I’ve twice before (1,2) treated the subject of guys, male humans who attempt to kick the emotional maturity can down the road a few years or decades. Maybe it’s a good thing, but many guys nowadays are saying they don’t want to get married:
[T]he Pew Research Center…recently found that the number of women 18-34 saying that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things rose from 28 percent to 37 percent since 1997. The number of young adult men saying the same thing dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent in the same time…
With feminism pushing them out of their traditional role of breadwinner, protector and provider – and divorce laws increasingly creating a dangerously precarious financial prospect for the men cut loose from marriage – men are simply no longer finding any benefit in it…
[Men say that] “women aren’t women anymore.” Feminism, which teaches women to think of men as the enemy, has made women “angry” and “defensive, though often unknowingly…”
“Men are tired”…“Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.”
Feminism and the sexual revolution have simply made marriage “obsolete” for women as a social and economic refuge.
So it could be a chicken-and-egg thing: does feminism and contraception-and-abortion-enabled, consequence-free sex lead to immature men, or do immature men lend support to feminism’s claim that men are the problem?
I’m not sure the answer to that, but clearly our society needs desperate help on incredibly simple questions:
- What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? Academics preach social conditioning and manufactured gender roles that can be changed if we so desired; they also adopt Marxist rhetoric in ginning up conflict to pit men against women. These simple questions are addressed beautifully in JPII’s theology of the body.
- What is marriage? This one is up for grabs too, as voters in four states found out last November. Should we change its definition so that any number of persons can choose to receive legal benefits as long as they can prove that they like living together? Unless you define marriage as it’s been universally understood until a few years ago, a legally-recognized institution between one man and one woman for the benefit of the spouses and the procreation of children, I really don’t see how any other definition is coherent. Kudos to the Bishops (like Cordileone) for promoting common sense on this issue, though it’s becoming increasingly uncommon.
- What is sex? Feminism, contraception, abortion, and guy-ism seem to have a common, truncated outlook on what sex is, and what it’s for. Moderns put it on a par with ping pong: something fun to do as long as you have a willing partner. We need to recapture the understanding of the marital embrace as foreshadowing Christ’s fecund embrace of His church.
Full disclosure: I certainly contributed to this problem. As I mention in link 1 above, I am a recovering “guy;” haven’t touched the stuff in a decade or so. I also got married at age 32, quite a bit later than the median 28.7 listed in the article. This was due solely to my inability to have women find me attractive. Luckily, my wife didn’t have laser vision correction until after we got married so by the time she was 20-20 and could see what she got herself into, it was too late…