Disturbing social trends

[Chuck(G)]

This made me choke on my morning coffee:

http://tinyurl.com/pnrx9

How do you parents feel about this?

[Chuck(G)]

Anyone notice that on American Idol (I had the TV on while I was working the other day) most of the contestants tend to sing in the same pitch range--the women butch it up and sing contralto and the men get darned near a falsetto? No sopranos and no basses...

More of the same?

[Matt G]

One thing I can comment on.

I believe it reflects current policy, inasmuch that the Male WASP (or just any white male) is not sought after by employers.

My wife, a minority female, enjoys much more professional success than I, and we both hold master's degrees (mine an MBA and her's a Master's in Applied) Mathematics. I know that this trend is somewhat reflected in their success or lack thereof in the educational system.

[windshieldbug]

Darwinism in action...

[MartyNeilan]

Anyone notice that on American Idol (I had the TV on while I was working the other day) most of the contestants tend to sing in the same pitch range--the women butch it up and sing contralto and the men get darned near a falsetto? No sopranos and no basses...

More of the same?

Well, FWIW, how many successful solo commercial singers can you think of that were a true bass besides Johnny Cash (not counting R&B makeout music.) Why audition for a market that virtually does not exist.

Marty "who thinks Mary Chapin Carpenter's lush alto was about the best commercial voice out there" Neilan

[LoyalTubist]

There have been plenty of male singers in the past (some still alive) who are proud to sound like men:

Bing Crosby
Elvis Presley
Dean Martin
(I put these three together because I have a theory: Listen to these one of these three men sing the same song and it's almost impossible to distinguish them!)

Frank Sinatra
Roger Whittaker
Perry Como

there are others...

Incidentally, speaking of American Idol, on old time radio there was Major Bowes' Original Amateur Hour. This was a true talent show without all of the hype. Listeners got to choose the winner, by calling their local Chrysler-Plymouth dealer. Frank Sinatra was on this program in 1936, singing bass for a barber shop quartet called the Hoboken Four. His group lost but Major Bowes liked him enough that he got him a job in a summer resort in the Poconos--washing dishes, but he did get to sing and that was his stepping stone to being a big star. The Major also had Paul Winchell, the ventriloquist on his show. I don't remember the story too well, but I think he won. American Idol seems to be about popularity. Major Bowes was about real talent--maybe the lack of a picture helped immensely!

[UDELBR]

on old time radio there was Major Bowes' Original Amateur Hour. This was a true talent show without all of the hype.

And don't forget its successor, "Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour".

(feeling a tad old all of a sudden...)

[LoyalTubist]

Actually, there was a five year gap between Major Bowes' death and the premiere of Ted Mack's show. It was originally on radio, similar in format, but that is as far as the relationship goes. It was the successor to the Major's show.

[finnbogi]

there are others...

Moving down the list, registerwise, one must mention Tennessee Ernie Ford, Jim Reeves and JD Sumner.

[LoyalTubist]

Tennessee Ernie was one of my favorites, too. I don't know why I couldn't have thought of him.

[LoyalTubist]

A friend of mine, who is not musical came up with that idea that Dino, Bing, and Elvis had very similar voices and if they sang the same song, only the accompaniment would give them away. Too bad they aren't around. I am sure all three of them would have been game enough to prove the theory.

[Rick Denney]

The parents in the movie could solve the problem in one move: Out!

"Starting on the first of next month, you will be living elsewhere, or you will find your stuff on the front lawn. The room is no longer available for rent at any price."

But they will never realize that this is actually what they must do if they want to teach their kid how to be an adult--a move that will make him a better person.

To me, one major trend is that parents have forgotten a major objective of parenting, which is to turn their children into adults. They treat them like adults when they're children, and then like children when they are adults. They teach indulgence rather than responsibility, and in large measure because they practice indulgence rather than responsibility. We have many friends who want to be the "cool dad", and in so doing they have tried to make themselves buddies rather than fathers. The result is that their kids never grow past the example they are given. They smoke pot and worry that their kids do drugs; they have affairs and worry that their kids are promiscuous; they spend lots of time in tanning booths and gyms, or degrading themselves in rotten relationships, and worry that their kids are narcissistic.

Women are more driven perhaps because many of them think they have something to prove. Men used to have something to prove, but that has been trained out of them.

Rick "who thinks the coddling has to end sometime" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

Back to the original topic, let me trot out a theory. Mushy tomatoes and other produce welcome, but please hold the rotten eggs.

I think we're dealing with a confluence of two or three phenomena that went to reinforce each other.

The first is the two-earner household, really pupularized by the Reagan administration, probably as a way to get us out of the economic problems of the late 70s. Instead of borrowing more money (although we did, big time), we also managed to insert a new source into the income supply.

The second was radical feminism--the sort that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" typifies. "Go out there girl, and get yours--heck you don't even need a man to raise your family". Getting women declared as a "minority" was a master stroke.

The third was the changing of attitutes about the necessity of marriage, as typified by our pop music and movie icons. Sleep around, have a baby, who cares? You've got enough money to raise it yourself and still keep your career.

Given that a woman can now command a high paying career, often in preference over a man ("affirmative action") and hire others to raise her child, the role of the man has pretty much deteriorated to sperm donor.

No wonder our young men feel superfluous--they are.

[Daryl Fletcher]

Chuck, while I don't know that the Reagan administration was necessarily to blame for the rise of the two-income household (I'm not trying to get political, I was just probably too young to pay attention to such things then), I would tend to agree with everything you have said on this subject so far.

[TubaRay]

Getting women declared as a "minority" was a master stroke.

Especially since they are indeed the majority. Hard to believe this master stroke was even possible except in a land on total insanity.

[windshieldbug]

I think we're dealing with a confluence of two or three phenomena that went to reinforce each other.

On the other hand Chuck, I have these five fingers. Ok, seriously, I thank God (which I can still do, because I'm not a government entity... ) every day that my wife IS gainfully employed, because our two-earner household became a one-earner needing good benefits pretty darn fast! And I have to say, that if the only thing women needed men for was a paycheck, and that men were complacent with that, then I still advance that this is Darwinism in action!

[Joe Baker]

We have taken compassion and gone goofy with it. In our society in general, but particularly as parents, we've made the safety net look more like a hammock.

For the parents who don't want to put their kids on the street with no shelter, but DO want to motivate them to grow up, I suggest this:

• Indigent Children (ICs) have to be out of the house daily by the time you leave for work.
  ICs don't get a key.
  ICs can't return to the house 'til you do.
  ICs can't have friends over.
  ICs must be in the house for the night by the time you go to bed.
  ICs must do their own laundry.
  ICs must share AT LEAST equally in the housework.
  ICs must provide their own transportation.
  ICs don't drink, smoke, or use drugs (if there's any doubt, surprise them with drug tests from time to time).
  ICs aren't allowed to purchase luxury items, even with their own money. They should save it to get their own place.

From this starting point, privileges can be earned when the IC finds a job, becomes full-time, saves $1000 (enough to move out!), etc. -- but it should NEVER be so comfortable that leaving wouldn't be better than staying. Oh, and when they say they can't find a job, line them up some volunteer work (we did this with our daughter one summer). Then, if they fail to progress, I'm with Rick. I'd rent a storage locker, prepay it for two months, stash their stuff, and give them the key.

As to how we got into this mess, I agree with just about everything Chuck said (except the Reagan shot -- wha??? Eh, probably better we don't go there...), but I'll add that slippery concepts of morality have MUCH to do with it. Young men used to grow up at church, being exposed to the Bible as an authority for living. Even if you don't accept Jesus as the Son of God (as I do), the messages of morals and ethics in the Bible make a foundation for good citizenship and adulthood. "For by the sweat of your brow shall you eat...", "That which you sow, also shall you reap", "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother" -- the Bible, and the social stigma that once came with violating its precepts, served more often than not to motivate people to grow up and be responsible.
________________________________
Joe Baker, who is grateful for social stigmas that helped keep him from destroying his life when his own conscience failed him.

[MaryAnn]

Well, deciding where to bite my tongue and where to let it loose.

Some of you sound like both women-haters and racists, which is why some laws were put in place. As someone who has suffered from overt discrimination on the job, and from wild assumptions in other places, I find it interesting that the grass on the other side always looks greener.

Most blatant case that actually happened to me: when my married supervisor could not get me to sleep with him, he told everyone I was a prostitute looking for business, and made my work environment impossible. This actually happened. I do not work there any more. This was a professional job, not a fast food place. There are many milder occurrences I could tell you about, some of them in my current place of employment. I DO have a right to make a decent living based on my abilities, without being harrassed, even if you don't like my doing it. I do expect some pretty over-the-top responses to this, which I likely will not respond back to.

Mostly I agree with several things: Darwinism in action, and Rick's and Joe's POV on parenting. I never, ever, EVER would have gotten away with stuff that is not even responded to today, because I would have been laughed out of the house and worse if that didn't work. Consequences were a matter of course. My parents weren't perfect by any means, but they produced three adult kids who hold their own in the world, in addition to "not doing drugs or getting arrested." And I agree that possibly males in utero are being exposed to estrogenizing chemicals (makeup is very estrogenic and does affect the fetus, and most women wear makeup) that do change them. Males aren't supposed to have that kind of estrogen in utero and it affects them in ways we don't know about yet. If men were attracted to women who didn't wear makeup, this entire particular chemical scenario would not be present.

I remain, as always, convinced that we are poisoning ourselves with our industrial chemicals. The effects simply aren't known yet; each one separately may be tested (on animals, not on humans in utero or early childhood) but the only test of "all together" is ongoing in the general populace. I wonder how many heads of chemical companies have female relatives who have had breast cancer?

MA

[Joe Baker]

Some of you sound like both women-haters and racists, which is why some laws were put in place. As someone who has suffered from overt discrimination on the job, and from wild assumptions in other places, I find it interesting that the grass on the other side always looks greener.

I don't see any sign of mysogeny or racism in anyone's comments. Nor do I doubt that a bastard of a supervisor treated an employee badly. Certainly nothing new there, and I'm thankful that we have laws to deal with such.

I DO see a difference between "feminism" and "radical feminism", though. Laws to protect a woman's right to work, and to receive fair treatment on the job (including wages) are certainly good.

But (other than the negative impact 'working' mothers -- as though mothers who raise their children don't work -- have had on the raising of children) the comments dealt with the general devaluing of males, which is the work of RADICAL feminism. Watch a TV show or a commercial today. Who is smart, effective, capable? The woman. Always. Who is vapid, incompetent, impotent? The man. Always. How can boys (or girls) growing up today NOT be affected by that? No wonder boys figure they might as well sleep in. After all, they're doomed to a life of ineffectual boobery. THIS is the work of radical feminists, who would NEVER allow the man to be even AS smart as the woman without pitching a fit. And, yes, in days of old the popular media's messages were almost as bad in the other direction; but women were at LEAST generally portrayed as competent in their 'assigned' role. A woman might grow up feeling as though "all" she could do was keep house and raise a family (the hardest, most noble work I know of, FWIW); but she at least got the message that she could excel at it. The message for boys today is that they'll never be able to do ANYTHING right.
_______________________________
Joe Baker, who has been diligently working to teach his 16-year-old son how to be a man, and is acutely aware of the cultural influences working against him.

[Daryl Fletcher]

Most blatant case that actually happened to me: when my married supervisor could not get me to sleep with him, he told everyone I was a prostitute looking for business, and made my work environment impossible. This actually happened. I do not work there any more. This was a professional job, not a fast food place. There are many milder occurrences I could tell you about, some of them in my current place of employment.

I think that's horrible.

I DO have a right to make a decent living based on my abilities, without being harrassed, even if you don't like my doing it. I do expect some pretty over-the-top responses to this, which I likely will not respond back to.

Yes, you most certainly do have that right.

I would go ahead and say that any man who treats you or any other lady inappropriately hardly qualifies as a responsible adult at all.