The Lure of Opulent Desolation

[John in Covina]

Provincial

Senator Jack makes a good point. The writer assumes that a goodly number of readers will identify with her and be familiar with the source material she has mentioned. Then she assumes that those readers will share her angst which is mired in longing for a perceived way of life that is no longer obtainable.

*******************
This phenomenon of insulated living and provincial attitudes is very prevelant around the country and the globe. One associates with like minded individuals whether in academia, business, or general life. People get into embarrassing situations by assuming that everyone around them think as they do and put their feet in their mouths under that assumption. It's often heard after an election where people will say: "I don't know how Candidate Y got elected, I don't know anybody that voted for them."

I'd bet she'd be shocked by the number of people that disagree with some or all of the points she has written.

 

[reetpleat]

p.s I really liked DHermann's post earlier (very early on). The idea that nothing much changed from the 40s, to the 50s, to the 60s … and i assume into the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s? People just kept on keeping on, as someone (paraphrased) once said; i don't recall whom.

This is certainly my experience of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s: Things haven't changed. People are as they always were. There's nothing to yearn for, except misplaced idealism … which is, frankly, idealistic and misplaced.

bk

In a way, there is very little change from year to year. But if you look at the big picture, then you do see a lot of change. Besides that, don't underestimate the social upheaval of a few major events. Especially the social upheaval of the late sixties and early seventies. Perhaps it is not all about Viet Nam, or even all about America, but he change in culture, by a large group of youth who intentionally rejected the conventions of the past had a great impact on world culture.

In just three years or so, the cultural landscape was vastly different, then the changes that followed were quite dramatic too.

 

[reetpleat]

Ok. As one of those who have been patronized and accused of un-critical thinking, an inability to grasp nuance or irony and missing the point altogether, I went back and read the article as published.

The fancy literary vehicles she is trying to use to get her point across do not work well because she is unskilled in their use. She also needs a great deal more grounding in near-term social history and urban anthropology. In the main though what she is revealing in her piece is a deep personal ambivalence and confusion about her own psycho-spiritual place in the world, as well as hearsay claptrap mired in the modern version of truth, which is a miasma of mis-informed myth and wishful thinking bequeathed to us by the One Parent, TV.

On a personal note, I do take umbrage at being patronized and talked down to by folks who assume that they are more intelligent, more perceptive, more educated and more skilled than myself. A feller never knows who he's talking to, so when all else fails try good manners and respect.

Well, certainly she can not speak for everyone. And I will admit, I do think her language is a little muddled. I am a good and clear writer in my opinion, and an avid reader, and I think if I were here editor, i would ask her to be a little more clear and direct.

However, I actually do agree with her point, but not so much about women as for men. I find my fascination with the golden era and fifties and sixties often in conflict with my attitudes as a modern sensitive male. Certainly, many men on this board identify with the image of the vintage "real man" and have no issues beyond that. But i am not one of them. Put simply, would I want to be Frank Sinatra. In some ways, yes, and in some ways no. And I struggle withi deciding what kind of man I wnat to be. I look back to the past with a love hate relationship. I am assuming this is how she feels about traditional female images and steriotypes.

 

[Feraud]

Certainly, many men on this board identify with the image of the vintage "real man" and have no issues beyond that.

Indeed.

 

[Fletch]

This phenomenon of insulated living and provincial attitudes is very prevelant around the country and the globe. One associates with like minded individuals whether in academia, business, or general life.

Funny how that doesn't change even with the global village aspects of these here intertubes. I sometimes feel that I can be as cosmopolitan as I choose as long as it's just typing on a bboard, but that back in physical reality, it doesn't always pay. It isn't always relevant to your community, your context, your life.

For example, I am a jazz fan (and musician), and while jazz is ostensibly "America's music" and widely available in recorded/electronic form, there is a real incongruity these days to listening to jazz outside of the most major of cities. The music just isn't relevant to daily life outside of a certain circle of highly urbanized people. It's something I feel acutely, since I don't much care for that circle or the lifestyle that goes with it. But that is jazz's home now.

 

[Anachronism]

Frankly, I have to give the article props just because it has an awesome title!

 

[Foofoogal]

People get into embarrassing situations by assuming that everyone around them think as they do and put their feet in their mouths under that assumption.

I think this is the statement that is so important to life. I think in real life and even on this board sometimes. lol

 

[just_me]

I still cannot figure out one good thing it brought. fftopic:

Re: the feminist movement

I grew up in the 50s (born in 1950). I hated and resented, the fact that I didn't have the same opportunities as the boys did. It may not sound like much now to girls/women who have always been allowed to play on sports teams, get sports scholarships to college, be considered for jobs other than secretary, not have to act "dumb," dress how you want, and be able to make choices that aren't based on gender, but the disparity in opportunities between male and females was vast.

Because of the feminist movement, my daughter (and you too) has always had opportunities that I didn't.

 

[Foofoogal]

I will never agree with feminist thinking. Ever.
I have 8 brothers and never wanted them to tell me what to do. I have never figured out how like sheep a whole generation of women that didn't want men to tell them what to do suddenly went brain dead and let women tell them what to do. This is how I sum up the failed feminist experiment.

 

[Real Swell Gal]

I was pretty much going to make some of the same points that Lizzie made but she beat me to it.

All I can really say as a modern woman is that I'm gald I have the same oppritunities as men. I think we should all be given the same chance even if we decide we'd rather not take it. That was pretty much what the begining if women's rights were all about anyway. An equal chance at the same piece of pie.

 

[just_me]

I will never agree with feminist thinking. Ever.
I have 8 brothers and never wanted them to tell me what to do. I have never figured out how like sheep a whole generation of women that didn't want men to tell them what to do suddenly went brain dead and let women tell them what to do. This is how I sum up the failed feminist experiment.

I don't know how old you are, or if you lived before the feminist movement, but your life would be quite different now if it wasn't for the women's movement.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Feminist thought has been very, very, well marketed against. Mostly in terms of obfuscation (should fit in well at FLounge), mostly by men. Desparate attempts to reinforce the glass ceiling, or the shackles to the kitchen sink.

My Ma in Law (born in the 30s) was stunned that my wife and I share the joys of making dinner: "That's what the wife should do!" Ridiculous. Funny thing is that her husband is a great cook (Pakistani man who learned a lot about cooking from his ubringing). She enjoys his meals, and he loves cooking them. [huh]

bk

 

[reetpleat]

Feminist thought has been very, very, well marketed against. Mostly in terms of obfuscation (should fit in well at FLounge), mostly by men. Desparate attempts to reinforce the glass ceiling, or the shackles to the kitchen sink.

My Ma in Law (born in the 30s) was stunned that my wife and I share the joys of making dinner: "That's what the wife should do!" Ridiculous. Funny thing is that her husband is a great cook (Pakistani man who learned a lot about cooking from his ubringing). She enjoys his meals, and he loves cooking them. [huh]

bk

I agree. It is very popular to blame all the ills of the world, and every bad thing a woman does on the "feminist movement"

To paraphrase a bumpersticker, From the movement that brought you job opportunities, freedom of choice, the right to vote, equal pay for equal work, etc.

Interesting you should mention cooking. Much like parenting, this is a good example of how a break down and rethinking of gender roles has improved life for men and women both. You can now experience "the joy of cooking." as it were.

Certainly, there were some inflamatory things said and published and still are. Often for effect. But that is the same for much of academia.

I doubt there is a woman here, and hopefully, few men, who would like things for women to be exactly as they wre in 1900 or 1940 or 1960.

 

[just_me]

I doubt there is a woman here, and hopefully, few men, who would like things for women to be exactly as they were in 1900 or 1940 or 1960.

I know I wouldn't (nor would my daughter).

 

[LizzieMaine]

Always good to keep in mind, though, that freedom of choice, freedom of opportunity, and so many of these other freedoms are still largely reserved to the middle-and-upper classes. If you talked to the average working-class woman, at least around here, and told you how lucky she was to "have the choice to work or be a stay at home mom," she'd look you in the eye and ask you what planet you came from -- there *is* no choice whether to work, or not work, in their situation. They work *and* raise the kids because, quite simply, there is no other option. This is the point I was making when I mentioned that academic feminism has nothing in common with the life I led growing up -- and it's still true for many millions of women today. Or as one gal said back in the '70s, "The food Gloria Stienem eats doesn't fill my stomach."

This is a relevant point, I think, going back to the original topic of this thread -- the author of the op-ed piece is clearly coming from a background of privilege in so many ways that she can't seem to conceive of the possibility of other women from other backgrounds having no connection to the arguments she makes.

 

[Foofoogal]

I am all for choices and men making dinner and women letting them if they want to.
I said I. I am in my early 50's and I bucked it all the whole way.
I am also glad some of the younger women are now thinking for themselves. I think comes more from seeing the disaster that it has become and less from the myth of freedom that womens lib cares to take credit for.
Since the dawn of time there has been terrible men and women and good men and women.
I would yes gladly go back to the time when roles were more defined.
Now we have men making the women go to work. Yes, we have come a long way baby. sic....
It has affected us all as a nation negatively.
I think things should of been given a chance to naturally evolve. This did not happen and it is water under the bridge.
Lizzie, you are so correct.

 

[just_me]

Foofoogal - What disaster? And how has it affected the nation negatively?

"Men making women work?" Men have always had to work, why shouldn't women if they need or want to? My mother worked (back in the 50s), I work, my daughter works. There is no man standing over us forcing us to work. I would like to have enough money so that I don't have to work and my ex-husband would like to have enough money so he doesn't have to work. It has nothing to do with being a woman.

Men also had advantages that women did not. Why shouldn't women have the same options?

Without the women's lib movement women would not have the opportunities, salaries, etc. that they have today. Truthfully, I find it hard to understand why a woman would want to go back to the days of incredible inequality.

I don't think equality would have evolved naturally. Women have always had to fight for their rights.

 

[Red Diabla]

I am all for choices and men making dinner and women letting them if they want to.
I said I. I am in my early 50's and I bucked it all the whole way.
I am also glad some of the younger women are now thinking for themselves. I think comes more from seeing the disaster that it has become and less from the myth of freedom that womens lib cares to take credit for.
Since the dawn of time there has been terrible men and women and good men and women.
I would yes gladly go back to the time when roles were more defined.
Now we have men making the women go to work. Yes, we have come a long way baby. sic....
It has affected us all as a nation negatively.
I think things should of been given a chance to naturally evolve. This did not happen and it is water under the bridge.
Lizzie, you are so correct.

More fftopic:

The original point of the feminist movement that no one could make anyone do anything they didn't want to do. No one should be able to force women to stay home or go to work, that should be up to the woman.

Whether that applies to the lower classes as much...well, at least there's the chance of someone moving up the social strata if they want and try to, as opposed to one being stuck in the station of life that they were born in, which used to be the case much more strongly.

I myself am glad that I live in a time where I didn't have to stay home because frankly I would've lost my ever-lovin' mind. Thing is, if I had kids, I would've felt that I should stay home with them. I brought 'em into the world, I should take care of them.

Where society went wrong IMO was when some women thought "freedom" and "responsibility" were two different things, and the "having it all" myth abounded. You can have it all, but most likely you're not going to have it all at once, so choose carefully.

RD

 

[Foofoogal]

Foofoogal - What disaster? And how has it affected the nation negatively?

If you cannot figure this one out I have no way of explaining it to you.
I mean now men make women work even when they do not want to.
For the sake of calmness on the FL I will not go further. :eusa_doh:

 

[Senator Jack]

There seems to be a misconception amongst the feminists that everyone who believes that the changes of the 60s/70s led to this 'mess' is seeking a return to the days of sexual discrimination, and this just isn't so. The 'mess' wasn't created because 'women' entered the work force in overwhelming numbers; it was created by the doubling of 'laborers' in the work force over the last thirty years (tripling of it actually in the U.S. with the 1965 Immigration Act), combined with the shipping of industry to overseas manufacturers. The only winners are the corporations that no longer have to pay workers a fair living wage, thus creating the need for two incomes per household in order to survive. That's the 'mess' we're talking about. Is there any way out of it? Sure. General strike by half the working population.

Regards,

Jack