[Neisha:] Kevin, that's exactly what I see with my mother-in-law. She complains a ton about how she once had hopes and dreams of her own, blah, blah, blah. But never once have I seen her do anything about it. It's like she did her duty by getting married at 21 and that was the end of having her own life. She's an empty nester now but she still sits around the house waiting for someone to need her domestic services and then complains about how her husband doesn't appreciate her. I just don't get it.

[Mike:] This is the core idea of generational theory. The experiences of a generation in the past shapes their future behavior (history shapes generations, which then shapes history). Your mother-in-law and millions of other women in her generaton were raised to deny themsleves and put others first, and now many of them don't know what to do for themselves. It's like childhood victims of parental neglect have a tough time making good life choices for themselves.

Of course Silent women can do something about it. So can Xers and Jonesers who complain about how their past makes it difficult for them to shape satisfactory lives today. Many *do* move beyond their past, and many do not.

Justin, I had the idealic childhood from 1956 to the early 1970's, ever though we weren't rich. My parents never fought in front of us. My mom stayed home and did the majority of the parenting. I didn't even know about some of the things in the 60's like Woodstock until I went away to college.
I know I didn't know about that when it actually happened. We were very protected. Now we did worry about whether or not there would be enough jobs for all of the Boomers when we grew up. We were aware that there were a bunch of us out there.

Mike, I supposed that's true, but the difference is that most of the Xers and Jonesers I know are *not* complaining about their lives, but rather are very busy doing their best to get things together while there is still someting like a gravy train around. We have all seen bad economic times and therefore know that the good times will end and we better get our acts together fast, before that happens.

The reason I have so little sympathy for Silents is that they have had more opportunity to do whatever they want, no matter how niche-driven, specialized, or nuanced, than any other generation in the history of the planet. If a Silent woman has kids in her early 20s, they are grown and gone by her mid-40s. By this time, she has all the material stability and contacts in the world and can do whatever she wants completely unencumbered by anything! Instead, I see so many of them sitting around their plush mansions whining about not feeling needed. Well, gee, I bet there's a homeless shelter or an art museum or a school within ten miles of you that will make you feel more needed than you ever have in your life.

Just saw the following message on the Generation Jones message board:

"can i be a joneser?" by allison

"i read that article last week in USNEWS&WORLDREPORT, checked out some articles about generation jones, and i wanna be a joneser! problem is i was born in 1967, but wait a minute before dismissing me! i have 3 older siblings, all jonesers, and their influence on me was such that i identify much more with jonesers than the lame generation (x) that i am part of by virtue of my birthyear. any birthyear exceptions made for people who are jonesers by any criteria except age? xers are lame but jonesers are pretty damn cool."

No, Allsion, you can't be a Joneser. But you can be (and in fact, are) a Buster!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2001-08-18 10:10 ]</font>

Well, if you all will let an old Silent woman in on this. I want to tell about my middle child, who I think would be what you are calling a Joneser (?). And talk about the horrible sexual baggage of the 70's-80's.

My daughter, born 1956. We already had our son, born 1950. So, my girl was my "baby" until my other son was born 1965. My girl and I were very close, still are. Now, my oldest boy was a "real" Boomer, his pre-pubic childhood was spent in that dreamland classically reproduced in the movie Pleasantville (a great movie that I for one strongly identified with - the 3 adult leads in that were excellent, and the issues were all so true). HIS cohorts were the ones who revolted because "we" broke the social trust.

But my daughter, poor sweetie, she was so bright, pretty, strong, loving, self-assured. I think she is finding a happy peace now, but it's been hard. Her self-confidence was shattered for many years afterwards. That 70's decade you are discussing -- well, if I'd been her, it might have turned me lesbian. Probably not, but maybe. No offense to anyone gay, I just meant I could almost understand why a woman would not want men, who'd treated her that way atleast.

Men - no, that's too generous, you boys born same general time, so many of you were just plain cads, jerks, big babies, Peter Pans. My girl got her heart broken so many times. At one point, she was almost just wandering around, lost. Her only crimes - trust and patience, which just made it worse, of course. Back then, boys were famous for just wanting to live together and remain emotional cripples and babies. I'm speaking in general, of course, but just look at the number of legal marriages back then. They plummeted, and on into the 80's. A girl had to walk a tightrope and play a cruel game of mental chicken. The whole 70's decade and part of the 80's was the War on Conventional Love. Girls had been raised to believe in one set of rules, then poof! -- no rules, except what boys wanted. I would try and try to get my daughter (and her many girlfriends who were all going through the same thing) to realize they just had to get tough and stand firm as to what THEY wanted, but Society, you see, had crumbled as far as any support there. You can always say the girls wanted the same things, but they didn't, they wanted love, a ring, kids. Three nasty, four-letter words in too many male Joneser's eyes. You can make darn sure I made my younger son know that was NOT acceptable behavior. I think the living together stupidity was one big reason many middle-wave Boomers through Xrs waited so long to marry. Too much emotional numbness and trauma to overcome.

Excuse my rudeness, but I have alot of bitterness left over from that time, toward those age of males you call Jonesers, and much sympathies for the females who got tangled up with them. I don't know if Xr females had to endure the same treatment, perhaps they did but were wiser going in. It would still hurt, but not nearly as much.

Your words are unfortunate, but true, Barbara. I finally ended up with an Englishman. I think British Jonesers
don't have such an intense fear of the "C" word as do American JOnesers, and they seem
to have a much earlier maturation age.

Barbara, your observations are so true, and my heart goes out to your daughter. It was a rare Joneser male indeed who believed in love, marriage, and commitment. (the dreaded L, M, and C words). A young woman had to be very careful what she said to a guy lest he get scared away. But it was perfectly okay to have sex on the first date, of course; in fact this was expected--and a girl who didn't have sex by at least the third date was promptly dumped. Priorities were all backwards, if you ask me. I remember once finally working up the courage to say "I love you" (three dirty little words) to a man I had been seeing for several months, and his reaction was simply a nervous giggle and a silent phone from then on. I never saw him again. My heart was broken, but to make an issue of it would have appeared hopelessly old-fashioned and "neurotic", so instead I put on false smile and dove into work (and too much drinking and partying) to cover the pain. I sure learned my lesson.

It seems that for all the emphasis on women's rights at the time (which I am not begrudging), that it was really just the men who were getting their own way as far as relationships were concerned. It was okay, even expected, for a woman to pursue a career, and if this was what she wanted, everything was fine and dandy. But if all she wanted was marriage and kids, God help her. You couldn't admit to that without being seen as an insecure freak or a throwback to the fifties. I think the "free love" movement of the sixties and the sexual revolution was responsible for this state of affairs. Finally, men were allowed to get sex without taking responsibility or caring about anyone's feelings but their own. Women, of course, could do this as well if they so desired, but more likely, they were worrying inordinately about getting pregnant, getting a venereal disease (remember VD?), or getting dumped after sleeping with a guy they thought they were in love with. It took a scourge such as AIDS to change all this. That's pretty sad.

I wanted to respond to Barbara's post and Susan's follow up, with my own tale of hearbreak and societal betrayal.

If I may, Barbara, I am one of those "rare Joneser males" Susan speaks of. Back in my college days of the late 70s and early 80s it was I who only wanted to have one steady girlfriend whom I would eventually marry and have children with-- and in that order. I wish there had been more women around like your daughter and her friends when I was attending college in Southern California. But, sadly, there weren't. Or at least there didn't seem to be.

I too have a lot of bitterness left over from that era, specifically towards my Boomer cohorts who considered me a Very Bad Person, simply for having a decent, wholesome attitude towards relationships at at time when true love was forbidden.

It is a given that the guys considered me to be a total geek for not wanting to plaster my bedroom walls with rotten wild oats and innumerable notched-out belts. What you don't seem to be aware of is that most of the women were exactly the same way back then.

I can't count how many women I was rejected by because I wouldn't try to get her panties off by the second or third date. Usually I couldn't even get a FIRST date, because the women could just TELL how clean-cut and "old-fashioned" I was. For being a nice guy who adored and respected nice young women, I was made to feel like a dysfunctional basketcase-- mostly by the women I was trying to date.

As a result of this "Sexual Revolution" my self-confidence regarding women and relationships was completely shot to hell by the time I received my B.S. in Engineering. I didn't lose my virginity until I was 25, out of bitterness, because it was obvious by then that no woman was returning the favor by saving herself for me. By my late twenties I was having virtual panic attacks whenever I tried to ask a woman out, for fear of the out-of-hand dismissal and rejection that would surely follow.

It wasn't until I was 34 years old that I had a meaningful relationship that lasted longer than six months. I just got married this year -- at age 41-- and it already is failing miserably largely due to the baggage we both still carry from our young adulthoods.

Yes, I have a lot of baggage from that repulsive era of "Awakening" that Eric Meece and others on this site look back soooooo fondly (God DAMN them!!!). What I can't seem to get past is this: I wanted so badly to be the Prince Charming, the Knight in Shining Armour, who would come and save the Princess and make her my Queen. But Sleeping Beauty wasn't waiting for me at all! Hell, no -- she was too busy getting bonked by the Big Bad Wolf....loving it!.....and laughing heartily at the Prince who would have saved her. A later-wave true Xer would simply mumble "whatever" at this unfortunate situation and "get over it". How does a Joneser do that? As late-wave Boomers, we were promised a Rose Garden. But we ended up with only the thorns.

My heart goes out to you, Barbara, for having to watch your daughter deal with all those horrible men. I just wanted you to know that there were decent Joneser guys out there, back in the day, who indeed wanted no part in that horror. Many of us are still suffering for having the guts to reject it. This Joneser is, for sure.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-08-19 17:03 ]</font>

Wow, Kevin. Sounds like you and I might have been better off as Silents (I probably would have been a beatnick, though). We were just born about 20 years too late. Oh well, whatever. I can't say I'd particularly enjoy Silent early adulthood though as it was pretty stifling, but it might have been easier on my tender heart. :smile:

Of course, Kevin, I should definitely have qualified my remarks and made it clear I don't think for one second that ALL Joneser males were cads. I wrote that post out of emotion. I feel for you just as well. ALL of you, male AND female, who tried bravely to hang on to the Old Order in terms of Societial mating customs. We are coming back to it now because of your not giving up on it, and because those who did realize the selfishness was so damaging.

Maybe those Silent women being discussed are trying to hang on, too, now that I think about it. There is definitely no reason for them to still be complaining now, though, as you say, except for perhaps something about some old dogs not being able to learn any new tricks.

Hang on still, Kevin, because Societal support is back, and so are committed relationships. Most women and men really DO want the commitment, once they figure out WHO they are, and that the Greeks were right (Know Thyself).

Having come of age in the mid-seventies, I can say, without hesitation, that my peers of the female persuasion used sex as a tool of domination over their men-kind victims.

Oh yes, it was as Mr. Parker suggested, "bedroom walls with rotten wild oats and innumerable notched-out belts." But make no mistake, these women knew their business. And they took many a loin for a real joy ride.

While, I'm going to excuse any guy for falling prey to such acts of aggressive female seduction back in the so-called "Revolution," I'm also not going to buy the notion that it was driven by lust on the part of these guys either.

The female motto was, the bigger, the tougher, the meaner guy I could seduce... THE BETTER!

Hence, the Mr. Parkers (myself included, I ended up marrying an Xer) of the world were left kneeling in the dust of the "V"-word chronicles.

p.s. Sorry about your daugther, Ms. Barbara, but she is not typical of her peers back in the "Our bodies, Ourselves" days.

It sould read, "While, I'm NOT going to excuse any guy for falling prey to such acts of aggressive female seduction back in the so-called "Revolution"....

Ah well, Marc Lamb, perhaps the feelings on this particular topic has NOT healed. How striking what raw emotions well up from differing points of view....

I'm not sure I would say, "the feelings on this particular topic has NOT healed," Ms. Barbara. It just bothered me for a long time as to why I found women my own age so unattractive and unappealing.

But, in all honesty, I had a lot of things going on (both good and bad) at this time to distract me from getting too tightly wound by it.

In fact, my first marriage (to the Xer) was a total disaster. And I since remarried a Baby Boomer (1960) in 1991. This has been a complete success. The difference (though she is very strong-willed, as am I) is a matter of just plain pragmatic maturity, and the very important fact that we're not in the Awakening period anymore.

My initial point, in all of this, was to contrast your story, with Mr. Parker's, as to what I observed back during those strange daze. Afterall, I was, and remain, pretty pleased, goofy as it was, with my Awakening journey.

Not too many folks can actually say that. Ever heard of "rattlesnake"?

Marc, do you mean a truce? If so, this gun-toting Republican will keep it holstered, for now. Again, I do appreciate yours and Kevin's viewpoints, as well as Ellen's and Susan's.

I was just over at Women's Issues in the Cultures and Values Forum, and may have "heard" your rattle again <g>. Curiously, that IWF funded-but-independent study on college dating and mating that Robert 'madscientist' Reed referenced had recommendations which do have direct parallels to this topic's discussion.

http://www.iwf.org/news/010727.shtml

Pasted for info purposes only:

Based on these findings, we offer the following recommendations:


1. Recognize that older adults, including parents, college administrators, and other social leaders, should have important roles in guiding the courting and mating practices of the young. The virtual disappearance of adult participation in, or even awareness of, how today?s young people find and marry one another should be seen as a major social problem, and should end.


2. Recognize that college women typically do not yearn for a series of ?close relationships,? but instead the majority seek long-term commitment and marriage.


3. There appears to have been a reduction in male initiative in dating on college campuses. Recognize that the burden of dating and mating should not fall on women alone, and that there is a need for greater male initiative.


4. Support the creation of socially prescribed rules and norms that are relevant to and appropriate for this generation, and that can guide young people with much more sensitivity and support toward the marriages they seek. When it comes to inherently social acts such as romance and marriage, social rules do more than restrict individual choice, they also facilitate it. The absence of appropriately updated social norms, rituals, and relationship milestones leaves many young women confused, and often disempowered, in their relationships with men. Socially defined courtship is an important pathway to more successful marriages.

***End of paste***

If this study has legs, it unfortunately appears that this abyss has not yet been generationally bridged.

I am so pleased to learn that the Generations and Sex Board has sprung up on the GB board. Im excited.
Im no way a Joneser guy (we know this) but I am extremely terrified by those dirty words like Love and Committment. I have said them alot and tried to live them...but they always fall apart. So I understand the Joneser code of conduct in a way.
Burn before you get burned. Or as Jim Morrison said "Get your kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."
Ive been in several serious relationships, all that lasted over a year. Ive met the families, talked about the childhoods, visited odd places like Pottsville, PA and Portland, OR, and I can safely say, that in every town on Earth I could probably find Love and Committment if I really wanted it.

What Ive learned from this silly charade is that its much more productive to spend your time preoccupied with something other than Love and Committment, then to be moping around, trying to live the big bad lie.
For me I am preoccuped with music...others like my bandmate Rita, are preoccupied with TV.
Should I expect anything more than a sweet companion for a short period of time???
Nah.
And to all those committed out there, I feel that word is symbolic of another form of committment---the institution. Marriage is an institution, dating is an institution---an institution that keeps me from getting warm companions because of lame things like promises, and love, and committment, that will probably sink anyway in a month or two.

I am not bitter about love and stuff. Ive been lucky enuf to have a lot of it...But I really dont see the permanence in that kind of relationship based love.
I think its just society hoodwinking us into getting settled down and having a family and buying Pokemon stuff.
I know I "sound" like a Boomer in 1968.
But thats how I feel.
And those wife swapping parties sound like a lot of fun....Im mad I missed that!

On 2001-08-20 00:48, Justin'79 wrote:

And to all those committed out there, I feel that word is symbolic of another form of committment---the institution. Marriage is an institution, dating is an institution---an institution that keeps me from getting warm companions because of lame things like promises, and love, and committment, that will probably sink anyway in a month or two.

I am not bitter about love and stuff. Ive been lucky enuf to have a lot of it...But I really dont see the permanence in that kind of relationship based love.
I think its just society hoodwinking us into getting settled down and having a family and buying Pokemon stuff.
I know I "sound" like a Boomer in 1968.
But thats how I feel.
And those wife swapping parties sound like a lot of fun....Im mad I missed that!

It comes to mind that this has all been done before. I too have embarked to Cythera that Mr. Jean-Antoine Watteau illustrated at least three times and the later versions are, as is reality, less sunny. In 1710 he painted the first version of the isle of love, Cythera, to which pilgrims are about to embark but never arrive. That this was a cautionary tale that warned of impossible dreams, the revenges of madness on reason and license on morality never struck this boomer as true while I first climbed upon that particular pier, degraded from Watteau's vision to the pedestrian "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll".


Cythera was a lie in the 1700's and a lie in the 1970's. It was an attractive lie as most lies are...you would have been disappointed Justin; it is the nature of the place. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-08-20 06:12 ]</font>

Marriage as an institution is a good one because it is ultimately liberating in its proper form. I think people are afraid of committment because they are afraid that they will no longer have control over their own lives. But this is not necessarily the case.

Being shackled by lust is a curse, not a delight. Marriage reigns in lust (but certainly doesn't tranquilize it :wink: ) and gives it a productive focus, strengthening physical and spiritual bonds in an atmosphere of trust, giving, mercy, and pure love. Although it is difficult in this hypersexual pop culture of ours to wander for 5 minutes without seeing blatant innuendo that titilate the desire to get laid, with marriage one's energies and attentions are more easily directed elsewhere.

It's not hard to be enslaved by loneliness if you're not married. People do all kinds of sad, desperate, and pathetic things when they are lonely. I know this from personal experience. In marriage you're never want of a person to share thoughts and feelings with. Thus you can be spending time on your true desires rather than the ones inspired by the demons that haunt the lonely.

Throughout life, you may be always wondering self-consciously "Am i good enough? Am i smart enough? Am I strong enough?" This constant barrage of self-criticism and doubt doesn't vanish when you are married, but it certainly dies down to a point where it's no longer all-consuming. Thus marriage (ideally) softens the burning desire to have to prove yourself all the time.

What's the difference between a concubine and a wife? With girlfriends and boyfriends as concubines, there's always that little element of doubt, that little part of self that you don't give away unconditionally. It may be fun, and it may be thrilling, but there is always friction because inevitably somebody's going to passionately charge into that door of the soul that remains dead-bolted...then the fears of abandonment and rejection kick in, becoming self-fulfilling in time.

People in love deserve more from each other than half of their lover. That is where marriage comes in. Marriage creates a safe space where people can feel free to share ALL of each other--yet at the same time suffering no loss of identity. This space is made safe because it is born in an oath given before all friends and family, and thus to disavow this oath is to disavow every person who was witness to it.

Oh well, rambling again. I just felt it necessary to defend marriage as an institution today. It is a useful one, I think, notwithstanding all the bombardment from Hollywood and elsewhere which says otherwise.

remember im just speaking for myself.

Re: Barbara. No offense taken :smile:. And you are correct for the most part-- many, if not most, of my male late-Boomer cohorts were (and probably still are) cads indeed. My central point -- corroborated by Mr. Lamb-- was that most of my female college classmates were just as lecherous as the males, perhaps even more so. As I am fond of saying, there was more than enough blame to go around.

Re: Susan. Yes, sometimes I do feel I was born two decades or so too late. Then again, the Silents had other sorts of problems to deal with that I can only barely imagine. For example, as a Silent I would have likely been restricted to a monoethnic circle of friends, associates and potential mates. This would probably have rendered me even more dysfunctional by this time in my life than I am now. Given a choice between being a Boomer nerd outcast and a by-the-book Silent racial conformist, there's no question in my mind that I'd be a Boomer/Joneser all over again. For better and for worse.

Wow, thanks to all who shared their '70s experiences. AIDS hit when I was an early teen, so, like Justin, I always felt like I was born a bit late to the party. I always looked upon the '70s as a very innocent time. It seemed like all fun and no AIDS or herpes (remember that?) or any other bad things to worry about. Of course, during the 70s I was, actually, an innocent -- being only three in 1970 and 12 in 1979. So, no wonder I look upon it with a sort of kid's fondness.

But, you guys add reality to it and it does sound pretty awful. We Xers are kind of free to choose commitment. We don't have GIs to rebel against, so no-one is going to think that we are opressing ourselves or whatever by being in a serious relationship. With so many options out there, marriage is just another option among many. The nice thing about being my age is that you rarely make a statement by your actions because everything had already been done by someone older than you. It's pretty liberating to live how you want.

Jon wrote: In marriage you're never want of a person to share thoughts and feelings with. Thus you can be spending time on your true desires rather than the ones inspired by the demons that haunt the lonely.

Well said! And so true.

heres an article from aol
i think its interesting because it identifies the generation by event location
for example, baby boomers are definied by knowing where they were when kennedy was shot
Xers are identified by knowing where they were when the challenger blew up
and the millies have other identifiers like collumbine and oklahoma city///that oddly enuf didnt have much impct on me///
which i dont know why...perhaps i was immune to bad news by that time

'Mindset List' Bridges Generation Gap

By MARTHA IRVINE
.c The Associated Press

BELOIT, Wis. (Aug. 23) - Brooke Ferguson was a little taken aback when a letter from her college in southern Wisconsin urged her to bring a pair of ''thongs'' to school.

She thought officials at Beloit College were making underwear suggestions. ''Then I realized they meant shower shoes,'' the 18-year-old freshman says, laughing.

The generation-gap-induced mix-up has become fodder for a list officials at Beloit create each year to give faculty members a few clues about their newest students.

The so-called Mindset List, officially released Thursday, reminds professors that celebrities, news stories and facts of every day life when they were young aren't even a memory for today's freshmen.

For the class of 2005, ''IBM Selectric typewriters are antiques,'' this year's list notes - a contention confirmed by the blank stares that mention of the Selectric drew from many of Beloit's freshmen.

''Gotcha,'' 18-year-old Meg Kassabaum says with a smirk when told that the typewriters were the cutting-edge technology of their day.

The confusion over bringing thongs to school inspired this list entry: ''Thongs no longer come in pairs and slide between the toes.''

Many students also were surprised to learn that most Americans didn't grow up drinking Diet Coke, also on this year's list.

''Yes, once upon a time, you could not get a diet soft drink,'' Tom McBride, an English professor who helps write the list, told a group of some of this year's 320 Beloit freshmen. The new students arrived this week for orientation and a few pre-class lectures, discussions and field trips.

The list is so popular that it regularly pops up in e-mail boxes worldwide. University officials say they get occasional complaints about it from students, who say the list belittles and stereotypes them, or is just plain inaccurate.

But McBride is quick to defend it, telling them, ''We're not saying you're ignorant.'' He pauses, smiles and then adds, ''Just limited.''

Besides, he says, the list is supposed to be fun, thought-provoking and mostly ''a reminder to aging Baby Boomers,'' who may be struggling with the mere fact that most college underclassmen were born in the early 1980s.

''When you want time to slow down, that's precisely when it speeds up,'' McBride says. ''And I think this list reminds them of that.''

As the list points out, most freshmen are unaware that Sarajevo ever hosted the winter Olympics. To them, it is simply a war zone.

And unlike preceding generations, who may remember where they were when JFK was shot or when the Challenger space shuttle exploded, these freshmen relate to different events - among them, the Oklahoma City bombing and execution of Timothy McVeigh.

''Maybe it's because of where I'm from, but I will always remember the morning that it happened,'' Joe Planer, an 18-year-old freshman from North Manchester, Ind., says of McVeigh's execution two months ago in his home state.

He and several others also mention the deep impact of the Columbine High School massacre, while still others remember being pulled out of their grade-school classrooms to watch the O.J. Simpson freeway chase and trial verdict.

Much of their generation's humor, meanwhile, is the product of another Simpson - Bart and his cartoon family. And most of them grew up using computers.

McBride, a professor at Beloit for 28 years, says he has noticed other differences in modern-day freshmen.


He sees them as more health-conscious, goal-oriented and docile than their predecessors. ''Students 20 years ago were much more rebellious and suspicious of authority,'' he says.

These days, the popularity of the list among that very generation of former rebels - now the older generation - is pretty much ensuring that it will live on.

Ron Nief, list co-author and the school's spokesman, already has at least one entry in mind for next year.

''Who is Marilyn?'' he recently asked a group of students, thinking they'd probably respond ''Monroe.''

Their answer?

''Manson.''

Justin, there is TONS to discuss in that article -- good catch, young man!

But first, just for the record, only my opinion of course and very simplistic, but you consistently but definitely strike me as an Xr-leaning/Millie cusp cohort. Do you agree?

My oldest grandson is but 5 years younger than you, yet he is an Xr/Millie-leaning cusp cohort. He sees things like you initially, but handles them differently, somewhat more like a Millie (this isn't good or bad, just describing here). He enters college next fall.

Now, onto your article, gads, don't they know that yesterday's thongs are now called SLIDES????? :sigh:

Aging Boomers still caught up in their own images? Comes to mind..... To be fair though, every aging generation has done that. Boomers insist on appearing "hip" still, though, so that translates to still being in the know. And, they are so NOT in the know. :grin:

They need to get younger folk to do the list, definitely. Another good ideas (duh)(hello) that won't be followed....

As for generational "defining moments" in history, the oldest Millies probably DO remember OK City and McVeigh. The mid-Millie cohorts will identify another, and the end-Millie cohorts still another. We have yet to see those latter two's choices. Will it be Y2K, E2K, or the impending recession? We'll have to wait.

The 24/7 cable news coverage, you know, where they have the theme music and screen banner motifs to an event -- what effect will THIS have on the Generational Defining Moment? My memory points to the Gulf War as the first time this was done, on CNN. Remember, anyone? Was that a late-wave Xr moment, Justin? You were a pre-teen then, right?

Jonesers out there, do you share the JFK assination, or is your defining moment one of the 1968-1970 events (Vietnam protests, Nixon elected, Moon landing, MLK or RFK assisinations, Kent State, Woodstock, etc.)?

Do early-wave Xrs have Challenger, or any of the above events? Just wondering....

Also, more of my two cents, but my suspicion is that early-wave Boomers may list JFK as their moment, but I suspect for them it's more like Elvis on the Sullivan show or the school desegregation (Brown v. BoE) decision, as the FIRST one. These two moments in retrospect were enormous harbingers of change, and adults reacted viscerally. JFK may get the cross-generational attention because it truly was SO overwhelmingly traumatic to us ALL at that time, and the celluloid images have reinforced it over the years. Not to mention the fact that it is still an Unsolved Mystery.....

Oh, my, I've been a real Chatty Cathy here! Jonesers, who had one of those dolls? :wink:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-08-28 14:43 ]</font>

No, I never owned a Chatty Cathy, Barbara, but a lot of my friends did..btw, have you checked out the Generations and Toys thread and archives? A lot of good stuff there!

Now, I have a question for you. As a teacher, what did you think stood out most about Jonesers, and how were you able to distinguish them from Woodstock era Boomers or from Xers?