Millennials don't need a mid-life crisis
What the New York Times opinion piece should have said instead.
Unsplash, by Ben Wicks
There is this opinion piece in the New York Times, wondering if millennials will have a mid-life crisis. As a millennial myself, it was a dissappointing read.
I first found the article on TikTok, where many people reacted to the article, all pretty much having the same opinion: millennials won't have a mid-life crisis, but writer Jessica Grose focuses on the fact that millennials can't afford a mid-life crisis.
Instead I would have liked to read this: millennials won't need a mid-life crisis.
As a millennial myself, I was hoping for an opinion piece filled with humor and sarcasm, the very emotions that allowed this generation to survive all of the crises we faced in our short lives. But there was none of that.
What the article said:
The piece feels really one-sided. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but it includes a lot of quotes from many different people, creating the illusion that it is a well-balanced opinion piece. But the in-depth story is really about just a few millennials, all having the same struggles. Sounds fine at first, but all of them paint a very dramatic picture. Yes, we millennials are screwed, but what makes this generation so unique is that we take it with humor. We are resilient, funny, and laugh at a new crisis instead of breaking down. And there was NO HUMOR whatsoever.
While it did touch on all of the aspects I think it should have, the tone was always negative. At one point the author deviates from the story of this generation being financially screwed, and does mention that we are the cycle-breakers, and defining family in a completley different way than the generations before us. With this, the author is suggesting that because we chose our family structure, we don’t have a reason for a mid-life crisis. But the author isn’t saying it outright, and instead ties it back to millennials not having money and therefore not having “the time or the funds to have a meltdown.”
I understand that the New York Times wanted to be more serious than funny, but who is the target audience for this piece? It certainly isn’t us millennials.
If they wanted to be incredibly realistic and show us exactly how screwed we are, then well, thanks for nothing. We already knew.
There were only two sections that I read and where I felt understood:
“Many people said they felt they couldn’t be having a midlife crisis because there was no bourgeois numbness to rebel against. Rather than longing for adventure and release, they craved a sense of safety and calmness, which they felt they had never known.”
“(We) have the time or the funds to have a meltdown.”
But overall, it was a depressing piece to read, and the TikToks reacting to it where way more entertaining than the article itself.
What the article should have said instead:
We were the generation that had everything handed to them as kids. We grew up during a time where the world got richer and (supposedly) better every year. Because of that, we were deemed the lazy ones, with all the handmade trophies. The kids that never (needed to) worry about anything.
And then the world changed. September 11, the financial crisis, loss of wealth and a housing crisis, climate change, a pandemic, inflation, … the list goes on.
But instead of breaking down or giving up, all of this made us:
resilient
powerful
funny
cycle-breakers
Surviving one “once-in-a-lifetime-event” after the other, made us the crisis-weathered millennials we are. The people who calmly drink coffee on their balconies of their rental apartments while the world is in flames. It made us take every new crisis with sarcasm and humor.
Is that healthy? Probably not. But it made us survive this mess so far, so why change it?
Our lives so far looked different than the traditional path our parents took. Barely anyone is getting married, buys a house, or has kids before they turn 30. Most of us don't even accomplish that in their 30s, nor do they want to.
Never in history had an entire generation more freedom to be who they wanted to be, than millennials. With the big exception that we have to do it on a budget. But we can choose whatever family life we want: kids, no kids, married, not married, pets, no pets.
And I believe this is the exact reason a mid-life crisis is simply not in the cards for us. Not just because we survived crisis after crisis, but because we shed all of these expectations previous generations tried to force on us. THAT is what the article should have focused on.
Instead of focusing on the negative, that we have less wealth and less financial opportunity than previous generations, the article could have pointed out how much we have changed the traditional family narrative. In my opinion the real reason a mid-life crisis won’t be happening for us.
We get married because we love our partner, not out of necessity. We decide to have a family because we want to, not because we have to.
Because we actively choose the lives we have, there is no reason for us to escape it.
XOXO
Annika