"Me" generation marriages..
Bill
think about themselves, etc.)
Well I am finding it interesting to see modern day marriages between some of
these people. Especially when they talk about money matters...
It is "my" money and "her" money. Or "my" money and "his" money.
"I can't watch "my" TV show because she did not pay for the cable TV with
"her" money like she was supposed to."
"I'm not paying for that with "my" money, you pay for it with "your" money!"
There is "his" bank account and "her" bank account.
The monthly car insurance bill for two cars comes as two separate
statements. One for his car, the other for hers. He pays his with "his"
money, she pays hers with "her" money. (They could of course get a discount
if they placed both cars under the same policy.)
Etc.
When I was that age, it was "our" money. "We" paid for this that and the
other thing. One checking account in "our" names. "We" would decide to buy
or not buy something for "us".
My parents were the same way as well as all the other families I knew
growing up.
Chloe
news:5igfqnF...@mid.individual.net...
How old are you? My husband and I are 62 and 57 respectively. For almost all
of our 37-year marriage, we've kept separate checking accounts and divided
up the bills. In the big picture, we consider all the family assets and
expenses as shared or joint, but as far as logistics go, divvying everything
up is the arrangement that works for us. Some degree of division seems to
make sense especially for 20-somethings, particularly with the relative
popularity of "starter" marriages nowadays.
Rudy Canoza
> They say those in their 20's are the "me" generation. (Very selfish, only
Well, that's funny - that's what people in their 40s
and up were saying about people in their 20s back in
the 1970s when I was in my 20s. In fact, it seems that
that's what people in their 40s and up are /always/
saying about people in their 20s.
Steve Cothran
wrote:
Some degree of division seems to
>make sense especially for 20-somethings, particularly with the relative
>popularity of "starter" marriages nowadays.
>
I submit that this division is one of the reasons for the "starter
marriage".
All or nothing. Partners or not. Easy Question.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
i'm 50, married almost 31yrs. it's always been "our" money. i think that
the
no fault divorce laws may be at the root of it. who wants to get
financially
tangled up when the spouse can say "bye" anytime? women especially. i
think
if i should ever remarry, that may be the way i'd go, as well.
Rudy Canoza
>
> An interesting piece was written back in the 30's (I think) bemoaning
> the moral decay of the adolescents of the time - anyone today reading it
> would recognize and probably agree with most everything the author had
> to say on the matter. It was a fairly lengthy piece and hit on nearly
> every concern that you've probably heard all your life about your
> generation or the next or the next. Interestingly enough the piece was
> attributed to Hitler. I heard it many years ago on the radio, probably
> NPR, but have failed to actually find it anywhere.
>
> Caveman discovers the wheel, the next generation is hotrodding through
> the mammoth herd, punks...
There was an excellent article back in 1992 in the
Atlantic Monthly about the "new generation gap". It
concerned the aging baby boomers and the then-young
Gen-Xers. The story is at
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/92dec/9212genx.htm,
but you need to be a subscriber to get to it. I'll
post the first four paragraphs below. Meanwhile, in
the story, the authors indicate that there was an
earlier generation gap much like the 1960s gap between
boomers and their parents, back around 1880. What was
then the younger generation they labeled the Missionary
Generation, as these were the young folks who were
going to save the world by going off to Asia to "save"
the heathen. Their parents were the Civil War
generation who fought in the great war, much as
boomers' parents were the "Greatest" generation who
saved the day in the 1940s. The parents became
materialistic after the war; the young'uns were
idealistic and anti-material. One of the main themes
of the story is that these generational archetypes are
repeating, and in pretty much the same order.
Here are the promised first four paragraphs from the story:
TWO world views, reflecting fundamentally different
visions of society and self, are moving into conflict
in the America of the 1990s. A new generation gap is
emerging. In the late 1960's the fight was mainly
between twenty-year-olds and the fifty-plus crowd.
Today it's mainly between young people and the thirty-
to forty-year-olds.
In these gaps, the old 1960s one and the emerging 1990s
facsimile, there have been two constants: Each time,
the same conspicuous generation has been involved. Each
time, that generation has claimed the moral and
cultural high ground, casting itself as the apex of
civilization and its age-bracket adversaries as
soul-dead, progress-blocking philistines. The first
time around, the members of that generation attacked
their elders; now they're targeting their juniors.
We're talking about Baby Boomers. Born from 1943 to
1960, today's 69 million Boomers range in age from
thirty-two to forty-nine. Defined by its personality
type, this generation is somewhat different from the
group defined simply by the well-known demographic
fertility bulge (1946-1964). At the front end, the
grown-up "victory babies" of 1943 -- peers of Janis
Joplin and Bobby Fischer, Joni Mitchell and Geraldo
Rivera, Oliver North and Rap Brown, R. Crumb and Angela
Davis, Newt Gingrich and Bill Bradley -- include the
first Dr. Spock toddlers; the fiery college class of
1965; the oldest Vietnam-era draftcard burners; the
eldest among "Americans Under 25," whom Time magazine
named its "1967 Man of the Year"; and the last
twenty-nine-year-olds (in 1972) to hear the phrase
"under-thirty generation" before its sudden
disappearance. At the back end, the grown-up Eisenhower
babies of 1960 are the last-born of today's Americans
to feel any affinity with the hippie-cum-yuppie baggage
that accompanies the Boomer label.
The younger antagonists are less well known: America's
thirteenth generation, born from 1961 to 1981, ranging
in age from eleven to thirty-one. Demographers call
them Baby Busters, a name that deserves a prompt and
final burial. First, it's incorrect: The early-sixties
birth cohorts are among the biggest in U.S. history --
and, at 80 million, this generation has numerically
outgrown the Boom. By the late 1990s it will even
outvote the Boom. Second, the name is insulting --
"Boom" followed by "Bust," as though wonder were
followed by disappointment. The novelist Doug Coupland,
himself a 1961 baby, dubs his age-mates "Generation X"
or "Xers," a name first used by and about British
Boomer-punkers. Shann Nix, a journalist at the San
Francisco Chronicle, suggests "posties" (as in "post
yuppies"), another name that, like Coupland's, leaves
the generation in the shadow of the great Boom.
barbie gee
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13c68ei...@corp.supernews.com...
snip
> There was an excellent article back in 1992 in the Atlantic Monthly about
> the "new generation gap". It concerned the aging baby boomers and the
> then-young Gen-Xers. The story is at
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/92dec/9212genx.htm, but you need to be a
> subscriber to get to it. I'll post the first four paragraphs below.
> Meanwhile, in the story, the authors indicate that there was an earlier
> generation gap much like the 1960s gap between boomers and their parents,
> back around 1880. What was then the younger generation they labeled the
> Missionary Generation, as these were the young folks who were going to
> save the world by going off to Asia to "save" the heathen. Their parents
> were the Civil War generation who fought in the great war, much as
> boomers' parents were the "Greatest" generation who saved the day in the
> 1940s. The parents became materialistic after the war; the young'uns were
> idealistic and anti-material. One of the main themes of the story is that
> these generational archetypes are repeating, and in pretty much the same
> order.
i think this is because most young people are idealistic,
and as they get older, they get some wisdom (hopefully)
and see the world for what it is, and so they start sounding
like their parents.
freeisbest
wrote:
> "Bill" <bill190nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
-snip-
> > When I was that age, it was "our" money. "We" paid for this that and the
> > other thing. One checking account in "our" names. "We" would decide to buy
> > or not buy something for "us".
>
> > My parents were the same way as well as all the other families I knew
> > growing up.
Yes, that's the way it's done in an actual marriage.
> i'm 50, married almost 31yrs. it's always been "our" money. i
think that
> the no fault divorce laws may be at the root of it. who wants to get
> financially tangled up when the spouse can say "bye" anytime? women
> especially. i think if i should ever remarry, that may be the way
i'd go, as well.
I like it, 31 years, at the age of 50! We did that too - got
married then grew up together. :)
We're 67, married 41 years. It has always been 'our' money.
During the difficult early years, knowing that we were in it together
always helped, when dread and dismay would set in every third week,
the week before the monthly paycheck came in. No question that it
would have been an easier, pleasanter life for us all if there had
been enough money. But at least we didn't nickel-and-dime each other,
or treat each other like roommates.
I really can't blame them for not trusting each other, but I feel
deeply sorry for these poor distrustful young people. Must be very
hard to live with someone who considers you just one "option" among
many.
Rod Speed
Presumably because most of them didnt have the woman working, so it wasnt feasible.
Many more of that generation you are howling about arent even married at all.
Rod Speed
Or old farts have always howled about what the kids get up to.
You can read the ancient greeks doing it, millennia ago.
Presumably everyone else did it too, it just wasnt as well recorded with cave men etc.
Millhaven
rather obsolete concept compared to a generation or two. Rather
pointless really.
Matthew Beasley
"Millhaven" <mill...@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:1187205093....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Why the hell do people get married nowadays anyway? Seems to be a
> rather obsolete concept compared to a generation or two. Rather
> pointless really.
>
It does make legal matters more complex. Particularly if raising children.
barbie gee
unless you don't mind fatherless and/or illegitimate children being bred.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"freeisbest" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187203380.9...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 11:11 am, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <der...@hotmail.com>
> I like it, 31 years, at the age of 50! We did that too - got
> married then grew up together. :)
yeah, we knew each other 2.5 months when we married. he, of course,
suggested that we live together (it WAS the 70's), but i suggested we get
married. :) so we also got to know each other while married. i lucked
out.
can't speak for him, especially now that menopause has hit. I hold the
0-shit
speed record, i'm sure. poor guy =(:-o)
> We're 67, married 41 years. It has always been 'our' money.
> During the difficult early years, knowing that we were in it together
> always helped, when dread and dismay would set in every third week,
> the week before the monthly paycheck came in. No question that it
> would have been an easier, pleasanter life for us all if there had
> been enough money. But at least we didn't nickel-and-dime each other,
> or treat each other like roommates.
> I really can't blame them for not trusting each other, but I feel
> deeply sorry for these poor distrustful young people. Must be very
> hard to live with someone who considers you just one "option" among
> many.
which is why there's a good chance i won't marry again. i'd need a long
(years) celibate courtship to trust the men of today, and there aren't too
many
men out there that would stand for that in this day and age.
Millhaven
I don't think even that makes much of a difference, especially if both
parents are working.
max
"barbie gee" <barbi...@NOSESPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@sghcrg.sghcrg.pbz...
or battered!
.max
--
# UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
# IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
The Henchman
> think about themselves, etc.)
It was the Baby Boomers that started this trend and it was the Baby Boomers
that raised these children.
Life goes on....
Logan Shaw
> Bill wrote:
>> They say those in their 20's are the "me" generation. (Very selfish,
>> only think about themselves, etc.) [snip remainder of big steaming
>> load...]
> Well, that's funny - that's what people in their 40s and up were saying
> about people in their 20s back in the 1970s when I was in my 20s.
Funny, when I saw the words "'me' generation", those are the exact numbers
I thought of -- people who were in their 20's in the 1970's.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
I don't see that there's necessarily a connection between fatherless
children and unmarried parents. An unmarried couple could have a
child together and the father could be a great parent, very involved
with his child's life. A married couple could get a divorce and the
father could stay very involved in the children's lives[1]. Or a married
couple could stay married and the father could pretend as much as
possible that the children don't exist and devote no effort to raising
them.
- Logan
[1] Note that I'm not saying I think divorce isn't hard on children.
I think it's very hard on them. I just don't think it means
the father automatically disappears.
E Z Peaces
impression. I don't know if it used the word "narcissistic", but that's
what it called the Missionary Generation. They were the most educated
in history. With education came the expectation of privilege and
authority.
As young adults they set records as substance abusers and sexual
libertines behind a righteous facade. Their morality regarding their
children, born about 1890 to 1910, was that children must not be
spoiled. Babies born out of wedlock were turned over to institutions
where nurses did not spoil them by heeding their cries. In some the
mortality was 100%.
These were required to attend school but were the worst educated since
the start of compulsory schooling. Teachers encouraged them to drop out
and go to work. Child exploitation thrived. When they were old enough,
they were ordered to charge machine guns. They died by the millions and
the patriotic Missionary Generation found it glorious. When the
survivors got home the Missionary Generation outlawed alcohol.
The article says this generation, with their limited booklearning and
history of being abused and neglected, were the best Americans of
several generations. The next generation, who fought WWII, are called
the greatest, but the WWI generation were the voters and policymakers
who determined how America undertook that war.
"Gunsmoke" showed the values of the WWI generation. It's different from
the Westerns earlier and later generations preferred.
The article I read drew comparisons between the Boomers and the
Missionaries and says GenX may shape up like the WWI generation.
Rod Speed
Its pretty superficial.
> I don't know if it used the word "narcissistic", but that's what it called the Missionary
> Generation. They were the most educated in history.
You essentially say the opposite below.
> With education came the expectation of privilege and authority.
That wasnt true of the bottom of that society.
> As young adults they set records as substance abusers and sexual
> libertines behind a righteous facade. Their morality regarding their
> children, born about 1890 to 1910, was that children must not be
> spoiled.
> Babies born out of wedlock were turned over to institutions where nurses did not spoil them by
> heeding their cries.
That only happened with some stratas of society.
> In some the mortality was 100%.
For other reasons.
> These were required to attend school but were the worst educated since the start of compulsory
> schooling.
Thats the opposite of what you said above.
> Teachers encouraged them to drop out and go to work.
Its more that society did than the teachers.
> Child exploitation thrived.
And had done for generations before that too.
> When they were old enough, they were ordered to charge machine guns. They died by the millions
No they didnt in the US.
> and the patriotic Missionary Generation found it glorious. When the survivors got home the
> Missionary Generation outlawed alcohol.
> The article says this generation, with their limited booklearning and
> history of being abused and neglected, were the best Americans of
> several generations. The next generation, who fought WWII, are called the greatest, but the WWI
> generation were the voters and policymakers who determined how America undertook that war.
No they didnt. That wasnt determined by the voters at all.
> "Gunsmoke" showed the values of the WWI generation. It's different
> from the Westerns earlier and later generations preferred.
> The article I read drew comparisons between the Boomers and the
> Missionaries and says GenX may shape up like the WWI generation.
And you've completely ignored the 20s.
throwitout
As women usually say "What's mine is mine and what's his is ours"
barbie gee
I kept wondering who is Bill (OP) considering as "they", and who are these
folks he's observing, under what circumstances?
maybe he means "Generation Me", as described here;?
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12392877/>
(the offspring of the original Me Generation folks)
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
<1187203380.9...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
demeter...@yahoo.com says...
Well, it REALLY sucks to have some dork frantically clinging to
you. Because s/he is such a loser that s/he cannot find other
"options" for relationships. Because s/he has nothing positive
to offer, and lots of negative.
When someone views you as their ONLY possible "option," that
means that s/he is a desperate parasite.
Which is radically different to a cool person who chooses to be
with you (over other "options") because s/he genuinely likes you.
Plenty of people act in the same desperate way in platonic
"friendships," too.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
says...
And there are also plenty of women who would refuse a similar,
"No, I won't give you any money or presents" restriction for that
same extended period.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
use...@austin.rr.com says...
"Those gawsh-darn, selfish, arrogant, moronic young people...
They are the 'me' generation. The little whippersnappers don't
know anything about life."
Yep, the non-young folks have been saying that for a long time.
Back on some grass plain in Ethiopia, a quarter million years
ago... Our proto-human ancestors said those very same words.
And, well, I sometimes find myself saying that, too.
It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling of universal human
closeness to think about that.
Except that I don't feel any closeness to those snot-nosed
little "Generation Y" brats.
--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/
NapalmHeart
"Steve Cothran" <fa...@fake.com> wrote in message
news:kqb6c319h6d6cjcrp...@4ax.com...
We are 48 and 44, husband and wife, respectively. We have 1 checking
account and the money is ours. Very little is considered to belong to
either one of us as individuals. 21 years married and no doubt we will grow
old together.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.212eeb3cf...@nntp.aioe.org...snip
>> which is why there's a good chance i won't marry again. i'd need a long
>> (years) celibate courtship to trust the men of today, and there aren't
>> too
>> many men out there that would stand for that in this day and age.
>
>
> And there are also plenty of women who would refuse a similar,
> "No, I won't give you any money or presents" restriction for that
> same extended period.
>
not me. the only day my husband has to acknowledge is our wedding
anniversary, and it can be just verbal. no requirement for presents ever,
not bd, xmas, valentines, any other day. no cards, flowers, chocolates,
dinners out, nighties, jewelry, etc. is required. i am not for sale.
not
even a big dick can purchase me. ;)
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.212eeb3cf...@nntp.aioe.org...
>> which is why there's a good chance i won't marry again. i'd need a long
>> (years) celibate courtship to trust the men of today, and there aren't
>> too
>> many men out there that would stand for that in this day and age.
>
> And there are also plenty of women who would refuse a similar,
> "No, I won't give you any money or presents" restriction for that
> same extended period.
i'm not understanding your point.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.212eeecd9...@nntp.aioe.org...
:)
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
> <Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
> news:MPG.212eeb3cf...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <NyIwi.939$Vd.551@trndny02>, der...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> snip
> >> which is why there's a good chance i won't marry again. i'd need a long
> >> (years) celibate courtship to trust the men of today, and there aren't
> >> too
> >> many men out there that would stand for that in this day and age.
> > And there are also plenty of women who would refuse a similar,
> > "No, I won't give you any money or presents" restriction for that
> > same extended period.
> are you saying sex is bought with presents/presents are
> received for sex?
Not exactly.
As you apparently understand with the, "long (years) celibate
courtship" requirement, a woman should make sure that she isn't
going to be treated as an undignified booty call. To be used
just for sex. Because that view can arise if she puts out too
soon in the relationship.
However, a man also should make sure that he isn't going to be
treated as a walking wallet.
Cool women don't want to be hoes. And cool men don't want to be
tricks.
And I have seen UNcool women pull this. Hinting, or directly
stating, that she is just sooooo attracted to some guy. With the
hint (often NOT direct statement) of promising sex. And the real
motivation is to lead him around by his dick. Extracting
favours, presents, money, housing, and, sometimes, drug-enabling.
Sometimes, after a period of very overt "Oh-I-Love-You," lying,
it comes time for her to put her actions where her words are.
And the woman will suddenly draw back with, "Well, uh, I decided
that we are just friends. And you would be such an arsehole if
you reduced your generosity (and bad-behaviour-tolorance) because
of that. It would be like you abusing me, or trying to coerce me
into sex. Like trying to use me as a whore."
When, of course, she really IS a whore, of the psychological
type.
The way for a man to avoid those types, is to be just as
restrained with his wallet, as the woman is with sex.
The cool woman will stay. And the lying hoe will go bother
someone else.
> not me. the only day my husband has to acknowledge is our wedding
> anniversary, and it can be just verbal. no requirement for presents ever,
> not bd, xmas, valentines, any other day. no cards, flowers, chocolates,
> dinners out, nighties, jewelry, etc. is required. i am not for sale.
> not even a big dick can purchase me. ;)
Well, interestingly, I have also seen my above-described scenario
happen in woman-to-woman platonic "friendships." There are
female parasites who target other females with the false promise
of "friendship." Right up to the level of viewing a new female
acquaintance as a personal servant, limousine, soup kitchen,
welfare agency, and all-around emotional punching bag.
And the advantage there is that the target woman isn't likely to
say, "No Sex, No Cash," like a man might. Plus the strange
belief that female parasites have, that all prospective female
hosts are just soooooo weak that we can be guilt-tripped into
effectively infinite "generosity" and abuse-tolorance.
Really... A prospective woman-to-woman "friendship" should be
viewed with the same suspicion as that held by a guy who doesn't
want to be used as a free ATM by some chick whom he is dating.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.213172dfa...@nntp.aioe.org...
correct. i have 3 female friends, none of whom live near me. i don't
think anything like most women, and that's why i don't get along with
virtually 100% of them.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.213172dfa...@nntp.aioe.org...
we agree. if i'm ever widowed, my i look you up? :)
>
> And I have seen UNcool women pull this. Hinting, or directly
> stating, that she is just sooooo attracted to some guy. With the
> hint (often NOT direct statement) of promising sex. And the real
> motivation is to lead him around by his dick. Extracting
> favours, presents, money, housing, and, sometimes, drug-enabling.
> Sometimes, after a period of very overt "Oh-I-Love-You," lying,
> it comes time for her to put her actions where her words are.
> And the woman will suddenly draw back with, "Well, uh, I decided
> that we are just friends. And you would be such an arsehole if
> you reduced your generosity (and bad-behaviour-tolorance) because
> of that. It would be like you abusing me, or trying to coerce me
> into sex. Like trying to use me as a whore."
>
> When, of course, she really IS a whore, of the psychological
> type.
a glorified prostitute. no wait, no glorification about it.
yeah, i see these gals all the time, but just try to get the
guy to listen.
> The way for a man to avoid those types, is to be just as
> restrained with his wallet, as the woman is with sex.
>
> The cool woman will stay. And the lying hoe will go bother
> someone else.
and lots of men (most?) will try to give you stuff in order to
make you feel that you owe sex.
or they divorce their long-time wives for fun with younger
models (this doesn't apply to me, just so you know). unfortunately,
there seems to be little honor either way, these days.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote in message
news:MPG.213172dfa...@nntp.aioe.org...snip
> As you apparently understand with the, "long (years) celibate
> courtship" requirement, a woman should make sure that she isn't
> going to be treated as an undignified booty call. To be used
> just for sex. Because that view can arise if she puts out too
> soon in the relationship.
why can a guy go whoring around with impunity?