I agree with Starving Artist [about rudeness in society]

[Happy Poster]

The world has got ruder, and nastiness has become more acceptable.

There is considerably less civility now. Popular art/entertainment is far more willing, not only to use more profanity, but to appeal to its audiences' baser instincts. And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it. Certainly if such attitudes are repeated day in and out they become internalised. And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

I'm purposely avoiding making a value judgement here, but I think he is right

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

There is considerably less civility now. Popular art/entertainment is far more willing, not only to use more profanity, but to appeal to its audiences' baser instincts. And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it. Certainly if such attitudes are repeated day in and out they become internalised. And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

I don't see how the last sentence has to do with the rest of the paragraph. Heck, ISTM that society is more cohesive than it was 50 years again, it's only the actual tastes in pop culture that have diverged due to the Internet. America's, and the world's, idiosyncratic regionalisms have decreased, and we have fewer, not more, overt displays of pathological social relations than we did 20 years ago.

[The Great Sun Jester]

* lobs a turd at Angry Lurker's head *

Piss off! What do you know about it?

[Marley23]

[Mod note]I've edited the thread title to reflect the topic a little more closely.[/Mod note]

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

There is considerably less civility now. Popular art/entertainment is far more willing, not only to use more profanity, but to appeal to its audiences' baser instincts.

I assume you are refering to offensive race-baiting like this, in which case, I agree - things were much more civil in the 1920s.

And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it.

This is snobbish, but has no fact to recommend it.

And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

And you're blaming entertainment?

You're all over the place here, really. Civility is not popular entertainment is not social cohesion. These are distinct ideas and not connected by very much unless you are complaining generally "things aren't as good as they used to be." There's little support for those kind of notions, most of the time, unless one is prone to idealizing the past by forgetting about its flaws, or by not having lived in that past the first time around.

[Happy Poster]

Yes, my theory is that the notion of rudeness is evolving too rapidly for everyone to keep up. But that doesn't mean that Mr. Artist is wrong. And I also think that we can say that certain notions of rudeness are better than other notions, and perhaps notions of rudeness from 50 years ago were more appropriate than our current notions.

[drastic_quench]

...and do something about those damn kids on my lawn!

[Happy Poster]

(in certain respects I mean)

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

The world has got ruder, and nastiness has become more acceptable.

That would rather depend on one's definition of "nastiness". In the good old days, a black man could easily be beaten or killed if someone thought he looked at a white woman. Or that same woman might be forced to submit to rape from her boss to keep her job. I'd call that "nasty". The past that Starving Artist idealizes so much was full of that sort of nastiness; nastiness towards women, towards blacks, towards anyone who wasn't a straight white male Christian.

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it.

It's more a matter of most of the stuff that officially calls itself "art" turning to garbage, in my eyes. There's not much there to appreciate.

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

Certainly if such attitudes are repeated day in and out they become internalised. And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

The 50s were disgusting; bigotry and conformity ruled. They weren't some golden age - the 50s produced the 60s for a reason.

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

I'm purposely avoiding making a value judgement here, but I think he is right

Actually, you can't call something better than something else without making a value judgement.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Angry Lurker

Yes, my theory is that the notion of rudeness is evolving too rapidly for everyone to keep up.

How would that be possible? "Everyone" determines what rudeness is in the first place.

And I also think that we can say that certain notions of rudeness are better than other notions, and perhaps notions of rudeness from 50 years ago were more appropriate than our current notions.

Well, who are 'we,' and why are they better? You're welcome to a different opinion, but once you start trying to prove it's better than somebody else's, you usually wind up looking ridiculous.

[Anaamika]

What's the point of complaining about it? Go out and be polite and civil to people. Teach your children to be civil. And remember that there is a big difference between rudeness and assertiveness.

[pravnik]

They used to make black people use different water fountains than white people. That's a little rude.

[Neverending Elbow]

OK, so in the fifties people were more polite, or civil, or just generally nicer, yes? What about a hundred years ago? Two hundred?

A few days ago I bought a book with some of the dirtiest, nastiest poems I've ever read. From just before the rennesaince till modern times. You know what's the main difference? The older ones were either written for private use or published and quickly banned before reaching a wider audience. One of the poems is about a soldier making a comment to a girl that she must have fire in her ass, seeing as her legs are so red (washing clothes outside in the winter), and would she mind frying his sausage in that oven.

Or let's look at Shakespeare. His works are some of the dirtiest I've ever read, like for example his Sonnet 135 (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/sonnets/sonnet_135.html), where he (well, the voice in the text) addresses a woman, noting that her spacious cunt will surely be able to take in his prick.

People were not better or nicer, they just washed dirty laundry in private (though even that not always), and pretended the world was different than it was.

[Enderw24]

I blame marriages. Back in the '50s they didn't realize how futile marriage was.

[Sam I Was]

I think entertainment doesn't appeal enough to my baser instincts. I'm still waiting for the feelies to come out.

[JRDelirious]

Here's the thing: It's true that the social environment did not need to become crude and loud in order to bring down various forms of opression.

Ideally, we should all have had civil rights, women's equality, sexual openness, critical study of history, denouncing of child and spousal abuse, product safety, economic expansion, environmental protection and cultural diversity, WITH politeness and elegance and class and respect for elders and for other people's property and good hygiene and looking out for your neighbor's kids and cookies and pie.

Unfortunately, too damn many of the people holding out for the reactionary, opressive old policies happened to couch their resistance in terms of "preserving values" and tried to suppress dissent and reform under pretense of it not being polite to make a fuss and bring up things that upset people and why do it right now instead of waiting patiently until another generation passes, etc. So they made it look like those social values were inexorably paired with the reactionary old opressive ways , and the more radical among the reformers were only too damn happy to call the bluff and take them up on that.

Where I see the failure in many of these lines of argument is in that assumption on both sides to the effect that the crass, vulgar culture is the inevitable price of the less oppressive, more open society, that it somehow was a zero-sum valorative equation and you could not have the one without the other.

To strip it down to barest essentials, the worst sociocultural evolution would be in the direction of both more opressive AND less polite. The best one would be one in the direction of both less oppressive AND more polite.

But what we DID get, was less oppressive AND less polite. And there isn't jack we can do about it now. So?

Well, so happens, IMO less opressive always trumps more opressive, regardless of politeness level.

And granted that, then well, yes, I can lament that some people think freedom is an excuse to be rude, and that they flaunt their bad taste. If I'm telling some young punk to wear his pants right, it's because I don't like seeing his asscrack, not because I want to opress his people, whoever they are. Sure, he has the right, but it doesn't make it any less ugly. But considering that just about everything else about society -- civil rights, medical care, standard of living, etc. -- is better now than 50 years ago, it's not even close to souring the deal.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Neverending Elbow

Or let's look at Shakespeare. His works are some of the dirtiest I've ever read, like for example his Sonnet 135 (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/sonnets/sonnet_135.html), where he (well, the voice in the text) addresses a woman, noting that her spacious cunt will surely be able to take in his prick.

Was it really a compliment to a woman to tell her how unbelievably huge her cunt was? "Baby, you've got a pussy I could stick my whole head into, and still have room to get most of my shoulders in it, too! You've got the biggest twat I've seen, or even imagined! What a girl!"

How times have changed!

[PlainJain]

I'm guessing the OP gets his notions of the 50's from the same media he is blaming. Do you really think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver represented mainstream America? No more than Ozzie or Gene Simmons represents the mainstream today.

And, Dude, what's up with your gorilla math? The late eighties were 20 years ago, not the 50's.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

I'm guessing the OP gets his notions of the 50's from the same media he is blaming. Do you really think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver represented mainstream America?

Peyton Place probably did a fair job of it, though.

[DrCube]

I disagree. Society has gotten less formal and more honest, and I think that's a good thing. If honesty and informality is rude, I don't want to be polite.

[kasuo]

Originally Posted by Neverending Elbow

Or let's look at Shakespeare. His works are some of the dirtiest I've ever read, like for example his Sonnet 135 (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/sonnets/sonnet_135.html), where he (well, the voice in the text) addresses a woman, noting that her spacious cunt will surely be able to take in his prick.

So that's where the throwing-a-hotdog-down-a-hallway bit came from!

[Little Nemo]

And, Dude, what's up with your gorilla math? The late eighties were 20 years ago, not the 50's.

I believe the OP was referring to them as two seperate periods ("society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s"). That said, there might be a partisan slant to choosing those two periods as exemplars of civility - both were periods when Republicans were in charge. Does Angry Lurker also feel that people were more civil back around 1940 or 1962?

[Guinastasia]

I have a theory that one reason people think that times are so much more racy and people are less civilized is the rise of mass media. Prior to television, and now the internet, people were still screwing around, doing drugs, committing crime, etc. You just didn't HEAR about it so much. People have always been pretty scuzzy -- it's just that now, it's out in the open, rather than so hush-hush.

Look back to the 1920s? Or prior to the Victorian era? The Regency, or Georgian period, was extremely lax, a time of excessive indulgence and vulgarity. (Look at the children of George III, -- they make Bill Clinton look like Mike Brady!)

Study history -- you'll find that that society has ALWAYS been lamenting how vulgar society is becoming. Maybe we're swearing more, and not so "polite." But even that's debatable. Are times as violent? Is wealth desparity as wide?

Starving Artist keeps harping on the fifties and the sixties...but go back further, and you'll see that nothing much has really changed.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Starving Artist keeps harping on the fifties and the sixties...but go back further, and you'll see that nothing much has really changed.

I don't have time for this today (and thanks, Angry Lurker), but you seem constitutionally incapable of regurgitating anything that I've actually said correctly. I'm not the one who keeps 'harping' on the 50s and 60s, you and your compatriots are. I harp on things post-1968.

As I've plainly said, my opinion is that there have essentially been two Americas: the one that existed prior to circa 1968 and the one that has existed since. You and your cohorts keep narrowing the focus to the 50s and 60s (probably so you can incorrectly claim that people like me long for an Ozzie & Harriet life that never existed, totally oblivious to the fact that we who lived during that time know perfectly well that life was not like that era's sitcoms), and then when I address comments within that more narrow context, people think I'm "harping" on the 50s and 60s.

You desperately need to work on your reading comprehension. Virtually nothing you say about what I think or have said is ever correct.

Originally Posted by JRDelerious

But what we DID get, was less oppressive AND less polite. And there isn't jack we can do about it now.

I disagree. I think this is the perfect time to do something about it. Racism is a shadow of its former self, to the degree it exists at all; so-called 'sexism' no longer seems to be much of a problem; and we are on the threshold of gay rights that include marriage. So even assuming that a rude, crude and vulgar society was necessary to achieve these changes (which of course I don't agree with), those reasons no longer exist. So why, other than a mere unwillingness to go to the trouble, is it a good thing to allow things to continue down the present path rather than start to lobby for the adoption of more polite and considerate social mores?

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Was it really a compliment to a woman to tell her how unbelievably huge her cunt was?

A wonderful example of how a literal translation can miss the point entirely. The puns in "Wilt thou, whose will is large" are no accident, and this is where the 'spacious' reference occurs. Large dimensions are being implied, but they aren't feminine ones!

[Speaker for the Dead]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

A wonderful example of how a literal translation can miss the point entirely. The puns in "Wilt thou, whose will is large" are no accident, and this is where the 'spacious' reference occurs. Large dimensions are being implied, but they aren't feminine ones!

In addition, Shakespeare's sonnet cycle has a lot of poems directed negatively against the Dark Woman. Although she's portrayed as beautiful and desirable, there's an edge to a lot of the images. The narrator feels attracted to her almost against his will (and sometimes, he says, better judgement). Most of the sappier, more famous, love poems in Shakespeare's sonnets are addressed to a young man. Whether the intention was homosexual or to emphasise the pure, Platonic nature of the love expressed is obviously debatable.

[Neverending Elbow]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

A wonderful example of how a literal translation can miss the point entirely. The puns in "Wilt thou, whose will is large" are no accident, and this is where the 'spacious' reference occurs. Large dimensions are being implied, but they aren't feminine ones!

Will was also used to refer to a vagina and sexual desire (note that it's the addressee, thou, who has a large will). Truly, the art of punning is not what it used to be.

By the way, poor Will, with a name like that, and a surname of Shakespeare, he must have been the butt of endless jokes. Which, coming back to the topic at hand, most people would not hesitate to make, probably more ribald than what most of us can come up with.

[Sonnenstrahl]

Originally Posted by Neverending Elbow

OK, so in the fifties people were more polite, or civil, or just generally nicer, yes? What about a hundred years ago? Two hundred?

This is what has always intrigued me about this point of view. Everyone talks about the Golden Age of the '50s, and how society has degenerated since. But few would deny, if forced to think about it (which they don't, because there aren't many sitcoms about life in 1764), that that has not always been the case. So, the logical conclusion must be that the 1950s were the anomaly, not contemporary society. We've simply "regressed" back to the natural state of affairs in which fart and sex jokes are funny.

Were the '50s (and maybe a few decades before, which can be romanticized as the time when society was Thrifty and knew the Value of Work - the 1930s - and when society was United in Fighting Evil - the 1940s) really the only time in history when people were nice and neighbourly? I believe the prevailing opinion among historians is that people had a vested interest in believing that themselves at the time (following the war, people were often uncertain about the rapid changes in their society and wanted to create an illusion of peace and stability), and the media we get from the '50s is more prescriptive than descriptive.

But I'm not an expert in this - my field is the seventeenth century, and nothing can inspire any kind of nostalgia about that era. I've read criminal court transcripts, and the number of people accused of fornication (by far the most common crime) and adultery doesn't really lead me to see it as a "moral" time at all, and the fact that people were commonly found innocent for lack of evidence, but banished from town under threat of death anyway is just another reason why I'm glad I live in today.

Besides, there's ancient Greek pottery bemoaning the laziness of today's youth - it's not exactly a new sentiment.

[Little Nemo]

I disagree. I think this is the perfect time to do something about it. Racism is a shadow of its former self, to the degree it exists at all; so-called 'sexism' no longer seems to be much of a problem; and we are on the threshold of gay rights that include marriage. So even assuming that a rude, crude and vulgar society was necessary to achieve these changes (which of course I don't agree with), those reasons no longer exist. So why, other than a mere unwillingness to go to the trouble, is it a good thing to allow things to continue down the present path rather than start to lobby for the adoption of more polite and considerate social mores?

Because "it's not nice to talk about things like that" is too often used as an excuse for not addressing a glaring wrong. You don't change history by being polite.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

I don't have time for this today (and thanks, Angry Lurker), but you seem constitutionally incapable of regurgitating anything that I've actually said correctly. I'm not the one who keeps 'harping' on the 50s and 60s, you and your compatriots are. I harp on things post-1968.

As I've plainly said, my opinion is that there have essentially been two Americas: the one that existed prior to circa 1968 and the one that has existed since.

And the key word there is "opinion." You have yet to show any evidence for this other than your own experiences. (Although pre-1968 fashion was divine!!! Dior's "New Look", anyone?)



You've offered mostly comments about hippies screwing in the mud, gangsta rap and people going around saying "fuck." And blamed most of it on "liberal permissiveness" or whatnot. Hardly anything concrete. You have yet to show any actual connections, other than your own opinions. No evidence of a connection.


(Oh, and btw, shouldn't this be in GD, or IMHO?)

[Covered_In_Bees!]

Aw man, these cubes are really trying to put us on the road to Squaresville.

Ya dig?

[Zoe]

I must have gone to twenty weddings in the late Fifties and early Sixties. I can think of only one marriage that survived and she was married to a minister. So many of the women weren't happy then. I can remember my mother telling me that if she had a gun she would shoot herself. She was crying and she was dead serious. I was about 12 or 14.

I would have been unhappy too if I had been working a 16 hour day and was not considered an equal partner in the marriage.

[quote][b]Starving Artist[b]: ...so-called 'sexism' no longer seems to be much of a problem;

Don't put quotation marks around a word that way unless you want to imply that there really wasn't any sexism. You wouldn't like it if someone said that you were a so called "artist." That would not only be an insult to you and it would be implying the opposite.
I know that you know that there certainly has been plenty of sexism.

Let me know when men are granted physical custody of children as often as women in divorces. Let me know when men are called as frequently at work to come and pick up their sick children at school. Let me know when women's haircuts cost the same as men's or when good blouses cost the same as good shirts or when the dry-cleaning bills are comparable.

When you've kept an eye on these things for forty years, you are not so quick to think they don't really exist or are you so off-handed in declaring these problems more or less solved.

Other than that, of course, you are brilliant.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Let me know when women's haircuts cost the same as men's or when good blouses cost the same as good shirts or when the dry-cleaning bills are comparable.

Excuse me? I'll agree that sexism still exists, sure, but the above is just an example of women's fashion gone overboard.

Haircut? Go to SuperCuts, they'll cut your hair for $12, male or female. If you want to sit in that chair for an hour and a half while somebody massages your neck, washes your hair, dyes it, cuts it, styles it and rubs all sorts of pomades or whatnot, that will cost more, sure.

If you buy the same old cotton shirt as a man, it will cost the same. If you want a fancy silk blouse with frills, decorative buttons, and one of those useless belts that go across your waist, it might cost you more. Not to mention that many women seem to get a big kick out of paying too much for clothes anyway. It makes them feel dainty and refined.

Dry cleaning is the same issue. Expensive materials plus fragile designs cost more to clean. Furthermore, men wear suits, that's about all they need dry-cleaned. Women have all sorts of fancy everyday clothes that need to be dry-cleaned, not just for special occasions or stuffy corporate jobs.

I mean, I don't doubt that sexism is still a problem, but use better examples, please.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by DrCube

If you want to sit in that chair for an hour and a half while somebody massages your neck, washes your hair, dyes it, cuts it, styles it and rubs all sorts of pomades or whatnot, that will cost more, sure.

When I do this, at the same salon and same stylist that my wife uses, and we both have the same length hair, and mine is $38 and hers is never under $70, we still have a problem.

Really, I think I'm aboard with a few others here--StarvingArtist, the rudeness was a means to an end because a lot of the people championing things like racism, sexism, etc, couched their statements in appeals to decorum and tradition. I'd guess that when the Baby Boomers start going away and the 1960s pass out of living memory, you'll see more formal politeness being coupled with the increasingly liberal social values we enjoy post-1968 (I'm not interested in debating whether those value improvements with regard to racism/sexism/whatever-ism were caused by or inevitable in spite of the "dirty hippies" (tongue-in-cheek shorthand)), as more people will desire to enjoy the benefits of politeness and decorum without the (perhaps perceived rather than actual) baggage of the traditionalistic/decorum arguments for perpetuating the -isms back in the day.

It's already starting to happen to an extent in my generation (having been born in 1979, I'm on the leading edge of "no living memory of the late 60s/70s era" demographic) and the people born in the five years prior to/after me--we grew up with Reagan, we're generally not racist and less inclined to oppose gay marriage, and at least with the guys I work with and talk with on a regular basis, we'll swear and curse in private with people of the same social rank, but never in front of the bosses or admin staff (but female engineers are invited to join if they're in the social circle anyway, and they usually are) or in public, we don't call women 'cunts' or men 'dicks'. You'll hear statements like "You're within your rights to say it but that doesn't make it any less rude." in response to stuff like that. Maybe I'm just working in the world's only polite IT company.

Pop art will be what it will be, but just you wait--that's my prediction, society will start getting more polite here shortly without necessarily becoming less liberal or "liberal".

[Little Nemo]

Isn't political correctness just a form of civility? It's based on basic principles of good manners like "don't offend other people" and "respect their opinions".

So why do conservatives generally mock political correctness?

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Isn't political correctness just a form of civility? It's based on basic principles of good manners like "don't offend other people" and "respect their opinions".

So why do conservatives generally mock political correctness?

My theory is that there are honest conservatives who don't have any particular beef with political correctness as they correctly see it as a form of politeness/respect, and then there are the social repressionists (really, can we be honest here--I'll divorce "socially repressive" from "conservative" in my vocabulary if y'all can make "liberal" and "progressive" not include "socialist" by definition) who hide behind traditionalism/"politeness" when it's repressing people they want to repress and jeer political correctness when it's interfering with their desire to be the majority.

I don't think we have many if any of the latter on this board, in all seriousness, and I imagine the former get as sick of being accused of being racist sexists as I get sick of being accused of rabid socialism because I want to rethink health care (but not, y'know, nationalize hospitals or whatever).

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Isn't political correctness just a form of civility? It's based on basic principles of good manners like "don't offend other people" and "respect their opinions".

So why do conservatives generally mock political correctness?

I think part of the problem is that people take so much more offense at little things these days then they did in the past. Back in the day, if you referred to someone as "stupid" or "retarded" or "idiot", everybody just got the gist that you were talking about a person with a mental handicap. No big deal. Nowadays it is outrageous to NOT bend over backwards in the attempt to apologize for even mentioning somebody's handicap.

Sure, you can say "Fuck" in public now, as long as you're not in church. But say "retard" or "colored" even in the rowdiest bar and you're ostracized. We've just swapped one set of boogey-man words for another. It makes sense that the "conservatives" don't like that change. I guess they'd rather call people "retards" as long as they don't have to hear their daughters say "shit".

[Furious_Marmot]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

So why, other than a mere unwillingness to go to the trouble, is it a good thing to allow things to continue down the present path rather than start to lobby for the adoption of more polite and considerate social mores?

Could you be more specific about the word 'lobby'? Do you mean 'encourage legislators to change or enact laws pertaining to politeness' or do you mean 'encourage other people to be act more politely'?

Also, what do you mean, specifically, by 'polite and considerate'. Holding doors for women? For everyone? Cursing only in private? No cursing at all? Something to do with hemlines and necklines? Moderation in drinking alcohol?

You are issuing a kind of call to action. Maybe it's a great idea, maybe it's awful, but how can anybody decide to join in if we don't have any details? What do you want people to do differently than they are doing now?

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by DrCube

If you buy the same old cotton shirt as a man, it will cost the same. If you want a fancy silk blouse with frills, decorative buttons, and one of those useless belts that go across your waist, it might cost you more. Not to mention that many women seem to get a big kick out of paying too much for clothes anyway. It makes them feel dainty and refined.

Is this the pit? drat. In that case, I'll confine my comments to "I disagree with your premise and your conclusion"

Dry cleaning is the same issue. Expensive materials plus fragile designs cost more to clean. Furthermore, men wear suits, that's about all they need dry-cleaned. Women have all sorts of fancy everyday clothes that need to be dry-cleaned, not just for special occasions or stuffy corporate jobs.

I mean, I don't doubt that sexism is still a problem, but use better examples, please.

This isn't true, actually. When I take a black pants suit in to be dry cleaned (plain black jacket, plain black pants, white cotton or pinstriped cotton oxford shirt - suitable for funeral and/or court - in other words a "man's suit" in every way except that it's made for a 5'2" woman) - it costs more than the exact same suit for my husband, even though his is actually larger and, in theory, requires more dry cleaning fluid. I don't DO bells, whistles, ruffles, belts, gewgaws or knick knacks thankyouverymuch.

While I don't think its a huge issue for modern feminism, it does piss me off each and every time I got to the dry cleaner.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

Is this the pit? drat. In that case, I'll confine my comments to "I disagree with your premise and your conclusion"

Well, if you've got a case, why not take it to court? It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and while I have no doubt sexism still exists in all sorts of hidden ways, this is pretty blatant and obvious. Presumably you've already got all the evidence you need in the form of tickets and receipts.

While I don't think its a huge issue for modern feminism, it does piss me off each and every time I got to the dry cleaner.

It is very much a huge issue for feminism! You're telling me you get charged extra to have a pair of pants dry cleaned, and if your husband takes the exact same pair of pants to the exact same dry cleaner, he gets a reduced price. That's a travesty.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by DrCube

Well, if you've got a case, why not take it to court? It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and while I have no doubt sexism still exists in all sorts of hidden ways, this is pretty blatant and obvious. Presumably you've already got all the evidence you need in the form of tickets and receipts.

Actually, it is illegal for the Government to discriminate on the basis of sex, or an employer who meets certain criteria. As the dry cleaner is not my employer nor an agent of the Government, I wouldn't have much of a case would I?

methinks you have nary a clue what you're talking about.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by DrCube

It is very much a huge issue for feminism! You're telling me you get charged extra to have a pair of pants dry cleaned, and if your husband takes the exact same pair of pants to the exact same dry cleaner, he gets a reduced price. That's a travesty.

You're the one who said that women would be charged the same if their clothes were the same. I'm just telling you it's not true. Don't get your panties in a twist about. Oops... that wasn't "dainty" was it?

[DrCube]

Some people are doing something about it. Apparently, discriminatory sex-based pricing is illegal in California, DC and New York City, at least. Perhaps my first post was a little hasty.

All I can say is that the only dry-cleaning 'discrimination' I've noticed in my time has been on the order a pair of pants versus a wedding dress. In other words, no discrimination at all. And indeed, I'd venture to guess that most cases of women being charged more at the cleaners are simply a result of the fact that their clothes take more work to clean. But in cases like these, especially when women were automatically charged more before the cleaners even had a chance to examine the garments, are absolutely unconscionable and should be challenged.

Perhaps I should rethink discrimination in the realm of fashion, too. But I've seen the haircuts and clothes that many women get, and that has GOT to cost more.

[rowrrbazzle]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Isn't political correctness just a form of civility? It's based on basic principles of good manners like "don't offend other people" and "respect their opinions".

So why do conservatives generally mock political correctness?

It MAY be based on that, but it goes too far beyond it. (My own attitude is that, once you've eliminated the clearly offensive and rude, stop.)

A man lost his job for using the word "niggardly" (he later got it back, so that makes it okay ). An airline is sued for racism when a stewardess said "Eeny, meenie, miney, moe, get your stuff, it's time to go", even though she had NEVER heard the version that used the n-word.

From Joseph Starobin:

Not a few have asked themselves: if they were capable of such cruelties to each other when they were a small handful of people bound by sacred ideals, what might they have done if they had been in power?...Words like "whitewash" were deemed chauvinism in reverse. The term "black sheep" was deemed chauvinistic in its essence...Both whites and blacks began to take advantage of the enormous weapon which the charge of "white chauvinism" gave them to settle scores, to climb organizational ladders, to fight for jobs and to express personality conflicts...

Sound familiar?

in the name of defying the witchhunt against them, the American Communists complemented it by engaging in a witchhunt of their own...

The two previous quotes are from American Communism in Crisis, 1943-1957, by Starobin, then-foreign editor of the American edition of the Daily Worker.

Even the great Dalton Trumbo got scorched in that witchhunt. He was severely criticized by his fellow Communists for, among other things, writing a description of a Negro boy as "polished and dressed in his very best" because that implied he was clean only on special occasions. See Red Star over Hollywood by Ronald Radosh.

[vivalostwages]

My colleagues and I have been griping more and more lately about the lack of etiquette in some of our college classrooms. And no, it wasn't "always" like this. I do not remember people being this obnoxious in the classes that I attended in the late 80s/early 90s. Then, we didn't think it was okay to scarf down entire meals at our desks, socialize and giggle loudly with our pals when the professor was addressing the class or during an activity or exam, screw around with our phones and texts (nor did we have such things--there's another issue), treat a subbing professor like crap because he/she is subbing, or get up and leave whenever we felt like it instead of asking to be excused or waiting to be dismissed.
Calling them on their behavior doesn't even help. We didn't sign up to teach the fourth grade, but that's what we've got.
Disclaimer: it's not going on in every single class, but when it does, it's a real headache.
The only weapon we have left is dismissing them from two meetings and then reporting it as disruptive behavior. Again, I don't recall ever seeing a classmate thrown out of the room for being disruptive when I was in college.

[Princhester]

Hands up all those who think that the OP started this in MPSIMS because if it were in any more serious forum, where cites etc to actual studies would be expected, his OP would be ritually slaughtered?

[We need a hands up smilie]

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by vivalostwages

My colleagues and I have been griping more and more lately about the lack of etiquette in some of our college classrooms. And no, it wasn't "always" like this. I do not remember people being this obnoxious in the classes that I attended in the late 80s/early 90s. Then, we didn't think it was okay to scarf down entire meals at our desks, socialize and giggle loudly with our pals when the professor was addressing the class or during an activity or exam, screw around with our phones and texts (nor did we have such things--there's another issue), treat a subbing professor like crap because he/she is subbing, or get up and leave whenever we felt like it instead of asking to be excused or waiting to be dismissed.

I have never seen that happen in any of my classes. Maybe you just have jerks for students.

[MaxTheVool]

There actually ARE some (at least somewhat) objectively measurable changes in society that are somewhat related to the point Starving Artist is trying to make. I'm talking about the idea of social capital, as most prominently argued in Bowling Alone(cough)written by my uncle(cough).

But SA has a tendency to lump all sorts of things together and somehow blame them all on the liberals. While I think there's a kernel of truth to some of the claims he makes, I'm not sure whether he sees that same kernel of truth at all, or whether he's just a grouchy guy yammering about how things were different back in the day.


If you stop by the side of the road with a flat tire, is it more or less likely now than 20 or 40 or 60 years ago that someone will stop to help you? That's at least potentially, if you correct for zillions of variables, a question with an objective answer (although not necessarily one whose objective answer is knowable). And it's one that's potentially interesting...

[keturah]

Originally Posted by DrCube

Well, if you've got a case, why not take it to court? It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and while I have no doubt sexism still exists in all sorts of hidden ways, this is pretty blatant and obvious. Presumably you've already got all the evidence you need in the form of tickets and receipts

Basic womens dress shirts are darted in the front at the waist to accomodate their breasts so they are a bit more fitted to the body. These types of shirts are more difficult to press because you have to press 4 panels on the front and 1 on the back. Mens shirts are 2 front panels and 1 back. It is more labour intensive and costs more.

[Revenant Threshold]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

So why, other than a mere unwillingness to go to the trouble, is it a good thing to allow things to continue down the present path rather than start to lobby for the adoption of more polite and considerate social mores?

I'd say there's a couple of problems with this. I'm all for increased politeness and consideration for other people. But you can't force it. Trying to make anyone feel or do something specific is pretty much a guaranteed course to ensure they want to do it less, either out of annoyance, or purely to spite the demand.

You can certainly enforce outward examples of respect. But you can't force actual respect. Someone saying "please" or "thank you" (or "regards") can be as unpleasant as someone not doing so. And it still wouldn't mean anything, other than politeness for the sake of politeness, which i'd consider a huge mistake to support.

The secret to garnering respect is to do things worthy of respect. It's the only way it'll really work, and it's the only way any results won't be shallow and fake. Certainly, it's not fool-proof. But it's the only thing that'll really work.

[Little Nemo]

The two previous quotes are from American Communism in Crisis, 1943-1957, by Starobin, then-foreign editor of the American edition of the Daily Worker.

Even the great Dalton Trumbo got scorched in that witchhunt. He was severely criticized by his fellow Communists for, among other things, writing a description of a Negro boy as "polished and dressed in his very best" because that implied he was clean only on special occasions. See Red Star over Hollywood by Ronald Radosh.

Are you actually trying to float a guilt by association argument here?