Let me clarify the question a little. I’m not really asking if the world is becomming overrun by Poindexters and dweebs. What I want to know is there is a greater percentage of people who feel as if they don’t “fit in” and if the bar for “fitting in” is actually higher.
My overall impressions growing up (since the 70s) is that basically there were some people were social outcasts, some were popular and the vast majority basically just did their thing, hung out with their particular group of friends and went on with their lives.
It seems like nowadays there is a hip, MTV, OC stereotype image of rich, shallow hedonistic youth and if you don’t belong to that particular 5% of society then are are basically an untouchable.
Yeah sure there’s more dorks, dweebs, etc. In years past, people would have to go out somewhere to interact. Bar, church, movie, you name it, they’d have to go out and mingle a little. Their personality had to benefit and develop from the social contacts, at least to some degree.
Today we’ve got scads of people who sit at their computer night after night, visiting various message boards, chat rooms and journals. There are people who think they are in a serious relationship with someone they’ve never even seen in person.
Lack of personal contact can turn even a borderline dork into the real thing. Blame it on the internet!
In my age group being a nerd or geek is fine. As long as your hygiene is okay you aren’t an outcast except to the 5%, but who cares what they think once you get out of high school? Hey, Tolkien’s a blockbuster right now, Pratchett’s books sell like beanie babies, and the HHGTTG movie has finally been released. It’s a good time to be unhip.
msmith, I usually enjoy your posts because of your interesting views, but: You’ve got a degree in engineering, and an MBA, and you’re all grown up now–a successful professional.
Do you think you could drop the fratboy pejoratives? Grow up your language a little bit? I knew this thread was yours before I even looked.
I’m just saying.
Notwithstanding my snarkiness, you raise a good question. If you want my answer, I say no. Since the beginning of the various media, life as shown on TV and in movies has always been skewed towards the upper middle class, if not higher. With a few notable exceptions, TV shows about poor or working-class folks have invariably tanked. There was one show, years ago, called We’ll Get By, which was basically about a working class family who were not physically attractive–I mean none of them–and whose lifestyle was pretty much summed up in the series title. It tanked so fast you’d have missed it if you blinked.
I think the emergence of so many “C-group*” movies, books and such in popular culture would suggest there is more, but there may be more to it. It could be that there is just more of an acceptance to it now a days. Personally I take myself as an example. Most people looking at me see a different person. I don’t purposely do this, it just happens. I work out because I enjoy it, I dress nice because I like having people think I am clean and respectful of myself, and I am sociable because I like talking with people I don’t know. Nobody would know I am a dork, a nerd, or a wierdo from simply looking at me. They might think “pretty boy,” athlete, or prep. They wouldn’t think I love Star Trek, Star Wars, read science fiction voraciously, sit home alone on Friday night doing homework, or watch Anime like it was going out of style. Everybody with only one or two exceptions has looked at me and misjudged who I was.
I think there is just a lot of people like me. They don’t fit into molds, or just look like they fit into other molds. They enjoy superhero movies, love science fiction and/or fantasy and definately love geek culture.
Personally, I think that the actual prevalence of geeks, nerds, dweebs and dorks is probably exactly what it’s always been.
However, I think it’s much more acceptable these days to be one than say… in the 1960s. There’s been a lot of feel-good, “be yourself” stuff since then, and there’s even some not quite negative stereotypes out there (rich young internet nerd, etc…)., and even some popular nerdy characters in TV and movies; Grissom on CSI comes to mind.
That’s what I was going to say. I think the internet has had a lot to do with it. Nerdity has become a badge of pride for many people I know (including yours truly), or at least a source of self-deprecating jokes. Heck, there are even “I Heart Nerdy Boys” t-shirts out and about, though I find that the girls who wear them usually don’t look nerdy themselves. :dubious:
I think the internet has helped a group of socially-inept folks get together, and in a destructive way, reinforce negative behavior. People who are whiny shut-ins convinced everyone else has a problem, and constantly pat each other on the back and give sympathy to each other, when in reality they should get out there, take a few licks but emerge a better person.
The internet doesn’t force people to choose these lives. But it certainly acts as an enabler.
I agree with you somewhat, although having dealt with some of these types in college (before the popular advent of the web- 1991), I’m not so sure if you’re putting the chicken before the egg.
These guys weren’t popular even pre-internet, and they were so out there (think Napoleon Dynamite acting the same way at 24 somewhere besides rural Idaho) that they weren’t receptive to the usual rounding off of sharp corners that comes from a lot of social involvement.
I think the internet’s just a way for them to get away from having to deal with the rest of us.
John Wesley Harding has a song called “Come Gather Round” and there’s a large bit of truth in the lyrics when he says “We’re so convinced we’re different, it makes us all the same”.
All in the Family
Little House on the Prairie
Good Times
Roseanne
King of Queens
The Honeymooners
Laverne & Shirley
Married with Children
The Simpsons
That 70’s Show
I didn’t even Google anything to get that list. In many of these cases, the state of being poor or working class is a persistent subject; the Ingalls were perpetually broke in “Little House,” the Formans always have a money or employment crisis in “That 70’s Show,” etc.
I daresay that the failure rate for shows about the working class is no different that the failure rate for shows about rich people. It’s not like “girls club” lasted very long.
You give some good examples here, but even regarding some of these I’ll assert that either the lifestyle is skewed upward, a bit unrealistically, or that the shows have some other aspect or feature that made them thrive. All In The Family was such a perfect microcosm of the debate going on in America at the time that it couldn’t have missed. Any “era” type show, be it Little House or That 70s show seems to do well.
I have to say the difference isn’t so much the target demographic of shows. It’s how people are portrayed. Compare the OC with Beverly Hills 90210. At least Mr and Mrs Walsh LOOKED like 40 year old parents. I find it difficult to tell the age difference between the OC daughters and their MILF (another ‘fratboy’ expression) moms. It seems like 25 is like some magic age that everyone is supposed to look like.
I have to think that the constant barrage of images basically makes people cast themselves and others into ‘castes’ by superfical criteria far more than in the past. Sure there were always folks who were a little wierd or innept, but I wonder if people are much quicker to identify others as “cool guy”, “geek” or “hot chick” or whatever based on the imagery ingrained in their head.
I think that advances in health care have had an influence. Basically, you have a lot of people running around leading successful lives that would’ve died in infancy or been killed by adulthood because they’re weak.