Boomers associate monorails with Disneyworld, as something their parents would have like along with the Jetsons and their domed cities. As they have matured, they have come to love their rugged independence. A beat-up SUV in front of their own secluded villa is more their dream-image. Xers, ditto, they want to go their own way. If I were developing a new mag-lev technology today, I would surround it with the buzz and imagery of young Millennials and hope that the voter and consumer demand grows over time.

As a core Millennial (birth year '88) I have recently been having a more distinct rift with my Boomer parents and their Boomer siblings on fundamental issues. They have characteristically very individualistic viewpoints on life and politics where I have in my later formative teen years have become highly civic minding. Not to mention how largely I differ from my Xer cousins. In short I have been leaning progressive. After reading "Millennials Rising" and now that I am in the middle of "The Fourth Turning" I greater understand why I am the way I am. Even my close friends also label problems with government and leadership not with a conservative/liberal split but with Boomer issues and the polarizing nature they have. Should I expect that to continue because 5 years ago, I would have had very similar opinions to that of my parents and would have been much more conservative? Also, I worry about the inspiration my generation as Millennials need to recieve to activate our generation as a group. Since it was WWII for my grandparents (who BTW understand me and my views about society far more than any others in my family) should I be expecting a war that I will fight in or are we talking something like spiritual revival. Whatever it is I hope that it translates into further political activism and efficacy in my cohort. As I approach my twenties I hope that the Millennials can lead in this century and truly be characteristically civic minded Heroes, do you think thats a possibility stil since we are poised for the fourth turning? Thank you guys, love your work and have gotten immense amounts of information from it.

Is there any evidence of a divergence of genders in society?

Regarding geographic influences on generational boundaries, it's true that Millennial indicators lag in small-town and rural America, suggesting that some of the early-to-mid-1980s cohorts in those places are more X-ish than those in cities. Suburbs fall somewhere in between.

We have found that, dating back to emancipation, African-Americans and the children of immigrants (i.e., second generation immigrants) have tended to lead generational trends. This was true in the 1960s, during which trends that indicated more adolescent dysfunction and personal risk-taking were seen first in the African-American community. It's also been true in the 1990s into the current decade, during which the positive trends, away from personal risk-taking, have been seen first among urban African-Americans.

The Millennials' interactive digital-mobile technologies are giving young people in small towns away from the East or West Coast a greater opportunity to have their say, in culture and fashion, than was true for Gen Xers. Over time, the heartland will be an important Millennial locale, especially for those who find housing totally unaffordable, and workplace competition too daunting, in cities that were popular with Gen Xers.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Is there any evidence of a divergence of genders in society?

On the frivolous front - if you were as sick of the adjective "flirty" for every visible piece of female clothing as I am, you'd have to say "You bet!"

In Millennials Rising you guys stated that us Millie guys would "emerge" as a force later then Millie women. how is that prediction holding up?

Originally Posted by William Strauss

As we have written, a fourth turning need not lead to a war, but the script is there. Al Gore seems determined to lead the nation and world through something resembling a fourth turning that does not involve war. He is very aware of our books and theories, and I have a hunch he sees a global battle against atmospheric warming as a possible alternative to a fourth turning war. Leaving aside any argument about the scientific merits of Gore's case, let's ask: From a turnings standpoint, is he right? The script is also there for that, but first the U.S. and other societies need to develop enough of a fourth turning mood to be willing to accept the sorts of sacrifices that would be required--and that might not happen without other significant events taking place first, to shake these societies out of their third turning complacency.

He may be thinking that...it has struck a cord, but I will believe it when I see the sacrifices people are willing to make. You can subsume a lot under environment ... like rebuilding the infrastructure to move us back to the cities, etc. Whatever, I do think he is articulating issues that are important in terms of moving away from the industrial - internal combustion - oil and uniformity age to technological - alternative energy R&D - diversity age. He is the man of the future to Bush's oil man of the past. I think he resonates with me mostly because of his recent book. I loathe the mainstream media and all things DC and NYC. I am beginning to understand why the nixonians hated the "liberal" elites. The Internet has really altered my perception of the "rich and powerful." That is, they are too rich to be so poorly informed.

I am also deeply concerned about our democracy. I very much agree with Gray Badger ... was I deceived in my 2T civic classes? People seem so unconcerned about treason. I am ready for a second american revolution... a reaffirmation of our "democracy." But then I am a boomer.

Millennial gender divergence has to be viewed in the context of the rising educational performance and substantially improved workplace opportunities for young women. What we are seeing, as role models, are what some call "girlie-girls" who are also high achievers in places previously reserved for males. The Indy racer Danica Patrick is an excellent example of the very feminine woman who performs well in a formerly male world, and is well-regarded both for her femininity and for her achievements.

One aspect of gender divergence that bears watching is the difference in economic circumstance between women and men in their twenties. Young women are more likely to be college graduates--hence more likely to have large student loans. Men are more likely to have worked since high school, having taken perhaps a course or two at a community college related to their occupation--with little or no debt and, often, cash in the bank.

Last year, two excellent books were written (both by young women, one a Millennial) about the impact of student loans and young-adult indebtedness on the lives of people under age 30. Their titles are Strapped and Generation Debt, and both leave the implicit suggestion that the problem is worse for young women than for young men.

Employers report that the leading Millennial workplace ambition is to have "a balanced life." Without doubt, Millennial women--especially professionals--will make a major mark on the workplace of the 2010s. We can expect many professions to be feminized, from some of the more nurturing medical specialties to law and academe. Meanwhile, some others (business and technology) will remain male bastions. Millennials will not be bothered by this, on the whole, nearly as much as older generations might be.

If we have a fourth turning of major consequence, the protective role of young males will come to the fore, and these divergences will become even more significant. That has happened during other fourth turnings.

Oh, and one more question for tonight.

Is Al Gore a probable Grey Champion? His persona sure has changed in the last few years, no more "Al Bore/Mr. Robot."

To canderson48: We've talked to a fair number of Millennials who have experienced the same thing. Sometimes they have very liberal parents, sometimes very progressive parents (the former very individualistic in the culture, the latter in the economy), and similar issues seem to surface. They are irritated, to put it gently, by their parents' polarizing, moralizing, judgmental habits of argument. Let's just call this the Boomer vice.

First, understand that this is part of the Boomer generational style. It's not so much a question of substance on the issues as it is a way of thinking about life. It's what many of us Boomers thought the world needed a lot more of back in the late 60s and 70s. Second, yes, you can expect your awareness of this difference to grow as you mature--while you will probably also gain the perspective to prevent it from coming between you. Third, you will find common cause with your peers, and start changing the direction of the country, in the way you respond to the events that history dishes out. That happens for every generation. But we do not think that it will take the form of a spiritual awakening. That was for Boomers. The catalyzing event that awaits you and your peers will require cooperation, extraversion, outer-world building, and capacity to make big institutions work again. Boomers, in their heyday, saw their agenda as running in very much the opposite direction.

The "flirty" aspect of fashion isn't the doing of Millennials, but of (mostly) Gen X designers. Recall how Boomer guys wore pendletons and sweaters, and Boomer girls skirts and high-neck blouses, back in the early 1960s. That didn't say much about Boomers, just as some of today's immodest fashions don't say much about Millennials. The teen pregnancy (and sexual behavior) numbers say far more.

There's a new modesty arising among Millennials, as a reaction against the sex-laced society they see their elders as having built. Many older people can't or won't see it, but go to a health club, and see who is more modest than whom--50somethings or teenagers.

Originally Posted by William Strauss

The "flirty" aspect of fashion isn't the doing of Millennials, but of (mostly) Gen X designers. Recall how Boomer guys wore pendletons and sweaters, and Boomer girls skirts and high-neck blouses, back in the early 1960s. That didn't say much about Boomers, just as some of today's immodest fashions don't say much about Millennials. The teen pregnancy (and sexual behavior) numbers say far more.

There's a new modesty arising among Millennials, as a reaction against the sex-laced society they see their elders as having built. Many older people can't or won't see it, but go to a health club, and see who is more modest than whom--50somethings or teenagers.

Oh, don't I know it! I got a swimsuit catalog from Land's End in which modesty was one of the talking points! I did wonder whether I was getting the "aimed at Li'l Ol' Ladies" version of the catalog since I but old lady clothes. But at my granddaughter's swimming pool party - the children were in baggy shorts and 'tankinis' - and my Xer daughter had a little soft miniskirt that was either part of her swimsuit or an extra piece worn even in the water. The Boomer fashion of long skirts continues apace among all generations until I'm almost tempted to bring out my 11th century tunic-over-skirt and see if it flies on campus! I think the cut certainly would; only the fabric and trim would have to be different.

Boomers talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? Al Gore's home has a carbon footprint the size of Madison Square Garden. Bill Gates' home has a much open glass as the Ford Foundation HQ. Rudy Giuliani and Bill Clinton make six figures giving one speech. John Edwards will spend anything to look good. All of these Boomers, from Steve Jobs on down, cash in late in life by consulting with this company or sitting on that board. By contrast, most of us Boomers can recall that our own parents, GIs, used to lead or advise or assist their communities and corporations for no compensation at all. They just did it because that's what good citizens were expected to do.

As Millennials look at Boomer leaders, one question they will be asking is--who is basically a phony, and who has some inkling of the real thing. They won't be asking for miracles. Boomers cannot change their self-orientation in midstream and (besides) it is a trait that other generations have always found a bit endearing in Prophets.

The bottom line: While it's hard to find a Boomer who earnestly believes in collective self-denial--for everything from hidden WMD to CO2-driven weather models to telescopic searches for renegade asteroids--it's hard to find many, in public life anyway, who believes in personal self-denial.

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Boomers associate monorails with Disneyworld, as something their parents would have like along with the Jetsons and their domed cities. As they have matured, they have come to love their rugged independence. A beat-up SUV in front of their own secluded villa is more their dream-image. Xers, ditto, they want to go their own way. If I were developing a new mag-lev technology today, I would surround it with the buzz and imagery of young Millennials and hope that the voter and consumer demand grows over time.

We may end up with the monorails because those are the sorts of expensive projects that Big Government can do if it is honest and visionary. As in the last 4T (I predict a huge crash in the economy because of unconscionable runups in real estate prices due to subprime lending that allows more suckers to bid up prices) there will be plenty of good raw labor available, and the government will have to prime the pump.

Nothing will so drive the conventional automobile out of people's lives as $8 gasoline and $2 wages (or their inflated equivalents)... or at least relegate the private automobile to limited use (like bringing groceries from the store). People will have to move about just to find work... and high-speed trains will be the trick.

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Why has retail become so cookie-cutter bland in an era of rampant individualism? Good question. One answer, we would suggest, is that retail trends may look different in the eyes of different generations. For example, take Starbucks. Boomer CEO Howard Schultz recently did a now-famous interview in which he lamented that the look of many Starbucks shops no longer has the old smell of coffee grounds, with the loose trash and homey, casual feel of the original stores. But most of his Boomer customers still think it's pretty cool--very customized and casual and progressive compared to the old one-size-fits-all "cuppa joe" dishwater they remember from their own parents. Many Millennials, on the other hand, think about and like Starbucks precisely because they see in it something bland and national and standardized. The same goes for Whole Foods Market or Rain Forest Cafe or Amazon or Apple. One might generalize: A successful brand has to be perceived in different ways to different generations.

If I might make an observation, one reason... perhaps even the central one... that chain restaurants and businesses have taken over the American landscape, is the mobility of the American people, now at an all-time high. People are moving nowadays as never before in history, often for jobs, sometimes for personal fulfillment and adventure, even to escape unhappy family or social situations.

But the stress of adjusting a new environment, even when the move is a positive one, remains as difficult to deal with as it has ever been. As such, it may provide a great deal of comfort to walk into a Starbucks, or a Romano's, or a Borders, that looks and feels exactly like the one back home.

Thanks for the excellent questions. Neil and I look forward to more good online conversation tomorrow evening, Tuesday, also from 9 to 11 PM EDT.

If you have any additional questions, please post them here, between now and then.

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Boomers talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? Al Gore's home has a carbon footprint the size of Madison Square Garden. Bill Gates' home has a much open glass as the Ford Foundation HQ. Rudy Giuliani and Bill Clinton make six figures giving one speech. John Edwards will spend anything to look good. All of these Boomers, from Steve Jobs on down, cash in late in life by consulting with this company or sitting on that board. By contrast, most of us Boomers can recall that our own parents, GIs, used to lead or advise or assist their communities and corporations for no compensation at all. They just did it because that's what good citizens were expected to do.

As Millennials look at Boomer leaders, one question they will be asking is--who is basically a phony, and who has some inkling of the real thing. They won't be asking for miracles. Boomers cannot change their self-orientation in midstream and (besides) it is a trait that other generations have always found a bit endearing in Prophets.

The bottom line: While it's hard to find a Boomer who earnestly believes in collective self-denial--for everything from hidden WMD to CO2-driven weather models to telescopic searches for renegade asteroids--it's hard to find many, in public life anyway, who believes in personal self-denial.

what i am wondering is whether there will be self denial from other generations (ie the millennails who will be on the front lines). i am sure they aren't counting on boomers to lead the way there. An easy way to get self denial is to tax the heck out of the rich. Think that might catch on? Like the draft, huh?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

If I might make an observation, one reason... perhaps even the central one... that chain restaurants and businesses have taken over the American landscape, is the mobility of the American people, now at an all-time high. People are moving nowadays as never before in history, often for jobs, sometimes for personal fulfillment and adventure, even to escape unhappy family or social situations.

But the stress of adjusting a new environment, even when the move is a positive one, remains as difficult to deal with as it has ever been. As such, it may provide a great deal of comfort to walk into a Starbucks, or a Romano's, or a Borders, that looks and feels exactly like the one back home.

I'll give you another reason. Corporations and monopolies. The watmartization of america.

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Thanks for the excellent questions. Neil and I look forward to more good online conversation tomorrow evening, Tuesday, also from 9 to 11 PM EDT.

If you have any additional questions, please post them here, between now and then.

Damn. Missed by three minutes.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
If I might make an observation, one reason... perhaps even the central one... that chain restaurants and businesses have taken over the American landscape, is the mobility of the American people, now at an all-time high. People are moving nowadays as never before in history, often for jobs, sometimes for personal fulfillment and adventure, even to escape unhappy family or social situations.

But the stress of adjusting a new environment, even when the move is a positive one, remains as difficult to deal with as it has ever been. As such, it may provide a great deal of comfort to walk into a Starbucks, or a Romano's, or a Borders, that looks and feels exactly like the one back home.

Originally Posted by jadams

I'll give you another reason. Corporations and monopolies. The watmartization of america.

I agree, and it isn't an either-or. Anyone who has read my posts over the years knows I am no big fan of Big Business as it exists today. That said, a key reason that megabusinesses have been so outrageously successful has to be because they are giving people, at the very least, what they believe they need.

How do the Authors weigh in on the issue of McDonaldization of America?

Originally Posted by William Strauss

Neil and I believe that the 1961 birthyear boundary is correct, and that Obama is not a Boomer. While he does not call himself a Gen Xer (that would probably not be a smart move politically), the fact that he stands opposed to Boomers makes him a Gen Xer. [Emphasis added]

The problem is that a significant portion of the second wave of the Boom generation (post-Draft, etc.) has historically stood "opposed to Boomers," seeing themselves as a separate generation from the "'60s crowd." We have had, for example, multiple '58ers on the board who have considered that the Boom/X boundary might be pushed forward to remove them from the Boom generation (hence the whole "Generation Jones" phenomenon). The fact that '61er Obama "stands opposed to Boomers" does not, in and of itself, distinguish him from a great number of second wave Boomers. Is there some other trait or characteristic that does?

For whatever it is worth, I have come to see the '61 cohort as more clearly Boomer. But I still cannot with any real confidence point to where between 1962 and 1964 Generation X begins. If you could isolate some trait that clearly distinguishes second wave Boomers who "stand opposed to Boomers" from GenXers who "stand opposed to Boomers," it might finally settle this matter. But it strikes me right this minute that specifically singling out Boomers (as opposed to ideas or factions) as the opposition sounds rather Boomerish in and of itself. :smile:


Mustang '66

Messrs. Strauss and Howe, thank you so much for answering questions tonight. I was not able to participate in tonight's discussion, but did learn a lot from it after the fact. In case I can't make tomorrow's either, I just have a simple question for either of you to answer then:

As a core Millennial, and one going to college this fall, I am curious about my generation's taste in music. Now, I've never been as hooked-in to trends as most (though I try to stay hip at my young age!), but I sense that we are slow to reshape pop culture. Music today is hardly more wholesome than music 5 or 10 years ago; in some cases it is less so. Hip-hop still rules the charts, and teeny-bopper bubblegum pop is nowhere to be found, except in the 12-year-old girl crowd. Hero generations are supposed to standardize, clean up, and "blandify" edgy Nomad music and culture - GIs did it by turning raunchy '20s jazz (of the speakeasy variety) into fun-loving '40s big band (of the Great American Songbook variety), and by feminizing formerly taboo elements of flapper culture (smoking, makeup, skirts) to an acceptable level.

It has been argued that hip-hop is our saeculum's jazz (formed out of disco late in the Boomer 2T just as jazz formed out of ragtime late in the Missionary 2T), and if so, Millennials should be the ones to standardize it and make it bland, uncontroversial, and palatable to mass culture. Where do you see us taking hip-hop so that it is no longer a symbol of crime, misogyny, and the uglier elements of urban neglect, and to where it is the positive and life-affirming music of our 4T as jazz was to the last?

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

First, on Iraq and the 4T. Many readers have said that the Iraq war has been conducted as a 3T war, and we would certainly agree. Lots of idealism, plenty of initial enthusiasm, and little patience or taste for follow-through. A whiz-bang net-centric “RMA” (revolution in military affairs, featuring digitized battlespace and super hi-tech machines) promoted by a Silent-Boomer coalition in the Pentagon (Rumsfeld and company) was supposed to dispense with the need for “boots on the ground.” We’ve heard lots of partisan handwaving about how we need to stay the course and do double-or-nothing—or about how we need to admit defeat and clear out entirely. This has been a 3T discourse. Over time, though, we sense that the public does seem to be moving (Gen-Xers probably driving this) toward a more stark and realistic view, which is that there may be no near-term solution in Iraq yet clearing out would also be a mistake. We’re hearing the Xer triage language of “forward engagement,” defense in depth, strategic reserves, etc., spelled out over a period of years, not months.

BTW, we highly recommend an article in the WSJ this week about the growing generational rift between younger Gen-X junior officers (basically now up through colonel) and older Boomer generals and strategists. See also much blogged-over essay by Xer Lt. Col. Paul Yingling. We first started to track this X-Boom rift in the military in 1999 (do a google search for a great essay by Leanard Wong). But it’s now getting deeper.

I agree totally with you Neil, also I might add leaders have been unwilling directly criticize the interpretations of Islam which justification for movements like Al Qaeda (which is fighting a Jihad against US occupation of Iraq as we speak), Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamist regimes in Iran and the Sudan. Leaders seem not want to offend Muslims by advocating criticism of Islamic theology, including the Koran and Hadiths, which would allow peaceful Muslims who accept liberal democracy and human rights to challenge the Islamists.

[/quote]
Let’s move on. A lot of readers asked about global generations and their boundaries. I may be repeating what we’ve said on other occasions, but, in general, we believe that much of the world since WWII and Great Depression has been following a generational rhythm similar to ours. We include here the entire English-speaking world, all of Europe (including Russia), East Asia (certainly China), and most of South Asia (probably India). One proviso: Since WWII ended later (in the sense of the crisis and reconstruction), the generational boundaries in these other regions tend to be about 5-10 years lagged behind us.
[/quote]

Agreed, although I would not think they are that far behind 3-5 years.

In Russia, it appears that Vladmir Putin (Prophet archetype) is transforming his kleptocracy back into a conventional (non-ideological) autocracy. He’s got lots of energy money, he makes the trains run on time, he’s popular, and he’s putting all his of ex-KGB buddies in charge everywhere. Gen-Xers appreciate a society that works. And the young Millennials are being organized into youth groups that look a lot like the old pioneers. The memories of Stalin (but not of Marx) are being revived. Many policy people think that health trends are an excellent leading indicator of future political and social development. From the mid-1980s on, Russia’s health suffered one of the biggest health collapses (with huge rises in infant mortality and declines in life expectancy) ever witnessed in the modern world. One very recent and positive outcome of this new rally-round-Mother-Russia sentiment is a fierce new protectiveness of children. Call this the post-Beslin backlash. Huge orphanages are being closed. Adoptions by foreigners are being curtailed. Laws against negligent parents enforced. The fertility rate is finally beginning to inch back upward.

I've been arguing that Russia is on roughly the same saeculum with us, thanks for confirming.

I finished reading Generations last year, and was caught up with the interpretation of the Civil War as a crisis come too early. I became very concerned that the current Crisis had started with 9/11 and that, like the Civil War, it had happened too early. And that we could expect a lot of extra trouble.

Now, I'm reading The Fourth Turning and its prediction of the crisis starting by 2005. I was already reconsidering whether 9/11 had really started our Crisis, and wondered whether it had even started at all.

My concern has flipped: I'm now wondering if the crisis is starting too late. It appears that a late Crisis is about as unlikely as an early one, but what is the expected outcome of a late-starting Crisis? And is it better than/worse than/about the same as that for an early-starting Crisis?

RV

I'm wondering about your opinion where Israel is on the saeculum and how it would mean for the Jewish-Arab conflict.