Originally Posted by 1990

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.

Wow. Hmm, OK. One at a time, I guess.

First of all, I'm not an overprotective parent and neither are most of the other Xers I know. We're not in a full-on crisis, so I don't see any reason to stifle kids. But, we're also older Xers, so it could be the second-wave that defines Xer parenting.

I'm not sure what is meant by "grown-up angst." I'm quite a boring person, really, and so are most of my friends and neighbors. We have barbecues and ride bikes with the kids and go to soccer games and hang out at the pool. We're part of the multitude of Xers who reversed the decline in SAT scores that bottomed out with Boomers. I've never been a hell raiser either, so I don't know how to respond to that.

Grand problems? Grand solutions? That's Boomer talk. We're all about the rubber meeting the road and making sure the break pads work. (Yikes, where did that metaphor come from?)

Uh, apathy has never been the rage at PTA meetings. The kind of people who go to PTA meetings are not apathetic by definition. Seeing that school fundraising has hit record heights since Xers have been at the helm (the past 8-10 years or so), I'm guessing that the PTAs are doing just fine.

Do you know any Atari-wave Xers, or do you just see us on TV?

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

I'm not sure what is meant by "grown-up angst." I'm quite a boring person, really, and so are most of my friends and neighbors. We have barbecues and ride bikes with the kids and go to soccer games and hang out at the pool.

By grown-up angst, I simply mean that Xers are at the right age for worries about kids and bills and taxes and doctors. IOW, I am acknowledging that Xers have begun entering midlife and are serious in that respect. No insinuation intended.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

We're part of the multitude of Xers who reversed the decline in SAT scores that bottomed out with Boomers.

I thought SAT scores started to rise again in the mid-'90s? Anyway, doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

I've never been a hell raiser either, so I don't know how to respond to that.

Perhaps you weren't, but plenty of Xers took the rebellion of youth to the extreme (if I may borrow a very Xer '90s phrase), and I am wondering how many of them are actively working to reverse course as Nomads are supposed to do when they edge toward midlife. I'm still not seeing any real signs of Xers widening gender distinctions for their children, for example. Nor am I seeing them take the cold shower about "where we are headed" and becoming the kind of gritty disciplinarians or pragmatic drivers of society that would be expected.

Maybe all this is the result of an especially long 3T?

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Grand problems? Grand solutions? That's Boomer talk. We're all about the rubber meeting the road and making sure the break pads work. (Yikes, where did that metaphor come from?)

Exactly, but is there even that level of pragmatism and sobriety yet among Xer masses? Those whom I talk to about politics usually gripe about Bush or Congress or (especially) local issues, but rarely show the same level of concern (some would say "hysteria") Boomers are showing for the state of things. While I always hear Boomers talk in melodramatic terms - "we're losing our democracy", "World War III is here", "the end is near", "the empire is collapsing", "the sky is falling", bla bla bla - Xers that I meet usually say "yeah, Bush is bad and Congress is a bunch of wimps", but show no real urgency about it. They often seem to think that a few little touchups will do the trick, or (more ominously) that the system isn't really worth fixing.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Uh, apathy has never been the rage at PTA meetings. The kind of people who go to PTA meetings are not apathetic by definition. Seeing that school fundraising has hit record heights since Xers have been at the helm (the past 8-10 years or so), I'm guessing that the PTAs are doing just fine.

I was using PTAs as a metaphor. What I mean is, how active are Xers really in their communities? And how committed are most of them to enacting any kind of change?

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Do you know any Atari-wave Xers, or do you just see us on TV?

Admittedly I am more familiar with Nintendo wavers, who were my babysitters, friends' older siblings, etc. But how different can the two waves be?

Rani's right. I'm not getting your gripe here. You don't seem to know those of us in our late 30s and 40s. And you seem disappointed that people in their 20s and early 30s aren't acting like a bunch of 40-year-olds. You also seem upset that none of us act like Boomers.

Maybe you should go to a PTA meeting or a school board meeting or a water board meeting or something and get to know some 40-year-olds.

Here's another Bill Strauss quote on Xers from the recent discussion:

"A number of questions asked about the aging of Gen X. Yes, our original descriptions of Gen Xers in Generations (1991), 13th-Gen (1993), and The Fourth Turning (1997) were written ten to sixteen years ago. With apologies to They Might Be Giants, Gen Xers are no longer “particle man,” and what they’re like is important. Recently, there has been very little useful reflection on the emerging Gen-X midlife persona. This has been complicated by the quite un-useful talk about “Gen X and Gen Y” that makes Gen Xers seem too young and Millennials seem too much like X. Neil and I find the label “Gen Y” to be deeply misleading, because it suggests a linearity between X and Millennials that simply does not exist, in trend after trend.

Polls after 9/11 revealed that Gen Xers, especially women, were more influenced by that day to alter their basic life choices than any other generation. On that day, Gen Xers comprised a disproportionate share of the victims, most of the heroes (especially the firefighters and “let’s roll” guys on United 93), and also the perps (if we deem Muhammad Atta and his minions to have been global Gen Xers).

As for new predictions for Gen Xers, one easy one is that they will start their long-overdue assertion of their political interests and agendas. Keep an eye on the new breed of urban mayors, like Adrian Fenty in DC. Watch what they do with school, with infrastructure, with (Boomers beware) defined-benefit pensions for affluent retirees.

Another easy Gen-X prediction, one we made in our Millennials Go to College book, is that Gen Xers will very soon be the dominant parental generation among collegians. This has enormous implications for higher education. It won’t be as easy to impose those huge debts on students, especially in weakly-branded schools that lack measurable standards of accountability. Put simply, No Child Left Behind is coming to college, prodded by Gen-X parents, whether aging Boomer professors like it or not.

They will be very protective, even hyper-protective parents, using technology far more than Boomers to assert control over their families. They will have to deal with far harsher economic realities than Boomer young adults did. (This is especially true for Gen-X males, whose economic progress has been zero, for their age bracket, since the late 1980s.) They will continue the recent strengthening of the American family, but their children could feel increasingly stifled and could become increasingly sedentary, fixated on elaborate and enjoyable home entertainment centers at the expense of physical or outdoor activity. There should be much discussion about these issues in the decade ahead.

A further prediction is that Gen Xers will start occupying more “C suite” offices in business—CEO, CFO, CIO, and the like. The same no-nonsense practicality they brought to the lower and middle levels of business is what they will bring to its top level. Meanwhile, driven by Millennial class consciousness, it could become harder for C-suiters (and hedge funders) to sustain their current incomes, unless they can demonstrate very clearly that they’re worth the money.

Gen-X is “the greatest generation” of American entrepreneurship, and those same instincts borne of a latchkey-kid and divorce-epidemic childhood will—combined with the disappearance of Boomers and arrival of Millennials—lead to some new private sector attitudes. We’ll see some 21st Century solutions to problems that had been stalemated in the 20th Century—including energy and environmental issues, but not only that. When you add a fourth turning societal mood to the mix, the Gen X midlife corporate role becomes clearer. Recall how the Lost Generation very usefully anchored American society during World War II.

We would like to see someone write a solid entering-midlife book about Generation X as it approaches age 50. That should come from a Gen-X author. A good comparison would be Landon Jones’s very fine book, Great Expectations, a Boomer biography written in the late 1970s—the first major book to use “Boomers” to describe this generation.

As many of you may have noticed, we asked the webmaster on this site to start a new Gen-X thread, and we’ll see what those of you on this discussion forum have to say on the subject. We invite everyone to use the term Gen Xer in place of our original “13er,” which we applied before a consensus name arose, thanks to Doug Coupland’s novel of that name. It is looking as though the term “Millennial” has become the word of choice for those in politics, education, and religion, but “Y” still is used a lot in the realms of marketing and business.

The question about the new effort to make children “nice” ahead of achieving signals a gradual shift to the Gen-X nurture of a new Artist archetype, the Homeland Generation. They would fill the societal role being vacated by dying Silent, and other-directed “niceness” could be a key part of that. Neil and I cannot yet say where the boundary is between Millennials and Homelanders. They may be small tykes. Or none may yet be born. We’ll know in a few years. The emergence of the first Millennial cohorts was plain to see by 1987, but this may take a little longer. "

I don't know if that helps at all, but the authors don't seem alarmed by our current behavior.

[quote=Neisha '67;204079]Wow. Hmm, OK. One at a time, I guess.

I'm not sure what is meant by "grown-up angst." I'm quite a boring person, really, and so are most of my friends and neighbors. We have barbecues and ride bikes with the kids and go to soccer games and hang out at the pool.

I'm boring as well. At present, I'm at my parents' house using dad's computer. 4T ?, well yeah, but all the idiocy in the financial sector has me feathering my nest so to speak. I.E. I'm spending the week at the orchard planting mushrooms, laying down polyurathane in on of the farm buildings, and rust proofing same said building. Since I'll be there in about 5 years, getting things ready with 3T stuff that may not be there 5 years hence makes sense.

We're part of the multitude of Xers who reversed the decline in SAT scores that bottomed out with Boomers.

Ummm... We 1962'ers were the ones who set the record for low SAT scores.

I've never been a hell raiser either, so I don't know how to respond to that.

I was, so what do you want to know?
1. Better living through chemistry ? (did drugs in "High School" )
2. Horticulture. Planting pot seeds on school grounds.
3. Chemistry experiments that were not in the lab book.

Grand problems? Grand solutions? That's Boomer talk. We're all about the rubber meeting the road and making sure the break pads work. (Yikes, where did that metaphor come from?)

No kids, pass.

Uh, apathy has never been the rage at PTA meetings. The kind of people who go to PTA meetings are not apathetic by definition. Seeing that school fundraising has hit record heights since Xers have been at the helm (the past 8-10 years or so), I'm guessing that the PTAs are doing just fine.

Do you know any Atari-wave Xers, or do you just see us on TV?

We're wide and nation wide. From orignial MTV to youtube, we're it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I agree.

The question "when will Xers get serious" seems to imply that there is some sort of prescribed mode of action that we are supposed to follow. The authors seem more interested in following our course of action, and letting us figure things out for ourselves. Which is nice, and makes sense, actually. How can we fulfill our generational role if the Boomers and Millies just tell us what to do?

Also, I've had a feeling for a while that a lot of people on this forum use T4T as their own personal version of the bible. They think that, having read it, they now know The Truth, and they make predictions and base their life decisions on what The Book says. Zilch, despite all his smoke signals, makes the accurate point that the anti-Bush league (brigade?) uses the book, and this forum, to support their hope that the coming of their messiah is near, and that he/she will bring back the predominance of their own political views, whatever those might be.

However, looking at the authors' comments on the other thread, it's clear that their focus is sociology, not politics. I think that using T4T as some kind of political manifesto is not in line with the intent of the authors. So expecting Xers to somehow lead the charge in reforming government doesn't really make much sense at all.

I agree with all of this.

Good points, the Rani.

Noting the above posts, I am so relieved to finally hear another person note that T4T is not a bible and shouldn’t be treated as such. Rather I see it (and Generations, which I actually liked much better!) as points of departure from which to take the discussion ~~ not material upon which to score debating points…..quote in a dogmatic manner……etc.

Sadly, this is not the only forum that’s got this problem. The fact is most book/theory-based forums are like this. You end up with a couple of camps feuding. The “groupie” camp that views the “founding text” (T4T in this case) as cannon, and ……………everybody else. Personally, I’d rather express my own thoughts than simply parrot someone elses. I’m more interested in hearing other people’s experiences than I am in hearing how well they can mince fine points about something already written.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Noting the above posts, I am so relieved to finally hear another person note that T4T is not a bible and shouldn’t be treated as such. Rather I see it (and Generations, which I actually liked much better!) as points of departure from which to take the discussion ~~ not material upon which to score debating points…..quote in a dogmatic manner……etc.

Sadly, this is not the only forum that’s got this problem. The fact is most book/theory-based forums are like this. You end up with a couple of camps feuding. The “groupie” camp that views the “founding text” (T4T in this case) as cannon, and ……………everybody else. Personally, I’d rather express my own thoughts than simply parrot someone elses. I’m more interested in hearing other people’s experiences than I am in hearing how well they can mince fine points about something already written.

You mean canon, don't you?

Funny. I look around and see a very, very serious GenXers…..my self included. Serious about career goals, family goals, etc. Serious about social-political goals as well.

I’ve seen Xer’s getting involved in local and state politics/government (where I’m involved professionally) in increasing numbers over the past 5 years………with mixed results.

~ I’ve seen Xer private businesspeople step in and say “THAT’S IT! I’LL FIX IT”, and sell at a reduced rate, or donate, a service or good to a local township government just so they could convince the quibbling, bickering, navel contemplating trustees to shut the hell up and get something done. Small issues, no fanfare, just getting the job done.

~ YES! Xer mayors, and, state representatives I’ve had the opportunity to deal with have been very pragmatic, direct and to the point. Sadly, most of them have had short lives……….politically……..because the idealistic boomers that hold the VAST majority of administrative and political powers surrounding these GenXers found the Xers to be A) too coarse/direct/blunt in their manner, B) too draconian in their measures or, C) somehow “lacking an understanding of what we’re really all about here in the agency”…….

I particularly love the last one! Delivered by a new Boomer volunteer board member to an Xer who’d worked at (and for all intents and purposes managed) the agency for 11 years! It was enough to make you weep. The Xer’s reorganization met the agency goals of cutting cost, improving membership services and bringing in new revenue sources (what he was asked to do) but resulted in the firing of several “older” staffers that refused to be team players and adopt the new business model. The poor Xer went on to become a homemaker with a blisteringly brisk side business in natural skincare products made from goat’s milk……..go figure!

I myself have been “relieved of my command” twice on such grounds. In one instance I was told “you wanted to move the organization forward too quickly, forgetting that our mission (land conservation initiatives) will take decades, not years to build. You are pushing everyone too hard!” In the other instance I was told I “…push the business model ahead of the mission.” In both instances It was painful, but, for the best. They were correct in getting rid of me. I was pre-seasonal in my actions and out of step with the vision of the Silent/Boomer dominated governing boards. I had to chuckle though when an ally sent me a newly minted annual report that gleefully reported they were in the black for the first time since their inception!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

You mean canon, don't you?

No! I mean Cannon! Like great big nasty brass 6 pounder cannon with which to blast away at your debate opponent on some miniscule item of supposed importance.

Seriously, you are correct, I mean canon, as in religious canon.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Funny. I look around and see a very, very serious GenXers…..my self included. Serious about career goals, family goals, etc. Serious about social-political goals as well.

I’ve seen Xer’s getting involved in local and state politics/government (where I’m involved professionally) in increasing numbers over the past 5 years………with mixed results.

~ I’ve seen Xer private businesspeople step in and say “THAT’S IT! I’LL FIX IT”, and sell at a reduced rate, or donate, a service or good to a local township government just so they could convince the quibbling, bickering, navel contemplating trustees to shut the hell up and get something done. Small issues, no fanfare, just getting the job done.

~ YES! Xer mayors, and, state representatives I’ve had the opportunity to deal with have been very pragmatic, direct and to the point. Sadly, most of them have had short lives……….politically……..because the idealistic boomers that hold the VAST majority of administrative and political powers surrounding these GenXers found the Xers to be A) too coarse/direct/blunt in their manner, B) too draconian in their measures or, C) somehow “lacking an understanding of what we’re really all about here in the agency”…….

I particularly love the last one! Delivered by a new Boomer volunteer board member to an Xer who’d worked at (and for all intents and purposes managed) the agency for 11 years! It was enough to make you weep. The Xer’s reorganization met the agency goals of cutting cost, improving membership services and bringing in new revenue sources (what he was asked to do) but resulted in the firing of several “older” staffers that refused to be team players and adopt the new business model. The poor Xer went on to become a homemaker with a blisteringly brisk side business in natural skincare products made from goat’s milk……..go figure!

I myself have been “relieved of my command” twice on such grounds. In one instance I was told “you wanted to move the organization forward too quickly, forgetting that our mission (land conservation initiatives) will take decades, not years to build. You are pushing everyone too hard!” In the other instance I was told I “…push the business model ahead of the mission.” In both instances It was painful, but, for the best. They were correct in getting rid of me. I was pre-seasonal in my actions and out of step with the vision of the Silent/Boomer dominated governing boards. I had to chuckle though when an ally sent me a newly minted annual report that gleefully reported they were in the black for the first time since their inception!

I've seen a lot of this too. I've also seen Xer politicians quit the game to stay home with their kids because they felt they were making more of a difference by spending time with their family than by sitting in long, process-driven meetings in which they were told not to expect results at any point in the next 10 years.

Skabungus - I find myself in a very similar boat. As my name implies, I am a lawyer and I work in the private sector for now. In both firms that I have worked for, my ideas have been pushed aside as 'too radical' for my Boomer bosses. you will find this humorous - my radical ideas included:

- advertising the firm on the internet or increasing web-based presence to bring in younger clients
- producing advertising brochures that are able to be mailed so that businesses could read about our experience in business-related services
- reducing our overhead of political contributions/ political clients and focusing on expanding our private sector business.

As I said, the Boomer partners look at me like I'm insane for challenging their business model that "has worked for 30 years".

Of course, this is exactly my point. My Boomer bosses (and other Boomer policy makers) are practicing law, fightng a war, and governing the people based on practices that have worked for 30 years; however, these practices/policies will not work any longer since society has changed.

By the way, I am a Gen Xer with a 4 year old son. My wife and I are taking our lives very seriously and are turning into the over-protective parents that S & H describe. I see many other Xers in their early 30s behaving the same way we are, so I suspect that the rise of the Xers is just around the corner.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I agree.

The question "when will Xers get serious" seems to imply that there is some sort of prescribed mode of action that we are supposed to follow. The authors seem more interested in following our course of action, and letting us figure things out for ourselves. Which is nice, and makes sense, actually. How can we fulfill our generational role if the Boomers and Millies just tell us what to do?

Also, I've had a feeling for a while that a lot of people on this forum use T4T as their own personal version of the bible. They think that, having read it, they now know The Truth, and they make predictions and base their life decisions on what The Book says. Zilch, despite all his smoke signals, makes the accurate point that the anti-Bush league (brigade?) uses the book, and this forum, to support their hope that the coming of their messiah is near, and that he/she will bring back the predominance of their own political views, whatever those might be.

However, looking at the authors' comments on the other thread, it's clear that their focus is sociology, not politics. I think that using T4T as some kind of political manifesto is not in line with the intent of the authors. So expecting Xers to somehow lead the charge in reforming government doesn't really make much sense at all.

Yup. Also, some people (like me) were born serious. Others are funny and help the rest of us lighten up. This has nothing to do with generation and both kinds of people are needed in all turnings. In this 3T a lot of attention has been paid to Xers who are funny and light. Those of us who have always been serious aren't getting much attention, which is fine with us. We tend to be pretty quiet people.

Millies, if you want to meet us, I suggest that you log off your computer, turn off your TV, leave your house and start attending some local gatherings. Places that are "kid-friendly," like parks and farmers' markets and neighborhood festivals, are full of Xers, as are meetings that have to do with kids, like school board meetings or school funding campaigns (paint some lawn signs!). Also any meeting having to do with energy issues, the environment, or natural resources or land use. Join your neighborhood association, it's probably run by Atari-wave Xers. We're out there. You just won't find us on a screen unless we take the time to post something, like I am right now.

Originally Posted by 13thGenLawyer

By the way, I am a Gen Xer with a 4 year old son. My wife and I are taking our lives very seriously and are turning into the over-protective parents that S & H describe. I see many other Xers in their early 30s behaving the same way we are, so I suspect that the rise of the Xers is just around the corner.

This is interesting. I'm 40 and I have a six-year-old. I live in a neighborhood in which the parents tend to be older (generally 36 to 44 for six-year-olds). I'm not seeing a huge difference in the parenting of my peers and late-wave Boomers (and some of the parents of other six-year-olds *are* '58 to '60 cohort Boomers). Some of the Xers are a bit more fretful and anxious perhaps, but in terms of what kids are and are not allowed to do, there isn't a huge difference. Boomer parenting was plenty protective, especially compared with the Silent parenting that I encountered growing up.

It seems that younger Xers are parenting differently, even though the kids are about the same age? I'm interested to hear what you're doing that you feel is different from Boomers.

I'm also wondering if there is a difference in terms of where people live. I live in the Pacific Northwest and we're pretty 3Tish here. In Portland and Seattle we still have a housing bubble on.

Also, S&H posit that African-American and kids of immigrants experience parenting and behavior trends first. A couple of the younger Latina moms I know are *way* more strict than me (I posted an example on the Xer Households thread). Although, I'm the kid of immigrants and my parents were way more strict than other parents, and that was in a 2T, so that kind of goes against the theory. On the other hand, my Silent parents were much less strict than their own parents and also less strict than Boomer and Xer Indian parents are now.

Schools here that are predominantly African-American have gone heavy on structure and reading and math drills, which has boosted test scores tremendously, but has also driven out white families (in otherwise integrated neighborhoods) from some neighborhood schools to magnet, charter, and alternative schools. The white parents say that they want more of a warm, fuzzy, "whole child" approach and less teaching to the test. I've also heard African-American and Latina moms complain that white parents don't discipline their kids enough and that the kids look too sloppy and whine too much.

All this is anecdotal, but it makes me think that we may be in the midst of a transition and that we'll be seeing another boundary soon.

Neisha '67,

I was not trying to highlight how my wife and I are different in our parenting, I am just highlighting how we are fitting into S & H's mold of being overprotective. I don't know what it is about me, but I freak out if my son is not completely strapped into his car seat before I kick the car into drive. We don't let him play in our own backyard unless we are in the backyard with him - no looking through the window will suffice. I allow my son to watch pre-approved (by me) clips of certain Star Wars movies, but any other T.V. viewing is strictly the "G" rated cartoon movie and educational show on Nick Jr., Noggin, etc..

I live in the Midwest, and I see Hispanic American parents being very strict, but African American Parents being very lax. (Just observations, not judgments).

I see schools in my area going to uniforms - especially the 'inner city' schools. There is also a huge puch here to send kids to Montessori schools and other less structured environments. I don't see different ethnicities pushing one over the other, in my area it is simply a matter of what the family can afford.

Another thing that I see is that society has so many more choices (in education and in other aspects of life) than the last saeculum, so parents can buck a trend more easily now. The past cycles have been driven by less choices due to fewer citizens, so the majority ruled how our kids were raised. Now, the minority has hundreds to thousands per metro area wanting something different than the majority. The percentages may be the same from 80 years ago; however a minority in the hundreds to thousands per metro area has much more purchasing power in today's economy, so alternative educations options can remain viable due to sheer numbers. I don't think we're going to see the entire society shift with the saeculum- we will only see a majority shift and a numerically significant minority will be able to raise their kids as they see fit as well.

Originally Posted by 13thGenLawyer

Neisha '67,

I was not trying to highlight how my wife and I are different in our parenting, I am just highlighting how we are fitting into S & H's mold of being overprotective. I don't know what it is about me, but I freak out if my son is not completely strapped into his car seat before I kick the car into drive. We don't let him play in our own backyard unless we are in the backyard with him - no looking through the window will suffice. I allow my son to watch pre-approved (by me) clips of certain Star Wars movies, but any other T.V. viewing is strictly the "G" rated cartoon movie and educational show on Nick Jr., Noggin, etc..

I live in the Midwest, and I see Hispanic American parents being very strict, but African American Parents being very lax. (Just observations, not judgments).

I see schools in my area going to uniforms - especially the 'inner city' schools. There is also a huge puch here to send kids to Montessori schools and other less structured environments. I don't see different ethnicities pushing one over the other, in my area it is simply a matter of what the family can afford.

Another thing that I see is that society has so many more choices (in education and in other aspects of life) than the last saeculum, so parents can buck a trend more easily now. The past cycles have been driven by less choices due to fewer citizens, so the majority ruled how our kids were raised. Now, the minority has hundreds to thousands per metro area wanting something different than the majority. The percentages may be the same from 80 years ago; however a minority in the hundreds to thousands per metro area has much more purchasing power in today's economy, so alternative educations options can remain viable due to sheer numbers. I don't think we're going to see the entire society shift with the saeculum- we will only see a majority shift and a numerically significant minority will be able to raise their kids as they see fit as well.

Interesting. You are more protective than me.

When my child was born, it was really common in my circle for parents to leave napping kids in their strollers out on the porch while parents and awake kids were inside (obviously the kids would get checked on regularly, but no-one wanted to move a sleeping baby). I've also known late-Boomer/early Xer moms who have left a sleeping kid strapped in a car seat with the window cracked while they popped into Pete's. I was always a little too paranoid to do either of these things, but I didn't really judge anyone who did since it was so common. And my son reports that my husband, for years, has routinely left him in the car seat while he hits the cash machine. I'm guessing that those of you born at or after '73 (my sense of the first Nintendo-wave year) wouldn't do these things?

Kids in the back yard? No problem. My son and our six and four-year old next door neighbors go back and forth to each other's houses all the time unsupervised. And we live adjacent to a busy street. (Mom next door is a '66 cohort and dad is a '68 cohort.) The eight year old across the street (mom is a '57 cohort and dad is '61) has been playing by himself in the front yard for years. His favorite thing to do is to hide way up in a tree and call down to all of us so that we're all looking around baffled.

PG movies are not a problem. My child has seen PG-13 Star Wars and Harry Potter movies in the theater. I watch them first and then cover his eyes for the stuff that's too scary. Although, recently he's been complaining that his friends get to watch all the Voldemort/Anakin in the hot lava scenes. So, I may actually be one of the more protective moms. (Honestly, the only movie that ever freaked him out was the G-rated documentary "March of the Penguins" -- real penguins died in it, including babies. Oh, and he hates the Dursley scenes from Harry Potter. Stuff that's real is way more scary to him than fantasy.)

These are all Atari-wave or older hypereducated West Coast NPR-listening type parents. I'm starting to think we're on the trailing edge of parenting trends, which is interesting, because we think of ourselves as being very "progressive." Heh.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

I'm guessing that those of you born at or after '73 (my sense of the first Nintendo-wave year) wouldn't do these things?

Leaving them while I go shopping? Not at all (though I clearly remember my parents doing that for us...). But for a quick jump to a cash machine or the like? Occasionally. It seems to come down to the question of whether the car will be in sight the whole time or not. Leaving a napping kid on the porch is something we'd never do, though Zack gets to play outside well out of any kind of direct contact with us for hours at a time, having first gone through the exercise of demonstrating to us that he was reliable enough to keep track of time and to check in with us periodically. Garret's not at that point yet, nor do we consider his big brother ready to handle more than just responsibility for himself, so for the time being, he plays only under at least light observation.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiddo, a generation who isn't swayed, scared or panics very easily is probably a good thing to have in place.

I agree with 67 here.

Originally Posted by 1990

Xers may be the slowest to take the cold shower, though. As the oldest of them hit 45, many of them still act like cynical and free-spirited youth. I don't yet see signs of the reversing-course expected of Nomads in midlife, in which they work to broaden gender differences, simplify their lives, settle down, and "get serious". Many Xers are having their first kids at 40 or older, and most that I talk to are still in a very 3T frame of mind. While Silents and Boomers sense doom and gloom around the corner (however irrationally), Xers that I meet still think it will only take a few key fixes - a better President, a better Congress, a better real estate market - to avoid looming societal problems and return to the "good old days" (whenever those were).

Yes, and despite the fact that test scores actually began to rise as xers (as the authors define them) entered grade school they were putting "a nation at risk". And despite the fact that crime, drug use, and other anti-social behavior began to fall as xers came of age they're a generation of malcontents. And despite the fact that a higher percentage of xers have participated in cause activism than any generation in American history they're cynical, and disengaged. And despite the fact that xers are more highly educated than any generation in American history (college graduation rates have actually fallen in recent years) they're "unserious".

One ought not I think confuse image and reality. I try not to generalize too often about groups that include tens of millions of wildly varied people.

Sometimes I get the sense that some people have developed this strange idea that generational differences are the only or most important factor determining what people's lives are going to be like; I'm not sure that's the case. If you were a white, middle class xer kid growing up in the suburbs you were more often than not surrounded by adults telling you you were special and could go on to do great things. The local paper was highlighting the accomplishments of your classmates. Crime was something that happened in other places. My guess is it was quite different for - say - poor kids of color growing up in the inner city. They may not have had and still may not have people telling them they're special, and probably don't have a local paper highlighting their achievements.

Coming up is I think primarily a local, and personal experience; politics and culture are what happen on TV for most people. What I remember - apart from all the bleed and lead stories about the kid mowed down by the drunk driver or the kid who fell to his death hiking to the waterfall in the middle of winter - are all the "aren't our children bitchen?" stories: the high school football hero, the girl who won the spelling bee, the Scout who swam across this or that body of water at the age of ten, the boy who organized the food drive for the homeless at his church.

But if the question is why aren't so many people born in the 1960s and 1970s entering electoral politics or voting to the same extent as their grandparents I think the answer is that fewer silents than GIs entered politics or voted, fewer boomers than silents entered politics or voted, and fewer xers than boomers have entered politics or voted on a regular basis; I expect millenials will continue this trend. The countervailing trend - as I've noted elsewhere - is that participation in cause activism has increased in the last half-century, and has been strong among xers; I expect it will be strong among millenials as well.

Also: xers were not the first generation to begin marrying and having children later, and my guess is they won't be the last. Part of it is a function of the fact that people are living longer. Part of it is a function of the fact that people are remaining in school longer. Part of it is a function of the fact that we live in a highly successful and wealthy society where children are increasingly not a social or economic necessity but a kind of accessory. And part of it is a function of the fact that health, hygiene, sanitary hospital conditions, and medical technology make it possible for women to have children later. As noted elsewhere the trend is toward fewer people formally marrying but still having lasting relationships (some that end, some that don't) and children together; I would be surprised to find that millenials did not continue to expand this trend.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Leaving them while I go shopping? Not at all (though I clearly remember my parents doing that for us...). But for a quick jump to a cash machine or the like? Occasionally. It seems to come down to the question of whether the car will be in sight the whole time or not. Leaving a napping kid on the porch is something we'd never do, though Zack gets to play outside well out of any kind of direct contact with us for hours at a time, having first gone through the exercise of demonstrating to us that he was reliable enough to keep track of time and to check in with us periodically. Garret's not at that point yet, nor do we consider his big brother ready to handle more than just responsibility for himself, so for the time being, he plays only under at least light observation.

Sounds pretty close to what we do. My recollection is that Zack and Ari are the same age (6 1/2)? Before you lived in Russia you lived about 2 miles from me.

Here's what I'm trying to figure out: Xers range in age between 26 and 46, making us the parents of almost all of the under 10 set, if not older kids as well. Since we've taken over as the primary parenting generation, you would think that we would have started to put our own stamp on parenting. But, I'm not seeing that we're all that different from Boomers. Although, it could be that some of us (younger parents? parents in the Heartland? African-American parents? Latino parents?) are parenting in a more protective style. At this point, though, Atari-wavers have, for the most part, stopped having lots of babies and most of the baby-making is being done by the Nintendo wave and Millies. If we're really not parenting all that differently from late-wave Boomers this probably means: 1) we're still 3T; and 2) most of the Homelanders will be the kids of Millies and not Xers. If that happens, will Homelanders be as over-protected as if the 4T had come earlier? Or is it the 4T that causes all generations to clamp down on kids, and not just underprotected Nomads?

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Sounds pretty close to what we do. My recollection is that Zack and Ari are the same age (6 1/2)?

He's 7 since mid-May. But yeah, pretty much the same age.
So was Ari in grade 1 this past year? Schools out this way start at age 7, so Zack got a year's worth of language practice before having to hit academics; but he's way chomping at the bit to formally join the ranks of 'big kids'.

As for responsibility, we do try to strike a balance with him. Once school starts, he'll most likely fairly quickly be taking care of getting himself from school to either music lessons or aikido (depending on the day and how the after-schools break down).

Here's what I'm trying to figure out: Xers range in age between 26 and 46, making us the parents of almost all of the under 10 set, if not older kids as well. Since we've taken over as the primary parenting generation, you would think that we would have started to put our own stamp on parenting. But, I'm not seeing that we're all that different from Boomers.

The main thing I've seen is a focus on manners that the Boomer crowd didn't seem to stress. I bet, as far as overprotected goes, it's not something that ay parent-generation can see. After all, the level of protectiveness they are applying is "appropriate", not "excessive".
It's for their kids (once they've grown up) to say when and how they went too far.

Originally Posted by Flyingeye76

Nice to know that I have nothing to do with my 1977 classmates and friends.

Do you really feel you're in the same generation as a 1977 cohort? (I know Scott Beale did.) You guys had ideology, music and other things in common? Feel free to tell me about it. I'm open to 1976 being part of my generation; after all, I know how you feel because S&H tell me that I'm in a different generation from all my 1982 classmates even though I fail to see a line anywhere.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

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.

Do you think an entirely new term could take over?

Suppose a bunch of eighties cohorts hold a history-changing protest at Agoura Hills in 2009 and some people start memorializing the watershed event by calling the kids who did it the Agoura Generation.

People decide "Generation Y" is too derivative of "Generation X" and want something more unique to this new generation. Meanwhile, the "Millennials" term invented by S&H is rejected because people view the S&H characterization of this generation as being about bringing back conventionality, fighting for the causes older people choose, preferring stability over radicalism and celebrating the status quo, and they don't see this generation doing this (rightly or wrongly, this is what most people who read S&H believe the authors say about Millennials).

Will more people reach for the term invented by the paper who used "Agoura Generation"? And then start calling these youngsters Agourans? We could have new books about reaching Silents, Boomers, Jonesers, Xers and Agourans in the workplace.

The term "Generation X" wasn't coined until the very nature of this generation was discovered by the media in the nineties, so why shouldn't this new generation get a brand-new name once people figure out who they are?

Someone could write a new book or script a new movie or put out a new Broadway musical and name this generation in the work, the way Coupland named Generation X in his book title. If it receives critical acclaim, this opus could give the generation its permanent appellation.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

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.

Well, you're right that none of the celebrities born in 1981 fits the "clean-cut dutiful soldier who never questions authority" archetype.

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.

Pure Gen-X, not surprising because EVERYONE classifies the birthyear of Alanis Morissette as Generation X. Very Nomad characteristics, even though the not being loyal to his business is shared with the generation after X.

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).

Reminds me of BrendanB from this site. Have you met him? VERY Gen-X, even for a 1979 cohort.

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

Now THIS sounds like something S&H's Millennials would do.

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,

Hmmmmmmm . . . S&H say that Nomads are the most skilled archetype with languages. (I think of my Lost great-grandfather who knew English, Armenian, German, French and Latin).

But he found this job unfufilling, and has since left his job to pursue other ambitions.

Classical Generation Y . . . not loyal to a job.

Though he is a general pessimist (occupying the last vestiges of Gen X)

Mmmmm . . . this goes well with the generation that popularized emo.

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.

Wow . . . she doesn't even sound Gen-Y (except for that trendy Hello Kitty/Sanrio stuff . . . does she like anime too)? She sounds like what we might expect the "Core Millies" to be like despite being too old to be a core Millie by birthyear. Tell me more . . . What kind of "terrible pop music" does she listen to? *N SUCK? Hillary Duff? A-Teens?

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.

This reminds me of the media's "spoiled Echo Boomers" criticisms.

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)

Hmmm . . . considering a school has the same number of students in student government year to year, shouldn't a family like yours who had older soblings who weren't in student government and younger siblings like yours have had other families with the reverse (older kids who were in student government in the nineties, younger kids who aren't in student government now) to balance it out?

and am the first to have a dishwasher to do my chores for me .

Is this Hero-like? Or un-Hero-like? I thought the G.I. Generation was known for having lots of chores as children and teens. People are complaining today that kids aren't being given enough chores, on the other hand.

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)

Oooh . . . an artistic aspect too. (S&H don't picture Millennials as documentary-makers, however.) Frankly, I don't believe your and my generation will be remembered first and foremost for its soldiers, as the G.I. Generation is remembered. It will be remembered for its political figures (including many radical personalities), for its inventors/builders and for its artistic figures (our Shakespeares and Mozarts, although this time around many will take the form of rock stars).

Oh well, you sound typical of a 1990 cohort, even if you don't sound like what S&H envisaged a Hero to be like. (Personally, your posts on this board seem too colorful to be a classic, bland S&H Soldier archetype).