I think part of the problem is that a lot of generation X and millennial people grew up as latchkey kids[0], and are reacting against it by raising their kids like veal: no unstructured play, no time without adult supervision, no time alone to think for one's self, and certainly no push to take on adult responsibilities until a kid's well into their twenties.
> and are reacting against it by raising their kids like veal
Why do you think they (we) are reacting against it? It's quite the opposite, we try to raise our kids the same way, but the whole system (school, daycares) is obsessed with safety.
I was picking my sibling from daycare when I was ten, but try to make your children do that in 2022 – the daycare will call you (or CPS) immediately. I needed to reach the principal and sign a waiver to make my 1st grader walk alone from school across the road (protected by crossing guards).
> Why do you think they (we) are reacting against it?
The parents I talk to in my neighborhood and at the gym have gone all-in on the safetyism. Many of them have said they don't want to neglect their kids the way they were neglected. I've also talked to a couple of my neighbor's older kids (18+) and they say they feel suffocated. They can't believe I "got away with" reading Clive Barker when I was still a pre-teen; their parents relentlessly vet all kinds of media and only let their kids access "age-appropriate" material that isn't "triggering". Hell, I've even had one parent in the neighborhood turn on me after I lent her nineteen-year-old daughter a spare copy of Three Parts Dead by Max Gladstone. That mother should be grateful I haven't introduced her daughter to Jacqueline Carey or China Miéville.
> All this helps explain the conspicuous absence of protest against what seem like obviously outrageous facts of life on campus these days: the continuing increases to already stratospheric tuition, the insulting wages paid to adjunct professors, universities’ investment in China (possibly the most problematic country on earth), the draconian restrictions implemented during the pandemic.
> But those, of course, have been anything but countercultural. Students have merely been expressing more extreme versions of the views their elders share. In fact, of the views that their elders have taught them: in the private and upscale public high schools that have long been dominated by the new religion, in courses in gender studies, African-American studies, sociology, English lit.
From the magazine's front-page:
> Common Sense
Honest news for sane people brought to you by Bari Weiss.
From the (currently) top comment:
> Your first mistake was thinking that the 60s protests were somehow noble. I was there. They weren't. They were ostensibly against the then-raging Vietnam War but they were fomented and led by dedicated leftists. Then, as now, resolute in their zeal to weaken and destroy the United States; the one beacon of hope against one-world, authoritarian rule.
I know it's not always fair to judge an author by the environment their articles are presented in, but I think in this situation, it's pretty obvious that this is simply a piece from the "conservative" aisle of the culture war, belittling the other side.
I think there might be some arguments for society getting more "childish" in the last decades - and in particular parts of millennials seeing themselves as "eternal children". But it's boring and pretty telling to associate this with progressive movements or "wokism". At least, the incel who threatens a shooting because feminists have corrupted all the good women and the crypto bro making pepe memes on 4chan don't strike me as particular grown-up either.
I also don't see why you'd call it childish when someone identifies with the goals of their parents and continues to work for them - unless you were disagreeing with those goals in the first place and are simply disappointed the next generation is not giving up on them.
Also bemoaning there is no willingness for self-sacrifice any more but also asking why no one protested against "draconian" covid restrictions makes no sense - unless I guess you believe in the big covid conspiracy...
> The 1960s broke authority, and it has never been repaired. It discredited adulthood, and adulthood has never recovered. The attributes of adulthood—responsibility, maturity, self-sacrifice, self-control—are no longer valued, and frequently no longer modeled. So children are stuck: they want to be adults, but they don’t know how. They want to be adults, but it’s easier to remain children. Like children, they can only play at being adults.
Is this true? Did adult-aged humans feel "grown up" pre-1960s?
Or, is a fundamental lack of certainty more intrinsic to our nature?
An uncanny feeling came over me as I was leaving a diner. My eye caught a table with a married couple (who couldn't have been more than a few years out of high school) and a toddler. They managed to look tired, but happy; moreover, they seemed to have things under control. It was like a breeze from a different century.
It's probably that the social context has changed so much. You're not going to have a single high-school-educated income buying a house and supporting the entire family from it. People have thanked Reagan's economic policies for pushing women into the workplace -- a change that took place out of necessity since a single income no longer sufficed for most people.
So what happens when young people realize the game has changed? Do they get married right out of high school, buy a house, and start a family? Or are we talking about going to uni, drowning in debt, and being priced out of the housing market?
The era of dual earner marriages is over. Let me back up a bit and hedge with acknowledging the real danger in extrapolating from current trends, but let's indulge and while relying on some data.
We're in the early formation of yet another stage of family conceptualization. As the corporate family economy declined over the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century, the male breadwinner marriage declined from the 1930s-1980, the decline of the dual earner family is beginning its decline[1]. This is complicated with the decline of marriage in general, and marriage itself complicated with dramatically increasing age and rates of divorce.
Male labor force participation has declined from 86% in 1950 to 69% in 2019[2]. Over the same time period women's labor force participation rate rose from 33% to 57%[3]. Simultaneously, the rates of co-habitation continue to rise (0.1 in 1968 to 9.4% in 2018)[4] and outpacing spousal living after 2010(among 18-24yr olds). Disability and addition are prevalent in non-labor force participating(LFP) males[5].
The Richmond Fed's report Male Labor Force Participation: Patterns and Trends describes the relationship.
> Many of those receiving disability payments via Social Security are receiving them for ailments such as mental health disorders and disorders that occur due to
long-term obesity and drug or alcohol abuse. Data from the Social Security Disability Program’s 2019 annual report show that 35 percent of Social Security Disability beneficiaries are disabled due to a mental health disorder, with mood disorders most common. An additional 30 percent of beneficiaries have disabilities associated with a musculoskeletal disorder, many of which are due to obesity.
Extrapolating from this we can imagine a world 20-30 years from now where a majority of households are formed under the cohabitation of unmarried partners. The woman here is likely the breadwinner, although all forms of male breadwinner and dual earner households still remain. The unemployed male may be receiving social security for a mental or musculoskeletal disorder due to obesity or drug or alcohol abuse.
While not an optimistic version of the future, there's still the opportunity to be proven wrong, argue about causes, and explore second-order effects within the larger picture all thanks to the magic of extrapolitis.
There are many non-exclusive reasons: companionship, protection, unpaid labor, income, and role-expectations.
Detailing the last three, unpaid labor can look like child care, errand running, home repair, and house work(and while men generally spend less time than women doing this, it isn't zero[1]). Female breadwinner households include male gig work ex: 77% of ride share drivers are male[2]. That's a way of saying that the men in these relationships are not contributing - they can be - just not at a level to be considered a dual earner.
Lastly, let's not discount gender and role expectations. If you are male, have you asked the women in your life if they have been pressured to not be single by their family or peers? Did others have expectations of them? What were their responses?
In my social network, I can name plenty of women who are living with men who engage in drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and have mental disorders, sometimes more than one. I instinctively caricature this type, which makes it more difficult for me to identify these cases, but substance abuse, mental disorders, or physical disorders don't automatically render people homeless, insane, or invalid. They all can, however, make it much more difficult to hold down a steady job or result in under employment.
Nonetheless, some women accept these challenges, while others they regret the pressure they faced or decisions they made in entering these relationships. The effort required to enter and exit relationships is asymmetrical. There is some stickiness to the whole affair even within cohabitating unmarried couples. Deciding to live alone is a serious choice.
> Children become adults—autonomous individuals—by separating from their parents: by rebelling, by rejecting, by, at the very least, asserting.
Assertion and separation perhaps, but rejecting one's parents, or what they stand for, is certainly not a norm of adulthood in other cultures. I'd venture to say it's a very US-specific stereotype, if not fact.
I find this article somewhat meandering. It identifies that sheep exist and that they are drawn to the beaten path of what has already been done before. Then it tries to brand activism/wokeness as what sheep do in the footsteps of previous protests. It concludes that these sheep have to grow up from children into adults. Respecting 60's era authority seems to have been made analogous to adulthood. A question I have is what is this adult independence that the author wants? Is it to respect authority and institutions? Wouldn't that ironically be sheeplike too?
I think that this article is unable to sympathize with why youth are "sheeplike" in the first place. Within the context of stagnant wages for average Americans, it makes sense why sheep would be drawn to the same professions and schools as a "safe" ticket to a decent middle class life. Youth questioning whether authority and institutions are in their best interests seems like the reason why the protests existed in the first place. This problem has never been fully resolved, leading to the current woke activism. Wokeness can certainly be criticized but I think this is a weak angle to do so. It seems like to me that the worsening conditions for young people are directly leading to the more radical woke interpretations. (The article does tap into that the wokeness may not be in their best interests but I don't think a renewed respect for authority and institutions is what will be in their best interests either if they are already being failed by them.)
Bari Weiss - op-ed staff editor and writer on culture and politics at The New York Times (2017–2020).
> just another righty whining about leftists
You had no idea who this person was prior? You've landed on that diagnosis after 1 article posted on HackerNews? I believe your comment was made in bad faith, and you made an account to post it. Odd.
It’s easy to reflect on the past and “the way things were” and cast it in a positive light. We glorify the way things were before because we often enjoyed more security as children, or in young adulthood - our parents looked out for us. As adults, we’re faced with grim reality and the facts of life. This is really just a regurgitated “kids today…” complaint.
I have stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone who talks about wokeness as a problem. Being aware of our society is not the cause of our ills. It’s the subject of that awareness. The skyrocketing housing market, collapsed investments, legislatures building legal loopholes to existing law, healthcare, racial bias, etc. If people are turning every which way desperate to find a direction it’s because the walls erected by previous generations are unassailable and closing in.
It’s literally that. Before being turned into a slur by the conservative spin machine “woke” was a century-old aave term for denoting continued awareness and understanding of the plight and challenges of african americans.
It sounds like the “sheep” in question are pushing very strongly in a direction but just not one the author likes. Is letting people talk to you and your cohort anyhow more sheeplike than standing up for them?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid