Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Justin Beiber and the TEA Party


Your pie maker recently asked an intern from the Institute for Women's Policy Research about how the male ideal changed from "tall, dark and handsome" to "small, pale and pretty."  He pointed out how he had once mistook a picture of the pop star for a five year old, and could not see how someone who might not need to shave yet could attract such attention.  This was intended to be rhetorical, almost an ironic lament, as a hearty diet in his youth and regular outdoor exercise put your pie maker closer to the first category. 

Her answer, however, was both immediate and insightful.  Women do not need the protection of a man anymore, at least women living in the parts of town with good police protection.  There is no need for women to put up with the risks associated with signs of high testosterone levels, as a man able physically defend her is equally able, and somewhat likely, to harm her.  Since laborers are no longer primary breadwinners, at least in families that can afford concert tickets, evidence of physical labor will be a sign of "otherness" at best, lower caste at worst.  Only very rarely would a man working with his hands be pointed out by their mothers or older sisters as objects of desire.  In other words, since women are in many ways better equipped to thrive in the modern economy, it's not surprising that the new heartthrobs are more effeminate.

Herein lies a fascinating view of the psychology of the generation gap that largely defines the TEA Party.  A man who reaches adulthood without the scars, sun-driven wrinkles and callouses that come from learning at the basics of maintaining his own land will rely on contracts with others to ensure the work gets done.  Those contracts require courts, police and a whole body of laws to ensure that they are enforced.  To keep inequities in contracts from turning into civil unrest or threats to public health, they must be monitored by regulators.  The wealth required to ensure that enough of those contracts get paid that an acceptable amount of work gets done requires a financial system that cannot lose money, and so must be carefully regulated and backed by public funds. A nation whose majority work in offices needs to import its goods, requiring globe-spanning security with the equipment and intelligence systems, foreign and domestic, to ensure that the empowering technologies that make life in the US comfortable do not get turned against us.  Someone has to pay for this, and aren't we Taxed Enough Already?


There's no doubt that the Baby Boomers who make up the majority of the TEA Party have benefited from this system, even helped build major parts of it.  But they have ushered in a world whose reward structure is very different from the one in which the Greatest Generation raised raised them.  "Self reliance" is hard, and much of what we used to call "progress" trades it for interdependence.  Successful politicians have managed to keep many of the mechanisms that provide this prosperity hidden via subsidies, tax incentives and mandates on employers and manufacturers, allowing them to run essentially as their own opposition.  When times are good, the costs for this can be easily absorbed in by steadily increasing tax revenues and corporate earnings.  Indeed, regulations create barriers to entry that heavily favor incumbents and enable genuine economic profits.

However, times are not good.  We need to choose whether government influence should become more visible, and our lack of independence made clear, or accept less comfortable lives with fewer services.  Classic notions of masculinity clearly argue for the latter, but it's clear those views are losing cachet.  There is a lot of unfocused anger in the national discussion today, and your pie maker thinks this trend is at the heart of it.  He's not entirely sure which side of it he falls upon, however.  Interconnectedness, another word for specialization, is the core of civilization, but too much leads to fragility, a system rife with single points of failure as each individual is needed to make vital services function.  There is no easy answer, but it helps to ask the right question.

2 comments:

NeoPublius said...

Don't confuse pop culture with reality. I was reading something the other day (read: five+ weeks ago) making the argument that surveys and at least one study find that the majority of women still prefer muscular men. Or at least men with wide shoulders and a narrow waist, which is a darn good indicator of fitness and some muscularity (albeit it not necessarily the body builder look).

That doesn't necessarily translate into blue collar work... it might mean using the gym after the office, but it does mean that the effete look is a minority taste. A highly visible (and possibly growing) minority taste.

The preference for paleness, on the other hand, has bounced around for centuries - it's unlikely to ever stabilize for or against for very long.

I would also posit a theory to ponder: specialization is not the cause of economic growth, but is instead a second product of the cause of economic growth: increasingly sophisticated technological innovation.

J D said...

Entirely unrelated to anything, but posted because I know you'll read it here: http://gizmodo.com/5939895/tacocopter-basics

On the subject: this may also have something to do with feminism finally having some success in deconstructing gender roles, permitting individuals to ask themselves what sort of person they're really compatible with, society be damned. I think if we put 100 Western women in a room and asked them what sort of guy they preferred, we'd get wildly different answers all up and down the spectrum of "typical masculinity." Which is good, really -- more diversity in the gene pool means society is ready to deal with diverse problems.