I really like Thomas L. Friedman's columns in the New York Times, and this one was of interest as he labeled the nation's twentysomethings as Generation Q (for quiet).
I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.
* * *
But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.
* * *
America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.
Click here to read the full article. Yes, it seems that my generation (X) and the one that follows (Y) do not participate in activism as the Boomers did (with protests and rallies, etc.) Friedman acknowledges at the beginning of the article how the younger generations seem to just go out in the world and do things like build homes in third world countries, volunteer in AIDs clinics, etc. And, I agree with him that this is terrific. But, the point he is making is that unless you behave in a way that the people in power recognize, you cannot make changes.
My first reaction was "here we go, once again, the Boomers want us all to act exactly like they do." But, giving it a little more thought I realized that Friedman is right. Sometimes that's what we have to do to get their attention. The majority of Boomers don't understand the power of email campaigns and other online endeavors and therefore it doesn't register as a protest.
This reminded me of a dilemma I always face when I teach networking and suggest to women that even if you don't like sports, at least follow the status of the home teams. Or, if the men go golfing, learn to golf. Invariably, someone always challenges me with statements like: "isn't that selling out?" and "I'm not a man, why should I do something I don't want to do." My answer: Who has the power? If it's you, then fine, don't talk about or do anything you don't want to. You've earned that right. But, if you're trying to get the attention of someone in power (who has earned that right), then you have to approach them in a manner that they would recognize. In other words: You need to get their attention before you can change or influence their opinion.
In the past, I've defended my generation's lack of cohesiveness in the struggle to advance women in the workplace with the notion that we are doing it all individually on our own case-by-case basis. Based on Friedman's article, this might not be the best approach for future generations. While individuals among us may have success stories of getting flexible workhours, or snagging equal pay or that great promotion. But, are we focusing on the trees, while the people in power are looking at the whole forest? This individual approach may not be the best approach. After all, when a tree falls in the forest, if no one is around to notice, did it really even fall?








Dish delivery options
Subscribe to The WomensDISH by Email