The reaction really made me think about it as well, and I’m still thinking and examining my own motivations for it. Which is good.

I’m glad it made you think. And I’m especially glad it made you think something other than “Bill’s an asshole.”

I think there are at least two different levels on which this post has struck a chord for me: the level of policy decisions, and the level of cultural discourse. Judging from other comments, this has been true for many others, too. And I think a lot of the anger that has come out of this has been because of a conflation of the two.

I was born in 1976, and I have quite a bit of anger in me about having always lived in a culture that was defined by the concerns of the Baby Boom generation. Objectively, this is simply because people in my generation are outnumbered. But it’s really frustrating to feel that no matter what your age or accomplishments, you’ll always be relegated to the kids’ table. Sometimes I think that my generation’s concerns will never be considered “serious” or “important.” Whereas everything the Boomers ever did — OMG Vietnam! OMG retirement! — was hailed as a major cultural shift.

So I think a lot of the X-er’s — me included — who responded positively to this post were really feeling that. AND I think that a lot of the Boomers who responded negatively were feeling their privilege being questioned — “What do you mean our generation is self-centered?! How dare you?!” (Yes, I really do think that a lot of Boomers have an unexamined privilege in this regard. Not every single Boomer on the planet. Obviously.)

But one of the things that made this post really inflammatory was the conflation of political leadership with an entire generation — a generation whose demographic weight helped put those leaders in power. I know, Bill, you said above that you were using this as a rhetorical device. And clearly it’s a powerful one, based on the reactions you got.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that those of us who had hot, angry reactions to this post (one way or the other) were letting our feelings about cultural narratives overwhelm our rational thoughts about political realities. Which, given the style in which the post was written, isn’t surprising.

In spite of all this, I still think that you had a valid point to make, Bill. I hope that those whose emotions were aroused, like me, can still see the larger trend you were trying to point out. Please don’t give up on trying to express it.

Erm, Jill, I don’t know any blog that fights as hard for women’s – well, everyone’s – rights as hard as Shakesville does. And it is unquestionably pro-choice. Yes, people may be upset that Hilary didn’t win the nomination, but that’s making them fight harder.

write a bile-filled screed

And your response was what, exactly? It doesn’t exactly display the tolerance you claim to have. So, does one post erase a world of good? Did you even READ Bill’s letter upthread?

Being an activist and having to fight uphill battles doesn’t give you the right to lash out at everyone. By all means, be angry, but be civil, thoughtful and stop to listen. And yes, even if you think someone attacked you directly. If everyone keeps escalating, how will it all end?

You had every right to be upset with the post, no one is arguing that. But your extreme reaction indicates that this isn’t all about Bill or this post, though it clearly lit the fuse. With all due respect, maybe a lot of that rage needs to be taken to the places/people it belongs to.

Oh, teh irony … it burrrrnnnnnnssss!

you, [ma'am], have just proven that you are as much a bigot and an asshole as anyone on the right.

I am 53 years old. I am a baby boomer. I have been fighting the progressive battle since I was thirteen years old, stuffing envelopes and running the mimeograph machine in my solidly Republican town to get a progressive Democrat elected to Congress. And may I request of you, with all due respect, that you f— yourself.

Nice progressive you are, William, tarring an entire group — in this case a generation — with the same brush. Would you write a post like this about women, or about black people, or about immigrants? No, because it would be antithetical to the progressive notion of treating people like individuals. So what the hell makes you think it’s OK to treat baby boomers as if we were all George W. Bush clones?

I read the other blog for which you write, and I see a bunch of women spitting on the fight that women like me have waged for thirty years to keep a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body; to keep her from being treated as an empty vessel. They are spitting on us because they’re angry because a woman — a baby boomer woman, I might add — didn’t get the nomination. And now you have the fucking nerve to write a bile-filled screed that would be anathema to the notion of being a progressive blogger if it were written about any other group.

You know what? I’m out of work. I’m 53 and trying to find a job. I know you think I should just go away and fucking die, but I’m not going to. I’m going to live just to spite people like you. But I’ll tell you this much: I’m not fighting your battles any more while you call yourself a fucking progressive and resort to tarring members of a group with the same brush. To the extent that I continue to fight the good fight, it’s for the children of my friends, who are going to have to live in the world we’re going to get under McCain/Palin because a bunch of spoiled brats didn’t get the nominee they wanted.

I’ve linked to your posts in the past, but no more. Because you, sir, have just proven that you are as much a bigot and an asshole as anyone on the right.

Good day, sir.

Christina: Any -ism is about the powerful majority discriminating against the less powerful minority. Are we really arguing that Baby Boomers are a less powerful minority in the US?

I’m arguing that “Baby Boomers” are just another rhetorical big lie created primarily to promote the myth of a generational consensus. And that lie should be challenged whenever it is invoked.

Christina: This? This is criticizing a powerful majority in our society. Oh, and as for classist, racist and sexist, it is because the experience of Baby Boomers was/is classist, racist and sexist. Powerful majority, remember?

Is it really? The statistical reality is that a majority of that group is the target of at least one form of oppression within American culture. So exactly who is that powerful majority that you speak of? Is it women over the age of 50? Ethnic minorities over the age of 50? People living at or below the poverty line over the age of 50? Homeless over the age of 50?

Christina: Now, that’s insulting and intellectually dishonest. My mother is facing multiple disabilities… So, yeah, hearing Bob Dylan on the radio as a backdrop to all the self-congratulatory back patting about what a great and selfless generation the Baby Boomers are/were (99% of the time a Baby Boomer saying it) makes me twitch a bit, too.

Um, hello? Who is creating that mythology and for what end?

That’s really the problem here. People are repeating the propaganda and not bothering to really take a hard LOOK at it, and wonder whether the almost exclusive white, upper-middle class, masculine and heterosexual myth of the Baby Boomer who changed the world really matches the socio-economic reality?

And insulting? Well tough. The shallow pettiness of people who complain about Dylan and structure their critiques around ignorant parroting of generational propaganda should be mocked until they figure out that the problems of SES, racism and gender do not have generational barriers or markers.

PhoenixRising: How about you take charge of shutting down the self-congratulatory rhetoric and back-patting about how utterly transformational the Largest Generation has been to every institution in our society, and then those of us who are stuck with the bills will waive our right to complain?

Well, the backpatting may be a bit extreme. But the activists who came before me DID make some huge transformations in our society. The state of queer rights and feminism is the way it is because of activists who pushed for changes in law and employment practice. Criticisms of malfeasance by the Bush Administration are direct descendants of Watergate and Iran-Contra.

But, do you buy the claim that Coke is “The Real Thing,” or that Nike shoes will improve your athletic performance? Or perhaps most importantly, do you buy the notion that “Leave it to Beaver” really reflected family life in the 50s?

These generational myths are marketing. And while those marketing efforts may appropriate nice and safe aspects of environmentalism, feminism, queer liberation, and economic justice, they exist to support the status quo.

But a critical look at these myths should demonstrate that they are transparent myths. A majority of people over the age of 55 are the target of at least one form of oppression, and millions are the target of multiple oppressions. A significant plurality of Americans opposed WWII before Pearl Harbor. High Fidelity, a film where three white guys talk about music, isn’t representative of a multi-ethnic Generation X.

[Bill, I would say the huge difference between this post and your others that employ unintentional hyperbole is "we" vs. "you."]

THAT is very perceptive and definitely worth bearing in mind for future posts. Qualifiers can make a world of difference. xx

I first read this at Shakesville, but was at work, so didn’t have time to comment. By the time I did have time to comment, the post had been
removed and there were 300 comments on the thread.

I’m a 1968 baby, so early end of Gen X. I felt winded after reading your post, but thought, “Ok, I’ll leave it to percolate.” My second thought was that it was well-written and very powerful. My third – after quite a while – was, “Ok, Irim, this is Bill, and he’s not a tosser, so he’s not being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Is he angry? Being provocative? What does he need our help to think through?”

I could feel the frustration (and heartache, as one perceptive Shaker said) turned to anger through it. When ahazydelirium said, “while it’s foolish to make generalizations based on arbitrarily constructed generations, it is possible to discern within those constructs dominant cultural trends that affect many people across class, gender, age and status,” I thought, “That’s it, that’s what Bill was referring to.”

A few things:

1. We all stand on the shoulders of those before us and within the milieu we’re born into – our choices only have degrees of freedom, not complete freedom. Your post seemed to treat the Baby Boomers as if they had been born into a vacuum, not quite attached to those who came before them, after them or to the culture they were born into: a culture with a lot of promise, but also segregated and stultifying in many ways.

2. In the last century, the pace of change has accelerated – think of how 15 years ago, CERN was probably the only place that had something resembling the internet. That means that people are often REacting, rather than acting, and I suspect the baby boomers were the first generation to really have to deal with that (and think of all the things they’ve contributed). We’re light-years behind when it comes to grappling with issue thrown up by recent technology/changes because thinking things through takes *time*. That’s not anyone’s fault. This will be a simplistic example, but think of cleaning out your room and the stage where it’s all chaos before there’s order again. I suspect a number of systems work like that.

3. I suspect you might agree with me that the real decline came with Reagan and Thatcher (her infamous quote, “There is no society, just an aggregate of individuals” expresses the 80s theme of selfishness perfectly). Born 1911 and 1925, respectively.

Having said that, I really appreciated being challenged – but it was easier for me to step back, since I’m not a Baby Boomer, and I can understand why others were hurt and offended. I just wish they’d been able to stop and say, “Wait, this is Bill, he wouldn’t mean to hurt me.”

[I understand I can often come off as impersonal, but a situation like this does leave me with a fairly condensed ball in the pit of my stomach. I never strive to offend, and feel very bad when I do.]

((((Bill))))

You strike me as someone who might come across as impersonal because you care so much? You’re a wonderful writer with huge passion and loads of integrity. If we’re ever in the same neck of the woods, I’d love to have a drink with you at a real pub.

Irim xx

I had a hunch that was you.

Yes, but this is an artsy fartsy fancy writing way of saying something else.

Saying ‘you’ is not meant as ‘you’ plural, but rather a personification of what has transpired in our country since the baby boomers came of age.

Or at least that’s how I read it.

Anyway, Bill can get ‘out there’ sometimes, and I can see where it could offend some, but shit, we need to be offended occasionally, it challenges the way we look at stuff.

I don’t agree with Bill on everything myself. I am a southern baptist (being born again is great, and a lot less messy than the first time) and have a little social conservatism in my bag of tricks (it’s a wonderful bag, with a leather strap and a pocket book).

But even when I don’t agree with him I just take his opinion for what it’s worth and click on some of his adsense adverts. (But only when it is something I am genuinely interested in. *cough*)

By the way, I wasn’t born until 1977. But I’m offended on behalf of my parents and so many others of this generation who have never voted for a Republican in their lives, nor fit anything remotely resembling a “yuppie”. Personally, I have take far more issue with many people of “the greatest generation” who spew racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks.

Anyway, it is many of the people born prior to the Baby Boom (e.g., Dick Cheney and his crowd) that are actually responsible for problems and attitudes you describe.

Hmmm. “Generation” is defined by “age.”

So some took this to be a swipe at ‘all’ members of the baby boom generation and not at the the general trend of American history and policy brought about under their watch?

Because that’s not what the post said. The post said “You, you, you, you, YOU, you, you.”

Re: the “thanks for the chemo” comment, whichever asshole said it: Since about a dozen of my friends who would have DIED 20 years ago are now alive because of advances made in treating cancer: fuck you.