This somebody was the Baby Boomers, which sounds like your generation. Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it, but BBs have also screwed up parenting to the point where we now have to have a "radical" parenting movement ("Free Range Kids") that desperately tries to restore some some sanity.
I grew up in Eastern Europe during communist times, which was very old-school and worlds apart from today's parenting, but still managed to provide me with a great childhood. If I want to bring up my kids in the same way (lots of independent, unsupervised play from very early on, real responsibilities), then I'd be viewed as some kind of pariah and my neighbours will probably call child services.
Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it...
For some strange reason, people have an overly romantic view of the past.
A friend of mine, after watching mad men, was waxing nostalgic about how nice things seemed back then. Life was simpler, world is now so screwed up, etc. I just pointed out to him: "You realize that in 1950, you and your girlfriend wouldn't be allowed to live in the same neighborhood, right?"
(The girlfriend was Turkish, and dark brown. Not a chance of her passing.)
The 50's might have been better in some ways, but the boomers also got a few things right.
"A friend of mine, after watching mad men, was waxing nostalgic about how nice things seemed back then."
Wow. The main failure of that show is that there's people who think this after watching it. I mean, things in the show are enormously screwed up, the only thing that is nice is the scenery, which to me only makes the contrast more obvious, but apparently for many people that pulls attention away from the main subject of the show.
Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9. And did other silly stuff. Silly stuff makes for good stories, though, and you can get to use the "what doesn't kill me" line as if it was science.
Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9.
Which seems perfectly normal. And nothing happened to them. The perversion is to think that 9 year old children are not capable to walk to school alone. Or to have built a society where people will harm them if they do so. (Actually, in most European cities you'd still be considered paranoid to think 9yo children cannot walk to school).
Michael Ventura, an Austin Chronicle columnist and writer, puts it very nice in this column of his:
My birthday is late in October, so I was still 7 in 1953 when I saw my first film without "parental guidance" -- or parental presence. Frankly, it kind of shocks me to write that, for I can't imagine the parents of 7-year-olds today allowing their children to go to the movies alone. In fact, I doubt a lone 7-year-old would be sold a ticket now anywhere in this country. But once upon a time, it was no big deal. (All of which makes urban parents of 50 years ago sound permissive. They weren't. We would never have dreamed of speaking to our parents, or to any adult, as I now hear so many minutely supervised kids speak to theirs. Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining. I know that sounds like an exaggeration. It's not.)
Actually the whole article is interesting, and it's about movie going in the fifties and children:
And? So? Ages ago, 9-year olds went to school and nothing happened to them, except when it did, but then they wouldn't write about their own romanticized experiences in a newspaper, so nobody cares about them.
Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".
Finding yet another guy whining about the fact that he has to pay more attention to his kids than his father did doesn't really change anything about the previous dude who did that.
And? So? Ages ago, 9-year olds went to school and nothing happened to them, except when it did, but then they wouldn't write about their own romanticized experiences in a newspaper, so nobody cares about them.
You have some mental model where 9-yo going to school were ...commonly harmed and we only get to learn about the few that both survived and romanticized their experiences?!! Nothing of the sort happened --it's just the modern safety paranoia speaking.
First, yes, a FEW kids got harmed, just as a FEW kids get harmed today too. Even adults get harmed. Shit happens. That doesn't mean that harm was something more widespread or it was more prevalent that it is today. Are you that crazy to suggest that parents of the fifties let their kids walk to school (and all around) DESPITE KNOWING that they will get frequently harmed? It is precisely because nothing of the sort happened 99.9999999% of the time that they did so. And this is exactly why Europeans in most EU countries, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, still allow their kids to do exactly the same.
No, despite CSI, FOX News, etc, the world is not hostile, every black/latino/asian person is not a murderer, every guy in the park is not a pedophile with a van, and serial killers are not a dime a dozen. (Actually, the reports say they are like tops 30-50 active in the US at a time, so more like 1 in 10,000,000).
And it's not like this is something that happened in ancient history. Fifties is not exactly ages ago, not to mention that this happened way up until the seventies / early eighties. It's just that most post 70's american parents just don't know when to stop with their spoiled and overly protected brats --which is what TFA is all about.
Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".
Even if we fathom your idea of the "disrespectful/whining" parent, that is not an excuse for tolerating the case of disrespectful/whining kids. That would be a sure-fire to produce EVEN MORE disrespectful/whining adults when those kids grow up. People you wouldn't look forward to having social/professional interactions with...
Besides being able to be sexist, you were also allowed to treat women as women, something you have to bypass a certain byzantine PC-code to be able to do today.
Besides being able to be sexist, you were also allowed to treat women as women, something you have to bypass a certain byzantine PC-code to be able to do today.
Ah yes, the curse of the modern straight male. It's like a child who had all the toys and now is told they have to share. Men's Rights groups tend to think that things are crazy now, you can't treat a woman like a woman! You have to treat them as an equal! Madness!
Yeah, as if to "treat a woman like a woman" must imply treating her like an inferior creature. Whatever.
FWIW, it just means to not treat here like some sexless thing that you have to approach with the utmost caution because the PC police might find anything and everything offensive.
(I understand that some people automatically even the second version to: "so you want to treat women like a sexist pig, slapping their asses and making vulgar comments").
It's getting all the more difficult to discuss this kind of things with americans.
As for the alcohol, true, I don't mind. However, I don't really miss it either - it wouldn't be sufficient to make me want to live in a Mad Men world. And there does not seem to be happening much else besides drinking and philandering.
Among other things, the recognition that there exist two (or more) different sexes that occasionally want to flirt with each other, and that, horror of horrors, this also happens with co-workers.
But we live in a age where they expel a 6-year old boy for kissing with a same-age girl in kindergarten.
Well, he couldn't (easily) have a Turkish girlfriend in the 50's. On the other hand, for perspective, he would be welcomed, as an American, in most (if not all) of the islamic countries. You know, like all those expats living in Tangier.
Also: segregating not by race but by income, trailer folks and poor blacks are still effectively not allowed to live in the same neighborhoods as rich white folks. And not only because they can't afford it.
Ours must be the only generation ever willing to blame the previous one for just about everything. Also, by what measure is the world a worse place today?
That's what I meant, the previous poster claimed that BBs screwed stuff up as opposed to previous generations - but previous generations did stuff like fight world wars and drop atomic bombs around.
What exactly did the BBs screw up. Do you want the good old values of early 20th century back? Women belong into the kitchen? No sex before marriage? And what not...
I was specifically referring to the massive economic fuckover they've been responsible for over the last 30 years. Not to mention the coming 20 years of kids having to support unsustainable retirement lifestyles with huge debt burdens.
Well now we have the "Great Recession" (according to Wikipedia, though technically apparently it ended in 2009), before WW2 there was the "Great Depression". Since the baby boomers are born shortly after WW2, I suppose the Great Depression was brought about by their parents or grandparents. I think people were far worse off back then.
Also, will the kids support the unsustainable retirement lifestyles if they can't afford them? It seems unlikely.
And we still don't know how things will play out. Maybe it was a genius move to take up all that credit.
The boomers do have the advantage of being a large political force, and have all their life, so have had the possibility to shape the political landscape around them as they have passed through the various phases of life. This assumption is of course based on them being a fairly homogeneous group of people, which may or may not be true.
To be fair, the previous generations (of Americans) did not start those wars, but actually fought to prevent murderous dictators from taking over the world.
I just think you should differentiate between 'fighting' in a war and 'starting one'.
Germany didn't start WWII without reason. We didn't try to take over the world, but we did give cause for others to want to take over the world (e.g. overly harsh response to WWI). Can't exonerate blame based on one event and not the timeline.
Well, one county's previous generations started those wars, the rest of the planet had no choice but to respond. However, these more recent wars, are wars of choice. So, that's several screw ups to start with.
As for the atomic bombs, yes it was terrible, but some one was going to. And for once, "we" saw and learned that particular lesson. (I pick that out because I think not dropping a nuke since is actually one of humanity's greatest achievements)
Good old values of ..... OK. If I shoot it back in your direction, I could accuse you of wanting SOPA and Islamic terror. That's the other extreme, and I assume you would deny both.
Of course some things we have today are way better. But you have to admit, that if we cant get our kids right, if we cant have proper freedom in the West, if we cant have the free flow of uncensored information, if people in general dont care about each other much and only see life form their own position, can I really not say that the previous generations got it wrong? I mean, these are fundamental things, and what we get in return for their loss is iPads.....
IMHO, we now live in a "I see pretty, must have pretty" society. Dunno if you noticed, but it just went bust. And it went bust because "we" borrowed to get "pretty". First ever recession that was caused by pure greed. And no one is about to change that. Its all about how we get back to it, so we can have our pretty stuff again. And this was created by the baby boomer lot. And they wont let go.
I dunno. To me all sense of balance has gone, and people are generally just selfish and horribly judgemental. We live in an extreme. And I don't like it that much.
I'm not historian enough to argue about WW2, but I think there was some context to those wars, even if technically one country can be blamed. It didn't come out of nowhere.
In any case I seriously doubt there was more free speech in earlier times than now (off the top of my head, what about those commie hunting days?). SOPA has not yet been passed, either.
People don't care for each other yadda yadda yadda. Sorry, that is just ideological bullshit. I don't think people are less emotional today than they used to be. And people will never change, complaining about that is just a waste of time.
As for the economic problems, wake me when Apple (a company that has 60% markup on their products) is no longer the most valuable company in the world. Poor people don't buy iPhones.
What would it mean if the most successful corporation made a product poor people used? How is that relevant? (Let's ignore Google, creator of perhaps the most valuable product ever created, which they charge absolutely nothing for.) It would be something like real estate, slum lording, which is a quite profitable industry (but no one consolidated company), that isn't helping anyone.
In any case I seriously doubt there was more free speech in earlier times than now (off the top of my head, what about those commie hunting days?)
Oh, but there was. For one, to have commie hunting days, you had to have commies. Which you did. And you also had a mighty, not communistic, labor union movement.
Nowadays, not many are sticking up their necks that much, if anyone.
What about the OccupyWhatever movement? I don't miss commies, but I don't think in the commie hunting days everybody who was hunted actually was a commie.
What would you stick up your neck for? I mean what things would get you into trouble? Wikileaks is the only example that comes to mind (and pretending to be a terrorist, obviously).
What would you stick up your neck for? I mean what things would get you into trouble? Wikileaks is the only example that comes to mind
Things worth to stick up your neck for and/or that will get you in trouble if you do? Lots of things. From ACTA/SOPA/PIPA, to labour laws, to the bailout, to the mass (statistically imbalanced) imprisonment of blacks, to the profitable prison work-for-rent industry, to the death penalty, to mass surveillance, to foreign policy, the patriot act, to bio-ethics, to Monsanto, to the sorry state of news reporting, to the race for the bottom for jobs (moving to cheap foreign labour), to corporates getting their way, the list goes on and on. Seriously challenging any of those will get you in trouble.
This somebody was the Baby Boomers, which sounds like your generation. Not only will BBs be one of the very few generations to leave this place worse off than they found it, but BBs have also screwed up parenting to the point where we now have to have a "radical" parenting movement ("Free Range Kids") that desperately tries to restore some some sanity.
I grew up in Eastern Europe during communist times, which was very old-school and worlds apart from today's parenting, but still managed to provide me with a great childhood. If I want to bring up my kids in the same way (lots of independent, unsupervised play from very early on, real responsibilities), then I'd be viewed as some kind of pariah and my neighbours will probably call child services.