NEW YORK - "The man with whom you go out today does not look like your father was young, if anything, do you remember the children who do baby-sitter." The sour joke is comedy of a young American, Julie Klausner. Hundreds of thousands of women will recognize in his lament. Klausner's diary (titled "I do not care anything about your rock band") became a bestseller and a symbol of a new phenomenon: the disappearance of the "good party".
Reached what was once the classical age of reproduction, mating and the formation of a family, males over-20 remain locked in what the sociologist Kay Hymowitz defines "a new age of pre-adult limbo, a ' hyper-expansion of adolescence. " Immature, unprepared for married life? They are not stereotypes fueled by post-feminist culture.
The phenomenon has socio-economic explanations concrete: the lethal decline of males in schools and universities in the world of work. Everything is relative, of course. For it is in comparison with women their own age, the male is precipitous decline throughout the West. The Hymowitz in an essay theorizes the cruel subtitle: "Being male.
Or: How the rise of women has turned men into boys." And the Wall Street Journal illustrates this thesis with data from the 2010 federal census for the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United Nations and the European Commission. Access to higher education is the most dramatic indicator of the decline for men.
In the end over 65 years, men are much more numerous graduates of women but the gap is reduced but remains in favor of males aged 45 to 64 years. But was reversed sharply between 35 and 44 years where women with degrees are more numerous, and the gap is unbridgeable (in favor of the female population) between 25 and 34 years.
The step forward of the girls at the university, resulting in greater strength in the labor market. The phenomenon has exploded with the last crisis. Yet until 2007, the unemployment rates of men and women traveling in pairs. Between 2008 and 2009 will open a gap: in the recession are laid off more men than women.
The structural gap becomes the beginning of recovery in 2010 and 2011 are the first women to get hired. "The quality of the studies - says Hymowitz - is crucial today to determine the bargaining power in the labor market. In society, good places go to those who have studied better. In the generation between 25 and 34, 34 % of American women have at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 27% of men.
" The gap widens even as compensation for what is called the "college premium", the surplus of remuneration linked to the quality of education: "In many metropolitan areas of the United States, young women consistently earn more than their brothers, or their would-be boyfriends. " This makes it less attractive males in their twenties as husbands.
They do not bring a dowry or security or status. In fact, the marriage goes down, it grows out of proportion to the percentage of single men in their thirties: in 1970 less than 16% of Americans were not yet married at the age of 30 years, today 55% at that age are "single". The phenomenon is not just American, infects Germany, France, Denmark, Greece.
The defendant is the male: and the socio-economic decline, is in the grip of a veritable cultural regression. The Hymowitz identifies a spy in the film: "For a decade Hollywood has anticipated this phenomenon, its male stars in their twenties are boys like Jim Carrey, Owen Wilson, Will Farrell: puerile, vulgar, immature." The same publishing: "In the 60s it was the men's magazine Playboy, Maxim successor is: to compare the bunnies seem to Albert Camus." Nothing but good match.
"The social status of the young man is wholly uncertain - Hymowitz concludes - and the result is obvious. While women are making giant strides in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional". 
Reached what was once the classical age of reproduction, mating and the formation of a family, males over-20 remain locked in what the sociologist Kay Hymowitz defines "a new age of pre-adult limbo, a ' hyper-expansion of adolescence. " Immature, unprepared for married life? They are not stereotypes fueled by post-feminist culture.
The phenomenon has socio-economic explanations concrete: the lethal decline of males in schools and universities in the world of work. Everything is relative, of course. For it is in comparison with women their own age, the male is precipitous decline throughout the West. The Hymowitz in an essay theorizes the cruel subtitle: "Being male.
Or: How the rise of women has turned men into boys." And the Wall Street Journal illustrates this thesis with data from the 2010 federal census for the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United Nations and the European Commission. Access to higher education is the most dramatic indicator of the decline for men.
In the end over 65 years, men are much more numerous graduates of women but the gap is reduced but remains in favor of males aged 45 to 64 years. But was reversed sharply between 35 and 44 years where women with degrees are more numerous, and the gap is unbridgeable (in favor of the female population) between 25 and 34 years.
The step forward of the girls at the university, resulting in greater strength in the labor market. The phenomenon has exploded with the last crisis. Yet until 2007, the unemployment rates of men and women traveling in pairs. Between 2008 and 2009 will open a gap: in the recession are laid off more men than women.
The structural gap becomes the beginning of recovery in 2010 and 2011 are the first women to get hired. "The quality of the studies - says Hymowitz - is crucial today to determine the bargaining power in the labor market. In society, good places go to those who have studied better. In the generation between 25 and 34, 34 % of American women have at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 27% of men.
" The gap widens even as compensation for what is called the "college premium", the surplus of remuneration linked to the quality of education: "In many metropolitan areas of the United States, young women consistently earn more than their brothers, or their would-be boyfriends. " This makes it less attractive males in their twenties as husbands.
They do not bring a dowry or security or status. In fact, the marriage goes down, it grows out of proportion to the percentage of single men in their thirties: in 1970 less than 16% of Americans were not yet married at the age of 30 years, today 55% at that age are "single". The phenomenon is not just American, infects Germany, France, Denmark, Greece.
The defendant is the male: and the socio-economic decline, is in the grip of a veritable cultural regression. The Hymowitz identifies a spy in the film: "For a decade Hollywood has anticipated this phenomenon, its male stars in their twenties are boys like Jim Carrey, Owen Wilson, Will Farrell: puerile, vulgar, immature." The same publishing: "In the 60s it was the men's magazine Playboy, Maxim successor is: to compare the bunnies seem to Albert Camus." Nothing but good match.
"The social status of the young man is wholly uncertain - Hymowitz concludes - and the result is obvious. While women are making giant strides in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional".
No comments:
Post a Comment