Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

ArchXStanton

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that women work in many areas where such reports would be sent/organised? Women working in administration has been a thing for a very long time, as they were prevented from working in areas kept for men. Your viewpoint is so riddled with double standards, it's amazing that it stands up at all. Women are, and always have been, completely innocent for their part to play in shaping society, and maintaining of that society. You'll find that in many situations, it was women who were dismissive of the claims made by other women... but, sure, men are the enemy and as such they're responsible for everything negative throughout history.

And you're dismissing the potential of how much it occurs, a lot like society previously did about women's claims. Double standards, and all that...



I'm living on a different planet because I asked you to expand on your statement? Ok...

And I love all the little assumptions you're making about me. I have a Bachelor degree in Psychology. Hilarious. I did it in my 30s out of curiosity.. and you're making a lot of claims that aren't backed up by psychology. Sociology sure, but.. that's become a very soft 'science' in recent years with a big focus on feminist ideological thinking. Wasn't your own degree in Philosophy?

And more with the leading statements about me. Awesome. Loads of little digs throughout your posts.. And yes, I know plenty of reasons based in actual Psychology for your kind of attitude.



Ok. I'm done. You have gone out of your way to be rather insulting in your posting behavior, and I'm not going to stand being disrespected this way. You've repeatedly made leaps of logic, assigning points I didn't make, and then, making personal references about who I supposedly am, or believe in.

I can take the sarcasm, but the ignorance/rudeness is something else. Nah. It's a mistake I sometimes make... expecting a civil and reasonable conversation with a feminist. Meh. I'd love to tear you to shreds a little, but I shouldn't... both because you're a "victim" and never responsible for your behavior, and because I have little desire to be banned over you.

Done and done.

ArchXStanton

ArchXStanton wrote: »

image

Great image. Wonder if I can get a print to put on a wall.

Funnily enough I'm an egalitarian, and want genuine equality between the genders... but yes, I never liked or trust modern feminists. First and second wave feminists had very good reasons (and methods) to aim for. The last few waves of feminism has become embittered, vindictive, and outright nasty... not even remotely interested in equality except as a PR piece.

Church on Tuesday

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It is true. If all those qualities the poster outlined were really ubiquitous, then crime would have been reduced.

It's even interesting to see the way people talk about crime. I know a woman who bemoans the crime in her city nowadays. Then it turns out that when she was young, she and her siblings took it in turns to sleep in the kitchen to frighten off burglars. That's how common burglary was in her community.

So if people had such an amazing sense of community and respect for each other, how was there ever crime? People help their neighbours now, they give to local and international charities, they donate to crowdfunding sites for all sorts of people with all sorts of problem. They just don't go on about it, but they do have to listen to old folks go on and on about how much better they were. They tell they young people how sh1t they are while relying on those young people to pay their pensions and keep the health care system funded so it's there when the old folks need to clog it up. And young people dont even expect to be thanked for all their hard work and sacrificed tax money. That's how used young people are to being abused by the modern old people.

Think of all the events that celebrate old people, from Captain Moore doing laps of his garden, to the fact that were currently in lockdown to save the vulnerable (most of whom are old people). How often do you see celebrations of young people and all the things they provide for the country? It's very rare by comparison

Nope. If you're being honest you'll admit that what you said was just rose tinted guff. Old people are just people and the old people of today are extremely entitled and closed off from even acknowledging the wonderful things young people do for them and the country as a whole. I doubt it even occurs to old people to thank young people.

Fairly normal for the time. There has always been petty crime sure.

But as you know yourself there was endless amounts of gangland crime, shootings and indeed organised crime in the 50s and 60s in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Did you have a run in with an OAP or something?

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Fairly normal for the time. There has always been petty crime sure.

But as you know yourself there was endless amounts of gangland crime, shootings and indeed organised crime in the 50s and 60s in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Did you have a run in with an OAP or something?

There was always petty crime. Hardly an indication of all the rosey nonsense you attributed to the people of the time.

I think your idea of the past sounds great. Land of milk an honey. Everyone had respect and community and no crime or unhappy marriages. Only problem is it never actually existed.

This kind of talk.is so common that you've been fooled into thinking people were actually different back then. Lol.

PTH2009

Back then there was no tinder and the likes, networking was pretty small back then compared to now (communication with people in different countries just a few clicks away) and not many handsome European, Middle Eastern and African etc people living here

All about getting the ride these days and if a baba comes along cause of it then life still goes on

nthclare

I remember my grandfather and his friend laughing about the old family hay barn down the road and it wasn't uncommon for my great grandfather to go down early on a Sunday morning and find a few courting couples at it like the clapper's in the 1940's no doubt.

If people think our grand parents were all sweetness and light, you're mistaken.

Just because we're all modern and open about sexuality, it doesn't mean that we're better than our ancestors.
Sex is fun and healthy, nothing wrong with procreation and a quicky burning the midnight oil as they say.

The best sex is with someone who one love's, respects and can compromise.

I myself prefer the old fashioned way of dating, get to know someone, built up trust and confidence in the situation.

A hook up is all well and good but never ever fck with a man or woman's feelings just to get laid.
It's a shiddy thing to do.
If it's a mutual agreement then it's ok.
I've seen plenty of jocks and gannets lie to poor misfortunes just to get a lay or tick off a box.

There's a lot of good looking and intelligent emotionally healthy people in Ireland, you won't find many of them on tinder and if you do you've found a needle in a haystack.

And for goodness sake if you're on the dating scene make an effort and start working out and get fit, no man or woman is going to want to be with someone who's unhealthy, doesn't wash properly.

Nobody's ugly, everyone can look after themselves and look great.
Looks matter, but in hindsight being an asshole or a wagon doesn't discriminate..

If you are male ask a female friend for advice on going on a date, and for god's sake don't ask your male friend...

Same with women, if you've a good gay or straight friend ask him what's the best way to present yourself to a guy.
Even body language and eye contact can make the difference.

Always try to look into the blood vessels in their eye's,as they lead to the heart.

If your gut says no run and don't say sorry.

My female friend doesn't date when she's ovulating, because it's more powerful than anything on this earth.

Same with guy's if you're horny, your knob can dictate over the emotions...

Don't take my advice as gospel, it's just I learned the hard way.

Good luck with the dating.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that most women didn’t and still don’t want to enter the labour market once they’re in a relationship and have children is entirely the point.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Evidence that women prefer to leave the labour market when they’re married isn’t just borne out by evidence from the Irish Central Statistics Office

Going off experience that your citations do not usually back up points you are making while using them, often saying the direct opposite in fact, I read your "lengthy" (actually not that long at all) piece about the research.

And nowhere in it at all does it suggest these women are following personal preference. Rather they had no choice or it was strongly contraindicated in their situation.

In fact the ONE paragraph that does make any actual reference to preference states directly the OPPOSITE of your narrative:

"The causes are debated, but survey data do not indicate the dip will become a plunge, as most mothers say they would like to work, part time or full time."

Further a 2015 Gallup on the topic notes "women's preference for working outside the home is higher than it was." which is also the opposite trend.

You appear to simply be making stuff up therefore. While there might be an increase in women staying at home, most of them WANT and PREFER not to.

witchgirl26

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if we were solely talking about your circumstances, you’d absolutely have an irrefutable point that I couldn’t, and frankly wouldn’t care to argue with. We’re not solely talking about your circumstances though, I’m talking about overall trends in Irish society. I mean, I could say exactly the same as you from my position that I know plenty of women in employment who are at the peak of their careers in management positions, and they too are able to balance that with their home lives. I laughed years ago when one woman upon returning from maternity leave she joked that it was great to get back to work as it gave her a break away from the kids I knew exactly how she meant it - basically she was able to get back into a routine she was familiar with, and that’s what made her happy. Haven’t seen her in years but I have no doubt she and her family are still doing well. She was my boss at the time and she taught me a lot about organisation and time management.

That's brilliant. I don't have the stats for Irish society as a whole in regards trends over the past 10 years for women staying at home and the reasons why they've chosen to be stay at home mothers. And likewise the level of stay at home dads and reasons why there so I can only go by my experience of myself and my social group of the same age. Out of which there are only 2 who no longer work and both of them are for medical reasons as opposed to wanting to stay home solely to raise kids.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, well, it’s quite lengthy, but it does offer some ideas as to why women are choosing to exit the labour market once they’re married and have children. It doesn’t offer any definitive reason, because there are a whole plethora of reasons, whether it be economic circumstances or simply preferring and prioritising one lifestyle choice over another. I know what you mean too about the geographic influences, but I would suggest that the difference between living in New York and Detroit is the equivalent of the differences between living in Dublin or Limerick here. It’s really not that tricky to draw a comparison.

It's really not though. I have a large number of relatives in America. Some of them near large cities like San Francisco and still are able to have a 1 income family.
Look there will always be a lot of different reasons for everything but as someone else has pointed out - that does state that people want some level of employment. Often times it is down to economic reasons that they don't and that can't be ignored or brushed off.
I would really like to see Irish stats as to why women are not rejoining the workforce after having children. And the length of time too - as I would hazard a guess that some of the stay at home are doing it until the ECCE year hits in and childcare costs are reduced.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aaand we’re back to talking about you again. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone should expect equal pay for the same job, and I’m not surprised it’s borne out by figures from the CSO that people aren’t paid equal pay for the same job. Consider if you will for a minute the number of women I mentioned earlier in this post who do the same job as I do, but they are better paid for numerous reasons which reflect their experience, education and the fact that they’re willing to drop everything and fly (when flying was a thing) to meet and greets with clients in other countries whereas frankly, I can’t be arsed. I can do the same job remotely from home as opposed to ever having to show up in the office which is only ten minutes walk away (I hate walking :pac: ), but you get the general idea - we’re all doing the same job, but they’re paid more, not solely because they’re willing to do more, but because they have more experience and more education and training qualifications.

Of course different levels of experience and education should play a part in pay. I completely agree. What I'm talking about (and what research shows) is that women who have the same level of education and experience are often paid less than a man for the same role. There have been some where people coming out of post-college training contracts being offered managerial roles but different pay despite having the exact same experience and education. Of course there are exceptions. I know of a lot of them but there is still a gender wage balance problem. In fact from 2 years ago, the UK required companies to report on the same because of efforts to try and address it. I'm in a very traditionally male business but they are trying to promote and encourage women into it. There's no positive discrimination but there is encouragement for women to apply for roles that they may not have done previously.

And yes we're talking about me and my experience as that's my point of reference. You'll find it's like that for most people.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To say it was down to women’s lib that your mother had those choices is to ignore the fact that it was due to her choice to get married and their choices they made together for the benefit of their family as a whole, that your mother had the opportunity not to enter the labour market, and instead choose a different role which suited your family arrangement. Their choices anyone makes as a family is always in their own direct best interests as opposed to any influence by any women’s lib movement. I do agree with you though that being a stay at home Mam and being in favour of equality are by no means mutually exclusive. I’m just not someone who believes in the notion of engineering all circumstances to be equally shìtty in the first place in the pursuit of an ideology, and I don’t imagine the vast majority of people care one way or the other about women’s lib either - they recognise that the various roles complement, rather than compete, with each other.

Hold up - yes it was her choice but it was down to women's lib that she didn't have to give up work when she did. Didn't have to being the key words. She was able to make that choice to have a family and go back to work later in life instead.
It wasn't influenced by women's lib - but again *it was a choice* which she wouldn't have had a few years earlier. And that change was down to women's lib.
Roles do complement each other but I firmly believe that just because I'm a woman & someone else is a man that we should be shoehorned into certain roles based solely on our gender. The same way that men were often ridiculed about being nurses or primary school teachers or indeed childcare providers as they were traditionally "female" roles. That's still wrong. It's not about women's lib now but equality to pursue the career and life you want regardless of gender or "traditional" jobs and roles.

Women do care about equality. Mainly because historically we've been the victims of inequality when it comes to education, jobs and general rights.
In the 1970's & early 1980's, it was not at all required to have a woman's name on the mortgage or deeds if you were married. To do so was the rarity which meant that the woman had no legal rights to the house she lived in. It was also a case that a woman had to have a man go guarantor if she was trying to buy a house by herself no matter what her education, income or situation.

Hector Savage

two opening posts have both very good points, I wanted to thank both!

But this generation seem to have unrealistic high expectations from people, like in the US the massive divorce rate, as soon as some problem comes along - just divorce, take the easy way out, life is not a hollywood movie!

El_Duderino 09

Hector Savage wrote: »

two opening posts have both very good points, I wanted to thank both!

But this generation seem to have unrealistic high expectations from people, like in the US the massive divorce rate, as soon as some problem comes along - just divorce, take the easy way out, life is not a hollywood movie!

"As soon as a problem comes along". Load of guff.

You've no idea how large or how many problems people have before they divorce. There's no virtue in staying in an unhappy marriage.

Fred Cryton

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

What you really mean by 'choosy' is that women have options. And for some reason, a lot of men still haven't got their heads around that. Men used to benefit from women having a far lower earning capacity, or not being able to work at all. Women in those times had very little power to improve their own lives. Any husband at all was better than no husband and being left penniless, so there was an incentive for them to put up with all sorts of undesirable or downright awful traits and behaviour.

Now, those constraints are nowhere near as big as they used to be and so the incentive for women to marry just anybody has gone. If you have a job, a home, a wide social circle, a good life, then why on earth would you NOT be choosy? A man is no longer a necessity, but an option. Plenty of women would simply prefer to be alone than settle for someone who isn't right for them. And why would they not?

How did men "benefit" from women earning less? Would have thought the opposite. Only if you assume all men were motivated by wanting to control the woman, which is a really low view you have of men there.



Is it so far fetched that maybe the woman liked being a stay at home mother etc? The alternative of working in some dirty factory is hardly appealing either. Even today let's remember the alternative to working in the home is generally some monotonous job that you hate. This idea that you'll have some glam career is i'm afraid a fantasy. You'll be a worker slave like the rest of us.

lalababa

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think getting married young is something to aspire to at all. I'd be fairly horrified if my 20 something came home and said she was engaged. What parents would genuinely want their child to be getting married in their early 20s.

It suits some people. In fairness, what are they going to miss out on?

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There was always petty crime. Hardly an indication of all the rosey nonsense you attributed to the people of the time.

I think your idea of the past sounds great. Land of milk an honey. Everyone had respect and community and no crime or unhappy marriages. Only problem is it never actually existed.

This kind of talk.is so common that you've been fooled into thinking people were actually different back then. Lol.

To be fair, there was petty crime, which was more poverty related than anything else...but organised crime didn't sweep the country until the late 70s, along with the violent uprising in the North and the drug epidemic that swept Dublin and other cities, which also brought a surge in petty crime that needed to feed those habits.

I still don't think we have calculated the social cost of the sexual abuse many young men suffered from and it's devastating legacy from that dark era.

Hector Savage

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"As soon as a problem comes along". Load of guff.

You've no idea how large or how many problems people have before they divorce. There's no virtue in staying in an unhappy marriage.

Not talking about every divorce obviously

El_Duderino 09

Hector Savage wrote: »

Not talking about every divorce obviously

Well, which ones are you talking about and how can you tell the difference between the ones who gave up at the first problem and the ones who have numerous and big problems? And how can you tell the ones who stay together and are miserable but put on a good face in public?

To be honest, some things are just nonsense people say often enough that others come to believe it's true. Things were better in the old days, everyone had respect, honestly, loyalty, marriages were happy and nobody cheated, are among them.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

To be fair, there was petty crime, which was more poverty related than anything else...but organised crime didn't sweep the country until the late 70s, along with the violent uprising in the North and the drug epidemic that swept Dublin and other cities, which also brought a surge in petty crime that needed to feed those habits.

I still don't think we have calculated the social cost of the sexual abuse many young men suffered from and it's devastating legacy from that dark era.

The difference is the availability of drugs and the black market that prohibition created. Look at American prohibition on alcohol for an example. People are just people and always have been.

The difference between then and now in selecting a partner, is the availability of choice. Turns out that when people have a choice, they're more likely to take their time in selecting a partner and less likely to stay in a miserable marriage.

On your last point re abuse, I agree. My mrs works with criminals and her assessment is that all the sexual abusers she works with are also the victims of sexual abuse. And most of the violent criminals were also victims of sexual or physical abuse or both.

NB. That does not mean all victims become abusers, obviously.

mariaalice

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"As soon as a problem comes along". Load of guff.

You've no idea how large or how many problems people have before they divorce. There's no virtue in staying in an unhappy marriage.

While agree with you its not as simple as that either.

For example, being in a mood is a choice and expecting a partner to manage around a mood is a choice, I have never been in a mood in my life, so there are thing that can be worked on in marriages.

Leaving aside addiction or mental illness, a lot of problems in marriage arise from selfishness in one partner and their unhappiness that arose from that along with cynicism something that corrodes everything.

El_Duderino 09

mariaalice wrote: »

While agree with you its not as simple as that either.

For example, being in a mood is a choice and expecting a partner to manage around a mood is a choice, I have never been in a mood in my life, so there are thing that can be worked on in marriages.

Leaving aside addiction or mental illness, a lot of problems in marriage arise from selfishness in one partner and their unhappiness that arose from that along with cynicism something that corrodes everything.

What do you mean by being in a "mood"? If you mean it in the normal way (happy, sad, pensive, reflective, melancholy) then of course you've been in a mood. If you mean it as being stroppy, then of course you've been in a mood - everyone has.

mariaalice

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What do you mean by being in a "mood"? If you mean it in the normal way (happy, sad, pensive, reflective, melancholy) then of course you've been in a mood. If you mean it as being stroppy, then of course you've been in a mood - everyone has.

That is a good point, just a bad mood but I am sensible enough to realise I have a very easy-going personality which might have something to do with never being in a bad mood.

El_Duderino 09

mariaalice wrote: »

That is a good point, just a bad mood but I am sensible enough to realise I have a very easy-going personality which might have something to do with never being in a bad mood.

Fair enough. That's a pretty unusual trait to never be in a bad mood.

Church on Tuesday

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There was always petty crime. Hardly an indication of all the rosey nonsense you attributed to the people of the time.

I think your idea of the past sounds great. Land of milk an honey. Everyone had respect and community and no crime or unhappy marriages. Only problem is it never actually existed.

This kind of talk.is so common that you've been fooled into thinking people were actually different back then. Lol.

What are you on about lad? neighbors looked out for one another more than they do now, kids were better mannered and encouraged to roam free, people were resilient because they had too and marriages lasted more. A lot of the time because there was a practical willingness to make things work and because, y'know, they were in love.

Ireland in our granparents time had a **** ton of problems as long as your arm. My view of that time is not of Dev talking of comely maidens dancing at the crossroads or whatever ****e he was on about in that address to the nation.

wench

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

marriages lasted more.

What is your metric for this?

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

What are you on about lad? neighbors looked out for one another more than they do now, kids were better mannered and encouraged to roam free, people were resilient because they had too and marriages lasted more. A lot of the time because there was a practical willingness to make things work and because, y'know, they were in love.

Ireland in our granparents time had a **** ton of problems as long as your arm. My view of that time is not of Dev talking of comely maidens dancing at the crossroads or whatever ****e he was on about in that address to the nation.

You might not look out for your neighbours now, but I certainly do.

It's an interesting point about kids roaming free. I don't think this forum is a huge fan of the kind of children who are encouraged to roam free. Nowadays they're more likely to be called "feral" children but back in olden times that was the gold standard.

I listened to a moncrief podcast with a vox pop of people giving out about they young people today. It wa funny to hear an old boy talk about his day. He started off saying children were very well behaved they respected adults and when adults spoke the children did what they were told. Then he spoke about how they used to steal apples and have the shop keepers chase them. And they used to kick a ball against the wall of houses until the women came out and chased them away. He described it as a great laugh while describing antisocial behaviour. And he maintained they were very well behaved and always listened to adults.

People have a great capacity to hold contradictory thoughts as true. The narrative "children were better behaved" "people had respect for each other" are taken as true even when there's evidence to the contrary.

I call shenanigans on your rose tinted past. It's much more about people saying it was so than it ever having been so. Likewise the idea that people weren't unhappy in relationships in the past, is nonsense. The fact is people didn't have any options so the happy and unhappy alike, got on with their unhappy relationships.

I'm happily married but I'm much happier that there are options to end an unhappy marriage rather than having to soldier on no matter how miserable the marriage is.

El_Duderino 09

wench wrote: »

What is your metric for this?

A memory of a past that never existed.

Since there was no option to end unhappy marriages it's obvious that marriages lasted longer no matter how happy or miserable they were.

The real question would be about the quality of the marriages. So how happy were people in marriages. I doubt there's any real data on that so I'd say we'll have to rely on Rose tinted, nostalgic memories of the past. The more you examine the rose tinted past the less true it becomes and then even nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

El_Duderino 09

^^^ Chore sex guy? ^^^

Church on Tuesday

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You might not look out for your neighbours now, but I certainly do.

It's an interesting point about kids roaming free. I don't think this forum is a huge fan of the kind of children who are encouraged to roam free. Nowadays they're more likely to be called "feral" children but back in olden times that was the gold standard.

I listened to a moncrief podcast with a vox pop of people giving out about they young people today. It wa funny to hear an old boy talk about his day. He started off saying children were very well behaved they respected adults and when adults spoke the children did what they were told. Then he spoke about how they used to steal apples and have the shop keepers chase them. And they used to kick a ball against the wall of houses until the women came out and chased them away. He described it as a great laugh while describing antisocial behaviour. And he maintained they were very well behaved and always listened to adults.

People have a great capacity to hold contradictory thoughts as true. The narrative "children were better behaved" "people had respect for each other" are taken as true even when there's evidence to the contrary.

I call shenanigans on your rose tinted past. It's much more about people saying it was so than it ever having been so. Likewise the idea that people weren't unhappy in relationships in the past, is nonsense. The fact is people didn't have any options so the happy and unhappy alike, got on with their unhappy relationships.

I'm happily married but I'm much happier that there are options to end an unhappy marriage rather than having to soldier on no matter how miserable the marriage is.

I never said that. You always twist things to suit your own particular narrative, it's like talking to a wall.

El_Duderino 09

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

I never said that. You always twist things to suit your own particular narrative, it's like talking to a wall.

You said they stayed together as if it was necessarily a good thing. If you didn't mean they were happier then what on earth did you mean?

Or did you not expect any enquiry into your nostalgic memories?

ohnonotgmail

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

What are you on about lad? neighbors looked out for one another more than they do now, kids were better mannered and encouraged to roam free, people were resilient because they had too and marriages lasted more. A lot of the time because there was a practical willingness to make things work and because, y'know, they were in love.

Ireland in our granparents time had a **** ton of problems as long as your arm. My view of that time is not of Dev talking of comely maidens dancing at the crossroads or whatever ****e he was on about in that address to the nation.

if marriages lasted more it was because there was no alternative. once you were married you were practically stuck with that person no matter what. i'm not sure i would paint that as a positive.

c.p.w.g.w

Just look at the personal issues forum on boards...the amount of men in sexless marriages...Their wife's have got their kids now no more sex...

Proper depressing, i know there are medical reasons why this happens but it seems in the vast majority of cases, the wife just doesn't care...

The man can't leave because he can't afford to support 2 households and in all likelihood the courts are going to screw financially even if divorce was to be considered...

I think the give & take(within reason) aspect of a relationship seems to disappear once 1 party has achieved their primary objective...There is very few willing to compromise and i think in many cases Feminism is to blame...Well people misunderstanding what feminism originally was

Church on Tuesday

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if marriages lasted more it was because there was no alternative. once you were married you were practically stuck with that person no matter what. i'm not sure i would paint that as a positive.

Or maybe they lasted more because there was a willingness to make things work?

That was my original point. Obviously divorce is a good thing and a safety mechanism for both parties; I would even go as far to say that pre nup agreements are essentially for today.

It was less of a throwaway society back then, I know some here seem to have a hard idea getting their heads around that - I mean, one poster here even maintains crime was far worse in our grandparents time.

The fact is that every generation (esp us millennials) thinks they have it worse than the previous before them. If that is your viewpoint then fine but lets not totally disregard the positive values (namely resilience and quiet determination) our grandparents had just because it now seems old hat in the disposable society we now have.