It's an easy-read...

Quote :

"Though our goodness grows, cruelty thrives J. Peder Zane, Staff Writer Entertainment news used to be a Camelot of airbrushed perfection. Fan magazines gave us the inside scoop on Elizabeth Taylor's marital bliss, Michael Jackson's charitable work with children and Rock Hudson's lovely new girlfriend. Nowadays, celebrity coverage is less fantasy than tragedy. It has become a series of bloody accidents on the information superhighway, and we're all rubberneckers. In recent months the mass media -- from obscure Web sites and celebrity rags to CNN and The New York Times -- have offered saturation coverage of troubled young women. Britney Spears' apparent nervous breakdown, Lindsay Lohan's drug use and Paris Hilton's troubles with the law have been covered in pitiless detail. Even lesser figures get the star treatment if their private problems are desperate enough. Reality TV has invited us into the troubled living rooms of Ozzy Osbourne and Paula Abdul, Anna Nicole Smith (who later died of a drug overdose) and Danny Bonaduce (who tried to take his own life during the show's first season). Their lives have become our modern soap operas, roller-coaster sagas filled with ups -- She's finally entered rehab! -- but mostly downs -- She's relapsed! But these are not scripted programs heading toward an inevitable happy ending. They're the struggles of real people in real pain who are flushing away their lives through reckless and boorish behavior. And yet we follow it all with merciless delight, as if Britney, Lindsay, Paris and Anna Nicole were fictional characters. Prestigious outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post report it all. The worst of the new media -- such as the celebrity Web site Perezhilton.com, which reportedly draws more than 4 million visitors a day -- revel in each fateful misstep. What's missing from this coverage are empathy and compassion, a sense of the terrible sadness of it all. These star-crossed stars are responsible for their actions; on one level, they are getting what they deserve. But our fascination with their self-destruction is disturbing. It reflects a mean-spirited and unforgiving nation, disconnected from decency, eager to revel in the misery of others. Evidence of this hard-edged incivility is not confined to our treatment of celebrities. We see it in the angry talking heads who scream from radios and TVs, the filthy language that courses through our music and movies, the vicious voices that hold court in the blogosphere. When did we become so nasty? How did our culture become so ungracious and rude? Paradoxically, the roots of this sad situation can be traced back to happier developments that have also made us a kinder and fairer nation. In the 1950s and early '60s, by most accounts, America was a far more civil society. Men wore ties to baseball games, and etiquette encompassed a set of rules to live by. Ugliness, however, percolated throughout polite society. Racism infected the nation, condemning blacks to second-class citizenship. Homosexuals were forced to live in the shadows. Women had few choices. Their plight is evocatively portrayed in a new TV series on American Movie Classics, "Mad Men." Set in the go-go world of Madison Avenue advertising executives in the early 1960s, it brilliantly evokes the misogyny that pervaded American culture. The articulate men in their handsomely tailored suits treat their female subordinates -- who are almost all secretaries, because that was as high as most women could rise -- as potential conquests. The men undress the women with their eyes and remind them with their words that the women are there to serve. Watching this series today, it is almost hard to believe that such conduct was normal. The social movements of the 1960s and '70s largely ended that world. But the assault on a status quo that oppressed women, blacks and other marginalized groups also dismantled the traditional codes of propriety that defined polite society. As equality and freedom spread, so did rude and coarse behavior. Americans became more civilized but less civil. We began treating one another far better, and far worse. While rejecting old behaviors that oppressed certain groups, we embraced a popular culture with a nasty, more personal edge. We are left with a riddle: If the social movements of the 1960s and '70s led us to treat one another with respect and dignity, how could we succeed so spectacularly and fail so miserably? It is tempting to see a direct link between these developments. When the cultural cruelty that used to hold down women, blacks and other groups became unacceptable, we sought other forums for the release of our darker impulses. Such a view regards cruelty as an inescapable human trait. The mean-spiritedness that prompts us to shout and curse at one another, to dehumanize troubled young women such as Britney, Paris and Lindsay, may be rooted somehow in our history. But if the past six decades have taught us anything, it is that the most deeply ingrained habits and assumptions can be overcome."

http://www.newsobserver.com/1051/story/660711.html

Do you think we've become less civil, more vulgar, ruder, crueler?

I dunno that we are more mean-spirited and whatnot. I mean, just from reading literary criticisms from the past, I've gleaned that folks were just as cruel as now. Political campaigns included outrageous and crude accusations and demeaning pictures of the participants...

But perhaps there was a period in the 50s and 60s where we more polite...

And if we have become less civil, why would it be related to blacks/women/etc...? Why wouldn't it have started years before when we began protecting the rights of children as children and not small-handed laborers?

I might argue that things seemed especially civil during the 50s because we were just coming out of a difficult war and people were making a lot of babies. Most folks tend to watch their behavior around children, and well, there were a lot of children running around in the 50s.

Is this column some bullshit that belongs in the Entertainment section (love the Mad Men plug), or is there something worth discussing here?

11/27/2007 1:15:53 AM

the 50s and 60s were more polite if you weren't a nigger

11/27/2007 2:41:16 AM

^You basically just summed up the half of the column.

People took out their cruel impulses on blacks, women, and other groups.

But the columnist is suggesting that, as those behaviors became less and less acceptable, we started satisfying our impulses more promiscuously (delighting in the misfortunes/struggles of others, flipping off drivers, cursing profusely in public, flaming on the internet, ignoring our neighbors, enjoying and applauding violence, etc...whatever we can to do disrespect other people/humanity).

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 2:53 AM. Reason : ...]

11/27/2007 2:51:47 AM

^Well, this could really be summed up by saying that people in general are assholes, and they will take the path of least resistance (the most socially acceptable or easily accessible method) in being an asshole to others. In the 50s and (early) 60s it was socially acceptable for white males to figuratively shit all over minorities. In modern times it's more socially acceptable and easier to have road rage and be an internet jerk.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 3:15 AM. Reason : specifics]

11/27/2007 2:56:13 AM

I don't know that people were more "civil" during that era as they were repressed. There was certainly more racism, misogynists, homophobia, etc during the 50s. Even the concept of divorce was considered unthinkable. The perfect family unit was the father who worked, the stay-at-home mother who was subservient to her husband, and the 2.3 well-behaved, well-groomed children. The 'ideal' life was like something off of Leave it to Beaver, or the movie Pleasantville. Forget about what personal problems you had, what mattered was keeping up appearances. If people didn't think that you jived with all of this, you were considered a trouble-maker and a rebel-rouser. At the very least you were a favorite point of gossip.

And then we hit the 60s, with all of its drug experimentation, the civil rights movement, the Cold War, and everything else in between. Suddenly nothing was pristine and idyllic anymore. People in this country finally discovered their sexual freedom, and more women started figuring out that they didn't have to stay at home any longer. Our society (started to) figure out that life isn't perfect, that there are multiple definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. Things that use to be taboo were suddenly okay, while stuff nobody use to have a problem with (such as institutionalized racism) were suddenly being recognized for what they were. This was pretty much the beginnings of the cultural relativism that is so prominent in this country today. While it didn't all go down in the 60s, it was certainly the beginning of a period of great cultural upheaval as America was slowing reassessing its priorities.

I'm guessing that when people say that the 50s were a time of greater civility, what they're really doing is getting nostalgic. Every generation always thinks that its time period was better than what's current and modern. In some ways each generation may be right, but I'd like to think that this country has been getting better with time as a whole. I suppose you could make the case that people were more "polite" to one another way back when, but what you call politeness I call an aversion to discussing their problems. Sure, things seem more raw and uncut compared to the clean, polished images of the past, but that's only because each successive generation has allowed us more freedom to explore all of the things that nobody dared to even think about. That's simply one of the prices of increased freedom; you have to take the bad along with the good.

As for our "cruelty growing," a good chunk of that is due to the media choosing only to focus on the bad aspects of life. While the quality of life for all people has steadily improved over the years, I would argue that, at least on a person-to-person level, there's no more cruelty today than there was fifty years ago. It's just that inventions such as the internet allow them to be heard and to be known. It's like how the actual amount of stupidity in the world hasn't increased, the internet has simply given a voice to people who would otherwise do a service to humanity by not voicing their opinions. But we see all of the inane shit on youtube, and we conclude that there's lots of stupid people out there. Just swap "stupid" with "cruel" or "rude" or whatever other negative adjective you want, and you'll generally get the same thing.

Certainly we as a culture still have issues to work through, but it's not so much that there are more problems in the world as there is an increased awareness of those problems. That's really the key to the 60s; people became more aware of everything. It's human nature to want to listen only to bad news; this is a hold-over from before the dawn of civilization when being alert to any possible danger or problems meant the difference between survival and death. But since evolution has not yet caught up with the times, we instead have to contend with homo sapien's affinity for the depressing and the depraved.

11/27/2007 3:02:38 AM

^^That's my initial reaction, as well.

But I feel like there is something more significant than "people are assholes" here.

I can't quite put it into words though. (I wish I was less of a feeler and more of a thinker/understander.)

11/27/2007 3:30:02 AM

It must be nice to not have a real job

11/27/2007 9:32:05 AM

That's the conundrum of mankind- how we can be both good and evil.

Quote :

"I sent my Soul through the Invisible, Some letter of that After-life to spell: And by and by my Soul return'd to me, And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell:" --The Rubaiyat By Omar Khayyam "

11/27/2007 1:18:12 PM

^^Yeah, not making any money and spinning your wheels in a degree program that you've never really enjoyed at all is an absolute blast!

Perpetually underachieving and neglecting your personal health while everybody looks on confused about how to stop your slow but persistent self-destruction...again, total blast!

My self-esteem is at an all-time high!

Like you said, it is just soooo nice!

(I'll stop the self-pitying if you'll shut the fuck up about what must be nice.)

11/27/2007 4:34:31 PM

whoops. I was talking about the writers who wrote this made-up namby pamby bullshit column.

11/27/2007 5:34:58 PM

I think a more plausible explanation may be that society's attitudes are far less authoritarian today than they were before, in the 50's. Hence, your "civility issue."

Consider: the civil rights movement and feminism movements were inherently anti-authoritarian movements - bucking the old order and social norms that came with it. Things were more civil in the 50's because accepted authorities indicated that we don't tolerate (certain) kinds of incivility. People do what's expected of them, or else they worry about being "out of line."

Nowadays, things are much more individualistic. People aren't worry about someone looking menacingly over their shoulder if they say the wrong thing - at least not as much. You throw out the authoritarian system which enforces a strict code of conformism, and you're going to end up with some of that natural bile and incivility inside of people boiling out to the surface. See, for instance, the internets.

11/27/2007 6:41:14 PM

Our generation has never had a defining moment, never had to organize together towards a common goal. I mean look, we are in the middle of a war and we don't have to sacrifice anything. No rationing, no draft, we don't even have to care for god's sake.

We're becoming inhumane and detached from what is important. It's not particularly surprising how polarized our society has become; economically, socially and politically.

11/27/2007 7:18:12 PM

^^^Nah, my whoops.

I realized after I made the post that you may have been talking about the columnist.

And then I laughed at how self-centered I am.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ^Almost a jinx!]

11/27/2007 7:18:46 PM

It's the greater internet fuckwad theory, just on a larger scale. Increased anonymity + lack of willingness to speak out / get involved = more fuckwadism. I was in a restaurant a few weeks ago and a few tables down some asshole was tearing into the waitress because she dared to accidently bring him the wrong soup. I mean he was vicious and abusive, and yet all around the restaurant (myself included) everyone just looked the other way and "minded their own business". And then, when the manager came over, instead of telling the customer that he was never to treat an employee like that again, and he can leave and not come back, the manger instead was falling over himself to pour coupons and free meals on this asshole's table. The inaction of all the other patrons and the meekness of the manger I think only served to embolden the asshole because that wasn't enough, he then demanded the number for the regional manager and left in a huff. All over a bowl of soup. And sure, after he left everyone was talking about what an asshole he was, but he got away with what he did because no one, from the patrons to the manager dared to look him in the eye and call him out for the fuckwad he was. In an earlier time in this country, if one of the other patrons didn't step in, certainly the manager would have kicked him out of the place, never to be allowed back in. But these days, while we preach the whole "more flies with honey" bit, every thing we practice rewards the assholes for their childish and selfish behaviors.

And it isn't helped by the fact that usualy the higher up the chain you go (and thus the more anonymous) the more likely you are to get what you want. The big companies don't backup the decisions of their people on the ground, which just makes the assholes worse.

11/28/2007 12:11:23 AM

^so, why didn't you say anything?

11/28/2007 1:18:28 AM

Because quite honestly I'm a chickenshit and I know it. Just like everyone else, I didn't want to get involved, and I was raised to not get involved.

11/28/2007 11:19:50 AM

You think Hollywood is scandalous now? Nobody did scandals like old Hollywood. Sure, we have the occasional OD or cooter-flash. But in the early days they had stabbings, shootings, and Nazi sympathizers!

Fatty Arbuckle was tried on charges of rape and murder. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. Errol Flynn boinked every teenage starlet in a fifty mile radius. The press ate all this up as voraciously as they pour over Paris Hilton's escapades today. Nothing has changed, people just like to believe that the old days were a more innocent time.

11/28/2007 11:21:15 AM

^Like I said, each successive generation always thinks "the good ol' days" are better than what's happening now.

11/28/2007 11:34:24 AM

Quote :

"the 50s and 60s were more polite if you weren't a nigger"

this post says quite a bit more than i think he intended to reveal

11/28/2007 7:42:31 PM