Time Magazine on ILXers: just a bunch of 'TWIXTERS'?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/covers/1101050124/story.html

pass go to http://www.bugmenot.com

Grow Up? Not So Fast

Meet the twixters. They're not kids anymore, but they're not adults either. why a new breed of young people won't—or can't?—settle down

Snoozefest, Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:32 (twenty years ago)

Real twixters cut & paste registration required text for their unregistered twixters pals...

andy --, Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:36 (twenty years ago)

I just saw this at the grocery store and immediately thought of ILX.

Allyzay Highlights The Fallacy of Radiohead (allyzay), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:36 (twenty years ago)

damn hippies is what we is

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:36 (twenty years ago)

no registration needed here: http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=001

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:37 (twenty years ago)

TIME TO TWENTYSOMETHINGS: WHEN ARE WE GONNA SEE SOME GRANDKIDS, ALREADY?

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:38 (twenty years ago)

SLACKERS 2K5

kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:39 (twenty years ago)

WHEN ARE WE GONNA SEE SOME GRANDKIDS, ALREADY?

Having parents who have never once said this to me = a blessing.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:40 (twenty years ago)

TIME TO TWENTYSOMETHINGS: WE NEED TO INCREASE THE POPULATION IF WE ARE TO HAVE A PROPER RACE WAR

Jimmy Mod always makes friends with women before bedding them down (ModJ), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:40 (twenty years ago)

I like the frequent use of the phrase "Peter Pan"

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:43 (twenty years ago)

What happened to adults who won't grow up being called kidults?

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:44 (twenty years ago)

The producing duo Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz, who created the legendarily zeitgeisty TV series thirtysomething and My So-Called Life, now have a pilot with the abc network called 1/4life, about a houseful of people in their mid-20s who can’t seem to settle down. “When you talk about this period of transition being extended, it’s not what people intended to do,” Herskovitz says, “but it’s a result of the world not being particularly welcoming when they come into it. Lots of people have a difficult time dealing with it, and they try to stay kids as long as they can because they don’t know how to make sense of all this. We’re interested in this process of finding courage and one’s self.”

Melrose Place II (or XVIII or whatever)!

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:44 (twenty years ago)

doesn't this happen to like EVERYBODY who moves to NYC? like, they freeze at a mental age of midtwentysomething, and just live like that for the rest of their lives...

kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:47 (twenty years ago)

My stepmom always calls me Peter Pan when I try to explain to her why I refuse to apply for a credit card...

andy --, Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:48 (twenty years ago)

WHEN ARE WE GONNA SEE SOME GRANDKIDS, ALREADY?

Speaking as an only child with no blood aunts or uncles that want to have kids of their own.. I'm really happy my grandmother and mom haven't pressured me similarly either.. although my grandmother will always tell me things like "one time, you will meet a nice girl and have kids and you'll look back at these times and laugh" in the middle of conversations, subtlely.

donut christ (donut), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:48 (twenty years ago)

ILX:
http://www.thegremlin.com/PSTR/youcanfly.JPG

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:51 (twenty years ago)

zwick & herskovitz already did the 20-something thing but it bombed. i loved it of course. it starred that little lady from the father of the bride movies and that fast-talking jewish fella,adam whatshisface. it was ahead of its time.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:54 (twenty years ago)

ILX: a huge time-telling phallic symbol that drugged up kids like to hang out by

()()p$ (()()ps), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:55 (twenty years ago)

a huge time-telling phallic symbol

THE STATSCOCK!

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

just read this article. it's so funny when Time pretends to have it's finger on the pulse of the nation. in every fucking issue.
http://www.peteloran.com/TRIXTER1.jpg

eman (eman), Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

Does it never occur to the people who write "why won't educated young people just settle down and have babies?" that:

1) Housing has never been so expensive;
2) Health care has never been so expensive; and
3) Employers hire only grudgingly, try not to pay as much as the contemporary cost of living would require, and are trying to get away from the concept of employer-sponsored health care.

Given these economic circumstances, isn't it only pragmatic to not be eager to become parents?

j.lu (j.lu), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:03 (twenty years ago)

YOU MUST BREED
YOU MUST BREED
YOU MUST BREED
YOU MUST BREED

kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:14 (twenty years ago)

"College is the institution most of us entrust to watch over the transition to adulthood, but somewhere along the line that transition has slowed to a crawl. In a TIME poll of people ages 18 to 29, only 32% of those who attended college left school by age 21. In fact, the average college student takes five years to finish. The era of the four-year college degree is all but over."


Jeez, nevermind that most people turn 22 senior year. Dumbasses.

LSD ARISTOCAT (ex machina), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

the problem with zwick & herskovitz is that when the originally serious Melrose Place was bombing, Aaron Spelling said "hmm. Up the fucking. Call Heather Locklear." Z&H would never think of that.

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

This article is fucking depressing. I'd like to grow up, but trying to find a job with a little more responsibility than "would you like fries with that" that also actually pays something is sort of slowing me down.
oh, and it's next to impossible to buy a house on an average salary.
you'd think that people who write for Time and probably get paid squat, in addition to living in one of the most expensive cities in the world, would have a bit more perspective.

Catty (Catty), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:26 (twenty years ago)

ARE YOU A TRIPSTER?!?!?! OMG WTF LOL

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:32 (twenty years ago)

i'm just waiting for the follow-up David Brooks article, where he opines that urban democrat elitists must get with the program and start spawing out 4 or 5 kids to get in touch with the rest of "real america"

kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:38 (twenty years ago)

shit, man, let's roll!

http://amine.laggoune.free.fr/14%20jack%20dans%20easy%20rider.jpg

miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:42 (twenty years ago)

How many sprogs does David Brooks have, and where can I see the pictures of baby spit-up on his nice blazers?

j.lu (j.lu), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:45 (twenty years ago)

TIME TO TWENTYSOMETHINGS: WHEN ARE WE GONNA SEE SOME GRANDKIDS, ALREADY?
hehe oTM

the impossible cost of college is a huge cultural/economic/should-be political issue no one wants to touch. no one can afford the loans AND rent, they stay at home or default, don't have money/credit to buy a house, housing costs are insane, etc. etc.

lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:45 (twenty years ago)

can somebody copy/paste it in here, or post a link to where it has been pasted?

also, it should probably be remembered who Time's primary audience is: middle-aged suburban folken who probably have the full time job and kids who are probably just getting into their early-mid 20s.

kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:47 (twenty years ago)

The sociologists, psychologists, economists and others who study this age group have many names for this new phase of life

WHO ARE THESE VAGUE EXPERTS???

HOW CAN I MAKE THEIR INCOME???

Snappy (sexyDancer), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:51 (twenty years ago)

ALEX IN NYC WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES?

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:57 (twenty years ago)

The sociologists, psychologists, economists and others who study this age group have many names for this new phase of life
WHO ARE THESE VAGUE EXPERTS???

HOW CAN I MAKE THEIR INCOME???

-- Snappy (jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj...), January 20th, 2005.

OTM!

latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:59 (twenty years ago)

I can't even get through this article without that Kanye/Twista song overwhelming my synapses.

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 20 January 2005 02:04 (twenty years ago)

TWIXTA YOU KNOW YOU RIGHT
MAKE YOU A CELEBRITY OVAHNIGHT

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 20 January 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

that fast-talking jewish fella,adam whatshisface

me!

.ada.m. (nordicskilla), Thursday, 20 January 2005 02:11 (twenty years ago)

no wonder I'm unemployed.

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 20 January 2005 02:12 (twenty years ago)

ALEX IN NYC WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES?


:::sigh::::

I knew it was only a matter of time (pardon the pun) before I was invoked here. Suffice to say, Lev Grossman (the writer of the piece in question) is a perfectly nice gent who once leant me a DVD (well, actually, he leant a senior editor the DVD in question, who in turn leant it to me without him knowing it), but I can't say I really know the guy. Whatever.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:13 (twenty years ago)

http://twixter.com/

eman (eman), Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:35 (twenty years ago)

Yes, but what was the DVD?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:38 (twenty years ago)

xpost-

"Diese Seite befindet sich in der Überarbeitung..."

"This site is in revision..."

bah, damn twixters can't even get a website running

eman (eman), Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:38 (twenty years ago)

1) Housing has never been so expensive;
2) Health care has never been so expensive; and
3) Employers hire only grudgingly, try not to pay as much as the contemporary cost of living would require, and are trying to get away from the concept of employer-sponsored health care.

4) there aren't as many jobs as there once were because technology and/or layoffs have made those positions obsolete

5) most entry-level jobs are SHIT and don't give young employees much enthusiasm or morale

6) sometimes people have to take TWO shit jobs to make ends meet and there's hardly any time left to eat or sleep or shower or any of that other human-being stuff, and some people actually prefer being unemployed or semi-employed to seeing their best years eaten alive

7) that's an awfully irresponsible attitude for a parent to have, but if you DON'T have kids, you're only fucking yourself over

cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 20 January 2005 04:08 (twenty years ago)

I don't like this article's emphasis on the number of "twixters" living with their parents, as if to suggest that the reason we don't want to get married and have kids is because we've gotten too comfortable mooching off our folks all the time. I have plenty of friends who fit the profile of "not wanting to settle down" but are also financially independent.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 20 January 2005 04:23 (twenty years ago)

and some people actually prefer being unemployed or semi-employed to seeing their best years eaten alive

OTM. I just switched jobs because even though the pay is comparable the new one is less demanding of my time.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 20 January 2005 04:24 (twenty years ago)

Time: "College is the institution most of us entrust to watch over the transition to adulthood..."

U.S. Census Bureau: About 3-in-10 young adults, ages 25 to 29 in 2002, had completed a bachelor's degree, matching the 2000 record high.

"most of us"?

This is one of those articles that seems like it's written based on co-workers' family anecdotes. (Not to pick on Time, I've seen similar things in the NYT and elsewhere.)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 20 January 2005 04:35 (twenty years ago)

8) why did our parents get married and settle down and get real jobs at such a young age? BECAUSE MOM GOT KNOCKED UP.

cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 20 January 2005 04:50 (twenty years ago)

wasn't this same article written ten years ago with 'slackers' instead of 'twixters'?

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Thursday, 20 January 2005 05:03 (twenty years ago)

The article does ultimately put a lot of emphasis on the economics of the situation.

RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 20 January 2005 05:07 (twenty years ago)

wasn't this same article written ten years ago with 'slackers' instead of 'twixters'?

yeah, and the slackers who are now in their mid-to-late thirties are as cynical about the state of things as they were ten years ago.

cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 20 January 2005 05:09 (twenty years ago)

Running back to the NYC invocation upthread: this is one of a few things I particularly like about living here now! It’s partly a result of weird careerism and surely even more a result of the ridiculous cost of living and housing (such that a person raised middle-class would have to be a millionaire to even dream of raising a child near Manhattan in anything like the comfort they were raised in)—but the result is that I routinely meet people over the age of, geez, fifty even who are living the same ostensibly-aimless / unsettled lifestyle of your average twenty-something: there’s very little sense that there’s anything remotely odd about it. I appreciate that. It’s essentially just a recognition that the home-and-family pattern isn’t a pre-requisite of normal adulthood, which is really more or less bound to crop up here: you can’t really have a home-and-family pattern in, say, Manhattan, and if you can you’re too rich for the general public to know you. Personally I’ll consider myself an adult just as soon as I have a savings account and can manage to pay my bills on time.

I see very little indication that people in the non-urbanized parts of the country are conducting their affairs any differently than usual, though I have to admit my evidence is restricted to a married-out-of-college smaller-town cousin and the litigants on Judge Mathis.

Expanding on one of the adulthood-impediments above: maybe it’s just me but I do feel like the kinds of positions available to people in my age group—particularly at a just-out-of-undergrad stage—were very defiantly not the sorts of jobs that were geared to allow anyone to make a career out of them, a fact which immediately torpedoes any notion of a settle-down; there are certain industries where you can at least look far far ahead and work on some vague assumption that with heroic work you should move in reasonable career directions, but a lot of the grand corporate service-based positions people fell into didn’t seem to hold that forth at all.

But so the one thing that I think makes this criticism thorny is that I’m constantly surprised by how many women I know who are essentially in that sort of state but do profess that they firmly desire to marry and have children. I think the extension of what was previously thought of as one’s twenties, in major-major cities, blunts the shrill warnings of those countless nobody-will-marry-you-after-30 studies; but sometimes I wonder if this sort of thing creates more fright or dissonance for women than it does for men?

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:00 (twenty years ago)

Actually I suppose it's nobody-will-marry-you-after 35, or something -- which as a city-dweller seems completely foreign to me -- but whatever. I can understand the hell out of it in anything but a major city, but here it seems foreign: does that seem accurate or am I thinking wishfully? (And admittedly the marrying bit is a smaller part of what I’m talking about here, though it’s one step toward a married-with-children existence that gets pushed more and more tenuously backward.)

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:07 (twenty years ago)

I don't find any reason for me to get married except to get lots of gifts. I am not religious and I am A-OK with everyone knowing I have premarital sex. If I got knocked up, I would like to refer to the dude as "my baby's father."

S!monB!rch (Carey), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:16 (twenty years ago)

I think the classy NYC term is "bebepere."

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:17 (twenty years ago)

I think Nabisco's probably right about living in a major urban area and not finding it that weird to be "unsettled." I mean, I have several friends in their 30s and 40s who aren't married, don't have kids, live by themselves in cramped apartments, go out to bars and shows all the time, and comfortably fit in with the rest of the crowd I hang out with.

But: I also came to the realization only a couple weeks ago that as people in my age group do start to get married, there will eventually be fewer people for me to choose from. (This because I heard that a couple women I'd had crushes on in college are now engaged, heh.) I mean, I'm happy putting off marriage for a good, long time, but that was a sobering thought. (Although then I figured, okay, that just means that I'll date younger women!)

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:19 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, we men have the "option!" Hence wondering if any more fear gets thrown on the other side, particularly media-wise.

Instead of bemoaning our fate, Time should have congratulated us: "People now stay cooler for way longer! They're unboring and social and know about contemporary pop music well into their thirties!"

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:27 (twenty years ago)

Haha!

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 20 January 2005 23:28 (twenty years ago)

I don't want to have kids, but my genes are too fucking awesome not to.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 21 January 2005 02:10 (twenty years ago)

does the article mention the fact that a lot of the folks who ARE getting married at age 22-23 or so have a first marriage that lasts like 3-4 years tops?

kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 21 January 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

If I wasn't looking at this in the library I'd cry. I'd quite like to at least move towards being a grown up, but it's just impossible when I now have less money than I did as an undergraduate.

Anna (Anna), Friday, 21 January 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

I'm twixting for life. I do know people in their twenties who have got on to the career ladder ect. I mean just recently about 4 of my old friends joined the frickin' civil service. But most of them were happier when they were earning shit-all as just-graduated temps. Will they be happier when they've sunk their blood-money into a mortgage? The answer is there in the Time-readers' generation. If they are so happy, why are they so fucked up about everything?

Miles Finch, Friday, 21 January 2005 12:16 (twenty years ago)

but our parents took everything!

Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 January 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

leaving only grime/microhouse etc

Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 21 January 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

and we thank them for that

Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Friday, 21 January 2005 13:37 (twenty years ago)

I laughed out loud at the line about electronic music making your kids lazy.

Anyway, what I want to know is WHERE'S THE MONEY, MOM & DAD??? If I'm a Twixter, I'd like to see some of this $2,000 + I'm supposed to be getting annually from my parents. I mean, I don't LIVE with either of you, so shouldn't I be compensated for that at least??

Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 21 January 2005 15:30 (twenty years ago)

this article is incredibly disingenuous in various ways, but one of the most glaring to me is the issue of race/class. much of this boils down to panic over the failure upper/upper-middle class twentysomethings to pop out kids for america.

lauren (laurenp), Friday, 21 January 2005 15:56 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I thought about that, lauren. I got the impression there weren't really talking about all Americans.

Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)

No-one with any nous is breeding, the human race is doomed.

Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:04 (twenty years ago)

my father mentioned that the article was accompanied by photos of the chicago group of friends, who were apparently slightly multi-ethnic. he figured that was their gloss on diversity.

lauren (laurenp), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:08 (twenty years ago)

i've been thinking a lot about this issue lately, because i've been facing major decisions about whether to "grow up" the way that time defines it. but as someone else said upthread, our generation is in an entirely different state than the boomers. for one, housing is much more expensive. over xmas i was talking to a friend about this, and he pointed out that when his parents bought their home they put $50 down. that was it. today you need to have, supposedly, at least half of your annual salary in savings before doing that. and with college being more expensive -- thus graduates being more in debt upon completion of their degrees -- that sort of saving is nearly impossible.

furthermore, when this (my) cohort was being raised, we were told to live life to the fullest, have experiences, etc. that was what our 20s were for. and now we're told "no! you should have saved money and settled down! you should have started a family!" well which is it, bub?

i have a feeling my girl (a new poster, welcome her, everyone. her name's liser) will pop on momentarily to talk about nitsuh's thoughts on urban living, especially for a woman. but yes, nitsuh, you are right that living in a city is a way to prolong that state in a comfortable way. in fact, it's really the only comfortable way to live in a city...

Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:10 (twenty years ago)

i find the whole nyc peter/petra pan thing is awe-inspiring, exhilerating, and frightening. i remember one evening out at a few shows and more than a few bars with a 40something friend, thinking that i hoped i'd be that up for things at her age. i remember thinking the next night, when i left her with members of pr1mal scr3am at 4am despite everyone's urging for me to go to someone's apt for bad drugs, that i'd kill myself if i was still like that at her age.

lauren (laurenp), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:18 (twenty years ago)

Hello Liser who is Jams' girl, wherever you are. :-)

I'll start a family if/when I feel goddamn good and ready and should there be a situation where I'd have someone to have a family with. And should said other person not want a family, it's no skin off my nose. Yay me!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

i find that, even now, a lot of people are resentful of kids who "get to" go to college. it's like "at age 18 i was out on my own and working three jobs! where's my parade??" like it's my fault my parents had a little cash to shell out so i could go to a state university in the middle of nowhere.

cathy berberian (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:20 (twenty years ago)

if i let slip the fact that my father is professor and thus i got to attend college mostly for "free" (except for the thousands in expenses of course), they usually get apopletic with rage, like i've pulled some kind of beyond the pale scam.

lauren (laurenp), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

I think we've basically been fucked over by this post-war conception of how the American family arc is supposed to go -- something people of the right generation seem to take as a given, despite the possibility that it was actually a complete fluke. Through the late 40s and 50s we had a post-war economic boom, a big reconfiguration of housing patterns in the rise of the suburb, and maybe most importantly immense government programs -- like the GI Bill -- dedicated to starting people along a path of home-ownership and family starting. Industrial and manufacturing sectors -- jobs requiring nothing more than free public schooling -- were still dependable, and a service economy was expanding right beside it. The workplace was also wide open for white American men, who weren't by and large competing with women, weren't competing with minorities except at the absolute lowest levels, and were only more in demand considering the great loss of them during the war and in later deployment to Korea. Everything was arranged for a white American man in a medium-sized town to earn more than enough to gather a family around himself and do damn well; a lot of seemingly-average people of this generation are still sitting on remarkable amounts of wealth.

That's broken down in countless ways since then, which people of a certain age like to pretend equates to the end of a traditional way of life that stretches eternally backward. But I'm not convinced that it really does stretch back in any real way -- I'm not convinced that the mid-20th-century home-and-family boom wasn't just a momentary result of the right socio-economic conditions. It's impossible to really account for changing social notions, but America from the turn of the century through the Depression doesn't really back them up, I don't think.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

nabisco = frank grimes (despite being perfectly correct in everything he says)

CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:48 (twenty years ago)

lauren otm! i got to pull the same con. then i ruined it by going to grad school. also otm are people pointing out the classism of this piece: there is a name for this aimlessness, depression, and long-term instability. it's called POVERTY, fuckers. check it out. the increasing disconnection between class position and class-position markers (like a liberal education), between let's say "actual" and "cultural" poverty, is really fascinating and terrifying but this article doesn't begin to realize that's what it's even about.

the career end of this issue i'm agnostic about, or, more to the point, it reaches into a lot of shit that i'd rather not go into at the moment.

but as to the marriage/kids end of thing: the not-growing-up aspect of my life is a function of actually taking the idea of marriage and kids VERY SERIOUSLY. i come from a family that existed because of my older brother (nice work, dad) and fell apart when i was a teenager. so perhaps i have a wierdly idealized notion of what a family should be, but i know that i can't pull it off now $$-wise and it would be a disaster for the kid if i tried. i'm amazed that both my parents have given vague demurrals when i've asked them why they had me (well maybe i was mistake 2, who knows), like "oh, we just wanted another one". i would never dream of being that louche with someone else's (the potential kid's) life!

g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

I'm Homer Simpson's arch-enemy?

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

wait is frank grimes the falling down guy?

g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 21 January 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

poor grimey :( i really felt for him

Stevem On X (blueski), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:00 (twenty years ago)

i find that, even now, a lot of people are resentful of kids who "get to" go to college. it's like "at age 18 i was out on my own and working three jobs! where's my parade??" like it's my fault my parents had a little cash to shell out so i could go to a state university in the middle of nowhere.

I get the same flack where I work now from two coworkers my age. But at the same time, my parents DID NOT give me any money. I went to school entirely on student loans, which they could have done if they'd wanted to do so. Of course, this means I'll be paying off said debt for twenty more years or so...

Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:09 (twenty years ago)

The class split and kid-seriousness go absolutely hand in hand! The type of people Time has in mind = well, if you’re raised middle-class and suburban, go to college, come out with no huge earning power and lots of loans, move anywhere near a city … it’s going to be difficult to reconcile the kind of childhood you could give potential offspring with the kind of childhood you experienced. Which kind of skirts the issue—my parents, for instance, were anything but assured of a middle-class existence when they started having kids. But there was a particular faith there—the faith that graduate degrees would lead to jobs, and that jobs done well would lead up the class ladder—that I think has somewhat evaporated at this point.

The other issue is something that older people like to think of as selfishness and I like to think of as a sensible avoidance of total spirit-crushing depressing: most people who grew up middle class and went through higher education are seriously averse to the idea of raising kids in markedly lesser circumstances than they were raised. I mean, you can raise kids on entry-level salary and without health insurance and so on—people do it all the time—but it would mean actively accepting and stepping into the kind of visible, “actual” poverty that “cultural” non-poverty often lets people ignore.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:10 (twenty years ago)

Alert, Alert: is it any coincidence that AlexNYC, an employee of the magazine in question, has an adorable little baby? ILX isn’t entirely slacking in giving out the grandbabies—I can think of a good half-dozen ILX parents off the top of my head.

I was about to post a long screed about the perceived class-status of schooling, but nobody needs to hear it. I'll just concur with posts above.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

agreed, but it's more than just the money. there's a serious skepticism out there (which i share) about the centrality of "family" and its once- (or supposedly-) guaranteed benefits in life. what is marriage for? and kids, more than the responsibility, do I have the right to have them? whether this skepticism is deeper than the economics or plainly superficial i can't really figure out cos i'm in the middle of it all.

g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:32 (twenty years ago)

say, anyone remember that line that was floated around in the early 90s? Clinton co-opted part of it, too. it was tied into the slacker angst/apprenhension thing, about how we were raising a generation of folks who were scared that they would be less well off than their parents.

kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

"Scared?" We will be! And if you're a middle-class American my age, chances are your parents were already less well off than their parents, in real terms.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:37 (twenty years ago)

and as if we don't need more admonitions to squeeze out the sprogs: this is entirely a blue-state "problem." conservative twixters? i don't think so. correllations of birthrates to political leaning are really terrifying. on a worldwide level it's even worse. demographically we're doomed.

g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:37 (twenty years ago)

blue state/red state doesn't have shit to do with it. look at the folks in your office who had multiple kids before age 23...

kingfish (Kingfish), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

office? anyway yes it does! states that are more strongly conservative are growing more quickly!

g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

i mean shit, if yr political philosophy is based on the sanctity of family and economy, how surprised should your opponents really be when you turn out to have more kids and money than they do??

g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 21 January 2005 17:58 (twenty years ago)

G-ff, aren't modern people sort of programmed to reject their parents' politics?

So really, maybe things aren't so dire demographically. There's no guarantee that the children of all these red-staters will themselves turn out red.

The Mad Puffin, Friday, 21 January 2005 21:22 (twenty years ago)

This thread took a weird turn with the 'anger at college students' thing - because now it's bitterness on the part of people desiring more upper/upper-middle-class babies AND bitterness from the working-class, but the two are completely separate issues.

i find that, even now, a lot of people are resentful of kids who "get to" go to college. it's like "at age 18 i was out on my own and working three jobs! where's my parade??" like it's my fault my parents had a little cash to shell out so i could go to a state university in the middle of nowhere.

But these people may have a point. A lot of the 'Twixter' BS (as mentioned here or elsewhere) is simply middle-class younger people enjoying the fruits of a middle-class life, education and comfort. (Which is certainly fine and good.)
The world is different for people who couldn't go to college and the angst and aimlessness of the educated youth is difficult for them to understand. They don't have a BA to fall back on or the means to move from place to place on a whim, 'finding' themselves. If resentment exists, it's not really at you or college students, it's at the system that creates two classes of people (in this instance).
But we all grew up in America that doesn't believe in class, so it has to be expressed at individuals.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 21 January 2005 21:35 (twenty years ago)

is it any coincidence that AlexNYC, an employee of the magazine in question, has an adorable little baby?

I would like to think that if I worked for a magazine more suited to my sensibility that I would still have an adorable little baby, but hey,...that's just my take on it.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 22 January 2005 01:54 (twenty years ago)

Aw. Are there any more new photos or have I missed them?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 22 January 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

She's too old to spit up on the haterz, but I bet she could throw carrots in their eyes.

Curious George Rides a Republican (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 22 January 2005 02:09 (twenty years ago)

There are always new photos, but I'm behind on updating that particular thread.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 22 January 2005 02:18 (twenty years ago)

aren't modern people sort of programmed to reject their parents' politics?

I wish I could remember the thread where we talked about this before. I believe that it's no longer true, if it ever was.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Saturday, 22 January 2005 06:00 (twenty years ago)

??? witness ilm.

John (jdahlem), Saturday, 22 January 2005 06:04 (twenty years ago)

three years pass...

kudos to time magazine on this enduring coinage.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 9 March 2008 00:22 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.