Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really don't think that the Peter Pan syndrome criticism is intended to say that people shouldn't engage in any hobbies or personal interests, even costly ones, if they can afford it. I think that the argument is with regard to being generally irresponsible, spending money you didn't earn (other people's money in particular) and not considering the future. If you have run up debt buying toys for instance, and have no retirement savings...you're not really making great choices as an adult.
Now some people seem to think that adults have some sort of obligation to create a family and have kids, and that people who don't, who prefer to spend their money on their own lifestyle and not in raising children, are selfish. Some people would look at that as a "Peter Pan" thing. I don't agree. I think that if you're honest with yourself about the way you want to live, and you earn enough to support what you're trying to do without mooching on other people, then there is nothing at all wrong with choosing to focus on your own life and experiences, and choosing not to be a parent.
Exactly, almost all of us have hobbies, interests, toys, etc but the difference is that we pay our bills and handle our responsibilities to others and to society in a proper manner; this is not the Peter Pan syndrome.
Agree about parenting choices. We chose to be child-free, reliable, career-oriented, proper upstanding adults, good citizens, and nothing about us is Peter Pan. Our hobbies and toys fit within our priorities and budget.
Peter Pans are frivolous ones who flit hither and yon through life, leaving others holding the bag for them, stringing lovers along while never committing, racking up unpaid debts, not keeping promises and other creepy behaviors.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Since the Industrial Revolution, boys were removed from their fathers and raised by the mothers. When divorces became more prevalent and accepted, boys were removed from their fathers and raised by their mothers. The results are generations of boys raised by women, the results have been nothing short of predictable.
Except for all the boys (who are in the majority) raised by two parents, or by their fathers.
There are two types of Peter Pans. The traditional type is still living at home as an adult, not working or working menial jobs, and if they are going to college, never actually earning a degree and getting a good job.
In New York City, most of us men do not have the skills to make a good living. They are forced to move away. When you factor in the gays, unemployed, and men with criminal records, this leads to a real shortage of desirable men.
As a result, there are successful men who are still Peter Pans. Because there is a shortage of men, if there is no sex on the first date, there is no second date. You may move in with one of these men, but find that they keep putting off any sort of commitment, such as marriage and children. Then one day, the man moves on in pursuit of younger game, leaving behind a bitter woman who finds she has wasted years of her life in a relationship that was doomed to failure.
I kind of need to point out that labeling a group of men pejoratively is no better than labeling a group of women pejoratively. I suppose it is in practice because men are often considered fair game, especially among forward thinking people, a group I consider myself a member of. But sometimes a group gets angry, collectively, and then it's more of a mob.
Sometimes it seems like this forum things men deserve the indiscriminate vitriol spewing mobs are known for. Really does. I say this as someone who consistently opposes people talking crap about women, as several men here do, but then sees a dearth of responses from women when people talk crap about men. In fact, some of the typically thoughtful posters here often join the "mob". Disappointing.
I kind of need to point out that labeling a group of men pejoratively is no better than labeling a group of women pejoratively. I suppose it is in practice because men are often considered fair game, especially among forward thinking people, a group I consider myself a member of. But sometimes a group gets angry, collectively, and then it's more of a mob.
Sometimes it seems like this forum things men deserve the indiscriminate vitriol spewing mobs are known for. Really does. I say this as someone who consistently opposes people talking crap about women, as several men here do, but then sees a dearth of responses from women when people talk crap about men. In fact, some of the typically thoughtful posters here often join the "mob". Disappointing.
Well said I pointed this out earlier on this thread. A double standard on gender bashing.
I kind of need to point out that labeling a group of men pejoratively is no better than labeling a group of women pejoratively. I suppose it is in practice because men are often considered fair game, especially among forward thinking people, a group I consider myself a member of. But sometimes a group gets angry, collectively, and then it's more of a mob.
Sometimes it seems like this forum things men deserve the indiscriminate vitriol spewing mobs are known for. Really does. I say this as someone who consistently opposes people talking crap about women, as several men here do, but then sees a dearth of responses from women when people talk crap about men. In fact, some of the typically thoughtful posters here often join the "mob". Disappointing.
I've chimed in on some of these kinds of things. I don't think it really does anyone any good to get all bitter and grumpy toward a whole group of other people. In my mind I often try to "flip the coin" and see the other side of things, and to recognize when it's genderless in fact. I've known just as many women who aren't making good "adulting" choices as men. Maybe more!
I remember the few times I went to the military families' meetings, and seeing a lot of young women who were not being very responsible, who were partying it up on their soldier husbands' dime, and not really being attentive parents, and so on. I'd say they're refusing to grow up, maybe the military culture did not help with referring to them as "dependents." Some of the soldiers who blew their big bonuses on fancy but completely impractical cars, instead of saving for when they got out, could also be seen as not adulting so well.
Another thing I think contributes in some cases...you know how they say that people who win the lottery end up poorer in the long run, because they get this windfall and develop really wild spending habits, that don't stop once the money runs out? And we've seen celebrities get huge piles of cash and blow it all on drugs and toys and wind up broke? There is a psychological issue when people get large sums of money that they didn't have to work hard over time to get, and they're not prepared to manage those funds and make them last. I've read and heard plenty of financial advisers talk about this. People get "stupid money" and they do stupid things.
I think using Peter Pan Syndrome or the Princess Syndrome is OK. There are dysfunctional people out there who typify these conditions. I don't think it is good to use the descriptors to bash others. I also doubt that most of us here grudge men or women their hobbies. But we've all probably known people who failed to launch, men or women. These people might well be caught in a perpetual adolescence. There might be other reasons though, such as severe health problems. But we've all known of guys who never worked, but lived off their parents or spouses. We've all known of women who never moved out of the family home and still lived with a parent.
I think we notice it more with the men. We are conditioned to expect guys to leave home, get jobs, join the army, go to school, and we also expect them to find a mate and found a family. Men who fail at any of these things, and who do not take responsibility for their actions, but who attempt to live a life a leisure pursuits, whether or not they have the incomes to do so, could be called Peter Pans.
With women, we tend to assume that she couldn't find a husband, is devoted to her parents, can be a live in caregiver, might not need a high paying job. And of course there are women who feel entitled to not work, to be given a grand lifestyle, to be catered to.
I have known people like these descriptions, and I imagine you have too. They may not be functional, or they may feel terrible insecurities, or they might simply be narcissistic. But they do exist.
Ugh, men who won't grow up. "Manolescent" is a good term. I like to call them "forty-nagers" (forty+teenagers). Not my kind of people though they seem to be quite ubiquitous.
In Port Townsend, they are known as shed boys. LOTS of them around.
Urban Dictionary defines shedboy as: "A man who runs away from relationships and hides in sheds, owns boats with no engines, and may appear on talk shows with strangely ginger hair. Will argue and bluster on any subject for a hobby regardless of any knowledge of the subject matter."
I think I understand the term shed boy as used in this context; a guy who's always out in the shed working on his toy(s), to the exclusion of his wife, kids, obligations, bills, etc. Having a hobby isn't a problem, but the hobbyist becomes a Peter Pan when he does it to the exclusion of that which should have his attention as the first or primary order of life's business.
Years ago I had a coworker who loved golf, it was all he talked about, him and his golf buddies. Women in the office told the story of how he was out golfing while his wife was in the hospital delivering their baby, he was that wrapped up in his golf date. To me, his behavior is what I refer to when I talk about Peter Pan Syndrome, golf took over his life to the exclusion of his wife, newborn, obligations, bills, etc
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I pointed this out earlier on this thread. A double standard on gender bashing.
