Stop calling Gen X people "Boomers"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stop. You sound even more ignorant than you are.

-old man yells at cloud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X is usually defined as 1965-1980.

I would run it from 1960 to 1980. I was always told that to be a Boomer you had to have been old enough to be drafted for Vietnam if you were male. So, really, Boomers stop a few years before 1960.

People born in the late 50s and early 60s did not have a lot of the shared experiences that marked boomers.

Agree. My mom was born in 1957 and she always said she never felt anything in common with boomers.

I agree. I am not a boomer for this reason, also. Absolutely nothing in common. Having said that, all the shade millennials throw at boomers is inaccurate. They still have the wrong generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X is usually defined as 1965-1980.

I would run it from 1960 to 1980. I was always told that to be a Boomer you had to have been old enough to be drafted for Vietnam if you were male. So, really, Boomers stop a few years before 1960.

People born in the late 50s and early 60s did not have a lot of the shared experiences that marked boomers.

Agree. My mom was born in 1957 and she always said she never felt anything in common with boomers.

I agree. I am not a boomer for this reason, also. Absolutely nothing in common. Having said that, all the shade millennials throw at boomers is inaccurate. They still have the wrong generation.

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X is usually defined as 1965-1980.

I would run it from 1960 to 1980. I was always told that to be a Boomer you had to have been old enough to be drafted for Vietnam if you were male. So, really, Boomers stop a few years before 1960.

People born in the late 50s and early 60s did not have a lot of the shared experiences that marked boomers.

Agree. My mom was born in 1957 and she always said she never felt anything in common with boomers.

I agree. I am not a boomer for this reason, also. Absolutely nothing in common. Having said that, all the shade millennials throw at boomers is inaccurate. They still have the wrong generation.

Which generation should they throw shade at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these the same young women wasting their prime high, tight a$$ years wearing frumpy, baggy jeans?

If so, bwahahahahaha. Morons.

At least when I look back on my photos of me in my 20s during my prime bangin' body years, I'm wearing jeans like this



instead of this...

I remember wearing outfits similar to the second photo in middle school, except our jeans were more fitted.

But let’s get real, every generation today is heavier than their counterparts from 20 years ago. Too many of today’s 20-something couldn’t fit into our jeans from our 20s and really shouldn’t try.

Huh. I'm Gen X and in my early twenties, jeans like the girl is wearing in the bottom pic were in style. The low-rise trend didn't hit until I was late twenties/early 30s. Bottom look is way more flattering.

[Anonymous]

PP here, maybe not way more flattering (I actually don'd find either look super-flattering, but just a little less vulgar and easier to wear.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just stop. You sound even more ignorant than you are.

K boomer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here, maybe not way more flattering (I actually don'd find either look super-flattering, but just a little less vulgar and easier to wear.)

I agree. The low rise jeans basically creates a muffin top on anyone over 100 pounds. It’s a very restrictive look and your butt crack is exposed if you so much as lean to the side. Even on the super skinny girl in the photo it’s a bit awkward. The baggy jeans go a little too far in the opposite direction, but I would prefer it to low rise jeans any day and at any age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I explain to my kids that boomers have the big pensions and wildly inflated home equity. And they think they succeeded when they just worked regular jobs.

I’m in my 50s and don’t have a pension. I only know one of my friends who has a pension and she worked for a Japanese company. For many boomers pensions just aren’t a thing.

Home equity has inflated dramatically the last couple of years. That’s not limited to boomers at all.

Maybe consider explaining to your kids that stereotypes aren’t always helpful or accurate.

If you’re in your 50s you’re Gen X. But look around at your friends’ parents if not your own. They are the ones who have the houses in Avalon New Jersey or Rehoboth paid off and big pensions from being in sales at IBM or the like. College was affordable and they worked jobs like lifeguarding to pay for it. Sure there’s poor Boomers. But the whole point of these labels is to show trends. Boomers that are discussed here do have the big pensions from jobs that required only a four year degree from a state school and real estate was cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I explain to my kids that boomers have the big pensions and wildly inflated home equity. And they think they succeeded when they just worked regular jobs.

I’m in my 50s and don’t have a pension. I only know one of my friends who has a pension and she worked for a Japanese company. For many boomers pensions just aren’t a thing.

Home equity has inflated dramatically the last couple of years. That’s not limited to boomers at all.

Maybe consider explaining to your kids that stereotypes aren’t always helpful or accurate.

If you’re in your 50s you’re Gen X. But look around at your friends’ parents if not your own. They are the ones who have the houses in Avalon New Jersey or Rehoboth paid off and big pensions from being in sales at IBM or the like. College was affordable and they worked jobs like lifeguarding to pay for it. Sure there’s poor Boomers. But the whole point of these labels is to show trends. Boomers that are discussed here do have the big pensions from jobs that required only a four year degree from a state school and real estate was cheap.

Yep. They also had SAHM’s with dads who had “normal” jobs. And the dads got to stay at their jobs most if not all of their careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X is usually defined as 1965-1980.

I would run it from 1960 to 1980. I was always told that to be a Boomer you had to have been old enough to be drafted for Vietnam if you were male. So, really, Boomers stop a few years before 1960.

People born in the late 50s and early 60s did not have a lot of the shared experiences that marked boomers.

Agree. My mom was born in 1957 and she always said she never felt anything in common with boomers.

I was born in 78 so I'm Gen X but I don't feel that I have anything in common with someone born in 1957, either. The late 70's is definitely a micro-generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I explain to my kids that boomers have the big pensions and wildly inflated home equity. And they think they succeeded when they just worked regular jobs.

I’m in my 50s and don’t have a pension. I only know one of my friends who has a pension and she worked for a Japanese company. For many boomers pensions just aren’t a thing.

Home equity has inflated dramatically the last couple of years. That’s not limited to boomers at all.

Maybe consider explaining to your kids that stereotypes aren’t always helpful or accurate.

If you’re in your 50s you’re Gen X. But look around at your friends’ parents if not your own. They are the ones who have the houses in Avalon New Jersey or Rehoboth paid off and big pensions from being in sales at IBM or the like. College was affordable and they worked jobs like lifeguarding to pay for it. Sure there’s poor Boomers. But the whole point of these labels is to show trends. Boomers that are discussed here do have the big pensions from jobs that required only a four year degree from a state school and real estate was cheap.

Also, with respect to your discussion concerning stereotypes, the whole point of this thread is about generational stereotypes. So maybe you should sit this one out.

Moreover, if you’re in your fifties of course you are unlikely to have a pension. As a Gen Xer, you likely have a 401(k) and paid close to a million dollars for a red brick small colonial in Arlington that the boomers picked up in the 70s for around 100k.

[Anonymous]

I just started reading Why We Can’t Sleep, a book about female GenXers. The first thing it does is talk about how we are forgotten between the boomers and millennials.

[Anonymous]

Gen Y and Z has the worst music, and all their fashion is a rip off of other eras -- and frumpy. Their whole generation is having an identity crisis. Instead of just being defiant and rebelling, they. are conflicted and self-harming and changing pronouns. Wah. So lame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen X is usually defined as 1965-1980.

I would run it from 1960 to 1980. I was always told that to be a Boomer you had to have been old enough to be drafted for Vietnam if you were male. So, really, Boomers stop a few years before 1960.

People born in the late 50s and early 60s did not have a lot of the shared experiences that marked boomers.

Agree. My mom was born in 1957 and she always said she never felt anything in common with boomers.

I was born in 78 so I'm Gen X but I don't feel that I have anything in common with someone born in 1957, either. The late 70's is definitely a micro-generation.

Agree. I’m 1980 and my mom was 1957. We are definitely not the same generation, but I think most of the generalization is silly anyway. I did read that article about the “Oregon Trail Generation” and that resonated with me the most. But I still think labeling fake generations is silly. They’ve supposedly split the next generation between my two kids born in 2008 and 2011. My kids are growing up in a pretty identical way. But they are a different generation because some website says so?