I feel like a complete failure at "adulting" too. Then again, I don't want to succeed at it. I'm not done having fun. Same goes for nearly all of my friends. I've lost both parents, and had kids, and I get on with the kids in a way I doubt my parents could have conceived of. I want to feel they're friends until I drop.
By my age my parents were fully paid up members of middle age and led dull lives, as all their generation seemed to. They were very different people to how they described their 20s. I still recognise the me of my 20s. I'm not even becoming more conservative, I've got more liberal except in clothes!
What possible reason is there to grow up? I see no benefit to it, for anyone.
"What possible reason is there to grow up? I see no benefit to it, for anyone."
The reason would be a time horizon for your family that is greater than one (or zero) generations.
If your family, as a cohesive and architected entity, is just something that you do in your own lifespan for your own happiness or fulfillment, then there may indeed be no reason for you to "grow up". Perhaps a friendly, peer relationship to your children is a good model. It probably doesn't make much difference.
Speaking of your parents, they were probably caught in a weird no-mans-land between very traditional narratives of family planning and growth and our own very modern, dis-integrated narrative.
It may interest you to know that the longer you push out the arc of the timeline of your family, the more it becomes necessary to "behave like an adult". It may also interest you to know that no project could be as complex, intricate, risky and fulfilling as transforming a union between one man and one woman into a heirarchical, muti-generational enterprise.
Hm. Interesting post, not a perspective I've seen in quite those terms before.
Time horizon is that of the kids, and they've been priority, certainly until they get out of education. Only one is still to come of age, so friendly works, earlier it was more parental. Neither of us wanted to repeat our discipline first childhoods.
You may be right, there was huge change in their lifetimes.
The last part sounds more like building a dynasty. If the proceeds of a startup were in the bank perhaps, but I'd still hope to retain a sense of enjoyment for the kids and us! We'll get them through uni, leave a useful amount, but not anything worthy of family trust.
I've become more conservative because, to put it bluntly, I'm closer to death now. I've done my experimentation, I know myself pretty well now, I know what I like and what I don't. So my life is dull in the sense that I'll likely do the same things every weekend, eat in the same restaurants, go to the same places on holiday (likely on my home continent, perhaps even my home country) and so on.
I would be surprised if there weren't papers arguing that youthful recklessness morphing into adult conservatism is a learning strategy favored by natural selection.
Given that this heuristic would have evolved when humans had a much shorter expected lifespan, I expect there would be a very large market for neuroplasticity enhancing drugs that also increase one's effective epsilon factor.
So the closer to death you are, the less you explore what is left for you to explore in this world. Do you just not feel like you have the energy in finding new things to like or experience anymore because you don't think there is anything left, or is it just that you feel 'fed up' with new experiences since younger days? I'm just curious.
I think "new experiences" has diminishing returns like anything else. E.g. I could go to a new art gallery and that would be a new experience on one level - but I've been to quite a few art galleries, so I have a good sense of what going to an art gallery is like in general, and also I know that my favourite is pretty good, so it would be better to go back there. I could try a new sport, but I've played plenty of sports already - and a new sport is less likely to be more fun than my current favourite.
It's not that novelty wears off, it's that your library of patterns has expanded to the point that fewer things manage to reach the same threshold of novelty.
To continue to experience novelty, you have to find new patterns, not just new things that fit patterns you know.
Or you were 20 years younger in the 90s and things seemed more different because you'd experienced less? I have a really hard time getting into new music these days for that reason.
Hm, perhaps my ADHD is behind this as it ensures my interest generally fades. There's a few things that have stuck, but I think my mind is always prioritising novelty. There's been a few hobbies I'd really like to have kept on, but just can't. It can be a damn annoying condition! I'll rarely go to the same place for a holiday. Music and food changes too, but not as much.
Staying in tech has been easier as so much within it is changing.
I'm in a similar spot. On one hand, it can be annoying to have a relatively higher threshold for novelty, interest, and engagement. On the other hand, even while these tendencies have made me a bit of a dilettante or a dabbler, I also find that fiddling around on a lot of semi-related (or even unrelated) things can bring a different sort of experience and perspective compared to that which comes from deeper exploration of fewer fields/topics/skills/etc.
I'm not saying there aren't definite drawbacks but when considered like "it just is what it is" I can at least see some of the benefits. There's something to be said for in-depth knowledge and exploration on a specific field or topic but there's also something to be said for having a breadth of experiences and skills. In many ways it can make you more adaptable and when you find yourself needing to draw on skills and experiences, it's a lot easier when you're at least familiar with them even if you're not an expert.
Like I'm not a skilled electrical engineer but I've wired up a house and tied in a breaker panel as part of a job I held for a short time years ago. So when I need to replace a fixture or a garbage disposal, where friends might hire someone and pay several hundred dollars to have it done, I can do some quick research and leverage my limited experience to do it myself. For bigger jobs I still hire someone but that's just how it goes.
Or the fact that I'm not a software developer or network engineer but when I need to set something up on my home network or troubleshoot something at work, I at least understand basic concepts just from screwing with computers for so long and I can usually sort things out with some research or assistance. Most other friends and acquaintances outside the field would just look at something like setting up a home subnetwork and file server for IP cam surveillance as beyond their abilities. My general familiarity means I can sort it out with a bit of trial and effort.
Same goes for just about anything. If I've tinkered with something related as part of my neverending quest for novelty, I don't need to start from scratch every time I need to do something similar. And when a task or endeavor is outside of my abilities, those people who have dedicated themselves to a deeper exploration of a skill or field can come in and make use of their way of doing things. Can't run the economy on just tinkerers, obviously.
In the US culture i grew up in, i feel like adulting meant:
- finding a job to do until you retire/die
- having kids, and having them be your primary purpose in life
- rightfully abandoning any long term other than attempting to retire
All the other things seem to derive from the above. Honestly adulting literally seems like the first stages of an acceptance of death and aging the change of priorities as a consequence. I think, that given the same inputs (impending infirmities and death) you can come to very different conclusions. I don't have time for kids or retirement because i have a hell of a lot to get done before i die and i'll be working on it right up to the deadline.
When I was a kid, adults were boring people that kept saying no and used all those formal clothes all the time.
Now that I'm in my 40s, I'm so cool, it's just a coincidence that I have to watch out my little girl and tell her to not do this out that every 15 minutes.
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." (generally attributed to Mark Twain)
I became an adult the day I started expecting being treated as one.
There are many more things that go about adulthood, and I guess the most defining would be to take responsibility for one's own action.
I had taken responsibility already, it just had not occurred to me that I did not need to defer to other people because of age and experience. (Not that it is bad to defer to more experienced people, but it should be a conscious decision.)
I think this is what used to be rites of passage. A symbolic timeline for young ones to forget immature behavior, and "believe" in adult behavior, a quick turnaround allowing both sides to adapt. Old respect you, and you respect the old. Instead most "modern" cultures just relies on some cultural market and institutions (like legally defined adult age) which allows drifting for years before finding the inner desire to be seen as an altruistic adult and behaving like one.
I had a few people at my last company who were much younger than me and had children.
The only thing I noticed, was, that they started to "talk" older, but their actions didn't seem rather "grown up" to me...
I have the feeling, getting children switches people in the "Now I'm adult and need to be responsible" mode without giving them the needed knowledge how to execute this behaviour, mostly cargo culting around.
The second one in particular. Why bother with owning a house or a car if not with the end goal in mind of supporting kids? It's all for naught otherwise. If you don't have anyone you need to provide with stability, you're better off renting and ubering. You can always live within walking distance from your workplace for example.
Also, while you don't have to wear a suit, many, many adults would benefit greatly from dressing like adults. Sure, the times change, fashions come and go, models of behaviour change a little, but putting effort in your appearance is timeless. When I see a guy in his 40s wearing cargo shorts, I'm thinking "arrested development."
>>> Why bother with owning a house or a car if not with the end goal in mind of supporting kids?
That's an incredibly... urban...? [1] point of view. For me, the #1 argument for owning a car is flexibility -- knowing you've got the option to drop things at a moment's notice and head off to... wherever.
Owning a house is also an enabler for things which might be meaningful to those without children: building up and maintaining a garden, for one. Hobbies which need a decent-sized, stable, workshop tend to be easier in a house you own than in a rental, too.
(We do have a child now, but my wife and I owned both house and car for years before deciding we wanted children. And now have rather less time for hobbies that make houses and cars essential...)
[1] Not so much in the specifically "city" sense, but in the sense of preferring external infrastructure vs. building up and maintaining enough infrastructure of your own to feel somewhat self-sufficient.
Yes. I was going to add car racing or some offroader as an exception but most people live in cities and don't have that kind of hobbies. And it's probably still more convenient to join a hacker space.
I don't think we're going to agree on this one. Hackerspace vs. "own workshop" are completely different things. If objective convenience is your only metric, Hackerspace might well win, but living near one places a lot of constraints on other areas of your lifestyle, and it's never going to give a feeling of self-sufficiency.
(Edit: this shouldn't be taken as a criticism of Hackerspaces -- they're a great compromise for people who otherwise like the tradeoffs that urban lifestyles bring, and can be fun to visit even if you don't need to borrow the tools).
Yes and no. I'd have a hard time driving from Norway to the US, or Japan. I might drive to Germany, but it would be much more pleasant to fly, take a combination of train and boat, or just go by train.
There are certainly perks to having a car - around here, being able to just drive a few kilometers (beyond walk/bike distance) opens up new hiking routes, for example. But isn't that what friends are for? ;-)
"Yes and no. I'd have a hard time driving from Norway to the US, or Japan. I might drive to Germany, but it would be much more pleasant to fly, take a combination of train and boat, or just go by train."
I encourage you, no, plead with you - drive your car to Germany. It's so much fun and so enjoyable and spontaneous to drive internationally. You can stop anywhere something interests you and hold to whatever timeline you like.
One of the more stupefying cultural traits of young europeans that I know is the unwillingness (even among car owners) to take driving vacations. This is especially unbelievable when you consider that europeans could literally drive to China, let alone Italy/Greece/Russia/CZ/Spain/Turkey/etc.
Also: driving is experiencing the change of landscape, culture and the inhabitants bit by bit (assuming frequent stops), rather than to have the illusion that there is an aluminum tube stretching from say Berlin to Barcelona. Flying for me is business.
The very approximate rule of thumb is that purchasing is economically preferable to renting if you're planning to live in that location for more than 4 or 5 years.
I'm not sure how you figure that owning a car is related to raising children. If I had to guess, I would say you lived in a very dense urban environment. Your statement just seems kind of insane anywhere else.
Given that I have interests outside of work, I don't actually want to live within three minutes of my workplace if there's more fun to be had living farther away.
Based on the wording of your last paragraph, it sounds like you may not actually have a good argument for wearing nice clothes, and are just advocating it because that's what you see other people doing. The reason I try to dress nicely is that it's cheap psychological hack. For whatever reason, most people, including myself to some degree, have some sort of innate bias towards people who look well dressed. This could be because it correlates with social status, or wealth, or any other number of factors, but regardless of why it's the case, it's a very cheap way to buy social credit. It's up to you whether or not this increase in social credit is worth the financial and comfort cost of wearing nice clothes.
Feeling of safety? I m richer than my siblings who have kids because i was more driven. If i dont have own kids, nieces will inherit, however that's not my main motivation.
The big difference may well be that women are allowed to act out their inner age, while men are expected to behave their age (whatever the F that means).
Do you think so? I think if anything it's been historically men that keep the toys (cars, golf, nights with the boys) . In the last generation or 2 women seem to have also been allowed a life outside of the home, and a role other than 'adult mother'
Society expects that in order to "grow up" men must stop spending time on their hobbies and with their friends. Some might say "aha, that is how the patriarchy harms men too!" but I can guarantee you that no man has ever said to another "hey bro, you know what, we should like totally stop doing so much cool stuff"...
I avoided all of that by marrying someone into wreck diving, mountains, the gym etc too :-)
Excellent point; Blaming "The Patriarchy" (leaving aside the question of to what degree it might actually exist) for every social condition is absurdly reductionist to the point of being obviously incorrect; it pretends that women throughout history have had no social influence whatsoever. If men were really responsible for every social institution, we certainly wouldn't have the "settle down and give up all your personal interests so as to more effectively fund your wife and children" phase in the archetypal male life.
> Some might say "aha, that is how the patriarchy harms men too!" but I can guarantee you that no man has ever said to another "hey bro, you know what, we should like totally stop doing so much cool stuff"...
I think this assumes that the Patriarchy is defined as men deciding how things ought to be, when I think that it's more a trench our society fell into and can't figure out how to climb out of.
I don't believe what this woman is complaining about is relevant to the original article. Since time immemorial there have always been a subset of men who never settle down and "grow up". Perhaps the proportion has increased over the last forty years due to various social forces, but these vagabonds are no where near a majority.
I believe, rather, that this woman is suffering from opportunity costs for decisions she did not realize she was making at the time. She seems to know the type of mate she wants, which is more than most, though unfortunately for her what she wants went "off the market", for her at least, while she was in graduate school. She wants an educated, intelligent, supportive, successful, committed and sacrificing man in his thirties. These exists in sufficient abundance, it's merely that most of those men are either already in committed, long term relationships with people they met while in their twenties, or are not seeking a woman in her thirties with a settled career. Successful men in their thirties tend to be, by definition, successful and so most of them have already successfully found what they want at that moment, whether that's long term or non-committal.
The women I know are equally reluctant to "grow up" - what's their syndrome called? My friends aren't all men you know - how very 50s! ;)
Being childish and dysfunctional as this piece seems to be about are rather different. There are people like that. I can even think of one, and he's as bad at 50. Most guys have been changing babies, cooking, using vacuums and joining in all the mad juggling act that is a two working with kids household.
You can have responsibilites, kids, and career without having to settle into a life of dull conformity, wearing "old people" clothes and no fun beyond a weekly trip to the shops. Can't you?
> You can have responsibilites, kids, and career without having to settle into a life of dull conformity, wearing "old people" clothes and no fun beyond a weekly trip to the shops. Can't you?
I assure you, you can. Want to travel the world with your kids? You can. Want to buy a sailboat and sail the world with your kids? You can. I even know poly couples and swingers who continue to enjoy their romantic/hedonistic lives while raising 2-3 kids, while remaining well adjusted emotionally stable parenting figures.
Everyone makes trade offs in their lives, ie. everyone is shitty at some (most?) things. If you have never had to make trade offs in your life, you either have zero self-awareness, so must have lived a very special life in one way or another.
The corollary to that is people who're successful and have a lot of hobbies and have a six pack (the abs kind) probably aren't having time for relationship. She might be looking for a unicorn?
I guess it 's just a roundabout way for me to say that the problem seems to me on her end rather than the world. Even discounted for the potential self-awareness humour bit at the end, the very first paragraph already strikes me as ... a bit off.
(Quoting for reference)
> I am a woman in her 30s living in an exciting and lively urban area. I am successful, intelligent, fiercely independent, hard working, beautiful (by my own standards when I’m not PMSing), and multifaceted. I have a wonderful career, worked hard to pursue and complete graduate level education, and I am sane and stable (subjectively). I play various musical instruments, have an array of interesting and active hobbies, have loyal and loving friends and family, and my charm and wit entertain myself and others to no end. I am a catch. Not to mention, severely humble.
1) America is an infantilized society, where people are largely no longer responsible for their own and their families' well being. The idea of consequences for actions, and inactions, is fading quickly. The idea of solemn duty to others is long gone.
2) Life-long monogamy, even as an aspirational ideal, is on its death bed. Marriage is now about personal satisfaction, instead of duty to spouse and children.
Know a bunch of women with that problem. Don't know how they do it, but somehow they always get idiots (relationship wise). The guys ages ranges fron 20 to 40, the only thing that changes is that older guys pose with their money and younger with their stamina/fitness.
On the other hand I have two girlfriends who are sometimes dating other men and the other guys often end up being idiots, too...
Maybe most people are simply bad at relationships?
I'm just getting started reading this, and from what I've seen I'm pretty sure the problem the author describes is real. But I doubt I could date someone with this level of anger at the world. They will constantly take it out on you.
The perspective from this woman appears to be that men need to become responsible and that things merely happen to women; passive participants in life who don't need to take responsibility for their own actions (because that's what men are for).
Much like the original article (I base my worldview on the opinions of those around me) the problem is internal (she thinks she's a princess) but the blame goes outward (nobody treats her like one).
I guess neither has learned how to be a grown up. Considering the shape society has formed recently, I'm not surprised.
> Much like the original article (I base my worldview on the opinions of those around me) the problem is internal (she thinks she's a princess) but the blame goes outward (nobody treats her like one).
This.
IMO you become an adult when you stop thinking what others should/could do for you and you take responsibility on what you could and should do for someone else.
I think the GP's point was that you're not obligated to "take responsibility" for someone else in the general case, to the chagrin of the author. The only people I would generally accept responsibility for is a spouse or child.
Yes, my original idea was spouse and my little girl.
But some cultures consider that parents are responsability of the sons. Some people include brothers. Some include just women from the family. So, I preferred to mean it in a broader sense.
Well this is the comment that gets enough points to restore the balance stripped after I railed against technical inadequacies elsewhere?
What the fuck has sexist bitching got to do with hacking? The points system on this site is a joke. 29 points? That comment does not in any way deserve 29 fucking points.
If you take away the mans benefits of a traditional relationship what reason is there for a man to invest in one today? Certainly not the benefits that have existed for the previous hundreds(thousands) of years while our species evolved.
Should men have had those benefits? Perhaps not of course. Doesn't change the fact that they did exist and no longer do. (it's not as if this was a one way street)
There's nothing 'evil' or 'wrong' about identifying that things which previously existed no longer do.
Perhaps there's no acknowledgement of obligation/consequence because none exists anymore, whether that's a good or bad thing is a separate argument.
Here's the equality you wanted. Time to dogfood it.
Depends where you are. Places like New York or London are still brutally expensive for single-income households - prices are set at the margin, and at the margin you're going to be bidding against double-income households for all sorts of desirability criteria, not just sprog-related ones.
Even in NYC, paying $3000/mo for a 1BR is expensive but doable for a large range of the population with no dependents. And there are places in NYC that are cheaper.
Choosing the couple most extreme cases isn't very interesting.
Ah,the classic western woman. It seems to me she is done riding cock carousel and wants billy the beta to take care of her and take her on romantic dates. Well, guess what? No one wants to buy engine used in 30+ cars.
Most, if not all, including Indian and Asian women having westernized thinking are sluts to be blunt. Someone had to say it after all. They think that their actions have no consequences. Well, biggest consequence is on their own life.
As a man in my 30s, why would I settle down some used and thrown woman? What incentive do I have to settle down with women like one in the story? If career was so important why not celibate for life?
No one wants them. Where were women like her when I was asking her (or alike) out 5-10 yrs back. Sure,she can have money and sexual freedom but then don't complain saying its mens fault. No, its her fault for believing in feminism and being a slut.Karma is a bitch after all!
> I am a woman in her 30s living in an exciting and lively urban area. I am successful, intelligent, fiercely independent, hard working, beautiful (by my own standards when I’m not PMSing), and multifaceted. I have a wonderful career, worked hard to pursue and complete graduate level education, and I am sane and stable (subjectively). I play various musical instruments, have an array of interesting and active hobbies, have loyal and loving friends and family, and my charm and wit entertain myself and others to no end. I am a catch. Not to mention, severely humble.
Men are into women primarily for one deep ancestral reason: reproduction. Are you willing to drop your successful career, independence, array of interesting hobbies, move into a less exciting area to save money for the next ten years of your life? Are you willing make conceiving, delivering and raising children your new career? I didn't think so. Then don't act so surprised that mature men stay far far away from you. If all you need is someone to cheer how awesome you are, your circle of loyal and loving friends will have to do.
On a deeper level, it saddens me to no end to witness the death of a great civilization. We are here because our ancestors took motherhood seriously. Our culture is poisoning the minds of our generation with distractions and false gods. Our great-great-children may never be conceived. Nobody left to carry on. End of times.
Are you willing make conceiving, delivering and raising children your new career?
Is this anything more than a conservative's fantasy? From everything I've read, women in general never dedicated their lives to raising children. Either they were poor and had too much work to do, or they had servants to take care of them. This concept of widespread full-time motherhood doesn't seem rooted in any historical reality.
Rich westernized countries, except US, offer between 1 and 3 years of unpaid maternity leave. This is a strong recognition of the critical role mothers play in the early life of their children, and a recognition of the importance of rearing the next generation. Multiply by 2 or 3 children, and you get anywhere between 2 and 9 years of working on the "conceiving, delivering and raising children" career. Of course, it doesn't end when the child is 3 years old, more like when s/he's 18, and sometimes much later.
Furthermore, when women have a real choice between career and family, many choose family. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/05/ec.... "in the Netherlands 26.8% of men and 76.6% of women work less than 36 hours a week". I, for one, am commending them for it.
Does this mean that women should spend their entire existence attending to their children? By no means! The Dutch arrangement sound fantastic. As an old Dutch friend proudly stated, what Netherlands does today, the rest of the developed world will do in 10-20 years, so there is hope for the rest of us.
As of the lady in the OP, she has her priorities in the wrong place, no surprise adult men stay away from her.
I find a lot of times grew-up means dedicate less time to learn/play/being creative, and more time to consum and work/produce (if you not call it slavery)
I will stay with that proverb:
I am getting older, thats mean i have been younger longer than you!
well, in my opinion: what we call "adulting" is what we see when we are kids and watch our parents. but what we see is an act they perform for us - as role models - and we perceive it without all required background knowledge (because, well, we're kids).
so when we grow up and the reality doesn't exactly match our expectations, the assumption is that we're not doing it right. usually, at least when we - or close friends - get kids, the acting is explained. and we might have aquired the background knowledge, but the settings have changed.
i don't think we refuse to grow up. it's just that being an adult is not what we thought it to be when we attached meaning to the word.
I don't really like living for the benefit of others. I've noticed in my life that the more I'm working to fulfill the expectations of others, or taking care of things that they either can't do or can't do well, the more miserable that makes me. I'd say that adulthood is in several respects the process of acclimating to living your life for others.
This article spends a lot of time talking about the trappings, like cars and stuff. For me at least, having or not having that stuff has never been the issue with adulthood.
>I don't really like living for the benefit of others.
It's much easier (satisfying, even) when the other people are friends, family, spouse, neighbors... people you care about. It is no sacrifice to expend time and energy helping these people.
Short term, I readily agree. Longer term... I start to get resentful, I get tired of doing the same thing I've done a hundred times before. A kindness extended for long enough becomes an obligation. I think people should basically be able to handle things on their own.
To be clear, I don't think it's good that I feel this way. I don't think more people should be like me. But this is how I am, and attempting to deny the fact has only led to resentment, depression, and a bad time for all involved.
Just finished watching E.T. This is for the nth time. Came here, started reading all these comments with a heavy heart. As a child, I always hated growing up.
That's interesting. In Escape From Childhood in particular, John Holt's point of view is something along the lines of: children, being stuck in ("the institution of) childhood ("), look at the world and are always thinking of growing up, and what they want to do when they grow up, and so on. Roslyn Ross, who actually has a son, observes the same thing.
If it happens that some children want to remain in childhood, I suppose a possible explanation is that there could be an allegory-of-the-cave effect. I think most people like making their own decisions until adult interference gets to the point of making them worse at it.
By my age my parents were fully paid up members of middle age and led dull lives, as all their generation seemed to. They were very different people to how they described their 20s. I still recognise the me of my 20s. I'm not even becoming more conservative, I've got more liberal except in clothes!
What possible reason is there to grow up? I see no benefit to it, for anyone.