The Lure of Opulent Desolation

[Fletch]

Yes. Unfortunately, you wouldn't last 15 minutes in academia writing like that. [huh]

Is it possible that since feminism became a mass movement (and brought us a lot of good), there's been an uncritical acceptance of some of the more dramatic, black-and-white portrayals of how life was before? Statements feminist authors once meant as persuasive rhetoric, now considered straight history?

Everyone, academic historian or barber shop philosopher, exaggerates to make a point. It's all in the game. We do it even when we try not to. It's hard to convince anyone of anything otherwise.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Is it possible that since feminism became a mass movement (and brought us a lot of good), there's been an uncritical acceptance of some of the more dramatic, black-and-white portrayals of how life was before? Statements feminist authors once meant as persuasive rhetoric, now considered straight history?

YES!

 

[Foofoogal]

Is it possible that since feminism became a mass movement (and brought us a lot of good),

I still cannot figure out one good thing it brought. fftopic:

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I still cannot figure out one good thing it brought. fftopic:

It invited and encouraged women to examine and question their personal decisions to make conscious choices about how they wish to live.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Absolutely agreed. I grew up in a culture which never heard of academic feminism, and when I finally did read it, in my thirties, I was struck by how little it had to do with the sort of life I had experienced growing up. I wasn't middle class, I wasn't highly educated, I didn't live anywhere near suburbia -- and it was like the experiences and the life that *I* knew had never occured to these authors. They had their reality, which they no doubt were justified in finding oppressive -- but they projected that life onto all women, and frankly, that's where they lost me.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

There still seems to be the misapprehension that the author of the NYT piece believes in any of the stereotypes of 1950s suburbia that she discusses. [huh]

She's arguing, and i think quite successfully, that our modern perceptions of the 1950s are wrong. Not that people who fit that stereotype - and i quite freely admit that they existed and exist still - are or were wrong. She is actually very careful to not pass judgement on any partcular group.

I think where she is most persuasive is in the use of the female characters from the books/TV series/movies to emphasise her general thesis. Mad Men would suggest (at least this is what i read into the show, and the reason i dislike the show is largely because of the unrealistic female characters) that all women at this time were useless and vacuous (the wives) and/or grasping (such as the secretaries/mistresses).

bk

 

[Fletch]

And that all men were careerist automatons, to whom work was a kind of sex and vice versa.

 

[John in Covina]

Idealistic views or vicious carecatures of supposed life of the past?

 

[shortbow]

I like her sexual repressive thing and the doe eyed depressives.

My mother was a Standford graduate who would go mano-a-mano with any one who was up for it. A woman of strength, high ideals and independent thought, who was committed to doing her best job as a mother and wife, never once meekly surrendering her person hood to any man. My folks were partners, right down the line.

As to how repressed that gen was, my parents had 6 children.

 

[reetpleat]

Prefaced with: I actually don't like being patronising, but it seems to be necessary here. The lack of basic critical reading abilities displayed here is frankly an indictment of the US educational system (honestly, is it so difficult to refer back to a previous paragraph to understand the statements made in the following paragraph? Apparently it is). There is one poster here that i'm particularly disturbed to see they didn't get it. To read what people who got it think, please read the comments under the article on the NYT website. But then they're east-coast elite, of course. (See what i did there? I used nuance and ironic reference to a stereotype to make a point. Note this for the reading of the NYT article.) I don't hold with the notion that "Americans don't get subtlety" but someone at Purdue once said to me: If a writer wants to be subtle, why aren't they a bit more obvious about it?

There is so much that is wrong with the replies to this thread that it’s almost impossible to deal with them all. I think the best way is an analysis of what the author says, which by the way, agrees with almost every opinion expressed here.

Is it possible that anyone here cannot understand that all of the offensive terms in the following – the ones that have got FLoungers knickers twisted - are not the opinion of the author, but what she found in Yates’s book? She is not saying, for example, that she thinks that women in the 1950s were comparable to infants, that women were sexually repressed. (Although these people no doubt existed, as they do today, and ever shall.) She’s saying that that is what Yates said in his book, and that’s exactly what she expected to find, because of her own preconceptions of the era which are informed by the general opinion. For a very good review of Yates's book, see the December 2008 issue of The Atlantic.



Next we get to the meat of what the author is trying to say. Why is it that people have such a skewed, bad image of the 1950s, particularly vis a vis women’s issues? She’s saying that Mad Men and its ilk are consciously saying that the 1950s (an “unhappy past”, according to these shows) were “characterized by every possible form of bigotry”. Note, she is not saying that’s what she thinks. She’s saying that this is how these shows and movies portray the era.



And lastly to the other series of paragraphs that have caused much anger here.



She’s not saying that no-one knows or knew anyone who was living in suburbia in the 1950s. By “men and women we never knew” she’s saying that these people are idealized myths, that – except for a very few – never existed and were never the norm.



Why can’t people understand that she is unequivocally not saying that these are her opinions? She is drawing on the portrayals of female characters in all the books, movies and TV programs she is using as material for her Op Ed. Is there anyone here who actually likes the wife of the main character in Mad Men? This description could have her photograph next to it. Vacuous, cardboard cut-out (cookie cutter), spineless, weak, grasping, mindless. Were any women like this? Surely, just like today. Most? Surely not, just like today. Hence a ridiculous stereotype - like the men all out having affairs, heavy drinking and abusive.

I must admit she is hampered in the last sentence (and the article generally) by not having a good English word for vosotros (second person plural familiar "you"; you all, y’all, not necessarily including me) or nosotros. This closes what is actually quite a nice and very well written piece. She sets up the problem (why do we (nosotros) portray the 50s as horrific, particularly for women), shows some examples of how we do this (those doe-eyed, frivolous, almost simple-minded depressives) and tries to explain why we might wish to cultivate this image of an era (so that we can convince ourselves that our lives are much better now and we should just get on with it).

She is not a journalist, unfortunately. Were she one she would not have attempted to be so subtle, nuance and ironic. She would understand that a goodly number of readers just aren't prepared in terms of use of the language, to understand this technique. The only opinion she expressed in this piece was that the common perception of suburban life in the 50s is, in her opinion, false: It wasn't nearly as bad for most housewives as is generally accepted form the silly shows and movies she uses. Not a thing that people here have found offensive was the opinion of the author.



If the disturbing reading ability displayed by the respondents to this thread are anything to go by, I don't wonder that people don't buy papers. They would be in a constant tizzy about their own misreadings.

bk

Her hear. I was startiing to think only Lizzie maine got it, but I see at least a few others do. I don't understand what everyone was so offended or upset by. My reading is that he is commenting on our fascination with the era, which is such a love hate relationship. the nostalgic image of the fifties was created in the fifties (fittingly, or ironically, by madison Avenue mad Men) and we have been relating to it in various ways ever since. In the late fifties a new trend surfaced which was to skewer the conformity of east coast suburbia. An idea that seems trite and tired now, and requires more subtlety and finess these days. So, we have this ideal life, which we do wonder how they did it. At least most people. And this was a generation that many younger people did not "know" because to grow up as a child in the era is to not have been privvy to the details and intimate thoughts of the adult world. So it becomes a strange, rarified fantasy world that we are continuously going back to to either idolize it, or to slam it, or both. This is why it is so fascinating.

and it was a unique time. It is not the same as someone in the fifties looking back at the turn of the century. There were a number of big and small historical economic and social events that resulted in a truly unique period that was further obscured by the prevelance of media and advertising intent on creating it's own version of it.

So, this writer wonders why she has such a strange fascination withe the era, and speculates that many of us do.

What is so strange about that?

 

[reetpleat]

I think maybe what O'Neal, the writer being quoted in the article, might have been suggesting is the way that life appeared to the kids of the time -- I haven't read the Post Magazine article cited, but that might seem to fit the context here. To a kid, all there is is surface -- and I think a lot of these modern takes on pre-sixties life are stuck in a kid's perspective. But for some people, that childhood perspective becomes a fixation, and they figure they can never live up to that ideal.

For example, the whole "how did they do it on one income, own a house, send kids to college, etc?" thing that keeps coming up. Well, if all one did was stick to the images of the 50s one picked as a kid from movies and TV, one might never have heard of the GI Bill, which basically created the modern middle class in the US -- most of those postwar homes were bought thru nothing-down VA loans, not savings out of a single income. And one might not realize that most Americans *didn't* send their kids to college in the '50s. And one might not realize that most Americans didn't live in suburbia and weren't upper middle class. In otherwords, one would only see a narrow, surface image without having any grasp of the cultural complexities that were left out of that image.

But being unable to live up to that image, they do the only thing they can to feel better about their own lives -- they go as far as possible to the opposite extreme and demonize it. If you suggest that all those suburban houses were filled with bigots, drunks, sexists, and Miltown-popping depressives such as you see on "Mad Men," our modern age looks so much better in comparison.

right on the mark. To say we did not know them or how they did it does not mean we can't just go ask granpa. Truth is, if you aksed someone from the era how they did it, they either would say they didn't, or they didn't know. I think the only way we could know how they did it was to have lived it or be a historian, or realize that it was a myth to begin with.

Secondly, of course the literature of then and now paints paint the seamy underbelly of this perfect world. Both as social commentary and in the interests of a good story. No one ever had a best selling book or hit movie saying "there was a perfect suburban family and they lived happily ever after." I guess happy Days was a hit show, but I don't think mad men would be too interesting if Don cam home to his wife at six every night.

 

[reetpleat]

Yes. Unfortunately, you wouldn't last 15 minutes in academia writing like that. [huh]

Is it possible that since feminism became a mass movement (and brought us a lot of good), there's been an uncritical acceptance of some of the more dramatic, black-and-white portrayals of how life was before? Statements feminist authors once meant as persuasive rhetoric, now considered straight history?

Everyone, academic historian or barber shop philosopher, exaggerates to make a point. It's all in the game. We do it even when we try not to. It's hard to convince anyone of anything otherwise.

While I agree with your point about rhetoric, I hardly think feminists invented black and white thinking. I know you well enough to not ascribe too much to your comment, but it would seem to imply that feminism somehow corrupted what was before that, even, careful consideration.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

right on the mark. To say we did not know them or how they did it does not mean we can't just go ask granpa. Truth is, if you aksed someone from the era how they did it, they either would say they didn't, or they didn't know.

That's not what I hear from the people who were there.

Secondly, of course the literature of then and now paints paint the seamy underbelly of this perfect world. Both as social commentary and in the interests of a good story.

I do not share your view that something has to be seamy to be a good, authentic and compelling story,

No one ever had a best selling book or hit movie saying "there was a perfect suburban family and they lived happily ever after." I guess happy Days was a hit show, but I don't think mad men would be too interesting if Don cam home to his wife at six every night.

I guess you didn't grow up watching Disney movies that are still raking in the bucks today. Happy endings were some of Hollywood's big sellers. I think that's part of the 50's I love- it wasn't all about celebrating and enjoying the sleaze.

 

[Fletch]

While I agree with your point about rhetoric, I hardly think feminists invented black and white thinking. I know you well enough to not ascribe too much to your comment, but it would seem to imply that feminism somehow corrupted what was before that, even, careful consideration.

No such implication intended, nor should such be inferred.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Speaking of the dark side of human nature in the 50s entertainment, the Twilight Zone marathon is on the Sci Fi Channel right now. Rod Serling is one of my favorite misanthropes. TZ portrayed everyday people in situations that usually highlight the base desires of people in suburbia, but it was done so in an artistic and non-gratuitous manner. Also of interest is that it was supernatural or out of this world influences that instigated bad behavior. He held up a mirror to us, but it was in the spirit of hope and introspection, not simply wallowing in negativity for the thrill of it as I see it.

Another favored misanthrope of mine is Hitchcock. The thrill I get in watching his art is not in the actual murders and scandals; after all, we never see the knives making contact with the victims, or the forbidden affairs behind closed doors. We don't need to for it to be riveting. Yet, in the end, the bad guy rarely gets away with murder.

So even the method of viewing the seamy side of people in the 50's was done differently than the sleaze of today.

 

[I'mSuzyParker]

Great Thread!!

Why is it suddenly wrong for a woman to choose to stay home and keep house or raise her children? Why is a woman considered less of a person if she makes that choice today. Ever notice the people most critical of the life of the 1950s housewife are other women??

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

Prefaced with: I actually don't like being patronising, but it seems to be necessary here. The lack of basic critical reading abilities displayed here is frankly an indictment of the US educational system (honestly, is it so difficult to refer back to a previous paragraph to understand the statements made in the following paragraph? Apparently it is). There is one poster here that i'm particularly disturbed to see they didn't get it. To read what people who got it think, please read the comments under the article on the NYT website. But then they're east-coast elite, of course.

I do believe you're referring to me...and you're quite right. (In my defense, it was late night/early morning, I was tired, and I didn't quite get it, nor did I convey my thoughts properly. Remind me not to do much analytical work at midnight!) I went back and re-read the article today, and it made sense. "We" (or rather, the author's generation) have an erroneous perception of the 1950s-early 1960s. We secretly want the "trappings of domesticity", but we can't reach the "cruel ideal", so we vilify and stereotype it to make ourselves feel better about our feelings of failure.

I do think the author isn't overfond of the 50s, whatever her version of it is. On the one hand, she has this internal ideal that is very similar to the supposed 50s ideal, and she can't attain it. But on the other hand, there's a hint that she doesn't think it should be an ideal at all:

Some of the fascination was a kind of exoticism. More, however, came from the fact that, I found, in our era of "soccer moms," "surrendered wives" and "new traditionalism," the look and sound of the opulent desolation was eerily familiar.

Almost as if she thinks we should have another ideal entirely, that we're both wrong. This is what I meant when I said she hasn't decided yet. She says it herself: "No matter how lost we are, no matter how confused, no matter how foolish we feel, we can judge ourselves the winners." She never makes a definite conclusion as to what's right or wrong, just points out our own feelings of inadequacy. I think we (er, *I*) was expecting her to go one way or another in the article. She didn't.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Why is it suddenly wrong for a woman to choose to stay home and keep house or raise her children? Why is a woman considered less of a person if she makes that choice today. Ever notice the people most critical of the life of the 1950s housewife are other women??

It's not! And the author of the Op Ed didn't say it was! I would hope, and i think this is the case, that most housewives/stay at home moms have more going on than the stereotype women from the shows - see Mad Men where the wife of the main character (do you see that this is the only way i can describe her? In reference to her husband? This is the problem with the characterisation that gets my goat every time) starts drinking wine all day because the housework is done and there's nothing left to do. Oooo wha do i do without the presence of the dominant masculine character? Cue weeping into hankie and wine glass comes out … A true portrayal of 50s life? Methinks not. And neither did the author: Hence the Op Ed.

I think we (er, *I*)

nosotros!!

bk

I must again direct readers to Christopher Hitchens' review of Richard Yates' book in the December, 2008 number of The Atlantic.

 

[I'mSuzyParker]

I agree that the 1950s was not Leave it to Beaver anymore than the
1920s consisted of an entire Lost Generation or the 1960s was entirely about free love, but there is a large population who believe today that if a woman doesn't choose to work outside of the home, she is "just" a soccer mom. It's a fact. And the reasoning is why would any woman stay at home and deal with the drudgery, the boredom, the mindless chatter? Personally, I am childless with a career and how lucky for me that my profession (and its attendant blackberry) offers me no drudgery, boredom and mindless chatter (sarcasm intended)

If this is coming a long way baby.. they can have it.

 

[reetpleat]

Why is it suddenly wrong for a woman to choose to stay home and keep house or raise her children? Why is a woman considered less of a person if she makes that choice today. Ever notice the people most critical of the life of the 1950s housewife are other women??

I thought this was already clarified. This is not an article criticizing women staying home to raise the children. No one is saying thee is anything wrong with it. At least not in the article or on the forum. And most that are, are simply criticizing the situation in which a woman does not have a choice.