What 80s Babies Know About Balancing Technology

 

ob ginger thumbnailBack in November, I wrote a blog post about how much the internet has taken over our lives, and never got around to Part 2. I couldn’t figure out where to go from there—until I ran across the recent article “Why 80’s Babies Are Different Than Other Millennials,” and realized that 80s babies are actually the secret weapon to figuring out this modern technology conundrum.

No, seriously. I’m becoming convinced that my generation of Millennials—the earliest Millennials, the 80s born-and-raised Millennials—are the Rosetta Stone needed to decode this mess of technology vs. real-world experience. If you’ve ever said, “I need and love technology, but I kind of miss using my legs to walk around, and I haven’t seen a human face since Christmas,” then find yourself someone who was born between 1977 and 1985.

The article that clued me into this (and which I will reference as the source of many of my ideas) has this to say about 1980s babies:

A big part of what makes us the square peg in the round hole of named generations is our strange relationship with technology and the Internet. We came of age just as the very essence of communication was experiencing a seismic shift, and it’s given us a unique perspective that’s half analog old school and half digital new school.

The article is a nostalgic backwards look at what it means to come of age during the technology revolution—not before, not after, but during. I belong to that group. Our childhood was analog, our adulthood is digital, and the teen years were a mix.

 

Due to our unique place on this timeline, I believe 80s babies have an intrinsic understanding of how to balance technology and the rest of life in a healthy way.

 

We may not realize we have this knowledge. We may not always live it out. But we were forged in the analog fires, toughened through the gauntlet of 90s chat rooms, and came as adults to the sandstorm of social media—our past and our instincts can, and will, tell us how to appreciate and use technology without being eaten alive by it.

So let’s review what we’ve learned, shall we?

 

80s Babies Lesson 1: The Internet Should Be An Event, Not A Lifestyle

We were the first group of kids who grew up with household computers, but still novel enough to elicit confusion and wonder.

Remember when the computer was a fun new diversion? Most families had one, and getting on the internet was a once-per-day event. You removed yourself from the main flow of household activity and went to the computer station (in my house, the dining room), listened to the dial-up screeee at you for awhile, and did your inter-netting for the day. If you had permissive parents, you might be allowed up to two hours of inter-netting, but then they really did need the phone back. If you had siblings, like my husband did, everyone got an allotment of inter-netting per week (and learned how to beg, borrow, and steal each other’s minutes).

You signed off, and then you were done.

No answering e-mail endless times. No five-hour chat session that waxed and waned with your attention span. No looking things up throughout the evening as they occurred to you. The internet was a thing you had to go to at certain times.

This made the internet feel like a hobby, or a specific tool. You fitted it into your schedule and spent the rest of the day doing other things. You knew exactly how much time you’d devoted to it.

Today, the internet is ever-present. Between computers, phones, and tablets, it’s no longer an event, but the background of life. But it’s a crappy background. Most of us can’t even begin to tally up the random minutes we spend checking it throughout the day, and we give away with both hands massive amounts of time to its hungry maw.

(Do you know how long I’ve waited to use the phrase “hungry maw” in a blog post?)

And though this has been said a lot, it bears repeating—one consequence is that you can remove yourself from the flow around you at any moment, for any length of time. Disappearing into the computer room used to be a decision, a noticeable decision that your parents or spouse or kids could hound you about. A haze of distraction about your phone or laptop that never completely dissipates is much harder to combat.

 

The 80s Instincts Kick In

So what do we do about this? Here are some humble suggestions for making the internet an event again instead of a lifestyle.

  1. Choose a time and place to use the internet at home. Keep the laptop or tablet at a desk or table. Go to that spot for internet-related tasks, then shut the computer off and leave.
  2. Maybe actually turn it off, too, as opposed to sleeping or hibernating. This recreates the sense of inconvenience we used to feel about constantly jumping on and off.
  3. Consider what internet “background noise” you can cut. I’m trying to replace Youtube videos with book reading during meals and bedtime routine. The other day, I turned on the radio instead of Netflix while I worked on my graphic novel pages. Find small things you can replace with “real-life” events.
  4. If your hobbies necessitate the computer, can you still turn off the WiFi to get them done? For instance, when writing a blog post, I could copy and paste what I need to quote from other articles, then spend some quality time with my Word Processor without Twitter peering over my shoulder every three minutes.
  5. Set boundaries for your phone. Choose a location for it to live, and leave it there. Go to that place to deal with calls and notifications, rather than carrying the phone from room to room.  (If you need to take the phone with you when going upstairs or downstairs, make one phone location for each level of the house).Make your phone space feel like a temporary work station rather than a place to settle in—this cuts the temptation to wait around for a text or idly surf the web. Remember when phones used to hang next to the kitchen doorway? Yeah. No one stood there waiting for a call, unless you were 15 and had a new boyfriend.
  6. Let notifications build up. You don’t have to check every noise your phone makes. You don’t have to sit with your finger hovering over the Facebook notification icon. Set a couple of times to check these things, and limit yourself to that. Better yet, do what I did this week and announce that you will only use your social media account for event invites and private messages.
  7. Tell close friends and loved ones to call if it’s important or time-sensitive. Tell them you won’t be responding to texts and social media as quickly, so if they need something right away, calling is best. Then you won’t have to spring at every text and babysit your social media account to keep from missing things.

These tips may be easier said than done. It may mean a lifestyle change in some areas. But we must set boundaries on how much of our lives the internet can invade. If we reach the point where the internet (rather than us) decides that it will be the background, and we have no say, then the robot takeover has already begun!

Come back on Friday (or use the Subscribe button above) for 80s Babies Lesson 2: Technology May Need Boundaries, But It’s Pretty Wonderful.

My Facebook Announcement

I made a drastic decision about Facebook today: I am taking control of my life back from social media. From now on, I will use social media for marketing and to communicate with friends about plans, but nothing else.

This is the announcement I typed up, and will post once per day for a week to make sure all my friends know.

Feel free to borrow this for your own purposes if you would like to join me in taking your life back.

**IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT**

Effective immediately, I will no longer (or at least, very infrequently) use FB for entertainment or scrolling or sharing. I will use it for communication between friends, invitations to events, the odd crowd-source of important questions, and probably some social media marketing as the start of my On Campus web comic draws near.

WHY? After several articles and books that reminded me what life felt like before the internet, I am truly alarmed by how the internet has taken over my life. I’m grateful that the internet allows me to share my writing (and soon comics) widely, but I don’t want to use it for anything beyond that–at least, not right now.

HOW TO CONTACT ME: I will still check my Facebook PMs and event invites, because that’s how a lot of social planning happens these days. I just won’t be commenting on your stuff or throwing lots of “shares” and statuses at you anymore. Don’t worry; if you need to get ahold of me or invite me, I’m still here.

A WORD ABOUT CONNECTING WITH ME: I feel social media and texting have removed a lot of personal connection. 15-20 years ago (even 10 years ago), if I wanted to speak to someone, I would call them, or maybe even show up at their house. Today, the ease of social media and texting establishes a buffer between people. There’s a quickly-growing, unspoken “rule of thumb” that you should connect with someone in an indirect way first if possible, through a message or text–this is becoming the polite “first step” to reach out to someone without forcing them to actually talk to or respond to you in the moment.

I am opting myself out of this unspoken rule. Therefore, if you want my phone number, PM me and I will give it to you. If you call me instead of texting, I will answer you or call back as soon as I can, and I will not act like it’s inconvenient or uncomfortable to talk to you directly, even if we have never gotten to the “calling” stage of our friendship before.

I will still respond to texts and Facebook PMs; that’s still fine. I just want you to know that you don’t have to reach out indirectly with me. I want to hear from my friends, coworkers, family, and acquaintances. You’re not a bother.

What everyone missed in Partridge’s yoga pants post.

I’m already tired of what I have deemed The Yoga Pants Kerfuffle of 2015.

I bet you didn’t know yoga pants could kerfuffle, but they’ve caused quite a stir. Or, rather, one Christian blogger’s decision not to wear them has caused a stir. Veronica Partridge made internet headlines when she announced her conviction to ditch yoga pants in order to prevent lust in men.

Many writers and bloggers replied that Partridge was shaming women and removing responsibility from men, while Partridge maintains that she was only sharing her personal journey.

Much as I’m not a fan of the modesty narratives, I’m going to leave that point to other capable Christian bloggers because I see a glaring issue that seems to be falling through the cracks of the discussion. It’s staring us right in the face but my guess is that you, like me, didn’t see the forest for the trees at first.

In explaining why she wants to avoid tight pants that might cause lust, she cites her daughter as a major factor, saying:

I want her [my daughter] to know, her value is not in the way her body looks or how she dresses, but in the character and personality God has given her.

Fair enough. I agree with that.

But does this belief extend to any area beyond yoga pants?

Partridge appears on her blog and in a recent Buzzfeed article looking absolutely pristine. Her makeup is that combination of smooth, stunning, and natural that comes from careful study and a practiced hand. Her abundant hair is styled with every lock in place–and trust me, as someone who had long hair, I can attest that this would take a bare minimum of 30 minutes. Her clothes are trendy. The main picture on her blog honestly makes her look like a model.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with spending time on your appearance, but because women have been socialized to put so much worth in looking pretty, it’s an area of life where every woman should honestly explore her motives. Is she frilling up because she loves doing that? Or because she gets a sense of self-worth from meeting the visual standards in movies and magazines? If it’s the latter, that frantic need for approval becomes a cage that she might need freeing from.

It’s entirely possible that Partridge is completely consistent in her values, and spends time on her appearance for the sheer enjoyment of it, rather than from any sense that she should look this way or that way. I’m not trying to pick on her or guess her motives, I just want readers to not overlook that aspect of the conversation. You can (rightly) teach your daughter not to place her self-worth in societal standards of sexiness, but if you teach her that grown women shouldn’t be seen without makeup or styled hair, you’ve taught her to place her self-worth in societal standards of “safe” beauty instead—and still not solely on the value of her character.

Again, I want to stress, I’m not accusing Partridge herself of holding that double-standard. I just want women who read her article to reflect on that in their own lives, and not miss the bigger point that this modesty post accidentally brings attention to.

And I’m not saying that attention to your appearance teaches your daughter bad things. Enslavement to your appearance, however–the palpable fear that you don’t look okay, the stressed-out prioritization of an expensive beauty routine that you actually hate doing, the refusal to be documented in photos without sufficient time to glam up–well, that might not be so good.

Now, if we can be done with kerfuffling yoga pants for awhile, I’d really like the internet to move on to something else.

Is Egalitarianism Prescriptive or Descriptive, Part 2

Yesterday, we established that there’s nothing inherently wrong with an egalitarian couple choosing a more “traditional” arrangement for their roles in the family. Egalitarian men can make more money than their wives. Egalitarian women can cook and clean with the best of them. If a couple functions well that way, who’s to stop them?

Why, then, do egalitarians like myself tend to actively champion nontraditional arrangements? Doesn’t that risk irritating traditional couples for no reason? That is today’s question.

To answer it, I usually start out by making a distinction: There is nothing inherently wrong with a traditional arrangement of gender roles—if that works well for every member of the family.

There’s a tendency in our church culture to assume that, because so many families live out traditional roles, they must work well. Strongly complementarian environments go beyond assuming this and actually teach it outright. And for some families, this is absolutely true; a more gendered role division fits with their personalities and goals. In other cases, however, a husband or a wife may not be the best fit for that lifestyle, and may experience stress while trying to squeeze into that box. Egalitarians encourage couples to ask that question, and to be unafraid of changing their life if traditionalism isn’t their best fit. This advocacy can seem like (and let’s be honest, sometimes is) an exclusive focus on people who aren’t traditional. That’s a pitfall egalitarians should be careful of. In my experience, most of us are willing to be careful about that if reminded, and our motives truly are about helping people who feel stuck rather than penalizing people for whom the system is working.

This desire we egalitarians have to make other couples think about their choices often comes from our own experience. Some of us found great improvement in our lives by moving toward a more 50/50 division of roles, or, in some cases, a reversal of roles. We feel that those benefits need to be common knowledge, since the benefits of traditionalism are already well-represented in church culture and literature. Further, we recognize that the desire for equality and freedom has been vilified by some corners of Christendom, and we want to correct that by presenting nontraditional roles as a normative, positive option.

Which leads to my last point. I firmly believe that cultural and religious biases about gender influence our decisions much more than we realize. I think that about myself, and I’ve been an active egalitarian for eight years! With that in mind, I believe people should use an ounce of caution and a pound of discernment when choosing what is best for their family.

As I said earlier, it’s easy to assume that society’s usual way of doing things will work for you, or is your actual desire—because it’s what you see. It’s the picture you have of doing life. I’ve often observed that, even in environments where everyone says they’re making choices independently, everyone’s choices look suspiciously alike. Chalk this up to many things; society pushing us all the same direction, general trends in what men and women are socialized to value, and yes, perhaps even some general trends in how men and women tend to be wired (how much any of these things plays a part is still up for debate).

And let’s be honest; the very fact of something being usual makes it the path of least resistance. Going against the grain is hard work. You have to be your own role model and cheerleader while simultaneously unlearning much of the subconscious programming you’ve been exposed to all your life.

It takes real motivation to be a woman pastor and deal with suspicion and, from some quarters, hostility. It also takes patience and security in your identity to be known as “the pastor’s husband.” These barriers do not exist for husbands who attend seminary and the wives who support them.

Many men face questions or outright criticism if their wife makes the majority—or all!—of the family income. Meanwhile, that wife has probably observed that women’s careers are more flexible or expendable in middle-class families. Her climb up the ladder may be seen as selfish, or wasteful if her at-home husband could be making more money, while the same effort from a husband would be met with praise for providing the family’s income.

It can be hard for a husband to see the details of household chores that his own mom took care of during his childhood. If, despite his best efforts, the dishwasher is loaded wrong, crumbs still scatter the carpet, and those pens from upstairs are for some reason living in the underwear drawer, the wife may decide at 9 p.m. that it’s easier to fix everything herself than teach him how to do it (a teaching process she may not have seen modeled by her parents, either).

As you can see, many forces both conscious and unconscious can push us into living a certain way, and this is even more true if we live in a somewhat conservative church culture, as so many of us do. Egalitarians can be so outspoken because we worry that these factors discourage couples from asking what’s really best for them. Not only that, but we want future generations to have an easier time making choices, and if we don’t do the groundwork of deconstructing today’s biases and pressures, all we do is pass it along to our kids.

Finally, I always want to make sure that we egalitarians refrain from judging each other. If a couple feels called to shake up the gender role status quo in their home, they mustn’t judge other egalitarians who don’t feel that call. Accordingly, the traditional couple should not judge the other couple for being too much the activist. There is room for beautiful variation within the Body of Christ. We just need to make sure that when systems like complementarianism try to put restrictions on that variety, we give them a firm “No, thank you.”

Is Egalitarianism Prescriptive or Descriptive?

male and femaleIn all our discussions of egalitarianism vs. complementarianism here at Observational Ginger, very important questions occasionally arise from readers. My oldest childhood friend inspired today’s topic with a question she asked long ago. My answer then was dreadfully inadequate, and since it’s a common question anyway, I thought I’d take a blog post to soothe everyone’s curiosity. (With the understanding that it tackles the question in general and isn’t a specific response to her situation).

The question: Does being egalitarian mean you must live in a way that eschews traditional gender roles?

Does it mean dividing up everything 50/50 no matter what? Is it wrong if the husband makes decisions sometimes, if the wife stays home, if they don’t divide household chores down the middle like kids divvying up the backseat of a car?

In other words, does egalitarianism prescribe a certain life mold the way complementarianism often does—just a mold on the opposite side of the spectrum?

The short answer, of course, is no. Being egalitarian doesn’t mean you have to live out a certain pattern.

In fact, that’s rather the point. In theory, egalitarianism should free couples from constraints they might feel about how they “should” do things. Most complementarian couples in mainstream churches seem to be okay with some amount of flexibility in how they arrange their lives, but there are areas many still see as uncomfortable, such as women pastors, stay-at-home fathers, or wives who make most family decisions. Egalitarianism removes those boundaries and frees couples to pattern their lives according to however God has gifted them—including following desires that happen to fall along “traditional” gender lines.

For example, a naturally decisive, outgoing man might marry a naturally reserved, type B personality woman. The personalities God gifted them with might lead to a situation where the man makes more decisions or is the energy behind the family’s direction. That’s fine. However, it crosses the line into complementarianism if that couple believes God wants every man to be that way, and every woman to hold herself behind her husband’s lead. If they believe that a type A wife and type B husband are failing to honor God’s gender design, then we have a problem. (With a capital P, and that rhymes with C, and that stands for Complementarianism.)

And it goes without saying that the type A husband must still recognize his wife’s equality in family decision-making, even if she doesn’t exercise it all the time. (Ditto the type A wife to the type B husband, as in my household).

For another example, an egalitarian wife might decide to stay home with a baby. Perhaps they don’t want to use outside childcare and the husband makes more money. Maybe Mom simply wants to stay home. Maybe she’s not done with school and can’t handle kid, school, and work at the same time. Who knows! A complementarian couple, though, might make that choice simply because they’re reluctant to go against what they believe is God’s design for mothers—nurturing—and God’s design for fathers—breadwinning. The egalitarian couple would know that they were free to reverse their arrangement should circumstance or desires change; the complementarian couple might not feel that freedom.

Ditto with chores and such. I’m amazing at organizing and keeping track of things, while J has been known to lose items he was in the middle of eating, so I take on the traditionally feminine role of household organization. But we don’t believe that I’m doing this because God made me female, or that J refrains because God made him male; it’s just who we are. And we realize that J could take over this job with enough practice if some pressing situation took me away from home more often.

The bottom line is not how you and your partner choose to live but why you made that choice. Was it based on your gifts, desires, or maybe circumstances outside your control? Or was it based on a belief that God only sanctions a limited range of choices?

Here’s another way to say it; complementarianism is not the practice of traditional roles. Anyone can practice traditional roles for any number of reasons. Complementarianism is the belief that God has mandated the traditional roles and that you should shape your identity and self-perception around them.

If this is the case, though, why do so many egalitarians seem to actively advocate for nontraditional choices? Why does it seem like we always champion nontraditional people if that’s not inherently “better” or necessarily “more egalitarian”?

Tune in tomorrow for that discussion!