Now that you bring it up...

Marilyn Elias has an article in today's USA Today highlighting the results of a study about life expectations of Gen Y/Millenials vs Boomers.

The results are interesting - GenY/Millenials (compromising 18-30 year olds) except to be great at marriage, work, and school at a rate much higher than their parents. Of course, the article is full of the usual blather about the spoiled obnoxious generation "these days." I'd like to take a moment and remind folks that the Gen Y / Millenials have Boomers for parents. So don't act like "these kids" just fell out of the sky.

Beyond that, the conditions for a senior graduating from high school in 1975 are radically different from someone graduating in 2009. Ok, so they both lived through the disgrace of a sitting president. And although there were difficult economic conditions in both eras, I think for kids whose growing up years were the peaceful prosperous 90s, the current world situation is a anomaly. Perhaps for those graduating in 1975, the bad conditions were the latest in a long series of difficult post-WWII-Cold War-Vietnam-energy crisis-did-I-mention-the-Cold-War bad events.

Does the high school graduate's template for viewing the world have more to do with upbringing (ie: worldview from parents) or with world circumstances?

Well, he's terribly annoying...

After the state of Nebraska passed a safe-haven law for the purpose of protecting mothers who wished to anonymously leave their infants at hospitals, people were surprised to see this result.

Three quick things...

A of all) What lawyer forgot to put an age limit on this thing?

B of all) Ok, I can't really blame him/her for that...who'd think someone would equate leaving an 18-minute old and an 18-year old on the hospital's front door?

C of all) Is this the natural progression of a culture that views children, not as individual lives to be protected, nurtured, and guided, but as inconvenient and (when possible) disposable things?

Always a choice?

Sharon Jayson of USA Today has an interesting piece analyzing the pros and cons of earlier vs later marriage. Median age for first marriage is almost at 26 for women, and almost 28 for men. This represents an almost 5 year gain (for both genders) in that median since the early 1960s. Jayson points to the desire for personal development, economic stability /career advancement as reasons for the shift.

I have no issues with the statistics; I have a bit of an issue with the tone. The article seems to indicate that people are consciously choosing to get married at a later age. What if that is not the case, and people are either unable, unwilling, or unprepared to put themselves in places of meeting the marriagable sort? What if the equation is backwards...it's not that people are waiting, it's that no one is sure where or how to find the sort of people they want to marry?

Perhaps the 20-somethings of the Odyssey generation cohort are adept at finding hookup "partners" but not so skilled at finding life partners?

Thanks, but no thanks.

The single-motherhood-by-choice thing is an increasingly popular route for many women. As much as I would like to sympathize with women who desire to be moms, it gets a bit difficult with provocation such as this:
Regardless of Ms. Sloan's personal journey, the entire concept seems, to me, to be lacking some key elements, such as the je-ne-sais-quoi of an involved, committed and responsible father, perhaps?

Check out Ms. Sloan's take on the whole father thing in the section under "What About Dads?" There is a sort of underlying hypocrisy in this concept. It seems to say: "I (selfishly) want a child so that I can love them (unselfishly)." In a sense, I think it is a reflection of our humanness to desire something greater and longer-lasting (ie: the legacy of children) than seek our own happiness.

Yet children cannot and will not be that Greater Longer Lasting Thing.

A la Dickens

Great piece on NPR this morning about the expectations folks have for the newly-minted President-elect. I think there are 3 likely paths for this:

1. People forget their expectations and are happy with his performance.
2. The press tells people that their expectations are actually in line with what Obama does, and people are happy.
   
3. People remember their expectations, and hold him accountable for not meeting them, and are unhappy with his performance.

At this point, I think any one of those options is equally viable.