And Brooks need to take every last anti-choicer back in the kitchen with him.

My feminist self is embarassed that when I read this article yesterday I actually found it to be... well, accurate. Without the misogynistic tones, I think the trend he is observing is a real one. I don't see it as a failure, however. I think it's good and empowering- for young people of both genders.

Those courtship rituals needed to be scrambled!

I found it fairly accurate too... as did many people; although there do seem to be some "holier than thou" letters who think that their generation was not just DIFFERENT but BETTER.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/opinion/l11odyssey.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Letters&oref=slogin

Ahhhh, the horrible good ol' days!

I might question that reading. See, Brooks calls these Odyssey Years a "sensible response to modern conditions" and later in the piece, gives a bunch of different ways in which it's a different life phase, not a fatal flaw. The former implies significantly less judgement/rejection than the latter.

Also, I don't think it's anti-feminist to point out that women's (thankfully) expanding options for professional and personal relations have forced a renegotiation of relations between the sexes and made supposedly-comfortable patterns difficult or impossible to cling to, outside certain traditional communities. That just seems to be a factual statement of the way things are! And while it provides both women AND men a better chance at a more-evolved relationship, it's also undeniably more complicated. These attempts to identify, elucidate and negotiate what exactly you want in your romantic partnerships can lead to the extended young-adult period of nebulous relationships -- that was my reading of Brooks' commentary.

Now, an anti-feminist reading to me would be to privilege men's discomfort with the changing landscape ABOVE women's personal, professional, and political empowerment...

I'm so sick of another generation (Davis) telling the younger generations (mine) how "wrong" they're getting it. I mean, do these people not realize that what was THEN isn't necessarily NOW? And don't even get me started on his opinions of women.

Makes me want to find this hilarious rant from a Gen-Xer to a Baby Boomer and how sick they were of hearing about the good ol' days.

"Young people are much less likely to be financially secure, married and having kids by 30 today than they were in 1960"

And he says that in the article (your quote was shorter), like it's a bad thing. The average life span has gone from less than 70 to darn close to 80 and it's only getting longer. Why in the world would anyone think that it's a good idea to tie folks to marriage and child-bearing so soon in the life span of someone who could conceivably live to 100 or more? Would that not constrain their chances of having the other things that Mr. Brooks seems to think important, like financial security and education?

I don't see the problem. Do you dispute the employment trends he points out? Do you dispute the courtship trends he points out? Do you dispute that they could be connected?

Xana and Christina - I see where he points these trends out. Where in this article does say this is "wrong", or a "bad thing"?

It's not hilarious so much as totally pissed off by I wrote one. Aug.25th

noname, Jessica is disputing the tone of horror with which he "reports" this. Though given that Brooks is not known for actually, well, doing research, I'd take all of his observations with a shakerfull of salt.

It seems to me that Brooks is contradicting himself. On the one hand, he's claiming that "Young people are much less likely to be financially secure, married and having kids by 30 today than they were in 1960." On the other hand, he's claiming that part of the "problem" is that women's wages have risen, and we can get many of things we need, including income and status without marrying.

So which is it? Are young people less likely to be financially secure and more likely to be directionless, or are young women more likely to have good incomes and high status? Or when Brooks says "young people" does he really mean "young men"?

I will also note, because I am a leftist, that if people are having a harder and harder time becoming financially secure by 30, that could well account for putting of kids, and just might, call me crazy, but just might have something to do with the kind of economic shifts and loss of union power that has marked the change from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.

Just a thought.

You must know that I absolutely loathe David Brooks and his smarmy pop-sociology (and his apologia for perpetual war), but I have to agree with the people who think that this evisceration may be a bit premature.

In other words, wait for the next column where he will inevitably say the things you expect he will (the blame column).

EG - "tone of horror"?

Or when Brooks says "young people" does he really mean "young men"?

Exactly, EG. So glad you said this--I couldn't find a place in my post to address this. Women's advances (which he clearly thinks have made men worse off) are nothing more than something that has negatively affected a generation. And by generation, he means guys. (You know, real people.)

I can see how this article is more even handed than it is being given credit for, in terms of what is actually on the page. He doesn't really complain about the situation per se, but actually makes a case for its validity. His last line seems to me to be the only one that takes a dig at us young 'uns, by implying that we're all like the people in Friends or Knocked Up, and "wrought" is not the most cheerful sounding verb he could use, but otherwise I agree with some previous posters who don't particularly see a cause for upset.

I may just be overcompensating for my anti-Brooks bias, however. He has such an illustrious history of writing really stupid articles that I can't help but think "ew, david brooks" every time I read his name. I had the same knee jerk reaction when I saw this excerpted in adbusters not too long ago. Pink doesn't want a guy to buy her a drink! Things are spiralling out of control! (Or, more unnervingly, buying someone a drink at a bar warrants "romance" in Brooks's book?!) But I agre with his claim that "young people still need intimacy and belonging," I just think the way he arrives at that conclusion showcases a lot of flaws.

All I'm trying to say is dude really rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not one to ordinarily defend Mr. Brooks, but he does specifically say that the differences in life phase are "not about slacking off. His point about the changing power between the genders fits more-or-less with his thesis that "new norms have not yet been established" to reflect the change.

Of course, it could be said that the new norms have been established, he just doesn't recognize them as such, but that's a milder criticism, I think, than is leveled above.

noname: What EG said. While the tone of the piece appears rational, there is a thin veneer that indicates he does not approve. Ending the piece with references to "Friends" and "Knocked Up", media that focuses on white, and in the case of the characters on "Friends," affluent, Americans just shows how out of touch he is with real people.

This piece, and others like it, continue to remind me of "I'm going to explain the younger generation's behavior to you" analysis that people from older generations enjoy waxing poetical on.

Brooks past writing also lends itself to my skepticism of him.

"there is a thin veneer that indicates he does not approve." - Xana

Where? Is it possible you are projecting instead of actually reading what is in the article? This is an easy mistake to make (I have certainly been guilty of this in the past).

OMG, women's wages are starting to catch up with men's! Something must be done!

Noname,

Because all of it is in the section wherein he defines the "problem" about which he will address. The stats and examples one uses to illustrate what one is defining as a problem worthy of column inches (or bandwidth, as the case may be) says something about one's attitude toward those situations. Taken in context with other statements he's made about changing gender roles, I stand by my assessment of the tone of the piece. The swipe at Friends and Knocked Up is also noteworthy in illustrating my point. He's no fan of anything Gen Xers do/are/believe.

Where does he call it a "problem"?

The fact that the Times continues to showcase his drivel is hardly surprising I suppose.

Before I'll reiterate that no one's generation is "perfect" in terms of job opportunities, education, or courtship rituals (which is why so many of our moms ended up in unpleasant marriages), I'll address the financial angle in that people of his generation weren't sodomized by Sallie Mae. Education is costly.

Jessica notes that what Brooks is really saying is that "women's advances (which he clearly thinks have made men worse off) are nothing more than something that has negatively affected a generation. And by generation, he means guys. (You know, real people.)"

Brooks could scarcely be more irresponsible than to blame women's advances on young men's problems, as if life were a seesaw, with males and females pitted against each other. Womens' success does not mean men must fall behind, period.

Perhaps the question for Mr. Brooks ought to be turned on its head: Why are young white males, who generally have no legitimate excuse for wanting advantages, falling behind in education? (The college admission numbers are becoming so lopsided that there definitely IS a problem.) The answer, I suspect, lies more in some twisted notions about masculinity that has infected our society and that makes it not "cool" to study. It elevates immediate gratification over working for a long-term goal. There are multiple exceptions to this generalization, and I hate attributing negatives to an entire class, including (especially) my own gender. But irresponsibly scapegoating women isn't addressing the problem. And guys, there IS a problem.

clearly some of what he's saying is correct factually, although i must call into question how widespread this trend is given that a large numger of young people are unable to take such a sabbatical. i argue this is largely a middle and upper-middle class thing.

anyway, i really can't take any more books/articles/soundbytes of old people flipping the fuck out over how directionless/lazy/promiscuous/selfish/narcissistic/irresponsible my generation is.

also, stop with the stupid naming. "odyssey"? wtf are we trying to get back home from troy? that's almost (but not quite) as bad as calling us "millennials."

I mean, we might as well just revert back to only a few generations, when we all married at 16 and extruded 10 kids to help with the farm chores (keeping in mind you would lose 3 before the age of 18). What makes HIS generation superior to that one, not to mention tomorrow's?

Brooks's sentiments would be better suited to the NY Post.

JaneMinty, exactly.

how does that song go? "how we gonna keep 'em down on the farm, now that they've seen paree?"

Sorry, correction -- I meant to say "Brooks could scarcely be more irresponsible than to blame young men's problems on women's advances."

rileystclair, I got the impression that Brooks was talking about a trend in attitude, not that saying that all young people take a sort of sabbatical from life/college/work. I thought he was commenting on the fact that for this generation there it is not as important to settle quickly- be it in love or work or anywhere else.

I think I can see that thin veneer as well, but I don't think he actually makes any outright arguments that this generation is failing or outright blame women for it. I didn't see how he "clearly" thinks that being less financially stable or unmarried is bad. I guess I'm with noname, here... I'm confued on where he calls it a "problem."

I agree with Jessica, too, however. He does ignore important issues like the wage gap, when he mentions money. But "transparent"? Like I noted earlier, I feel somewhat embarassed, like I missed something obvious.

If you think about it, aren't sabbaticals essentially the same as retirement, just taken at different intervals? Most people who take a significant amount of time off to pursue education or travel don't have a union job with benefits, and guaranteed time on the golf course past the age of 55. They tend to still be working to some degree until past the age of 70 (at least in the case of my dad - he still loves to teach and write music).

I have some Polish friends who came to the States several years ago. They moved to Chicago for 4 years and had 3 kids. The father drove (and later purchased) and 18 wheeler and worked very long hours (after he owned the rig, he made $150,00 a year). They saved up enough money to go back to Poland and take it easy while raising their kids. Both of them can now work part-time, go back to school, and teach music after a few years of sacrifice. How does this fit in to Brook's plan for how things ought to be?

I just don't understand why some people of Brook's generation get their panties in a bunch over when we choose to change careers or take a break. He neglects to mention that pretty much everyone I know is going to be working past the "traditional" age of retirement. Our longer life expectancy is directly proportional to the shrinking level of Social Security, and then again proportionate to inflation. These sabbaticals are necessary if we are to be working into our 80s.

Noname,

Please refer to the basic template for a persuasive essay. Present problem, provide examples, discussion paragraphs, conclusion.

Didn't you learn that in senior high school English like I did?

"Wah!!! Women don't need men anymore!"

Well, I'd rather be wanted than needed if I were a man...or a woman...or a rational, dependency-issue-free human bean. I think that's a much more functional basis for a relationship, yeah? You'd think everyone would be happier with that situation - being independent, self sufficient, and in it coz they just really wanted to be with the person based on who the person was?
Crazy.

ok, a shift in attitude yes, but in practice, plenty of young people go straight from high school to the workforce just like our parents' generation.

i'm from texas and nearly all of my close friends from high school were married within a year of graduation from college. i realize that's both anecdotal and not representative of the nation as a whole, but it's important to put the shifts brooks is observing in perspective.

i do think the idea of settling down by one's mid-20s has eroded somewhat (thank goodness!) but brooks seems to think that we wander aimlessly for awhile or something when i don't think that is the case for most. we aren't all going for "permanent employment" right off the bat because that concept is outdated and at least he acknowledges the "modern conditions" that cause this (well, "possibly" to him).

While most of Brooks' argument is nonsense, I do have complaints about the hook-up culture. I really believe that it's connected to the new masculinity = boyhood trend. Simply hooking up, while never dating and certainly never pursuing a real relationship, gives young men an excuse to never grow up. I've dated far too many men my age (late 20s-early 30s) who still are incapable of meaningful interaction with women. Of course, if they can count on sleeping with a woman without having to interact with her beforehand, what's the point in developing conversational skills, social grace, or just working on being an interesting person?

Forgive my ignorance, but I really fail to see how lowering marriage rates is a sign of the coming apocalypse. I mean really... so what? How does that affect me personally or society in general??

And people who like to wring their hands over "hook-up culture" vastly over-exaggerate its pervasiveness. They act like every college student in America is playing musical sheets every night, when in reality it's something like less than 10% engaging in that kind of behavior.

Of course, if they can count on sleeping with a woman without having to interact with her beforehand, what's the point in developing conversational skills, social grace, or just working on being an interesting person?

OK, I'll bite: so it's slutty women's fault that certain men don't mature? Last I checked, developing conversational skill and social graces, and working on being an interesting person -- these were goals in their own rights, and not just means to the end of sleeping with a proper lady who wouldn't consider you otherwise. Please.

Of course, if they can count on sleeping with a woman without having to interact with her beforehand, what's the point in developing conversational skills, social grace, or just working on being an interesting person?

Because... men want more out of life than sex? Because maybe at some point they'd like to make friends, or have a meaningful romantic relationship, or suceed at their jobs or school? All of which require conversational skills, social graces and generally being an interesting person?

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) look for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) look for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) look for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful. In my experience, most young men do not feel this way. Every guy I know (and I associate with many different types of people) looks for smart working women and say their friends do the same. I think the real issue for Brooks is that now that young women aren't being as oppressed, old misogynists like himself can't get younger women.

ksaik, well said: "I'm always extremely annoyed to hear old men complaining about successful young women and bitching that men somehow suffer when women are well educated and successful."

Instead, the older guys (let's avoid calling them "old men") ought to be saying to themselve, "Hmm, the women are doing it right. Why can't the guys keep up in school? Why aren't our young men going to college? What aren't we teaching our boys about what it is to be a responsible man?"

Here's an epiphany: Maybe the men ought to start emulating the feminists to help boys break free of the suffocating gender constrictions that seem to be holding them back -- like, it's not cool to study, or to read. Or it's not cool to waste time in college when you, as nature's preordained breadwinner, could be out earning money right out of high school. There's nothing wrong with not going to college -- if it's a rational choice as opposed to something you've chosen not to do just because you're a