Slacker Guys and Striver Girls

So I just finished the article about slackers and strivers and I found it very interesting as I myself can probably be summed up as a typical pot slacker. Aside from the author tooting her own horn about being a striver (good for you!), I found it surprising that there were so many categories of us. I was also a little repulsed how it is conveyed that because one smokes pot, one is going save his bong before his girlfriend in the event of a disaster (thanks knockedup). Though certainly funny; a bong is material and replaceable, a girlfriends love and affection is not. I also didn't like the fact that since one is repulsed by corporate life or doesn't have the ambition to make as much money as possible, or the zillion other variables contributing to not being a professional somethingorother makes us losers. Recently I had the good fortune to date for a brief but significant time a beautiful striver, who i totally fell in love with. everything was wonderful, our personalities clicked, our sex life was good. Then she showed how classist and racist she was. Dozens of "forgiven" verbal feux pas and embarrassing moments among groups of minorities later i broke up with her. so strangely enough; me, a functional(sorta) stoned slacker, breaks up with his gorgeous striver. ironic huh?

I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed your article. I'm so
that woman who goes for that kind of boy. Arrgggh. It is a hard cycle
to break but it is good to know Im not alone. Hopefully, I will learn
from my mistakes & look the other way.

Probably the stupidest story I've ever attempted to read.

Reading your article about slacker boyfriends and striver girlfriends really put things into perspective for me. I am a 26 year old San Francisco transplant from the Central Valley. During my late teens and early 20s I was a late bloomer compared to most; I didn't know what I wanted to do or who I was, so I did nothing. I did have one thing going for me though: a girlfriend who was in love with me and was attending Santa Clara University. She was well on her way to eventually get her Masters degree at UCSB, and she eventually transferred there.

During our relationship I went from mediocre job to unemployment to part-time courses at the local community college. You've probably heard my story a million times. When she moved to Santa Barbara to work on her Masters things fell apart. I was the "bad-boy" "work-in-progress" that got her through her undergrad years. We were in love, but ultimately she decided that she was just wasting her time.

I appreciate this piece you wrote. Some of it stung. Luckily I'm on the right track now, I just wish she knew that I am not the perpetual slacker that she thought I was - she won't even return my e-mails after all these years.

-martin

Probably the best story I've ever read in SF Weekly. Thought-provoking, well-researched and highly pertinent. Has a spectacular balance of facts, personal history and personal accounts. Spicuzza should get a Pulitzer.

Pulitzer?! spfft

Look at me, I dated a bum when I was in my twenties, I must be part of a "trend." Maybe I can sucker someone into printing an article about it. People didn't date bums before the nineties, instead they dated "proto-slackers." I am so damn hip and unique, and I will never forgive that bum for hurting me so.

Look, I REALLY DID sucker somebody into printing an article about it, complete with a front page layout of slacker boys and striver girls.

AND I went to Berkeley. woohoo!

This said, not to detract from the quality of the article, but I am somewhat surprised that this is a cover story. The fact that women date slackers when they are in their twenties and then they "wise up" or "grow up" after ten years of bad decision making- is this simply not obvious? :-)

And I would maintain that despite Hollywood's evolving scripts, the jig is not up- striver girls are STILL into slackers more than they EVER were, especially if the striver girl is still under thirty, and still somewhat cavalier, confused and foolish... A skinny unemployed hipster on a Vespa or a San Quentin tatted thug brings the romance and danger that youth craves, whereas being a striver, although passionate, doesn't carry the same cachet. Being stable and secure never does, until people grow up (or grow old LOL).

I would maintain the article might best be retitled- "striver girls in their thirties are fed up with your shit, bro, we're not into you anymore." LOL

Anyway this was a fun article, boldy written written with gusto- thanks! Can't think of an article in SFWeekly that ever made me write in before.

This article rocks! I agree, Spicuzza writes from the hip. I went through my share of slacker relationships and began dating non-slackers by age twenty-four. Thanks for the memories. And the inspiration.

Whoaa.... you mean yuppie women don't like stoner bros? Front page news!

Well if this the best story EVER in the SF weekly then it just goes to show the sad state of journalism in this City. Fluff, fluff, and more fluff, hipster nonsense. It reads like some yuppie chicks Teen People mag and it is just as important and relevant.

Congratulations for your "No Love For Slackers" article. As a male in process of leaving my semi-slacker life, I do have some comments about it.

I'm a foreigner who's been in San Francisco for nearly 7 years, and, in addition to that, I drive a cab in the city. My job allows me to talk to a number o different people, allowing me to have a glimpse of the minds of every type.

Regarding the definition of "slacker", I agree that it has more to do with attitude than income. One of my favorite books, probably because I'm sorta going through a similar crisis, is High Fidelity. I'd like to point out that Rob's girlfriend didn't exactly saved him. They were both in a mid-life crisis, which affected their relationship. Both made mistakes throughout the story, the difference being that she was growing up faster than him, in part because of the more dynamic nature of her job. Although it may look like Rob was a slacker, he wasn't. He was just a small business owner whose business' profits were declining due to a recession in England at the time. Have you ever picture yourself as an M.B.A. working for Charles Schwab and dating a guy who owns a humble cafe in some forgotten neighborhood in San Francisco? You'd probably have something new and exciting to discuss at diner every night, but what about him?

What it all boils down to is experience. Amy, the first woman pictured in your article is a good example. We're never the same person everyday. We change. The difference is in the pace of that change. Some people take longer to grow up (become mature). I'm talking from personal experience too. You quoted John Gray in your article. I have read two of his books, including "Man Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus". I agree with him when he says "It's a recipe for failure when women take on men as projects", and contrasting it with what Gentille said about rescue-type relationships, I think they are talking about two different types of slackers. Gray is probably talking about the totally aloof type of slacker, and the latter is talking about someone who recognizes his faults and is willing to work his issues so that the relationship can thrive. We learn gradually, in small increments. I think some women date the aloof type and then, after and if they learn from their past mistakes, go to the cooperating, more self-aware type.

Some repeat the same patterns many times until they learn. Like Gabrielle Revere, also quoted in your article. What an impressive professional and personal track! However, I can't help but wonder: "Did she really have time to find and nurture a relationship with the "right guy" traveling around the world as a photographer and doing volunteering work for so many years? I've had a relationship with an older woman who had moved to San Francisco some five years before I met her to live with a former junkie she met in New Orleans. She had a chronic problem with commitment (funny is, she was committed to that guy, who ended up having an online affair), and that was the reason why I said goodbye to her. I learned a lot from her, and one of the best things was a book by another relationship guru, Harville Hendrix. She showed me his first book, "Getting the Love You Want", and found a description (along with explanations) of her personality type and her relationship patterns. We studied the book together for a while, and, when we broke up, I bought "Keeping The Love You Find", by the same author. This other book was written for single people, and goes in much more depth about the roots (childhood wounds) of our defense mechanisms and how they affec our adult relationships. I became aware of my own defense mechanisms and my last relationship was nearly a success story (I'm still friends with my ex), with no drama, no judgements, no resentment. One of the reasons it failed was that I was the overgiving one, to the point of neglecting my own needs, and my insatisfaction started to weigh on the relationship.

I get that your article tries to find an answer as why some successful or promising women date slackers. The answers are within them, really. If they get to know themselves, dig deep into their childhood issues, and work to change her defense mechanisms, they'll be able to understand why they fall in love with those types of guys in the first place, and will be able to recognize a potential mate who's more evolved and is willing to do the hard work needed to make a relationship work. This, of course, takes a long time, and you put it beautifully by saying that the defining characteristic of a slacker is a lack of commitment of passion to those he loves. Only mature people can really honor commitments. Commitments, however, are only one of many pre-requisites for a long-term relationship to prosper and grow.

I really enjoyed this article. I used to depend too much on my girlfriend, and I didn't see how it was hurting her. Now I work a lot harder to be supportive on all levels. Thanks for bringing the issue to the surface.

i started out writing something scathing and mean, because my emotions were getting the better of me. i just want to say this; women who believe that they can change men DURING a relationship are wrong. he won't turn into the man you want him to be untill you throw his heart down the garbage disposal and start dating that straightlaced prick with a beamer. my roommate insinuated that i didn't know what the article was attempting to unravel as some great mystery; but i get it. women, ever the idealists, put unfair expectations on men and when they don't fit the mold its out the door. and they should. its totally fair that women should get everything they need from their husband or boyfriend or lover. i find, as a full fledged, gainfully employed in a shit job slacker that women have no interest in dating me. i don't think there is a quantifiable concentration of these women in san francisco and if there is tell me where they hang out so one of them can nurse me back to health.

you totally made my day today. Once I started to read your article, I couldn't put it down...laughing and making a spectacle of myself in the process. I'm a 28 year old chiropractic grad school student that very much related to your article. I just wanted to tell you good job, I loved it, and I shared it with all my friends on the internet and at school!

With Every Good Wish,

Grace Velasquez

This article doesn't address an important aspect of these situations.

Many people I know, both guys and girls, display classic "striver" attributes and work their asses off, but yield only "slacker" results. How can one determine if the other person a "striver" having a bad year, or a "slacker" having a lucky year?

The story seems a bit overly judgmental. It kind of reinforces the idea that it's better to jump from one thing to the next in hopes of randomly finding the "perfect" match instead of putting in the work and commitment needed for a truly long-lasting, loving relationship.

Mary,
Your article was such a delight. I am one of those striver girls that
went for the slacker boys.
I think having a father who was definitely from the wrong side of the
tracks yet found success validated my fantasy that it could work. Bad
boy makes good, James Dean, Steve McQueen, the whole fun stupid
fantasy. Of course the reality is, my dad married great women (my mom
and step-mom) and he was a functioning alcoholic for years and a general
asshole. Still the fantasy was more powerful than the reality.I wanted
one of those men that was dangerous, fun, yet knew when to behave. (I
don't think they exist except in the movies.) I am done with being the
fixer upper. If that means I am alone then fine. I am finally okay with
that. I want someone who shows up for his life, not someone I have to
coax into showing up.
I am showing up for me now. And you know what? it is okay. Your mother
was right, any man that does not see how great you are, doesn't deserve
you.
Take care,

Beth

This is the most fetid article I've ever read and should not be considered "journalism." So, ladies sometimes go on dates with guys who turn out to be jerks? And this is some important new trend that's being reflected in cutting edge cinema? Give me a break.

I enjoyed your article immensely. Though it focused mainly on
younger women, 20- and 30-somethings, I think it relates
very well to women "of a certain age," many of whom are divorced or widowed.

I am 60-ish and find that it's a phenomenon that resounds with me and my peers.
The elements of being self-sufficient, the perception (or reality) of there being
fewer available men, the reality of there being a scarcity of active, fun-loving
men with whom you'll have a good time drive some of us to seek out and settle
for such men. And, as you describe so well, the trade off is the all the hair-tearing-out
frustration that goes with it being with a guy who doesn't pull his own weight.
So, for many of us, the woman pulls the plug, as I did after four years.
I hadn't realized that the issue was so prevalent with younger women, as well.

It reminds me of the Greek and Italian men who live so long with their mothers
and who are so spoiled by them that they have never had to cultivate the tools
or manifest the desire to be a full-fledged, committed partner.

Susan
Chicago

Mary,
 
I enjoyed your article immensely.  Though it focused mainly on
younger women, 20- and 30-somethings, I think it relates
very well to women "of a certain age," many of whom are divorced or widowed.  
 
I am 60-ish and find that it's a phenomenon that resounds with me and my peers.
The elements of being self-sufficient, the perception (or reality) of there being
fewer available men, the reality of there being a scarcity of active, fun-loving
men with whom you'll have a good time drive some of us to seek out and settle
for such men.  And, as you describe so well, the trade off is the all the hair-tearing-out
frustration that goes with it being with a guy who doesn't pull his own weight. 
So, for many of us, the woman pulls the plug, as I did after four years.
I hadn't realized that the issue was so prevalent with younger women, as well.
 
It reminds me of the Greek and Italian men who live so long with their mothers
and who are so spoiled by them that they have never had to cultivate the tools
or manifest the desire to be a full-fledged, committed partner.
 
Susan
Chicago

Thanks so much for this article! You made me laugh, cry and so happy I know that I'm not alone.

I'm going through a painful break-up with a long-time boyfriend who "couldn't decide" whether or not to commit– for six years! During his lengthy period of "indecision," I was often left to my own devices through my trials and tribulations. Slackers seem to have a way of being absent during these critical moments.

The slacker "guy"/striver woman model is a dangerous trend. Young women see films like "Knocked Up" and get the idea that if they can wait out someone's maturing process (and, based on certain adolescent responses posted here, some will never get there!), then their love interest will magically transform from a horny toad into a prince, simply by basking in the warmth of their good woman's love. I think we'd all have a greater likelihood of winning the lottery.

Mary, please keep writing these thought-provoking, pertinent articles. We striver women can really use your humor and support!

Mary,

This article reads like the one-sided rant of a woman with more than a bit of vindictive baggage to unload because she got burned too many times from willingly making the same dumb mistakes over and over with men. You've built your article on a plethora of mostly pop-culture movie and TV references. Shouldn't a UC Berkeley grad rise above the sludge?

In Denby's article, he laments the fact that in these films, women are “vehicles” and guys are portrayed as caricatures of real masculinity. You seem to revel and wallow in these crudely drawn male portraits; apparently, you want to legitimize these "fantasy slacker dudes" and "striver women" as well. You also make the sly reference to the book "He's Just Not That Into You," by an ex-writer of "Sex and the City" (a show that has set male-female relations back 30 years). We have enough barriers in communication between the sexes without your article adding more fuel to the fantasy. Males and females don’t fit into those little boxes so easily. Even a man with “three masters degrees” has got to be a shade more complex than the label “slacker” affords him.

Also, it sounds to me as if your “striver” friend "Meghan, 41," is having trouble (like the rest of the shrinking middle class) "getting to the next stage of life" (per Denby's definition of slackerdom). Shouldn't she have already ditched those three roommates and ascended to the coveted 10% echelon in S.F. of those who "own" their own homes? I'd say she’s not "striving" hard enough.

Any weight your striver vs. slacker argument might have carried dissipates when you inject yourself into the article at the end; you swap your position a la "the Hollywood turnaround". You don’t work at destroying the old Newsweek-styled, broadly painted Generation X slacker myth; you buy into it. Sounds like you want to be a screenwriter more than a journalist.

And really, you think Lloyd Dobler was not a slacker because he had passion? As much as I love his character, this is the guy who CREATED the slacker manifesto: "I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that."

And when huckster/suckerer John Gray contributes the article's most on-target points? Maybe next time you could quote Dr. Phil…

For an interesting male take on where Lloyd Dobler’s character fits into “Debunking the Romantic Comedy Happily Ever After Myth” go to http://www.pajiba.com/what-really-happened-to-lloyd-dobler.htm

And a real-life female "striver" take: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/02/persistent-lloyd-dobler-fetish.html

I love this article! It's so utterly accurate, well-balanced and meaningful for today's relationships. The necessity of men is becoming obsolete. Hopefully, they're grow up, so we can enjoy them. The rest, yes, kick 'em to the curb, ladies! They'll go the way of the dinosaur.

How to spot a slacker guy:

1. He takes no pride in his appearance.
2. He have no genuine ambition.
3. When you cry, he sprints faster than the Road Runner!
4. He hangs around blog sites.
5. He thinks Wikipedia is cool.

P.S.: Thanks for the rockin' article!

To the previous comment writer, Mark, you sound ignorant. You sound like you've come in contact with too many "scorned" women and you're making a lot of assumptions. And, as they say, assuming only makes an ass out of you...and, well, you.

Take care.

I'm a stud in my forties and I know for a fact that it's not the men who need to get their "stuff" together it's the women! They cry for help anytime they can't measure up and a man has to run to their rescue. Who built and defended this country for eons? Not women that's for sure. So quit the victim hood ladies and own up to your own poor decisions and inability to get the job done. All us men are turned off by you drama queens and are looking for foreign women who know how to treat a man right without all the nagging and impossible expectations. What a stupid article which poisons women's view of men and joins shows like "sex and the city" which bashes men and excuses women's cheating and terrible behavior toward men.

And jose is, of course, single. The rest of his fool rant speaks for itself.

Adding to JTr's list of how to spot a slacker man:

6. Still uses milk crates for bookshelves.
7. Refers to himself as a "stud".

Awesome article! I finally relieved myself of my "slacker" dude and am happy to have discovered a good, supportive man--- we're geting hitched on Maui next fall!

Thanks so much for your humor and insights! Perhaps you could follow up with an article on recovering striver women :-)

The author writes: "That's because breaking away from the slacker-boy trap isn't about wanting a man with money. A guy who loves and supports his wife enough to become a house husband? Now that's hot."
Not necessarily true, in my case anyway. She was definitely a striver, 21 when we wed, and I was 30. For the next 13 years I worked as a journalist, full-time except when I went to half-time and worked from home after our second daughter was born. I truly loved being a dad at home and our kids loved it. (Later on she told me she didn't really want children but got pregnant because I wanted kids.)
It really was about money for her, and she could see after a time that I wasn't a striver about making more and more money, so she set off to do it herself, getting an advanced nursing degree after which we moved to another state. Then I became a full-time dad at home, managing the household and trying to sell freelance pieces. We bought a brand-new spec home, a nice place, and we were getting ahead financially, mainly on her salary supplemented a little bit by my freelance work. Sometimes we would take a drive together with a six pack of beer and some snacks to explore the new area. Invariably she wanted to go look at houses, big houses, houses that I thought were obscene and gave me a sinking feeling, knowing that I never wanted to live in one or would make enough money to help put us in one.
When our girls were 12 and 9 she said the marriage was over. Her plan to tell the kids was to first go out for pizza and come home and tell them. The most miserable meal I ever "ate." And I'll leave the "telling" them, which she did, up to your imagination. I told her beforehand don't do this, if you don't I'll have my right arm amputated. And I would have then. Now I'm not so sure it would have been a good idea.
Now, 10 years later, she's got a husband who makes in excess of %100,000 like she does. They live in that big house, though there are bigger ones. I make less than half what she does. We agreed, after I held out for it, on joint custody, so the girls now had two homes. Their childhood was basically stolen. But the striver got what she wanted.
The above admittedly simplifies our situation. Our goals and needs in life were too far apart. I spent way too much time trying to become like her and she not enough trying to be more like me. Our social life revolved around her friends. She was social, I was not. She craved being the center of attention. I was happier making sure the kids were fed and reading them to sleep.
Our daughters are doing OK, I guess, both in college. I know that they both tend to look at life like their dad does. That's a huge comfort to me.

SallyG,
When you don't have an argument or anything worthwhile to say you just insult the person? Why don't you argue on the merits of the article and call me a Loser? This article is bald face justification for women to be golddiggers. What self-made woman in the article is a striver but yet has three roommates? And name a women CEO who hasn't made a shame of herself lately like Carly Fiorino? Women who appreciate men and don't try to change them = definitely hot. Women who complain and hurl insults like SallyG = Loser. Plus I have plenty of relationships I just have to rotate the women because they are usually so sad and lacking in relatonship skills.

Why jose! I didn't call you a loser. You did.

Why jose! I didn't call you a loser. You did.

Why jose! SallyG didn't call you a loser. You did.

Gee,
I wonder why the last couple of email have both Emily and Sally on it. GEE..... I wonder if it's actually Mary herself trying to squelch any thoughtful debate about sure an unfair, and sexist article. Afterall, a femi-nazis approach is to silence any debate or opposition. Women who take responsibility for their actions and choices = definitly hot. Feminist who blames men for their unhappiness = Emily and Sally.

Jose.

So an adolescent Barbie fantasy is supposed to trump an adolescent slacker fantasy ? Did it occur to the author that those might be two sides of the same shallow, lifeless coin. Well, no worries re. limitless ambition on my part, I gotta go get my chocolate soufflé out of the oven.

I love Cosmopolitan Magazine informed lifestyle pieces like this. Ally McBeal, Sex and the City, Friends, you are onto something major here!

Having poured emotions, time, and thousands of dollars into a slacker, pot addicted girlfriend, and as a striver boy vs. slacker boy, I think it has very little to do with sex roles at all, and by framing it through the gender lens you lost some credibility.

I also think there's something to be said generally in terms of urban strivers vs. rural "contents" (for lack of a better term) that could have been explored.

The real question here is, why are the slackers so prevalent now? There didn't seem to be many slackers back a generation or two ago, So? The belief is that as women anxiously take on more responsibility, they are relieving men of the expectations that were once deemed exclusive to the males. In effect, the unshackling and liberation of women, has indirectly caused the unshackling and liberation of men. No longer does a man have to worry about raising the kids - the woman with her imaginative range of multi-tasking capabilities will handle it. No longer does a man have to worry about holding a steady job - women have now taken this task to heart.

Yes, the next step in evolution has begun - it will be manifested as the domestication of men. Time to breed the beast out.

"Slacker Guys and Striver Girls" addresses very important issues about male and female roles in relationships. Many women feel that their overall freedom and sense of control or security are mandatory. Yet we also want to be supported and nurtured. Mary Spicuzza is right on to address these topics. It's interesting how often women seek to improve themselves and men attack them for it. It leads to tremendous backlash. Case in point, Hollywood films portraying model-like go-getters with geek-like stoners, as unreal as our govenor playing a futuristic robotic hitman. And while these images do exert a force that could set women's progress back, I for one will not attend these screenings. The president of Warner Brothers recently commented that "women's films" would be reduced, due to lack of revenue. But Ben Stiller's last movie bombed, and I'm certain studios will not be dimishing his output or salary any time soon. Judging from the multiple views and responses of "Slacker Guys and Striver Girls", the topic is clearly significant. We need voices like Spicuzza and Finke to bring these issues to the surface. Thanks for taking our hopes and fears in hand. Please, a reprise!

Wonder no longer, jose. You flatter yourself too much. Then cry victim to be sure. Sally and I have no need to "squelch" you. You do it very well on your own. Yawn.

Back to more meaningful conversation. I do see the relevance of addressing the "slacker-striver" dynamic in gay relationships. But I think it's a different article. Or a much-extended one.

While I can look to details here and apply certain aspects to my own experiences with women, especially in my early twenties, I think in general the article works best with male-female relations. As the title indicates, intergender interaction involves a particular dynamic-- and, let's face it, the writer expresses concern over how these roles are portrayed in a movie called "Knocked Up"-- unlikely we're going to see homosexual dynamics there!

I don't find this piece prejudicial any more than I would one specifically identifying same-sex relationships. And an article addressing queer dynamics wouldn't encompass or even necessarily pertain to hetrosexual ones, either.

In response to ths comment posted by Jose Ruiz:
"Gee, I wonder why the last couple of email have both Emily and Sally on it. GEE..... I wonder if it's actually Mary herself trying to squelch any thoughtful debate about sure an unfair, and sexist article."

I welcome debate and I'm proud of what I write--therefore I don't believe in writing postings using fake names.

Best wishes.

This is the Jeff that was quoted in the article. Whenever I am part of the story or witness it, the article always misses some major, significant facts.

For example, even though you only devoted a couple paragraphs to my angle, there are a few serious errors. First, I told you that I do most of the cooking for my wife. You said it was the other way around. Second, you said about me, "and he says they've decided that they are pretty comfortable with the current state of affairs," when actually what I said (or meant to say) was that I thought women's gender roles were changing and the male response has been ambivalent because we want to be supportive but we also want to stay men.

You implied that she runs marathons and I don't. The fact is, and I told you this, we both run marathons, but she got me into them. You also wrote: "She also usually takes care of the plumbing, paints the house, and does remodeling work. He tries to be her 'helper,' but his chosen methods of relaxation generally involve videogames and golfing." First, she knows more about plumbing than I do, but I don't think I said she "does the plumbing." I also really like how you compare my chosen methods of relaxation with labor she does when she's not relaxing, as if she paints the house and remodels to relax. It just feels like a pointless confabulation.

I do generally feel like she has more energy than I do. But when I try to step out of my own shoes and read the article considering "Jeff" as a character who's not me, but knowing about the error you made about the cooking, it occurs to me that he's not really a slacker. He's more like the house-husband, non-alpha male type who thinks he is a slacker. And that's actually an ego boost. I can't blame you for that Mary, because it probably is too much to ask a journalist to double-check that the self-professed slacker really is one. But thanks for helping me realize I'm not a slacker in a roundabout way. Maybe I never was.

Mary,
So you may not squelch serious debate but you certainly twist the facts to fit your agenda according to the last poster? If that is the real "Jeff" you have absolutely no credibility with me nor will I ever read another article with your name on it.

Jose

I think the first two paragraphs of this article sums up the issue nicely, actually. Amy believed her anxiety dream about her boyfriend even though there was no baby present, and didn't believe him when he assured her it wouldn't be that way.

Men have always done what is necessary. When women were housewives, men provided. Now that women are strivers, maybe men are seeing the necessity of contentedness. Maybe men see now that women have lost track of is that you can be happy with what you have, where you are.

One of John Gray's central themes is that men and women speak different languages and don't understand each other. Perhaps what's really going on in the slacker-striver dynamic is a disagreement over what is necessary. What makes a woman strive? What makes her thirst for more? Perhaps that's different from what motivates a man?

Knocked-Up is a guy movie. It's written, produced and viewed by men. We can bag on Hollywood all we want, but the fact is women don't go see movies as much as men do. They go sohpping instead, and studios know that. This is why you see mostly guy flicks in the theatres and mostly women's clothing stores in the malls. I don't think a movie like Knocked-Up says that women should date slackers. It's a microsoft-excel "what-if" scenerio. The writers took a typical knocked-up situation, and changed one cell from "she moves on" to "she stays" and then follows the numbers cascade all the way through to the conclusion: He comes through. Maybe it's a male fantasy, maybe it's not. We'll never know, because what woman has that kind of trust?

Oh, and after sleeping on it, I do still feel pretty misrepresented in the article. The article takes careful pains to define and categorize the slackers. Mary and I never discussed those categories in our discussions, and I'm not sure I would have self-identified as any of them if we had.

Hey Jeff,

Thanks so much for your email. I'm sorry that you feel I misrepresented you in the piece. I've contacted my editor, and we'll carefully review my notes to see if there were any factual errors that need to be corrected based on what you told me and what I reported in the article.

Talk to you soon.

Mary,
Too little, too late, the damage has been done. I'm sure your feminists sisters are giving you high fives about now. A man-hating and sexist article once again published in a liberal rag to promote it's man-hating agenda. Gee I wonder if you and your editor will publish a correction with a huge picture in the next SFWeakly? Oh wait I bet you'll discover that your dog ate your notes.

Jose

Jeff,

Your message contains a plethora of distorted views and grossly sexist remarks. Since 1986, 86% of single-parent families have been women-led and women-supported. I was the head of one such family. I don't shop. I am a filmmaker of women-driven films. Many women I know don't shop and love movies. Some EVEN make movies. What are women striving for? Better movies than "Knocked Up." More throughtfulness, less bourgeois. Equal pay for equal work. A voice in culture and history. Freedom from violence, poverty and fear. Perhaps, after your gender suffers millenniums of being "Knocked Up" the a**, literally and figuratively, out of power politics and gender prejudice, you'll view things differently. Until then, please try to be a little more mindful, then open your mouth.

JM

Well the last comment urged me to ask this question regarding supposed gender discrimination. Who has traditionally defended this nation in time of war? Who died defending free speech and our wonderful democracy which allows it's citizens to acquire unlimited wealth? Well it's been men who died, about 6 million if you count just the two last world wars. So before you get up on your pedestal because you decided to have a child out of wedlock and feel self-righteous from past discriminations, which you didn't bear the brunt of yourself, you should be thoughtful yourself before you post such a bitter spiteful retort against men. After all, freedom and defending that freedom is what allows you to make your little self-rightous films. Try doing that in one of the middle east countries.

Well the last comment urged me to ask this question regarding supposed gender discrimination. Who has traditionally defended this nation in time of war? Who died defending free speech and our wonderful democracy which allows it's citizens to acquire unlimited wealth? Well it's been men who died, about 6 million if you count just the two last world wars. So before you get up on your pedestal because you decided to have a child out of wedlock and feel self-righteous from past discriminations, which you didn't bear the brunt of yourself, you should be thoughtful yourself before you post such a bitter spiteful retort against men. After all, freedom and defending that freedom is what allows you to make your little self-rightous films. Try doing that in one of the middle east countries.

Well the last comment urged me to ask this question regarding supposed gender discrimination. Who has traditionally defended this nation in time of war? Who died defending free speech and our wonderful democracy which allows it's citizens to acquire unlimited wealth? Well it's been men who died, about 6 million if you count just the two last world wars. So before you get up on your pedestal because you decided to have a child out of wedlock and feel self-righteous from past discriminations, which you didn't bear the brunt of yourself, you should be thoughtful yourself before you post such a bitter spiteful retort against men. After all, freedom and defending that freedom is what allows you to make your little self-rightous films. Try doing that in one of the middle eastern countries.

JM,
So you don't shop and run a family? Who buys the toilet paper? At least you have time for practicing your victimhood. And Jeff isn't opening his mouth he's typing but I'm sure you can't handle that either. Diversity and tolerance only if he agrees with you.....

JM,
So you don't shop and run a family? Who buys the toilet paper? At least you have time for practicing your victimhood. And Jeff isn't opening his mouth he's typing but I'm sure you can't handle that either. Diversity and tolerance only if he agrees with you.....

I'd respond to the last five comments which seem, like sexism and history, to repeat themselves, but you can't reason with nonsense.

"Supposed" gender discrimination? Wow, Charles, you mean you *doubt* what's under your nose exists? And who pray tell has "traditionally" created war? Men perhaps? How heroic to cause death, poverty and destruction and then protect us poor helpless females like Florence Nightingale, Joan of Arc and Simone Weil. "Unlimited wealth"? Clearly you don't live in my neighborhood. Oh, and a tip: men, women and children died in every war recorded. Did JM say she had "a child out of wedlock"? Single parents are made by death, divorce, choice-- a slew of factors. Before you whip out more scarlet letters, consider how you use the term "self-righteous" like a battle cry, only to indicate yourself in the process. Every women-driven film is "self-righteous"? Well, that's the last time I watch Amy Heckerling's "Clueless"! By the way, I know a woman in Palestine. She writes poetry and makes films. Yes, ignorance does echo like a resounding gong, Charles. No wonder humanity is on the brink of extinction.

Whenever you speak in generalities you run the risk of offending.

I don't think it's sexist to acknowledge that 1. studios know that men go see movies more often than women and 2. "Knocked Up" was targeted to men and 3. Men and women are motivated by different things. There are a lot of interesting issues here. Acknowledging the facts behind the issues is hardly sexist. I don't think it's sexist to categorize men and women into slackers and strivers, but some guys here are offended by that.

Mindfulness before speaking is one thing, and that's a lesson interviewing with Mary has helped me to learn. But there's also a lesson about holding a space of curiosity, and not jumping to a space of indignation too soon.

Whenever you speak in generalities you run the risk of offending.

I don't think it's sexist to acknowledge that 1. studios know that men go see movies more often than women and 2. "Knocked Up" was targeted to men and 3. Men and women are motivated by different things. There are a lot of interesting issues here. Acknowledging the facts behind the issues is hardly sexist. I don't think it's sexist to categorize men and women into slackers and strivers, but some guys here are offended by that.

Mindfulness before speaking is one thing, and that's a lesson interviewing with Mary has helped me to learn. But there's also a lesson about holding a space of curiosity, and not jumping to a space of indignation too soon.

Whenever you speak in generalities you run the risk of offending.

I don't think it's sexist to acknowledge that 1. studios know that men go see movies more often than women and 2. "Knocked Up" was targeted to men and 3. Men and women are motivated by different things. There are a lot of interesting issues here. Acknowledging the facts behind the issues is hardly sexist. I don't think it's sexist to categorize men and women into slackers and strivers, but some guys here are offended by that.

Mindfulness before speaking is one thing, and that's a lesson interviewing with Mary has helped me to learn. But there's also a lesson about holding a space of curiosity, and not jumping to a space of indignation too soon.

I agree, Jeff. When you speak in generalities you run the risk of offending-- so why do you continue to do so? "studios know that men go see movies more often than women" is a sexist generality, and is not factual. "Knocked Up" would fall under the category of "romantic comedy" and is therefore targeted towards women. But it is a "men's" movie, a "men's" perspective", a "men's" fantasy, to be sure, and not too funny for many women for that reason. I will agree that men and women are motivated by different things, generally speaking. "Acknowledging the facts behind the issues is hardly sexist" may generally be true, but you are not stating "facts." Your opinions, some of which are clearly falsehoods, are views through sexist-colored glasses, though it seems you are not aware of it. "I don't think it's sexist to categorize men and women into slackers and strivers, but some guys here are offended by that." It's one thing to be offended, even to disagree, but it's quite another for these "men" to take highly personal ad hominem pot shots at women they don't even know on a comment section of a weekly. Herein lies the insidiousness of male sexism. When these "men" are threatened, they attack in the form of shaming and humiliation. It's inexcusable. And weak. "But there's also a lesson about holding a space of curiosity, and not jumping to a space of indignation too soon." I would agree with your statement in certain contexts, but not generally. I think there is also wisdom in indignation, where indignation is due. Nothing personal, but I find some of your views and opinions sexist. I will hold a space of hope that you'll see it for yourself, and then grow accordingly. The rest can get "Knocked Up"-side the head.

JM, you're talking about highly personal potshots I didn't make. I can't speak for those, because I don't do it.

I don't think it's a sexist falsehood to acknowledge A) differences between women and men and B) the fact that movie studios (and retailers) capitalize on those differences and further that C) the fact that one movie hits a nerve on a slacker/striver dynamic that men and women react differently to.

You might be offended by some categorizations, but that doesn't make them invalid or un-useful. Are you really arguing that it's not valid to say that women spend more in retail stores than men do? Are you really saying it's not true that men, in general, spend more on movies?

I would like to point out, also, that you make all kinds of personal statements about me based on your interpretation of what I wrote. You make unfounded statements about my mindfulness, the disposition of my glasses, and how much growth I've done or haven't done. You break your perspective when you do that, and it really kills what could be a great discussion.

Anyway, this energy creature is fat enough. I'm not feeding it anymore.

JM
"Insidious male sexism" What is that? What about "insidious female sexism?" I find it ridiculous that the feminist movement has run so dry of issues that they have to complaine about "insidious male sexism" Whatever that is (feminists please don't attempt to define it because then it's some b.s. to fit your agenda). And why are these posters missing the real point here: The "Jeff" in this article is completely miss-characterized by the author just to make women look good and men to look bad and this publication does nothing about it other than "look at notes" Wow some accountability! Why don't they contact this person directly and get his side of the story, after all he's already stated Mary got a little carried away with his reputation.

Jose

Thanks for a great article! It made me smile and gave me a lot of hope. I believe women's contributions are and will continue to be significant!

Thanks so much for all of your comments.
I strive for accuracy, and it's our policy to correct factual errors. Therefore I'm currently reviewing emails that I received from Jeff and my interview notes, and have brought Jeff's concerns to the attention of my editor. While we discuss the issue, I thought it would be appropriate to share some of Jeff's on-the-record comments that didn't make it into the article.

*
In an email from Jeff dated 10/18/2007:
I'm the male slacker half of a slacker/striver marriage. We work out
OK. There is a general feeling around the house of her having more
energy than I do, and her wanting to do more, and me feeling pushed,
but we compliment each other well.

I think the media is on to the slacker/striver archetype, but I think
it's missing what's really going on. Women now feel that because they
have a lot more choices than they used to, they have to pile more on
to their plates. Because they've been kept down so long, they're
really motivated now. And men, well, we love the women and are more
than happy to let them go ahead and try and carry as much as they can.

*
Notes from a follow-up phone interview with Jeff:
In terms of household leadership:
“On top of working, she [his wife] decorates our house, she paints it, she bought it (I was on a business trip), she does plumbing, picks out curtains, wall hangings. I’d be just as happy living in a plain room.”
“I feel like I’m going to screw up if I join, she likes it a certain way. If I do, I’m definitely a helper. She wants it done a certain way.”

In terms of cooking:
“I’m still clueless…I’ll put something together for us: stir-fries, pasta, burritos. It’s one level above ramen and mac & cheese (a bunch of stuff thrown in a pan, over a bed of rice).”

In terms of exercise:
“She makes me more fit”

*
However, I may have misinterpreted or misheard what Jeff said to me during our interview. Thanks for your patience as we determine whether a correction should be made.

Thanks so much for all of your comments.
I strive for accuracy, and it's our policy to correct factual errors. Therefore I'm currently reviewing emails that I received from Jeff as well as my interview notes, and I have brought Jeff's concerns to the attention of my editor. While we discuss the issue, I thought it would be appropriate to share some of Jeff's on-the-record comments that didn't make it into the article.

*
In an email from Jeff dated 10/18/2007:
I'm the male slacker half of a slacker/striver marriage. We work out
OK. There is a general feeling around the house of her having more
energy than I do, and her wanting to do more, and me feeling pushed,
but we compliment each other well.

I think the media is on to the slacker/striver archetype, but I think
it's missing what's really going on. Women now feel that because they
have a lot more choices than they used to, they have to pile more on
to their plates. Because they've been kept down so long, they're
really motivated now. And men, well, we love the women and are more
than happy to let them go ahead and try and carry as much as they can.

*
Notes from a follow-up phone interview with Jeff:
In terms of household leadership:
"On top of working, she [his wife] decorates our house, she paints it, she bought it (I was on a business trip), she does plumbing, picks out curtains, wall hangings. I’d be just as happy living in a plain room."
"I feel like I’m going to screw up if I join, she likes it a certain way. If I do, I’m definitely a helper. She wants it done a certain way."

In terms of cooking:
"I’m still clueless…I’ll put something together for us: stir-fries, pasta, burritos. It’s one level above ramen and mac & cheese (a bunch of stuff thrown in a pan, over a bed of rice)."

In terms of exercise:
"She makes me more fit."

*
However, I may have misinterpreted or misheard what Jeff said to me during our interview. Thanks for your patience as we determine whether a correction should be made.

here here - I agree - men need to wake up and realize that relationships take maturity, attention and an income if they want love to last - especially if they are drawn to sexy, smart women who have a strong balance of both their masculine drive and their feminine softness that men seem to cling to (like a life jacket in the open sea) at the end of the day.

loved the article - see my blog post at
http://blogs.personallifemedia.com/just-for-women-dating-relationships-sex/

here here - I agree - men need to wake up and realize that relationships take maturity, attention and an income if they want love to last - especially if they are drawn to sexy, smart women who have a strong balance of both their masculine drive and their feminine softness that men seem to cling to (like a life jacket in the open sea) at the end of the day.

loved the article - see my blog post at
http://blogs.personallifemedia.com/just-for-women-dating-relationships-sex/

Alissa Kriteman - host of Just for Women: Dating, Relationships and Sex

here here - I agree - men need to wake up and realize that relationships take maturity, attention and an income if they want love to last - especially if they are drawn to sexy, smart women who have a strong balance of both their masculine drive and their feminine softness that men seem to cling to (like a life jacket in the open sea) at the end of the day.

loved the article - see my blog post at
http://blogs.personallifemedia.com/just-for-women-dating-relationships-sex/

Alissa Kriteman - host of Just for Women: Dating, Relationships and Sex

Mary,

I thought your notes were pretty accurate. I feel less misrepresented in your notes than in the article. I do think what I told you was slanted from a self-deprecating viewpoint, which might have been a mistake. For example, my culinary expertise might be one or two levels above ramen and mac and cheese as far as the work involved, but it's leaps and bounds above it the quality of ingredients I choose and the level of nutrition it provides. I chose not to emphasize that, because I don't like to pump up myself too much.

Putting the notes aside, there are inaccuracies between your notes and the article. I just don't understand how you got from, "I’m still clueless…I’ll put something together for us: stir-fries, pasta, burritos." To your statement in the article that she does the cooking and the plumbing. Did you look back on your notes and assume taht since I was the clueless one, then she must do the cooking? I might struggle to have a clue in the kitchen, but that's where I make my contribution and she seems happy with it.

Also, you quoted me in your notes as saying that she keeps me fit, which is great, but that quote was omitted from the article but you said she ran marathons. The net implication was that she does and I don't.

Anyway, I made light of it during our discussions, but I do take issue with the slacker-striver dynamic. I feel like a real issue under the surface is one of contentment vs. dissatisfaction? Is a guy who is content with his lot in life really a slacker? Is someone who is so unsatisfied they have to always strive for more really a model? I think the real story might be that gender roles are changing, and what that shift is revealing is who is content and who is not.

This letter was received by email, forwarded with permission:

Miss Spicuzza, I sent off the below comment on your "Slacker" piece to SF Weekly. Since you invited discussion, thought I would also send you a copy - in case they don't share.

Wishing you the best in your new relationship. You're right, of course, that the money doesn't matter - except when it does. (Most early marriages fall apart over money, when money is in short supply).

Want some "old guy" advice on money (beside: have an ample amount)? You and future hubbie set-up a "red" account (so-called because ours is housed in a red check-book cover). Out of this we pay household expenses - everything common to the marriage and running the house.

We fund the red with an equal percentage of our incomes. The percent that we keep for ourselves is our responsibility. ( "Buy all the shoes you want, dear - me, I fancy that new motorcycle" - and the red is left alone). Yeah, this system works best when parties can run the household with somewhat less than every penny they make being spent. But we already agreed that when the money is there, money problems tend to be small.

(When we take each other out, or by each other presents, that comes from our personal accounts. Sometimes the house is gifted from our personal accounts also. The kid is mostly a red-item as is Granny and presents to common friends and family).

With regard to SF Weekly publishing my send: probably not. Early on, years gone by, I had a good hitting record with them. I like their forum because they give you the space, and I know that I'm not preaching to the choir. But like The Chronicle, SF Weekly seems to have evolved, and not for the better.

What The Chronicle markets is socialism. Integrity takes a back-seat to ideology. (That paper already loses 60 million a year, so I don't think what they are doing over there is market strategy).

I am only guessing, but the edgy, radical, alternative SF Weekly actually wants to make money. I imagine that some bottom-line guy in that organization decided that ideology and integrity can be damned. His thoughts must have run to a simpler line: "To make money, we do not anger our readership by forcing them into the uncomfortable position of having to examine their dogma.

In closed-loop San Francisco, that's considered edgy and radical enough.

BTW: Welcome your thoughts on the last paragraph, below. If you want to further consider, ponder the question, take the matter up at a later time, that works too.

Sincerely,

Paul Burton

Editor:

Let's see - my sense of direction and foreign-language skills have not improved
one bit. Poetry and manuscripts go unpublished. I lack driving ambition. On
the other hand, I can think and write and build; can led and follow; pray and
curse. I can give my employer 41 years of loyal, faithful service. Slacker or
no?

Does it only matter if someone is feeling betrayed?

My wife and I give due to competence. These days, she is a competent
money-maker. When we fell in love, twenty years ago, she was packing rubber
stamps. The marriage pact is that we will take care of each other. But before
that, it was understood that we each could take care of ourselves. (To one's
own self be true?).

What I was hoping to find in "No Love for Slackers" was some reference to white,
single women and their attraction to socialism - an attraction not shared by
married women with children. Although the movies and the "experts" will no
doubt have much to say on this, I prefer my morality tales in the first-person.

Paul Burton
San Francisco

Dear Ms. Spicuzza,

Thank you very much for this article.
I've spent, like you, my twenties dating "slackers".
All I manage to do now is to stay out of trouble.
I haven't managed to fall in love with a non-slacker guy yet, but hey, we're getting there.

It's good to know I'm not the only one.

Any suggestions, books or recommendations are very welcome.

Keep up the good work !

Kind Regards,

Monica

The best way to get us "striver girls" or whatever you want to label us out of the habit of dating "slacker boys" is to break this maternal instinct we have. Girls, if you want to take care of something, get a plant, a puppy or a kitten rather than a boyfriend. We simply have got to stop thinking "he'll change! really, if he loves me, he will change for me!" What a relationship death sentence and a tremendous waste of time! Ladies, unless you actually see him have some kind of goal, however unrealistic or ridiculous it may sound (and you see him making real efforts to get it), he's not going to change. Gents, this applies to the ladies in your life too.

What I see in this article is hopefully a wake-up call to both genders that can be summed up in a few words - "Life's short - Don't waste your time. Once you know what you want, go get it instead of creating it."

4 pages? really? fuck.

Here here Polly!

Dear SFweekly,
I just read this article online that a good friend forwarded to to me because I'm recently broken up with a "slacker" boyfriend. This article spoke so clearly to me you have no idea! I am a career woman myself that struggled with a very intelligent boy "with potential" for 5 years that couldn't even finish a semester in community college, keep a drivers licence, hold a bank account, or stop bitching about why his life sucked so much. I held his hand through it all and helped him grow up a bit, only for him to leave me for another woman the minute he felt he didn't need me anymore. I realize now I was a "mom" and I got screwed in the end. If only I had read this article 3 months ago I could have said "see you later, slacker" and my heart wouldn't have been so stompt on. I've learned my lesson and never again!! Thanks for reminding me.

This woman is tooting her horn as if we haven't had to put up with slacker girlfriends who are career killers. If a woman is a loser or a slacker other women have no problem justifying the behavior. In addition I have met so many pot smoking, X-box playing guys and gals who have great careers and a good education. Who gave this woman the idea that a guy who fails to commit or smokes pot or hangs out with friends is a slacker? What BS! Today so many successful people live an unmarried life and love it. Furthermore, the sitcoms like King of Queens show the guy busting his duff making a living working for UPS supporting a family. How is that slacking (yes I read the moronic definition of a striver). This woman fails to mention how men portrayed as jerks, slackers, morons on television, magazines etc lead to young guys following the same trail. Women are brought up in our society being told that they are smart etc etc while men are dogged. This type of Misandry leads guys acting like slackers. I'm so tired of these women trying redefine what responsibility is or how men should be as if women have their act together. This woman need to wake up and see reality! If women pick pot smokers, bad boys, men who fail to commit who's fault is it? Accept responsibility for your own mistakes. So many female losers and slackers need to hear this message so speak for yourself and the women you hangout with!

This woman is another example of a bitter out of touch misanderistic individual. Talk about slackers why not talk about the women. We've had to put up with? The Oprah watching so called strong women who do nothing but sit on their fat buns once they get married. Many fall in to this category. They are not even good mothers. These slackers eat up your time, money and emotional support without the slightest bit of decency. This is what women have been doing to us for centuries. How rude to call men slackers when we see so many women who destroy mens lives. What nonsense. I encourage guys to stop putting up with these losers and move on. We don't need a bunch of women defining what responsibility is. They have no clue as evidenced in their hypocritical comments and lifestyles. To the woman who claims to be an advisor to women about sex, careers (just for women nonsense/comments 70-72) need to get a clue about female slackers! Educate your own about responsibility and maturity instead of telling men what to do. Also, what man would want to date a female with masculine qualities (comments 70-72). I applaud guys who live according to their own rules. If you don't like it, GET LOST! Stop wining and nagging us and becoming a shrill shrew! If you want to nag like the writer go back to elementary school. Please Shut UP!!!!

I had to make a correction. I meant to respond to the comments made by that female moronic "Just for Women" advisor in comments 62 through 65 not comments 70-72.

Ben

On Menchildren:

http://schmeiser.typepad.com/the_rage_diaries/2007/11/menchildren.html

I'm shocked! Young college educated women dismiss nice guys as boring, are attracted instead to bad boys then ditch them in favor of more financially successful men? Wow, when did this start happening? Oh wait, hasn't this been happening for decades...at least?

I really think that people can rest easy. The empire is safe. There is no danger of "striver" women getting bogged down by hordes of slacker men nor was there ever a problem of that happening. Steven Levitt, for example, in Freakonomics writes about his study of emails between people on online dating sites and his finding that the more money a man makes, the more emails he gets from women. That isn't exactly shocking either.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that kind sensitive natures are sure wonderful and women appreciate having a boyfriend or hubby who helps them when they are down. However, especially in an expensive, status conscious city like SF, there is no way that the elementary school teacher - who is a nice, considerate, driven to excel at his career kind of guy - is going to be seen as as a good of a catch as that driven investment banker who is too busy to worry about his pregnant girlfriend's problems.

What next, some articles with the shocking insight that men care about a woman's breast size and women like tall men? It's good to see that journalism is still alive and well in SF.

The Supposed Slacker-Striver Combo (no fries included):

http://blogs.bootsnall.com/travelgoddess/?p=412

I think this was an important article about a very real topic that needs to be more discussed. It's a vital dialogue to open. An interesting common thread I've found in these slacker guys is a complete resistance to dealing with their demons, their pasts, their insecurities, their ambivalences. They were often sexually abused, molested, grew up with single mothers, don't have male role models, etc etc etc. So, instead of dealing with their own stuff, they live in a perpetual state of floundering, shirking responsibility, not taking ownership, and have a deep inability to sustain things, like intimacy in relationships, careers, maturity, etc.
But are men socialized to deal with anything? Not really. The message to them in society is perform or else.
The vulnerability of not having their stuff together blocks them from doing anything at all. Action paralysis. Hence, they turn to quick fixes and coping skills...One night stands, substance abuse, partying, hedonism, video games. But to ask for help would be shameful. To seek counseling would be embarrassing. To have deep vulnerable conversations with your drinking buddies is unheard of. Kurt Cobain was a prototype of a male who seemed to have much issue dealing with his own ambivalences and inner conflicts, and we all know how that sadly ended. And the voice of a generation he's claimed to be? "Oh well, whatever, nevermind... A denial." That sums up the male hero of the 90's. It's different for women: We talk more, we share, we get coffee together discussing Aimee Mann lyrics and a Kate Chopin novel. There really isn't the same forum in society for men who don't already have the skills to be a healthy adult to grow up out of perpetual Peter Pan land as there is for women.

It doesn't make these men any less responsible for the state they are in and the pain and grief they cause to the people that get entangled with them, but at least in understanding the stigmas associated with their gender, there may begin to be a spiritual revolution in men. Because let's face it, "let's go shoot/bomb/drink/inject/have sex with one more thing" isn't really working, is it?
To quote the band Guster, (and I commend a male for writing this piece of brilliant honesty..) "I tried to pull it apart and put it back together. No point in living in my adolescent dreams. Inspired by true events on movie screens, I am a one man wrecking machine."
That's my personal opinion as a woman who's learned to have both deep respect for herself, and a deep compassion for the opposite sex.
Thank you for the article,
Sincerely,

You nailed it. And I just watched Knocked Up 5 minutes before I stumbled on this article. You got it and good.

I dated a slacker boy for one year, lifted him up and mothered him, believed in him and overlooked his faults. He cheated on me, dumped me and now I ask myself, what the fuck was I thinking?

I am a striver girl and need to stick to my kind, meaning people who give a shit about other people and are not embarrassed to show it. Word.

When does your book come out? Hurry.

http://bonniegrrl.livejournal.com/373656.html

Ha ha, I am older but only just had one of these parasites, having avoided them before now...I was conned into thinking he just needed that little bit of encouragement to "make it" in life but the fact is, if they haven't made it in life yet, they ain't gonna. I am still trying to de-latch this leech from his sucking point too...you think you'll help them in life, which is what they seem to want, and then all they do is hang on and create drag. They want to be helped, but not to build up any sort of head of speed in life. They want to be pulled - as if you are a farm mule. And then they whine that people with more drive just want more money. It ain't about money, DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS. It's about passion for life, self-discipline, self-respect, eyes on a prize (any prize, might just be a skill that you learn and make the most of). It's about picking the fruit of life and squeezing the juice, instead of walking around making doe eyes at the squeezers and hoping they'll share their cup with you. I laughed like hell reading the whining slacker comments here, now that I have had one they sound SO familiar. Self-pitying, it's all the world's fault, they're SO passive-aggressive and PUT UPON.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOD, like, whur's yer life?