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?