Age difference problems?
Laurie Meyer
First let me state that I am looking for serious answers only, please.
Here is my question: My fiance' and I are 11 years apart (he is older). We
seem to be having some problems and I am curious as to whether anyone
thinks the age difference has anything to do with it.
I will answer serious replies. I'm really looking for some advice so
please no spam. Thank you.
--
Laurie O:)
Brain Death
>First let me state that I am looking for serious answers only, please.
>Here is my question: My fiance' and I are 11 years apart (he is older). We
>seem to be having some problems and I am curious as to whether anyone
>thinks the age difference has anything to do with it.
Well, based on the volume of information I'd say absolutely maybe,
probably almost nearly never but undoubtedly always within reason.
For example, from your post we don't know if you're 13 and he's 24,
which is quite a different thing than if you're 38 and he's 49. For
another, you have not given us any idea of what problems you are
having. If you like rap and he likes rock, then yeah, I think the age
difference could be a big part of it. If you want to party and he
wants to get some sleep... you see where I'm going?
BD
Eric Pepke
> First let me state that I am looking for serious answers only, please.
>
> Here is my question: My fiance' and I are 11 years apart (he is older). We
> seem to be having some problems and I am curious as to whether anyone
> thinks the age difference has anything to do with it.
There's no way of answering this without detail. In general, my
experience is that the biggest problem with age differences comes from
growing up in different cultures.
For example, for my generation the moon landing was a central myth.
For the generation 20 years afterward, the Challenger disaster was a
central myth. Big difference.
-Eric
Blair Zajac
<Pine.LNX.3.95.990326...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> wrote:
Perhaps Eric can expand on his posting where he states the moon landing
was a central myth of his generation. Likewise, to expand on the
Challenger disaster business.
Society
R. McPherson wrote in message ...
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Blair Zajac wrote:
>:Eric Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> wrote:
>:
>>> For example, for my generation the moon landing was a central myth.
>>> For the generation 20 years afterward, the Challenger disaster was a
>>> central myth. Big difference.
>
>
>of "fictional fantasy". If so, then I suppose someone could argue
>that the Apollo moon landings inspired confidence in technology
>and a sense of heroic adventure in generations like mine who
>watched it all with awe and wonder. In contrast, I suppose
>someone could argue that the Challenger disaster and the loss
>of all crew members due to a poorly engineered o-ring assembly
>discouraged confidence in technology and instilled profound
>disappointment and suspicion of technology and exploration.
>I don't know if I agree. I'm just trying to interpret the curious
>reference to two "myths" Eric chose.
That makes sense to me. Even more so than the confidence
in technology and excitement of space exploration is probably
the change in attitude about government -- the moon landing
came at the peak of public confidence about the competence
of government. Remember how "If we can put a man on the
moon, we can X" (where X is solving some perceived social ill)
became a cliche? Then we went through the stagflation of
the 1970s, Watergate, oil price shocks in '73 and '79, the
flop of the War on Poverty, rising crime, soaring interest
rates and price of gold -- all culminating in the election of
Ronald Reagan who campaigned for President saying
"government isn't the solution, it's the problem" and won.
The Challenger explosion -- especially due to a problem that
the technical people warned about but were shoved aside
because NASA's bureaucrats were being embarassed by
news anchors sniggering about launch delays for the
preceding missions. This too indicates a difference in
outlook between younger and older people.
> Paradigms is the issue isn't it?
Yep.
> Do different generations have different socio-cultural paradigms,
>different social schemas, so to speak, that make inter-generational
>relationships difficult because of incompatibilities in the social role
>expectations?
>
> The answer is probably "yes".
I agree. Did you hear the discussion on some talk radio stations
about the faculty orientation memo put out by Boston College (?)
to familiarize the faculty with the formative experiences of the
incoming freshmen? Someone entering college this year was
born after 1980. They were just a little kid when Reagan was
president. Nixon and Watergate are just names in history books.
They have always had VCRs and microwave ovens. The expression
"like a broken record" is meaningless to them -- they have always
known only CDs. And so on. It made me feel really old.
>But the degree to which generational role expectations conflict
>with one another is probably dependent upon which generations
>are trying to associate. I mean that, if we define a 50s, 60s,
>70s, 80s and 90s generations, and if we stereotype them
>into say... hmmm...
>
>50s: traditional father-knows-best
>60s: free-love civil-liberty-is-best
>70s: material-needs whoever-dies-with-the-most-toys wins
>80s: tune-out deconstruct all the cultural traditions and disregard em
>90s: me-first get a lawyer and sue first chance you get
I'd lag that a bit. Remember, a parent in the 1960s had their
formative years in the 50s -- and really very few people in
the 60s were into the hippie/free love lifestyle, most young
adults of that era were part of what Nixon would later call the
silent majority. What the media portrays as the 60s crowd
were most often parents in the 1970s, etc. The millenium
generation is being raised by parents who started having
kids in the mid- to late-70s.
>Then if we try to make intergenerational pairings, we might find
>the 70s and 90s materialism will be more compatible than say
>the 50s conformity vs the 80s apathy.
Young people coming of age in the 80s were more socially
conservative than their predecessors -- when they were
small children the campus riots were on TV and their
parent probably said, "I hope you never do that when
you grow up" and the kids took that to heart. And kids
reaching 20 years old now spent most of their childhood
during what were economically tough times (in the US)
for blue collar America, the Rust Belt, the rural farming
states, and the parts of the Western US dependent on
the extraction industries (mining and oil). So again, they
have reason to be more socially conservative and fiscally
prudent. And surprise, the issue of fixing -- maybe even
privatizing to some degree -- the old age benefits scheme
(Social Security) is on the US's national political agenda.
No more pushing the problem off to mañana.
>I don't know. It seemed like an interesting idea that
>wasn't being intruded upon by any of the usual anti-men
>blabber mouths.
Good for you! Yeah, we've got to get out from under the
usual newsgroup hecklers.
For further reading, check out Harry Dent's _The Great
Boom Ahead_ which has a lot of demographic charts
plotting the Baby Boom and the Echo Boomers who
are just starting to graduate from high school. Also,
for a different angle on this, there's _The Birth Order
Book_ and _Growing Up Firstborn_ by Kevin Lehman.
Lehman characterizes firstborn children as being more
likely to be attracted to a person who is several years
(half a decade or more) older because while growing up,
the firstborn gets accustomed to communicating with
parents as a primary conversational partner and so learns
to bridge the age gap.