4 ms·

This is a pretty egregious example of what has been called "chronological snobbery". I won't deny that the 1950's had their problems. But to assume that they we

This is a pretty egregious example of what has been called "chronological snobbery". I won't deny that the 1950's had their problems. But to assume that they were distinctively more "grotesque and arrogant" than today is kinda silly. You want grotesque? Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. You want arrogant? Look at the comment above.

danharaj 11y ago
> Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. I find wasteful extravagance grotesque. You find people rubbing bodies together grotesque. And I like many cultural developments of that era. None of them have to do with white people in their racist suburbs driving gas guzzlers between the city and their useless lawn.
- smithkl42 11y ago
  I'm not saying that they didn't have their grotesqueries - but the 50s' ubiquitous racism was far more appalling than the size of their cars or lawns. Please remember that they were facing a radically different set of political, economic and environmental challenges back then than we are today. (It's also worth keeping in mind that most of the people driving big cars and watering big lawns in 1955 had been getting shot at or shot down or blown up just some ten years prior, while they were saving the world for folks like you and me.) As for your side point: I'm actually rather fond of the idea of people rubbing their bodies together. But I think it's quite a bit healthier for the folks concerned, their families, and society at large, if they happen to be married. Just compare the progress the black community has made since Jim Crow with the regress of the black family. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to single mothers. Now, it's over 70%. If you consider something to be grotesque if it hurts a culture's long-term health - THAT is grotesque. And tragic.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    The "damage" to society has far less to do with single mothers and I suspect rather more to do with how they are vilified and trapped in low paying/not working at all. Countries that have good social programs encouraging single mothers to progress with their lives and giving them the support they need have better outcomes, I think it's insanely short sighted on a societal level not to do this, those children either grow up as functioning members of society or not and the cost on the not option is far higher. Here in the UK the media went to town on single mothers and it was awful (our media mostly is tbh).

danharaj 11y ago

> Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. I find wasteful extravagance grotesque. You find people rubbing bodies together grotesque. And I like many cultural developments of that era. None of them have to do with white people in their racist suburbs driving gas guzzlers between the city and their useless lawn.

smithkl42 11y ago
I'm not saying that they didn't have their grotesqueries - but the 50s' ubiquitous racism was far more appalling than the size of their cars or lawns. Please remember that they were facing a radically different set of political, economic and environmental challenges back then than we are today. (It's also worth keeping in mind that most of the people driving big cars and watering big lawns in 1955 had been getting shot at or shot down or blown up just some ten years prior, while they were saving the world for folks like you and me.) As for your side point: I'm actually rather fond of the idea of people rubbing their bodies together. But I think it's quite a bit healthier for the folks concerned, their families, and society at large, if they happen to be married. Just compare the progress the black community has made since Jim Crow with the regress of the black family. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to single mothers. Now, it's over 70%. If you consider something to be grotesque if it hurts a culture's long-term health - THAT is grotesque. And tragic.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  The "damage" to society has far less to do with single mothers and I suspect rather more to do with how they are vilified and trapped in low paying/not working at all. Countries that have good social programs encouraging single mothers to progress with their lives and giving them the support they need have better outcomes, I think it's insanely short sighted on a societal level not to do this, those children either grow up as functioning members of society or not and the cost on the not option is far higher. Here in the UK the media went to town on single mothers and it was awful (our media mostly is tbh).