He doesn't like being told what to think or how to act, yet he instructs people on what to think and how to act.

How to be an adult: summarize your behavioural suggestions with short, declarative statements starting with BOLD TYPE after engaging in rambling, unstructured prose.

This dude just needs to unplug. Take some acid and climb a tree, whatever. Don't waste your time with diatribes.

I don't think it's a particularly well-thought-out or well-organized piece of writing, but I do agree with quite a bit of it.

At most points that written history can tell us anything about, Western culture organized itself around the activities and needs of adulthood, and childhood was considered merely a preparatory and transitional phase in which to prepare for adulthood. That had changed drastically by the end of the twentieth century.

I think the birth of psychology and the increasing research and policy emphasis on early childhood development during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries laid the groundwork for a new way of viewing children and childhood. Childhood was no longer something to be dismissed and passed through, but something to be studied and celebrated.

Post-WWII prosperity, coupled with the sense of lost innocence that accompanied the arrival of atomic capabilities, deepened our fixation on childhood as a magical and idyllic phase of life that should be continued indefinitely, if possible. The extent to which the Baby Boom changed our outlook on youth vs. adulthood can hardly be overstated. By dint of their sheer numbers, the baby boomers sat back and relaxed as the marketplace reorganized around their needs. New home and school construction, music, entertainment, the food supply -- everything became industrialized to meet sudden intense demand, and the field of marketing was created as advertisers discovered the efficacy of selling directly to kids by creating a sense of urgent demand in them, rather than (as before) selling to mom and dad, who actually had the wallet.

These developments created the impression that youth was power. Maturity took on negative connonations (stuffy, conservative, dull, boring, warlike). What this author says about self-consciousness is slightly unfocused, but it is true that no one can live a life any longer without the sense of observing themselves and judging themselves by the constructs of the marketplace. And so often, what we think of as the markers of 'youth' are really just shopping lists. ("I can't be grown up! I'm hip, I play video games and belong to kickball league and listen to indie rock and wear cool sneakers!") Our desire to appear current, young, energetic, and free is so easily exploited.

I think we haven't really recovered from the youth fetishism the baby boom brought us. It's one thing to be free-spirited and embrace life with joy; but it's another thing entirely to denigrate adulthood. Adulthood brings great opportunities and poses challenges that, if accepted, really create depth in a person.

Ever since I was a kid I remember wanting very badly to be an adult. I wanted the independence, the earning power, the freedom, the decision-making ability, the respect. I never attached any negative feelings to the idea of 'growing up' -- growing up seemed attractive to me, as it was going to allow me to put together a good life, travel, be taken seriously, start projects people cared about, and so on. Does that mean I can't wear cool sneakers? No way. But does it mean I think the sneakers are of real value in terms of my individual self-definition? No. Basically, I'm proud and happy to be an adult, and I am suspicious of the indulgence in an extended adolescence that seems so encouraged these days.

One good rant deserves another!

Since Miko did the intellectual approach, I'll just be mean and picky for my response.

You, I, all of us are on the receiving end of a sustained campaign to infantilise us

Well, we can't ALL be on the receiving end, because then there'd be nobody on the sending end.

And geez, I wanna meet this perfect grandfather of his. My grandparents were about the same age, and I know for a fact they were not necessarily the well-adjusted adults this guy's telling us to be.

Eat it up There is nothing more babyish than having dietary requirements

Gee, Dad, sorry about your kidney failure, but you've gotta stop being such a baby about that special renal diet and eat these cheeseburgers I made.

Only children believe the world should conform to their own view of it: a sort of magical thinking that can only lead to warfare, terrorism, unmanageable short-term debt

See, here's some good contradiction -- if everybody from Perfect Granddaddy's era was like Perfect Grandaddy, that would mean that we had none of these things before, oh, about the middle of the 20th century. Yeahhh . . . .

That's the problem with this sort of thing -- he says things that sound like facts, or really well-structured opinions, but they don't actually make much sense when examined.

Oh, and Perfect Granddaddy's favorite author, Mr. Dickens? Dumped his wife for a young actress. But that's okay, because we're supposed to ignore celebrities.

Seems like it's written to annoy people of various philosophical leanings. An equal opportunity offender. As such, it promotes its own semi-passive-agressive lifestyle. Not helpful.

We're all big babies

I'm not. Now somebody get over here and burp me.

Beautifully put, Miko. I knew that was you by the time I got to the middle of the second paragraph.

When I'm lyin' in my bed at night
I don't wanna grow up
Nothin' ever seems to turn out right
I don't wanna grow up
How do you move in a world of fog
That's always changing things
Makes me wish that I could be a dog
When I see the price that you pay
I don't wanna grow up
I don't ever wanna be that way
I don't wanna grow up

Seems like folks turn into things
That they'd never want
The only thing to live for
Is today...
I'm gonna put a hole in my TV set
I don't wanna grow up
Open up the medicine chest
And I don't wanna grow up
I don't wanna have to shout it out
I don't want my hair to fall out
I don't wanna be filled with doubt
I don't wanna be a good boy scout
I don't wanna have to learn to count
I don't wanna have the biggest amount
I don't wanna grow up

Well when I see my parents fight
I don't wanna grow up
They all go out and drinking all night
And I don't wanna grow up
I'd rather stay here in my room
Nothin' out there but sad and gloom
I don't wanna live in a big old Tomb
On Grand Street

When I see the 5 o'clock news
I don't wanna grow up
Comb their hair and shine their shoes
I don't wanna grow up
Stay around in my old hometown
I don't wanna put no money down
I don't wanna get me a big old loan
Work them fingers to the bone
I don't wanna float a broom
Fall in love and get married then boom
How the hell did I get here so soon
I don't wanna grow up


says it all, I think

Heh. Thanks ico!

My randparents were about the same age, and I know for a fact they were not necessarily the well-adjusted adults this guy's telling us to be.

Totally, JanetLand. Whenever discussing how things Used to Be it's always important to remember that they were never rosy and ideal. Maybe the world was more organized around adults in the past, but there were still plenty of social human ills - alcoholism, family violence, racism, depression, whatever. Maturity and adulthood are still two different things.

Miko, that was a terrific critique. It was better than the linked material by a long shot.

Shorter Daily Telegraph: "Everything was better back in the day"

Ever since I was a kid I remember wanting very badly to be an adult. I wanted the independence, the earning power, the freedom, the decision-making ability, the respect.

I just wanted to be able to buy beer.

It's annoying in parts and simple common sense in others. For the most part, this is part of a longer term strategy to get the Conservative Party back into power. (They don't call "the Telegraph" "the Torygraph" for nothing). You'll be seeing a whole slew of increasingly libertarian articles like this in the next couple of years and the purpose of them will be to attack the New labour controlled nanny state.

As such, expect to see this concept of adult responsibility attached to increasingly radical and right wing policies. It starts with "Don't be affronted.", but it'll end with "Allow Companies to Pollute whatever they want to pollute."

Ironically, I believe that any Nanny State which currently exists was created as a consequence of the Early Thatcher years*, that She learnt how to rule over the population (Stern Matriarch! You've been a bad boy), and Blair has carried that concept on through to our current scarily dystopian Present.

Ultimately I believe this is nothing more than lip service. The right wing press will continue down this "nanny state" line until the Tories get in, and then they'll stop saying it. There will be a few minor treats given out to the middle classes to "prove" the Conservative's libertarian credentials, but then it'll be back to the same old, same old.

* - Which was itself a reaction to the Labour mismanagement of the mid '70's. But I'm in danger of provoking a contrary political opinion, and anyway - I digress.

I wanted the skills the adults around me had. My parents could make just about anything between the two of them. It always seemed so wonderful to me to be able to make things.

Thanks Miko. Well put and well considered. That's the kind of input I can use, it's clear that you not only read the article but can think about it and articulate your thoughts. Truly the marks of an adult.

And JanetLand also raises the perenially essential reminder that the "perfect past" was rarely either perfect or, actually, in the past in the first place.

The trouble with simply dismissive responses (aside from how they miss the humor and paradoxical awareness of the author), is that they fail to address the issues raised by the writer. They recapitulate precisely the charge that they seek to weasel out of, by reacting childishly to the guy's critique. It's as if the guy wrote a test, and while disagreement=/=failure, dismissal must.

I think the point about the baby boomers is quite interesting, as is the nod back to developmental psychology. I've been preparing a talk on Freud, and it really is striking how the consideration of children's environments changed with Freudian theory, which itself came out of the Victorian obsession with proper childhood.

But the author's point, which broadly is that many of the points at which we're told we're most adult are the points at which we give up maturity, is, I think, worth thinking about. I was reminded, as I'm sure anyone who read the article couldn't have helped but be, of the admonition to go out and shop that Bush made post-911. It was as if that we're somehow an adult response to tragedy and emergency. And while that was just a rhetorical moment, it lead us into the quagmire of Iraq by authorizing childish responses to our leaders...if to be an adult citizen in a time of war is to shop, then we need not worry about veracity or moral standing in the conduct of war at all. Of course shopping is not responsible for our abdication of responsibility as a country, but I wonder if a perverted sense of adult responsibility is. The author is quite explicit about drawing out some of those links.

On the other hand, the piece does hark back to a halcyon past, free from gender and class discrimination (or more precisely, those things are present "maid, nanny, respected doctor-of-color" only as good things). What I find disappointing about the essay is that it seems to suggest consumerist dissolution on the one hand, or conservative manfulness on the other. I don't really have many gripes with his arguments about consumerist immaturity (although they are pithy in the nature of an extract from a larger book), but I'd like some sort of alternative that doesn't involve pre-lapsarian patriarchy.

I'll be the lone dissenter and say that traditional adulthood holds no appeal for me. The freedoms are great, but responsibility and obligations suck shit through a sock.

The freedoms are great, but responsibility and obligations suck shit through a sock.

Well, sure, or, maybe. But what do you get if it's all freedoms with no responsibilities?

I dunno, man. Just articulating a POV, didn't say it was a workable one.

Children are being discriminated against! 'Childish' should be banned and replaced by 'petulant'.

Being a child, being child-like, is a virtue, not something to be shunned or used as a perjorative. On any given day I'm either 5 or 8, depending on my level of confidence. Responsibility levels can go either way.

That's interesting about the connection of Freud and Victorian childhood - never thought about that link before. The Victorians were certainly a self-conscious lot too.

i love miko. that is all.

The Invention Of Childhood covers a lot of this ground - it's a 'thirty-part narrative history series exploring British childhood and the experience of British children over the last thousand years' on Radio 4, in dense little fifteen minute episodes. Well worth dipping into.

I wanted the skills the adults around me had.

Too right, if only to stop my dad laughing at me when I have to pay someone to do basic plumbing/electrical/&c. work in my flat...

omie, this Shakespeare's Sister post was just on MetaFilter, and I think comes at what you're talking about from an interesting angle. The general discussion is about manhood, and whether to some extent feminist successes have taught men (or at least instilled a fear in men) that they're unnecessary.

This seems to be a fear I hear again and again from (straight) men, that with all the economic power women now have, what use do they have for men? There's such a sense of self-loathing there that it makes my heart ache.

But I can see that telling men over and over that women are just as capable, just as intelligent, just as financially independent, etc. can leave some guys thinking "Well, then what the hell am I supposed to do with my life? I don't need to be a provider, an authoritarian, a protector -- all those virtues associated with masculinity in our society -- so I guess I'll just... play video games."

Melissa at Shakespeare's Sister and some of the other essays she links to talk about how we go about redefining ideas of what it means to be "a man" in ways that don't necessarily depend on subjugating women (like working hard for the sake of hard work rather than to provide, I guess; or being strong in service of others, rather than to subdue others). Basically, how to re-instill that sense of pride, power, ambition, and strength that let men succeed, without letting those attributes tip over into patriarchal posturing and authoritarian domination.

Someone in that blog discussion also talks about how other groups, like Men Prevent Rape, are looking at the ways feminists have been successful in separating ideas of what it means to be a woman from traditional ideas of "femininity," and applying those strategies to men in order to curb violence.

I think it's a worthwhile intellectual exercise, if nothing else, and finds a liberal way of addressing the "lack of manhood" issue, which the conservatives really have taken over as their own (with rather dire results, in my opinion).

I read a Cosmopolitan article (don't shoot me) the other day that addresses a bit of what occhiblu is talking about re: men not knowing to do with themselves when their SO is as successful or more successful than they are. Of course, Cosmo's solution involved lots of "Will you open this jar, you strong virile man you" and letting the guy pay for pizza and less "edefining ideas of what it means to be "a man" in ways that don't necessarily depend on subjugating women."

so I guess I'll just... play video games."

you say that like it's a bad thing.


I think it's a worthwhile intellectual exercise, if nothing else, and finds a liberal way of addressing the "lack of manhood" issue, which the conservatives really have taken over as their own

well, a lot of it is cultural. For years the stereotype of the pro-feminist male was the emasculated, sexless, sensitive ponytail man, and to most guys (and most women, I'd imagine) that just dosen't appeal. The correct message to send would be: standing up for the women in your life and your world makes you an even ballsier badass motherfucker.

(that and let us keep our porn, explodey movies, cock-rock and other silly guy stuff)

But I'm not just talking about "how to be a feminist man." I'm talking about "How to be a man." I'm talking about decoupling stereotypes about "manhood" from what it means to be male, about men being able to pursue whatever interested them without being accused of not being manly, and also without dominating or subjugating classes of people to pursue those interests.

about men being able to pursue whatever interested them without being accused of not being manly, and also without dominating or subjugating classes of people to pursue those interests.

what if what interests you is world conquest?

I'm talking about decoupling stereotypes about "manhood" from what it means to be male,

what? Not all of us went to Harvard, you know...

well, there's certain parts of traditional masculinity that are very good and desirable: word-is-bond dealings, stregnth, protectiveness, exuberance, etc. Other traits not so much. So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But the idea of becoming weak and subjugated is not that appealing, and sadly, that's what many men see coming...

So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But the idea of becoming weak and subjugated is not that appealing, and sadly, that's what many men see coming...

Exactly. That's what I'm saying is bad, and saying we should do something about.

Feminism told women "Don't be restricted by stereotypes of femininity! You don't have to be a mother and love housework and want to spend all your time shopping in order to be a real woman! Women can be CEOs! Women can be bitchy! Women can be into sports! Being a woman has nothing to do with being feminine!" The fight to get respect in each of those areas isn't finished, but the groundwork is there.

The point of the essay is that the same thing has not really happened for men. I don't see respected leaders saying "Don't be restricted by stereotypes of masculinity! You don't have to be a breadwinner and love sports and want to spend all your time hunting in order to be a real man! Men can be house husbands! Men can be nurturing! Men can be into shopping! Being a man has nothing to do with being masculine!"

I don't feel like men can pick and choose among all aspects of human behavior in the same way women are beginning to. The risks for rejecting masculinity are much higher than the risks for rejecting femininity, and at the same time masculinity has become a dirty word. So how do you redefine what "being a man" means, without throwing out all the good things that men bring to the planet and without restricting those contributions to only those areas that men are "allowed" to succeed in?

(The "being masculine is not a requirement of being male" is what I meant by "decoupling stereotypes about 'manhood' from what it means to be male," just to clarify.)

You don't have to be a breadwinner and love sports and want to spend all your time hunting in order to be a real man! Men can be house husbands! Men can be nurturing! Men can be into shopping! Being a man has nothing to do with being masculine!"

You don't have to tell me. (former ponytail owner, earring wearer, would dig being stay at home dad.) I think that like most women, most men would probably pick and choose from both sides of the traditional 'feminine' and 'masculine' traits. I like sports, but I also like poetry. Most women wouldn't want to married to an ogre, but at the same time they wouldn't want a helpless wimp either (and the same goes for what men would want), ultimately we'll all get more wiggle room.

how do you redefine what "being a man" means, without throwing out all the good things that men bring to the planet

Which, of course, is the same discussion feminist women have engaged in about their own gender since the beginning of the most recent wave of feminism: How can women gain their place within male power structures while not throwing out the positive behaviors traditionally associated with being female (listening, building social networks, nruturing)?

I do see the problem quite clearly. But when cultural roles for women finally started to change it was because women themselves began that discussion and continued to be the active force behind pushing that change. I see men struggling with the desire for better defined roles or models of manhood, but I don't yet see them taking on this dialogue amongst themselves and pushing for change - not in large numbers, anyway. I'd say that men, as a group, might be at the pre-"Masculine Mystique" stage -- the 21st-century, male Friedan has yet to emerge.

I'd agree, Miko. I think part of it as that men don't actually tend to think of themselves as a class, but as separate autonomous individuals. Which makes large-scale change, or even discussion, hard.

I think part of it as that men don't actually tend to think of themselves as a class, but as separate autonomous individuals.

Aren't men (and women) both of these things?

Yes, but one of the major advances of the "consciousness raising" groups of the 70s was helping women battle the impression that their depression, their isolation, their alienation was personal. That there was instead a wide-spread problem, which would indicate that it was a societal issue rather than simply an individual woman failing. That the system was stacked against women's happiness and fulfillment.

And I still think, because I've heard guys say this, that most men in American society still buy into the idea of meritocracy to a larger extent than most women or minorities do. There's still an overwhelming idea that all failure is due to personal failings, and there's a complete denial among so many people (usually men) that there are larger societal forces at play that work to keep everyone alienated, lonely, and depressed.

But I see men responding to those claims with "I." "I'm not depressed," "I'm not lonely," "I'm not violent." There's not a unified sense that men, as a whole, are doing badly.... until you talk to rightwing weirdos who have decided that men are doing ridiculously badly and it's all women's fault. Y'all seem to be missing the in-between ground that many women have about women, the idea that men, as a group, are facing problems and therefore men, as a group, should be doing something to address them.

Interesting points. I've got very little patience for the women are so strong I'm useless crowd, and I have a hard time formulating any desire to help them overcome the utterly false dichotomy they've put themselves in. To me, those guys employ the same reasoning as the "If you don't believe in god you can't be moral" crowd, the reasoning is so completely fucked as to be laughable.

But there is an interesting set of stereotypes that are being promulgated, and I see this a lot on TV. I don't watch a lot, but it's struck me that in sitcoms where there are men and women married, the woman is almost without fail very competent and largely maternalized (even if sexy), while the man is useless and needs constant parenting. "Honey, where's little Suzie? Didn't you pick her up at school like the note I pinned to your jacket asked you to do? D'oh!" Hijinks ensue. Some of it comes from The Simpsons, but somehow it's got a different feel there than in the various live action sitcoms. Many of the shows I'm talking about have kids, but not like the Cosby Show had kids, kids in the background because if they were too present they would inevitably point up the childishness of the men. I'm thinking specifically of that Raymond show, and the one with Jim Belushi.

It's very strange, and while it doesn't have quite the defensive tone of not knowing what to do in the face of competent women, it does have the sense of families really needing only one parent, and that might as well be the woman. It reeks to me of a passive aggressive, largely unconscious, response to feminism that shafts women as a matter of course. "You want it all, baby, here, you can have it, and my life too."

the idea that men, as a group, are facing problems and therefore men, as a group, should be doing something to address them.

well, for my part, I'm drinking until I can no longer percieve them. I'll give you progress reports.

Seriously, I don't know about other men, but I'm distinctly uncomfortable with declaring myself part of a huge herd simply because of a shared genital configuration. I don't know if women are different about that, but I prefer to stand alone.

Yes, jon, without a doubt, but the successes of the women's movement are directly owed to the fact that women began to compare notes and participate in group discussions and demonstrations, committing to group action, rather than pursuing only individual efforts. I'd expect any large shift in acceptable gender roles to work the same way for men. In fact, I'd suggest that significant social change for an entire class of people is only possible when people prioritize their identity as part of that class. If individual action only is prized, then the social infrastructure is unlikely to change, because there will always be a few people who buck the prevailing trends and are able to achieve self-determination. But a few exceptional individuals who exist in spite of an oppressive system are still products of that system.

Oh, I'm sure. But don't look for me to be joining uo with some amorphous mass anytime soon. Once we've declared ourselves a group, then somebody will declare themselves king, and as a wise man once said, a king ain't satisfied until he rules everything...

I agree with what you say about those TV shows, omiewise, and find it equally disturbing. I'm not sure why we're not more comfortable with the idea of equal partnership in relationships. Projecting caricatures of women as competent and therefore put-upon and men as witless buffoons is a quite a cop-out. And convenient, in a way, that the more useless a person seems, the less work and decision-making that person gets asked to do. Yet that trope is such a standby of certain kinds of traditional 'guy humor' that seems pervasive: you know, referring to a wife as "She Who Must Be Obeyed," saying "it's my wife you should be talking to, she does the thinking around here...."

It is tough, I'm sure, when boys are socialized to be provider, boss, and caretaker and then find that those roles are not as necessary as was thought. But battling the negative aspects of your own socialization is part of growing up (score point for reference to original topic!). Plenty of parallels exist in the women's movement, in which lots of us have had to learn about things like being less people-pleasing, saying no, acting assertively, grappling for a healthy body image, and the like.

w/r/t declaring a king: nah, just don't follow. A decentralized movement is the way to go.

It's very strange, and while it doesn't have quite the defensive tone of not knowing what to do in the face of competent women, it does have the sense of families really needing only one parent, and that might as well be the woman.

It's a complaint I'm seeing pop up a lot among African-American women (feminists and not), too. There's a sense that white mainstream feminism is letting black guys off the hook, in a lot of ways, and leaving a lot of women raising a lot of kids on their own. (Obviously there are other societal forces at play there, and I've seen strong arguments on both sides of that one.)

And jon, it's not genital configuration. It's the idea that boys and men are all socialized in ways that can both help and harm them, and finding ways to increase the helping parts and get rid of the harmful parts. And it's hard to change socialization on one's own.

I'm not a part of the feminist community because I share a genital configuration with most of its members. I'm part of that community because we all see how society has limited women's choices. That's the "decoupling feminity from womanhood" thing. I don't sit around saying "How does having a vagina limit my choices?"; it's "How does the way society treats women limit my choices, and how can I change that?"

Being a man is about more than having a dick. The question is, What?

And jon, it's not genital configuration.

well, ultimately it is. That's the only thing all men have in common (and all women).

Being a man is about more than having a dick.

I have a dick, thus I am a man. Beyond that, I'm simply jonmc and my choices are mine alone.

Well, then, you may stand as a case in point of the problem I'm talking about. To a consciousness-raising group with you! :-)

To a consciousness-raising group with you!

You can't raise my consciouness unless I'm actually conscious, right?

*opens fifth of whiskey, begins guzzling*

(what I meant by 'mine alone,' is that ultimately I don't care what anyone, male or female, straight or gay, black, white or windowpane plaid does as long as they don't interfere with my right to do whatever the hell I want. Ism's and ideologies make me nervous. They conjure up visions of propoganda and conditioning and that I can do without. I'm not claiming to be some kind of special little snowflake, but I don't wanna be forced into anyone's idea of what I 'should' be)

I'm simply jonmc and my choices are mine alone.

That's really debatable. Our choices are limited below the level of consciousness by socialization. To be unaware of those limitations is to remain at their mercy.

Well, jon, no offense (from the Obama thread), but it's hard to see a position to take in your positions. I am saying pick a side (here as well as there), but it isn't "Choose dem or rep!", it's "choose engagement or remain so relentlessly singular that you aren't contributing to making things better." It may be a distasteful choice, but I'm not sure what else there is.

I've read a lot of responses from you re: identity politics and social justice issues over the years, and while I have deep misgivings about social identity (however understood) as a basis for political cohesion, I've always been struck by a certain sense in your responses that there is simply nothing to be done. That political action, that discussion of social issues around community norms, that holding people accountable for their words and actions (which includes making reasonable assumptions about their beliefs based on their statements), that it's all part of some kind of nefarious plot to put people into boxes and file them away like the Ark of the Covenant in some government warehouse.

The problem for me is that as much as I enjoy reading your posts, they add up, perhaps only because you haven't articulated the positive side of your critique, to a profoundly nihilistic worldview that dismisses engagement and choice as essentially flawed and, somehow, manipulative. What's most distressing to me about it (and I use distressing on purpose, because I like you and value your contributions and opinions), is that I think that's precisely the opposite of what I think you think you're saying. I read your posts as wanting to champion wide acceptance and the hope for broad change based on that acceptance, but they're so profoundly dismissive of every attempt to take a stand and make a choice that they come out (to me) as the opposite.

(And of course I take no offense at your responses. We're adults discussing our necessarily attentuated internet readings.)

you haven't articulated the positive side of your critique,

When it comes to politics, as soon as I find a positive side, I'll let you know. I won't knock anyone for getting involved if they feel that's what they have to do, but it's impossible for me to think about without being disgusted.

The problem with disengagement/jadedness (and I say this to everyone, I'm not trying to pile on jon) is that whether or not you participate, something will still happen. Nonparticipation has no power to stop the negative from happening; it just cedes the decision to those who are more engaged, more passionate, and perhaps more ideological.

Gee, this thread got really predictable as soon as jonmc changed it from the original topic to the topic he wanted to discuss.

something will still happen.

something will happen no matter what you do. 99.99% of life is out of our control. embrace it.

I don't want to just embrace it. I help direct it.

I started reading it, but I had to stop in the middle and masturbate.