Those are the last few sentences of "Paying More Attention to His Appearance Than Hers/They’re the same age, but pundits and voters can’t stop talking about how much older Tim Walz looks than Kamala Harris. It’s not the only way her running mate seems to be absorbing some of the scrutiny usually heaped on female candidates" by Rhonda Garelick in the NYT.
That's from August 12th. I was looking for something else when I ran into that, and I got engrossed.
The idea of wearing one's gender lightly intrigues me.
What was I actually looking for? I was thinking about the time President Bill Clinton, running for reelection, wanted to use federal spending to incentivize public schools to require their students to wear uniforms.
My search terms — Clinton, school, and uniform — all came up in that Harris/Walz article:
... Hillary Clinton... came to prominence as first lady, as a “wife,” and was assailed for her hair and style, her presumed disrespect for “cookie baking” and for tolerating her husband’s transgressions.
... Elizabeth Warren, a former Harvard law professor, was called “a hectoring schoolmarm” for offering expert policy explanations, and advised to change her glasses and hair.
... Ms. Harris hews generally toward a sleek uniform of pantsuit, silk blouse, pearls and heels, which “suggest fashion without being too fashionable”...
পোস্টগুলি
৭১টি মন্তব্য:
So was sarah palin who is worth 100 of them
Don't forget Bill Clinton's "devil in a blue dress" uniform. Talk about wearing your gender lightly!
The only thing Tim Walz hasn't lied about is his age.
Only because even he knew he could never get away with it.
I think Harris wears a prosecutor’s uniform. I know she’s trying to brand herself that way now, but she’s been dressing like that since she came into the national spotlight, at least.
Is Rhonda garelick any kin to Jamie Garelick?
Tenured professor and "She is a scholar of performance, fashion, literature, visual arts, and cultural politics.[1]" at u Nebraska Lincoln.
I
I'm sure female candidates have it tough, but in fairness, every once in a while you hear people talking about Trump's hair and skin tone.
Because we are Generation Jones, we deeply resent being called boomers or gen x'ers. It's in our nature. We pretty much resent everything, especially the notion that we would wear gender lightly, whatever that means.
Also, black don't crack. Of course Walz looks older than she does. White people take more sun damage.
Not meant as a knock on Nebraska. Or Lincoln. I like both. It just seems about as physically distant as possible to get from the performance, fashion visual art etc that she is a scholar of
John Henry
Plus Harris still has hair.
Barry O'Bama's MOM was in the baby boom generation..
but!
we're SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that Barry O'Bama was ALSO in the baby boom generation..
I'm supposing that these "experts" are SO STUPID, that they don't understand how generations work
I'm ALSO supposing that these "experts" are SO STUPID, that they are democrats
Both born in 1964. Looking it up, I see JD Vance was born in 1984.
The Trump ticket offers a lifeline to the future. It is a huge asset. The Dems are pale shadows of the too-old Boomers.
But who else is there for them? The Dem party has been decimated, largely the work of Obama, the President with the shortest of coattails. The best future they seem able to offer is Gigabutt.
A lot of Republicans have been rising through the ranks with ideas and experience. They have been shaped by opposition to the media, conventional wisdom, and our national zeitgeist of foolish trivia and brainlessness. That testing helps them define themselves more clearly. There are strong candidates among them for future leadership. Worth mentioning too is the work still being done by an oldster like Grassley.
so, the "baby boom" generation, was:
people whose parents fought in WWII..
OR..
people whose GRAND PARENTS fought in WWII..
OR..
people (like ME!) whose parents fought in THE NEXT WAR (Korea)..
I remember the next (fall 1980), that i hear that i was NOW SUPPOSED to be a baby boomer. I was 18 at the time (b 1962); so i guess i
got stoned (and laid) in the summer of love (1967) at the age of 5..
fought in Vietnam at the age of 4
and listened to Rock 'n' Roll at the age of negative 4
Walz, like me, grew up in Nebraska. He’s 7 years younger than me, but seems and looks older. He’s a far left liberal and I’m a MAGA conservative. I live and grew up in Omaha while he’s from out state. Why the huge difference?
Walz is not smart at all. He’s been in the public school system - as a teacher and student - for much of his life. I was educated by the Jesuits. I was taught how to think; not what to think. That’s a big reason for the differences between us.
There are two things correct in those articles; 1) those of us born rom 1960 - 1964 (myself included, born in 1963) largely do not consider ourselves boomers, and 2) Elizabeth Warren is a hectoring schoolmarm.
There's are real and significant difference between genuine baby boomers (the immediate post war generation) and Gen Jones (1954-1965). Walz and Harris are Gen Jones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones
Late Boomers (sometimes called Generation Jones) don't fit well with the Boomers. I don't remember where I was when John Kennedy was assassinated, as I wasn't born yet, although I was on the way. My sense is if you fall into the 1960-64 age group and you have older siblings, you tend to be boomerish. All my siblings are Gen X and I share their sensibility far more.
Whatever happened to Kamala's converse shoes? Converse is not presidential? Did a cat get her converse too? So many important questions.
Upon further review, the converse did come out to Georgia. She just didn't talk about them, much. Dana Bash didn't bring them up.
North,
True, but also: those weren't "expert" explanations, they wereelite explanations. The default assumption for a writer like this is it they are too much of a credentialed dolt to perceive the difference; but for Warren herself it is probably better to assume evil intent - - the lust for power.
Kamala's wardrobe has not changed.
Ms. Harris dresses in a way that suggests fashion without being too fashionable. Ms. Harris also reads speeches from a teleprompter which suggest intelligence without actually being intelligent on her part. She's got that last part down pat.
her presumed disrespect for “cookie baking” and for tolerating her husband’s transgressions.
We know Bill's hobby was chasing skirts. Was Hillary's putting down bimbo eruptions?
Jamie is Gorelick. She was born in 1950, so she should be creating less mayhem and enjoying her millions.
Male politicians have their clothes and hairstyles and body types scrutinized just as much at the federal level. And Elizabeth Warren could do something with that hair, but why isn't academic frumpy not also an intentional look?
However, we are all studiously ignoring Kamala Harris' weird pants. Why are they so long?
Generation Jones?! First time I've ever heard this term, here in the Althouse comments! Who knew? I'm a Joneser now I guess? I consider myself an X'er (when I started considering such things), especially after reading "Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture" by Douglas Coupland. I read the book when it first came out in the early '90s ... totally resonated with me.
Born in 1944, I am not strictly speaking a Boomer, but I and my cohort got swallowed up, outnumbered by them.
"Barry O'Bama's MOM was in the baby boom generation."
No. She was born in 1942. She's Silent Generation according to the usual cut off points. Boomers come after the war, beginning in 1946.
I was born in 1952 and am technically a 'boomer'. I do not relate at all to the 'boomer' sobriquet. I looked at the Gen Jones explanation and I do not fit there either. I guess I will just remain myself and not be defined by 'experts'. As to No Balls Walz and The Kackler, they cannot relate to either group as they never ever lived among us. He dresses like an assistant coach with little budget and no taste and she dresses like a a semi-old lady trying to hide the sag and bag.
But the press will continue to tell us how brilliant and relatable they both are.
"Generation Jones?! First time I've ever heard this term, here in the Althouse comments! Who knew? I'm a Joneser now I guess? "
I have blogged about Generation Jones 5 times
I mean, it's come up in the comments at all those links. I didn't blog about it. Here's a memorable comment from The Crack Emcee from 2009: "And, while you're right that Generation Jones (the tiny group that follows the boomers - which I, and Obama, belong to) aren't part of the 60s, those idiotic boomers had kids, who also had kids, and raised them with their nonsensical ideas: so the 60s are NOT gone. As Hoosier Daddy points out (9:13) they live on, stronger than ever, and still rule the roost. The harmful and stupid wing anyway. Sloanasaurus is right: Democrats used to be different - Both Kennedys, and Johnson, were hawks; not part of this apologize to the world for who were are crowd...."
"
Tweenies.
There's a step beyond not relating. I can never even remember the order of the supposed generations, much less what years they supposedly cover, though I've been told often enough to know I'm a 'boomer'. It's the same with astrology: I know my own sign, but have no idea what it's supposed to mean or which ones come before or after, or in what order, or what any of them is supposed to mean. Generations and signs are both complete hogwash: my year and date of birth have no significance. (Well, maybe the latter had a tiny bit in a non-zodiacal way. I've met three other Latin teachers who were born on the Ides of March, so that may have had some influence on our choice of careers. It's way beyond random chance. But Pisces? Fish? Don't know, don't care, don't try to tell me, because you'll just bore me to death.)
Sadly, I don't catch every episode of the Althouse blog :-( ... thankfully Blogger acts like a DVR automatically though.
I'm trying to remember when I first started visiting here. After a Reason magazine mention, or maybe the WSJ?
BTW, when could we start replaying to comments? Has this always been an option/setting on your side? Or is this a new Blogger feature?
My gaydar is pretty good, and Walz comes off as fairly gay to me. He waves his hands in the air like Charles Nelson Reilly. He gives off 'theater kid' vibes. NTTAWWT, but nowadays I want honesty.
Is Walz the thin man?
Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
John Henry
Elizabeth Warren is always angry shaking her fist and raising her voice against, “the rich.” She comes across as nasty and vile. Her uniform is that of an angry bitter asshole.
I was born in 64 and always considered myself a boomer. But that may be because I had two older sisters, one born in 52 and the other in 57. So I was exposed to boomer culture through my sisters.
Elizabeth Warren is always angry shaking her fist and raising her voice against, “the rich.”
"The rich"? Forbes article: How Elizabeth Warren Built A $12 Million Fortune
Just sayin'.
Kiplinger article:
"People with the top 1% of net worth in the U.S. in 2025 will have $11.6 million in net worth."
I am of this generation. To understand the difference between those came of the boomers and the late boomers watch American Graffiti and then Dazed and Confused.
As a 58 I despise boomers with a passion. By the time my cohort arrived on a scene, the boomers had already destroyed it. Like a horde of ravenous locusts they descended and stripped the land bare. The huge expansion of the education system led to a teachers corps of a very few older competents, a lot of very young credentialed idiots, almost as many very young zealots out save the world by indoctrinating the young and quite a few sadists who shouldn't have been allowed within 500 yards of a child. I am still trying to recover from my public education.
Then to come of age in the late 70's . Oil, inflation, Carter, no jobs and our older siblings were deep into coke, disco, STD's and divorces.
No, I'm not bitter about the crap the boomers left for the Jones. Much.
The greatest generation gave us social security, the silent generation gave us welfare and medicare- the social programs that are busting the budget.
But hey- boomers destroyed it!
AA speakers humor: I was born at an early age.
That's interesting for someone at the NYT to suggest that it might be an aspiration "to wear their gender more lightly."
I recently found myself bullied online by some trans people because of a comment I made in reference to they/them pronouns, where I said that gender should be a private matter, especially because sometimes gender is mutable. I don't believe that gender is something secret, but I don't need to know personal details about everybody's lives. When I need to identify a stranger I will use obvious physical characteristics.
The trans mob descended on me with a tirade of claims including that hormone treatments physically alter the sex of a person and to suggest anything else is "hurtful" and inconsiderate and required I submit to serious soul searching! Gender is the be-all and end-all of their existence.
I think the trans lobby is going to be displeased with the notion of wearing your gender lightly.
I think the same about Elizabeth Warren! Such a scold!
An 18 year old born in 1964 graduated from high school and/or started college during the middle of Reagan's first term. They are Gen Xers.
What Warren and her class are against is money falling into deplorable hands.
"As a 58 I despise boomers with a passion."
I don't like you either.
Grassley is a treasure.
I was born in 1964. When that book came out talking about Generation X, I immediately identified with it. I have no connection to Boomers and have argued for decades that 1964 was the beginning of Gen X and not the tail end of the Baby Boom. To me, the Baby Boom was the generation that ruined everything for the Generation that followed.
Her pants are long to cover her lifts. She is Madisonian in height.
@jay. There are a lot boomers to hate out there, including me. The capacity in your hatred reservoir must be limitless and self perpetuating.
The author of this article must not be a real intellectual since they missed the opportunity to say that Harris and Walz occupied a liminal space in the generations.
1984/1985 isn't any kind of firm boundary. The high school classes of 1982 and 1983 or the college classes of 1986 and 1987 weren't very different.
In a way, every "Baby Boomer" who turned 18 after the end of the draft, or after the end of the Vietnam War, or at the latest after Nixon's resignation is "in between." They aren't the classic 60s boomers of the campus radical, Summer of Love, and Woodstock generation. Some wished they could have been. Others, especially as time went on, wanted to get as far away as they could from the dominating Early Boomers. Campus life in the late 70s was very different from what it had been in the late 60s. Campus life in the early Reagan years was even more different from what it had been under Johnson or Nixon.
While the idea that "Generation Jones" is more gender fluid is ridiculous, I understand how someone could believe that. Gender roles were much more fixed for the Boomers' parents and for even earlier generations. The 60s generation embraced the sexual revolution, but the men still accepted what we'd now call ideas of male supremacy. Anybody who came of age in the 1970s or after grew up with feminism and very different ideas of masculinity and femininity. Nobody can get away with playing John Wayne anymore and much fewer men want to. It's stretching things to apply this to Harris and Walz, though. They are not people I'd take for pioneers in anything. Are they much different from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
"Gaydar" has a lot of false positives and false negatives. Walz isn't so very different from average male high school teachers or Blue State male politicians nowadays. If they all set off gaydar, maybe it's time to shut it off.
My wife (born 1962) claims to be a late Boomer. As a true Boomer (born 1953), I have always denied that claim.
Boomers must be pretty special if everyone wants to expand the category.
I subscribe to the Strauss-Howe definition of Boomer generation which they define as birth years 1943 to 1960, i.e. too young to have any recollection of WWII but old enough to at least have a sense of JFK's assassination. I land in their Gen X along with Walz and Harris, and probably you do too. I believe "Generation Jones" was one of the first works to explore the possibility that people born after about 1960 were going to be significantly different from the Boomer generation but didn't apply any rigor to actually defining the limits of the generation.
agree
Actually, 1960 is a better cut for cultural reasons, ignoring the accident of how many people are born. Anybody born after 1960 is too young to have any sense of JFK's assassination.
"Boomers must be pretty special if everyone wants to expand the category."
"Boomer" seems to be young(ish) person shorthand for "everybody more than 10-15 years older than me." I've seen people like Clint Eastwood (born in 1930) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born in 1933) called boomers.
Born in '64, and I want nothing to do with those two no matter what generation they may be.
@Mason G
Yeah I believe on the younger folks' side of the internet, Boomer means anyone over 27 or so.
Jay--as a 59 I heartily agree. I remember while I was in college we were criticized for being "apathetic" (I.e., not supportive enough of far lefty politics).
We had heard a lot of bullshit by 1978 or so. (Little did we know what was to come).
I have never considered myself to be part of the "Boomer" generation.
Birth numbers really did fall quite a bit in '65, beginning the Birth Dearth as early boomers put off childbirth. The designation of the "Baby Boom" years had nothing to do with culture--that came later.
In fairness to hectoring schoolmarms, they usually believe what they are hectoring about.
Lizzie Warren not so much.
And all politics aside (if you can imagine such a thing), she has the most insincere speech tone and pattern of anyone I have ever heard. Like fingers on a chalkboard.
Liz Warren and her $12 million...
a month ago I was asked what question I would like to ask presidential candidates. Answer: "Before you entered national politics, what was your family's net worth, and what is it now?"
Born in 1961, me and Barack. More Bee Gees than Beatles!
Harris and Walz are definitely NOT GenX in any meaningful way, so I guess go with the "Jones" label for them if for some reason you don't want to recognize that they're just another set of grotesquely self-righteous Boomers.
I was born in 1946, the first year of the Baby Boom. I graduated high school in 1964, and while I went on to college, most of my classmates in our blue color communities did not. Many of those who did not go to college got married right out of high school. So how can people born to Baby Boomers also be Baby Boomers? Does that make sense?
Out state? I hereby fine you fifty dollars.
"My search terms — Clinton, school, and uniform — all came up in that Harris/Walz article:"
----
I've noticed that no matter what I search in regards to politics, the first page of returns are all positive articles regarding Harris/Walz. For instance, if I search for something regarding a Trump rally, I'm provided information regarding Harris rallies or events.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন