What_Would_Be_Enough has at least one point, Michael.

I find it laughable that many of the most strident parents continually telling us we all have to do more "for the children" are divorced. If you're not engaged enough with your children to work out the issues with the former love of your life to remain a strong, positive, in-the- home parent to your kids, then WTF do you want from me?

The Boomers and the Greatest can't take the blame for creating our entitled state. That would be the one immediately preceeding (1920-30s), and special circumstances obtained; there was this little problem called the Depression. The grateful nation showered perks on the Greatests returning from WWII (GI Bill, housing, etc.), and the new prosperity of the late 40s and 50s was the genesis of the self-absorbed, given- everything-they-wanted Boomers.

We've been indoctrinated to believe that the Greatest Generation should enjoy a position at the top of the pantheon for their sacrifice. I would argue that any generation, given a powerful enemy that was bent upon their destruction, would react the same way, though the abject weeniness of our culture now may give lie to that theory. Suffice to say that the Greatests have been paid in full for their sacrifice many times over.

I'm in a relatively unique position to discuss generational issues. My older brother and I were born 16 months apart in 1957-1958, and we grew up in the Back Bay of Boston until we reached school age, whereupon we moved to the 'burbs. We had no curfew growing up (easier with boys), and the only unbreakable rule was my mother had to know where we were, and we had to call if we were going someplace else, not an easy thing in the days before cellphones. My next brother was born in 1970, making him a solid Gen-X. The last brother was born in 1977, and I'm here to tell you that you don't know embarrassed until you have a pregnant mother at your high school graduation!

My mother freely admits that the second two sons were raised differently from the first two. They were both raised with more "stuff", as my father's income rose steadily over the 20 years my parents were procreating (not that my older bro and I did without anything we really wanted). After sending the two oldest to Catholic school through high school, they allowed the younger two to go to the local grammar and high schools, reputed to be good ones. Because their parenting style was one that allowed a lot of freedom and self-policing, my parents didn't do my younger brothers any favors, as they had no experience with public schools (my parents were both parochial school products) and the broader range of aptitudes and results. Instead of attending college on scholarships like their older brothers, #3 never finished college (though he's doing well in high tech, haven for intelligent loners) and #4 just got his degree last year after 11 years, with a double major guaranteed to enhance his employability: philosophy and film!

And why do I believe four brothers grew up so different in spite of the same parenting "style"? Because with the last two my parents were TOO OLD!!! Fifty-somethings shouldn't be chasing 4-year olds around! My dad, called by my best friend the template for hardass dad Red Foreman in That 70's Show, was never able to make the transition from Ward Cleaver to Steven Keaton. My mom was forever Harriet Nelson, sweet and unfailing fair to her boys, and saw no reason to change. My youngest brother, called by his two oldest brothers the Little Prince, was one of Douglas Coupland's Global Teens, coming and going as he pleased while his 50-60 something parents fell asleep in front of the television.

This is a lot of the problem with today's kids; with people marrying and procreating much later, parents, their lives and habits more set in stone, are not taking the time to enforce discipline and manners. Because families are started later, families are smaller, causing the parents to obsess about their little hothouse flowers. The kids, in turn, are the masters of all they survey, sharing little and obeying few. Is it any surprise they end up little tyrants? My best friend, one of seven, talks about how he needed to create elbow space at the kitchen table to get his share of the food. How alien is that to the vast majority of today's kids?

Posted by: Brutus on July 8, 2008 2:43 PM

Michael,

"Ah, the righteous-finger-pointing behavior we so love today's youth for."

Now, please don't sell yourself short. You've demonstrated amply, whenever the topic of today's kids come up, that your generation's talent for righteous-finger-pointing is second to none, and has not faded with time.

What Would Be Enough is certainly overwrought, and not all of his points are sound, but his basic thrust is correct. The Boomers came upon the nation like a shrieking horde of Vandals, pillaging and burning the accumulated treasures of centuries for the sake of their own outrageous self-indulgence and ridiculous "ideals," and left the culture a gutted, smoking husk.

Now, in control of the political system, they fortify the massive government welfare state that will keep them fat and happy in their old age, to be paid for with ever-greater sums extorted from the young people they spit on.

Yes, every generation has something about the previous that they can complain about. Mine, however, enjoys the unusual privilege of saying that the prior generation killed the greatest civilization the world had ever seen. To be sure, it was already ailing, but it was the Boomers who put the bullet through its head. They'll go on draining as much blood from the carcass as they can, and leave the rotting, dessicated husk to their children and grandchildren.

And after ravaging both past and future for the sake of their selfishness, what's their follow-up act? They whine about how rotten and awful the kids forced to suffer the consequences of Boomer depravity are. They mock those who have no choice but to live in the moral, cultural, and political rubble the Boomers left in their wake. They self-righteously condemn the people who will be spending decades toiling to pay the extortionate taxes that will be demanded so that the Baby Boomers can be kept in the style they are accustomed to. Sanctimony and selfishness are both unattractive traits, but they're especially ugly when combined, and being so self-righteous as to despise your own innocent victims is especially vile.

Posted by: John Markley on July 8, 2008 7:24 PM

Certain 'new age' types espouse the notion that we cyclically reincarnate, selecting the time, place and parentage of each ride we take on the corporeal merry-go-round. If they are correct then perhaps the Greatest Generation and we Boomers, along with Gens X, Y, & Z, can be blamed for choosing the circumstances of our particular era. Otherwise, we all just live with the circumstances of our moment in time and do the best we can.

Mr. Markley, seconding some of the points offered by What Would Be Enough, seems a bit over-wrought himself, accusing Boomers of "pillaging and burning the accumulated treasures of centuries for the sake of their own outrageous self-indulgence and ridiculous "ideals," along with asserting we've "killed the greatest civilization the world had ever seen."

Would it be too much to ask what he means by this? Is it simply that the western world has, in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, moved toward the position that society should collectively protect its weak and old from the worst ravages of poverty and pain, which, in practical terms, requires the younger, more able bodied among us to pay taxes for that purpose? Or is his criticism more conceptually based? Perhaps he longs for the "good ol' days" when men were men, women were chattel and those not of the right color, religion or social class were not part of the political process. But these suggestions that some of our "ridiculous ideals" are not so ridiculous no doubt leave me open to charges of "sanctimony and selfishness".

Given what we know about the Depression and the period preceding it, until the Greatest cohort consolidated the reforms made by their parents "the accumulated treasures of centuries" were mostly in the hands of a very small elite. The Greatest took the "perks showered upon them after WWII" and created a period of productivity and relative egalitarianism heretofore unknown. Still, parallel to this, a sub-group of the Greatest (and subsequently the Boomer) cohort sought to restore the old order of things. Since the Reagan years this crowd has been ascendant and a small elite has once more consolidated the "treasures of centuries". This time a given member of the elite is more likely to be a hedge fund manager than the owner of a railroad, but as in the past there is a close alliance between the elites and the seats of political power. However, to blame these generations as a whole is to miss the obvious point that most within each generational cohort are victims rather than perpetrators in this restoration of dramatic disparity between a small elite and the vast majority.

Now, remind me again, what does this have to do with kids who appear to be in charge of their parents rather than the reverse?

Posted by: Chris White on July 9, 2008 9:17 AM

Thanks to Chris for making the essential point to John Markley: "Now, remind me again, what does this have to do with kids who appear to be in charge of their parents rather than the reverse?" Anyone else want to have a go at John's narcissistic and self-adoring idiocies? (Hey, I recently ran across a study saying that narcissistic personality disorder is up 30% among young people compared with the 1980s ... One of the main characteristics of narcissists -- they think they're perfectly fine!) I'm not in the mood myself for volunteering a lot of free parenting ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 9, 2008 9:38 AM

"Would it be too much to ask what he means by this? Is it simply that the western world has, in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, moved toward the position that society should collectively protect its weak and old from the worst ravages of poverty and pain, which, in practical terms, requires the younger, more able bodied among us to pay taxes for that purpose? Or is his criticism more conceptually based? Perhaps he longs for the "good ol' days" when men were men, women were chattel and those not of the right color, religion or social class were not part of the political process."

What if none of the assumptions behind these statements are true, Chris? What if these assumptions are all just PC propaganda? Let's look at each of them.

1. "... protect its weak and old from the worst ravages of poverty and pain..."

Welfare destroyed the black family and led to the culture of criminality and dependence that we all now consider normal for black people. Private charity once served the function now served by a welfare state.

2. "Perhaps he longs for the "good ol' days" when men were men, women were chattel and those not of the right color, religion or social class were not part of the political process."

What a load of crap! This is PC propaganda multiplied by 10. When were women "chattel?" You can feel guilty and heroically sainted for holding these views, Chris, but it's just a load of crap. For the vast majority of the world, every person lived in poverty and worked at menial jobs, and had no authority. What in the hell are you talking about?

You get a real sanctimonious kick out of nominating yourself to the position of the sainted and annointed, Chris. No, you are not some special man who discovered how to treat women right. Get off that fucking high horse. In many ways you are a sensible guy. When you get started on that crap you become a creep.

It's a good thing for men to be men. Homosexuals have always had the right to vote. When, pray tell, were they excluded from that? I think we were much better off (and gays were better off) when they resided in the closet. Why in the hell do they need to live their sex lives in public?

Blacks have the franchise. Women have had it since around 1920. My great grandparents were serfs in Germany and Ireland. Pray, tell me when they were involved in the political process, or when they could vote. The difference between when the men and women in my family obtained the vote was about 30 years. This is true for almost all Americans.

Blacks are now voting almost unanimously for a candidate who's sole political purpose, as far as I can tell, is to give them political patronage and government perks. We are about to find out in a very big way that blacks are just like whites. They are about to use office to plunder the public treasury and fill their pockets big time. I predict that, given the culture of corruption and violence that they come from, their version of corruption and self-dealing will be far worse than what you're accustomed to seeing from whites. In other words, I think we probably treated them better than they are going to treat us.

Stop breaking your arm congratulating yourself on your enlightenment, Chris. That creepy sanctimony, that obnoxious belief you carry around that you are morally superior to other men because you treat your women better... God what an asshole attitude!

The past was not the nightmare you want to pretent. You are doing so to stroke your own halo. We know that you are a fucking saint, Chris. Can you stop telling us about it?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 9, 2008 11:21 AM

"...narcissistic and self-adoring idiocies..."

Harsh words from you, Michael. I thought you tolerated everybody.

Great thread, btw. Truly a laugh a minute.

Posted by: intellectual pariah on July 9, 2008 4:53 PM

Note to ST: Dude ... time to chill. Take that shot & beer and calm yourself.

Mr. Markley & What Would Be Enough issued blanket condemnation of the Boomer & Greatest Generations for vaguely described crimes of plunder and the destruction of civilization. Somehow you've taken my response, twisted it through your own set of presumptions, assumptions and distortions and, having misconstrued much of what was said, offered an odd counter attack. My primary point was that, while our and our parent's generations have created various problems, we've also made contributions to society and civilization ... like all generations. My second main point was we aren't some Borg-like, monolithic, entity. Near as I can tell you are a Boomer, too, so your vehement response should certainly help prove that.

Let's take your point 1, my "protect the weak and old ... " defense of Social Security has become about welfare and blacks who, according to you, were reduced to a "culture of criminality and dependence" by public welfare as opposed to private charity. This is too vast a topic to respond to here so let's move along, shall we?

Point 2 was my (admittedly colorfully phrased) dig at the Gilded Age ... and its current re-emergence ... when wealth and power were firmly in the hands of a very small elite that consisted, nearly entirely, of wealthy WASP men. In short, I was saying that, as you so concisely put it, "for the vast majority of the world, every person lived in poverty and worked at menial jobs, and had no authority." This was offered in defense of the way changes brought about in large part by the Greatest, and to a lesser extent the Boomer, generations have improved the situation for many, including women, the working class, minority religions, people of color (go on, give me sh*t for using THAT bit of PC jargon) and so on.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what set you off on the homosexual bit. Was it the "men were men" cliché? It never crossed my mind that would be read as some kind of oblique reference to gays being excluded from voting, which is such an oddly out there notion.

And I still want to know what this has to do with kids who appear to be in charge of their parents rather than the reverse?

Posted by: Chris White on July 9, 2008 11:34 PM

Chris, I deal with your type in Woodstock all the time.

Some men battle other men in the dominance/submission game by bragging that they've got a bigger dick. Some men fight it out over who's got more money and power. In the upside down, lunatic world of the left, men slug it out over who's more sensitive and conscious.

It's the same game, except that everything is underhanded and devious. Playing that leftist game makes a liar out of a man.

Your political views are self-deceptions. What you really are doing is butting heads with other men over the pussy. You are a con artist. Like all con artists, you are conning yourself.

The rest of the men are not beating the hell out of their women. You are not the only sainted, conscious guy out there who takes good care of his women. You are not the only hero who actually has gay friends.

You are as sanctimonious and pious as any Southern Baptist. When are you going to get off that high horse of yours?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 10, 2008 7:30 AM

ST, seriously, are you suffering some kind of disassociative episode? This began as a thread about parenting and the obnoxious behavior of some kids today. It then wandered off on a minor tangent about the relative flaws and merits of Boomers and Gen X as parents and the influence of feminism was raised. So far, so good. Then the tangent became way more tangential as you diverted into criticizing Obama and ranting about women and gays while the youngsters John Markley and WWBE launched an attack on the Greatest & Boomer generations for gutting civilization. I admit my complicity in responding to them, but I still keep wondering, what does this have to do with parenting?

For the record the contents of my boxers might not make me a porn star, but they're enough above average to satisfy. And my circle of male friends tends to compete by displays of wit and aesthetic sophistication rather than money, power or martial arts capabilities. So, now I'll just ride my high horse into the sunset ... more like Gary Cooper than John Wayne.

Posted by: Chris White on July 10, 2008 12:21 PM

I take time off for an injury, and return to find ST still shouting about homo's and pussy! I think there needs so be a separate forum here for feelings about homo's and pussy, so that these elements don't infiltrate unrelated topics.

It's just a thought.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on July 17, 2008 9:00 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?