GenX curmudgeon mom of three boys. I listened to this podcast with a mix of curiosity, intrigue, and horror. At what point in our culture did your sexuality become bundled with your sense of self-esteem? All of this feels like a byproduct of academia, where topics are over-analyzed to death, and you wake-up from the haze of your upper-division post-modern lit class the first day of summer and realize it's just been a waste of time because all you really want is a solid companion and a good job that pays the rent. I'm trying to figure out who these people are that are/were concerned with this? Where'd they grow up? Did they have two parents? Did they have a solid, stable community around them? My youngest son is 17. He does not know any guy who's gotten a perm. (Which is a hilarious trend. He didn't even know what a "perm" was. Which is beneficial, because no one wants to deal with that chemical smell and get accused of manufacturing LSD in your bathroom, like I did when my best friend and I gave each other perms in the '80s.) We live in a very progressive suburb of Los Angeles, so we're by no means oblivious to what's going on around us. I guess my boys are "normies." They like girls, they go to parties and dances, they date. And they're respectful. Boys are really so much less complicated than girls. And they're much more sensitive than they get credit for. I'm pro-healthy relationship, whether that's straight or gay. I'd hate to think the next book title could be: "The Last Healthy Relationship." Especially if people are worried that's too boring.
"He didn't even know what a "perm" was." This is probably regional and not about broken homes or even socioeconomics. In TORONTO you see this everywhere. I don't think it means anything concerning about the boys. If anything I think it's sweet that they're concerned with interpersonal relationships enough to do some low-stakes primping.
The perm comment was more of an afterthought to the larger issue of women overthinking the importance of their sexuality and over-analyzing the situation ad nauseum. At what point did that become a thing? Those are the individuals I'm curious about the background, more from a social anthropological POV.
Right! And it’s different from the “catfight” episode because it’s less about George being turned on by Susan being with another woman and more about him feeling outclassed, and wanting what he can’t have.
Sex and the City as a fantasy: Esquire magazine was similar in this respect. They would advertise $3000 suits and $900 shoes in back the 90's when their average reader made around 30K a year. They had a feature called "home of the year" or something like that. It tended to be a Manhattan penthouse. If you read the fine print Esquire would admit the article and photos were "aspirational."
Loved this episode... in particular the EXTREMELY nuanced discussion about women that contrasts so starkly with the matter of fact incorrect succinctness of the manosphere.
Jordan Peterson's assessment works from the POV of a man who operates best with simplistic STRIAGHT forward thoughts. It makes sense that the deep nuanced thoughts of women that take into account multiple viewpoints would seem chaotic.
I had lesbian friends in high school (1983 grad) and middle school. Mostly because my entire world did not revolve around boys and getting boys and dressing for boys. I was (and am) a blunt honest talker. I liked reading. I gravitated towards girls that were intelligent and irreverent as friends. Was I a lesbian? No, I aways had boyfriends and at 61 (35 years married to a... wait for it...straight man) I have not become one. I remember a Sex and the City episode where Charlotte thinks she might be a lesbian because a group are coming to her gallery and are fun, love the same art and invite her out. At the end one of these new friends tells her that unless she is willing to eat U-know-what she is NOT a lesbian. In other words it is not just a thought or a passing fancy or a need to be seen as one of the cool kids.
GenX curmudgeon mom of three boys. I listened to this podcast with a mix of curiosity, intrigue, and horror. At what point in our culture did your sexuality become bundled with your sense of self-esteem? All of this feels like a byproduct of academia, where topics are over-analyzed to death, and you wake-up from the haze of your upper-division post-modern lit class the first day of summer and realize it's just been a waste of time because all you really want is a solid companion and a good job that pays the rent. I'm trying to figure out who these people are that are/were concerned with this? Where'd they grow up? Did they have two parents? Did they have a solid, stable community around them? My youngest son is 17. He does not know any guy who's gotten a perm. (Which is a hilarious trend. He didn't even know what a "perm" was. Which is beneficial, because no one wants to deal with that chemical smell and get accused of manufacturing LSD in your bathroom, like I did when my best friend and I gave each other perms in the '80s.) We live in a very progressive suburb of Los Angeles, so we're by no means oblivious to what's going on around us. I guess my boys are "normies." They like girls, they go to parties and dances, they date. And they're respectful. Boys are really so much less complicated than girls. And they're much more sensitive than they get credit for. I'm pro-healthy relationship, whether that's straight or gay. I'd hate to think the next book title could be: "The Last Healthy Relationship." Especially if people are worried that's too boring.
"He didn't even know what a "perm" was." This is probably regional and not about broken homes or even socioeconomics. In TORONTO you see this everywhere. I don't think it means anything concerning about the boys. If anything I think it's sweet that they're concerned with interpersonal relationships enough to do some low-stakes primping.
The perm comment was more of an afterthought to the larger issue of women overthinking the importance of their sexuality and over-analyzing the situation ad nauseum. At what point did that become a thing? Those are the individuals I'm curious about the background, more from a social anthropological POV.
They don't do Pew surveys about hand-wringing. But there are generational stats on sexual orientation that suggest *thinking about* sexuality is not all that fringe, e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nearly-30-gen-z-adults-identify-lgbtq-national-survey-finds-rcna135510 And then there are things like a Dump Him sweater at Target https://phoebemaltzbovy.substack.com/p/heteropessimism-get-the-look suggesting this is not that niche. I know there's always the temptation with anything like this to say 'oh it's five very-online liberal arts students' but even if that's how it starts, that's not where it is a decade in.
I had a similar thought but as a parent of seemingly normal genX adults in the Midwest, how could I know? Maybe it is just a NYC life style frisson.
I don't know if there is even one permed teenage boy in NYC but in Toronto they're ubiquitous.
I did not doubt your observation for a moment. I am not someone who Sasses a Girl who wears glasses.
I'm re-remembering that the cover depicts a glasses-wearer. Which I am not!
Yes it did but bloggers often used misleading profiles then.. If I mis-blogged you, please accept my apology.
great topic.
trying to remember ... I think on Seinfeld there was a scene where George says to Susan something to the effect of "you're a lesbian? That's so hip".
Right! And it’s different from the “catfight” episode because it’s less about George being turned on by Susan being with another woman and more about him feeling outclassed, and wanting what he can’t have.
Sex and the City as a fantasy: Esquire magazine was similar in this respect. They would advertise $3000 suits and $900 shoes in back the 90's when their average reader made around 30K a year. They had a feature called "home of the year" or something like that. It tended to be a Manhattan penthouse. If you read the fine print Esquire would admit the article and photos were "aspirational."
This episode reminds me of the old joke:
Pathetic Guy: Why are you a lesbian?
With It Girl: Because you are the alternative.
Loved this episode... in particular the EXTREMELY nuanced discussion about women that contrasts so starkly with the matter of fact incorrect succinctness of the manosphere.
Jordan Peterson's assessment works from the POV of a man who operates best with simplistic STRIAGHT forward thoughts. It makes sense that the deep nuanced thoughts of women that take into account multiple viewpoints would seem chaotic.
It’s not just straight, it’s normcore lesbians too, it’s welcome to the club of being instantly Karen-ized as middle age women in general.
I had lesbian friends in high school (1983 grad) and middle school. Mostly because my entire world did not revolve around boys and getting boys and dressing for boys. I was (and am) a blunt honest talker. I liked reading. I gravitated towards girls that were intelligent and irreverent as friends. Was I a lesbian? No, I aways had boyfriends and at 61 (35 years married to a... wait for it...straight man) I have not become one. I remember a Sex and the City episode where Charlotte thinks she might be a lesbian because a group are coming to her gallery and are fun, love the same art and invite her out. At the end one of these new friends tells her that unless she is willing to eat U-know-what she is NOT a lesbian. In other words it is not just a thought or a passing fancy or a need to be seen as one of the cool kids.
You will NEVER GUESS which snippet of SATC dialogue is quoted in The Last Straight Woman.
Just bought book!
Oh, the YA boy perms are ALL OVER Vancouver. Aka, “the broccoli top.”
I dig straight chicks. Always have, Always will. Cancel me, I do not care.