoint:
Nowadays the sex drive has many outlets. Masturbation is OK, homosexuality is OK, sexual entertainment is OK, fornication (if you use condoms) is OK. So now a young man considering the prospect of marriage and adulthood fears the loss of his opportunities for fun and pleasure. Celibacy is no longer the price one pays for a life of self-indulgence.
The author of the comment essentially pinpoints a historical difference between now and seventy years ago, when marriage was the only legally and socially sanctioned outlet for sexuality. In contrast, the recent rise of raunch culture places sex as part of a consumer culture and m
akes it acceptable to indulge in pleasure. At the same time, though media may glorify youth, there are also prevalent stereotypes of an idealized male. Cross cites Hugh Grant as the image of “manliness” in the context of basement boy culture, but it’s not like the Vin Diesel's of the world have disappeared.
However, I will focus on the article’s contentions of women’s involvement with this puerile male culture. George F. Will cites many statistics that demonstrate that by volume, women do have a presence within the workforce: currently, women earn almost 58 percent of bachelor’s degrees, and
“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” (Will). Finally, “23 percent of men with some college education earn less than their wives” (Will). Though the author’s perspective seems to be one of a report rather than an appraisal, at least to me, these statistics were presented as if they are
surprising or a bad thing. Furthermore, Will fails to acknowledge that women still earn less than men for equivalent work and tend to be in positions of lesser power within corporations. Aside from
the bachelor’s degrees, none of the statistics report situations that are of a majority. The emphasis on the effects of increasing female presence in the public sphere reflects the opening statements of Peggy McIntosh’s article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” where she highlights male reluctance to admit that they are overprivileged and benefit from women’s disadvantages. In addition, “they may say they will work to women’s statues, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can’t or won’t support the idea of lessening men’s” (McIntosh 1). And yet that seems to be exactly what Gary Cross is getting at when he commented on how many men feel marginalized by female presence in the workforce. Apparently, men feel threatened by female presence in the workforce.
If that is the case, that men feel threatened by working moms and single women who choose to have careers before children, is “basement boy” culture then a reaction to this threat? The opening of the article pointed out that men held almost 80 percent of the jobs that were lost due to current economic hardships. When considering this situation, perhaps “basement boys” are on the rise simply because it is easier. It is much more difficult to get a job nowadays, so it is reasonable to consider that because “adult” responsibilities in terms of work are harder to come by that more men would find comfort in existing as a basement boy where they have minimal responsibility and capitalize on their parents’ willingness to support them. It is worthwhile to note that basement boy culture is one of white middle to upper class men, for those in lower socioeconomic classes cannot afford to “veg out” and indulge all of the time, but for right now that is beside the point. Will calls this disproportionate loss of jobs previously held by men as an “injury to men.” Though nobody wants to lose a job, the way that Will shifts the discussion quite abruptly from a detriment of economic crisis to juxtaposing female presence in academia and careers makes it apparent that he is not speaking of an “injury.” Rather, Will is touching upon a decrease of male overprivilege. This is not an “injury,” because a slight loss in overprivilege does not make men all of a sudden underprivileged. The United States has a patriarchal culture, so for the time being, men, specifically white men, will be dominant.
Another reader comment on this article reasons that “basement boy” culture exists because “how can a man behave as a ‘man’ in the patriarchal sense when much of society no longer has a need or desire for all these men?” But is that really what is happening? The influx of women in the workforce certainly displaces some men on an individual level. There is a more varied group of people competing for jobs than in the past when women were primarily in the home and had more limited access to the workplace. But “man” in the patriarchal sense, whether “needed” or not, is here to stay because patriarchy will not disappear overnight. It is an ideology that reflects a set of ideals, values, and beliefs that comprise a culture that “includes ideas about the nature of things, including women, men, and humanity” (Johnson 36). Patriarchy delineates pre-conceived notions of gender identity and is characterized by being male-centered, male-dominated, male-identified, and control-obsessed (Johnson 28). But even without thinking about patriarchy as a system, the way individuals behave in the workplace reinforces stereotypical masculinity. As Ariel Levy describes in Female Chauvinist Pigs, “women who’ve wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than try and elevate the entire female sex to their level” (Levy 95). Figures like HBO president of documentary and family programming Sheila Nevins must “appear much more confident, aggressive, and unconflicted about her choices – she has to do everything Fred Astaire does, backward, in heels,” especially in industries that are typically male-dominated (Levy 94). And so it appears paradoxical to me that “manliness” as we traditionally know it will be completely displaced by basement boy immaturity because such attitudes are simply not desirable in the context of a career.
No comments:
Post a Comment