The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

But who is the one who gets wound up - the people who want to change the name or the people who don't? And if it's both, then the argument you are making - I think reduces to - is that the right stance is to let others fight it out and then accept the outcome.

I really don't care if its chair or chairman (chairperson sound odd to me), but it was clear that chairman was changed to chair by some very motivated people for a variety of reasons - even if I don't care about the name, I might care about the agenda behind it.

And really -- so what? It's a word. It's a name. Will making a stink about supposed "agendas" cause anyone to say "OH GEE HE'S RIGHT BETTER CHANGE IT BACK!" There are so many more important battles to fight in the world that I just feel sorry for people who feel like they need to lather up over something so trivial as this.

Doing some radio history work some time ago, I did quite a bit of research in the NBC internal files, and came across a memo from John Royal, the network's head of programming in 1935, advising the chief of broadcast standards that the "N-word" was to be hereafter banned from use on the network. The executive noted that there had been complaints from "Negro organizations," and added that "sometimes these darkeys get too exacting." The people who whine about chairman-chairperson la-de-dah remind me very much of Mr. Royal. The world had changed, but he wasn't able to handle those changes very well.

 

[Fading Fast]

I disagree with your analogy to radio and that someone who doesn't agree with the change in some historically gender-based names today isn't "able to handle those changes very well." The radio scenario speaks to a racial language that, it seems today, thankfully, very, very few would accept.

But we are still in the process of discussing changing names for things that had gender aspects to them. And here is the irony - I couldn't care less if its Chair, Chairperson, etc. And I do agree, this isn't the biggest or even a big issue, but to have an opinion and want to discuss it - an issue that is current - doesn't display some hidden inner ugliness or some neanderthal agenda against change.

And I don't think I am "whining" about something I believe I am discussing calmly and reasonably.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not talking about you specifically. But when I was in journalism, you heard whining all the time from crusty old reporters who'd been at it since the Truman Administration complaining about "these uppity broads." And it *was* whining in their case because they couldn't stand that their old boys club was being broken up by the changing times. I lived thru that period, and it was not something to be taken lightly. The hostility was palpable.

I think the NBC analogy is exactly the same thing. John Royal wasn't some neanderthal redneck -- he was a sophisticated, intelligent Bostoninan who was considered quite progressive on racial issues. And yet, he didn't feel eliminating the "n-word" from the occasional song lyric or dramatic script was a big deal, and he felt that the people who did feel that it was were being unreasonable. That's really *exactly* the same thing as we're talking about here. Fifty years from now people will view discussions like this the same way we view Mr. Royal's memo today.

 

[Fading Fast]

...

I think the NBC analogy is exactly the same thing. John Royal wasn't some neanderthal redneck -- he was a sophisticated, intelligent Bostoninan who was considered quite progressive on racial issues. And yet, he didn't feel eliminating the "n-word" from the occasional song lyric or dramatic script was a big deal, and he felt that the people who did feel that it was were being unreasonable. That's really *exactly* the same thing as we're talking about here. Fifty years from now people will view discussions like this the same way we view Mr. Royal's memo today.

We'll see in fifty years, but I don't agree for reasons noted above.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, I'd like to be more optimistic, but I don't expect to be here in fifty years. But I'll be sure to send one of the theatre kids around to check.

 

[ChiTownScion]

It got me thinking as I drove downtown this morning, that this.....the desire to make money over anything else....is truly the root of it all. Every other problem, real or perceived, be it television, internet, drug addiction, juvenile delinquents, hippies (real or imagined), gangsta rappers, pornography, walmart, wars, racism, churches protecting child predators, crappy schools, kids growing up alone because both parents have to work all the time, jobs being outsourced overseas, you name it, if you really look at it long enough, ultimately leads back to somebody somewhere trying to make or -sometimes even worse - protect a profit. And the bigger the bucks at stake, the deeper the damage.

Add "organized religion" to that. And the more literalist its orientation, the more rooted in vested pecuniary interest it is.

 

[Fading Fast]

Well, I'd like to be more optimistic, but I don't expect to be here in fifty years. But I'll be sure to send one of the theatre kids around to check.

I have no intention nor desire to live another 50 years - the first 50 were just too exhausting.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Add "organized religion" to that.

The temple is long overdue for another good cleansing.

 

[Edward]

They say the Daily Mail is the cheesiest, pot-stirringest paper in the UK. I wouldn't take much of anything they say seriously.

Without getting into a debate on the rights or wrongs of its politics, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper. Unlike more "honest" tabloids, however, it likes to think it's a Proper Newspaper. It's the worst kind of pandering to small-minded, middle class social climbers who think they're better than the lesser types who read other newspapers. Whether you agree with its political persuasion or not, the idea that it is in any way a source of credible journalism is quite laughable. Serious newspapers (though not what they once were, sadly) in the UK, such as the Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and the Guardian come from a wide range of editorial slants and political positions, each a credible (though not, given their non-objectivity, a complete) source of information. The Mail is a pretender to this status, but it falls far short. For instance, when the Parliamentary expenses scandal broke a few years ago, the source that leaked it all approached the Mail first. The Daily Telegraph ended up running the story in the end. The Mail only wanted to publish the facts about fraudulent claims made by those in a party which it opposes; in reality, while not anywhere near as widespread as popularly believed, breaches and twisting of the rules were committed across all major parties equally. While the Telegraph holds a similar political position to the Mail, it had the journalistic integrity to publish all the facts. The Mail is the worst kind of gutter press that will not acknowledge what it really is.

Of course, it should be noted that I say this as an individual who has well-earne and proudly wears a "Hated by the Daily Mail" badge, so....

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Interestingly I have noticed that many of the Daily Mail's human interest stories, particularly those about America, tend to be presented in the "People of Walmart" vein. They occasionally run stories about vintage enthusiasts in the UK and while the DM might be laughing at them, they're still portrayed charitably as harmlessly eccentric. On the other hand when it comes to American stories they seem to focus on the worst trailer trash freaks they can find who readily reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think that's actually as much a middle-class thing as it is a UK vs US thing. It wasn't and isn't working-class people who are the intended audience for "People of Wal Mart," but working-class people are very much the *target* of it. There is no group of people more utterly insecure in their class position than the bourgeoisie, and the more they can convince themselves that they're above, and deserve to be above, the proles just beneath them on the ladder, the better they can sleep at night. And, to speak to the point made earlier in the thread about money being the root of all our evils, that insecurity ensures that those same people can be freely and easily manipulated by The Boys -- it's not the money itself that motivates them as much as the markers of class status they can buy with it.

 

[Dennis Young]

However, the old hippie lady down the street still doesn’t want my help bringing in her trash cans when I offered. C’est la vie.

lol

You're the devil you know that? lol

It has been my experience that *most* ladies seem to be thankful when I hold the door for them. I suspect they are often taken back that someone would do that. I think manners and etiquette, treating a lady with respect is a good thing. Some, however take offense at the slightest thing.

 

[Dennis Young]

This is precisely the kind of 3rd Wave Feminism that I hate. The kind where people insist it's "police officer", not "policeman" or it's "human kind" not "mankind". At some point in the past few decades, men became the evil chauvinistic pig bent on ruling over the entire planet just because they held doors open for ladies. I hold a door open for anybody that's behind me. Not because I'm a chauvinist, but because it's the right thing to do. Just like saying "thank you" when the door is held open for you, or saying "please" when asking somebody for something. There's a thing called manners that are slowly disappearing in society.

Good post. Yeah, its that PC thing again. I first encountered it with the womens’ studies majors back when I worked at the University. That’s part of it. But it is throughout our culture today. We used to be able to say ‘actors’ and actress’. Now we’re only supposed to say ‘actor’, as if ‘actress’ is somehow wrong and demeaning.


As for holding the door or tipping the hat, if a man does it, we do it simply to be nice. Its not done because there is some meaning or point to it. Its not like we don’t think a poor helpless woman cant manage for herself. You just do it as a courtesy and to be nice. I’ve held doors for the elderly, for kids and even for the occasional man. I’ve even had the door held for me by a woman. And as I get older (I’m 52) I have to say I would mind that less and less. lol


I don’t know. Maybe it’s a southern thing. We were (most of us of my age) taught to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ and ‘yes sir/ma’am and hold the door for someone or help someone if you can. When I was in the Navy, I saw how different it was in other parts of the country. But I still say the little courtesies make our society a nicer place despite what some might think.

 

[jamespowers]

This morning, when I returned to the clubhouse from my round of golf, I held the door open for a man that I noticed coming up behind me. He said no, after you. I replied thanks but then I realized in the long run, I was thanking myself.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When my grandfather was getting up in years and slack of memory, he'd occasionally thank automatic doors.

 

[jamespowers]

When my grandfather was getting up in years and slack of memory, he'd occasionally thank automatic doors.

lol lol Not that bad yet.

 

[Edward]

Interestingly I have noticed that many of the Daily Mail's human interest stories, particularly those about America, tend to be presented in the "People of Walmart" vein. They occasionally run stories about vintage enthusiasts in the UK and while the DM might be laughing at them, they're still portrayed charitably as harmlessly eccentric. On the other hand when it comes to American stories they seem to focus on the worst trailer trash freaks they can find who readily reinforce negative stereotypes about Americans.

There is a particularly nasty strain of anti-Americanism in the Mail's target readership, though ironically for all that much of the American political dialect has seeped into their usage, such as, for instance, the US-usage of "liberal" to mean a] left-=wing and b] typically intended as an insult. It amuses me to see that cultural influence among people who will complain bitterly about Americanisms they do spot in the language the papers uses.

I think that's actually as much a middle-class thing as it is a UK vs US thing. It wasn't and isn't working-class people who are the intended audience for "People of Wal Mart," but working-class people are very much the *target* of it. There is no group of people more utterly insecure in their class position than the bourgeoisie, and the more they can convince themselves that they're above, and deserve to be above, the proles just beneath them on the ladder, the better they can sleep at night. And, to speak to the point made earlier in the thread about money being the root of all our evils, that insecurity ensures that those same people can be freely and easily manipulated by The Boys -- it's not the money itself that motivates them as much as the markers of class status they can buy with it.

It is true that there is a lot of class-prejudice, if not hatred, encouraged and indulged by the Mail. It's back to the target readership being the sort of newly-middle-class (in the English usage of the term, not US) persons who bootstrapped themselves up out of the working classes, and are now afraid that others may have an easier time of improving their lot than they did. It much be a very sad way to live one's life, but it's certainly a very profitable one for Associated News.

When my grandfather was getting up in years and slack of memory, he'd occasionally thank automatic doors.

At least he was polite. I suspect I may have inadvertently added words that shouldn't be there to several children's vocabularies during various efforts to remonstrate with automated supermarket tills.

 

[LizzieMaine]

At least he was polite. I suspect I may have inadvertently added words that shouldn't be there to several children's vocabularies during various efforts to remonstrate with automated supermarket tills.

When I get automated phone calls from campaigning politicians, I enjoy giving full vent to my family heritage of colorful, colorful language.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

There is a particularly nasty strain of anti-Americanism in the Mail's target readership, though ironically for all that much of the American political dialect has seeped into their usage, such as, for instance, the US-usage of "liberal" to mean a] left-=wing and b] typically intended as an insult. It amuses me to see that cultural influence among people who will complain bitterly about Americanisms they do spot in the language the papers uses.

Funny because I have noticed that quite a few on the Left in the US do not like to be called Liberal anymore. The preferred euphemism when describing themselves is "Progressive."

 

[HudsonHawk]

Funny because I have noticed that quite a few on the Left in the US do not like to be called Liberal anymore. The preferred euphemism when describing themselves is "Progressive."

Funny, I'm a liberal and I don't particularly care for being described as "the left". What if I'm facing the other direction?