The teenage-ification of manhood

National Post ^ | 17 Oct 2009 | Robert Fulford

[AreaMan]

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Presented by

The teenage-ification of manhood

Robert Fulford,  National Post 

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

---

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

[Dick Bachert]

Excellent points.

And you offer yet another reason why lawyers should be barred (pun intended) from legislative positions.

I fear that many of our problems today stem from the fact that far too many of our legislators are LAWYERS. Further, I believe that we need more DOCTORS – and engineers in those positions – and NO LAYWERS!!

Lawyers as legislators pose a very, very serious problem for an ostensibly free people: They LOVE making laws and the more complex and incomprehensible the better. Think about it: In the private sector – to which many of them return (hopefully in HUGE NUMBERS IN 2010!!) – they, and their buds who remain behind in the private sector, earn their often obscene incomes (in addition to the obscenely generous, COLA congressional pensions and tax subsidized HEALTH CARE!) wading through that Byzantine labyrinth of rules and regulations they, themselves, constructed. It’s a process that prompted Otto von Bismarck to remark that “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Can I get an “AMEN?”

While there ARE exceptions (Bill Frist toward the end of his term, Phil Gingrey — who strays from time to time) my rule that physicians and engineers make better legislators than most lawyers generally holds true. I attribute that to the fact that doctors and engineers are trained in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and rely more on FACTS and EMPIRICAL DATA for their decisions. Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, Paul Broun, John Linder, Tom Price are (or were) all doctors. I’m sure you can think of other examples/exceptions. The poster boy for the exceptions is “Screamin’ Howard Dean, MD.

Unfortunately, far too many of these guys are ATTORNEYS.

Our late friend and author, composer, conductor, Nashville music producer, lover of Bach, pianist and all-around Renaissance man, Tupper Saussy, who somehow dodged the family tradition of becoming one, traced the term “attorney” back to the Sanscrit word “torwa.” And what does “torwa” mean? TO TWIST! And twist they do. Unfortunately, it’s not in the wind.

While SOME of these attorney-legislators are conservatives, their law school moot court training forced them to argue BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME CASE. I rather suspect that experience allows them to rationalize voting against the Constitution when expediency and/or their political survival/favor with their party leadership dictates. It is textbook moral relativism and we all pay for their perfidy.

Let me tie that attorney-legislator problem into the current health care debate: I might have missed it but I don’t believe there was one mention of TORT REFORM from the lawyers who cobbled together that 1,000+ page monstrosity now dividing the nation.

I’ll give you three guesses as to why — and the last two don’t count!

And here’s something to think about for the primary elections to the 2010 general election: If the attorney-legislator representing your district does not pass muster at www.gradegov.com, if you can, find a NON-LAWYER for whom to vote after grilling him on the first principles near and dear to those who cherish freedom and the Constitution.

Too hard, say you?

No. SLAVERY is hard.
BTW, FREEDOM HAS AN ADDRESS: IT’S HTTP://WWW.JBS.ORG

[TopQuark]

"you've got to find something for them to do that involves actual "work and success." How do you propose to provide that?"

That depends on the circumstances, but opportunities exist in every family. Yes, begin with cleaning the table, buying groceries, paper routes, babysitting or cleaning a mechanic's shop, summer jobs at McDonald's, etc.

In 1980s, Oprah had as a guest Malcolm Forbes, a flamboyant "rich" man that lived up his wealth. She asked him an intelligent question, to wit: "With all this wealth, with all those boat parties, how do you raise your children with any sense of normality?"

He replied: "Boat parties? My children HATED boat parties. They were the ones cleaning the boat after the parties."

That alone answers your question.

[AreaMan]

You, and others like you, have the advantage of being a man in a world of boys.

This is one of the things that men, some better than others, bear.

You grow up, take on responsibilities, put the welfare of others before your own wants & desires, play by the rules and then are regarded as a chump by modern standards.

The eternal frat-boy or 80's style Master of the Universe is lauded and marketed to and held up as an ideal.

[AreaMan]

In 1980s, Oprah had as a guest Malcolm Forbes, a flamboyant "rich" man that lived up his wealth. ...

It is a miracle that Steve Forbes turned out as normal as he did considering Malcolm was busy riding side-saddle on his Harley.

[SamAdams76]

You are correct, I was just being sarcastic, no way would I want to trade places with a loser like that!

Ironically, the childhood friend I was referring to above would probably NOT want to trade places with me. However, if he could only know the self-esteem, happiness and satisfaction gained by achieving success on one's own, he would never have chosen to waste his own life.

That is what is wrong with our welfare-based society. By removing hardship, you take away the initiative to get out there and make something of yourself. Has anybody ever seen a welfare recipient who truly was happy? True happiness can only be derived from within and nothing feels better than to overcome some adversity to make something of yourself.

[TopQuark]

"you've got to find something for them to do"

In the previous post, I forgot to mention volunteering if everything else fails.

When my daughter was 12 she volunteered to babysit at a church during Christmas services. As you know, it's hard to find a babysitter for those days, since majority of people in this country are Christian and celebrate that holiday themselves. My daughter thought that she can fill the need because she is Jewish, and she would help our Cristian neighbors celebrate their holiday. So she babysat at a church (free of charge). I was really, really proud of her because she came up with this idea by herself.

So even one does not need the money (it was not the case in my family, believe me; I was in graduate school at the time), our children can always find work and take some responsibility.

[TopQuark]

"It is a miracle that Steve Forbes turned out as normal."

As you can see from that post, it's not a miracle: he is a result of a thoughtful and purposeful child-rearing.

Marx claimed that a person's values depend on his economic position. This has been repeated so many times that we think that there is at least something to that; "rich" cannot be normal, like the rest of us. In fact, the opposite is true: morality of a person has nothing to do with his position. It has something to do with his/her parents, going to church of synagogue, principled teaching in schools, but not wealth.

This reminds me. The same Malcolm Forbes said, "The only difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich have money."

Meaning, they have the same chance to be moral or immoral. It's their choice.

[r9etb]

And you offer yet another reason why lawyers should be barred (pun intended) from legislative positions.

Welll..... I can't agree with you on that. There are lawyers and then there are lawyers. Most lawyers are actually good, honest folks whose professional training is a positive asset in crafting solid legislation, and also in understanding the legal ramifications of the activities over which Congress has legitimate oversight. Those sorts of folks are good to have around.

Unfortunately, there is also that class of lawyers who have figured out how to make a good living by finding the cracks and gaps in the law.... and those are the ones who tend to be attracted to Congressional careers; and who (I agree) need to be cast into the outer darkness.

As to needing more engineers in Congress .... well, speaking as an engineer, I'd have to say that's not a good plan. In my experience, engineers tend to be folks who are comfortable with things that behave predictably, and that can be arranged as necessary to accomplish a specific task.

For the same reason, engineers tend to be incredibly naive about the interpersonal dynamics that govern actual politics; people just don't work that way.

[r9etb]

He replied: "Boat parties? My children HATED boat parties. They were the ones cleaning the boat after the parties." That alone answers your question.

Only if I owned a boat, and gave parties on it.

Family chores are all well and good ... but they are not careers, nor are they training for same.

I'm all for those things .... but when it comes to the point of making a living after leaving home, the present structure of our economy is not particularly well-suited to providing opportunities to teenagers who want to take jobs with more than nominal responsibilities. Many of those low-end type jobs are held by people in places like China....

[Dick Bachert]

Your description of our fellow engineers portrays folks who possess what is sorely lacking in government today: COMMON SENSE.

I’ll trade doctors or engineers who might lack some of that information about personal relationships (and ain’t it working grand so far) but who possess that common sense for every one of those Machiavellian scumbag lawyers now legislating America out of existance.

And as for having a few “twisters” around to “craft legislation,” they’re up there already. They’re called STAFFERS and, if they screw up or try to “craft” legislation that runs longer than 10 pages — DOUBLE SPACED — and only they can understand, THEY CAN BE FIRED!!!

[TopQuark]

"Only if I owned a boat, and gave parties on it."

That is an almost COMPLETE misreading of what I said. The point was that you TEACH VALUES to your children and can easily find avenues for PRACTICING those values. The example of Forbes shows that you can do that even when you seemingly don't need anything.

"Family chores are all well and good ... but they are not careers, nor are they training for same."

And who on earth told you that it is your responsibility as a parent (or uncle, or grandparent) to provide, or prepare your child for, a career? What a novel notion.

Your child takes values from you, or absence thereof if they are not provided. Based on these values and primary education, (s)he CHOOSES a career on his/her own. A preparation for that career then takes place outside the family (with rare exceptions). One goes to college, becomes an apprentice or helper at a body shop, etc. Parents play practically no role at this point.

Narcissism of the present-day youth that is discussed in the article is absolutely unrelated to careers or jobs. It stems from the lack of values, their parents' failure to instill traditional Judeo-Christian values.

[rintense]

Probably why I'm still single. The guys where I'm at are nothing more than 35-40 year old 18 year olds. Getting drunk every weekend and sleeping with as many women possible. Oh, and when its warm, doing all that on a boat.

No thanks.

[TopQuark]

"the present structure of our economy is not particularly well-suited to providing opportunities to teenagers"

C'mon. Let your teenager come to my town. I'll drive him around and find him a job in an hour.

(S)he can't get a job ONLY if (s)he expects to be paid $20/hour. But expectations are a function of information and vales they themselves have, not the structure of the economy.

If YOU explained to your child that the way to the top is not a one-day trip, your child will find his way very easily.

Most people show a bad example nowadays by weekly trips to the mall in search of the latest LCD TV rather than taking a course in a nearest community college and expanding the set of their skills. And then, like you, they blame some kind of economy for their inability to compete. No wonder their children can do little and expect a lot.

[r9etb]

That is an almost COMPLETE misreading of what I said.

No, actually, it's not. It is precisely what you did say.

I'm not willing to continue this discussion with you. You're obviously one of those who hold yourself up as an example for the rest of us.

[TopQuark]

"I'm not willing to continue this discussion with you."

That is your choice and your right, of course.

Have a good day.

[VermiciousKnid]

Nicely state, kt.

Regards,

[Deb]

Charlton Heston played Julius Ceasar at 28 and Moses at 33. Leonardo DiCaprio is currently 35. Jes sayin’...

[VermiciousKnid]

state = stated. **note to self: check spelling of third grade words before posting. **

[Soothesayer]

I was an arrogant liberal college freshman who believed that the ‘undereducated’, less ambitious, and religious were subhuman. At the top were the scientists and elite statesman and at the bottom were the “less sophisticated” mongrels who could only “imagine” day-to-day living and supporting their families. I considered them to be “ignoramuses” fit only to clean the toilets of their superiors, pitiful animals who were more interested in feeding worthless babies than witnessing the glory of the scientific universe.

This is how pompous liberals think.

[tom h]

"Historically a boy became a man by assuming the roles of husband and father."

Or, a boy became a man when he had to provide for himself. His own income, his own home/apartment, pay his own insurance, etc. And because girls weren't easy to get into the sack, the fellow married young (thereby becoming the husband and father you reference, with the additional duties of manhood).

I wasn't a perpetual student but was in college for 6 years and got a master's degree in engineering at age 25. I remember calling my father "Daddy" at one point at that age and he looked at me strange and almost got angry. He muttered that "today's society let's men be children waaaay too long." It took another 15 years, with me having my own three children, to realize how right he was.

Mark Steyn addresses this issue, in the European context, in his book "America Alone."