I feel like a lot of people are responding to this article as if the title is meant to be incendiary; the way a jilted friend spits "Grow up!" at the object of their indignation. I don't think that was the intention, though. I wonder, in fact, how many of these commenters thoroughly read the article, because--as a guy/boy/man/child of 25--I found it to be a fascinating exploration of why the trappings of my life, and my peers' lives, differ so much from that of our parents at this age. I don't see it as an attempt at bastardizing our ability to take responsibility for ourselves.
What I find grating is the NY Times invocation of the Royal We:
"If society decides to protect these young people or treat them differently from fully grown adults, how can we do this without becoming all the things that grown children resist — controlling, moralizing, paternalistic?"
I don't see how "we", as society, need to do anything. If a parent wants to allow a child to live with them until he's 30, if people want to get married or have kids later, or if a parent wants to kick their kid out of the nest at 18 or two 19 year olds want to marry while still undergrads, I don't see how "we" as the broader society need to do anything. Leave it to the individual.
I find the idea that society is obligated to change to accommodate the indefinite extension of adolescence to be controlling, moralizing, and paternalistic.
(And this is coming from someone who got married at 29, just under the 30 deadline. I just don't see the need to reinforce the decision I personally made as a social norm.)
