ADVERTISEMENT

Do we need a return to the 50's?

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
20,198
18,031
113
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinio...rys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html?mobi=true

Interesting argument in the Philly Enquirer, they obviously do not argue for a full return as we have come a long way on race and the role of women in society but they do make a compelling argument for the enforcement of social norms.

There is a thread that takes a swipe at some people for voting Republican because they are part of a tribe. I would argue that is correct. They are part of a tribe that tends to follow the "bourgeois culture" of the 1950's. And following that culture tends to lead to success. The problem I have with the Democrats is that, IMO, the people who run the party tend to live by the "bourgeois culture" norms in their life and for their family while taking the attitude that it does not matter what people do in their own personal lives. Fair or not, I view the Democrats as the party of no personal responsibility (or little personal responsibility) in their messaging. I think that messaging has been deleterious to the prospects of those who truly adhere to it and I fins it to be a message that is spreading, causing devastation in its wake. It started with the most susceptible (because of economic and racial inequality issues) and is now spreading to the lower classes in general.

Charles Murray touched on it in his book "Coming Apart." There are certain indicators in life that will tell whether you are likely to be successful in life, and many of those indicators revolve around living a lifestyle that would be deemed "socially conservative" Or "bourgeois culture". I tend to vote how I do because I think even lip service to that culture, if not direct action, is preferable to the alternative.
 
There is a strong argument to be made that Wax and Alexander are living in a fantasy world.

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/0...ct-i-do-care-that-shes-empirically-incorrect/

So his argument is that these things are not the only factor? I would say, duh. I do not agree with everything in the article, like the writer of your essay, I take no issue with the pill. However, there are pretty strong correlations to be made in certain areas. Being a single mother is often a key indicator of poverty. Being the child of a single mother is often a key indicator of living in poverty, less education, and higher likelihood of being involved in crime.

Living a more churchy life, even a somewhat hypocritical one, should put you in a position where you either do not get put into these situations in the first place...or if you do, a support network exists to help you overcome those adversities. Living that culture is not a panacea to life's ills, but it does help build up some immunities that those who do not live that type of life may not have.

Not everyone can have wealth (which is the biggest cushion) but everyone can choose to be a nonsmoker, drug free, childless outside of wedlock, a hard worker, etc.
 
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinio...rys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html?mobi=true

Interesting argument in the Philly Enquirer, they obviously do not argue for a full return as we have come a long way on race and the role of women in society but they do make a compelling argument for the enforcement of social norms.

There is a thread that takes a swipe at some people for voting Republican because they are part of a tribe. I would argue that is correct. They are part of a tribe that tends to follow the "bourgeois culture" of the 1950's. And following that culture tends to lead to success. The problem I have with the Democrats is that, IMO, the people who run the party tend to live by the "bourgeois culture" norms in their life and for their family while taking the attitude that it does not matter what people do in their own personal lives. Fair or not, I view the Democrats as the party of no personal responsibility (or little personal responsibility) in their messaging. I think that messaging has been deleterious to the prospects of those who truly adhere to it and I fins it to be a message that is spreading, causing devastation in its wake. It started with the most susceptible (because of economic and racial inequality issues) and is now spreading to the lower classes in general.

Charles Murray touched on it in his book "Coming Apart." There are certain indicators in life that will tell whether you are likely to be successful in life, and many of those indicators revolve around living a lifestyle that would be deemed "socially conservative" Or "bourgeois culture". I tend to vote how I do because I think even lip service to that culture, if not direct action, is preferable to the alternative.
The election of Trump is the antithesis of every single moral and society norm we have ever had, particularly in the 50's. Do you not see the irony in your statement that the Dems don't care what people do in your personal life, yet it's the GOP that voted in this morally repugnant man, by every single standard you can possibly name? The GOP never again gets to claim any kind of superiority in values and character. Perhaps you should read again the thread that Rock posted about this.
 
So his argument is that these things are not the only factor? I would say, duh. I do not agree with everything in the article, like the writer of your essay, I take no issue with the pill. However, there are pretty strong correlations to be made in certain areas. Being a single mother is often a key indicator of poverty. Being the child of a single mother is often a key indicator of living in poverty, less education, and higher likelihood of being involved in crime.

Living a more churchy life, even a somewhat hypocritical one, should put you in a position where you either do not get put into these situations in the first place...or if you do, a support network exists to help you overcome those adversities. Living that culture is not a panacea to life's ills, but it does help build up some immunities that those who do not live that type of life may not have.

Not everyone can have wealth (which is the biggest cushion) but everyone can choose to be a nonsmoker, drug free, childless outside of wedlock, a hard worker, etc.


Says the guy who is hyper focused on outlawing abortions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
So his argument is that these things are not the only factor? I would say, duh. I do not agree with everything in the article, like the writer of your essay, I take no issue with the pill. However, there are pretty strong correlations to be made in certain areas. Being a single mother is often a key indicator of poverty. Being the child of a single mother is often a key indicator of living in poverty, less education, and higher likelihood of being involved in crime.

Living a more churchy life, even a somewhat hypocritical one, should put you in a position where you either do not get put into these situations in the first place...or if you do, a support network exists to help you overcome those adversities. Living that culture is not a panacea to life's ills, but it does help build up some immunities that those who do not live that type of life may not have.

Not everyone can have wealth (which is the biggest cushion) but everyone can choose to be a nonsmoker, drug free, childless outside of wedlock, a hard worker, etc.
No, his argument is that Wax and Alexander are making an argument that lacks actual empirical support, and appeals instead primarily to common sense. In other words, it's possible the world would be better if we went back to the 50s, but no one is able to provide any actual evidence that would be the case.
 
The election of Trump is the antithesis of every single moral and society norm we have ever had, particularly in the 50's. Do you not see the irony in your statement that the Dems don't care what people do in your personal life, yet it's the GOP that voted in this morally repugnant man, by every single standard you can possibly name? The GOP never again gets to claim any kind of superiority in values and character. Perhaps you should read again the thread that Rock posted about this.

Yawn.

So Democrats are barred from talking about women's issues because of Bill Clinton then.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, you have no rebuttal and you know it.

No, I added a little bit more to my initial rebuttal by adding an equally stupid response to hopefully show how lame your original retort was.

Just not willing to really indulge you when you get hysterical anymore. (OMGz...worstest guy ever voted for by worstest people evah). There are sites where you can indulge your hysteria with other like minded hysterics, save these posts for those forums.
 
Says the guy who is hyper focused on outlawing abortions.

My first inclination is to label this nonresponsive, my second is to ask how this comment even fits into the flow of this thread other than a poorly aimed shot at me.

Oh I get it. Single motherhood can be harmful so instead of focusing on all the other things to prevent that (Not get pregnant, more involvement from Dad, etc.) your argument is to kill the baby. Ahhh, the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are in for a shock in the not too distant future....
 
My first inclination is to label this nonresponsive, my second is to ask how this comment even fits into the flow of this thread other than a poorly aimed shot at me.

Oh I get it. Single motherhood can be harmful so instead of focusing on all the other things to prevent that (Not get pregnant, more involvement from Dad, etc.) your argument is to kill the baby. Ahhh, the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are in for a shock in the not too distant future....


You are correct that having a child as a single mother is very detrimental to the mother (and child's) well being economically....and a more likely indicator for future involvement in crime on the part of the child.

People are going to have sex. It's normal human behavior. I'd advocate free birth control being given out at schools and clinics on every corner. It's 100x cheaper than all the economic/criminal consequences that come from unplanned pregnancy.

But we all know who's so politically opposed to that. The same moral crusaders that want to return us to fictional Mayberry.

And the CoC Republicans? Not sure what you mean there.
 
Last edited:
My first inclination is to label this nonresponsive, my second is to ask how this comment even fits into the flow of this thread other than a poorly aimed shot at me.

Oh I get it. Single motherhood can be harmful so instead of focusing on all the other things to prevent that (Not get pregnant, more involvement from Dad, etc.) your argument is to kill the baby. Ahhh, the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are in for a shock in the not too distant future....

First of all, it isn't a "baby."

Second, when it actually DOES become a baby, you "pro-lifers" couldn't care less about it.

Third, why will they be shocked? Are you saying Roe will be over-turned?
 
You are correct that having a child as a single mother is very detrimental to the mother (and child's) well being economically....and a more likely indicator for future involvement in crime on the part of the child.

People are going to have sex. It's normal human behavior. I'd advocate free birth control being given out at schools and clinics on every corner. It's 100x cheaper than all the economic/criminal consequences that come from unplanned pregnancy.

But we all know who's so politically opposed to that. The same moral crusaders that want to return us to fictional Mayberry.

And the CoC Republicans? Not sure what you mean there.

Of course if 1 million women have sex this month with a 99.9% effective birth control, what happens in 9 months? Birth control is great and I certainly favor it. But what happens when the oops occurs?

Which is where I think left and right diverge. I do not believe there is a statistically significant difference in pre marital sex. If anyone has numbers, I would love to see them. But if there is no difference, just chanting personal responsibility does not help. Heck, even if there is a difference it does not help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: largemouth
No, I added a little bit more to my initial rebuttal by adding an equally stupid response to hopefully show how lame your original retort was.

Just not willing to really indulge you when you get hysterical anymore. (OMGz...worstest guy ever voted for by worstest people evah). There are sites where you can indulge your hysteria with other like minded hysterics, save these posts for those forums.[/QUOTE
Hysterical? Lol. Thanks for the mansplaining! But sorry, I'm going to continue to call you on your BS. How you can pretend that the GOP has any moral authority at all now is beyond laughable. And actually, he is the worst person ever. So there's that.
 
Fair or not, I view the Democrats as the party of no personal responsibility (or little personal responsibility) in their messaging.

Um...that would be not.

Both parties advocate personal responsibilities in different ways and in different arenas that reflect the differing priorities of the voters that support them. Klick does a good job in Goat's link of pointing out the lack of empirical support for Wax and Alexander's contentions. And they mirror the approach you make in your contentions...advocacy for social constructs which seem to make some people more comfortable but don't prove to be better for overall societal health.
 
As a product of the '50s, I can testify to the fact that the America of this period is much different than America today.

In the '50s a father with an eighth grade education could earn a good middle class living working in the steel mills. A young girl who found herself pregnant would get married (notice I didn't say happily married). Almost any high school graduate with aptitude and ambition could graduate from college without debt. Alcohol was a problem, but not as big a problem as the highly addictive drugs which exist today.

Saying the American culture which existed in the '50s when people were "more responsible" is preferable to today's culture misses the point. The point point is most Americans whether in the '50s or today can be called "responsible" or "irresponsible" depends on how you define and measure these terms. Many of us would use morality as a guide in defining these terms.

This brings up the question whether government along with any political ideology can enforce morality. So when you hear someone say that a particular political party or a set of government policies can bring back personal responsibility and/or revive a preferred culture of the past, just be skeptical. I can hear a politician saying, "Make Americans responsible again".
 
Last edited:
Of course if 1 million women have sex this month with a 99.9% effective birth control, what happens in 9 months? Birth control is great and I certainly favor it. But what happens when the oops occurs?

Which is where I think left and right diverge. I do not believe there is a statistically significant difference in pre marital sex. If anyone has numbers, I would love to see them. But if there is no difference, just chanting personal responsibility does not help. Heck, even if there is a difference it does not help.

Depends on who you are when the oops occurs. Me personally, I make the best of a situation that could be tough. Depending on relationship with Mom that could go a few different ways. All of them begins nd end with me being supportive of her in raising our child. Hopefully that occurs in a relationship bit sometimes that does not work out. But the child is taken care of.

Other people kill the child.

Guess it just depends on the value you place on things.
 
Depends on who you are when the oops occurs. Me personally, I make the best of a situation that could be tough. Depending on relationship with Mom that could go a few different ways. All of them begins nd end with me being supportive of her in raising our child. Hopefully that occurs in a relationship bit sometimes that does not work out. But the child is taken care of.

Other people kill the child.

Guess it just depends on the value you place on things.
I am trying to leave abortion out of the equation from either side.

I think many men would help, many would if ordered by a court, and some would run and hide. But in most scenarios, with zero government involvement, that child is negatively impacted. Even with government help it is probably negatively impacted, just less so. But here is where I have problems with some of your personal responsibility brethren, even if I agree the mother deserves whatever ills there are for being a young single parent, the baby does not deserve those ills. I just won't support anything that penalizes the baby.

An interesting phenomena I see are the number of my kids' friends who graduated high school, got married, and started having kids. They tended not to be the closest friends of my daughters, and they tended to be from poorer backgrounds. Statistically those children should do a little better than the unwed, but there will still be a gap between then and the babies who are born later to more economically secure parents.
 
You are correct that having a child as a single mother is very detrimental to the mother (and child's) well being economically....and a more likely indicator for future involvement in crime on the part of the child.

People are going to have sex. It's normal human behavior. I'd advocate free birth control being given out at schools and clinics on every corner. It's 100x cheaper than all the economic/criminal consequences that come from unplanned pregnancy.

But we all know who's so politically opposed to that. The same moral crusaders that want to return us to fictional Mayberry.

And the CoC Republicans? Not sure what you mean there.
Good points.I always chuckle when someone thinks only married couples should have sex.Like that has ever,or will ever happen.
 
Depends on who you are when the oops occurs. Me personally, I make the best of a situation that could be tough. Depending on relationship with Mom that could go a few different ways. All of them begins nd end with me being supportive of her in raising our child. Hopefully that occurs in a relationship bit sometimes that does not work out. But the child is taken care of.

Other people kill the child.

Guess it just depends on the value you place on things.
That's nice. But sadly, everyone isn't responsible. Sadly, some men want nothing to do with a child and will bear no responsibility. A child might be born of a single mother, who has no means to take care of him/her. The GOP is all about making women bear the child, but then want nothing to do with helping anyone to take care of the child, born in less than perfect scenarios. Most recent example, this mess of a healthcare bill. They also don't want any part in helping women with birth control. The men of the GOP just want to make sure we have those babies and then wash their hands of them. Guess it just depends on what you value.
 
That's nice. But sadly, everyone isn't responsible. Sadly, some men want nothing to do with a child and will bear no responsibility. A child might be born of a single mother, who has no means to take care of him/her. The GOP is all about making women bear the child, but then want nothing to do with helping anyone to take care of the child, born in less than perfect scenarios. Most recent example, this mess of a healthcare bill. They also don't want any part in helping women with birth control. The men of the GOP just want to make sure we have those babies and then wash their hands of them. Guess it just depends on what you value.

Yeah those damn pubs want all the kids to die. How is it that the pubs own the house and have for years yet welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care that now adds up to over a trillion dollars a year. Yeah they have no heart.
 
Depends on who you are when the oops occurs. Me personally, I make the best of a situation that could be tough. Depending on relationship with Mom that could go a few different ways. All of them begins nd end with me being supportive of her in raising our child. Hopefully that occurs in a relationship bit sometimes that does not work out. But the child is taken care of.

Other people kill the child.

Guess it just depends on the value you place on things.

Here's the problem as I see it...

The people in question are not people that are sensible enough to change their behavior or give much of a shit about their kids. And that isn't going to change. So you can look at the binary options and decide which makes more sense:

1) Allow them to abort their fetus that would otherwise end up growing up unfairly into a "tough life". From a cost standpoint for society, this is a no-brainer.

2) Outlaw abortion and force the woman to have a child with a broken home. The child has a strong chance of being a drag (and potentially) a menace to society).

Freakonomics clearly laid out the cause and effect when abortion was legalized and utilized in Chicago and its impact on the crime rate. This shouldn't surprise anyone. When people that don't even want kids are able to choose not to have them, even after making stupid mistakes (not to use protection in the first place), society is less dependent on welfare, crime rates drop, neighborhoods are safer, etc.
 
ADVERTISEMENT