Why do I hate the 1970s so much?

[Dr Doran]

I have no problems with a patriarchy. Better to have a society of strong brave men than cowering wimps.

And another thing bad about the '70s; unleaded gas and "lite" beer!!!!!

I hate lite beer too.

I like bravery and have little time for wimpery as well. And let me tell you, in graduate school it's pretty sick to see women be the only outspoken people and all (or many of) the men silent and afraid to talk lest they offend the women. It's pretty gross.

In Longman's view, which I think is correct, patriarchy has historically kept underpopulation at bay by linking the health of offspring with male pride.

The problem with patriarchy is that, uhm, if you are a woman, ummm, you might not appreciate some of its aspects.

 

[jamespowers]

I hate lite beer too.

I like bravery and have little time for wimpery as well. And let me tell you, in graduate school it's pretty sick to see women be the only outspoken people and all (or many of) the men silent and afraid to talk lest they offend the women. It's pretty gross.

In Longman's view, which I think is correct, patriarchy it has historically kept underpopulation at bay by linking the health of offspring with male pride.

The problem with patriarchy is that, uhm, if you are a woman, ummm, you might not appreciate some of its aspects.

I dunno. It seemed to work for time immemorable. If a patriarchy was so bad, I doubt it would have lasted so long without change until relatively recently.

 

[Dr Doran]

That is a good point, and Longman argues it. He also argues the IMPORTANT point that patriarchy does NOT equal misogyny. He draws a distinction between these two forms of society. (Where a person would draw the line, however, may be a little subjective, n'est-ce pas?)

LADIES? ANY THOUGHTS?

 

[jamespowers]

That is a good point, and Longman argues it. He also argues the IMPORTANT point that patriarchy does NOT equal misogyny. He draws a distinction between these two forms of society. (Where a person would draw the line, however, may be a little subjective, n'est-ce pas?)

I would say that The Bible tends to give some good guidance in that vein. You know the one about husbands, wives and children that everyone nudged each other during the passage that didn't pertain to them on Sunday.
Perhaps that should be another thread---Patriarchy yes, no, maybe.

 

[Fast]

just one little, unimportant example

This came from the xerox parc website
"1979:
Linguistic technology to enable spell checkers, a Thesaurus and reverse dictionary applications is developed. It will be employed in the future Xerox Memorywriter typewriters and 8010 STAR Information System

Xerox's Office Products Division announces that all future Xerox products will communicate through Ethernet.

Nearly 1,000 Alto personal workstations have been built and are in use throughout Xerox, linked by Ethernet local area networks (LANs) and gateways. Another 500 are in use in universities and government offices."

Those networks used the first raster image processing laser printers.

That's pretty much 99% of what we call computing today. The alto had something very much like the Gui you are using (smalltalk).

Not too bad? And that's just one company developing the work of one guy. There were others.

My point was that there are a lot of babies in the bathwater.

Carpe Diem
Fast

 

[Lincsong]

I hate lite beer too.

I like bravery and have little time for wimpery as well. And let me tell you, in graduate school it's pretty sick to see women be the only outspoken people and all (or many of) the men silent and afraid to talk lest they offend the women. It's pretty gross.

In Longman's view, which I think is correct, patriarchy has historically kept underpopulation at bay by linking the health of offspring with male pride.

The problem with patriarchy is that, uhm, if you are a woman, ummm, you might not appreciate some of its aspects.

Well we do have something in common.

Anyway, where you teach, I wouldn't be surprised if the men were whipped into submission.lol

 

[SamMarlowPI]

Steve McQueen was the only good thing in the 70's...in my opinion...course im a youngster :eusa_doh: lol

 

[imoldfashioned]

Philip Longman, "The Return of Patriarchy," Foreign Policy magazine, March/April 2006
Note that Longman does not ADVOCATE a "return to patriarchy." He is simply looking at some (occasionally uncomfortable, to egalitarians like us) facts and tendencies about human reproduction.

That is a good point, and Longman argues it. He also argues the IMPORTANT point that patriarchy does NOT equal misogyny. He draws a distinction between these two forms of society. (Where a person would draw the line, however, may be a little subjective, n'est-ce pas?)

LADIES? ANY THOUGHTS?

Well, you asked!

It's a very interesting article, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I don't think one can argue with Longman's main thesis--that the citizens of many, if not most, industrialized countries aren't having enough children to replace themselves and that this trend is causing problems that will only grow as the population ages.

I also agree with Longman's notation that since more conservative, religious families are having children and raising them with conservative values so there may be a culture shift in that way for awhile. However, I believe that this is part of a generational shift; the culture will move towards being conservative, then there'll be a reaction to that (I don't think Longman gives enough credence to the idea that just because children are raised with conservative values that doesn't mean they'll hold those values as adults, for instance) and things will move to being more liberal, rinse wash repeat.

I think the author is being very disingenuous to say that he isn't endorsing traditional patriarchy which, in his definition includes maintaining imperial power, having enough young to support the old and maintaining national character. It's fine if he is supporting these things, I just want him to admit that this is his bias.

To me he also is clearly mainly concerned with maintaining the affluent classes of the US and Europe; "...it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station…Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents' investments in their children." I was frankly disgusted at the author's statement that the Patriarchy "will produce a greater quantity of children, and arguably children of higher quality" A human being is of lesser "quality" because it is a "ba***rd" or poor?

I would also disagree with Longman's arguement that population is power. It may well have been in the past but with the advances in technology, etc. I think that is less true now. Longman uses the Iraq occupation example but we're only using a volunteer military. If we really needed more forces a draft could be imposed to provide additional men and women.

I thought it was odd that the author repeatedly admits that patriarchy is not a natural or even desirable state for men or women. I was also struck by Longman's comparison of what the sexes must sacrifice under a patriarchy; men have to sacrifice "the joys of bachelorhood in a luxurious society -- nights spent enjoyably at banquets with friends discussing sports, war stories, or philosophy, or with alluring mistresses, flute girls, or clever courtesans" while women's lives are so limited that they will find "few other ways of finding meaning in their lives" besides childcare.

The author certainly doesn't imply "any endorsement for the strategy" but "one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options -- be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children" has been "a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline". So, it's effective but he's not endorsing it? Longman does admit that "To be sure, a society organized on such principles may well degenerate over time into misogyny, and eventually sterility…" (gee, you think?) but it seemed to me he was saying that as long as you don't cross that line it's okay. In my view, the answer is neither a world of no attachments nor traditional patriarchy but a middle ground.

Also, it is beyond the scope of this article but while it is true that society may need more children to support perhaps the largest population of elderly in history the question of whether the planet could support a population that large isn't discussed at all.

 

[nulty]

Whoa..I have to catch up on this thread....

One of the only true regrets I've ever had was turning 16 in 1978.

I really could care less about the styles. They sucked to the point where they are no longer worthy of my time......

Great movies Yes..Great Rock...Most Assuredly

The Movie Boogie Nights does a fairly good job of portraying the 70's with some empathy...

The reason I hate the 70's is that from that period Apathy crept into my Generation or at least strongly manifested......From that has stemmed an Ambiguity that seems unstoppable everywhere I go....

maybe I just don't care....

 

[Lincsong]

I also hated the striped bell bottomed pants and blue leisure suit my Mom bought for me.

 

[metropd]

I love the 70's just hated the fashion architechure and design. I could watch Dolemite and Superfly every day till the day I died..... and late 70's Parisian couture was quite nice apart from from Chic LP listening, coke snorting, Don Perion drinking Yves Saint Laurent models who look like the Israeli government flew them out an Euthopian refugee camp.

 

[metropd]

Reason I love the 70's

Cuz I got ta do ma thanng, ya dig...
even if ma thaaang is everybody elses thaaang.

 

[Lincsong]

The rise of whole wheat bread and "health foods".:rage:

 

[Dr Doran]

Well, you asked!

Thanks for the careful analysis. Here are some replies to your points:
1. The children may rebel and be more liberal; but the couples having more children (who usually have a division of labor that encourages child-production) will outnumber them and so the liberals will remain few.
2. I do NOT think Longman is endorsing traditional patriarchy at all. It not necessary to interpret it this way at all. An analysis of demographics is not an endorsement. He could just as easily be a liberal who is pointing out the great sad irony or catch-22 of human demographics. Whether the strategy is effective or not is a matter of evidence and objective reality, not endorsement. He may well have come up with these realizations very ruefully.
3. I don't think he is supporting the "affluent" classes as much as the "respectable" classes, the "basic" people. The people who produce more people to staff the country. He is talking about orderly reproduction for an orderly society. My mother's family was not affluent at all but they were extremely "respectable" in patriarchal terms. Even though her mother was dominant in many respects over her father.
4. As to military power being represented by population: true, since about THE NINETEEN-SEVENTIES, technology has become more effective than boots on the ground. If technology continues at this level, this will more and more be the case. But this situation represents a tiny fraction of human history. And it could go away any time. The species can survive a war that destroys our manufacturing capacity. And then we will be back to the rule of numbers. Even powers with great technology rely on personnel. You can bomb a place from afar but you need people to be on the ground and administer it after you have done this. Lots of people. Your options are either use mercenaries whose allegiance can shift at any moment depending on who is waving money in front of them. Or, grow your own people.
5. I agree with your answer that a middle ground is best!
Your last point is very important. We will have to be more clever about resources on this planet. I think we need to expand to other planets posthaste and make them livable.

 

[Dr Doran]

Well we do have something in common.

Anyway, where you teach, I wouldn't be surprised if the men were whipped into submission.lol

Dude, I have got some STORIES for you. Hair-raising.

 

[Lincsong]

Which is why I have been to Berkeley less than 7 times in the past 38 years. I can't handle skinny whinning wimps who are "sensitive" and in touch with their feminime side. boo stinking hoo.lol lol

 

[Dr Doran]

title change?

Which is why I have been to Berkeley less than 7 times in the past 38 years. I can't handle skinny whinning wimps who are "sensitive" and in touch with their feminime side. boo stinking hoo.lol lol

Man, you would hate grad school. I AM PROUD TO SAY, however, that not only am I not skinny, but I never whine, as my wife is from Soviet Poland and I have some idea what actual suffering is like; and also, I am proud to note that despite my credentials as a member of the Democratic party and as a reasonably liberal person (reasonably being the key word) I stick out like a sore thumb in grad school and a lot of people think I am a hyper-conservative John Bircher. I'm not -- it's just a measure of how goofy THEY are.

On that note:

Perhaps this thread’s title should change to reflect the fact that the thing most of us are critiquing is not specifically the 1970s but the countercultural monstrosity that surfaced in late 1960s – from 1968 until 1979 or so. James Powers, be my guest.

In honor of this potential change I alert my fellow haters of the 1968-1979 period to an delightfully mean review, unbridled in its piercing cruel critique, in the New York Times Book Review today. It reviews one Jean-Paul duBois’ 2007 book “Vie Francaise,” a lightly fictionalized story of duBois’ own life, using the name “Paul” as his avatar. I am a Francophile (that’s France, not Generalissimo Franco of Spain) BUT as we all know, I’m also a hater of the 1968 generation, and, the reviewer writes, duBois is “the son more of his generation than his country.” The book reviewer critiques the pompous faux-rebellious fatuousness of that generation beautifully. The review is entitled “His Generation” and it is by a certain William Deresiewicz (I am also a Polophile and so his surname automatically prejudices me somewhat in his favor).

The novel, the reviewer writes, is “the story of one very tired generation. It’s called the generation of ’68 in Western Europe and the ‘60s generation in the United States, but whatever name it goes by, its trans-national similarities outweigh its differences, and it’s been dragging the slow length of its middle age through the culture of two continents for at least the last 25 years.”

Yikes. He continues, “ ‘Vie Francaise’ gives us yet another version of the angry young man who won’t grow up, and while the inflections may be Gallic, the self-pity and self-righteousness are all too familiar.”

Ouch. Nice. It won the “Prix Femina” in 2004 (I have no idea what that is, but ...) The author of the book “tries, rather feebly, to make the tokens of political significance stand in for its substance” and each chapter, titled after the French president of the question, gives the author “the opportunity to engage in periodic ritual grumbling about the scoundrel in question.” In 1968 ‘Paul’ lets loose his rebellion by smashing the windows of his father’s car dealership. And the universities after 1968 are “so absurdly permissive that Paul and his friends try to mau-mau a young professor for daring to require papers and exams.” I do not know the verb “to mau-mau” but as an academic, this is exactly the kind of abuse that sickens me the most about that generation.

A typical (for that generation) and most psychologically retarded nihilism apparently pervades the novel: “the root of the malaise ... as Paul himself admits, is that he refuses to grow up ... life is meaningless, everybody stinks, authority figures are jerks, everybody but me is a suit-wearing zombie ... Paul’s political attitudes ... are also typically generational: knee-jerk leftism and mindless anti-Americanism.”

Wow. Sounds like a winner that could turn a pretty left person into a raging conservative.

 

[Lincsong]

Yes Doran, I was a real riot in Law School. You should have seen the look on the Dean's face when I asked why there wasn't a Federalist Society on campus. His jaw dropped all the way to China.lol

 

[Dr Doran]

Yes Doran, I was a real riot in Law School. You should have seen the look on the Dean's face when I asked why there wasn't a Federalist Society on campus. His jaw dropped all the way to China.lol

NICE. I almost thought about starting a "European Pride" club on campus at Berkeley but then I figured given the environment there, people would think the wrong thing about me ...

 

[Twitch]

...And then you had the toga party right Linc?