This generation of kids...

[Fletch]

My objection to the term "conservative" is basically that most people today have no idea who Edmund Burke was -- and that therefore the word carries a certain political odor that I don't think helps the very valid arugments being made.

There's an assumption today -- promulgated especially since the 1960s, and exhaustively since the 1980s -- that you have to be politically-conservative to carry traditional views about the work ethic, the importance of self-discipline, and the value of personal modesty. I'm living proof that this is not the case -- and I think it's important that the distinction is made, because I think that image will only put off young people who have no use for the political aspects but might very well understand the importance of the general values under discussion. Indeed, I think the politicization of values has been perhaps *the* most destructive phenomenon to wrack American culture in the last fifty years, and unless we get away from it, we'll never see any real improvement.

I'm a product of, basically, pre-boomer working class culture, and very proud of it. Traditional views on work and self-discipline were necessary for survival in that culture -- and I think they're just as necessary today. In modern culture's haste to abandon anything that smacks of "working class", we've thrown out the bathwater without even bothering to think of the baby.

As a cosseted layabout with a sense of entitlement that probably would have had your ma bringing in the morning ice water in a full trash can, I've studied this particular phase of our culture quite intently over many years. I've had to, frankly, just to get by in a world where it's often very hard to tell what kind of "work ethic" people profess to, let alone how seriously they take it.

My take on it is that few of us have ever had a true-blue work ethic. It's mostly a matter of imposed circumstances - having to feed yourself in a for-profit market system, for one, and usually having to go far afield of the mostly mythic "honest day's work for an honest day's pay" to do so. All this depended on a healthy respect for authority - authority that wasn't always healthy and didn't owe anyone much respect. That eventually pervaded everyday life - good in some ways (low crime, vandalism, good manners), bad in others (high racism, sexism, anti-individuality).

When the authoritarian character of daily life began to retreat to its last stronghold, the for-profit workplace, that left us with nothing on which to base any ethic of self-discipline. We'd only ever had an ethic of self-submission to outer discipline. Community values that emphasize the group, taking care, and the common good seem to go hand in hand with a rigid authority figure - if they're not imposed with a threat in back of them, many of us just don't see the point in having them at all. The values are thought to have no value - to be airy-fairy, namby-pamby, wishy-washy. Instead of a work ethic or a full and strong community ethic, we have an obedience ethic - and a flawed and sometimes contradictory one.

As Lizzie alludes (without saying so in so many words), those values have been unfairly coopted. And I don't mean just politically - no, it goes deeper. No one at any point on the political spectrum can imagine them being real without a particularly nasty kind of authority - the kind that keeps men together on the battlefield because it's taught them that thinking critically under fire costs lives, only it's found its way into many areas of life where it ought not belong.

I have experienced positive and responsible authority, and I have experienced high-handed and self-righteous authority. I believe there is much more of the latter kind. (I may be biased; my type of personality seems to bring out the inner authoritarian in many people.) It's easier, it gets a lot more psychic and emotional rocks off, and it's by and large what we are used to. To paraphrase Lizzie, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. But let's not allow him to terrorize the pets, then call it an admirable show of initiative.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When the authoritarian character of daily life began to retreat to its last stronghold, the for-profit workplace, that left us with nothing on which to base any ethic of self-discipline. We'd only ever had an ethic of self-submission to outer discipline. Community values that emphasize the group, taking care, and the common good seem to go hand in hand with a rigid authority figure - if they're not imposed with a threat in back of them, many of us just don't see the point in having them at all. The values are thought to have no value - to be airy-fairy, namby-pamby, wishy-washy. Instead of a work ethic or a full and strong community ethic, we have an obedience ethic - and a flawed and sometimes contradictory one.

As Lizzie alludes (without saying so in so many words), those values have been unfairly coopted. And I don't mean just politically - no, it goes deeper. No one at any point on the political spectrum can imagine them being real without a particularly nasty kind of authority - the kind that keeps men together on the battlefield because it's taught them that thinking critically under fire costs lives, only it's found its way into many areas of life where it ought not belong.

I can only speak for my own experience, but the way I was raised, I was taught that there was no honest pleasure to be found in being unproductive -- that to not pull your weight was cruel and unfair to the people who therefore had to pull more than theirs. It was one thing if someone was unable to carry their load -- you had an *obligation* to help them, if that was the case -- but to simply slack off because you could was to make life unpleasant for other people -- and where was the happiness in that? To be productive, to carry a fair share of the load, was to have a meaningful part in society -- and that was where real fulfillment was found, not in pursuing the Cult Of The Individual.

That's a combination of what I learned from my grandparents, from Methodist Sunday School, from "Uncle Arthur's Bedtime Stories," and from the Girl Scouts, and I think it's still a workable philosophy today.

 

[sheeplady]

I think one of the things that bothers me whenever there is a generational publication in the popular press is it generally spirals into either "let's get down on this new generation" or "my generation was so much better." My mother-in-law passes a lot of junk onto me which basically suggests that the new generation of children is pathological because they like their cell phones too much, and particularly likes to pass on articles that indicate that the boomer generation (her generation) is *so much better.*

Every generation has problems and issues, but they also have bright spots. I think indicating certain behaviors or trends is fine, but pretending that other previous generations didn't have problems is not.

Based upon my reading, it seems that every generation's behavior (in part) has been viewed as pathological by the ones before:
1. The lost generation: A bunch of smoking, over-sexed, alcohol swilling degenerates
2. The lucky few: Politically silent, committed to "work" more than family
3. The boomers: Dirty hippies
4. Xers: Punks and lazy apathetic cynics.
5. Millenials: Entitlement need mommy children.

The only generation I can think of I have never read anything too negative about was the WWII generation, and come to think of it I have read stuff that suggested that they had no backbones in raising their children, and single-handily created the "me" boomer generation. (So I guess maybe they were maligned too.)

 

[Fletch]

I can only speak for my own experience, but the way I was raised, I was taught that there was no honest pleasure to be found in being unproductive -- that to not pull your weight was cruel and unfair to the people who therefore had to pull more than theirs. It was one thing if someone was unable to carry their load -- you had an *obligation* to help them, if that was the case -- but to simply slack off because you could was to make life unpleasant for other people -- and where was the happiness in that? To be productive, to carry a fair share of the load, was to have a meaningful part in society -- and that was where real fulfillment was found, not in pursuing the Cult Of The Individual.

That's a combination of what I learned from my grandparents, from Methodist Sunday School, from "Uncle Arthur's Bedtime Stories," and from the Girl Scouts, and I think it's still a workable philosophy today.

I wasn't taught those things in that way. I sometimes wish I had been. Maybe I was too precocious or preoccupied for my own good (maybe? hell, definitely!). When I got that kind of lesson it usually hit me like a barrel of bricks. Only rarely do I remember any positive message. There wasn't a lot of self-esteem talk regarding kids in the 70s - I think it was still for grownups.

The generation coming through today seems to me to be less cruel about such things. Ideally, as a cybergeneration, they would be able to vent their contempt for different people online, pseudonymously, and be more pragmatic and temperate in everyday life.

But that's an ideal. They're young yet, and they'll have plenty of opportunities to learn to be hard and bitter. But learning sharing and fairness and cooperation, all that good stuff, is probably going to have to be something they make opportunities for. They're not going to get much help from society at large, which has not been able to tune in that particular waveband for some time now.

Sometimes I think the trashing of younger generations is just resentment sanctioned by the "wisdom" of age. People who didn't have to go thru what you had to go thru are always weak and naïve and unfit. If you had your ears nailed to the floor three times a week, you're going to begrudge people something if they haven't. It must be a kind of coping mechanism, a way of reassuring yourself that your world is the real world.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I think a lot of what your perception on marriage is before marriage has something to do with it. Not saying that if your parents were divorced, you'll get divorced. I do know a lot of people who come from broken families and just think that they can go from relationship to relationship and it's no biggy. My parents were married in 1988 and the most important thing in their lives is eachother. Besides work, they are always together.

The family unit is also highly valued in my family, where I see a lot of people that don't like their family or even hate them. I work at the factory with my mother and we are more like friends than mother and son. I also work part-time at my father's shop and live above it (not handed to me, I pay the same rent as the previous tenant). I visit my parents' house every weekend and we spent a lot of time together and really enjoy eachothers' company. I'm also very close with my brother and especially my sister.

I don't think a safety net is completely a bad thing. Family should be able to depend on eachother. As I said, I rent my apartment from my parents. My rent is always on time, but my father always says that if an emergency comes up and I can't make the rent, not to worry, I can owe him and that if I ever lose my job, I can work the rent off in the shop or move home if worst comes to worst. When my truck broke down and I couldn't fix it myself, my folks flipped the bill and I paid them back when I could. After all, money's tight for a young guy.

I really feel bad for the kids now, who have no interaction with their parents for reasons such as the parents having little time for them and having an 'when you're 18, you're out the door' attitude. Or on the other side of that coin, the ungrateful kids who's parents gave them everything and think they're too good for their parents, or the zillion other reasons why parent and child aren't on good terms. I am really grateful to have a solid, good relationship with my family. I am a firm believer that family comes first.

 

[Fletch]

You've got a lot to be thankful for, Tom. Good going.

 

[Pompidou]

I think a lot of what your perception on marriage is before marriage has something to do with it. Not saying that if your parents were divorced, you'll get divorced. I do know a lot of people who come from broken families and just think that they can go from relationship to relationship and it's no biggy. My parents were married in 1988 and the most important thing in their lives is eachother. Besides work, they are always together.

This is pretty true, but goes in a few different directions. On one hand, everyone's already stated the effects having a single parent has on development. On the other hand, lots of people I know have remained in miserable marriages "for the kids". Kids are perceptive. They learn what a healthy relationship is by observing their parents. Needless to say, learning that it's normal to be closet-miserable in a marriage and never see any sort of love is even worse than just getting a divorce. That puts parents in an interesting pickle. Do you stay together and hope your kids don't see through your poker face? Do you divorce? There's no faking real happiness.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Yes I agree with much of what has been said above, there is some bad parenting around, the kids just follow their elders sometimes as they don't knwo any better. It is a sad situation of modern life. I think our parents generation had more time for us when we were growing up.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I have neighbors that are NYC schoolteachers. A problem I've often heard is how the Board of Ed eliminated the ability of a teacher to discipline a child. Paperwork has to be filed and periods of time elapse when on the spot discipline of some type is required. Eventually the board will poke a head in and make a contrived decision consisting of special programs and treatments for imaginary disorders. The result is an unruly student or two will waste precious class time and the rest suffer.
Then there are the parents..

Never mind the chidlren, my gripe is with this generation of adults.

Yes I agree, It's not something I am proud of, but on the odd occassion, if I misbehaved at school, the schoolmasters dealt with it straight away or by the end of the day and then afterwards that was that. Rgds.

 

[Feraud]

Every generation of adult gripes about the next group to usurp their place in the order of things.

 

[AmateisGal]

You've got a lot to be thankful for, Tom. Good going.

Agreed.

My family is the most important thing in my life. They've been with me through the toughest times and supported me even when they didn't agree with my decisions.

 

[Fletch]

Mine too.

One thing, tho, that's tough about breaking up (kids or no kids), is we don't know how much of us we bring to marriage, and how much of others' or society's expectations that we've just internalized.

This might have been easier in past generations, when us didn't matter nearly as much as society. Of course we very quickly went right from society to me - never mind us.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I am not saying that these are set in stone rules, I am speaking in generalities from what I've learned in my life, thus far.

This is pretty true, but goes in a few different directions. On one hand, everyone's already stated the effects having a single parent has on development. On the other hand, lots of people I know have remained in miserable marriages "for the kids". Kids are perceptive. They learn what a healthy relationship is by observing their parents. Needless to say, learning that it's normal to be closet-miserable in a marriage and never see any sort of love is even worse than just getting a divorce. That puts parents in an interesting pickle. Do you stay together and hope your kids don't see through your poker face? Do you divorce? There's no faking real happiness.

 

[John in Covina]

I don't think that we can point to any generation and say there's the perfect generation or even there is the best generation. But we can look at a lot of different things and see that there are places where we perceive a change from how it was to how it is now. Clearly not all of those changes have been improvements.

When people say "I'd like to live in the past" I usually have two areas to high light - dentistry and health particularly things like heart surgery.

"People were more polite then!" Yes and no. I think there may have been more polite people back then in most areas but racism was also institutionalized.

As we move on through the decades the gains in some area will be offset with loses in another.

I am reminded of a similar thread where I had noted that statistics as to out of wedlock births has climbed to unheard of heights. One response I got was a huffy that is simply not true! The gist of the response was that it was just as prevalent but it was mostly "hushed up" so the statistics show a climb only in the reported or derived numbers. While I agree there was a lot of hushing up going on way back, I can't see that it can possibly be at the same levels as today or in the last 10 years or so.

When it come to comparisons it is a case of Perception is Reality.

 

[sheeplady]

I think we need a lot more research on what makes a marriage successful. We have lots of research on how demographics (education, age married, children or no children) affect divorce, but we have comparatively little research on what makes a marriage successful, particularly research that looks at "softer" things- such as attitudes, discussions before marriage, etc. Sure, we all have our own ideas, but we don't have a lot of proof or even practical knowledge.

There are always going to be marriages that end because of things like physical or mental abuse, substance abuse, cheating, etc. Divorce is the best option in these relationships for many people. I thank god that divorce has become accepted enough that people can leave marriages now. The pure "divorce is always bad" people have no idea what an abusive relationship is like. (And abuse is a wide spectrum of behaviors).

I have a friend whose mother had zero support from her community, family, and church in the 1970s in escaping an extremely abusive relationship because she should "stick it out because those vows are for life" and "divorce was shameful." My friend's mother did they only thing she could- she picked up her kids from school early one day and ran across country with $100 and a suitcase. They couldn't trust anyone back home not to tell the abuser where they were, so they had no support. I've known other people whose goals in life have drifted so far apart that staying together is horrific.

You never know what happened behind the closed doors in a relationship, so it is hard to judge why a marriage "failed."

Are there people who should have never gotten married in the first place? Sure. Some people think that their partner's vastly different ideas about having children or goals in life will change. Some people never have these discussions before marriage, and assume that their partner thinks the same way. I think that our focus in society should be on helping people to prepare for a marriage as thoroughly as possible (to ensure that they are making the right decision) but also on not shaming those that divorce.

 

[Tiller]

Every generation of adult gripes about the next group to usurp their place in the order of things.

See I think every generation has a reason to complain about the one that is following it though. Ideals, skill sets, and knowledge is always being lost and rediscovered. Most people when they are young do miss out on the wisdom of those that came before them, in America it's almost rampant. Then again a lot of that has to do with the fact that American pop culture idolizes youth. Inexperience is one of the dumbest things to idolize.

 

[JimWagner]

I'm sure there are any number of factors at work in both successful and failed marriages. I'm also not sure what general rules can be gleaned from it.

I can pretty well point to positive factors that I believe contribute to my 39 year marriage, but some of those very same factors would not necessarily be applicable to any other couples. And a number of factors in my situation might even work against others. Plus, people do change over time and what was important at one stage of life may be completely unimportant at a later time. And vice versa.

 

[jamespowers]

I think we need a lot more research on what makes a marriage successful. We have lots of research on how demographics (education, age married, children or no children) affect divorce, but we have comparatively little research on what makes a marriage successful, particularly research that looks at "softer" things- such as attitudes, discussions before marriage, etc. Sure, we all have our own ideas, but we don't have a lot of proof or even practical knowledge.

There are always going to be marriages that end because of things like physical or mental abuse, substance abuse, cheating, etc. Divorce is the best option in these relationships for many people. I thank god that divorce has become accepted enough that people can leave marriages now. The pure "divorce is always bad" people have no idea what an abusive relationship is like. (And abuse is a wide spectrum of behaviors).

I have a friend whose mother had zero support from her community, family, and church in the 1970s in escaping an extremely abusive relationship because she should "stick it out because those vows are for life" and "divorce was shameful." My friend's mother did they only thing she could- she picked up her kids from school early one day and ran across country with $100 and a suitcase. They couldn't trust anyone back home not to tell the abuser where they were, so they had no support. I've known other people whose goals in life have drifted so far apart that staying together is horrific.

You never know what happened behind the closed doors in a relationship, so it is hard to judge why a marriage "failed."

Are there people who should have never gotten married in the first place? Sure. Some people think that their partner's vastly different ideas about having children or goals in life will change. Some people never have these discussions before marriage, and assume that their partner thinks the same way. I think that our focus in society should be on helping people to prepare for a marriage as thoroughly as possible (to ensure that they are making the right decision) but also on not shaming those that divorce.

There is plenty of study out there and books as a result of such. Back in college I read a book as part of a college sociology class called Beyond the Marriage Fantasy by a Daniel Beaver(yes, I know). I understand that he has another book out called Beyond the Marriage Fantasy: How to Give Up the Marriage of Your Dreams in Order to a Dream Marriage:

"Most people are not well prepared for marriage. And yet we

all believe we should somehow know exactly what we need
to know to be a good wife or husband, a good mother or father.
Society—and that certainly includes the media—falls far short of
meeting the needs of couples in today’s world. The myth is that if
you “love each other enough” the marriage will work out fine. But it
takes a great deal more than just being in love with your spouse to
make a marriage work. It takes understanding and knowledge of how
to solve problems, express anger, and still relate intimately. These are​

skills we never learned in school."

 

[Fletch]

When people say "I'd like to live in the past" I usually have two areas to high light - dentistry and health particularly things like heart surgery.

I usually mention civil liberties in there. It was a lot easier to find yourself in a situation where you had essentially no rights - whether it be at work, in the military, in police custody, or just going up against people with money, position, or public opinion on their side.

 

[jamespowers]

I usually mention civil liberties in there. It was a lot easier to find yourself in a situation where you had essentially no rights - whether it be at work, in the military, in police custody, or just going up against people with money, position, or public opinion on their side.

Pick a place and time in which none of that applies.