The point of the article seemed to try to draw attention to how our generation is screwed. Sure, there's alot of truth in that. But using a failed poetry writer as your example of the hard-working-but-unfortunate-millenial is pretty dumb.
I would say that FGM is immoral certainly in our culture, given what we know. Now, I don't know about what they know in cultures where they practice it. I would assume they know enough to know it's immoral there, as well.
Then again, many people think male cir cision is immoral too. I don't, but some do and I don't fault them for it.
I'm not sure how you're linking this with the "might makes right" but I'm listening.
I think the article would've been much more effective by using a person with an engineering degree as an example.
The idea of the immorality of male cir cision is based on the exact same reason as that of FGM. (though wow, what a Freakin tangent)
I believe there are some actual medical benefits to male cir cision contra female, but I could be wrong about that.
There are both benefits and risks (very small percentage and mostly related to how well you can teach your kid to take a bath), but they have basically the same overall effect (reducing sexual sensitivity).
Thanks for the info. Most of the stories I've heard related to female cir cision involved some pretty horrific settings.
That is NOT the point of the article. The point of the article is right there in the le.
In fact, the point of the article is the exact opposite of that; that we are NOT screwed.
Oh, well as far as FGM is concerned, I believe there are greater risks involved, but who knows, that may be due to the setting in which it is done.
I was talking about male cir cision there are both risks and benefits....
Agreed, but the overall message was one of hope (at least that's what I drew from it). I think in that context the kids who would feel the most hopeless would benefit from having some examples to identify with.
Mostly hygienic, but yes.......
I didn't really get that from the article. I got that we ARE screwed compared to earlier generations, but that it's ok, because we're finding ways to cope with less resources/opportunity.
Edit: Manny, read the line RIGHT UNDERNEATH the le:
My screwed, coddled, self-absorbed, mocked, surprisingly resilient generation.
That's rhetorical use of irony, IMO. Reread the last 2 pages and tell me the author is trying to say we're screwed.
Lets clarify what you mean by "we're screwed". I take that to be a completely hopeless position. I do think the article makes it a point to show that things are bad to a degree that we've not seen in a long time but definitely not hopeless by any means.
I have no sympathy for kids like the hipster girl with the ed haircut and her "fashion degree, or the dumbass "2deep4U" Street Performer.
One of the important points in the article was how today's younger generation was essentially made into self-absorbed narcissists by parents who told them all throughout their formative years they were "special," "unique," "talented," "creative," and that if they (the children) nurtured and pursued whatever area of interest they were passionate about, they would inevitably be rewarded with success. This led to too many kids chasing pipedreams, getting degrees in "useless fields" like literature, creative writing, art, film theory, etc, with the belief they would someday write the great American novel or be the next Spielberg. After all, their parents told them it would happen if "you just put your mind to it."
I don't blame the Boomers for the false hope and delusions of grandeur they instilled in their children. After being reared themselves by cynical World War II vets raised during the Great Depression, it was only a natural response to fill your child with as much optimism as possible. Nor do I blame the kids for eating up the bull they were told by their parents. It simply is what it is. A natural progression of things given the cir stances. Furthermore, the Boomers, who were the first American generation to really build their cultural iden y around the artistic, didn't want their kids working the same mind numbing, monotonous factory or office jobs. They wanted their kids to be the rock star, author, filmmaker, professional athlete, and did everything - from reading to their kid while it was still in the womb, to piano lessons at age three, to signing their kid up for every youth league they could find - to try to make it into a reality. But what happened, as the article points out, is the Boomers created a generation with unrealistic expectations and one ill-equipped to handle dog-eat-dog compe ion and failure. (Disclaimer: I'm only speaking "generally." Obviously, not every 20-35 year old fits the profile, but from my experience, a large majority do. For the record, I'm 31.)
And on a more practical level, one of the major reasons there's a lack of jobs is because most of the domestic manufacturing base moved overseas.
Much like the rhetoric coming from folks who oppose the movement: "Just look for a job instead of voicing your opinion about your situation. It will all work out just keep trying."
They're getting more of the same except this time, the fairies are fresh out of magic job dust.
You're right. By and large they should not have listened to the stupid their parents told them.
Oh and to call the WW2 generation cynical when you look at their projects and vision for the future is laughable. Its always from the boomer generation that i hear 'you lose your ideals when you grow up.'
Maybe a better word for the mindset of the World War II generation would be "ultra-realistic."
If a 12 year old kid came to his father in 1956 and said, "I'm gonna be the next Mickey Mantle," Pa would've had a long talk with the kid about how that's probably not going to happen.
Now if that same situation happened in 1992, Dad would've replied, "We'll find you the best coach money can buy."
And just because the World War II generation had an optimistic forecast of the future with regards to technology (aside from the threat of nuclear annihilation) doesn't mean their outlook was unrealistic. There's a difference between having realistic optimism and being outright deluded. Also, that was mostly the mentality of scientists and academics. Your average Joe farmer in the Midwest had a much different world view.
The Boomer generation might say that now, but they weren't saying that in 70s and 80s.
Ironic, isn't it?
Anyhow, I think what bothers most people about the article, myself included, is when the complaints are coming from middle/upper class kids who decided to get their degree in something like poetry or creative writing, then mope about how they can't find a job and are 30K in debt with student loans. It comes across as insincere emo posturing instead of a genuine display of hardship. What they didn't understand, or were never told, is that degrees don't mean in those industries. It's about your work. A publisher doesn't give a about your MFA in Creative Writing.
Now the kids with medical, engineering, and business degrees who can't find a job are the ones who should be felt sorry for. Not the sticks who thought by virtue of getting a degree in fashion automatically guarantees you a job with Gucci.
Yes, it's deliciously ironic at that.
Lol this got. I just had to find out who he was. From his website:
Once a- ing-gain...
Theyre confused?! I am ing confused by their confusion.
"Afterwards, when I hear the inevitable daily “OK, what does it Mean?” I usually first ask them what they think, and sometimes get to hear everybody’s exciting narratives of linearized plots, and then I tell them I’m interested in semiotic collaging, the rearranging of culturally meaning-charged objects, or of breaking down the mediums of social normal. “What are you doing?” is my most commonly asked question, and the one I am still least able to respond in kind to. That is to say, I can Begin, but I must begin by opening a smaller door. I want to reiterate as a prelude that this layer is exclusively concerned with structure and inherencies, and not content.
I have a little suitcase filled with puppets and things with a chalkboard on it and I wear little constumes and write and draw on the chalkboard and create little bio-machinistic scenes with the contents of the case and put it live to a kind of modal soundtrack as I move around.
Is it that I “Do” non-narrative performance puppet shows using a bricolage of garbage objects, broken dolls and animal parts to approximate the false semblance of a miniature novela? Do the little bodies who hang from my hands represent the impossible actions I can never approach, a mimicked reproduction of my own little activities, the Aboriginal Dreaming, a ritualed precaution against “art-criticism”, can their bodies point to my body, or the bodies of the audience? Instead of story, does it fall to mood-ing? Emotional suggestion or representation? It was recently levelled that the action was indeed the evocation of mood-telling, and that it ushered a strange ominous captivity over its space because of that. ”Is that Voodoo? Can you kill those three white people magic?” It is hard to remember that all writing must be neither exhaustive nor a litany of superficial possibilities."
http://enormousface.com/blog/
Capitalism sucks because no one will pay me to do that hasn't been relevant in art or media since Marcel DuChamp decided to forego his art and take up chess.
Lol at "semiotic collaging." Wow, you re-contextualize stuff! How in' original! Give this a man a Guggenheim Fellowship post-haste!
Eh, I take "screwed" to mean "much worse in comparison" as well. Not exactly hopeless, but certainly limited in options.
"hopeless" for many years to come, at least for the 99%ers.
For real household income and jobs, 2010s to be yet another Lost Decade, like the Repugs' 2000s.
25% unemployment rate for the 18-25 range
Another million homes foreclosed in 2011. 8+ months inventory of homes. A huge glut of REO kept off the market by the banks.
Repeat as far as anyone can see.
=========
New 2010 census data released Thursday show the wrenching impact of a recession that officially ended in mid-2009. There are missed opportunities and dim prospects for a generation of mostly 20-somethings and 30-somethings coming of age in a prolonged period of joblessness.
"We have a monster jobs problem, and young people are the biggest losers," said Andrew Sum, an economist and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. He noted that for recent college graduates getting by on waitressing, bartending and odd jobs, they will have to compete with new graduates for entry-level career positions when the job market does improve.
"Their really high levels of underemployment and unemployment will haunt young people for at least another decade," Sum said.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...t_8696311.html
============
But "It's All the 99%ers Fault", NOT the fault of UCA or the 1% Banksters Great (Jobs) Depression
Yup but for some reason, those sticks are the only people the conservatives on this board pay attention to. Those upperclass up kids have it bad and deserve it, no arguing that, but it's not all of their fault. Many of their parents only needed to network themselves a job with no college degree and instilled that en lement gimmick into them. They now complain about that well deserved C in Art history like it's a court case and then argue to the same bull en lement effect on everything else.
Yes, it's deliciously ironic at that.
I had a few tours in Afghanistan with the Army + contractor and in between that got educated to the tune of 2 doctorates in Engineering and Physics. But If I decide to do a standard job search at my young age, I'll get the "need more experience" gimmick. Thankfully, I have mastered the art of being an independent contractor at my age.
Most of the decent jobs with family building potential I see require 7-10 years of experience. You won't find many in their 20's and early 30's after college with that much experience
I know several other of my peers in that situation.
I think it's because people with a "liberal arts" degree typically tend to be the loudest and whiniest voice. People with engineering degrees and the like are less prone to emo outbursts, primarily because their worldview is less idealized than that of their artistic counterpart. Their expectations are grounded in reality for the most part, whereas the creative writing major entertains himself with visions of being the next great novelist. And then when they give up on that dream because they realize it's hard in' work that also requires a near superhuman amount of talent, they scale back their ambitions and look for a job as an editor at some literary magazine, only to find themselves standing in line behind others exactly like them, with the same degree, resume, and talents. Next thing you know, they're occupying Wall Street and lamenting about how there isn't any jobs.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 10-21-2011 at 05:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
