The Phoenix

Gen X guy confused by Globe

I was born in 1972, so I'm smack dab in the middle of the demographic that guest columnist David Scharfenberg is discussing in today's Globe. But I'm having a hard time understanding what Scharfenberg is trying to say. Near as I can tell, he makes the following points:

--Gen X guys are confused about what it means to be to be men
--The recession is bringing this problem to the fore
--The issue's not new, but it's really bad now, because there are even fewer blue-collar jobs
--Lots of women are going to college, but guys won't take jobs traditionally thought of as "feminine"
--Maybe "Millenniums" are better taking it easy re: gender
--Obama's good at this, too--he governs like a woman!--but that didn't help in the economic-stimulus debate
--Let's see what happens

Is that right? Do his arguments make sense? Do they fit together? Am I missing something? Honestly, the more times I read this piece, the more confused I get.

Anyone?

Published Feb 23 2009, 05:11 PM by Adam Reilly

Keohane said:

While I can't say for certain whether the collapse of the manufacturing sector has given men emotional vaginas, I can, drawing from this piece, safely venture the observation that Gen-X, whatever its daddy issues, has a serious problem with wobbly metaphors and prolixity. What was that about background music?

February 23, 2009 8:12 PM
boxer14 said:

Yea, frankly, I didn't glean much of anything from this column except that the author is passing off his own internal struggles as an observation on his generation as a whole. It's a flowery essay backed up by barely-relevant data. I don't think my Globe reading experience would have been lessened if this wasn't published.

February 24, 2009 9:13 AM
Patrick said:

Its coming up with a new column each week about being unemployed...give the guy a break.

February 26, 2009 8:50 PM