What has happened to society?

[geoff_icp]

As I have fallen more and more in love with classic movies, I have begun to ponder some things. I wonder what has happened over the last 70 or so years that has changed our society so much. It begs me to ask questions...

At what point in time did we progress from being such a classy, dignified society into what we are today? Think about it. Sure, these are just movies. But why do men no longer wear suits all the time or women wear such gorgeous gowns (aside from work or special events)? What happened to everyone's manners? It is rare to see a man open a door for a women or pull her chair out, or stand when she arrives or leaves a dinner table. The latter is pretty much non-existent. When did everyone forget proper English? All the women and men carried themselves with such grace and poise and class.

However, today, that is obviously not the case. As I watch these movies, I find myself becoming increasingly judgmental of women (and men) these days. When I see Grace Kelly or Ginger Rogers, Lauren Bacall or Audrey Hepburn, it makes me wish that women of that nature still existed. And sadly, it makes finding a mate even harder now. I may not have all the attributes or be as proper as those in the good old days, true. But I would still consider myself to be in a "class" that is no longer seen in this day. I have come to expect more of people, but sadly, they fall far short. Damn you Golden Age for changing my wants in a women. I have a feeling I am destined for life-long singularity.

 

[Twitch]

Perhaps we a are too close to it to see the minor changes that add up after time passes. It just seems as though suddenly things have changed.

The world is ever changing. We have had classy societies before ours and will again. If we look at Europe we can see the ups and downs over the past 2000 years. It wasn't always the Rennisiance. There were times when people lived as serfs, little better than animals after better days before. If we look at the French Revolution we may agree that some of the elite were "classy" but it was at the expense of the common people. From about 1,000 to 1,500 Europe had little going culturally to brag about.

We see a time of a few decades ago and praise some its attributes which have cycled out of normal behavior for now. It's all relative and we are just too close to realize that the ebbs and flows of social values, stigmas and cultural influences are ever changing.[huh]

 

[kokopelli]

Society

I agree with twitch.. It's like seeing someone every day for 25 years and they never change, but if you then don't see them for a year they're different people. Good manners are alive and well in the south, but are swiftly becoming a thing of the past. I'm often shocked with the lack of manners that kids have today. I also agree with you, in that you may have made if very difficult to find a mate! Things change and people change.. Be open to different things (i.e. er.. women).. Ron

As I have fallen more and more in love with classic movies, I have begun to ponder some things. I wonder what has happened over the last 70 or so years that has changed our society so much. It begs me to ask questions...

At what point in time did we progress from being such a classy, dignified society into what we are today? Think about it. Sure, these are just movies. But why do men no longer wear suits all the time or women wear such gorgeous gowns (aside from work or special events)? What happened to everyone's manners? It is rare to see a man open a door for a women or pull her chair out, or stand when she arrives or leaves a dinner table. The latter is pretty much non-existent. When did everyone forget proper English? All the women and men carried themselves with such grace and poise and class.

However, today, that is obviously not the case. As I watch these movies, I find myself becoming increasingly judgmental of women (and men) these days. When I see Grace Kelly or Ginger Rogers, Lauren Bacall or Audrey Hepburn, it makes me wish that women of that nature still existed. And sadly, it makes finding a mate even harder now. I may not have all the attributes or be as proper as those in the good old days, true. But I would still consider myself to be in a "class" that is no longer seen in this day. I have come to expect more of people, but sadly, they fall far short. Damn you Golden Age for changing my wants in a women. I have a feeling I am destined for life-long singularity.

 

[pigeon toe]

We have to remember that things have changed in GOOD ways since then as well. True, less people care about personal style and how they present themselves to the world. But at the same time, women and people of all races have a lot more freedom and equality than they did 50 years ago. And that I think is much more important!

Also, a lot of fashion from back then, let's admit it girls, can be restrictive in some ways. Whether it be the heels that make your feet hurt, or the girdles that restrict your movement, or the hair that takes you hours to do just right. While a lot of us take joy in gussying up, many women would rather not dress in such an "involved" way. I doubt many of us women would be happy if every single day, no matter what, we had to step into our girdle, stockings and heels. Now that we have a choice, our fashion, which was once considered standard, is now an expression of our fashion sense and/or personalities. I'm pretty grateful for having that choice!

 

[Paisley]

What happened? The attitude of "me, me, me," which as Bernie Brillstein points out, is "dull, dull, dull." There are many other factors, of course, but to my mind, that is the main one.

Before we get carried away, let's remember that some things are much better nowadays. Handicapped people have access they once didn't. People of color experience far less discrimination--and so on. Some things never change, though. For instance, Lauren Bacall, in her autobiography, says that she dated a lot of married men, and many jazz musicians smoked pot and did other drugs.

 

[Flivver]

I think the advent of all-occasion casual dress around 1970 was the beginning of the end of the classy dignified society you refer to.

I graduated high school in 1969. Through that year students were required to get somewhat dressed up for school. That meant a nice shirt, dress pants and leather shoes for boys, and a dress or skirt with nice shoes for girls. And while we were still kids, we were forced to act in a somewhat civilized way or we would ruin our clothes (and be in big trouble when we got home).

In 1970 (in our area, at least), students were allowed to start wearing jeans and tennis shoes to school. And that was the end of getting dressed up!

I entered the workforce in 1973 and the casual dress style had not progressed that far yet. In the places I worked, I wore a suit to work right into the mid-1990s.

But in the late 1990s, everything changed. Now sweatshirts and jeans seem to be the norm at work for both men and women. And, to some extent, I think the sloppy look leads to sloppy behavior and work habits.

I may be just an old fogey, but I would welcome a return to the fashionable attire that those of us here appreciate. And maybe if people looked like ladies and gentlemen they might act more that way as well.

 

[warbird]

We have to remember that things have changed in GOOD ways since then as well. True, less people care about personal style and how they present themselves to the world. But at the same time, women and people of all races have a lot more freedom and equality than they did 50 years ago. And that I think is much more important!

So these things are mutually exclusive? One must fall as the other rises? I don't think so.And I'm not sure that was your point. None the less maybe, I don't think it was said all is bad today and all good then, it was said it the context of dress, manners and the way people carried themselves.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Due to diet, living conditions and the type of work my ancestors were forced to take, my father (born 1900) was the first male that we have been able to trace to live to be older than 50.

The generation before his (born 1880s) suffered poor sanitation, a variety of endemic diseases and 25% infant mortality rate in the area where we lived.

The generation before mine (born 1930s) suffered from rickets and chronic undernourishment.

Where's the evidence that society was better for everyone?

Alan

 

[warbird]

Again I think this is getting off topic. I think it was meant in the confines of dress, manner and the way people carry themselves. As far as rights, privileges etc it has been discussed over and over again ad nauseum here. Many threads can be found on those things and really on this subject too. I don't really think the liberation of rights and a lack fof decorum are mutually exclusive, except for maybe Gloria Steinam.

 

[pigeon toe]

So these things are mutually exclusive? One must fall as the other rises? I don't think so.And I'm not sure that was your point. None the less maybe, I don't think it was said all is bad today and all good then, it was said it the context of dress, manners and the way people carried themselves.

I think in terms of women, they do somewhat go hand in hand. Like I said earlier (I edited my post), a certain type of fashion in the 40's and, maybe even more so in the 50's, was imposed upon women that was restrictive. When women started gaining more status in society, in the 60's and 70's, fashion changed as their needs (more women in the workforce --> less fancy and more practical dress) and wants changed.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's also a school of thought that suggests that it was the forced informality of 1950s suburbia that started the ball rolling downhill -- William Manchester writes quite a bit about this in the second volume of "The Glory and the Dream," and even taking into account that Manchester comes across as an upper-class prep-school snob, there's a lot to be said for his theory that a certain sense of reserve started to go out of society around then.

I agree with Flivver though that there was a quantum change in the way people conducted themselves in the '70s. Where I went to school, dress codes were absolutely enforced -- no dungarees, no sneakers, no pants for girls unless a storm day -- until about 1972. By the middle of the '70s, all that had changed.

But at the same time it's important to point out that the refined manners and classy dress we see in the movies don't at all reflect the way most people lived -- it may be an idealization of how middle-class people wanted to live, but up until the mid-fifties or so, America was largely a blue-collar working class nation, and baggy work pants and home-made cotton housedresses were more common on the streets in most towns than finely-tailored suits and crisp afternoon gowns.

 

[warbird]

I think in terms of women, they do somewhat go hand in hand. Like I said earlier (I edited my post), a certain type of fashion in the 40's and, maybe even more so in the 50's, was imposed upon women that was restrictive. When women started gaining more status in society, in the 60's and 70's, fashion changed as their needs (more women in the workforce --> less fancy and more practical dress) and wants changed.

And women in the 50's and 60's would say they probably had dress a lot easier than victorian era women and men for that matter. So, you are suggesting that the women lib movement can account for Brittney Spears and her ilk for the way many young women dress today? That would make it easier for me, that's for certain. Then I could blame all the hippies for the end of the work dress attire. OK, I can accept this argument. I will focus my disgust on them.

Oh thanks Lizzie, I thought of another one. Rock-n-roll. About the same time as those 50's relaxations.

Rock-n-roll has got to go (smash record on the player). I'm sure it was many things that caused this all to happen. One things for certain, people are more self absorbed today, it is all about me, they tune others out walking around with headphones one and they don't care how they dress or how others do either.

 

[pigeon toe]

And women in the 50's and 60's would say they probably had dress a lot easier than victorian era women and men for that matter. So, you are suggesting that the women lib movement can account for Brittney Spears and her ilk for the way many young women dress today? That would make it easier for me, that's for certain. Then I could blame all the hippies for the end of the work dress attire. OK, I can accept this argument. I will focus my disgust on them.

Well then, unfortunately, you'd be focusing your disgust on me. I'm not a "hippie", but I am a feminist. Choice, to me, is the key idea in feminism. Women, up until the feminist movement, really had very little choice in their lives. Some lucky ones who had a strong support system and a lot of determination could happily go against the grain of society before feminism, but that took a lot of guts back then.

You shouldn't blame feminism for Britney Spears. For that one, you gotta blame the media and it's exploitation of young, talented (that's in the eye of the beholder with Britney, as I'm not a fan!) women in the entertainment industry.

But if a woman wants to dress in a less than demure way, that's her choice, and our society allows her to make that choice, which is a fabulous thing I'd say.

Sorry this is off topic, I just really felt the need to state those things.

 

[TheKitschGoth]

and they don't care how they dress or how others do either.

So there are some good points then

 

[Pilotguy299]

I think it's more than that

But in the late 1990s, everything changed. Now sweatshirts and jeans seem to be the norm at work for both men and women. And, to some extent, I think the sloppy look leads to sloppy behavior and work habits.

I may be just an old fogey, but I would welcome a return to the fashionable attire that those of us here appreciate. And maybe if people looked like ladies and gentlemen they might act more that way as well.

What you suggest may be the case in some instances, but I see a number of people in my environment that don't fit that stereotype.

There are some who dress impeccibaly but who treat others like dirt (the old "Kiss-up-kick-down" mentality), and who couldn't care less about if people are having personal problems, as long as the work product isn't slowed down.

Then there are others who don't dress as well, but seem to be more concerned with people's work and home life issues, and who will notice of something is out of whack and actually stop and ask if everything is ok.

I think if you look enough, you can see all sorts of people wearing all sorts of clothes, and acting in all sorts of ways. Working in DC I see a lot of well dressed people acting in ways I'd admonish my children for if they acted the same way.

 

[warbird]

Well then, unfortunately, you'd be focusing your disgust on me. I'm not a "hippie", but I am a feminist. Choice, to me, is the key idea in feminism. Women, up until the feminist movement, really had very little choice in their lives. Some lucky ones who had a strong support system and a lot of determination could happily go against the grain of society before feminism, but that took a lot of guts back then.

You shouldn't blame feminism for Britney Spears. For that one, you gotta blame the media and it's exploitation of young, talented (that's in the eye of the beholder with Britney, as I'm not a fan!) women in the entertainment industry.

But if a woman wants to dress in a less than demure way, that's her choice, and our society allows her to make that choice, which is a fabulous thing I'd say.

Sorry this is off topic, I just really felt the need to state those things.

Ahem Did you read my first post? Did you see the way I composed my second post? Apparently not.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

As i've said many times before - and funnily enough the OP by his statements seems to be in agreement - the very premise upon which this argument is founded is fatally flawed.

The suggestion is that in the Golden Era, everyone had the grace, poise, wardrobe and manners of a Hollywood star/starlet. I have never been shown evidence that this was the case. I know for certain fact that one of my great grandfathers was a graceless, mannerless cur with no respect for anyone . . . and he treated people accordingly. By no means am I suggesting that he was representative, but nether is such a person representative today, at least amongst people I know.

If anyone thinks that going back to the golden era will allow them to effortlessly pick up someone in the Gary Cooper/Audrey Hepburn mould, they're fooling themselves.

bk

 

[warbird]

So there are some good points then

Ah, I see. So you think it's a good thing if there are no appropriate ways of dress or times to dress in certain ways? It's a good thing if people have no pride in appearance as long as everyone accepts however a person chooses to dress?

I do not accept that notion carried out to its fullest extent, but if you do that's your opinion I suppose.

 

[warbird]

As i've said many times before - and funnily enough the OP by his statements seems to be in agreement - the very premise upon which this argument is founded is fatally flawed.

The suggestion is that in the Golden Era, everyone had the grace, poise, wardrobe and manners of a Hollywood star/starlet. I have never been shown evidence that this was the case. I know for certain fact that one of my great grandfathers was a graceless, mannerless cur with no respect for anyone . . . and he treated people accordingly. By no means am I suggesting that he was representative, but nether is such a person representative today, at least amongst people I know.

If anyone thinks that going back to the golden era will allow them to effortlessly pick up someone in the Gary Cooper/Audrey Hepburn mould, they're fooling themselves.

bk

I agree with your premise, however you would have to admit there was a norm then and a norm now that are different wouldn't you. There are always exceptions in any given case. It does not mean the norm is changed due to those exceptions.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Let's tread lightly around the politcal here, folks.

Let's keep it academic and keep emotion out of it.