Gen-X definition question
Steve Nelson
period that encompasses the years of birth of generation-Xers, such
as the years for the baby boomer generation?
It is widely accepted that people born during the years 1946 through 1964
are categorized as baby boomers.
What birth years define the generation-Xers? It is the next 18 year
period from 1965 to 1983? Is it shorter than an 18 year period? Is it
longer? Are Xers still being born today? (ie. from 1965 - present?)
Maybe it's not as clear cut a definition as with the boomers, if there isn't
an obvious demographic event such as the post-war baby boom.
Just Curious.
Steve
er...@u.washington.edu
[boomer, xer defined by tudes]
>For example:
>I have several friends born during the years 1961 to 1963 who definately
>consider themselves boomers, and they certainly fit the bill. They
>drive Volvos, Porches, Saabs; they listen to the Dead, CSN, the Stones,
>The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and NPR for info, etc.; they live in upscale
>neighborhoods; they have household incomes in the $130,000 range,
>they wear Dockers; and they hold wine tastings at their homes. In other
>words, they walk, talk, and act like boomers, therefore, they are
>boomers.
>Steve
I don't own a car. I listen to that music, but I also listen to Celtic
traditional stuff (Boys of the Loch, Chieftains, Capercaille, etc),
reggae, gothic/industrial stuff, "world beat" music and medieval chants.
I live way too close to gangland central. I wear dockers, but I also wear
tights and tops, and a wide variety of other stuff. My "household income"
is entirely based on unemployment. Tea is the drink of choice here.
I guess I'm stuck in a between-generations limbo. Oy.
Erynn
Lost in a World She Never Made
Steve Nelson
>> st...@bronze.coil.com writes:
>>
>> 1961 through 1981. The last birthyear is debatable since
>> those people are still rather young, but Generation X begins
>> in 1961, period. Why? Because the people who were born from
>> 1961 through 1964 say it does.
>
>=o= No, Strauss and Howe (who were born in the 1940s) says that
>1961 through 1981 are the birthyears for "The 13th Generation."
>
>=o= Until Douglas Coupland says otherwise, I will stick by the
>contention printed on the liner notes of his _Generation_X_ that
>he's talking about people born in the late 1950s and 1960s.
>I haven't seen Coupland, who was born in 1961, accepting the
>role of Elder Statesman For His Generation.
I've always thought that 18 years is really too long a period for which to
put people in the same group whether they're boomers or Xers. I split
boomers into 2 groups: the people who are of age to have served in
Vietnam (born during the years 1946 - 1954 who are now 40 - 48) and those
who watched Vietnam on television from their living rooms (born during
the years 1955 - 1964 who are now 30 - 39).
The first wave of Xers appears to encompass the years 1965 - 1974, those
old enough to remember the Ayatollah and the Hostage Crisis (Remember
that Nightline started out as "America Held Hostage: Day XXX.")
Ten years seems to be about the maximum span for a group where most of the
members can relate to each other via experiences, attitudes, music,
values, etc.
For a personal example, I'm a year younger than the character Kevin Arnold
on the television program the "Wonder Years." It is amazing how many of the
episodes were very similiar to events that occured my life (although my dad
did buy a 1969 Mustang, Kevin's dad bought the 1969 Galaxy instead). Though
my evidence is anecdotal, I've found that people up to five years younger
than I am and up to five years older than I am, really related to the show,
whereas, people outside of those ages really didn't have the same kinds of
life experiences and didn't relate to the show or the character of Kevin.
Just my $.02. Any thoughts/comments?
Steve
Peter Dubuque
>=o= Until Douglas Coupland says otherwise, I will stick by the
>contention printed on the liner notes of his _Generation_X_ that
>he's talking about people born in the late 1950s and 1960s.
>I haven't seen Coupland, who was born in 1961, accepting the
>role of Elder Statesman For His Generation.
In fact, he vehemently denies the "Spokesman for the Twentysomething
Generation" label that's been slapped on him. "Besides, I'm in my 30s..."
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Peter F. Dubuque dub...@husc.harvard.edu
Everyone has some redeeming quality...their mortality, if nothing else.
_______________________________________________________________________
Carl Beaudry
> I've always thought that 18 years is really too long a period for which to
> put people in the same group whether they're boomers or Xers. I split
> boomers into 2 groups: the people who are of age to have served in
> Vietnam (born during the years 1946 - 1954 who are now 40 - 48) and those
> who watched Vietnam on television from their living rooms (born during
> the years 1955 - 1964 who are now 30 - 39).
>
> The first wave of Xers appears to encompass the years 1965 - 1974
> Just my $.02. Any thoughts/comments?
Yeah, it depends which 10 years you're talking about. Socioculturally,
people born after 1960 never had a President they trusted, they grew up
with declining support for education and had to deal with the fallout of
1960's parenting techniques and familial breakup. They also spent their
20's in an AIDS-pensive society.
Demographically, your definition of the baby boom is also imprecise. There
is more than one possible definition of the baby boom. 1965 was the first
year that the *absolute* *number* of live births was less than the previous
year. But 1959 was the year that the *fertility* *rate* first declined from
the previous year.
IMHO, fertility rates say more about how pronatalist a society is. The
number of live births says more about how many couples of reproductive age.
The births from 1959-1964 reflected demographic momentum built into
existing age distributions, not pronatalist societal attitudes, which
peaked in the 50s.
Children born after the fertility rate boom faced an increasingly
child-hostile world and it's reflected in the attitude, IMHO.
As far as the tail end of X goes, I'm undecided. Currently I think that it
may be closer to 1976 than 1982, but then the jury is still out on that
one.
--Carl
Todd Sandrock
writes:
>In article <1994Feb3.1...@unet.net.com>,
>Steve Nelson <ste...@guava.net.com> wrote:
>>This question may seem a bit naive, but is there a generally accepted
>>period that encompasses the years of birth of generation-Xers, such
>>as the years for the baby boomer generation?
>
>>It is widely accepted that people born during the years 1946 through 1964
>>are categorized as baby boomers.
>
>fertility traits of the parents, not on any sociocultural aspects of the
>people in question. Strauss & Howe, along with other demographers and
>sociologists, say the Baby Boomer generation should be moved back to
>1943 through 1960.
Pardon my illiteracy: Why the name 13th Gen? I've heard it has something to
do with 13th since 1776 or 1793 or something. Kind of an egocentric term for
a phenomenon that extends beyond borders, is it not?
>>What birth years define the generation-Xers? It is the next 18 year
>>period from 1965 to 1983? Is it shorter than an 18 year period? Is it
>>longer? Are Xers still being born today? (ie. from 1965 - present?)
>
>1961 through 1981. The last birthyear is debatable since those people are
>still rather young, but Generation X begins in 1961, period. Why?
>Because the people who were born from 1961 through 1964 say it does. I
>mean, would you doubt Jane's X-ness? Not if you know what's good for
>you... :-)
1981?? This argument has wound around and around, and I!ve said this before:
You can't convice me that I share life experiences with someone presently
thirteen years old. My (b.1966) earliest memories were of the late '60's.
Theirs are of the mid eighties. Things happened between those two times.
If I were to make a distinction, which makes me nervous from 'go', I would
tend to agree with what I interpret Coupland's to be, viz:
o GenX remembers the last gasps [and promises] of the American industial
postwar boom. We thought we would do even better than our parents, but we're
not going to. The childhood [but not the teenage] years of X and Boomers
were very similar, but the boomers got the last scraps as they grew up.
This is The Great Promise, and The Great Betrayal. If you're thirteen now,
you'll never have been given the promise.
o If your parents were baby boomers, you are 'Global Teens', not GenX. My
parents were stright up Ward&June Cleaver types. My memories of childhood
hit me like a 50's hygiene newsreel. No dope, no beatles, no communes, no
way. My parents, and those of most of my contemporaries did not, have not,
and will not get divorced. We had to learn our cynicism elsewhere... The
divorce thing seems to have been a bigger fad among boomers and affected
their chilren more.
This is Earth to Mom [from Shampoo Planet]
[more deletia]
Todd Sandrock
Ottawa, Ontario
>steveconleyprodukt 1994 st...@bronze.coil.com
>Life is short. Slack hard. Customer Service
>My opinions are not COIL's. Central Ohio Internet Link, Inc.
ks1...@acad.drake.edu
Barry wrote:
>
> I was born 12/62, and cringe at the thought of being considered a 'boomer'.
> I sort of feel in the middle, but certainly feel more of a bond with
> 20-somethings then with folks 5-10 years older than me (in general).
Okay. I was born in 1963 and have not really thought about
being a boomer OR a gen-x'r. But I do know that my boomer
friends always refer to me as being a "kid" -- I guess I'm
not "experienced" in a Hendrix drug-induced sort of way. (gag)
However, I truly can't relate to young 19 to 22 year olds.
Their growing up years were so different from mine.
I remember hearing about Watergate in elementary school.
These youngest gen-x'rs were just being born around that time.
Watergate had a BIG impact on my world in those days even if
I didn't understand Watergate's implications until much later.
I have many friends from ages 25 to 48.
What bonds us together are our philosophies and interests.
Which is why, for the most part, I like this group.
--Kathy S.
Des Moines, Iowa
ks1...@acad.drake.edu
Roger Warner
>I've always thought that 18 years is really too long a period for which to
>put people in the same group whether they're boomers or Xers. I split
>boomers into 2 groups: the people who are of age to have served in
>Vietnam (born during the years 1946 - 1954 who are now 40 - 48) and those
>who watched Vietnam on television from their living rooms (born during
>the years 1955 - 1964 who are now 30 - 39).
>The first wave of Xers appears to encompass the years 1965 - 1974, those
>old enough to remember the Ayatollah and the Hostage Crisis (Remember
>that Nightline started out as "America Held Hostage: Day XXX.")
>Ten years seems to be about the maximum span for a group where most of the
>members can relate to each other via experiences, attitudes, music,
>values, etc.
>For a personal example, I'm a year younger than the character Kevin Arnold
>on the television program the "Wonder Years." It is amazing how many of the
>episodes were very similiar to events that occured my life (although my dad
>did buy a 1969 Mustang, Kevin's dad bought the 1969 Galaxy instead). Though
>my evidence is anecdotal, I've found that people up to five years younger
>than I am and up to five years older than I am, really related to the show,
>whereas, people outside of those ages really didn't have the same kinds of
>life experiences and didn't relate to the show or the character of Kevin.
>Just my $.02. Any thoughts/comments?
>Steve
Bingo. +/- 5 years I've found to be a good rule for relating well to others.
Outside that range is possible, but I think it depends on how the person
related to their siblings when growing up. That is, did they have a sister
that they related to or hated that was 5+ years older? Then perhaps that
could prejudice an X-er values towards/away from the previous generation.
As an aside, I was born in the "border" years of 61-64. Don't really
consider myself a boomer, then again, I don't fall into the same bucket
as someone who's 24 right now either.
Perhaps generations are Bell Curves, with X standard deviations falling
within that +/- 5 years of the peak year? ;-)
0.02++
roger
--
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed
by madness, starving, hysterical naked...
- AG, "Howl"
Daniel B Case
>Pardon my illiteracy: Why the name 13th Gen? I've heard it has something to
>do with 13th since 1776 or 1793 or something. Kind of an egocentric term for
>a phenomenon that extends beyond borders, is it not?
Yes, it is. It comes out of being the thirteenth generation to know the US
Flag and Constitution, since Ben Franklin and Samuel Adams's.
I guess you Canadians could be the first to know both a constitution and a flag,
but since both are still in some dispute, especially in Quebec, we'll put a hold
on that.
>1981?? This argument has wound around and around, and I!ve said this before:
>You can't convice me that I share life experiences with someone presently
>thirteen years old. My (b.1966) earliest memories were of the late '60's.
>Theirs are of the mid eighties. Things happened between those two times.
Yes, but society as a whole had the same tone towards children-leave them alone,
treat them like adults with all the good and bad that that implies, and let them
grow up fast. The only difference is that in the late '60s this trend was
beginning, whereas it was ending in the mid-80s.
To make a long story short on your last one, I think the difference between the
Atari wave and the Nintendo wave is that we born in the '60s grew up with
vanishing illusions, whereas the '70s kids grew up with none. To paraphrase
Fitzgerald's famous formulation, we watched the gods die and they found them
dead. The net effect is very similar.
Daniel Case
Prodigy: WDNS15D | GEnie: DCASE.10
Ceci n'est pas une pipe
V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Greg Wesson
[ Selected comments from Todd Sandrock ]
>Pardon my illiteracy: Why the name 13th Gen? I've heard it has something to
>do with 13th since 1776 or 1793 or something. Kind of an egocentric term for
>a phenomenon that extends beyond borders, is it not?
I think S&H also choose it because 13 is the unlucky number, and we are the
first generation (here in North America and in a long time) that are predicted
to be worse off (financially) then our parents. As well, 13 is not a name,
but just a number, which was meant to represent our "just the facts" attitude
towards life (ie. no ideological thrills, just what counts to get us through
the day).
Of course, those just sound like excuses made up so Strauss and Howe could
sell the book in Canada and Europe, but hey, who am I to complain.
Besides, any good Canadian should be used to be overpowered by American
attitudes and entertainment by now...
>o GenX remembers the last gasps [and promises] of the American industial
>postwar boom. We thought we would do even better than our parents, but we're
>not going to. The childhood [but not the teenage] years of X and Boomers
>were very similar, but the boomers got the last scraps as they grew up.
>
>This is The Great Promise, and The Great Betrayal. If you're thirteen now,
>you'll never have been given the promise.
No, but we all suffered through the "Education as an Experiment" phase of
North American Education. The time in history when teachers thought that
free expression was more important then the three R's. The Education system
has learned from it's mistakes, so children entering school now are benefiting
from our problems.
But those of us 30 to 10 will be the wasted generation for the rest of our
lives. The ones that were taught all wrong. The Frankenstien monster of
Education for the rest of our lives...
>o If your parents were baby boomers, you are 'Global Teens', not GenX. My
>parents were stright up Ward&June Cleaver types. My memories of childhood
>hit me like a 50's hygiene newsreel. No dope, no beatles, no communes, no
>way. My parents, and those of most of my contemporaries did not, have not,
>and will not get divorced. We had to learn our cynicism elsewhere... The
>divorce thing seems to have been a bigger fad among boomers and affected
>their chilren more.
Hey! My parents were silents, and I'm a global teen. I thought you didn't
want to generalize ;-).
Though, I do agree with you on this split, which has been discussed before.
Strauss and Howe called it the Atari wave and the Ninento wave, Coupland
had Generation X and Global Teens and we here on a.s.g-x had the Pre and
Post Star Wars kids. Of course, the 3 don't really corelate date-wise, as I
am an Atari-waver, a Global Teen and a Pre-Star-Wars-er. I guess that is the
beauty about being born in '70, smack dab in the middle of the generation.
But the pre- and post-divorce thing is a new twist, and a good one too. While
my parents are (thank god) still together, I am in the minority. New thread
time... I will post (following this one) on the effects of divorce on my
life, and we can debate and discuss in true GenX fashion.
>This is Earth to Mom [from Shampoo Planet]
Parents are from another planet. I'm sure of it...
Greg Wesson
--
+ -- Gregory J. Wesson (lanp...@bnr.ca). + -- + Phone Esn 393-9193 -- +
The opinions in this post are mine, and do not reflect those of BNR.
Quote : "travelling despondently is better then arriving here"
- "Mostly Harmless", Douglas Adams
Greg Wesson
>But the pre- and post-divorce thing is a new twist, and a good one too. While
>my parents are (thank god) still together, I am in the minority. New thread
>time... I will post (following this one) on the effects of divorce on my
>life, and we can debate and discuss in true GenX fashion.
I said, now I will do it!
Let's wind the clock back a few years to when I was 17, and in love for the
first time. My mind was filled with "rest-of-our-lives-together" fantasies
(complete with white picket fences and little rug-rats). It seemed the
natural extension to any relationship (at the time). You fall in love, you
date, you get married, you have kids, you die and get buried beside each other.
I couldn't see any other outcome to the relationship (outside of death).
So, one night we were sitting around, cuddling on the couch (or some such
thing) and I mentioned the future. We had never really discussed the future
in much detail. I knew she wanted to be a journalist, I wanted to be a
business man, and that was about it.
Well, imagine my surprise when she said that she never wanted to marry! She
tried to explain her views (something about marriage being a perputation of the
patrically system, etc.), but I couldn't understand at all. I was crushed!
Why would anyone not want to get married.
I bemoaned this fact to my mother (the wise sage that she is), and she said (in
typical mother fashion) "Oh, poor girl. Her parents are divorced, right? She
probably has never seen a healthy relationship before. No wonder she is scared
of marriage."
While, to make a long story short, my mother had over simplified the matter,
but wasn't too far off the point. In future discussions with my first love,
I started to discover a general fear of intimacy which I could only trace
back to her parents divorce (and her abusive father, though not to her, only
to her mother). It started me looking at my friends in a whole new way...
So, what have I learned (you ask, sitting at the edge of your seat). Based
purely on my own anecdotical evidence, one of two things happens. Either the
person develops a great fear of intimacy, and is doomed to have shallow,
meaningless relationships (or no relationships at all), or the person becomes
very committed, and is more willing to make sacrifices and compromises to
keep a relationship going (which can at times border on obsessiveness).
Not that it's that bleek. Most of my friends (now in their mid-20s) are
starting to finally work through all the crap from their past and try and
define themselves in a relationship. And while the going is tough, I think
we all understand what they are going through, and are more then happy to
provide a shoulder to cry on.
Thank god my parents had the <whatever-it-takes> to stick it out through 34
years. I have enough problems with dating without having to add on the extra
baggage of divorce. :-).
Greg
Jonathan Dale
It isn't just children of divorced parents who suffer. If your parents are
still together, your family is some kind of weird misfunctional abnormality.
A friend of mine wanted to start a support group for children of married
parents, but fortunately her parents got divorced before it was necessary.
Around the time she told me this, my parents also got divorced (after 20some
years) (it was, as is so typical, during my first year in college).
---Jonathan
somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but factually all 100% true
Barry Hollander
: My input on divorce and my segment of gen-x (the newer segment, that is):
: It isn't just children of divorced parents who suffer. If your parents are
: still together, your family is some kind of weird misfunctional abnormality.
: A friend of mine wanted to start a support group for children of married
: parents, but fortunately her parents got divorced before it was necessary.
God, how I used to pray for my parents to get a divorce. They finally did
a few years ago, after I had already been out of the house for
10 years.
My parents nightmarish marrige certainly has something to do
with the fact that I'm single at 31, but hasn't precluded
me from having significant and worthwhile relationships.
-Barry
: ---Jonathan
Greg Wesson
>My input on divorce and my segment of gen-x (the newer segment, that is):
>
>It isn't just children of divorced parents who suffer. If your parents are
>still together, your family is some kind of weird misfunctional abnormality.
Oh, totally. I always felt left out because I didn't have two sets of parents
trying to buy my affections, so I never had any really good stuff. When I was
young I wanted my folks to split up so I could get a stereo.
Honestly, when I was in high school, a couple friends of mine used to call me
Beaver, because my life was so perfect (ie. two parents, nice house, etc.) And
while I used to laugh it off when they were around, it actually hurt me. I
felt left out because I was different, because the disaster of our time
(divorce) had not happened to me. I kept wanting to get cancer, or have a
parent die or something so I wouldn't have such a damn happy home life.
Kind of like knowing about a club, but not being able to join.
Christine Delaney
lanp...@bcarh17c.bnr.ca (Greg Wesson) wrote:
>
> Thank god my parents had the <whatever-it-takes> to stick it out through 34
> years. I have enough problems with dating without having to add on the extra
> baggage of divorce.
The Archetypal Divorce of 1970:
My mother and father were having problems with their marriage, so dad (who
was in grad school) scraped together a few bucks and they both went to a
marriage therapist. After a few months, my mother came home and announced
that she was divorcing my father and *marrying the therapist*!!!!! They
shipped me and my sister off to Utah for a month. Mom and the therapist
went to Juarez, Mexico and did the "now-you're-married;now-you're-not;now-
you-are-again" thing. Then they took off to England for a month-long
honeymoon. My father was devastated. My sister and I spiralled into a
depression that I emerged from almost twenty years later. I think
my sister is still floating in it.
Rant on.
When I think about it, all I can say is "fuck 'em."
When older folks say they don't understand the problems Gen-X faces, I
am amazed that they don't see the impact of the Divorce-Go-Round they set
in motion. Trying
to explain it to 'em is useless, in many cases. They simply repeat
"but isn't it better for the children that the *parents* are fulfilled and
happy??" I say (abuse cases excepted), if you're doing it for the
children, fuck you. It sure
as hell was *not* better for me or any of my friends. I say, own it; you're
doing it for yourself with *no* regard for the children.
Rant off.
--
Christine DelPrete-Delaney | Paste Who-Me? Disclaimer Here
cdel...@novell.com | Insert Insightful Snippet
warr...@news.delphi.com
Two other definitions crossed my path. The first comes from the Gary
Post-Tribune and says that the boom starts at age 26! Douglas Coupland
restricted his Generation X to people in their late twenties in 1991, and
set up "global teenagers" for the crowd born around 1970 or 1973.
In short, if you're twenty-seven, you're a boomer in some books and
too old for GenX in others.
At any rate, I know some thirtysomethings who would make passable
GenXers and twentysomethings who are into all of the "boomer things."
Maybe the whole concept is amorphous. If you say you're an Xer and
under about 34, you are an Xer. If not, you are not.
warr...@news.delphi.com
Last I checked, Douglas Coupland is almost de rigeur in slackertalk
in the mass media. Maybe he is accepting it...
Daniel B Case
>
> Last I checked, Douglas Coupland is almost de rigeur in slackertalk
>in the mass media. Maybe he is accepting it...
If I were in his shoes, I'd ask: Am I making money? If the answer was yes, I'd
accept it.
Daniel Case State University of New York at Buffalo
Daniel B Case
>In article <2j9oqs$9...@news.bu.edu> jd...@bio.uucp (Jonathan Dale) writes:
>>My input on divorce and my segment of gen-x (the newer segment, that is):
>>
>>It isn't just children of divorced parents who suffer. If your parents are
>>still together, your family is some kind of weird misfunctional abnormality.
>
>Oh, totally. I always felt left out because I didn't have two sets of parents
>trying to buy my affections, so I never had any really good stuff. When I was
>young I wanted my folks to split up so I could get a stereo.
In a way I can understand this, but we'll just have your parents split up and
see about that...
>
>Honestly, when I was in high school, a couple friends of mine used to call me
>Beaver, because my life was so perfect (ie. two parents, nice house, etc.) And
>while I used to laugh it off when they were around, it actually hurt me. I
>felt left out because I was different, because the disaster of our time
>(divorce) had not happened to me. I kept wanting to get cancer, or have a
>parent die or something so I wouldn't have such a damn happy home life.
In 1978 two of my schoolmates lived in divorced families, where they had two
sets of parents. Everybody knew about this and they sort of stood out because
of it. You couldn't help but think of them as children of divorce.
>
>Kind of like knowing about a club, but not being able to join.
I never thought I'd join that club, but one early September weekend in 1983 my
mother gathered up us kids in the basement and explained that she and my dad
were separating. My two brothers burst into tears, and I was stoic-but more
stunned than I realized at the time (I sort of lived an insular life upstairs
in my room listening to loud rock music and playing D&D, so it didn't seem like
much was going to change).
It turned out that she and the Jamaican contractor who had recently built the
addition on our house had taken up (he's now my stepfather, and he is a great
guy). How did this affect my life?
My mom moved out-there were times when she wasn't around to do things (her
mother took over for her, though. That woman receives my eternal thanks for
that). It wasn't a terribly acrimonious divorce, but still...Yes, I lived
better and freer as a result, but you sit through enough evenings when yo
trying to watch a hockey game and your father comes down for another Scotch
b sleep, and he pours out his soul to you and at the age of 15
this is too much for you to deal with. You'd walk the dog in pouring rain too
just to get out of the house.
And everybody else (although by then it had become more common-my high school
directory had many double-parent listings) looks at you as a Child Of Divorce
(tm) and assumes you have unresolved problems as a result. It's never easy.
Yes, you ge the double Christmas gifts. Yes, you get used to it eventually-
now it seemslike a dream that my mother and father ever were married. Yes,
they're both better off now. But there's always a price to pay. I was in denial
for too much of my adolescence. Now I think that was not a good idea.
>+ -- Gregory J. Wesson (lanp...@bnr.ca). + -- + Phone Esn 393-9193 -- +
Micky DuPree
Hollander) writes:
>Are there any folks out there born after '60 or '61 who indentify
>more with the boomer generation?
Considering the talk that goes on in this group, it would take a bold
soul to answer, "Yes," out loud.
I can't speak for that age window, but I daresay there are a few of them
who do identify more closely with boomers. People in the transition
years are bound to vary in their sense of identification according to
their individual circumstances. I was born in '57, and I went to
college with people several years younger than I. Some of them
recounted their youth as being spent with older kids, sometimes older
siblings, whom they would accompany to early '70s protests and the like.
I fall within the boomer category by most people's criteria and I
certainly share some common memories with older boomers. (E.g., I do
remember being in the first grade when the news came in about the
shooting of President Kennedy, whereas my brother, just one year
younger, says it was all an uninteresting blur to him at the time and he
didn't learn about most of it until he studied it in high school.) But
there are some things the late boomers simply don't have in common with
the early boomers.
As ste...@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes in article
<1994Feb8.0...@unet.net.com>:
>I split boomers into 2 groups: the people who are of age to have served
>in Vietnam (born during the years 1946 - 1954 who are now 40 - 48) and
>those who watched Vietnam on television from their living rooms (born
>during the years 1955 - 1964 who are now 30 - 39).
Hard lines are difficult to draw, but Steve has used an important
criterion. There came a point when kids stopped getting drafted. Males
in my birth year were the first who weren't even issued draft cards.
Any late boomers who delayed their education, delayed home-buying,
delayed having a family, etc. may find they have much in common with
Xers. As someone who has always valued personal pursuits over careerism
and detested the excesses of the '80s, I find more and more to identify
with in GenX, and even more to sympathize with, which is why I've been
lurking here for several months.
-Micky
J05...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
> Two other definitions crossed my path. The first comes from the Gary
>Post-Tribune and says that the boom starts at age 26! Douglas Coupland
>restricted his Generation X to people in their late twenties in 1991, and
>set up "global teenagers" for the crowd born around 1970 or 1973.
Not terribly unreasonable. This would restrict "X-hood" to people born in
or after 1962--within a couple of years (in either direection) of most
accepted definitions.
> In short, if you're twenty-seven, you're a boomer in some books and
>too old for GenX in others.
Huh? I'm 28, and I've *never* heard anyone born in my birth year (1965)
classified as boomers. I've heard no definition of "boomer" which includes
people born after 1964. I've heard the "boundary" year as being anywhere
from 1958 to 1964, with most people settling for around 1960.
> At any rate, I know some thirtysomethings who would make passable
>GenXers and twentysomethings who are into all of the "boomer things."
There is certainly some overlap. And we must also acknowledge that Xers
and boomers don't all want the same things in life.
> Maybe the whole concept is amorphous. If you say you're an Xer and
>under about 34, you are an Xer. If not, you are not.
Defining it as age groups or ranges of birth years is interesting, but hardly
all-encompassing. It's at least as much a statement of beliefs and values
as it is of chronological age. Of course, there *are* limits. I wouldn't
call a 60-year-old who share many common GenX values as a member of GenX.
(Honorary, perhaps... :) )
Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
dowd
> Based on non-social factors. Most of us here feel that the definition of a
> generation is best left to the values, ideals and social background of the
> group--not fertility rates or chronology.
>
>
I agree. I think a more historically correct definition of a Baby
Boomer is that one of thier parent served in the military during WWII
(or were old enough to be eligible to serve). The reason I say this is
because the "Baby boom" began when the troops return from the war, got
married and started make vietnam cannon folder. Before 1946 very few
people were having babies because of the war and the depression made
starting a family difficult.
I was born in 65, but my father served in WWII. While I was growing
the war and the depression were major points of reference for me. I
always heard stories about the war and the depression from my parents
and thier friends when I was young. I had many friends who's fathers
or uncles served in vietnam and I could not relate to that anymore than
they could relate to my father serving in WWI (Many did not belive me
when I told them). We cannot minimize the effect our parents and
siblings have on our identity.
er...@u.washington.edu
>Bingo. +/- 5 years I've found to be a good rule for relating well to others.
>Outside that range is possible, but I think it depends on how the person
>related to their siblings when growing up. That is, did they have a sister
>that they related to or hated that was 5+ years older? Then perhaps that
>could prejudice an X-er values towards/away from the previous generation.
>As an aside, I was born in the "border" years of 61-64. Don't really
>consider myself a boomer, then again, I don't fall into the same bucket
>as someone who's 24 right now either.
>Perhaps generations are Bell Curves, with X standard deviations falling
>within that +/- 5 years of the peak year? ;-)
Cewl Roger, I guess this means we're deviants, eh?
Erynn the Deviated
Carl Beaudry
> When older folks say they don't understand the problems Gen-X faces, I
> am amazed that they don't see the impact of the Divorce-Go-Round they set
> in motion. Trying to explain it to 'em is useless, in many cases. They
> simply repeat "but isn't it better for the children that the *parents*
> are fulfilled and happy??"
I have never understood the reasoning behind this. Why is it taken for
granted that satisfied parents are better parents? There is no reason to
believe it to be so. Not art, nor sport, nor warfare, nor science is
improved by having self-satisfied practitioners, why should parenthood?
It seems to me that the object of parenthood is to make more little people
even if it kills the adults in the process. Other priorities seem
self-defeating. Why else would someone have a child if not for the purpose
of *replacing* oneself?
--Carl
Rick Healy
I could see getting divorced before you have kids. But after? You
are so absolutely right in this respect, Carl. One ceases existing for
onesself and becomes the preserver of one's offspring upon having children.
(Thump. Thump. Thump. Thump. Thump. Do I hear a certain objectivist's
footsteps? Quick, under here, Carl.)
-Rick (I'm not complaining about the snow. Snow? I like snow. Come on
everyone! It's a sing-a-long. Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!)
--
Richard J. Healy <cd...@nasagiss.giss.nasa.gov>
Christine Delaney
bea...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Carl Beaudry) wrote:
> Christine Delaney wrote:
>
> > When older folks say they don't understand the problems Gen-X faces, I
> > am amazed that they don't see the impact of the Divorce-Go-Round they set
> > in motion. Trying to explain it to 'em is useless, in many cases. They
> > simply repeat "but isn't it better for the children that the *parents*
> > are fulfilled and happy??"
>
> I have never understood the reasoning behind this. Why is it taken for
> granted that satisfied parents are better parents? There is no reason to
> believe it to be so. Not art, nor sport, nor warfare, nor science is
> improved by having self-satisfied practitioners, why should parenthood?
My sister and I were happy, well-adjusted children.
Our parents provided a safe, happy home for us. We weren't aware of the
problems
they had in their relationship. They were excellent parents, and this
talent appeared to be independent of their inability to be compatible
spouses.
Then all hell broke loose, they divorced, my mom married the stepmonster
from
the pits of hell (who promptly put my sister and me, ages 6 and 7, on
Valium and Mellaril (sp?)).
I often think that it's the stable, happy parenting I received from ages 0
to 7 that enabled me to pull out of the depression created by this
brilliant move.
My mother is *still* not recovered, even though the stepmonster divorced
her about eight years ago. Now that dad is on internet, we are developing a
close
relationship again :^)
> It seems to me that the object of parenthood is to make more little people
> even if it kills the adults in the process. Other priorities seem
> self-defeating. Why else would someone have a child if not for the purpose
> of *replacing* oneself?
IMHO, folks that specify an entirely altruistic reason for propagating are
deluding themselves.
(Sulu, Master of Navigation)
:Christine Delaney wrote:
:
:> When older folks say they don't understand the problems Gen-X faces, I
:> am amazed that they don't see the impact of the Divorce-Go-Round they set
:> in motion. Trying to explain it to 'em is useless, in many cases. They
:> simply repeat "but isn't it better for the children that the *parents*
:> are fulfilled and happy??"
Can you say "Me" generation, boys and girls? I knew that you could.
:It seems to me that the object of parenthood is to make more little people
:even if it kills the adults in the process. Other priorities seem
If you told that to my parents, they'd slap you. One of the my
mother's main diatribes is how she still has her own life apart from us kids
and how she can't let us drag on her. I think she understands that her (and
my father's) most important job is in raising us right but she still has this
spunky, "selfish" need to deny that.
:self-defeating. Why else would someone have a child if not for the purpose
:of *replacing* oneself?
Well my folks have always said it was to send them to Greece.
:--Carl
ps: my dad is 57 and mom is 52. I'm 21. go fig.
--
Mathew A. Hennessy, because life's too short for cheap beer.
henn...@acsu.buffalo.edu ITCMATT@UBVMS [bitnet]
I speak for everyone and if you don't like it you can lump it.
ubax vs lbh pna ernq guvf...
Carl Beaudry
> IMHO, folks that specify an entirely altruistic reason for propagating are
> deluding themselves.
Yeah but there is nothing altruistic about inflicting your DNA on some
unsuspecting carbon-based molecules. It's a major-scale self-indulgence
that deserves to be paid for with time, money and worry.
--Carl
Emily Way
>Yeah but there is nothing altruistic about inflicting your DNA on some
>unsuspecting carbon-based molecules. It's a major-scale self-indulgence
>that deserves to be paid for with time, money and worry.
My dad's theory of child-raising: "I think if one is mean enough to bring
kids into this horrible world, one owes them something." He never begrudged
sending me away to an expensive private college, because he thought it would
do me more good than a big impersonal state school. My dad and I have
always been very close, and I think his willingness to make sacrifices so
that I could have what I needed is a big reason why. (Hey, Erich, is there
room under there for me too?)
___________________________________________________________________________
Emily Way, C/370 Information Development, IBM Canada Lab e...@vnet.ibm.com
"If you're gonna do it, overdo it -- that's how you know that you're alive"
Greater Toronto Ladies' Knitting Circle and Terrorist Society
Christa Heuser
>In article <2j9oqs$9...@news.bu.edu> jd...@bio.uucp (Jonathan Dale) writes:
>>My input on divorce and my segment of gen-x (the newer segment, that is):
>>
>>It isn't just children of divorced parents who suffer. If your parents are
>>still together, your family is some kind of weird misfunctional abnormality.
>
>Oh, totally. I always felt left out because I didn't have two sets of parents
>trying to buy my affections, so I never had any really good stuff. When I was
>young I wanted my folks to split up so I could get a stereo.
>
>Honestly, when I was in high school, a couple friends of mine used to call me
>Beaver, because my life was so perfect (ie. two parents, nice house, etc.) And
>while I used to laugh it off when they were around, it actually hurt me. I
>felt left out because I was different, because the disaster of our time
>(divorce) had not happened to me. I kept wanting to get cancer, or have a
>parent die or something so I wouldn't have such a damn happy home life.
>
>Kind of like knowing about a club, but not being able to join.
Man, is this the truth. I once saw a cartoon showing a mostly
empty lecture hall with a banner, "Adult Children of Normal
Parents National Convention". I didn't so much want my parents
to get divorced, or anything like that, but it was constantly
pounded into me how lucky I was to come from an intact happy
home where nobody was sick or starving, etc.
When I was in high school, I was depressed, and I would have
given just about anything for there to be an external reason for
it. At least I would have known why I felt so rotten. As it
was, I was convinced I must have been crazy, because I had no
good reason to be as down as I was.
I still struggle with this one. The trouble with only having a
relatively mild mental disorder is that not only do you feel
rotten, but there's nothing to point to, nothing that you can
look at and say "THIS is why I feel so bad." People would
tell me to count my blessings, and as I counted them (and there
were plenty of them), I just felt worse. I had all this to
be thankful for, and I still couldn't make myself feel okay.
Adult Children of Normal Parents unite! Tell the world that
we have as much of a right to be unhappy and screwed-up as
everyone else!
Christa Heuser - chri...@oz.plymouth.edu
Data Analyst - Plymouth State College, Plymouth NH
"The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of
all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and look around."
Kathleen Hubbard
>Christine Delaney wrote:
>
>> When older folks say they don't understand the problems Gen-X faces, I
>> am amazed that they don't see the impact of the Divorce-Go-Round they set
>> in motion. Trying to explain it to 'em is useless, in many cases. They
>> simply repeat "but isn't it better for the children that the *parents*
>> are fulfilled and happy??"
>
>I have never understood the reasoning behind this. Why is it taken for
>granted that satisfied parents are better parents? There is no reason to
>believe it to be so.
Um, wait a minute Carl. Sounds like you're taking the line I remember
from some TV movie last year: "give a kid a choice between divorced
parents and mom in the next room threatening suicide, and they'll take
mom being there every time". Flat-out lie. There is a very real crime
in couples staying married "for the sake of the children", when their
perpetuation of a poisoned relationship does deep-down damage to the
kids, damage that might have been lessened if they'd split sooner. I
*did* have mom in the next room threatening suicide, and I'm convinced
that if she and my dad had divorced many years earlier, my sister and I
would have been spared a lot of misery.
Don't think I'm divorce-happy. I never intend to do it, and I don't plan
to have kids until I'm certain I'm in a relationship that can manage
permanence (and yes Trent, kids are a 100% priority for me, gonna have
'em for sure). But I've gotta protest that not all claims of "satisfied
parents make good parents" are just self-indulgent rationalizations.
Dissatisfied couples make troubled parents. They do the best they can,
and I know mine thought they were doing the right thing, but I wish
they'd thought differently.
--Kathleen
--
************************************************************************
Kathleen A. Hubbard | "If people say it, we study it."
Department of Linguistics | Larry M. Hyman
U.C. Berkeley | Famous Linguist, My Advisor
Carl Beaudry
> Carl Beaudry wrote:
>
> >I have never understood the reasoning behind this. Why is it taken for
> >granted that satisfied parents are better parents? There is no reason to
> >believe it to be so.
>
> Um, wait a minute Carl. Sounds like you're taking the line I remember
> from some TV movie last year: "give a kid a choice between divorced
> parents and mom in the next room threatening suicide, and they'll take
> mom being there every time".
Woof. Not the position at all. Children shouldn't be picking their parents.
I'm arguing that moderately unhappy parents can be much better than
self-absorbed but happy ones.
That, and that parental happiness is a dumb reason to get married *or* have
children. Both are better to be based upon devotion than emotional
capitalism. The reward structure just doesn't work on the basis of
investment and payback, but rather on pay-forwards. The next generation
gets the benefit of devoted parenting and their children beyond that. Not
you.
> There is a very real crime
> in couples staying married "for the sake of the children", when their
> perpetuation of a poisoned relationship does deep-down damage to the
> kids, damage that might have been lessened if they'd split sooner.
That's doubtless the case sometimes. My suspicion is that people also tend
to amplify accounts of their own misery to justify selfish divorces where
the family is quite normal, but just not what the parent wants at the
moment. Ain't nobody qualified to judge. But there is an awful lot of
wreckage out there that argues, as they said back in the 80s, that
'mistakes were made.'
> I *did* have mom in the next room threatening suicide, and I'm convinced
> that if she and my dad had divorced many years earlier, my sister and I
> would have been spared a lot of misery.
Or possibly had it transformed into a different kind. Does anyone ever
really know about these things? My folks stayed together for church and
children and I also saw the interpersonal costs. But suicidal threats are a
different level of disfunction. A person like that needs help whether they
are in or outside of marriage.
> ... I've gotta protest that not all claims of "satisfied
> parents make good parents" are just self-indulgent rationalizations.
> Dissatisfied couples make troubled parents. They do the best they can,
> and I know mine thought they were doing the right thing, but I wish
> they'd thought differently.
It's easier to judge without having been in their position. Some of those
troubled parents react by trying even harder to justify their apparent
misery by producing a stable and good home for their children. Mine did.
That is the kind of trouble that we need more of these days. Exemplifying
altruism for the benefit of children is not disfunctional, no matter how
many times Yoder says it is so.
--Carl
Jeremy
: In <2jcai1$3...@news.delphi.com>:
: > Two other definitions crossed my path. The first comes from the Gary
: >Post-Tribune and says that the boom starts at age 26! Douglas Coupland
: >restricted his Generation X to people in their late twenties in 1991, and
: >set up "global teenagers" for the crowd born around 1970 or 1973.
: Not terribly unreasonable. This would restrict "X-hood" to people born in
: or after 1962--within a couple of years (in either direection) of most
: accepted definitions.
Let's understand that all you Gen-Xers are getting old. You were all
born in the sixties and are dissatisfied with what the boomers have left
you. But the fact is that if you were born in '66 (Gen-X prime, babies),
then you're 27 now.
: > In short, if you're twenty-seven, you're a boomer in some books and
: >too old for GenX in others.
27 is perfect Gen-X age. I know--I'm a global teen and my wife is
Gen-X. Absolutely ludicrous to imagine 1966 as a birth year for a
boomer. Do you people even know what a boomer is?
: Huh? I'm 28, and I've *never* heard anyone born in my birth year (1965)
: classified as boomers. I've heard no definition of "boomer" which includes
: people born after 1964. I've heard the "boundary" year as being anywhere
: from 1958 to 1964, with most people settling for around 1960.
Folks, the baby boom was caused by the aftermath of WWII and ended around
1955. If that late.
: > At any rate, I know some thirtysomethings who would make passable
: >GenXers and twentysomethings who are into all of the "boomer things."
: There is certainly some overlap. And we must also acknowledge that Xers
: and boomers don't all want the same things in life.
True. Remember that the richest and most powerful segment of our
population are the 60+: In about ten years, the boomers will be running
things.
: > Maybe the whole concept is amorphous. If you say you're an Xer and
: >under about 34, you are an Xer. If not, you are not.
Gen-X is just beginning to turn 30. Happy days, folks.
: Defining it as age groups or ranges of birth years is interesting, but hardly
: all-encompassing. It's at least as much a statement of beliefs and values
: as it is of chronological age. Of course, there *are* limits. I wouldn't
: call a 60-year-old who share many common GenX values as a member of GenX.
: (Honorary, perhaps... :) )
Nope. And under around, say, 22 is too damn young--If you were born in
'72 or later, then you are the *children* of boomers. Which is a whole
other deal in itself. By the way, anyone of this age who would like to
talk to me about their disaffection with boomer reality as well as the
pseudo-intellectual TV-based "counter culture" Gen-X, e-mail me.
: Tim Irvin
: ****************************************************************************
And there isn't a damn one of you who can write. Blame *that* on the
boomers.
Spearwielder
I was about 20 years old and stationed in Panama with the Marine Corps
when suddenly one morning I remembered my mom having tried to commit
suicide. It came home to me like the proverbial ton of bricks. She and my
father had been divorced for some years before this incident so it wasn't
a bad marriage that caused it. It was IMO (I don't really know, and for
some reason can't remember to ask) brought on by being a single mother in
a backwoods southern town (Dalton, Ga.) that frowned on single mothers
and did nothing to make life easier on them, combined with having trouble
finding a meaningful relationship that would also accept three childeren.
This may be over simplifing things, but that's how I remember it. The
only male rolemodels in my life at that time were my grandfather, and her
string of abusive alcoholic boyfriends.
Now what does this have to do with this thread? *SHE* decided to divorce
my father so she could be free. *SHE* didn't like having a husband in
Viet Nam (the early years) and wanted to have fun. My older sisters and I
raised ourselves. And my point is we turned out alright. Sure my sisters
had thier trouble with drugs, and I ran off to the U.S.M.C. as soon as I
could, but now things are going good for us. So did she have the right to
inflict that pain on us? Should she have stayed unhappy? WHO CARES?!?
I have a wonderful wife, no childeren (yet?) and a past I don't want to
claim. Life is rough, divorce sucks for some, and for some it's a way out
of hell. Just do your best, and hope.
--SW-->
Sorry for all the ketchup. Anybody got some fries they brought home from
work?
Kevin Fox
In article <CLAKI...@ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@chip.ucdavis.edu (Jeremy)
wrote:
> Gen-X is just beginning to turn 30. Happy days, folks.
>
> : Defining it as age groups or ranges of birth years is interesting, but hardly
> : all-encompassing. It's at least as much a statement of beliefs and values
> : as it is of chronological age. Of course, there *are* limits. I wouldn't
> : call a 60-year-old who share many common GenX values as a member of GenX.
> : (Honorary, perhaps... :) )
>
> Nope. And under around, say, 22 is too damn young--If you were born in
> '72 or later, then you are the *children* of boomers. Which is a whole
> other deal in itself. By the way, anyone of this age who would like to
> talk to me about their disaffection with boomer reality as well as the
> pseudo-intellectual TV-based "counter culture" Gen-X, e-mail me.
>
Okay, so is there a world teen newsgroup, or are there any plans in the
works?
Kevin Fox
--
Who needs a world teen NewsGroup. We own the internet, and it's our mirror.
To GenX: We are the people your parents warned you about.
J. B. Nimble
>Nope. And under around, say, 22 is too damn young--If you were born in
>'72 or later, then you are the *children* of boomers. Which is a whole
>other deal in itself. By the way, anyone of this age who would like to
>talk to me about their disaffection with boomer reality as well as the
>pseudo-intellectual TV-based "counter culture" Gen-X, e-mail me.
Is this accepted as accurate? I was curious about the ending date for
Gen-X, and my roommate and I took it to be anyone born in '74 or later. Of
course, earlier in this thread it was suggested that '70 or later is a
"global teenager" but I sure don't feel like one of those. (I'm 23, but you
keep making me feel young around here. ;) )
I guess I noticed a natural generation gap between my fiance, who is 20 and
my brother who is 19. Which would make the last year for Xers '73. But of
course, what the devil do I know? ;)
Phil Mouch
--
"... One challenge of our adventure on earth is to rise above dead systems
-- wars, religions, nations, destructions -- to refuse to be a part of them,
and express instead the highest selves we know how to be."
_One_ by Richard Bach
Steve Conley
Kevin Fox <kf...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <CLAKI...@ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@chip.ucdavis.edu (Jeremy)
>wrote:
>> Gen-X is just beginning to turn 30. Happy days, folks.
[deletia]
>> Nope. And under around, say, 22 is too damn young--If you were born in
>> '72 or later, then you are the *children* of boomers. Which is a whole
>> other deal in itself. By the way, anyone of this age who would like to
>> talk to me about their disaffection with boomer reality as well as the
>> pseudo-intellectual TV-based "counter culture" Gen-X, e-mail me.
>Okay, so is there a world teen newsgroup, or are there any plans in the
>works?
Coupland is a novelist, not a demographer. The term "Generation X" has
come to have the same meaning as Strauss & Howe's "13th Generation",
meaning those born from (roughly) 1961 through 1981. "Global Teen",
"Nintendo Wave", "Atari Wave", etc., are all subsets of that group. Of
course, there are some who dispute this definition, but they are being
silly. ;-)
>Who needs a world teen NewsGroup. We own the internet, and it's our mirror.
This is just as much a "global teen" group as it is an alienated Xer
group. Like it or not, we *are* part of the same generation.
>To GenX: We are the people your parents warned you about.
No, *we* are the people our parents warned us about.
Steve
--
steveconleyprodukt 1994 st...@bronze.coil.com
Life is short. Slack hard. Customer Service
My opinions are not COIL's. Central Ohio Internet Link, Inc.
troy...@delphi.com
classify those born in one year as boomer and the next as X'ers than S & H.
They lay out a theory that encompases 400 years of American history, and
explain generational cohorts as
a predetermined and predictable function of society, not just a bunch of people
who seem similar.
Keith D Perkins
J. B. Nimble <pp...@troi.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>In <CLAKI...@ucdavis.edu> ez04...@chip.ucdavis.edu (Jeremy) writes:
>
>>Nope. And under around, say, 22 is too damn young--If you were born in
>>'72 or later, then you are the *children* of boomers. Which is a whole
>>other deal in itself. By the way, anyone of this age who would like to
>>talk to me about their disaffection with boomer reality as well as the
>>pseudo-intellectual TV-based "counter culture" Gen-X, e-mail me.
>
>Is this accepted as accurate? I was curious about the ending date for
>Gen-X, and my roommate and I took it to be anyone born in '74 or later. Of
>course, earlier in this thread it was suggested that '70 or later is a
>"global teenager" but I sure don't feel like one of those. (I'm 23, but you
>keep making me feel young around here. ;) )
Actually, most of my cousins fit in the later than '72 category, and I
feel that they fit into the GenX group. There are some differences
between myself and them, but that's to be expected. I don't think
anybody in this generation could qualify as a typical member. They're
very much survival oriented - looking to college from their sophomore
year, etc...
>I guess I noticed a natural generation gap between my fiance, who is 20 and
>my brother who is 19. Which would make the last year for Xers '73. But of
>course, what the devil do I know? ;)
From what I've seen, this is a very fractured generation. Kinda the opposite
of the '50s. It might be possible that you're seeing the wide range of
individuals in this generation in the difference between you're fiance and
you're brother. My sister and I are nothing alike, except in the overall
fuzzy GenX way. Maybe the same with you?
--Keith
KeithP...@tamu.edu
Peter Freilinger
Please excuse the following post. This thread just burns my britches,
though, and I feel the need to respond.
<Flamethower on>
My name is Peter Freilinger, I'm nineteen years old, and I don't care about
that at all except I can't buy beer in any but the sleaziest of bars and
I can't rent cars when I go on vacation. My age doesn't matter, whether it
comes to determining which "generation" I belong to or what people I can or
cannot relate to or befriend or hang out with or how I spend my money or
earn my money or what I'm capable of thinking or not thinking.
Why do I "belong" here in a.s.g-x? Let's see...
1) I remember "The Brady Bunch", even if I did see it on WLVI in the
afternoon instead of on prime time on the network.
2) I remember the hostage day count on the CBS Evening News, even if
I didn't understand what it meant, really, until much later.
3) I'm Catholic (hi Jenny!).
but most importantly...
4) I like the people here, and they seem to like me - whether we agree or
disagree, whether we visit or not.
But if you're hung up on the age requirements, then you don't belong here,
period. You belong in "alt.society.insecure", or "alt.society.low-esteem".
Age in this setting might provide a basis for cultural exchanges - about
television programs, about family life, whatever - but it's only a setting;
it's not what this newsgroup is about - at least not to me, the 19-year-old
Catholic boy from Maine.
I get the jokes here (well, except for some of the off-color ones, but
frankly, I don't want to get those, now or when I'm 27 or when I'm 82).
I like the people here - even the ones who make my skin crawl sometimes
with their opinions or their flames.
I like the fact that people here at least try to argue intelligently and
lucidly, with some modicum of civility.
And, until now, no one has told me that I don't have a right to be talking
or "belonging" here. I like that a lot, too.
So go ahead, talk about the start/end dates of GenX all you want. Talk
about how Global Teens and Boomers are just different all you want. But
please, don't tell me that I can't understand what's going on here.
Don't tell me that I'm unable or have no right to comment on what is
discussed here. And if it makes you angry that a 19 year old just wrote
this - a 19 year old junior in college, who can probably tell the same
horror stories of Life in Post-Boomer Hell as you can - then please, tell
me and I'll leave. I don't have time for it.
<Flamethrower off>
Peter Freilinger
Enjoys this goddamn newsgroup, life
Lynda Farley
<biographical info. omitted
: Why do I "belong" here in a.s.g-x? Let's see...
: 1) I remember "The Brady Bunch", even if I did see it on WLVI in the
: afternoon instead of on prime time on the network.
: 2) I remember the hostage day count on the CBS Evening News, even if
: I didn't understand what it meant, really, until much later.
: 3) I'm Catholic (hi Jenny!).
: but most importantly...
: 4) I like the people here, and they seem to like me - whether we agree or
: disagree, whether we visit or not.
: But if you're hung up on the age requirements, then you don't belong here,
: period. You belong in "alt.society.insecure", or "alt.society.low-esteem".
: Age in this setting might provide a basis for cultural exchanges - about
: television programs, about family life, whatever - but it's only a setting;
: it's not what this newsgroup is about - at least not to me, the 19-year-old
: Catholic boy from Maine.
<clipped>
Nor to me, this late 20's nature-loving girl from Virginia. Often I am
categorized as "Boomer" due to the fact that I was born on the tail-end
of the "baby boom". I don't care what any so-called expert demographer
says, I am GenX. GenX is a state of mind. In this group I have discovered
many kindred spirits, as well as those that I agree to disagree with
philosophically. And Peter, I have met you. At no time during our
gatherings were you lost on our humor or conversations...you fit in well.
Don't let some lurker who arrives with some numbers, figures, and "facts"
tell you that you don't belong. *This* is the kind of thing that bothers
me about a label.....someone coming in and saying "well, no,no you could
not possibly think that way cause you were born in 19XX ". I am GenX,
hear me rant.
Lynda
--
Lynda Farley (far...@bio.bu.edu)
Boston University Marine Program
"Could a greater miracle take place than for us
to look through each other's eyes for an instant? "
-Henry David Thoreau-
steven r kleinedler
>
>My name is Peter Freilinger, I'm nineteen years old, and I don't care about
>that at all except I can't buy beer in any but the sleaziest of bars and
>I can't rent cars when I go on vacation. My age doesn't matter, whether it
>comes to determining which "generation" I belong to or what people I can or
>cannot relate to or befriend or hang out with or how I spend my money or
>earn my money or what I'm capable of thinking or not thinking.
>
>Enjoys this goddamn newsgroup, life
You're only 19!?! I would have never guessed. You don't display
the immature ranting that many young'uns display when they first
enter the real world before learning otherwise... Anyhow, I agree
with you 100% -- you've got the gen-x attitude! I say, fuck your
critics!
I know how you feel about those age restrictions. At 19 I'd
dropped out of school and moved to Chicago: I had a job, my
own place, and I couldn't buy alcohol if I wanted to. Not being
able to rent a car sucked. That was the best thing about turning
25!
This has me wondering -- you're only 2 years older than my baby sister.
Maybe she's really cool. I should probably call her soon.
It's all in the attitude, not the birthyear....
(btw, I saw the Brady Bunch in prime time, but it was seeing them
EVERY DAY after school from 1974-1979 in reruns that implanted them
in my brain)
Steve K. (hereafter Steve Kleinedler)
SCA...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
>period. You belong in "alt.society.insecure", or "alt.society.low-esteem".
>Age in this setting might provide a basis for cultural exchanges - about
>television programs, about family life, whatever - but it's only a setting;
>it's not what this newsgroup is about - at least not to me, the 19-year-old
>Catholic boy from Maine.
>
>I get the jokes here (well, except for some of the off-color ones, but
>frankly, I don't want to get those, now or when I'm 27 or when I'm 82).
>I like the people here - even the ones who make my skin crawl sometimes
>with their opinions or their flames.
>I like the fact that people here at least try to argue intelligently and
>lucidly, with some modicum of civility.
>And, until now, no one has told me that I don't have a right to be talking
>or "belonging" here. I like that a lot, too.
>
>So go ahead, talk about the start/end dates of GenX all you want. Talk
>about how Global Teens and Boomers are just different all you want. But
>please, don't tell me that I can't understand what's going on here.
>Don't tell me that I'm unable or have no right to comment on what is
>discussed here. And if it makes you angry that a 19 year old just wrote
>this - a 19 year old junior in college, who can probably tell the same
>horror stories of Life in Post-Boomer Hell as you can - then please, tell
>me and I'll leave. I don't have time for it.
>
><Flamethrower off>
>
to you, Peter?
-Jane
J. B. Nimble
>And, until now, no one has told me that I don't have a right to be talking
>or "belonging" here. I like that a lot, too.
Oops. Ahem. Um. Well.
:-)
I hope that I did not play a part in making anyone feel unwanted. I think
that I do agree with Peter and that attitude makes the person, and not age.
I asked my earlier question because I thought it sounded like I was being
excluded for my age! Which is silly perhaps, but sometimes shock overtakes
the writing.
Um, this isn't making any sense anyomore, is it? Hmm... Perhaps ten hours
of sleep wasn't enough. Or maybe too much. I'm used to six.
I think that just about anybody who thinks they belong here does. But I
guess I got confused by all the "facts" being thrown around. I was just
curious if this group suddenly was deciding membership soley on the basis of
age. I have since seen several posts that have shown that not to be so.
Not that I started this thread, but I fear that I may have helped perpetuate
it. Sorry.
Later.
Tim Irvin
srkl...@ellis.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) writes:
>
>In article <2k6vs2$s...@scunix2.harvard.edu> pfre...@husc8.harvard.edu (Peter Freilinger) writes:
>>
>>My name is Peter Freilinger, I'm nineteen years old, and I don't care about
>>that at all except I can't buy beer in any but the sleaziest of bars and
>>I can't rent cars when I go on vacation. My age doesn't matter, whether it
>>comes to determining which "generation" I belong to or what people I can or
>>cannot relate to or befriend or hang out with or how I spend my money or
>>earn my money or what I'm capable of thinking or not thinking.
>>
>>Peter Freilinger
>>Enjoys this goddamn newsgroup, life
>
>You're only 19!?! I would have never guessed. You don't display
>the immature ranting that many young'uns display when they first
>enter the real world before learning otherwise... Anyhow, I agree
>with you 100% -- you've got the gen-x attitude! I say, fuck your
>critics!
>I know how you feel about those age restrictions. At 19 I'd
>dropped out of school and moved to Chicago: I had a job, my
>own place, and I couldn't buy alcohol if I wanted to. Not being
>able to rent a car sucked. That was the best thing about turning
>25!
statistically young unmarried males are the biggest risk, but why should the
careful unmarried men under 25 subsidize the careless?). I was paying $1600
per year for coverage at age 24. In 1990 I turned 25 and it went down to
$1200. In 1992 I got married and it went down to $800. And I don't think I'm
any better driving now than I was when unmarried and 24.
The auto insurance industry. One of the last remnants of legalized
discrimination.
>This has me wondering -- you're only 2 years older than my baby sister.
>Maybe she's really cool. I should probably call her soon.
>It's all in the attitude, not the birthyear....
or live like boomers.
>(btw, I saw the Brady Bunch in prime time, but it was seeing them
>EVERY DAY after school from 1974-1979 in reruns that implanted them
>in my brain)
the Brady Bunch five times a day. They probably still do, even though I
haven't watched the Channel 44 after-school line-up for over 10 years.
*********************************************************************
* Tim Irvin, Programmer/Analyst | *
* Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc. | This space *
* Sunnyvale, California | for rent *
* Internet: zi...@lmsc.lockheed.com | *
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Disclaimer: I speak for me and *only* for me. Even if Lockheed *
* really *did* agree with me, do you think they would *
* admit it? *
*********************************************************************