The Pop Culture Information Society...
These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.
Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.
This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.
Check for new replies or respond here...
Subject: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/06/11 at 9:14 pm
I personally think generations are too large. If a parent and child can be a part of the same generation, there's something wrong.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: Mat1991 on 06/20/11 at 12:09 pm
You are talking about generations like the Baby Boomers, correct?
If so, I learned in my speech class that we group generations together partly for marketing purposes. Each generation has its own distinctive personality (even though inevitably there are going to be persons within each generation who deviate from that overall personality). Baby Boomers are known to be rebellious and outgoing; Generation Xers are known to be moody and sumptuous; and Generation Yers are known to be bubbly and tech-savvy.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: AL-B Mk. III on 06/25/11 at 12:42 pm
You are talking about generations like the Baby Boomers, correct?
If so, I learned in my speech class that we group generations together partly for marketing purposes. Each generation has its own distinctive personality (even though inevitably there are going to be persons within each generation who deviate from that overall personality). Baby Boomers are known to be rebellious and outgoing; Generation Xers are known to be moody and sumptuous; and Generation Yers are known to be bubbly and tech-savvy.
Not to bust your chops or anything, but can you explain what you mean when you describe GenXers as being "sumptuous?"
I mean, I'll admit I can be moody sometimes but I've never recalled ever feeling like a Cadillac Escalade. :D
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: Mat1991 on 06/25/11 at 7:10 pm
Not to bust your chops or anything, but can you explain what you mean when you describe GenXers as being "sumptuous?"
I mean, I'll admit I can be moody sometimes but I've never recalled ever feeling like a Cadillac Escalade. :D
Poor choice of words. I meant to say "serious." ::)
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: 00Reverb on 07/03/11 at 12:18 pm
Realistically what we consider modern generations are for the most part marketing gimmicks. Basically "they" make up an arbitrary set of numbers to seperate themselves from other marketers and apply the tired overblown (and outdated) stereotypes. They make their money by convincing companies that only they truly have the keys to unlocking their target markets. That's why after 20 years there still are no commonly agreed set of years. Also you can see this on how the so called Millennial\ Gen Y crowd is often sold and framed into a paradox. If something can be sold to them they are the next great generation. If something can be sold from them, they are usually sold as the downfall of western civilization.
Many use the demographic baby boom as proof of the existence of "physical" generation. Yet a close sociological look at those born in the second half were really too young to engage in the formative activities of their older boom siblings (which actually shared experiences with the so called late Silent generation) during events of the mid 1960's and early 1970's.It was actually the difference between the two halves of the baby boom that led to the formation of the original "gen X"- now often called "Generation Jones".
I think we most people are confusing generations for are really sub-cultures such as the Hippies, Beatnicks, Greasers (50's def.), Grunger, Lost, etc. While they were culturally significant, they were often limited to a certain population among their contemporaries along the lines of music styles ,race, class, politics, etc.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: 80sfan on 07/03/11 at 5:51 pm
A generation should be 15 years, 20 years maximum! 8)
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: Davester on 07/06/11 at 12:30 am
I think we most people are confusing generations for are really sub-cultures such as the Hippies, Beatnicks, Greasers (50's def.), Grunger, Lost, etc. While they were culturally significant, they were often limited to a certain population among their contemporaries along the lines of music styles ,race, class, politics, etc.
But 80sFan insists that a generation is no more than a span of 20 years (in the industrialized world). The 20 year span may come from the average age at which women bear their first children (or used to). So in theory my grandfather would be 20 years older than my father. My father 20 years older than me. I, 20 years older than my son. He, 20 years older than his son &etc...
It's interesting that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says,"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Apparently the generation alluded to by Christ is everyone on the planet at the time...
The "shared experiences" is where the cultural generation flap begins and it's never ending. Obviously I can better relate to people who are around my age. May or may not like each other, but we can relate. Take a few million people like that, and you have a cultural generation...
I agree with you on the source of confusion. I'll also add "cultural generation" and "biological generation"...
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: nicole1977 on 07/06/11 at 10:55 am
I do agree that a generation should be between 15 to 20 years. There are some sources that have generations that's more than 20 years or less than 15 years. That doesn't make any sense. It should be between 15 to 20 years.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: nicole1977 on 07/06/11 at 11:20 am
But 80sFan insists that a generation is no more than a span of 20 years (in the industrialized world). The 20 year span may come from the average age at which women bear their first children (or used to). So in theory my grandfather would be 20 years older than my father. My father 20 years older than me. I, 20 years older than my son. He, 20 years older than his son &etc...
It's interesting that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says,"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Apparently the generation alluded to by Christ is everyone on the planet at the time...
The "shared experiences" is where the cultural generation flap begins and it's never ending. Obviously I can better relate to people who are around my age. May or may not like each other, but we can relate. Take a few million people like that, and you have a cultural generation...
I agree with you on the source of confusion. I'll also add "cultural generation" and "biological generation"...
I'm going to use Generation x for example.
In most sources and researches, Generation X is anyone born in 1965-1980. Even though those born in 1965-1980 are Gen Xers, the early/older Gen Xers like yourself and late/younger Gen-Xers like myself are different from each other, but we are still Gen X regardless. The early Gen Xers (1965-1973) experience the beginnings of MTV in 1981, they were the ones that were in their preteens and teens in the late 70s and 80s and the early Gen Xers contribute to the late 70s and 80s cultures. They started driving in the 80s. They went to junior high and high school in late 70s and the majority of the 80s. They're the ones that experienced the VERY early days of hip hop, punk, disco, new wave. They're the ones that saw movies that were made by John Hughes (RIP). They were a part of the Brat Pack in the 80s. They were the main buyers of Michael Jackson's Thriller.
The late Gen Xers (1974-1980) were children in the majority of the 80s. We watched the Smurfs, The Chipmunks, The Muppet movies, Inspector Gadget, GI Joe, Strawberry Shortcake, He-Man, Heathcliff, ET, Fraggle Rock, Jem, Dungeons and Dragons, Rainbow Brite, Shirt Tales, Monchichis. We ate cereal by the cartoon characters We had toys like Cabbage Patch Kids, Care Bears, Baby Skates, Rainbow Brite, Strawberry Shortcake, My Little Pony . We watched Sesame Street, Mister Rogers, Reading Rainbow in the late 70s and early 80s. The late/younger Gen Xers embraced grunge, gangsta rap, political rap, new jack swing, house, Native Tongues, hair metal, etc. We witnessed the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky situation. They came of age in the mid 90s to early 2000s.
Just like the Baby Boomers can be split in halves (the younger Baby Boomers are called Generation Jones), so can Generation X.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: 80sfan on 07/06/11 at 11:37 am
But 80sFan insists that a generation is no more than a span of 20 years (in the industrialized world). The 20 year span may come from the average age at which women bear their first children (or used to). So in theory my grandfather would be 20 years older than my father. My father 20 years older than me. I, 20 years older than my son. He, 20 years older than his son &etc...
It's interesting that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says,"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Apparently the generation alluded to by Christ is everyone on the planet at the time...
The "shared experiences" is where the cultural generation flap begins and it's never ending. Obviously I can better relate to people who are around my age. May or may not like each other, but we can relate. Take a few million people like that, and you have a cultural generation...
I agree with you on the source of confusion. I'll also add "cultural generation" and "biological generation"...
It's only my opinion. Doesn't mean it's right even if a good number of people agree with me.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: Davester on 07/06/11 at 12:48 pm
It's only my opinion. Doesn't mean it's right even if a good number of people agree with me.
Of course not. That goes without saying...
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: Foo Bar on 07/07/11 at 10:47 pm
It's interesting that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says,"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Apparently the generation alluded to by Christ is everyone on the planet at the time...
So either Jesus was flat-out-wrong, or...
...no matter how angry we've been at him for his trolling in the past...
...we should feel pity for him...
...because...
...Donnie Darko has been wandering the planet for more than two thousand years, all because he snarked off at Jesus about an off-the-cuff remark about "generations". Was He a child of the -0000s? Or the +0010s? (Sorry, I mean, "was he a child of the 3750s or the 3760s?" :)
If that's too horrible to contemplate, as long as Mel Brooks is still alive, there's still a third possibility. But the day Mel leaves us, we're back to the first two.
Subject: Re: Does Generational Grouping Make Sense?
Written By: the OlLine Rebel on 07/08/11 at 9:42 pm
I guess I'm coming around to the idea of the literal meaning of generation - how long to generate a new population. But, frankly, in that sense I think 30 years is better - it's a better average/median rather than picking "youngest possible", if you will.
But in terms of so-called Baby Boomers (I've always thought it absurd that people born 1964 were a result of a run on sexual relations after men came home from the War; I mean, give it up after 18 years already!) and the like, I have a problem with going beyond 10 years. When it's "cultural", I don't think you can work outside a decade.
Check for new replies or respond here...
Copyright 1995-2020, by Charles R. Grosvenor Jr.