It’s interest mapping onto this generational slide away from family and having children not only the economic outcomes over this same period of time but also the slowly unfolding endocrine disaster quietly taking shape in our societies. It’s a tough bit of science to process, not so much its causes and the alarming data associated with it, but the results that will reveal itself in about twenty years. Yikes! A fantastic podcast that deals with issues like these and many others is called the Great Simplification by Nate Hagens a biological economist of all things. Anyway the podcast from Nov. 29 with Jeremy Grantham, an American billionaire turned activist is particularly interesting as well as episode 100 which gives a general overview of a list of probable future outcomes on many topics. Hope more people take the time to listen to the science we often ignore.
At the risk of appearing ignorant, could you expand upon what you mean by the "unfolding endocrine disaster quietly taking shape." That sounds both terrifying and intriguing.
Sure. It’s in the podcast but essentially science has shown 1 in 7 are now infertile when thirty years ago that number as a stat within populations was an order of magnitude essentially at zero. It’s an alarming finding and is linked to our endocrine system failing due to environmental pollution such as micro plastics. A 2% drop compounded over decade is a 20x decrease in children over a century that is an extinction event
I agree with the lack of initiation into adulthood, but it strikes me that many aspects of 90s/early 2000s pop culture presented a pretty gendered view of perpetual adolescence: girl and boy bands, the hypersexualisation of female pop stars such as Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, the manic pixie dream girl, Jackass, American Pie, American Beauty, American Psycho, Fight Club… Even today, where heterosexual romance plays much less of a role in popular culture, it seems odd to describe the prevailing ethos as ‘androgynous’ when young men and women seem to be inhabiting increasingly separate virtual worlds (men on YouTube, women on TikTok etc), which is reflected in their diverging political views, notwithstanding the proportion of Gen-Z who would like to opt out of gender altogether.
Great point. I remember spending my measly allowance money on Britney Spears' single record "Baby One More Time" and then thinking "so that's the type of woman I'm supposed to date!" and then listening to NSync and thinking "what if I can be a more rebellious manboychild, like Blink-182."
But in all seriousness, I find it a curious era to live in wherein the very real and positive benefits of non-binary thinking has paradoxically polarized much of society into binary thinking, an us vs. them type of paradigm wherein the loudest elements of the progressive movement are just as categorical in their denunciation of "the other side" as their conservative counterparts. It's a paradox, surely, and one to think about. But it's 6:15 PM in Paris and I think I need a drink.
Yeah, what I mean isn't exactly the collapse of gender - that's a different topic, although certainly worth talking through - but something that's a little more specific and harder to articulate, which is people seeing their life less in distinct stages. Boomers, for instance, would have had the idea that you do your military service, which is where you 'become a man,' that marriage and children is supposed to happen at a distinct moment in one's 20s ('getting your Mrs,' etc), and those signposts have become much less noticeable over time. For millennials, I think we really had this notion that the initiations were optional - that it was possible to 'do what you feel' for pretty much your whole life. I agree with you that there was certainly a hyper-sexualization in place especially in pop culture, but the 'thinking man's/thinking woman's' culture was more in this Greta Gerwig-ish androgyny direction.
I think you're onto something specifically in regards to the Ellen Pages and Michael Ceras of that era, which did provide a welcome alternative to the "jocks" and "babes" which, even if they were made fun of, were still prevalent in films of the late 90s like American Pie & She's All That, etc.
While there was a recognition of the emergence of "being alternative is cool" (thanks, Freaks & Geeks, Garden State, Super Bad, etc.) it didn't necessarily overtake the typical roles associated with the "hot person" gender norms that Mary Jane Eyre's comment below succinctly describes. If there was liberation with a more androgynous type of personality, it was more in the opening of that category as a possibility than anything else, but still a category that carried with it assumptions and expectations that made it hard to be a plurality of things (to this day, I am thankful that my hippy dippy school made it possible to be in the school band, the varsity basketball team, and philosophy class)
Point taken - both from you and Mary Jane. There was an extreme hyper-sexualization in the culture. I guess what I would say is that it was uncoupled from any particular idea of initiation-in-sex - it wasn't as if you were hyper-sexualized in order to meet a man (or woman). It was that you were in your nubile state sort of forever. Samantha in Sex and the City certainly became a totem - that the hookup culture could classily persist well into one's 50s. And with somebody like Brittney the idea was that you could find yourself sexually in your adolescence and sort of never depart from that. Yes, the mainstream and the alternative culture had pretty different things in mind, but I think they go together in a curious way - the mainstream emphasizing perpetual 'hotness,' the alternative into a never-journey both to 'find' and to 'own' yourself.
No, he does not. Just because a guy expresses feelings doesn’t mean he’s a woman. And just because men and women are equal doesn’t mean we’re the same and there should never be any gender polarity. I’d like to hear more from Sam on this.
Ah Sherman, you definitely found a weak point in this essay. I was kind of grabbing Segel to fill out the list tbh.
What I was thinking of here was his role in Jeff Who Lives At Home and, to some extent, The End of the Tour. The idea with the character in Jeff Who Lives At Home (and Segel was an interesting casting for this) is that he's skipping out on the usual initiation rituals - he's not getting the sort of corporate job that the Ed Helms character has, he's not moving up in the world - but he's finding himself in different ways and gets to a degree of self-possession in celebrating himself exactly as he is.
The argument was shifting around slightly in the essay and I was being maybe a little over-subtle here. I agree with you and Evan that Segel certainly wasn't a metrosexual and that what was being expressed in his persona wasn't about blurring the gender spectrum. The point is that there was a generational project going on (Juno and Frances Ha are very clear expressions of it) where the emphasis was less on linear movement through the stages of adulthood and more on really-checking-into-yourself-exactly-at-the-moment-where-you-are and expressing that as honestly (which often 'quirkily') as you possibly could.
Yes, I can see the argument. I think Jason Segal is great at playing a man-child so maybe that's were he feels like he fits into your argument. but I think his physical size and presence belie that.
It’s interest mapping onto this generational slide away from family and having children not only the economic outcomes over this same period of time but also the slowly unfolding endocrine disaster quietly taking shape in our societies. It’s a tough bit of science to process, not so much its causes and the alarming data associated with it, but the results that will reveal itself in about twenty years. Yikes! A fantastic podcast that deals with issues like these and many others is called the Great Simplification by Nate Hagens a biological economist of all things. Anyway the podcast from Nov. 29 with Jeremy Grantham, an American billionaire turned activist is particularly interesting as well as episode 100 which gives a general overview of a list of probable future outcomes on many topics. Hope more people take the time to listen to the science we often ignore.
At the risk of appearing ignorant, could you expand upon what you mean by the "unfolding endocrine disaster quietly taking shape." That sounds both terrifying and intriguing.
Sure. It’s in the podcast but essentially science has shown 1 in 7 are now infertile when thirty years ago that number as a stat within populations was an order of magnitude essentially at zero. It’s an alarming finding and is linked to our endocrine system failing due to environmental pollution such as micro plastics. A 2% drop compounded over decade is a 20x decrease in children over a century that is an extinction event
Interesting. Thanks for the note!
I agree with the lack of initiation into adulthood, but it strikes me that many aspects of 90s/early 2000s pop culture presented a pretty gendered view of perpetual adolescence: girl and boy bands, the hypersexualisation of female pop stars such as Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera, the manic pixie dream girl, Jackass, American Pie, American Beauty, American Psycho, Fight Club… Even today, where heterosexual romance plays much less of a role in popular culture, it seems odd to describe the prevailing ethos as ‘androgynous’ when young men and women seem to be inhabiting increasingly separate virtual worlds (men on YouTube, women on TikTok etc), which is reflected in their diverging political views, notwithstanding the proportion of Gen-Z who would like to opt out of gender altogether.
Great point. I remember spending my measly allowance money on Britney Spears' single record "Baby One More Time" and then thinking "so that's the type of woman I'm supposed to date!" and then listening to NSync and thinking "what if I can be a more rebellious manboychild, like Blink-182."
But in all seriousness, I find it a curious era to live in wherein the very real and positive benefits of non-binary thinking has paradoxically polarized much of society into binary thinking, an us vs. them type of paradigm wherein the loudest elements of the progressive movement are just as categorical in their denunciation of "the other side" as their conservative counterparts. It's a paradox, surely, and one to think about. But it's 6:15 PM in Paris and I think I need a drink.
Hi Mary Jane,
Yeah, what I mean isn't exactly the collapse of gender - that's a different topic, although certainly worth talking through - but something that's a little more specific and harder to articulate, which is people seeing their life less in distinct stages. Boomers, for instance, would have had the idea that you do your military service, which is where you 'become a man,' that marriage and children is supposed to happen at a distinct moment in one's 20s ('getting your Mrs,' etc), and those signposts have become much less noticeable over time. For millennials, I think we really had this notion that the initiations were optional - that it was possible to 'do what you feel' for pretty much your whole life. I agree with you that there was certainly a hyper-sexualization in place especially in pop culture, but the 'thinking man's/thinking woman's' culture was more in this Greta Gerwig-ish androgyny direction.
I think you're onto something specifically in regards to the Ellen Pages and Michael Ceras of that era, which did provide a welcome alternative to the "jocks" and "babes" which, even if they were made fun of, were still prevalent in films of the late 90s like American Pie & She's All That, etc.
While there was a recognition of the emergence of "being alternative is cool" (thanks, Freaks & Geeks, Garden State, Super Bad, etc.) it didn't necessarily overtake the typical roles associated with the "hot person" gender norms that Mary Jane Eyre's comment below succinctly describes. If there was liberation with a more androgynous type of personality, it was more in the opening of that category as a possibility than anything else, but still a category that carried with it assumptions and expectations that made it hard to be a plurality of things (to this day, I am thankful that my hippy dippy school made it possible to be in the school band, the varsity basketball team, and philosophy class)
Point taken - both from you and Mary Jane. There was an extreme hyper-sexualization in the culture. I guess what I would say is that it was uncoupled from any particular idea of initiation-in-sex - it wasn't as if you were hyper-sexualized in order to meet a man (or woman). It was that you were in your nubile state sort of forever. Samantha in Sex and the City certainly became a totem - that the hookup culture could classily persist well into one's 50s. And with somebody like Brittney the idea was that you could find yourself sexually in your adolescence and sort of never depart from that. Yes, the mainstream and the alternative culture had pretty different things in mind, but I think they go together in a curious way - the mainstream emphasizing perpetual 'hotness,' the alternative into a never-journey both to 'find' and to 'own' yourself.
Does Jason Segal fit in here? He's a 6-6 dude who was recuited to play college hoops. He's a giant-sized dude in Hollywood and a physical comedian.
No, he does not. Just because a guy expresses feelings doesn’t mean he’s a woman. And just because men and women are equal doesn’t mean we’re the same and there should never be any gender polarity. I’d like to hear more from Sam on this.
Hi Evan, responded more above. I might be being a bit unclear here. Happy to try to elucidate this further!
Ah Sherman, you definitely found a weak point in this essay. I was kind of grabbing Segel to fill out the list tbh.
What I was thinking of here was his role in Jeff Who Lives At Home and, to some extent, The End of the Tour. The idea with the character in Jeff Who Lives At Home (and Segel was an interesting casting for this) is that he's skipping out on the usual initiation rituals - he's not getting the sort of corporate job that the Ed Helms character has, he's not moving up in the world - but he's finding himself in different ways and gets to a degree of self-possession in celebrating himself exactly as he is.
The argument was shifting around slightly in the essay and I was being maybe a little over-subtle here. I agree with you and Evan that Segel certainly wasn't a metrosexual and that what was being expressed in his persona wasn't about blurring the gender spectrum. The point is that there was a generational project going on (Juno and Frances Ha are very clear expressions of it) where the emphasis was less on linear movement through the stages of adulthood and more on really-checking-into-yourself-exactly-at-the-moment-where-you-are and expressing that as honestly (which often 'quirkily') as you possibly could.
Cheers!
Sam
Yes, I can see the argument. I think Jason Segal is great at playing a man-child so maybe that's were he feels like he fits into your argument. but I think his physical size and presence belie that.