Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

Just look at the pop culture of every generation. Mille sitcoms are light-hearted affairs that are entirely wholesome (e.g. The High School Musical),

Can you think of any examples geared to pre-1991-born Millennials?

Originally Posted by Jesse Manoogian

Can you think of any examples geared to pre-1991-born Millennials?

So it seems you consider 'Generation Y' to include 1990 but not 1991... is that correct?

(And also, where do you see this generation as beginning - I know you have Y including 1981, but how much further do you go in the earlier direction?)

Originally Posted by Seminomad

So it seems you consider 'Generation Y' to include 1990 but not 1991... is that correct?

Well, it's clear that people born 1990 and earlier aren't getting into this High School Musical crap. It's very much a thing of the Dora the Explorer, Blue's Clues, Magic School Bus (the TV show, not the books) Millennials. I don't know exactly how young the oldest fans are, but 1990/1991 is a clean division from Anthony Brancato's system so I chose "pre-1991" for my question.

What about you, William? How do you see eighties-born people being portrayed in movies, TV shows, books, video games and songs (I'm thinking of story-songs like "Sk8er Boi" here).

(And also, where do you see this generation as beginning - I know you have Y including 1981, but how much further do you go in the earlier direction?)

1977 seems to be a pretty good breakoff of Generation Y from true Xers. I used it in my "Decorum or rebellion?" poll. Mark Y (Zzyzx) has said that the sociological phenomena S&H call Millennial (like lowering homicide rates or higher SAT's) actually began with the 1977 or 1978 cohorts rather than the 1982 cohorts according to the charts in their book. Jean Twenge has said that parents of late seventies cohorts told their children they were special, just as they did with their eighties and nineties babies, and therefore created "Generation Me". When I was a high school freshman, the seniors (born 1978-1979) didn't look like they were in a different generation. They talked the same, wore the same styles (in fact, I've found that the seniors in my 1997 yearbook were 19% preppy, while the seniors in my 2000 yearbook were 21% preppy), listened to the same groups (Green Day, Cake, Oasis, Offspring, Ben Folds Five) and held the same ideologies (predominantly left-counterculture-leaning over right-establishment-leaning).

What kind of question is this? When will "we" get serious? Like Yahoo Serious? Like Phil Collins' But Seriously?

I just have no idea how to respond or even understand the question.

As the millies continue to grow into adultood and become even more definable as a distinct generation, the term generation Y will find its place in the dustbin of history alogside the term baby buster.
Neither one of those terms do anything but assume a contiunation of once, but in both cases already fading current trends.

The whole Gen Y thing is catchy but ultimately bogus, much like Generation Jones, Baby Busters, Echo Boomers etc. Why? Because it would simply be improper to place late-wave Gen Xers in the same grouping with first-wave Milles. I wouldn't compare the two for a minute. Cuspers like Britney Spears, Nichole Richie, and Paris Hilton (all of whome were b. 1981) should tell you that, given their turbulent personal lives and infamous reputation for making headlines. I have had personal ecounters with late-wave Gen Xers myself, and their personae and formative experiences are utterly different from ours. In fact, my whole family is like a timeline of generations.

My oldest brother (b. 1974) is known for his "work hard, play hard" ethics, and is perhaps the most dishonest and cutthroat in my family (personal traits he has gained since reading The Art of War as a child) Despite his years of career experience, he has never grown too attached to any company he's worked for, and his life goal (besides having a secure family with his fiancee) is to start his own independent business.

My oldest sister (b. 1978) is probably the least fortunate of out all. Despite her years of schooling, she has never managed to keep a job for more than a year. Like a nomad, she has moved from city to city in search of jobs - only to recieve cruelty from evil employers. All the while, she has struggled to pay for her medical costs, and has undergone numerous surgeries already. She is easily the most migraine- and depression-prone out all my family Being the realist that she is, she is adversely skeptical of institutions (her personal motto: "Life is but one fuck after another" )

My second-older brother (b. 1979), besides being a total lunatic, is as Gen X as it gets! Given his record of mischief, he'd make the perfect substitute for Bart Simpson (we call him the Wild Child of the family). As a juvenile, he was notorious for pulling pranks - whether it was setting trash cans on fire, hurling rocks at cars, or throwing cats out of windows. When he saw the Challenger Shuttle expload, he thought it was an action movie, and so he laughed hysterically (something that he has long come to regret). When given the chance to attend Havard or UPenn, he decided to enroll into West Point and enlist into the army! Now he is a rowdy Captain serving long duties in Iraq and Afghanisthan. He has an innate sense of recklessness, thrill, and adventure - a trait that has steadily carried him through the ranks of military. He is the poster-child for late-wave rebel rousers

___________ 1982___________

Once you cross this line of birth years, the generational characterstics change, and the individual outcomes are radically different.

My third oldest brother (b. 1982 along with Kelly Clarkson & Co.) can attest to being the most intelligent and wealthiest out of all of us. His fluency in Greek and Latin, knowledge of computer technology, and expertise of philosophy, clearly makes him the family extraordinaire. As a graduate of Columbia, he was able to secure a high-salary job with relative ease, and in a matter of years, shortly became the Vice President of a Wall Street Banking firm. But he found this job unfufilling, and has since left his job to pursue other ambitions. He is perhaps the most hubristic and confident out of all - understandably so. Though he is a general pessimist (occupying the last vestiges of Gen X) both of my Boomer parents professed to him being their first child who wasn't a challenge to raise financially - a personal indication of a generational shift.

My second oldest sister (b. 1984 as a Reagan Baby) is perhaps the most clean-cut and wholesome. Indeed, she has been mocked for her almost child-like behavior - purchasing Hello Kitty/Power Puff Girl merchandise and listening to terrible pop music. She too was able to recieve a high-salary job with ease, and has gained promotion after promotion, and raise after raise. She is currently taking business classes to pursue a career in marketting. In marked contrast to my older sister, her future looks really promising.

And finally, there's me, the youngest (b. 1990, Pokemon child). I have recieved envy and scorn from my older siblings (especially the Gen Xers) for being the most spoiled and indulged. With no other children to take care of, my parents have treated me with more $$$, toys, food, and clothing than anybody else in the family. I am the first not to hold down any jobs after school (since I devote most of my time to volunteering, student government, community councils) and am the first to have a dishwasher to do my chores for me . My oldest brother (b. 1974) is especially jealous of me.. While he had to look after the rest of the family, I enjoy the benefit of having less responsiblity, and can use time on my own terms. This allowed me to join several Youth programs and even film my own documentary (oppurtunities that would seem unimaginable to my Gen X siblings growing up in the 80s)

In the last 3 years or so my '76 cohort sister has "gotten serious" so much it's funny. She went from being "Miss Party Animal" to a married, serious "security mom" of 2 kids. She was also the only person in my immediate family to vote Republican in 2004 (mainly because of her concerns about "National Security").

EDIT: Oh, she has also recently started a "Massage Therapy" business.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

My third oldest brother (b. 1982 along with Kelly Clarkson & Co.) can attest to being the most intelligent and wealthiest out of all of us. His fluency in Greek and Latin, knowledge of computer technology, and expertise of philosophy, clearly makes him the family extraordinaire. As a graduate of Columbia, he was able to secure a high-salary job with relative ease, and in a matter of years, shortly became the Vice President of a Wall Street Banking firm. But he found this job unfufilling, and has since left his job to pursue other ambitions. He is perhaps the most hubristic and confident out of all - understandably so. Though he is a general pessimist (occupying the last vestiges of Gen X) both of my Boomer parents professed to him being their first child who wasn't a challenge to raise financially - a personal indication of a generational shift.

A 25yo a VP of a bank!?!

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Chris Seamens would not resemble this, would he? He started out on the anarchist left, then fought to bring Democracy (tm) to Iraq.

You noticed that too, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

Many first wave Xers do tend to be cultural conservatives. In fact, Generation Jones is the strongest cultural conservative voting bracket.

Robert, I meant to hit this yesterday. I think the lack of clarity with respect to the Boom/X boundary continues to pose a major problem for this sort of analysis. After all these years on this board, I as a '66er can still only point to '64 as the first clear Xer year. But in that time, I have come to see '61 as more definitely Boomer. I think there is an outside chance that future hindsight may reveal '62 to be the first Xer year, but there is perhaps an even greater chance that '64 will be that year. Maybe that murky '63 is the year.

In light of this, I still maintain that "Generation Jones" is merely describing late-wave Boomers, and its argument is strengthened since it is exploiting the fact that S&H (IMO) have probably set the lead Xer year too early such that they call a few late-wave Boomers Xers. I myself related to S&H's description of my generation. But I have not had the same reaction to "Generation Jones." "Generation Jones" seems like the "older kids" (late wave Boomers).

The only data I recall seeing on here relating to Bush administration support by birth year showed a peak (or plateau) in the late wave Boomer years, passing over S&H's '60/'61 cusp, and then dropping off precipitously after '63. I would suggest that that precipitous drop off after '63 probably marks the true Boom/X boundary (which should be revealed more clearly in the future in any event). And is that not precisely what we would expect to find at a true generational divide? If we find "continuity" at an alleged divide, then it is time to reassess whether that division has been set at the right time.

So I emphasize again that strong Bush support (or a fetish for fascism) is overwhelmingly a Boomer (Prophet) thing, and a late wave Boomer thing in particular. And I would suggest that future hindsight will reveal that it is even more uniquely a late wave Boomer thing (and not at all even an "earliest Xer" thing) when that true generational boundary is bumped back to '63 or '64.

quoth the wife "we are serious, we just know it's all crap. We've seriously almost given up" Our outlook is more like graveyard humor.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think we are supposed to start leading the charge to save the world ... from something or other ... ?

like this?
http://poetry.eserver.org/light-brigade.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_..._Light_Brigade

Originally Posted by Odin

A 25yo a VP of a bank!?!

And yet as wealthy as he is (90K +) he still refuses to buy me anything for Christmas or my birthday

Originally Posted by Mustang

Robert, I meant to hit this yesterday. I think the lack of clarity with respect to the Boom/X boundary continues to pose a major problem for this sort of analysis. After all these years on this board, I as a '66er can still only point to '64 as the first clear Xer year. But in that time, I have come to see '61 as more definitely Boomer. I think there is an outside chance that future hindsight may reveal '62 to be the first Xer year, but there is perhaps an even greater chance that '64 will be that year. Maybe that murky '63 is the year.

In light of this, I still maintain that "Generation Jones" is merely describing late-wave Boomers, and its argument is strengthened since it is exploiting the fact that S&H (IMO) have probably set the lead Xer year too early such that they call a few late-wave Boomers Xers. I myself related to S&H's description of my generation. But I have not had the same reaction to "Generation Jones." "Generation Jones" seems like the "older kids" (late wave Boomers).

Really? I thought the "Generation X" label was created to denote those born in the early 1960s who deliberately wanted to distinguish themselves from Boomers. They may be reluctant to embrace the "Gen X" epithet, but they would certainly detest being called Boomers. Indeed, Barrack Obama (also b. 1961) has certainly tried to distance himself from Boomer politics. Given the general hostility against Boomers among this cohort, isn't this a sufficient indicator of a generational shift? After all, Douglas Coupland (the author who is attributed with popularizing the term) is a 1961 cohort himself.

Compare this type sentiment with those late-wave Boomers born just a year earlier (for instance, the fiery rhetoric of Public Enemy's Chuck D or the humanitarian generosity of U2's Bono) and it seems clear to me that 1960 is the proper bookend for Boomer birth-years. 1960 cohorts may have had a troubled childhood, but their upbringing and general sense of comfort was just cohesive enough that they inherited the Boomer's high sense of self-esteem. And unlike the Gen Xers born after them, the cultural upheval left them feeling inspired and empowered, rather than scarred and damaged.

Originally Posted by Jesse Manoogian

Well, it's clear that people born 1990 and earlier aren't getting into this High School Musical crap. It's very much a thing of the Dora the Explorer, Blue's Clues, Magic School Bus (the TV show, not the books) Millennials. I don't know exactly how young the oldest fans are, but 1990/1991 is a clean division from Anthony Brancato's system so I chose "pre-1991" for my question.

What about you, William? How do you see eighties-born people being portrayed in movies, TV shows, books, video games and songs (I'm thinking of story-songs like "Sk8er Boi" here).



1977 seems to be a pretty good breakoff of Generation Y from true Xers. I used it in my "Decorum or rebellion?" poll. Mark Y (Zzyzx) has said that the sociological phenomena S&H call Millennial (like lowering homicide rates or higher SAT's) actually began with the 1977 or 1978 cohorts rather than the 1982 cohorts according to the charts in their book. Jean Twenge has said that parents of late seventies cohorts told their children they were special, just as they did with their eighties and nineties babies, and therefore created "Generation Me". When I was a high school freshman, the seniors (born 1978-1979) didn't look like they were in a different generation. They talked the same, wore the same styles (in fact, I've found that the seniors in my 1997 yearbook were 19% preppy, while the seniors in my 2000 yearbook were 21% preppy), listened to the same groups (Green Day, Cake, Oasis, Offspring, Ben Folds Five) and held the same ideologies (predominantly left-counterculture-leaning over right-establishment-leaning).

Reading 'Generation Y' as 'last wave Xers and first wave Millies' (which seems to be your interpretation, together with a temperament which, while divorced from the S&H generational concept, seems to be mostly Nomadic with maybe a splash of Hero thrown in) I'd add another year or so in either direction to your years:

from working with kids in that age range I'd say that the first wave of Millennials ends in 1991 - and as for where to begin things? I want to say 1975 because Jorge Cham (whose PhD Comics chronicles my life so well) was born in that year - and many people say 'last wave' X begins around 1975... so 1975-1991? Of course, such a generation makes absolutely no sense from the S&H perspective...

And how are people my age portrayed? When I look at Avril (has she done anything in the past few years since, say, 2003?), I see someone from my cohort whose partying behavior seems no different from countless members of the tumultuous 1981 cohort - yet her audience is clearly people quite a bit younger than you or I - but in general I'd say Yers (along with late core Xers, and early core Millies, for that matter) are portrayed in this interesting split: while individual members may be portrayed as optimistic, successful, etc, in the aggregate (though maybe this isn't true for people born closer to 1990 than 1980) they are treated as pretty much stereotypical Xers with maybe a little more tech savvy!

Of course, I'm probably missing something here... and for obvious reasons I no longer have the same desire to argue generational boundaries (it feels like trying to argue why Maryland or Virginia is not part of the North)

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

Really? I thought the "Generation X" label was created to denote those born in the early 1960s who deliberately wanted to distinguish themselves from Boomers.

Please refer to Herbal Tee's post. Generation Jones reflects the highly individualistic trait that nomads and prophets share. I would focus on what the early cohorts do and act, not necessarily on what they themselves may say.

Exihibit A.
Ralph Reed, 1961 cohort. Executive Director, Christian Coalition.
Rosie Odonell, 1962 cohort. Talk show host Liberal
Sean Hannity, 1961 cohort. Talk radio host. Conservative
Glen Beck, 1964 cohort. Talk radio host. Conservative.

They may be reluctant to embrace the "Gen X" epithet, but they would certainly detest being called Boomers. Indeed, Barrack Obama (also b. 1961) has certainly tried to distance himself from Boomer politics.

My guess is if the typical Boomer bickering would tone down a bit, that would change. It would also help if they'd go and do something about their Peter Pan Problem. As far as the awakening, well, we do "get it" . As for the blue/red thing, why not fuse them together? Take environmentalism.
Take the Red value of being a good steward, with the blue value of protecting the earth. Most early 60's folks get that, for example. It's also like border protection. Liberal: open borders nuke wages, Conservative: Illegals are disease vectors and drive up public spending. I mean it ain't that hard to build a political platform which takes bits and pieces of red and blue and come up with a coherent plan.

Given the general hostility against Boomers among this cohort, isn't this a sufficient indicator of a generational shift? After all, Douglas Coupland (the author who is attributed with popularizing the term) is a 1961 cohort himself.

Umm... I can't do this. All of my paternal cousins are Boomers. They indulged the hell out of me as a kid. All I want is one of them to stop Peter Panning. She's going to be 60 for Qod's sake!

Compare this type sentiment with those late-wave Boomers born just a year earlier (for instance, the fiery rhetoric of Public Enemy's Chuck D or the humanitarian generosity of U2's Bono) and it seems clear to me that 1960 is the proper bookend for Boomer birth-years. 1960 cohorts may have had a troubled childhood, but their upbringing and general sense of comfort was just cohesive enough that they inherited the Boomer's high sense of self-esteem. And unlike the Gen Xers born after them, the cultural upheval left them feeling inspired and empowered, rather than scarred and damaged.

Nawww... the grade school "book drop" protests made us at one with the awakening.

Originally Posted by Seminomad

Of course, I'm probably missing something here... and for obvious reasons I no longer have the same desire to argue generational boundaries (it feels like trying to argue why Maryland or Virginia is not part of the North)

Most arguments I have read leave out a potent factor: biology. Take me. I am on the cuspy end of one of these swaths of humanity. But my wife was born in 1974. My brother was born in 1971. My bosses were all born 1969-1971. My friends that also have children were born in 1976, 1977, 1978. So in the home and at work, I am pulled towards these older people. As for my classmates, only a few left are not married. And we are talking about people born in 1980. 2005 and 2006 was an endless parade of weddings.

Are they more traditional? No, I think they are just more lazy. They don't have the stamina to do it all alone for the pleasure of one. They have a very pragmatic idea of what it is all about, so it is easier for them to cohabitate.

My cousins, who are very nice, are still in college, just got out, or are in grade school. Their lives are wholly different from mine. No marriage, no kids, I don't work with them. Even if they are like my 23 year old friends, they are mostly single and leading whatever kind of imitation party life they lead.

So biologically they feel like they are at a different stage.

Originally Posted by DonRobbie

quoth the wife "we are serious, we just know it's all crap. We've seriously almost given up" Our outlook is more like graveyard humor.

Amen! We are drenched in a sea of utter BS where we are told hourly by the Bush administration and the establishment media that the threat from third world countries with no army, navy, or air force worth mentioning is infinitely greater than that from the tens of thousands of MIRVed warheads pointed at us by the USSR through the decades of the Cold War (and still pointed at us by Russia). Further we are regularly told that the Cold War was in fact WW III (WW II simply gave way to WW III), and WW III will soon give way to WW IV (or already did). It has gotten so deep in this country that high waders no longer do the job; we now need to buy stilts. But of course we are also told that it is anti-American even to desire to rise above the BS (by actually thinking). I think the landing party beamed back aboard the Enterprise after finding no signs of intelligent life here, despite the Class M atmosphere.

Not only that but the bush administration is trying to rewrite history, with hardliners claiming such as that communism never collapsed and that islamists(whose numbers are greatly inflated and exaggerated) and marxists are part of an ongoing plan to conspire to destroy the US.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

Really? I thought the "Generation X" label was created to denote those born in the early 1960s who deliberately wanted to distinguish themselves from Boomers. They may be reluctant to embrace the "Gen X" epithet, but they would certainly detest being called Boomers. Indeed, Barrack Obama (also b. 1961) has certainly tried to distance himself from Boomer politics. Given the general hostility against Boomers among this cohort, isn't this a sufficient indicator of a generational shift?

You'd think so, but no. It is simply a trait of a great many second wave Boomers to distinguish themselves at all costs from the first wave. For years on this board, we had '58ers and '59ers trying to figure out whether they were actually Boomers or Xers. I think most eventually settled on Boomer, but most began by thinking they were probably Xer.

After all, Douglas Coupland (the author who is attributed with popularizing the term) is a 1961 cohort himself.

At this point, I'd say that he is a second wave Boomer, just like all those '58ers and '59ers who could never see themselves as Boomers. As far as '61 goes, I don't think there is any remaining doubt now that Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are Boomers. It is obvious in the Manichean all-or-nothing way they approach (with a straight face no less) the One Party with two wings: Republican and Democrat. A typical Xer could never do that (at least not with a straight face) because he knows his peers would call his bluff.

As for "Generation Jones," I was born in '66 and I never even heard "jones" used as a verb growing up...except once when I heard a guy born in '61 or '62 use it. The description of "Generation Jones" just sounds like "the kids a few years older"; in other words, the second wave of the Boom generation.

I still don't know where the true Boom/X boundary is, but at this point, I am confident that it lies between '62 and '64. If it were moved back, then "Generation Jones" could more clearly be reconciled with S&H's scheme as pinpointing the second wave of the Boom generation.

Compare this type sentiment with those late-wave Boomers born just a year earlier (for instance, the fiery rhetoric of Public Enemy's Chuck D or the humanitarian generosity of U2's Bono) and it seems clear to me that 1960 is the proper bookend for Boomer birth-years. 1960 cohorts may have had a troubled childhood, but their upbringing and general sense of comfort was just cohesive enough that they inherited the Boomer's high sense of self-esteem. And unlike the Gen Xers born after them, the cultural upheval left them feeling inspired and empowered, rather than scarred and damaged.

I am not sure that your representative samples are determinant. But what I do believe is determinant is the way in which '61ers tend to argue. Hannity, Coulter, and Beck may all be shills for the Bush administration, but there is a world of difference between Beck ('64) and the first two ('61). Hannity and Coulter are completely puffed up, completely full of themselves, perpetually serious, willing to tell any lie or further any propaganda so long as it is advantageous to their "side." Beck is bad but there is a certain levity in him which does not exist in the previous two. He just does not take himself as seriously, and does not take Hannity and Coulter's partisan "life or death struggle" quite as seriously. He does not take life quite as seriously and he has even been known to crack a joke every now and then (in fact, quite frequently if I am not mistaken). It seems clear to me that Beck is a partisan Xer (which is the exception) while Hannity and Coulter are partisan Boomers (which is the rule).


You made some good points on the S&H discussion thread which I will address here:

If we use individuals to determine the first and last birth years of Generations, then you two might want to reconsider the initial birth years of the G.I. generation. In fact, I am led to think that the birth years for the Lost Generation ought to include the first three years of the 1900. Sure, you had Walt Disney (b. 1901) and Ray Crock (1902), but you also have the notorious fugitives of the Public Enemy Era, including John Dillinger, Dutch Schultz, and Bonnie and Clyde. These are famous criminals much like Al Capone and Frank Costello - prototypical Losts. Langston Hughes (b. 1903) had an unstable childhood, during which his parent divorced and he himself contemplated suicide on a numbe of occasion. He was a proponent of the Lost-driven Harlem Renaissance. And like the famous 1920s writers Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hughes spent his artistic years in Paris, becoming part of the black expartriate community.

This has been discussed here multiple times over the years, and I agree with you. Charles Lindbergh seems clearly Lost to me (as do most born in the earliest years of the 20th century), and it has always eluded me why Walt Disney must be a GI. A bunch of us once analyzed lists of people born in the first decade of the 20th century and I think most saw the start of the GI generation as lying between 1904 and 1907. Uzi has historically taken a leading role in this sort of analysis. Perhaps he can provide greater detail.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Amen! We are drenched in a sea of utter BS where we are told hourly by the Bush administration and the establishment media that the threat from third world countries with no army, navy, or air force worth mentioning is infinitely greater than that from the tens of thousands of MIRVed warheads pointed at us by the USSR through the decades of the Cold War (and still pointed at us by Russia). Further we are regularly told that the Cold War was in fact WW III (WW II simply gave way to WW III), and WW III will soon give way to WW IV (or already did). It has gotten so deep in this country that high waders no longer do the job; we now need to buy stilts. But of course we are also told that it is anti-American even to desire to rise above the BS (by actually thinking). I think the landing party beamed back aboard the Enterprise after finding no signs of intelligent life here, despite the Class M atmosphere.

Atleast with the Soviet Union, a rational understanding was achieved between the two parties that war between the two powers would result in mutual distruction of both parties. As a Cold War kid, I lived with an strong assumption or belief that the Soviets and there people preferred life over dealth.

The ememy we face today doesn't come across as being very rational when it comes to life vs dealth. BTW, this is main reason that I place our current enemy at a higher level of risk than the former Soviet Union. According to people like yourself, the terrorists or Islamic fascists are a myth with no presence or ability to wage a major war of attrition. However, at the same time, I notice there is a great fear on the left not to directly engage these folks, allienate them further, demands to withdraw our support for Israel and a demand to withdraw from a conflict currently in progress and the region as a viable alternate solution to the solution that is already in progress. My question is, if these folks are such wimps, so trivial as a risk, then why is there such an effort going on to find a way to appease them vs directly engaging them militarily, politically and philosophically?

Let's get back to the original question, which I believe was whether or not Gen Xers are moving towards their 4T personas.

I think b/c people are living longer now, the cycles are taking longer to switch over. People are able to hold influence at their various stages of life longer than in the past. Just my theory.

In any case, my feeling about Gen X is that as more and more of us become further immersed into the marriage and childrearing scene, we're going to start paying more attention to poliltics, values, etc. than we have been. And I think it will be b/c we'll see it as a need to look out for a children; something that was never done for us. Our children will be the motivator for change. As such, we'll see this cohort shed their individualistic, isolationistic natures to take on a more hands-on approach to help create a world for the kids. We'll then see this generation wake up and become a powerful generation.

I, for one, am counting on my cohort to be the 'watchdog' over the Boomer generation as they gain more political power, which scares me greatly, I might add. As the Silents die off more and more, Gen X is soon going to be the only living generation in this constellation to remember the Boomer hippy-loving, commune-living, acid-triping, war-protesting, Kent State-violent-rioting, summer-of-love days of their youth. They may have aged, but their over zealous, in-your-face, self-righteous tactics are still being used. Gen X will be needed to curb their crap.

Bria

Originally Posted by Bria67Xer

Let's get back to the original question, which I believe was whether or not Gen Xers are moving towards their 4T personas.

I think b/c people are living longer now, the cycles are taking longer to switch over. People are able to hold influence at their various stages of life longer than in the past. Just my theory.

It's an intriguing theory but I'm not sure. The elites have had pretty long lives compared to working slobs for quite some time. The rest of us have caught up to the historical standard of living for the elites and so have seen our life extended. The big gains in life expectancy and health have come from better sanitation and nutrition for the masses. There have been a lot of medical advances in the last hundred years, but for many people they just prolong the declining phase of old age.

In any case, my feeling about Gen X is that as more and more of us become further immersed into the marriage and childrearing scene, we're going to start paying more attention to poliltics, values, etc. than we have been. And I think it will be b/c we'll see it as a need to look out for a children; something that was never done for us. Our children will be the motivator for change. As such, we'll see this cohort shed their individualistic, isolationistic natures to take on a more hands-on approach to help create a world for the kids. We'll then see this generation wake up and become a powerful generation.

I, for one, am counting on my cohort to be the 'watchdog' over the Boomer generation as they gain more political power, which scares me greatly, I might add. As the Silents die off more and more, Gen X is soon going to be the only living generation in this constellation to remember the Boomer hippy-loving, commune-living, acid-triping, war-protesting, Kent State-violent-rioting, summer-of-love days of their youth. They may have aged, but their over zealous, in-your-face, self-righteous tactics are still being used. Gen X will be needed to curb their crap.

I'm a bit of a freak I guess. I have voted in every presidential election since I turned 18. Anyhow, I'm not sure how much influence we will have as a generation though. The Millies are the center of the blogging phenomenon. The boomers aren't going to let go of any control until they are Kevorked and their cold stiff fingers removed from the levers with pliers. There will be Xers toiling away in the shadows making it happen, but the curse of our generation is to know what needs to be done and to be ignored.

Hmm, I'm not sure what is meant by "get serious." What I do know is that most of us are deep into the childrearing phase of life, which means that we're more focused on family than on outer-world issues. This is a lot like Boomers in the '80s and '90s.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Hmm, I'm not sure what is meant by "get serious." What I do know is that most of us are deep into the childrearing phase of life, which means that we're more focused on family than on outer-world issues. This is a lot like Boomers in the '80s and '90s.

What I meant is that I don't perceive many of the Xers I meet to have adjusted to their 4T role. To be fair, neither have Boomers (perhaps worse so), but since this forum is about Xers, this thread is about Xers. Obviously many Xer parents do have the overprotective parenting down, and they are having "grownup angst", but how many are working yet to reverse course from their youth? That is, specifically, are Xers working to broaden gender differences again? Are they working to stabilize social mores rather than raise hell? Are they realizing that the days of "touchup politics" are over, and that grand problems demand grand solutions? Are they taking action, at least on a local level, to better society, or is apathy still the rage at PTA meetings? etc. etc. etc.