Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
But then you don’t think today’s problems are problems either.
Sexual promiscuity, rough manners, and “relativistic ethics” are not problems, no.
How would “hos” be confusing? It’s not even a real word.
:rolleyes:That’s only the most extreme of those lyrics, which was why I quoted it. There’s plenty of other illustration there that misogyny didn’t pop up new-formed in the community with the rise of rap.
Calling women bitches and hos is disrespectful and despicable, sure, but it’s not quite on par with threatening them with assault and murder. Or actually doing it - read about some of those Blues musicians, they were pretty hard living men.
Uh, yeah, actually, talk to any woman who was around in the 50s. There were LOTS AND LOTS of jobs that women weren’t allowed to do. Yes, they might have been able to get some jobs, but not the good ones.
And yes, actually, some women were fairly regularly raped by their husbands. Except that it didn’t count, since it wasn’t legally possible for a man to rape his wife. That’s why most states eventually passed marital rape laws.
Of course, it wasn’t polite to talk about rape or spousal abuse, so you were able to pretend it didn’t happen. Convenient, that.
Sorry. And it appears that Starvin’ did actually serve for a while.
But I was raised by a single mother–beginning in 1953. My father was a WWII vet, called back to active duty & killed in a plane crash. I wish the facts had been otherwise but his continual ragging on the horror of single-parent homes & working mothers offends me in a very personal way. And I’ve always been offended by his racist & sexist lies about a past that I also remember.
How many “hippies” actually spit on him?
There are all kinds of one-off events, urban legends, aberrations… in all time periods. You find some modern rarity offensive and indicative, we find some 1960s rarity (like setting Freedom Riders on fire) offensive and indicative. I guess it’s a wash.
Starving, maybe you should PM elucidator your physical address. Just so you don’t feel left out.
America does have problems today that are worse than they were in 1950s – economic, environmental, and so on – but those are mostly the fault of entirely respectable people, the kind who, when men wore hats, could reasonably expect to receive a lot of tipping.
I think a good argument can be made that the culture of the day used “good manners” as an excuse to avoid discussing certain topics, such as homosexuality, spouse abuse, rape, teenage pregnancy (which was at an all time high during the decade in question) and a variety of other issues that were deemed “not polite” to talk about. Race, admittedly, probably wasn’t as impacted, although it’s useful to bring up as a rebuttal to the idea that everyone was more polite back then, by pointing out that burning a cross on someone’s lawn isn’t what is generally viewed as “good manners.”
Uh, that was a joke, quoting Dylan. Still, Taft was Mr. Conservative, and Ike, who got approached to run by both parties, would hardly count as one, especially not these days.
Good for you, but I haven’t noticed all that many conservatives getting behind public works projects like in the Stimulus package. Sam Stone just had a fit about it. In any case, taking money from rich people in order to pay not so rich people to build the highways is sure some kind of income redistribution. The WPA did things also, after all, they hardly got blessed by conservatives.
In any case, I haven’t seen any indication that anyone is trying to make people dependent on government. On the contrary, in California they are yanking care away from old sick people as a result of not extending taxes or raising them on the rich.
I don’t recall a Great Society welfare tax. No Medicare tax, but those still alive after 65 didn’t get the benefit either. If we raised taxes on the rich back to those levels (which would be a bad idea) we might be able to cut some other taxes.
Here is an article on our low tax burden. It doesn’t go back to the '50s, but more people say taxes are too low or about right than any time since they started asking the question in 1956.
Hell no - just that the increase in one drug came along with the decline of another. And a more harmful one at that. If second hand pot smoke is dangerous, and if people started smoking in public and at work, I suspect the same rules would apply.
I graduated junior high in 1966, and we had one pregnant girl (at least - I suspect some disappeared.) Any nasties happening back then wouldn’t be splashed all over the press, so if morality means hiding it, you do have a point. Lenny Bruce did a routine on the clap in 1962, so there was some of it around.
So the CBS documentary 'Hunger in America" which had a lot to do with the beginning of food stamps was totally fabricated? I don’t know anyone with an STD now, but I don’t think I’d be correct in denying that they are out there.
You mean real gangs don’t dance? I’m shocked!
No, the point was, as should be obvious, that gangs were a fact of life, so that a musical with gangs wasn’t referring to something no one had ever heard of before.
My friends and I talked about older kids who had jd cards all the time, with a mixture of dread and admiration. But we were all Jewish, and no gang would have had us anyway.
What I believe is not the issue, the truth is. This is Great Debates, where “belief” is not worth much of anything. If things are true, there is some reasonably reliable way to demonstrate their truth. The fact that you can’t be bothered to make the slightest effort to back up anything you say leads me to “believe” that you don’t know one way or another what reality is, you just know that your perceptions are enough for you and you are content to portray your perceptions and beliefs as identical to objective reality.
But they aren’t.
Not to mention sexual abuse and exploitation by male employers.
Bingo.
I was a conservative republican in Cambridge, MA from 1969 to 1973, and hung around the East Village in NY before that, and no hippie ever spat on me. So, I don’t think it is possible.
All the more reason. I think the meaning is made clearer by the insertion of an apostrophe. For the most part I feel the same way about decades - 50’s, 60’s, etc. Keeps them from looking like airplanes or motorcycles. 
I never said that misogyny popped up newly-formed with the rise of rap. But it has unquestionably been promoted and spread through the rise of rap.
But this brings to mind again one of the most common fallacies I’m faced with on this board, which is the apparent belief that if some minor version of a problem exists in the past, it totally negates a much more widespread version of the same thing. People around here seem to think that if STD’s existed in 1900, it means that current STD rates are meaningless. If gangs existed in the 50’s, then gangs are no worse today. If drug addicts existed in the 40’s (which they did), then it means current drug is no worse.
What is it with this line of thinking? The whole point is that under liberal influence all these problems have exploded and gone from minor problems that affected very few people (as a percentage of the population) to problems that have affected almost everyone. Why is it necessary even to have to say this? Why isn’t it obvious?
Yes, but then it’s not an either/or issue, is it? It’s not like if we eliminate the practice of calling women bitches and ho’s women will suddenly begin to be assaulted and murdered. This is another fallacious way of thinking. I believe the term is false equivalence.
Yeah, some of them were. But again, how much did their behavior or music impact upon society of the day? I’d wager that it was miniscule compared to the influence of rap.
The thing I think a lot of people don’t realize is that most men didn’t have the really good ones either. Upper echelon jobs then as now were held by a very small percentage of men. Most men worked in office or labor jobs just like they do now. It’s true that of the higher echelon jobs, those who held them were men, but it’s not like the employment of women in the country would have been much different if an equal proportion held high end jobs.
And as it happens, I know and have known quite a few women who were around in the sixties and none of them felt the attitudes of repression and ill-treatment that is attributed to them today. And most of them had quite good jobs or other means of income. My mother worked for a major airline (ticket counter) in the fifties and had great pay and benefits. Her aunt worked at a major U.S. airforce base and also had great pay and benefits. She was a widow for most of her life and yet lived in a very nice, well-furnished house and always drove a new car. My stepmother and her older sister worked their entire working lives as office manager and executive secretary respectively for a large auto parts firm. They too made very good money and had good benefits. The sister had a ne’er do well but likeable husband who couldn’t hold a job, and yet they lived in a very nice 60’s-era ranch style house on the edge of the old-money part of town. She earned and handled all the money, paid all the bills, and made all the decisions about how the family’s money was spent. My grandmother on my father’s side was widowed in her forties, but was industrious and always looking for ways to make a buck. She sold Baby-Tendas among other things, and always rented or bought large two-story houses which she lived in for free by turning the upstairs bedrooms into dormitories (three or four twin beds per room) for college students. This not only provided her with an excellent income, but she always had a man around the house (as security and/or to move furniture around when needed). Further, I’d say that 80% of my teachers all through school were women, and of course they all made a perfectly adequate living too. All of this tells me that it was far from impossible for a woman to make a good living or to manage her own finances in the 50’s and 60’s as is so often asserted around here.
That’s right, some women were raped by their husbands without legal recourse. And the proper way to contend with that would have been to organize protests and get the laws changed, you know, like happened with women’s sufferage. Women managed to get the vote without all the upheaval caused by the counter-culture revoltion, so why couldn’t they address spousal rape in the same way? The fact of the matter is that they could, it just so happened that the counter-culture revolution came along and so the women’s movement hopped on board. But it’s incorrect at the very least to believe that the counter-culture revolution and the problems that have followed in its wake were all necessary in order to prevent spousal rape or allow women to earn good money and handle their own finances.
And the result of this revelation is…?
“Nada”, I expect.
You won’t find a single post I made anywhere “ragging on” working mothers. And along with the children that result, the biggest victims of the love 'em and leave 'em attitude fostered by the counter-culture revolution are women and young girls themselves, who find themselves impregnated and then abandoned by the guys who got them pregnant.
While some people have fourished and done very well having been raised in a single-parent home, the reality is that most don’t fare well at all. Many are being raised by a parent who grew up in a single-parent home themselves and who, through youth and lack of properly instilled values when they were growing up, are unable to provide the instruction and discipline that children need in order to turn out well. And the problem is further exacerbated when the single parent has to work all day and the kid(s) are left to fend for (read: “raise”) themselves.
Any racist and sexist lies on my part exist only in your own mind, an area where apparently, any disagreement equals racism and sexism.
What difference does it make? If none spit on me, does that negate the point?
I have things to do and had not intended to post any further to this thread today, but I thought I’d go ahead and address these posts because they raised issues that I thought needed to be addressed. On preview I see even more nonsense has come along while I’ve been composing this post, and since there just aren’t enough hours in the day to contend with the never-ending stream of argument that this subject always raises, I’m going to have to call it a day and let the remaining posts go unanswered for now.
Kinda, yeah.
If drugs, gangs, and STDs could become issues in the era of soft-spoken, hat-wearing Republicans, what reason is there to believe that increases in those things are the direct responsibility of damn dirty hippies?
[steve jobs]One more thing![/steve jobs]
You might have a point except for the fact that among most of the population at that time, most of these subjects rarely if ever came up. People didn’t talk about race and homosexuals and spousal abuse because it simply wasn’t part of their consciousness. They went about their days, did their jobs and raised their families, and rarely gave these issues a thought. In fact, much of the impetus behind civil rights demonstrations was simply to bring the plight of blacks in America into mainstream consciousness, and the same has been true of both the womens’ movement and gay rights movement.
So while circumstances for blacks and to a certain degree women were undoubtedly worse then, it hardly follows that politeness was the reason for it.
In that case, unless you’ve been murdered you have no standing to comment on murder. And unless you’re gay, you have not standing to talk about gay issues. And unless you’re a woman, you…well, you get the idea.
It’s really hard to believe the way some people think around here. :rolleyes:
And now I really and truly am out. Maybe more later.