Talking ‘Bout my Generation
A nasty attack on baby boomers proves ageism is alive and well.
Photo by Getty Images for Unsplash+
I was surprised to learn recently from The Economist that you and I and all our peers are responsible for the ills of our troubled world. The article, written anonymously, is titled “Why People Over the age of 55 are the New Problem Generation,” with the subhead “Baby-boomers are keeping their bad habits into retirement.” Its premise is that we as a generation are still drinking, drugging, and spreading venereal diseases, despite being in our dotage. It implies that we also should turn down that blasted music!
It's a fascinating generalization. After opening with a juicy anecdote set in America’s most typical retirement community – Latitude Margaritaville – the unknown author hurls out statistics proving that in wealthy countries around the globe, baby boomers are increasing their alcohol use, increasing their cannabis use, and changing marital partners more frequently than other demographic groups. The broad-brush generalization concludes with the observation that “the generations now ageing disgracefully were disgraceful in youth, and in middle age.”
Oh, dear heavens! One might well wonder what the author considers “graceful” behavior. Apparently we are irredeemable ruffians who never have and never will comport with musty Victorian standards of polite social etiquette.
If that is the standard against which we are falling short, I for one am happy to plead guilty. I respect Victorian architecture but never did think much of the social conventions.
The editors at The Economist received so many responses to the article that they ran a follow-up article two weeks later publishing some of them. But of course, the editors put their thumb on the scale by headlining the follow-up, “What Do You Think of Misbehaving Boomers?” I would share some of those comments, but I couldn’t read the piece unless I first purchased a subscription, which I was not inclined to do.
I did, however, see some of the responses on LinkedIn and Facebook. The upshot of the comments was that, aside from the blatant ageism, the transparent disdain for baby boomers en masse, the sloppy logic, and the broad overgeneralization, the article was a load of crap.
The responses on social media fell into several themes:
We’ve earned the right to play.
“Enjoying maybe the last decade of our lives – what seems to be the problem here?”
“No matter what the generation, if you’ve worked hard all your adult life, you deserve to do what you feel like doing during retirement.”
“If my boomer parents want to party, so be it. Let them enjoy life and go out smiling.”
“Aging doesn’t mean you should go to a monastery.”
The article is based only on generalizations.
“Labeling an entire age group as a ‘problem generation’ overlooks the experience, resilience, and wisdom we bring to society.”
“Too many meaningless labels and shallow generalizations have been produced by the mass media.”
“This article just irritates me. It’s full of generalizations.”
“Maybe we need to judge people as individuals based on their own actions rather than ascribing to them the supposed flaws of an entire generation.”
You just hate boomers.
“You can’t offend anyone these days or you’ll get your head bitten off. Yet the younger generations seem to think it’s okay to bash boomers!”
“When we were young ‘the youth of today’ was blamed for everything. Now we’re old and we are still blamed for everything.”
Readers were also quick to note that the anonymous writer did not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The article takes aim at adults between ages 55 and 75. The youngest members of the baby boom are 61 this year, so a healthy swath of “Generation X” were swept up in the elder roundup, and judging by the responses, they are not pleased. Nor are boomers.
The most frequent epithet was “clickbait.” If I were the editors of The Economist, I would find that comment offensive, the moreso because it is right on target. You expect this sort of nonsense in a social media feed. When it comes from a respectable mainstream publication such as The Economist, it is disappointing, to put it mildly. If the editors are content denigrating an entire generation for failing to adhere to their exacting standards of behavior, then we are justified in calling out The Economist for its ageist bias, inaccurate reporting, fuzzy logic, and dubious moral character. In a world already rife with conflict, the editors of The Economist should be held accountable for attempting to add intergenerational warfare to the conflagration.
My first thought was to click for the trial subscription, but of course I would forget to cancel and get charged the full subscription price. Second thought, go to the library, but it's closed today (Sunday). Final thought: Wikipedia for a refresher on The Economist, where I learned "Individual articles are written anonymously, with no byline, in order for the paper to speak as one collective voice."
Because several people have commented on the anonymity of the author (and it surprises me, too), was it perhaps an editorial opinion of the paper? I know you know the difference between an op-ed and the editorial board, but the context of where you read it wasn't clear--sometimes articles online aren't well-identified. Not that who the author is excuses the stupidity of the content--just curious.