Posted on 03/31/2006 4:35:06 AM PST by Timeout
The romantic comedy "Failure to Launch," which opened as the No. 1 movie in the nation this month, has substantially exceeded pre-launch predictions, taking in more than $64 million in its first three weeks.
[snip]
...a young man who is affable, intelligent, good-looking -- and completely unmotivated. He's still living at home and seems to have no ambitions beyond playing video games, hanging out with his buddies (two young men who are also still living with their parents) and having sex.
[snip]
...According to the Census Bureau, fully one-third of young men ages 22 to 34 are still living at home with their parents -- a roughly 100 percent increase in the past 20 years. No such change has occurred with regard to young women. Why?
[snip]
...We've batted around lots of ideas. Maybe the problem has to do with the way the school curriculum has changed. Maybe it has to do with environmental toxins that affect boys differently than girls (not as crazy an idea as it sounds). Maybe it has to do with changes in the workforce, with fewer blue-collar jobs and more emphasis on the service industry. Maybe it's some combination of all of the above, or other factors we haven't yet identified.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Unfortunately I'm chained to the area for family and my job. I'll humble myself to live with mom until I make more money, find affordable housing or actually find a woman with whom I'm not petrified of the idea of marriage.
I'm homeschooling my children if it works out that way. Never know what God has planned but I can't imagine sending boys to school.
My 20 year old who still lives at home, in good health with no extenuating circumstances, will be paying rent commensurate with the current housing market, helping with utilities, groceries, and helping with chores, AND, abide by house rules.
Your area is experiencing high growth. This is a pain-in-the-neck for anybody who does not already own or have a lot of money. That's not going to change.
I don't mind females working, but, if they are going to be mothers, I think they should be at home raising the kids.
Bosses: Hire fathers over single females. Hire parents over singles, all other things being equal. Oops: can't do that because the legislatures have outlawed that. Well, at least I can talk about such ideas on this forum. Raising these issues is one thing I can do. Maybe someday the legislatures will stop handcuffing bosses in this (unconstitutional) way.
The way it is now, everyone is accustomed to not being able to raise a family on one wage, so, the thing to do might be to force wages up by having more mothers stay at home with the kids, and closing the borders so that there is not a cheap source of illegal immigrant labor to drive wages down even further.
I'm not fuming, I am writing in this forum to raise points of view that are mostly shouted down in the workplace, and really everywhere. And I am implementing things that I can implement, when I am able.
But I know a lot of females, young adults to middle age. They are single. They work but hate it. They can not find eligible males to date and marry. They can have kids if they get artificially inseminated or just have a kid outside of marriage. They themselves do not like these options. And the problems all come back to: women are just giving it away today.
Women: Do not give it away. Plain and simple. Then, you will have lots of eligible males who will be interested in marriage.
I know a lot of moms, who work at bad pay rates, at jobs they hate, when they would rather stay at home and be good mothers and raise well-adjusted kids. But they can't stay at home, either because the wages have been driven down by too many females in the workplace and it takes two wage-earners to make a decent home.
But mothers would be doing a greater good, for themselves, their kids, and society-at-large, by staying home with their kids.
Mothers, stay married and stay at home so that you can raise kids.
You probably agree with much of what I have written but, since it is not PC to even mention the things that I say, you seem instead to be shying away from the argument and focusing instead on what you imagine I am thinking or emoting, as if that mattered.
Why can you not just refute some of what I am saying, or for that matter agree with it, whatever you choose, instead of just offering up distraction after distraction in the form of psychobabble?
I'm answering you, you just don't like my answers. And no, I don't agree with a lot of what you say. I do not think bosses should go back to discriminatory hiring in order to force the kind of social policy you want.
I think couples should decide the best way to raise children, and act accordingly, as individual families. I do agree with you on border enforcement, but notably, our President does not, and he has more of an affect on our policy there than I do.
I'm sorry the women you know are unhappy and having trouble forming families. I married at 31, when I met the right guy, and was in no particular hurry about it; I didn't see marriage as my ultimate aim. I don't know that women will uniformly do a "Lysistrata" to make men marry.
Women who work in low-paying jobs they hate are probably better off staying home, if their pay is erased by daycare and job-related expenses. I've seen many people speak to that on these boards, that with some belt tightening it can be done. There's a difference between job and career, and those of us who enjoy and are fulfilled by what we do are likely to stay in the workforce. Mothers will "stay home" if they find it feasible and fulfilling to do so, not for broad social change.
"It's been so long since the personnel world was normal that people forget: Married men are more productive and hard-working than unmarried men or women."
IMO your facts are right but conclusions are dead off.
What the modern personnel world is interested in is: will this employee complain or quit when we tell him to stay late, to come in weekends, to forget about holidays? Mr. "yes sir, anything you want sir, I didn't have any plans tonight besides sitting at home playing XBox" gets the promotion. How much extra expense will the company incur because this employee is not 25 but 35 or 45 or 55, not single but has a wife and kids on the insurance?
The facts that you correctly cite about better motivation and better work product aren't considered. It isn't just anti-male discrimination, it's a FUBAR prioritization of costs and benefits.
The young men of today are fed a constant message of "men are eeeevil", "all boys are rapists", "girls are better at school" AND on top of all of that they are told girls will recieve ALL the accademic preferences.
Boys that succeed despite all the quota advantages given to other girls are a miracle and a testament to their self motivation.
The article suggested to me all the symptoms of potheads... lethargic, unmotivated, paranoid to go out into the world and to actually live a life...
“Maybe it has to do with environmental toxins that affect boys differently than girls (not as crazy an idea as it sounds).”
Girls are much less likely to smoke marijuana? There are a lot of statistics out there that say so...
The Washington Post cannot be trusted. They know the truth... this editorial is just a cover-up job...
bump for later
There's nothing happening to boys, there is something that has happened to men that they need to take care of.
Marijuana, paranoia...
Marijuana is the perfect chemical warfare to feminize young men...
You only need one. Trust me on this one.
Ok. Got it.
Ok I can not let that pass.
Really? Women have been working in Western civilzation for at least the last 2000 years, birth control has been around twice that long and most marriages were not entered into under duress.
In my experience, you promote the grownup, regardless of marital status. We are assuming in this case that rather then being a blind hire this is a internal promotion where you know the parties involved.
Applying it to two young men in my own company currently I would go with the single. He is a grownup while, despite the wife and two kids of the other, the married man is still a child in many ways.
In other companies the situation has been reversed but, in the under thirty crowd, marriage is not very useful as a indicator of reliability. Maybe it was different before.
Technically, you are correct, though I suppose your real purpose is to obscure huge social change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.