Demosophia

Age and sexual orientation are different in that the latter depends, at least in part, on behavior. (Even if one subscribes to the idea that people are "born gay" or are "gay, inside", it seems to me that if a "born gay" person never actually engages or even attempts anything other than heterosexual sex, it wouldn't make much sense to call him "gay".) In that sense it's actually *more* valid to stereotype by sexual-orientation than it is to stereotype by age-category.

That said, people have been stereotyping by age-category for as long as I can remember, and not only about "boomers". It is not inherently invalid to draw broad, *general* conclusions about the group of people in the "baby boomer" or "X" generation or any other, because at least to some extent they (by definition) were reared and grew up having various identifiable shared experiences in common, and in a society with certain social mores and assumptions (which may have changed since then). In the case of baby boomers, they were "the first generation of kids who watched TV", etc.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that the extrapolations made about the '50s-something guys at that bar to "boomers" were correct.

On the other other hand, the story Sullivan's reader recounts has the girl in response speaking of "'60s sensibilities", and the 50s-something guys *defending* (and, implicitly identifying with) those sensibilities (whatever they are - is there no such thing?), and then making a few stereotypical characterizations of their own towards her. One presumes that all participants in this conversation, the email-writer, Andrew Sullivan, and many if not most of Andrew Sullivan's readers (and detractors), knew what they were talking about by use of those generalizations, which strikes me as at least a weak indication that a real phenomenon does actually underlie the "'60s sensibilities" stereotype, even if it doesn't apply to George W. Bush in particular.

So what's my point? Uh... I dunno. :-)

Blixa:

So what's my point? Uh... I dunno. :-)

I think one can make valid generalizations, and I have even made a number of comments myself about people like Joe Klien being stuck in a 1960s attitude, almost as a form of nostalgia, but none of that really excuses the phrase "boomer idiocy" and what it implies. I could easily typify that sort of thing as "Gen-Xer Superficial Superiority," but I think that aside from the fact that it's a flawed generalization, it also rather stupidly ignores the fact that if the "boomers" were not overwhelmingly convinced of the rightness of the Bush stance on foreign policy, and the "war on terrorism," it would be getting precisely nowhere.

The Gen-Xers are not yet in the driver's seat. And if this sort of thing is at all typical, they may have some growing up to do. By the way, this isn't the first time Sullivan has made this sort of stupid comment.

For the record:

I see your point, I would prefer "60s sensibilities" to "boomer idiocy" myself. Only *some* "60s sensibilities" were idiotic :)

Also, probably the most valid criticism, which you touch on, is: the fact that one can identify idiotic 60s sensibilities does not make gen-X sensibilities, whatever they may be, any less idiotic. They may simply be idiotic in different ways. Best,

Andrew forgets that gay liberation came out of the 60s, as a result of the civil rights movement and ideology spreading to women and gays.

Search Engine Optimization