I would suggest that the big social changes we ascribe to “the Sixties” were already well under way long before the Sixties. Much of what we consider “traditional morality” is enforceable only when people live in small, tightly knit communities in which everybody knows everybody and everybody knows everybody’s business, where everybody lives and works within a very small strecth of land.
To oversimplify, it wasn’t IMPOSSIBLE to fornicate or to carry on an adulterous affair in a small farming town in the 19th century, but it was tough. It felt as if there are eyes on you constantly.
Well, all kinds of technological changes have come along in the meantime that changed the way we live. We’ve gradually gotten much more prosperous, we’ve gotten MUCH more leisure time, and we have the ability to live and work FAR from the families and communities we grew up with.
That’s not a recent development. It’s been going on for a century or more. Many of the changes we associate with the Sixites were already evident in the Roaring Twenties. The Depression and the war put a damper on that for a while, but once the Western world was prosperous and at peace again, the changes resumed.
The fact that we can live far from our families and old communities has all kinds of ramifications, both good AND bad (and, of course, people will disagree about which results were good!).
I think the matriarchs might believe that the patriarchs have no business making such decisions mostly by themselves. Women are just as aware as men of the cold hard reality of not being able to perform certain physical tasks as easily as men, if at all. We are more aware of just how far we can train our bodies to endure. No one is asking that incapable women be assigned to combat positions. That should go without saying.
As for those laws I didn’t cite: By law, women could not attend the United States Military Academies and obtain the excellent educations available at West Point, the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, etc. On the entrance exam I outscored others who were admitted. (I didn’t really mind.)
There was no law that provided social security for women who worked at home. Most worked more than eight hour days.
yes, that is certainly true that men simply deciding in general for women entirely in place of them is fairly rude. Nevertheless, we could never realistically allow each person to decide for themselves whether they are fit. There should still be objective standards, but it is certainly fair that women participate in deciding what those standards might be.
Even accepting the unfairness of men deciding for women, it can’t really be argued that some of those decisions men made weren’t aimed at keeping women down but instead were out of kindnesses to them and protection of them. Not to say that nothing was designed to keep women down, some certainly were.
When you say there was no law for female home workers to receive any social security, are you referring to the fifties? If after social security started, I thought that women were entitled to their husband’s social security, if he died? Not saying that this is exactly the same as social security on her own for her own merit, but it is to say that the designers of social security didn’t just intend to ignore the needs of wives.
But those standards should be relevant to the job, and be individual, not group. If the entrance exam included physical fitness, I can assuredly say that Zoe was for more qualified to go to a military academy than me.
“It’s for your own good” has been one of the most common justifications for oppression. Not just women - it was felt that educating certain groups would just confuse them.
In 1978, right after we were married, my wife discovered that she couldn’t get a check cashing card at the grocery store because the Louisiana Head and Master Law said that I had to sign it. She had a real job then and I was in grad school, but no matter. She had an MS in Biology from an Ivy League school, so she could hardly be expected to know how to balance a checkbook. It got repealed soon after, but some of the people opposing repeal used this same argument.
A dresser like you put clothes in, which has drawers, which is made analogous to the draws (underwear) of a woman.
I’m heavily anchored on '60s and early '70s rock, which had a big blues influence. In fact I first heard that song on Fresh Cream, though I have the original Robert Johnson version now also. Under My Thumb might be considered misogynist, but it is more of a revenge song than a general one. Plenty of other songs are like that too - Goody, goody (not Gouda, Gouda, down Muppet Show!) is one.
Sometimes the idea can be put to no good. That’s not to say that you can’t make a rule for the common good that treats sexes differently just because it does happen to be good.
No. But the *character *of Pink is certainly a misogynist when he’s a Rock star (and hence, Waters was a misogynist when he lived like that.)
Now, is it wrong to relate (former) misogyny as an artistic endeavour? No, I should think not. But merely relating it doesn’t suddenly make the related behaviour not misogynistic. It merely removes the singer from being a misogynist now.
And that brings us back to Rap. When the (now, presumably, happily married to a self-proclaimed “independent woman”) Jay Z sings “I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one”, is he just being misogynistic and a product of his uncouth, degenerate post-liberal environment, as SA would have us believe? Or is he, you know, portraying a character every bit as much as Waters is?
I’d argue that someone like Jay Z is very well aware of the misogyny in his lyrics. Hell, he even wrote a song about it. You may not buy his reasoning (I don’t - slut-shaming is as bad as naked aggression to women) but that doesn’t mean it’s just blind misogyny.
Note: I’m *not *saying a lot of Rap isn’t misogynistic. I’m merely countering Starving’s implication that it is something out of the historical norms of popular culture.
Putnam is an icon and a living legend for all the “political correctness”-doubters in Sweden. He did show Scandinavian descendants in the US to be better in terms of social capital, and in Italy he showed that Germanic settlers in the north is the reason why the south of Italy is not as prosperous. (Although he didn’t explicitly point it out in the case of Italy)
If it wasn’t for the fact that he converted to his wife’s religion, I think he would have been out of business a long time ago because of the subtle “racism” in his research.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
I asked him what caused “The Sixties” (ie, the counterculture, hippies, etc.), thinking that the Vietnam War was a big part of it, and he claimed that that wasn’t a huge factor, since The Sixties happened in countries like Sweden which were not involved in Vietnam at all. His belief is that the single biggest factor was purely a generation one… the baby boomers were all teenagers, so the ratio of adults to adolescents was the smallest it has ever been.
[/QUOTE]
The Vietnam War was a major source of inspiration for Leftists all over the Western World in the 60s. I just can’t understand how a Harvard Professor like Putnam seems to be unaware of this fact. Instead he gives you a nonsense explanation about baby boomers.
I think he knows very well what “caused” the cultural Marxist revolution in the 60s. But I suppose he felt it was inappropriate to mention it at a Bar Mitzvah.
Really, and again with the idea that cultural liberalism is somehow “Marxist”. Never have been able to see how they get that one. While Western Establishment leaders were claiming rock-n-roll and the 60s youth culture had some sort of commie influence, Communist leaders were claiming rock-n-roll and the youth 60s culture were a sign of capitalist decandence and banning it in their countries.
But if “Pink” or Roger Waters holds women in contempt, is that mere bigotry on his part, or is a reflection of what he sees every day?
Who are the women a rock star sees? He sees stoned, stupid groupies who don’t know him at all but will eagerly suck off security guards just for a chance to meet and screw him.
Even if he had placed women on a pedestal before becoming a star, he could easily LEARN to think they’re all despicable sluts based on experience.
:rolleyes: No, I’m familiar with “cultural Marxism” and the New Left and all of that. What never existed in America is this ''cultural Marxist revolution" of which Raleigh speaks. Nor did the implied connection between cultural Marxism and cultural liberalism.
Until the 1950s, the American people were in charge of their own country.
From the 1960s and onwards, the cultural Marxist media was in charge of the USA.
The Immigration Act of 1965, for example, was not in the interest of the American people. The previous immigration act’s sought to keep an ethnic status quo in the US, favoring immigrants from Northwestern Europe by quotas. When those quotas were removed, the US became steadily more multicultural and therefore (according to Putnam’s research) unhappier, more violent, less productive, and so on.
I used to be cruel to my woman/I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved/Man I was mean but I’m changing my scene/And I’m doing the best that I can.
