I spent almost 10 years with a grown man of this exact generation. I would spend hours raising the kids, cleaning the house and volunteering while he would spend upwards of 8 hours gaming. I am no longer with this person, but he still regularly calls in sick to work when a new game is released.

Sent by natalie | 2:46 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Good for us men! I'm married, two kids, two mortgages, job, etc. And still make time to game, watch CSI and work out.
Viva Menism!

Sent by David | 2:48 PM ET | 01-28-2008

My thirty year old brother lives with my mother. He lives and works in the online game Second Life. He's a great guy, but totally lacks motivation to join the rat race with the rest of us. Having a so-called normal life in today's modern world is so stressful, complex and expensive. There's no such thing as a 40-hour work week anymore, and household expenses are outrageous. The more I think about it, the more I want to join him! (But that would really send my mother around the bend!)

Sent by Mary-Margaret Mulligan | 2:49 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Have you looked at young women? Many are playing around just as irresponsibly, they just don't play video games as much.

Sent by John | 2:49 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I reject your premise as both sexist and judgmental. You are judging my life style choices by your own standards and expectations. The term child-men is derogatory in itself.

In addition courtesy of the media women have been given unrealistic expectations.

We are also individuals who have been medicated for our entire live and now upon reaching true independence we have gone back to reclaim a childhood lost to the pharmaceutical industry.

Regarding gaming, gaming has supplanted social drinking and television viewing for my demographic.

Sent by McLendon | 2:50 PM ET | 01-28-2008

One reason is because these are SMART men, who understand that if they marry and have children, then the odds are excellent that their Dear Wife will dump them, and the MAN will be separated from his children, and will have to pay child support for the next (up to) 18 years.

These men refuse to fall into this trap.

Sent by Hoyt Nelson | 2:50 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Thank you for covering this interesting topic. I am a 25 year old male, and I have a feeling that this phenomenon has societal causes as well as cultural. What may be the effect of the changing job market? I have friends who have found out the hard way that a BA or BSc doesn't qualify you for much in the way of a rewarding and lucrative career paths. Do you have any insights on this?

Sent by James | 2:50 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I am one such man-child if you'd like. 26 years old who enjoys Halo and Adult Swim like any other my age, and I admit it is quite a guilty pleasure. But I have a girlfriend who doesn't want kids or even a long term relationship that ends in marriage. My salary (MIT Master's graduate, mind you) does not permit me to get a real mortgage, and I am lucky enough to have found an affordable housing unit in Boston to make ends meet. You want me to grow up? Well, I don't have that luxury!

Sent by Brian | 2:52 PM ET | 01-28-2008

As a 50 year old happily married female living in Tucson, AZ, I find the fact that my husband still wants to play, at whatever, as an exceptional plus! I enjoy many of the things that the "man-child" enjoys, comedy central, spike, video games, action movies, etc... You go Man-Child! Women who find exception to this, need to rethink their idea of fun and play and get real!

Sent by Marti | 2:53 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This author seems to disproportionately blame men for a societal trend. True, the age of first marriage and first child has increased for both men and women, but it takes two to tango. These developments are in large part due to social changes that feminists should applaud: increased educational attainment and career opportunities for women. Moreover, while there's no doubt that media companies appeal to men's desire to hang onto their youth, but no shortage of media (not to mention cosmetic) companies do the same for women. Let's not confuse correlation and causation and assume increasing prevalence of male-oriented media are to blame for an increasing prevalence of "men-children".

Sent by Kevin | 2:54 PM ET | 01-28-2008

The phenomenon of the child/man has several causes. One of the most important is the ready access to sex without marriage. Beginning with the advent of "the pill" and accelerated through the 60's sexual revolution, sex became much more readily available without marriage. Thus, the leverage of the woman to cause men to "grow up" through the promise of sex was largely abandoned.

Sent by Cecil W. Burns | 2:55 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I think the man child is a direct reaction to growing up in the feminist era. Boys growing up in a world were woman struggle to claim an identity are take the opportunity to say "this is who I am and want to be" go figure yourself out.

Sent by Josh | 2:56 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Behind the tounge-in-cheek comparisons made by Ms. Hymowitz is masked a kind of sexism which is prevelant in all forms of media today. It's the same kind of sexism which says it's okay to portray men as bafoons in commercials and network TV. The problem here is not 20-something men with no responsibilities, but a public which regards men like this as irrelevant and unworthy of expectations.

Sent by Brian Goodell | 2:56 PM ET | 01-28-2008

My husband is a man-child, but it works for us, as he stays home with our two little girls. He now plays fewer video games, but we still play "Guitar Hero" together occasionally. I am the breadwinner, though he still works as a bartender a few nights a week. I think it works for us, because I wasn't expecting him to change after we married. And he still is very responsible around the house - he just doesn't have a full-time job outside of the home.

Sent by Nancy | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Could this be because most of our society in America does not have a formal ceremony that recognizes when a boy should become a man?

Sent by John in Denver | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

The guest talked about men seeking outlets such as going out with the guys or such as an escape. It should be pointed out that women are known to be much more social creatures they just do it differently. Most women that I have encountered in the work place touch base with their friends or family several times a day while a majority of men (although certainly not all) do not have such contact with their social network.

Sent by Reb Blanchard | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

when our 4 year old nephew recently visited, he asked my partner why he was an adult that still played with toys. i must admit i love the toys as much as him. he is 36 and i am 31, respectively.

Sent by sarah | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I am very upset by the notion that while women may "buck the expectations of society" men must settle down and do as their forefathers did. As a 22 year-old man I have personally been advised by every married man I know to delay marriage, enjoy youth, and be self sufficient. How can you hold this double standard? Men are not completed by women any more than women are by men.

Sent by Kyle | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This is in large part due to the Nixon decision to give up a conscripted military and outsource it (more and more). Boys used to get come modicum of training in organization through their time in the military. But, with the growing advent of politcos and affluent American parents who were able to get their sons deferred from military service, conscription became an unfair event for the less affluent and poorer classes. BRING BACK CONSCRIPTION with equality and meaning for every young man and woman in this society. Help them to see that our society is responsible and organized, and learn to live in it productively.

Sent by Frank Huber | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

GREAT show!!! My husband is NOT a man-child (he's 25, we've been married for 6 years and have 3 children) but this show really reminds me of many of our male peers. People are always shocked when they learn my husband's age which is an interesting sign of the times. I totally agree with the observation that most guys his age are acting like children, still.

Sent by arcadia | 2:57 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Our job has always been to die. The difference now is that mass communications have let us know it before we're dead. Women have to accept that we're no longer the dopes we used to be.

By the way, I'm a veteran. Is she?

Sent by Terrence Lynch | 2:58 PM ET | 01-28-2008

With an expected life span 20-30 years longer guys that years ago men can wait with out a biological clock ticking. Also the expenses of a divorce may make men more cautious. Mine has cost over $500,000. I think caution as possible is smart. Maybe it's an evolutionary reaction to over population.

Sent by Kevin | 2:58 PM ET | 01-28-2008

It's not just men, but women, too! My wife and I are almost 30, have 3 kids, 2 masters, and 2 houses. However, none of her female friends from high school have "settled down." One just moved out of her parents house a few months ago, another bounces from man to man simply looking for "fun," and another continues to pick her graduate schools (yes, she's still in school in her late 20's) based on the best beaches.

Sent by Dave | 2:58 PM ET | 01-28-2008

"Child Man"?

How amazingly condescending Ms. Hymowitz is. Men need women to "grow up"? And according to Ms. Hymowitz "growing up" means getting married, having kids and a mortgage. You're not a "full member of the community" unless you have children?

Gee, I wonder what her agenda is. I guess that means gay folks can never be "full members of the community".

One of the most insulting guests you've ever had on your program.

Sent by Steve Axthelm | 2:58 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I find it fascinating that the guest is using words like "grow up" and "become responsible". Feminism brought us the idea that women can be anything, from a housewife to a CEO. What it hasn't brought us is the idea that a man can be anything from a CEO to a "kept man". My wife just accepted a position in academia, and I'm about to become a house-husband for a couple of years after putting my wife through school - and I'm going to love every second of it.

Sent by Brian in Madison | 2:59 PM ET | 01-28-2008

What, pray-tell, would "grown-up" activities be?

Sent by CM | 3:00 PM ET | 01-28-2008

My full adult man husband and I (both Gen X) often talk about the differences in how American culture "raises" boys versus indigenous cultures or African cultures. We like ideas of rite of passages that have substance to them. Two examples being that to become a man a boy must go out and kill a lion or similarly that a man has not shown himself worthy of a wife (and family) until he has built a home from the ground. We have a young son, and he will become a full adult man with a full heart and full love of people and life.

Sent by Sarah | 3:03 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I don't mind a guy who likes playing video games and tech toys. I like such things too. But I don't want a guy who does ONLY that.

I don't want kids and I don't want to be a housewife, but I also don't want to come home from work and be the only one who cooks or cleans. I don't want to have to plead with my bf to get out of the house or exercise or have some sort of participation in life.

I'm 26 now, and I should be able to find a guy close to my age that isn't a lazy kid wanting a mommy to take care of him... but I look around and that's all I see! The guys I know can't seem think of anyone but themselves, it's so frustrating!

Sent by Jessica | 3:03 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I'm a 25 year old man in my final semester of law school, and I happily admit that I enjoy being young. In fact I have little interest in working full time as an attorney any time soon. I have a life that allows me to enjoy Baltimore's nightlife, play video games, snowboard in the winter, and rock climb in the summer. Frankly, I don't need the money a full time job would offer with my life-style. I'd rather enjoy my youth. Many of the other 20 somethings I know have decided that their youth is worth more to them than a lucrative career or serious relationship at this point in their lives. How much is your youth worth to you?

Sent by Andrew | 3:06 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This is an interesting conversation. I'm a single man just in my thirties and while I agree with your guest about how many men are unwilling to grow up, I do not agree that one has to be married with children before they grow up. I'm a young professional, serve on a government body, have a mortgage and do not have cable or a console. I don't think its a big deal to have things in life you enjoy, rather it comes down to more a matter of knowing when to take care of business and when to have some play time so to speak. Couldn't the same be said about women who display irresponsible behavior?

Sent by Chris | 3:06 PM ET | 01-28-2008

How, if at all, has the post-Roe v. Wade, Liberal, Pro-Choice man's ability to "get rid of" unplanned pregnancies nowadays affected their ability (or need) to take on traditional adult responsibilities, which normally in the past would have occurred only after having a child to support?

Sent by David | 3:06 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I've observed that the child-men I know are the result of mothers who spoil their "perfect" sons to the point where they've never had to be responsible for anything in their entire lives. Mom has always rescued them from teachers, from financial misdealings, etc. They've learned no sense of responsibility or life coping skills. These same women tend to be the ones who do EVERYTHING around the house and complain that their husbands do nothing because their mothers spoiled them!

Sent by Rachel | 3:07 PM ET | 01-28-2008

It's interesting to me that Ms. Hymowitz so casually dismissed the notion of child-women at the end of the program by stating that it's isolated to women in their early 20s. Bunk, I say. I know quite a number of 30- and 40-something women who live lives uncomplicated by spouses/partners, children, volunteer work, or other activities that Ms. Hymowitz might deem worthy adult pursuits. These women spend their free time reading, drinking, going to concerts, and generally just doing whatever they want. One might say that aside from holding down steady jobs and paying their own rent, these women lead lives that are nearly indistinguishable from that of a young 20-something. I'd suggest that Ms. Hymowitz take a trip to San Francisco where she can find plenty of Peter Pans AND Petra Pans.

Sent by Mike Todd | 3:08 PM ET | 01-28-2008

The "child-man" is a product of his mother's generation. I watched my own husband's divorced unhappy mother warn him of the pain that marriage brings while trying to be the cool mom instead of an example of a successful adult. My husband is a hard worker, kind, attentive and financially responsible in spite of his mother. The boomer generation, my parents included encouraged us to "have fun and don't rush into things". The Man-child" is frustrating for a young women but let's not forget the generational influence that helped create the beast.

Sent by katie | 3:10 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Maybe this is Gaia's way to hasten the extinction of mankind.... I'd rather see that than try to force a 34 y.o. w/ a backwards b-ball cap on a skateboard and an iPod full of Korn and Kanye into a responsible husband and father. Sorry girls. Just ain't gonna happen. Glad I grew up in the Baby Boom and that I never wanted kids myself....

Sent by Sorcha Sinclair | 3:12 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This is the most shallow, exclusionary piece I have ever heard on NPR. It shocks me that none of the listeners have pointed out the obligatory politics of heterosexual reproduction that motivates Hymowitz's conservative rhetoric. Rather than provide us with any meaningful analysis of how the so-called "man-child syndrome" is changing, say, the socio-political or economic landscape in this country, she simply insists that we all had better sit up straight, find a partner with opposite naughty-parts, and start behaving "like adults." Not only is that position boring and socio-politically dead--and not only does it align Hymowitz with the "family values" far-right--but also it completely ignores the possibility that waiting to get married, mortgaged, and saddled with kids may be making many young men *and women* happier. A thirty-year-old is better at making important decisions than a twenty-year-old, and despite Hymowitz's objections we are all well served by taking our sweet time in such big steps. Life will always wait: first we'd better enjoy living. As long as we feel young and (apologies) reckless, we have some hope of revitalizing the sad political landscape in this country, and ultimately of creating a society that does not infantilize the unmarried, the childless, and the gay as "not full members of society," to quote Hymowitz's interview.

Sent by John from Ithaca, NY | 3:12 PM ET | 01-28-2008

There is something wrong with the fundamental premise of this:

"It is marriage and children that turn boys into men."

It negates single men (and women) who ARE able to become fully rounded functioning adults, who participate in their world in a thoughtful and compassionate way. I'm 50, have never been married (though I've had relationships that lasted longer than today's average marriage), and have no desire for children. But I'm active in various causes and, contrary to the guest's statement, even care about education and schools.

Just because someone does not fall for the conditioning of society, does not mean they aren't making valuable contributions. In fact, the premise puts self-worth on external qualities and is as shallow as the 'men-children' that it criticizes.

Sent by Terry in AZ | 3:13 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Huh?

As a hardworking 37 year old father of 2... Huh?

What?

So unless you marry (young), start and support a family, AND eschew everything you find fun, you're not "responsible", "well-behaved", "grown-up" or even a Man?

Sounds to me like a patronizing, matronly product of the pseudo-feminist movement which was just a revolutionary face on what was / is essentially resentment and maybe even hatred of men.

What happened to self-determination, i.e; refusing to be defined by false outside standards? Isn't that one of the pillars of the feminist movement? And isn't this proposed standard of male "adulthood" EXACTLY one of the dehumanizations women fought so hard to free THEMSELVES of?

Anyone of EITHER gender who believes they're alone because members of the opposite sex "just won't act right" is the immature one.

Sent by Renwick Miller | 3:13 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Have you found or even studied whether the divorce phenomenon of this last quarter century contributes to this trend for both men and women?

Sent by Claudine | 3:14 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I have to agree with others. The sexist nature of the discussion really got under my skin. As a progressive guy I appreciate women ought not be judged by a gender-based double standard. But just as women's options were opened by feminism, guys ought to have the same room to reassess their own role. If I told a women she ought to have a child and be a housewife by now to be a "full adult woman", I would be instantly attacked as a chauvinist. But Kay has free reign to tell some men that because they don't want to commit, don't make enough money, and don't own a house and have kids with a woman they aren't "real men"? Give me a break. Also, it's easy to attack men's love of video games and Maxim. Just as easy as I could talk about women's obsession with celebrity gossip magazines and E! Entertainment television. I do agree men need to reassess their changing role in society - but do it for themselves, and certainly not model themselves in some spineless manner to please Ms. Hymowitz. I AM a real man - whether I have committed to one of her sexist, goldigging, bioclock-ticking friends or not, thank you very much.

Sent by Tom Morris | 3:15 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Having witnessed the boomer generation firsthand, why would I want to duplicate that relationship dynamic? I haven't been placed on this earth to conform to a failed blueprint of what life should consist of.Women are slaves to their biological clock? Insulting.

Sent by Jon | 3:17 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I greatly enjoy talk of the nation, but I can't believe that you had this guest on your show to discuss this absurd and simpleminded idea she has concocted.

The requirements she has arbitrarily decided constitute an 'adult man' or a 'full member of the community' are not only completely unsupported by anything other than her own particular preference for how a man should be but would exclude a great number of history's great intellectuals and artists as well as a vast segment of the gay population since our society either won't allow or makes it difficult for gay men to have children or get married.

The idea that for a man to be an adult they must conform to the norms of straight, bourgeois and Judeo-Christian culture is hopelessly naive and pernicious.

And to suggest that falling outside those norms is some kind of rejection of feminism is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

I really hope that those who put this show together and put it on the air will also air some kind of response to this women's ideas.

Sent by Thomas Becker | 3:19 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Most of my male friends would fall into this general category. However, no one I know would consider them to be any of them to be other than adult males. Many of them have full time jobs/careers, all but one of them have women who love them and love the fact that their men play video games, watch "juvenile" films, play role-playing games (Dungeons and Dragons), play World of Warcraft, etc., at least four of them have mortgages, three of them are married with children (who they spend a lot of time with). The male friends I have that do not yet have wives dream about fulfilling relationships and do not sleep around or hit bars like the ones described in the author's article--perhaps my friends are too busy playing games. They range in age from 21-29.

My husband is one of these men who would rather play games for fun than complain about how hard work-school was (he is a PhD student in a very challenging program). Every day, I find myself thankful that he is able to use those techniques to de-stress. We play role-playing games together and watch those movies that the author claim are designed for these extended juveniles. We both look forward to the future where we can have children of our own.

I think some of what the author does not see (being as she is in "The City") is the perspective of the provinces (Midwest and further west). We live in the Midwest, and area of the country where to survive one must work hard, create companionship, and still find the ability to play games and be juvenile.

Sent by Sonje | 3:19 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Isn't this phenomenon actually a well-established one throughout history? Maybe young adult men are less likely to be married, have children, and own a home than they were 30 years ago, but wasn't that the norm not long ago? I think historically men have postponed marriage until well into their thirties, often marrying women much younger. Maybe our expectation that men "grow up" in their 20s is not all that realistic.

Sent by Kate | 3:19 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Times are changing.

First of all, the "proper" (read: conservative, traditional) lifestyle Hymowitz advocates is less financially possible for the average man in this time of plummeting wages and security.

But more importantly, maybe men - and people in general - have finally figured out that this traditional lifestyle is an enslaving trap. Guess what? Going to a dreary job, changing diapers, and giving up time for sex in favor of paying bills may not seem all that appealing to ANYONE, especially men.

Think about it: why WOULD a man want to "grow up" if growing up means giving up most everything you love in exchange for a collar?

In general, people are living longer, singlehood is being stretched, and people are casting off their chains. GOOD. I think people should be dedicated to their loved ones and community, but until raising kids and working becomes more palatable, I say men and women go on strike.

Sent by Brian | 3:21 PM ET | 01-28-2008

It took me a while to understand why I was so bothered by this discussion on TotN until I found the source of my irritation: this is a temporary problem. Certainly in the marketplace of marriage and procreation, these men will do less well than their unsung counterparts, the adult men of marriageable age, prospect and intent. It concerns me that instead of spending an entire hour on the ever-evolving challenges of political discourse within the hegemonic primary system run by a two party cartel of special interests and media hangers-on and pundits, we instead get to cut that conversation short to talk about a whiny first-world pseudo-problem (and a self-regulating one at that).

Sent by Ranjan in Tacoma WA | 3:23 PM ET | 01-28-2008

McLendon: "You are judging my life style choices by your own standards and expectations."

I absolutely agree. Why does this woman seem to resent fun and entertainment? Perhaps she'd prefer that every man choke on a tie for 8 hours a day then come home to a nagging wife and disrespectful kids.

Just because a guy enjoys sports, video games, and the female form doesn't mean he is an irresponsible deadbeat. I know many men, including my husband, who take care of what Ms. Hymowitz would consider "adult" responsibilities, yet are still carefree and silly and play video games. I enjoy these with my husband and love him for it.

I applaud you men for finally having the balls to be your own person and enjoy what you want to enjoy. Don't give in to the woman-biased double standard prevalent today.

Sent by Myra in Michigan | 3:24 PM ET | 01-28-2008

"I reject your premise as both sexist and judgmental. You are judging my life style choices by your own standards and expectations. The term child-men is derogatory in itself."

I agree with what this person wrote 100%. Your sole point is based on your own expectations of what life and the definition of success should be.

I guess I would fall into this category. I'm 29, hold two bachelor degrees, work for the government, own a house and play a LOT of video games. I've found that most people who degrade and disparage the video game industry and those who play games, have not actually spent the time researching (i.e. Playing) any video games for themselves. It would be akin to me making grand sweeping statements about women who go to quilt groups as oversexed, cheating, lushes, without ever going and observing them for myself.

I hold down a job and help out in the home. My live-in girlfriend and I split the household chores and yes, she plays video games too! GASP!

My generation and younger are simply replacing the time spent watching TV with gaming. Interactive gaming requires a lot more use of your brain than passive television watching.

It makes me sad to see such a lack of understanding about my favorite pastime.

Sent by Matthew E Cicioni | 3:25 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I find the term child man to be both derogatory and offensive. On the topic, is it possible that due to longer life spans there is less reason to assume such responsibilities at such an early age?

Sent by Todd | 3:26 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I don't see the man-child phenomenon as being a problem. Most of us who fall in this category grew up in broken homes because our fathers married our mothers when they were young and had not had a chance to live a life of their own. I feel better equipped to face the challenges of a marriage, and children, and all the rest of the responsibilities because of my man/child days.

Sent by Daniel | 3:26 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Let me preface this comment by saying I do not own a game console or a PC computer game, and have not a single subscription to Maxim or its ilk.

However, Mrs. Hymowitz speaks utter nonsense.

First, she essentially defines becoming an adult man as marrying and having children, while she makes no such claim for women. She also suggests that, if a man is not in a serious relationship with a woman he intends to marry, he cannot have any ties to the community or deep relationships with anyone - essentially, that he is a useless waste of space. I wonder how the gay community would respond to these assertions?

Second, any interest of a man which is not centered around family, children, or finding a suitable spouse is reduced to a childish game. Would she define a woman painting her nails, having her hair done, reading Vogue, or buying useless knick-knacks for the home a "woman-child?" Would this woman be equally scorned and denigrated by Mrs. Hymowitz if she were not busy bringing children into the world?

I think this has little to do with x-box or Maxim - that's just an easy target. The real issue at hand is pleasure. This is the modern equivalent of moralizing about the evils of laughter, or song, or even masturbation. I mean, imagine a world in which a grown man could decide to spend his own money on a pleasurable pursuit which hurts no one. And where is it written that a couple must have no separate interests?

To Mrs. Hymowitz, I say: Can't you find something more important to complain about? I suppose this is what happens when you have a life of privilege, get a couple of liberal arts masters degrees, and then tire of telling your husband to do your bidding. Get a real job.

Sent by Erik | 3:26 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Yes, I recognize the phenomenon you are trying to speak of. But I have never heard something more offensive on NPR. First off, I am a lesbian. in fact, I'd say a lesbian feminist, remember them? The insistence that one must be married to be an adult is not only outdated and personally hurtful, but astonishingly narrow minded. You further implied, if didn't outright state, that committed relationships with others is limited to the married. another outrageously small minded idea. Secondly, I thought feminism left us with the idea that strict gender roles were harmful and wrong minded. Not, as you state that "there is no difference between men and women when it comes to marriage and children" .

Do you also believe that a man who decides to be a full time dad to his children is being womanly? what century is this?

The more adulthood is defined by dreary predefined roles for either gender, Thinking individuals of either gender would be expected to postpone them as long as possible.

Sent by laura | 3:26 PM ET | 01-28-2008

It seems to me that Ms. Hymowitz thinks that women should be allowed to have their cake and eat it too, but men should do what's best for women. Feminism comes along and says that women should be allowed to choose the course of their lives without being pressured or shamed by men into being stay at home moms. Now men are taking a page from this philosophy and using it to THEIR advantage, and women complain that the guys aren't doing what women want them to do. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

By the way, I'm a 36 yo husband and father of two with a full time job AND enjoy the occasional computer game. To be considered a child-man for this is insulting.

Sent by Brian | 3:31 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I'm a man nearing 40, two kids, good job, marriage of 12 years. Your story on man-children was insulting, derogatory and sexist. NPR is better than that, and owes every man in the audience an apology.

When a woman stays home and let's the man work, we call that a choice, and rightly so, no matter how she spends that time. If a man does the same, does he deserve to be called a man child?

For years, the courts have marginalized men by prioritizing the rights of women over men in custody battles, the right to terminate a pregnancy, and divorce settlement, relegating the role of men to that of a cash machine. While this does not relieve men of their obligations, is it any surprise, after a generation of unjust marginalization from family life that more men are choosing to abandon it?

NPR owes all hard working men that ever played a game, either on their own or with their kids, an apology.

Sent by Sean | 3:35 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I'm totally going to send this link to my girlfriend and hope she will shut up about marriage for another 5 years.

Sent by Bill | 3:42 PM ET | 01-28-2008

On one hand, I agree with the above comment from "McLendon" and must reject Ms. Hymowitz's premise as sexist and judgmental. This hand also holds a strong agreement with the comment from "Hoyt Nelson" regarding the emotional and financial hazards presented to men by the extremely high divorce rate.

On the other hand, I am strongly tempted to grab hold of the "man child" label and "take it back". Is a single man who supports himself, doesn't watch brainless action flicks or subscribe to garbage culture like Maxim a "man child"? Spends most of his free time browsing the internet and playing computer games? Does not date yet has a strong respect for women?

Bah, forget it. I'll stick with the well-worn "geek" or "nerd" labels (despite both terms being stolen and abused by calculating hipsters).

Any way you slice it, I'm doing what I want and enjoying life. To the women smirking at how "pathetic" I must be, check this out:

Men can download naked women. Women can't download men worshiping them.

Ha ha!

Sent by Dinsdale | 3:44 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Why should any American feel forced to join the excepted social role?

Society tells men have to find material success prior to marriage. I'm much more comfortable enjoying my life and my career rather than chasing mythical success to satisfy the media driven materialism of most adults.

Better a life long single than a multiple divorcee.

Kill Your Television! Long Live the Individual!

Sent by Chas | 3:51 PM ET | 01-28-2008

What's amazing about the blogs so far is how they're split along gender lines in their type of response to Ms. Hymowitz's article and statements on the radio. In other words, point proven. That many guys become so defensive shows to me that she revealed some truth that some of us guys don't want to be reminded of. What troubles me, above all, are the cost of the "man-child" syndrome to the public sphere, our communities, and our society. Men who primarily care about their fun level and at the same time whine how rough the current "market" is on them, simply don't invest anything in the real problems we should be dealing with...climate change, health care crisis, etc. I propose a different moniker for the "man-child": cry babies (it's something my five-year old loves to use right now...).

Sent by Patrick | 3:55 PM ET | 01-28-2008

These "child-men" view the institution of marriage through the lens of their parents' failed relationships. How can you fault a generation of men for not accepting their traditional role when the benefits have never been enumerated and the potential consequences are all too painfully real?

Sent by Aaron Blevins | 3:59 PM ET | 01-28-2008

what you don't want- theory.
Dependence is not just a condition, it is not just a behavior, it is a drive and it is a style of reproduction, possibly best perfected by mammalia although apparent in other genera, alligators, avian, dinosaur, sojme fish even.
Behavioral dependence is a drive with bimodal expression. The primary expression of/by/as the neonate elicits the secondary expression from the parent. This induces an evolutionarily significant tension or dynamic of extending and curtailing the period of primary dependence-the duration of the primary dependence period cannot exceed the capacity of the parental response.
Second- sex- mate selection- competitive sexual selection re: Darwin. Congregation for competitive sexual selection evolved into congregation as competitive sexual selection. Whereupon, all traits conducive to congregation, i.e. socialization/encultutration, become subject to the evolutionary influence of competitive sexual selection. All traits means all each and every relevant- trait.

Sent by beatsme | 4:00 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This is pure man bashing, Feminists cant have it both ways, you either want to be equal or you don't. Many woman in the work place are making equal or more than men in Boston, New York and Chicago, but they they still want a man to take care of them? These jobs used to be held by men no? also more women go to college and male jobs are being sent over sees or being taken by immigrants who work for less.

I'm 28, when my parents bought their house the average home cost was 3 times the average income, Now it is more than 8 times. She blames it on halo 2?

come on Neal

Sent by nick | 4:02 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Are the men real all that different than the woman in this age? The girls of Sex and the City where busy doing the equivalent of having tea parties and playing princess, now the boys get a chance to play Cowboy and Indians and wrestling in the mud. Both sexes seem to be stuck in adolescence to some degree, except woman are praised as newly liberated while boys condemned as childish.

Sent by mark | 4:03 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Oh please. Here we go again. Yet a new reason for self righteous women to complain about men. Why is wasting time and money playing video games worse than spending $100s on designer purses, or $100s on designer shoes or $100s on nail painting?

No one seems bothered by women shopping as a 'hobby'. Remember that 1990's excess The Pamper Salon?

Several years ago CNN reported that over 40 women were the biggest online game time wasters. They bested or out wasted men by 50%.

Finally, what's so adult about collecting stuffed toys, incessant cell phone chitchat or Hello Kitty.

Sent by Rick Evans | 4:10 PM ET | 01-28-2008

My husband is a great source of joy and entertainment in our household. There is since of unwillingness to take responsibility for things that he should, however he does work full time and support us and he is faithful and consistent in his love for his family and for me it is that quality that keeps me happy other things are lacking.

As a wife to this man-child for 7 years it has been a learning process for us to find the balance between the juvenile activities and adult. The key for us is a spirit of caring, understanding and compromise. A prime example in our household are the video games. Early on in our marriage we discovered that I enjoy watching and evening helping my husband play video games by reading the guide book or online website, as long as they are nonviolent. I become his navigator and he is the player. As we had children we expanded our criteria to a genres that will entertain our children with bright, colorful and/or cartoon like graphics. We are very selective about the games we allow into the house and because they are selected with such great care they fit into our daily life much easier. They fit a criteria that allows my husband to play the game while our children and I are around and it becomes part of a family activity as the children cheer for daddy to win and I help him from the sideline.

Sent by Melissa | 4:12 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I was saddened to turn on NPR this morning to the most sexist show I have heard on the radio. This discussion was degrading to both men and women, and makes it clear how far we still have to go to find some measure of equality. Apparently we live in a culture that considers men with a hobbyist interest in machinery and engineering, online group interaction, or reading the male equivalent of a woman's magazine to be intellectually or socially equivalent to children. What message does that send to women who are interested in related fields? What does this say to intelligent young men who build model rockets but hope someday to work for NASA? Are men to discard our life long interests for the traditional expectations of society while women who criticize us fight for their freedom from the very same system?

This show, and I think a lot of society, made the mistake of attributing the problem to the kind of hobbies and the people who stereotypically engage in them, rather than to the real problem, which is lack of attention to some balance of labor and responsibility in a relationship. Men who spend their time as productive family members are not practicing childish behavior, and men are not "children" because they still hold an interest in something that interested them in their youth. The problem is not in the type of hobby. A person who spends their whole day at the mall, or at bars, or obsessing over their pets or plants or business, is just as much an immature partner as someone who comes home and plays computer games. By contrast, someone who does not ever engage in enjoyable activities like these is probably a rather shallow and uninteresting person. People who devote more of their time to escapism than to a relationship are a problem, not the toys and games.

I have had personal experience in a relationship where my significant other would spend hours reading or on the computer rather than helping with household tasks. I have been a computer buff and a book worm my whole life, but this kind of forced non-interaction still sabotaged the relationship and made me feel bitter about the hobbies. I sympathize with the men and women who experience exclusionary behavior on a regular basis, but I feel that connecting this behavior exclusively to men or that dubbing certain behaviors exclusively masculine and childish is socially destructive for both men and women.

I also simply disagree with the statement that men are not interested in the community until they are married. At 25, my I have logged well over 5000 volunteer man-hours. I have taught, worked for the environment and even led community projects. I think a look at the volunteer community would find a number of young single males participate in these activities, and that, when they are not, it is often because they are trying to make ends meet in a very competitive world, a world where a hobby that gives you social connections and group association may give you the edge you need.

Sent by Charles in Portland, OR | 4:16 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Ms Hymowitz seems to see the man-child as defined by two characteristics: marrying and having children late, and occupying their leisure time with activities she sees as childish. Later marriage is a societal trend that has been going on for decades and is much more strongly correlated to increased opportunities for women than the X-box. It seems that in Ms Hymowitz's view, men of previous generations who watched the Benny Hill Show and read Playboy were more "adult" than those who watch The Man Show and read Maxim today. (I'm sure she doesn't understand that darn rock'n'roll music those crazy kids listen to nowadays either.) More insidious than those silly arguments is her case that having a child earlier makes someone an adult earlier. That view is very destructive to a society that has worked so hard to ensure that couples are financially and emotionally adults before they have children. Finally, perhaps if Ms Hymowitz had expressed similar views about the other gender, NPR would have seen them more clearly for what they are: repugnant.

Sent by Mike | 4:32 PM ET | 01-28-2008

As stuffy and opinionated as Hymowitz sounds, there is a lot of merit to her appeal for young men to grow up. I am part of the same generation and somehow managed to grow up a bit but I have many old friends who are living life as child-men with no intention of "growing up" in the foreseeable future. I'm 29, happily married, and back in college (having supported us while my wife finished her MD) pursuing a career as a clinical psychologist. The big question in my mind regarding this child-man lifestyle is WHY? Why do they choose the lifestyle they do?

This phenomenon seems to strikingly coincide with the hay-day of the feminist movement in the 1980's and into the '90s, when many women were socially expected to have a career of their own outside the home at nearly any cost. As much as I am a proponent of women's vocational freedom (I'm married to a doctor) this radical movement left a huge portion of an entire generation with no reliable parent to come home to and an uncomfortable battle of the sexes between mom & dad. This kind of situation is a prescription for developing an insecure attachment style. Insecure attachment is practically pathognomonic for relationship problems in adulthood.

I'd like to see studies stem from this "discovery" that compare attachment styles among the child-man population with "normal" men. This may help us understand why young men are choosing this lifestyle, to what extent it is healthy and/or unhealthy, and how to prevent it in the future (assuming it is largely unhealthy).

The idea that these young men are just wiser than the rest of us and avoiding the misery of divorce/custody issues/child support payments is a near textbook description of a young man with a dismissive-avoidant attachment style. Maintaining any quality long term relationship requires an incredible amount of emotional & cognitive investment, something that many men are already notoriously reluctant to engage in and even more so in those who have developed a dismissive-avoidant attachment style in their childhood. It may be that we have a generation of young men who are merely coping with their own childhood and, ironically, never leaving it behind as a result.

But, if attachment style --via poor parenting tactics-- is the culprit, who would be so naive as to imply that only the men have suffered. The next question is, how have women been affected?

Sent by Tim in Colorado | 4:35 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Certainly we all like to have fun. However, from experience, I have found that my partner's decision to enjoy his hobbies and forgo the dull responsibilities of life puts an unfair burden on me. I am the breadwinner, the bill-payer, house cleaner, child-toter, etc. I don't prefer to do all those things on my own, and try not to criticize my husband for his entertainment choices. However, I think the invited guest's comments on media and commercial industry which caters to the activities that the men of topic find so irresistible just makes it even more difficult for me to convince my husband that there are other priorities in life. We all make our own choices and mature at our own pace, but I cant help but to notice how media perpetuates the man-child as increasingly acceptable and lovable.

Sent by Shannon Potter | 5:06 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Arrgggghhhh!!! A slow news day? With our country in the midst of a war and presidential election, this is what is being dished up? The man child "story" was so weak. I am curious to see Ms. Hymowitz's statistics. Every caller to the program offered an "exception" to her thesis. I have to say this much: I consider myself to be a feminist and am grateful for the choices I have in life. Are women really more advanced in the relationship/nesting area or are they making poor choices for mates. I am sure someone could offer similar stats on immature females. This is such a gender stereotype for men and women. By the way, how do homosexuals and lesbians fit into this role?

Sent by Ann | 5:11 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Kay Hymowitz's perspective has many flaws. I'll point out just five.

First, she says in the interview with Neal Conan that men resist bourgeois life. And it's the men's fault. But there are plenty of other social arrangements on this planet and in human cultural history. If men can't fit her favored cultural model, maybe she's got the wrong model.

Second, Hymowitz suggests that there are lots of women in their twenties who are ready for commitment and can't find a suitable man. My anecdotal evidence differs from hers. I know several adult males (i.e., not child-men) between the ages of 25 and 45 who can't find professional women their age who are able to commit. Their experiences align with a previous TOTN show, with Laura Sessions Stepp, on February 17 of 2007.

Third, many women are dissatisfied with the expectations of the "Supermom" style of life-- that they must excel in career, in parenting, in social involvement, and in marital intimacy. That seems superhuman to me, for one. Maybe the answer for young women is to lower their expectations of themselves, AND their expectations of potential husbands. It might make everyone happier and healthier.

Fourth, Hymowitz is thoroughly illiberal. Grown adults who are not a burden on society, who pay taxes and refrain from criminal activity are entitled to choose their own lifestyle. Particularly when the choice seems rational given the options available. That's how liberty works in a free society.

Finally, there are gay and lesbian people, divorced people, and widowed people in our society. There are developmentally disabled adults and others who are not suited to conventional marriage. Many of these adults have rich and productive lives, nurturing and transforming others in their own special ways. Fretting about the dating pool of young, healthy heterosexuals seems fairly self-indulgent.

Kay Hymowitz is entitled to her opinion. And I'm entitled to opine that her perspective is boorish, parochial, and thoroughly bourgeois.

Sent by Steve in Tucson, Arizona | 5:17 PM ET | 01-28-2008

To hear Hymowitz say that i am not being responsible to society or women because i play video games is really a slap in the face. i am wondering what i owe to women? Is it my destiny to get married, have children and coach a little league baseball team? When i want to be married and have kids i will. as for being socially responsible, I do my part. And i still have time for maxim and video games.

i think Hymowitz is a feminist who thinks that men owe females something.

Sent by adam | 5:23 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I find the title of man-child offensive and certain qualifying criteria ignorant. Video games have developed an unfortunate stigma as being childish. One must keep in mind that this generation of "man-children" grew up playing video games. They have matured along with the industry and many are now directly involved in the industry. As a result, many games are now developed by my generation for my generation. It is becoming an increasingly credible entertainment medium. The idea that they are simply childish past-times shows ignorance of the validity of the medium and its ability to convey complex themes in narratives and character development. If a guy comes home from work and reads a book, he's an adult. If he comes home and plays a video game, he's a child. That is a narrow-minded evaluation. Furthermore, the perception that animated shows such as South Park and The Simpsons are on the same conceptual level as Mickey Mouse is absurd. I believe one error in the man-child idea lies in the inability for some people to see mature applications of traditionally childish media.

Sent by Zan Boykin | 5:34 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I heard this piece today and was rather offended. Ms. Hymowitz tries to make a point that a man must be married to grow up and take on responsibilities. I am almost thirty and single, as are most of my friends. And yes, most of us have playful hobbies. But, this does not warrant lumping us all into the same maxim reading category of irresponsibility. The single men (and women) that I know are still single late in life because they are responsible. They are all giving everything they have to fight for the environment, teach in underprivileged areas, live in sustainable ways, etcetera. Men and women alike. And, I have seen so many of these people struggle with relationships because they are so passionate about what they want to accomplish with their lives that they have a difficult time compromising. I think that frivolous activities are not so much a reluctance to grow up, but more so a coping mechanism to being lonely while struggling to do some good with our lives. I think the viewpoint expressed by Ms. Hymowitz is sexist stereotyping.

Sent by jason | 5:46 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I think it's appalling that this woman gets on npr and tries to tell men when they should grow up or how they should grow up or what it means to be a man!!!! I think she should mind her own business. I also thought it was pretty spinless of the host...a man...to not stick up for men.

Sent by James Ku | 5:59 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Once again someone broad-strokes an entire group while studying the behaviors of a few.

Sent by Dave | 6:23 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This is such a bunch of nonsense. Let me say that my biggest complaint is of all of the 'Women-Children' out there that I encounter. I say this with not an ounce of chauvinism, but, most women I meet are still concerned with being 'hot', obsessing over Britney, and glued to Grays Anatomy. This is a much bigger cultural issue, that's not limited to all of the 'Man-Children' out there.

Sent by James Reitano | 6:34 PM ET | 01-28-2008

So does this mean that I am a 'child-woman' because I am in my late 20s with no particular desire to get married or have children?

Who is it who is the one deciding that you have to be married and/or have children to be an adult?

And why are you 'supposed' to want any of those things?

This strikes me as the writing of someone who thinks that everyone should want the same things as she does (marriage and children) and is trying to force a link to the desirable quality of 'adult' to try to force others to accept her view.

Personally, I think that being 'adult' is about knowing yourself, being true to yourself and being responsible enough to take care of yourself and those for whom you took responsibility. It is not about doing things 'just because'. It is certainly NOT about taking on complicated life choices just because other people have done so/think you should.

I think the commentator should think twice before pushing an agenda of 'jumping off the bridge with all the other lemmings' as a requirement for attaining adulthood.

Sent by ehartsay | 6:51 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I'm 40 year old man with a mortgage, a kid, wife, and I haven't touched a video game controller since the Ms. Pac Man era so I'm not the target of Kay Hymowitz rather dull witted observations but I must say I found them deeply offensive. Can you imagine a world in which a middle aged male commentator would be allowed to refer to adult women as "girl/women" on the NPR air waves? Why is it that political correctness has progressed beyond slurs and stereotyping in all regards except when it comes to white men?

Furthermore, Hymonwitz's reasoning is specious at best: both men and are delaying marriage today. In the case of young women this is often hailed as a sign of progress. The economics of homeownership, the realities of the job market are significantly different than the 1960's and '70's leading to different housing options and different options as to how to use free time.

I find it ironic that what I take to be a feminist writer is using some statistically prototypical man from the 1960's and '70's as a club to beat contemporary men on the head with. If things were so great back then what was all that whining about?

I may be misinterpreting Ms. Hymowitz's point but she seems to be deeply offended that; given the tremendous shift in sex roles and societies constant drum beat of negativity about being a man, that some young men have chosen to withdraw into a world of there own. Essentially feminism has changed the rules of the game and she seems angered that some young men have decided to stop playing the game. And the little SOB's are using humor to deal with it to boot!

Hymowitz's original piece found in the City-Journal (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_single_young_men.html) closes with this:
That's too bad. Men are "more unfinished as people," Kunkel has neatly observed. Young men especially need a culture that can help them define worthy aspirations. Adults don't emerge. They're made.

Granted, I may be more unfinished as a person; however, I do care that my son is raised (or "made") to treat all human beings with respect, avoid stereotyping and have fun at life.

Sent by James T Duncan | 6:52 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Kay Hymowitz is right men should grow up, and put down their video games, but then the question is what should we do? Join the work force, push the wage rock around 50 plus hours a week, try to make a down payment on an ever increasing mortgage, join a country club, coach little league, provide for the family? I think she misses the point. Life is short, live, and if that means being a child- then let our youth be full of gaiety and self fulfillment. I am sorry that Hymowitz reduces the role of women to being bent on raising children and being proper professionals, it just doesn't sound like that much fun. Grow up Ms. Hymowitz.

Sent by Nick Pronsolino | 7:03 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This entire segment reminded me of the "stupid man" stereotype that is so present in our society. I think it is amusing to watch tv and see males in commercials generally portrayed as buffoons. Yet real men in the age group described here are usually taking care of ourselves WITHOUT women. How is this possible? How can a man survive without a woman?

Sent by Jesse Springer | 7:05 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Being the generation victimized by the result of feminism gone rampantly awry, I would like to question why this topic comes as a surprise?

I was married 12 years. Was responsible, loyal, hard working until society chose to punish me for my ex wifes adultery and prove the axiom "cheaters never prosper" a fallacy.

Young men today have seen repeated examples of how men are treated in todays matriarchally driven misandric family courts.

Criminal courts going into witch hunt mode after any man accused of an offense under the Violence Against Women act. Now how sexist is the name of that law? So we only protect victims of violence if they happen to be female? I suppose thats why after being run over, left on the side of the road by my ex, only to be served a restraining order upon exiting the cat scan unit by your friendly neighborhood police department would also come as no surprise. And hearing from attorney "oh thats standard practice to divert attention from the wrong doings of the wife" during divorce proceedings. Look at my home state of NH study on the status of men. Took 5 years for the study to be funded. And 5 years later exactly none of the recommendations have made it into law.

Numbers don't lie people...How many marriages end in divorce? 66% in 1998 when I last looked it up. And 80% filed by whom? Seems like there is a bit of a lie having been perpetrated on my generation.

I constantly tell my son that violence against ANYONE is wrong. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect. And also tell him to avoid marriage.

It looks to me like this generation is smarter than mine. Until there is parity again in the bonds of matrimony, I hope all men avoid it. We gain nothing by being in it, and everything to lose when it ends and beyond.

Sent by Anonymous in NH | 7:07 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Since when are women supposed to be men's responsibility? Hymowitz sounds like yet another lovelessly married harpy who equates personal growth and a happy marriage with material possession for you and yours. Men and women both, the smart ones at least, are trying to enjoy their youth and playing video games in your 40's is an example of that. Why does getting older mean "antiquing?"

If you have kids and skimp on school supplies for new video games for Daddy, that's one thing. Enjoying your life as you see fit is nothing dangerous - we should applaud this growth.

If you're a parent, be a great parent, enjoy it, live it up as a parent. If you're single, do the same. There's such a thing as being responsible AND having fun too.

Sent by Mike who's 25 | 7:17 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Frankly I was appalled by the interview with Kay Hymowitz. I can't believe that Talk of the Nation would run such a biased story without offering any counterpoint.

Sent by Dmtiri | 7:38 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Kay Hymowitz's premise is so insulting to American men, and reflects the anti-male bias in American society today. Who is she to claim that she or any other American female occupy a higher moral position because we want different lifestyles? Men are waking up to the fact that marriage today is nothing but a financial trap which benefits females, and that dealing with modern liberated women who challenge everything you do just isn't worth the hassle. More power to us Men for refusing to do what Kay Hymowitz and her female entitled brethren want us to do (for them!!)

A message to all you "liberated" American women: we don't owe you a damn thing!!!!

Sent by B Simmons | 7:53 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Why would a guy today "grow up", when, as my grandmother used to say, "He can have his cake and eat it, too!" Women give "it" all away for free, and then wonder why the men don't want to make a commitment? So, often, the women end up marrying anyway, making most of the money, doing all the housework, and raising the kids essentially by themselves, while hubby plays games, and expects a prize every time he does the laundry! So I ask you, who are the stupid ones?

Sent by Lynn, Boise, Idaho | 8:17 PM ET | 01-28-2008

The Author, in response to a listener's question, suggests that people who do not procreate do not contribute to the community. I couldn't disagree more. Choosing NOT to have children and making a significant scientific discovery, for example, is far more valuable than making another mouth to feed.

Sent by Jennifer | 8:45 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This topic was ridiculous, offensive, and literally the worst that I've heard on any show on public radio in years of listening.

Maybe next week Mr. Conan can have me on the Opinion Page bemoaning the fact that women out of high school are no longer barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen fulfilling their traditional role of baby-making factories "just like back in the good old days."

It's not that I disagree with Ms. Hymowitz. It's that I don't think it's appropriate for her (or Mr. Conan) to even be asking this question.

Sent by Brent | 8:48 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I was frustrated when I heard this story on TotN today. At first I thought Ms. Hymowitz was being misunderstood. I thought her 'man-child' referenced the phenomenon of children not leaving home. Children becoming comfortable in the support of their parents. I imagined SYM cooped up in mom's basement, mooching food and shelter, without motivation for more in life. This I could see as a potential problem to society.

After reading her article, however, I've come to share the disgust for her theory that many have shared here.

I wonder if she knows what men know when she says "Men know the difference between entertainment and real life." The media rich society that we live in defines success with archaic values. Not all women are going to find a knight in shining armor to love, have 1.5 children, and a mortgage with.

Additionally, I am perplexed by her argument of the 'man child' when she begins talking about Knocked Up. Here, not just an irresponsible SYM creates an unplanned child, it took two irresponsible young persons. Perhaps a young woman with her bio-clock time ticking away does want to raise a child, but may not assume that her one night stand wants the same. On a different side of this topic, as a gay man, I wish that I could have the option to have a child accidentally or through planning. Perhaps by doing so, combined with my education and career I too could fit in with Ms. Hymowitz's idealistic society.

She concludes her essay by saying "Young men especially need a culture that can help them define worthy aspirations." Why should culture define 'worthy aspirations.' Aren't we all, male and female, more adult when can define these on our own?

Sent by Jan B. | 8:48 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Props to McLendon, Brian Goodell, and Charles in Portland, OR. Good points about the judgmental nature of Ms. Hymowitz' contribution to TotN.

What repulses me the most about her empty rhetoric is the slippery scholarship and her resistance to actually engaging the topic. In the segment, she often talked about her "research" revealing the "facts" she used to support her arguments. However, her arguments, such as they are, reduce down to a stereotype of behaviors that she doesn't like--xBox playing, cartoon watching and Maxim reading--as being representative of social trends from census data. Correlation is not causality. Are men marrying later BECAUSE they are at home reading Maxim? Really? She wields her logic as if these phenomena are some sort of plague--play xBox, even a little, and you are one of them!

And when callers offered personal and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Hymowitz merely restated her position and defended her circular and unconvincing logic, such as her defense of the term "man-child" as appropriate when she used it to describe a "man-child."

This level of discourse is not why I am an NPR member.

Sent by Jennifer | 8:51 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I was pretty disturbed by the Talk of the Nation guest who flat out said that men will not be a legitimate part of society until they are married and have children. Not only was this whole piece sexist, it was ignorant. The guest blamed "the market" and institutions like Comedy Central and Maxim for encouraging men to not grow up. It didn't appear to ever cross her mind that half of our parents' marriages ended in divorce and therefore it would be a natural reaction for us twenty somethings to seek out other ways in which to find happiness in adulthood-because marriage and children certainly did not make our parents happy. I am woman in my early twenties, a professional and in a committed relationship and I am tired of being told and treated in a way that communicates I am not really a productive member of the community since I am not married and don't have children. It is time to begin accepting people as they are not pressuring them into broken institutions with false promises of happiness.

Sent by Erin Costello | 9:34 PM ET | 01-28-2008

There is something having a far worse impact on modern society than the "child-man", and that is female pundits that present half understood statistics and then make sweeping conclusions based on those statistics. I have named this social subset the "idiot-woman".

Sent by Ted Jacobs | 9:41 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I resent this title child man... I am a man, plain and simple. If you work hard you play hard. We are enjoying the fruits of our labor. It is called being independent. If we were that derogatory to women you know that someone would be raising hell. For the love of vampire hunting Jesus give us some respect.

Sent by DB Cooper | 9:56 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I'm a 36 year old white male. I'm not married and never have been. I don't have any kids and don't have any particular desire to have them. I fill my free time with music, games, sports and other pastimes which are apparently on the real man 'blacklist'. I enjoy my lifestyle, it's fun, and it's stress free.

I have also served my country faithfully in the Navy for 14 plus years. I own a home, and I pay my taxes. I invest my extra funds and am well on my way to being not just comfortable, but very well off. I volunteer in the community, and obey all of our nations laws.

Evidently, that is not enough to make me a full member of society. I'm sure the world would be much better off if I had married at 22, had a couple of kids I couldn't really afford, fought about money for 4 years and then divorced. I've seen many of my Sailor's in the Navy in just this situation, and I have tell you, from where I'm sitting, I think I made the responsible choice.

Also, last I checked, we could use a couple billion less people on the planet. I think we would all be better off in the long run if more people made my choice.

I don't need a wife and kids to make me happy; and I don't feel that I need them to prove I'm a useful member of society. If you do feel like you need a husband and kids to make you a success, well...
The mountains gonna have to come to Moses on this one.

Sent by Zach | 10:45 PM ET | 01-28-2008

This commentary is quite frankly, ridiculous. You cannot say that just because less men are deciding to get married we are an irresponsible group of children.

The label of "child-man" I also find offensive. Just because I enjoy fun activities does not make me a child. Kay would have you believe that adulthood is all work and no play, which I just find ludicrous. On top of that, the term child infers that of irresponsibility. Men in my age bracket have to work for a living and pay the bills just like everyone else.

Kay Hymowitz's argument is based upon an ancient and albeit outdated stigma that in order to "appear" to be responsible, you must get married. However, I am quite glad that the majority of our society today does not agree with this dogmatic tradition of the past few generations. You can easily see the ramifications this kind of "forced adulthood" has lead to. While I have not done the research directly, I am quite sure you could find a direct link to divorce rates and the pressure to get married of the past couple decades.

If I want to play my video games, I will, If I want to go to the bar and hang out with friends, I will, If I don't want to even consider marriage or children for another 10 years, then I will.

Where does Kay get off in telling me that in order to be called a "man" or "responsible" I need to get married.

Sent by brett | 11:11 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I find Ms. Hymowitz's mis-leading in many respects as well as outright wrong. What anthropologist, where, and when has found that "It is marriage and children that turn boys into men." She cites NONE. She seems to selectively forget that many lifelong "man-children" or better put BACHELORS have contributed immensely to society.

For a list of examples of lifelong bachelors who contributed immensely to society one really need look no further than ANY introductory philosophy book. The lifelong bachelors Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer all have written works that professional philosophers still do read and recommend reading. There also exists the influence of the educational philosophy of the lifelong bachelor John Locke, not to mention that his political philosophy strongly influenced the political philosophy of this country. Maybe we can excuse Ms. Hymowitz for not knowing about the influences of the U.S. constitution.

Although I do not consider myself a Christian, I think that many thoughtful Christians would consider Ms. Hymowitz's statements ludicrous, for Jesus of Nazareth never married or had children. Doesn't Jesus serve, according to Christians, as the ideal example for men as men? Also, consider what could have happened if Jesus had children instead of doing what he did. I could imagine the following "Mark, surely I'd love to give a sermon on that mount over there and say things like "blessed are the poor", but you know to become a real man I have to find a wife and get married. So, I simply don't have time... I've got to find a wife." I think most Christians would feel outraged if they realized Ms. Hymowitz's statements implied exactly this.

I also wonder... does Ms. Hymowitz know even the history of feminism? For if she did, surely one would expect that she would not honestly make such a statement as "It is marriage and children that turn boys into men." Why? As you can readily guess, the simple complement to this statement reads "It is marriage and children that turn GIRLS into WOMEN." I won't go into how some feminists have had a serious problem with EXACTLY this view, but I will state that the suffragette and feminist Susan B. Anthony (arguably) did more for women's rights than any other women in U.S. history. Susan B. Anthony remained a bachelorette her whole life long. She NEVER MARRIED, and NEVER HAD CHILDREN. Perhaps in the light of Ms. Hymowitz's I ought to call her a "woman-child," and think her immature. Sorry Ms. Hymowitz, I'll stick with calling the bachelorette Susan B. Anthony a WOMAN.

Sent by Doug Lefelhocz | 11:16 PM ET | 01-28-2008

Hymowitz may have some stats for her claim, but there are other interpretations. As much as I hate to admit it, though, she has a point. But I would go a bit further: men, married men with children and mortgages and jobs have always been, typically, irresponsible. And it's because they could be. I pastored in rural America for many years and have met with many couples. The man likes to do his hunting and fishin' and drinkin' with the boys and ridin' around in his pick 'em up truck. Though not a religious conservative, I found some wisdom in the Promise Keepers movement. It was challenging men to become responsible. As I look at the patriarchy rampant in most societies today, I would guess that the unchecked power men have to pursue selfish interests is the cause for an age-old problem worsening.

Sent by Tom | 11:17 PM ET | 01-28-2008

So, here's what I wonder. Do the TOTN producers looks at these negative comments and think to themselves, "Wow, this was a serious misstep. We should have considered the ramifications of such an awful guest before we put them on," or do they think, "Well, at least we sparked lively debate". If the former, they would be right. If the latter, they're no better than producers for programs like Howard Stern.

Sent by CM in MN | 11:34 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I'm a 32 year-old mother of 4 and I see things from a different perspective. I have a 7 year-old son with a mild form of Autism that is similar to Asberger's Syndrome. He is at risk for becoming a "man-child" because of his addiction to video games and his lack of social skills. We restrict his game time so he has time in his day to learn to relate to others.

According to his clinician, the clinic is being inundated with new clients who are in their 20's. (Whereas a few years ago, they treated only children.) They are still living at home, are playing video games all night long, and sleeping all day. They can't hold a job and don't have the social skills to break out and make something of themselves. Their parents are bringing them to the clinic to find some help. They are being diagnosed with Asberger's Syndrome. Then they come to group meetings for therapy to help them build those social skills.

My take on this, is that those who have Asberger's Syndrome or a similar condition should severely restrict their game time. Over indulging in gaming prevents such people from getting social exposure to their family and friends. Maybe it's not too late for my son. I can better parent him because I know what might become of him if I don't get involved.

Sent by Teresa from Boise, Idaho | 11:36 PM ET | 01-28-2008

I feel like I was listening to an interview about my live-in boyfriend! He isn't the complete extreme, but let's just say I feel like a video game widow on a regular basis. He's not used to thinking of anyone but himself and often makes decisions accordingly. That being said, he is still a wonderful man-child whom I love very much and plan to spend the rest of my life with...that is, if he ever can pull himself away from the computer long enough to plan an engagement! =)

Sent by saws1 | 12:03 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Hymowitz says that men choose these lifestyles because they fear commitment, and can't possibly imagine being "permanently attached to one woman." They will, by nature, choose magazines featuring naked women and spend all day playing Wii with their bros if given the chance; men are inherently promiscuous and non-committal. She complains that the "problem" with these men is that they're not promising husbands and fathers, while implying that women are left alone or even "heartbroken" because there are no eligible bachelors or men they can trick into the drudgery of a domestic life (a husband and children being what women long for).

Don't get me wrong; I think Hymowitz raises issues and grievances crucial to social critique, and we're in agreement in some areas. "The media-saturated limbo of contemporary guyhood makes it easy to fill your days without actually doing anything" is a fairly accurate statement about a mundanity and lifelessness that is the experience of plenty of young men. It is also common knowledge that women are discontented with men, and she is inarguably correct when she notes that "In contemporary female writing and conversation, the words 'immature' and 'men' seem united in perpetuity."

But this article does a great job of conjuring up tired and outdated essentialist motifs of popular culture, posing woman as classically nurturing, relational, and nagging while posing man as her polar opposite. Hymowitz' analysis could have been framed differently and more effectively, as to include an examination of masculinity [and gender roles] as social construct, a close scrutiny of terms like "grown up" and "responsibility," and maybe even to analyze labor within a capitalistic society as a rat race which "mortifies the body and ruins the mind" (Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844). "Cultural transformation" and "self-reflection" doesn't sound like a bad idea, especially for young men who grow up without the instillation of abilities for real and meaningful connections with others. But with that said, a more well-rounded exploration of the "child-man" and his behavior is needed to present a powerful and compelling argument for "cultural transformation."

Sent by Liz Kinnamon | 12:06 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I am almost 50 years old. I did not marry (for the first and last time, I hope!)until I was 42. This is not because I was a "man-child," a insulting term which Ms. Hymowitz repeats with careful malice.

It is part of my family culture to marry "late." My Great-grandfather was born in 1863, my grandfather in 1909 and so on...my father married "young" at 26.

My Grandmother (also born 1909) gave this advice to my twenty-something sister on her wedding day: "You don't have to marry him, you can just sleep with him, you know."

Alas, Sis did not take Gran's good advice.

Matrimony and procreation are not good things in and of themselves. To marry and have children are the life decisions we make on the most irrational and ill-informed basis, and many if not most people make a rather poor job of it. No need to rush that I can see.

If my Gran were alive to hear Ms. Hymowitz, I know just what she would say: "That woman makes my ass want a pitch of snuff."

Sent by Dr. Omed | 12:09 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I simply cannot believe that once again men at saddled with the burden of womens' dissatisfaction. She says that this extended adolescence is a way of men sticking their tongues out at feminism! Let's look at some basic facts of why at the age of 26 (I'm 25) a lot of men are not married.
1. Since the previous generation or two, more and more women are working professional jobs and are building careers - not going to finishing school waiting to be married. With both women and men now clocking in over 40 hours a week, the thought of settling down and producing children gets delayed until some form of career plateau has been reached that will allow time for honeymoons and maternity/paternity leave.
2. People are working longer - there is no retirement in your 50s anymore. More older people at the top begets fewer advancements for younger folks begets a delay in bigger salaries that can support a mortgage, two children, and Rover the family dog.
3. Perhaps men (and women... again, why are men always the catalyst?) are also observant of their parents' marriage. The tired statistic that over half of marriages end in divorce does have an ominous ring to it that may leave guys thinking "What's the rush to pay alimony?"
4. Her complaint against gaming is ridiculous. It's not as if men are spending hours playing Mario Bros. This same 3 hour block of time used to be used by our fathers and grandfathers for after work cocktails - it has always existed. If a man does not have children or is not married (see reasons 1 through 3) who says they cannot enjoy themselves with a video game?
What this woman does in her article - whether knowingly or not - is prove exactly why men are not getting married at a young age. Whether it be fixing something around the house, changing a light bulb, or giving her children, men do not want a woman (or another man) nagging them about what they should be doing with their lives.

Sent by Joe Biddix | 1:10 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Why not just let the "child-man" be? The only major drawback we've heard regarding that point of view is in relation to the "frustrated women" who are fed up with the lack of "good" mates. Boo hoo ladies. The world is becoming increasingly overpopulated each day--we need more child-men who don't ever marry or have kids.

Sent by Trevor | 1:29 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Glad I was able to read many of the blogs that other people were just as offended by this episode as I was. I think the author and NPR need to find real problems to discuss in our society. This one ranks very low and I question question if it is a real problem at all. She might have to do a little more research to prove to me that it is a problem as she states. Out society is much more complex then the 50's marry you college sweetheart and have your nuclear family in the suburbs its time to move on!

Sent by Mike | 1:52 AM ET | 01-29-2008

This nonsense is a long-standing complaint of women. My father, raised in poverty, quit school in sixth grade (age 12, 13?) and took a mans job in a lumber mill. His employer once told me that Dad was his best worker. One aunt told me that my father would spend most of his paycheck on candy and watermelons for his many younger siblings come payday. The only treats they ever got, poor as they were. Dad went to Korea, bronze star, purple heart. An older cousin tells me he once saw him literally give someone in need the shirt off his back. The man worked all day, then came home and worked a large garden plot for vegetables. Got his HS GED in his fifties so he could retire with better pay. (Impressing his teachers and blowing away younger men who had actually been to high school.) And I recall both my mother and his one older sister calling him immature at least once.

Then I hear this old crow complaining because men read Maxim (she brought it up more than once) like it proved her point. She complains that men don't start producing children right out of high school (which I thought was supposed to be a good thing), and she complains that they play video games. More a list of silly peeves than actual proof of her point.

Then who agrees with her? Some woman who married a man 6 years her junior that had never lived away from his parent's home. Gee, what a surprise that he wasn't as world-wise and mature as her.

Men haven't changed and women's complaints haven't either.

Sent by John in Raleigh | 1:52 AM ET | 01-29-2008

My Xbox clan and I are dating woman that want a man that will get married, take care of the babies, pay the bills, stay in shape, cook the meals and clean the house.

And if we don't they will take half of everything we have.

No wonder why we spend most of our time playing video games online were we run around and kill other men. We are trying to thin the herd, thus possibly lower the expectations of woman.

No worries, the political and economic realities of our world will make our gaming fantasies a reality shortly.

Class warfare always ends with the poor fighting each other.

Sent by jj | 1:52 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Ms. Hymowitz' position is extremely insulting. If she feels that single childless males are something less than adult men, then it must follow that women who choose to remain childfree and single are likewise irresponsibly extending their girlhood.

Sent by Mark S. | 2:05 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Seldom have I heard such blatant misandrous tripe. There are young men that can't accept responsibility, but your guest has some rather bizzar expectations of young men.

A woman doesn't want a man who is too young to have embarked on a career, and a man who is willing to suborn his hobbies to the pleasure of his wife is something too sad to imagine.

The most eligible young bachelors have no reason to take a wife. Few women want to settle for just an average man. Back in the day, women had to marry a man to support them and often suffered serious mistreatment as a consequence.

Your guest offered no insight into today's society. All she did was make out bachelors as depraved men. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Sent by UrbanHillbilly | 2:06 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Sorry, one more comment - women used to always marry older men. Often much older. Every gal in this blog seems to expect a husband her own age (or younger) as some sort of right. Young men don't deserve to get stuck like that. Leave the young guys alone to enjoy themselves and look for your "mature" men in the older population.

Sent by John in Raleigh | 2:20 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Oh dear oh dear. The chattering class failed with the "war against Christmas," so now they're drumming up another pseudo issue to fill air time. We're a facing a recession, cascading costs of the trillion dollar Iraq war, a presidential election, global warming -- and to this you now add Kay Hymowitz's self-righteous sophistry to foment intergenerational conflict? Come on NPR, you're better than Fox News.

Sent by Michael Thall | 2:30 AM ET | 01-29-2008

such solipsism

You might as well call me man-child for not joining the army and learning what its like to kill people at 18
i am also 29 and not bald, do i have to obtain/shed certain physical characteristics to "earn" the man title?

There is a biology and psychology at work here, but for some reason even in a day when i wont make a good living till i am 30 with my masters degree, women insist the idea that maturity means settling to have children by about 20. Simply put, women reach their biology by about 17 and mothers natural burden is much different then the fathers.

the truth is men reach provider biology just around the same age, but this does not mean we have earned the ability to provide by then.
How many women out there at 25 are ready to tie the knot with a 16 yr old boy who wants to get married?

young parents often make poor parents, why succumb to that impulse when intelligence knows better? shame on you.

i can interact with children and pay taxes for the community just fine.
the preference to shoot friends on a computer rather then play football is a choice explored with psychology and biology.
So taking activities out of cultural/historical context and labeling them with such prejudice demonstrates poor analysis. They are not cause at all as noted by others.

The women-child impulses;
reads numerous variations on cosmo, dress like a Hoochie into their 40's, desires breast augmentation after 25, pays close attention to her hair and nails throughout the day, gossips about other women and their relationships, watches shows like "sex and the city" constantly...

Baby sitters club is for girls, right?

Sent by torbach | 2:44 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Man-child? Is this NPR or sexism 2.0?

I found Ms. Hymowitz's statements derogatory and offensive. Her assessments of BOTH young men and women are biased and lack intelligent analysis.

It is unfortunate that she has been given such a respectable forum to propagate sexists beliefs.

I hope Ms. Hymowitz realizes that even women find her "Man-child" title to be both repugnant and vile.

Sent by Sarah | 3:58 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Ms. Hymnowitz has a lot of nerve. To imply that men who engage in leisure pursuits that she subjectively deems frivolous are "children" is sexist and patently offensive. I'm a man in his mid-twenties who watches cartoons and -GASP - is a productive member of society who's involved in various civic organizations, loves and respects women, etc, etc. Are cartoons somehow more "childish" than soap operas? Is playing video games a bigger waste of time than watching "Cashmere Mafia?"

I wonder if Ms. Hymowitz understands that cartoons and video games are artistic endeavors created by adults (myself being one such creator) and can often be appreciated by adults with imagination/intelligence/a SENSE OF HUMOR. Perhaps I should focus on more "adult" pursuits like beginning research for my treatise on the societal plague of "Marm-Women."

Sent by Ron in Los Angeles, CA | 5:51 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I find it amusing that when women hold off on marriage and kids they are simply independent and career minded but when men do it they are "failing to grow up". What a person does for entertainment is their own business and perhaps the author should consider the burdens faced by young men these days. Housing prices, educational requirements and job security are all far different than those facing young men in 1965. To try and raise a family nowadays is far more difficult. I doubt the author would take well to a suggestion to put down her pen and get back in the kitchen, therefore she should refrain from making these same obnoxious types of comments about men.

Sent by Jeremy from NY | 6:51 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Although I do not play video games I think I understand the thrust of Hymowitz's argument; and I find it offensive. I am a 24 years old guy, and am simply finding it hard to find a good job. Despite doing very well in college there are simply no decent jobs available. I therefore turn to activities such as skiing, and climbing to gain enjoyment. I think the cause of this phenomenon is combination of three main factors; the first I believe is the economic one which I mentioned above. Secondly, I think it is partially a response to the feminist movement, as some others have pointed out. The feminist movement basically told us that we (as boys) were not special. It told us that all male roles could be filled by women. This, I believe, is basically true assuming that those women do not want children. So at the risk of sounding politically incorrect I think feminism was wrong, it told boys growing up that girls could do everything we could do and more. So who are we then? Shouldn't we just enjoy ourselves while we are here, after all they do not need us. Finally, I think the prospect of having children is simply becoming less attractive. The more we learn about peoples' impacts on the environment the more it makes since to just not have kids. And, if we are not having kids then we may as well just have fun.

Sent by sam | 7:10 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I found Kay Hymowitz's perspective to be rather misandrist.

Just what kind of duty and responsibility do men have to women? Aside from having to register for the military draft (a form of slavery), being susceptible to genital mutilation (involuntary circumcision), and sometimes being forced into involuntary fatherhood and slavery as a result of our nation's not having "paper abortions" for men, what am I missing? Is there some sort of additional law that says that men have a moral duty to marry and take care of women (in addition to all of the above)? Just how did women end up having a moral right to be supported by men anyway?

Another issue is just why, exactly, men might choose these sorts of Peter Pan man-child lifestyles where they live at home with their parents or roommates and put off having marriage and children. Is it because solid middle class career jobs are available to them, such as factory jobs that can be expected to last for a lifetime? Is it because anyone who can graduate from college can easily find a career job in his field?

Obviously, you can infer my answers merely by my having asked the questions. More and more men are living at home because the nation's economy (courtesy of global labor arbitrage--look it up in the Wikipedia if you don't know what it is) is awful! How are men supposed to get married and have children when they cannot afford to do that? How are men supposed to do all of this when solid, secure middle class jobs are unavailable?

On another issue, who is to say that playing online multiplayer games is anymore immature or illegitimate than going to the bowling alley or passively watching TV?

Sadly, Kay Hymowitz completely failed to acknowledge the existence of irresponsible "child women". How does she account for women who live at home with their parents or who have children they cannot afford and/or who force fatherhood on men when men want them to have abortions? Shouldn't those child-women take responsibility for their decisions to give birth and raise their children independently and on their own instead of seeking child support money from men? If irresponsible and irrational women aren't child women then what are they? (I bet a misandrist like Hymowitz would blame it all on men.)

Sent by Floyd Ferris | 7:36 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I'm a 32 year old male high school teacher, have a wonderful girl friend and yes act like I'm 13.

This is a viewed shared by many modern women. Some women seem annoyed they can't find a "man". They should ask them selves, why men may not be interested in over weight, T.V watching consumer zombies, and then maybe they will understand why men are turning away from them in droves.

Sent by nick simmons | 9:16 AM ET | 01-29-2008

By Hymowitz' definition, I am a child-man. I was married young and divorced young for the usual reasons. I swore then never to marry again and haven't.
I don't see what is wrong with having expensive toys and enjoying life without a persecuting wife.
I don't remember reading any rule book that said I have to get married, have kids, and buy a home to be a part of this society except in certain religion's dogma. Is that what this is all about, pushing religious dogma disguised as a societal abnormality?
What happened to the freedom to choose one's religion, or not?
Get a grip lady, keep your dogma to yourself.

Sent by irritated child-man | 9:17 AM ET | 01-29-2008

Well said Floyd. I completely agree with everything you have said. The economic inequality we as men now must deal with living in a 21st century America has in turn altered the idea of having a family at 30 due to it being virtually impossiable to do so.
It is harder to make ends meet anymore , rising inflation, income inequality, and not to mention every other issue that dawns on humankind in the 21st century such as global warming makes the idea of family seem mute in comparison.
Who wants a child when the future of the entire human race at this point seems like its on the verge of dire straights.

Sent by Jason | 9:43 AM ET | 01-29-2008

I think I'm on the blurry line, 32, married, in graduate school (though spent years working "sensible" jobs, but needed to change). I have a Wii, a gaming computer, used to have a couple of collector cars (which were sold to pay for the move and part of tuition), etc... The problem I think is not that we men in this position are not adults, but rather that many of us are