The part of the quote I pulled had nothing to do with religion or clothing. I pulled the part that says essentially that if poverty is extreme enough, it must be because the poor are bad. Therefore they deserve to be poor, it’s their punishment, apparently.
I think disdain for the poor is WAY more common among those with conservative politics, has your observation been much different than that?
Except first of all, there wasn’t a robust social discourse about domestic violence. And, more importantly, demanding that communities exercise vigilante justice to punish spousal rape misses the point. A society that legally allows spousal rape, even if an enraged brother will take a baseball bat to his brother in law’s head, is still a society that does not have the proper legal protections in place for its minority citizens.
And that, quite aptly, points to a lack of proper civility in a society.
(As does a requisite redressal-of-grievances process that involves vigilante justice)
I suspect that folks on the Right are more likely to say that the poor are poor due to moral failures while folks on the Left are more likely to say that poor are poor because they are simply not competent to escape poverty. However, my point was that we don’t have any reliable numbers in this thread for how many on the Left or Right actually hold those stereotypical views.
Regarding cross burning, I guess the question is whether things were getting better, or worse.
I can’t find a source for cross burning incidents/year. I read the wiki history on the KKK and there were basically three different KKKs. The first in the late 1800’s had a good old time terrorising blacks and others they didn’t like, but didn’t burn crosses.
The second incarnation in the early 1900s started the cross burning thing, and enjoyed its hey day in the earlier part of the century. Times changed and it went out of business by the 40’s.
Then, in the early 50’s it started up again only this time it wasn’t national, and instead went with smaller, local chapters. They tried some cross burning in Virginia and fairly quickly found cross burning outlawed as well as moves to declare the KKK a terrorist outfit that could be outlawed and banned. So, it sounds like cross burning was on the decline in the 50’s.
Not to defend the KKK in any way shape or form, but these days it sounds like cross burning is more often carried out by individuals rather than an active KKK.
…and was with the rise of Blues, and the rise of Rock, and the rise of Country…basically, any entertainment field dominated by young men is going to display this misogyny because the dominant patriarchal culture is the way it is. Rap isn’t any *more *misogynistic than Blues, was my point. It isn’t any *more *disrespectful in lyrical content, either.
That it seems so is a direct result of the fact that Rap is mainstream, not mostly confined to ghettos and rural townships like Blues mostly was. And that’s thanks to Civil Rights. But correlation isn’t causation there.
It wasn’t a marginalized part of Blues culture, the misogynistic bit. It was pretty prevalent throughout, and Blues was very influential on Rock, and it took hold there, too. Look at what the pre-fame Beatles were like. So no, this (misogyny in popular music) wasn’t a “minor version of a problem”, it was pervasive and existed long before Rap music.
Your equivalence is false because it’s made of straw. My only point was that calling women bitches and hos isn’t some new thing fresh-sprung from modern liberal tolerance. The wording may have changed, but the cultural basis for it stretches back way past the 60s, and is a continuum.
Eh? That displays some ignorance of the history of Rock, R&B and Hip Hop. Hell, the term “Rock and Roll” is a *Blues *euphemism for sex. Blues had a much larger influence on society than rap does. All those rude, dirty hippies, for instance - you know what they listened to?
So “Where Ignorance is Bliss, 'tis Folly To Be Wise!” is the root of your stance, is it?
Just out of curiosity, MrDibble, do the social changes Starving Artist complains of in America have any relevance at all in non-Western countries – e.g., your South Africa? Apart from Apartheid, if it is even possible to speak here of anything apart from Apartheid, how does SA society today differ from SA society in 1955?
I and a great deal of other christians criticize the “health and wealth” doctrine–it is by no means universal doctrine and may even be minority. Most that I know dismiss it. But I cannot deny that it is out there.
I didn’t claim that vigilantism made a society “propely civil.” My point is that it shows that not everyone turned their head to domestic violence with a wink because they approve. My problem is with people who try to make d.v. look like the norm.
I continue to believe that most husbands were decent to their wives when it comes to the serious violence/rape question.
I notice people of all stripes thinking they are “better” than others.Even the poor themselves, but of course for issues other than wealth or lack of it.
I can’t say there is never any misogyny, but to paint rock and country as though they are generally misogynistic is false. I’m not sure of the blues, as I haven’t listened in great detail to the lyrics. I can play the hell out of the blues, but its the lyrics that count.
Some songs that sound bad are specifically addressed to, say, a former lover, and if she has done something wrong, that’s not misogyny. Complaining, say, like Bob Seger does in sunblind baby that she is running around the world using his credit, is alegitimate complaint, and NOT misogyny–it complains of a thief, and just because she is female does not make it misogyny. But I think there’s an awful lot of love songs out there, and heavily outwieghing any critical songs, that praise women or a woman.
In contrast, rap frequently paints ALL women as bithces and hos. rock and country do not do this.
Rap has a strong misogynistic streak that is not present in rock and country.
Are you suggesting that sex is misogynistic? I know some women that would hang you out to dry if you are.
Which strawman is this statement meant for?
It’s the women who were not decently treated that are the issue. In the past, society and government were much more likely to try to hush up any complaints and force the woman to learn to live with her situation. It still happens today, but women are much more empowered to escape their situations than they were in the past.
Are you suggesting that sexual objectification of women is not misogynistic? I know some women that would hang you out to dry if you are. All of them are wrong, but that changes nothing.
No, they did it to have a mortgage they can afford, which in the Bay Area was not very simple to do during the bubble. A two bedroom condo across the street from my office complex just sold - quickly - for somewhere over $600K. and this is with the depressed market. You clearly don’t have any kids - having a good school system for them counts for a lot also for most people, or is that another useless luxury in your book?
When I lived in the Congo there were plenty of people in shacks in the center of Leopoldville. When we went to Egypt we saw that people had moved into the cemetery because of the horrible housing market. I guess their needs were being met, since they were not dying. Is that good enough for you?
If he’d have said sexual objectification rather than a mere “sex,” I’d not have complained.
My statement would address any claims that all or most women were beaten, and that all or most of society turned their heads in approval.
Rampant drug abuse started in the 1960s? Drug abuse had been rampant for decades – opium, morphine, cocaine – not to mention alcohol abuse. Never heard of the hordes of morphine addicts created by the Civil War or World War I? Alcohol abuse was seen as such a huge societal problem that it even got banned for a decade or so.
I don’t even accept that society was more civil in the '50s. It put up a facade of more civility, but when it came to reality, that civility was due only to certain kinds of people in certain kinds of positions.
I don’t see what the point is in continuing this discussion because what’s evident to me is that Starving Artist really has no idea of what life what like in the past. We’re all arguing with a phantom.
I’ll just note that when I went to college women still weren’t allowed in Harvard, and Yale and Princeton had just opened their gates. Plus, growing up in a sexist society was very close to not being allowed for many people. My class at MIT had about 15% women, and I’d say that on average they were far more driven then the men. Today there is 50%, or over 50%, and I don’t think it is because women got any smarter. MIT had admitted women for a long time also, and the first woman who attended, in the 19th century, was honored even when I was there.
Look, I was addressing a tendency in our culture to think we need far more than we really do. If you do not understand that I am sorry. Examples of extreme poverty do not change it. Americans in general think they “need” far more than actual necessities.
I have kids. I schooled them at home.