A columnist for The Times of London sees muscular arms on women as both an emblem and cause of societal collapse.
Read on.
In the United States we have a saying that reflects an acceptance of social dynamism and what Thomas Sowell calls the "tragic" view of human nature: "three generations from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves."
The phrase is an observation of Andrew Carnegie, who meant that in well-to-do families (generally) the first generation starts poor and becomes wealthy, the second generation manages to maintain the wealth and status but contributes little to it, and the third generation lacks the ability to even maintain its position and goes back to the bottom.
I've noticed there's a similar process in socialist and communist states, except instead of being specific to families it affects the whole nation:
The first generation to adopt a collectivist/socialist system does so with hope and enthusiasm for a better tomorrow.
Members of the second generation are usually naive, having never known anything different and been subjected to propaganda for their entire lives.
They earnestly strive to make the impossible work and are baffled at their inevitable failure to make further progress in their parents' project.
The third generation replaces naivete for hard-bitten, crushing realism, comprehends the flaws inherent in human nature and gives up on utopian aspirations.
I see this process at work in an article that appeared on Friday in the The Times of London, by Libby Purves.
Purves is an aging lefty who can't seem to wrap her earnest little brain around the ongoing social collapse of Great Britain.
Why is the murder rate climbing so rapidly?
Why are young people behaving so poorly and British culture becoming so crude?
Her answer?
Madonna's muscularity.
Seriously.
It's some work to infer meaning from Purves' rambling essay, but I believe she's saying that young people (and especially young women) have abandoned individual powerlessness, and that this is a bad thing for British society.
See, when individuals seek personal empowerment, then authority figures (teachers, cops, commissars, etc.) become relatively less powerful.
A snippet:
But there is cultural change, visible within a generation. The idea of a “gentler” sex has ever-less currency in the entertainment we get and the heroines we are offered, whether it is musclebound Madonna looking as if she’s been training with the SAS, or Gail and Eileen brawling on the cobbles and Tracey braining her lover with a brass Madonna-and-child statuette down Coronation Street. Soap women always quarrelled, but in gentler times it was just hairnets at dawn and glaring over the back fence.
It's pretty dim stuff, and positively Orwellian in its assumptions.
Libby Purves is a lifer at the UK's state-owned socialist propaganda organ, the BBC.
Dim, indeed -- and by that I mean your "analysis." Here you go again injecting your vulgar right-wing politics into indicting the whole idea of the welfare state under the pretext of discussing attitudes towards athletic looking women. And what do you have to show for it? One data point. One. Even then what you quote is not all that compelling -- it looks like a straw man -- and to top it off your link does not work.
Meanwhile, here in socially dynamic Jesusland, three times as many people believe in the resurrection of Christ than evolution.
budoka_z
|
Registered
|
2008-05-19 05:03:57
While I understand where you're coming from Lingster, I also sort of know what she means as well.
Yeah, we all like buff chicks at this site. It's why we're here. The culture here in the UK is going downhill fast, and it's people between 16 and 25 who are helping it along this path. And usually, it's the girls who are worse because of the whole 'girl power' stuff.
Although I don't think that Madonna being buff has anything to do with it...in fact if chicks were getting more buff it would prob mean less time getting pissed because it's Tuesday or whatever.
Also, you're just jealous because the BBC is ours =P
cpbell0033944
-
Why you're wrong, Lingster
|
Registered
|
2008-05-19 07:16:12
1. Britain elected into power in 1997 the least left-leaning Labour government ever, and seems likely to elect a Conservative government at the next General Election. The UK was indeed a socialist country for a time during the 1960s and early 1970s, but we are generally a centrist/centre-right country. We may sit left of the US as it has been for the last eight years, but that is because the US took a massive lurch to the right. GWB and his policies are recognised around the western world as being right-wing.
2. The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, (who owns Fox News, need I say any more?), and was known as being a Conservative-minded newspaper before that.
3. Because of point 1, your thesis about Britain falling apart being because of its failure as an experimental socialist state falls apart. Do you really believe that the UK is somehow a milder version of the old USSR? Any concerned British citizen can tell you why young people are out-of-control: a: The Police are almost invisible, cloistered in their offices rather than patrolling (a trend which started because of the legislation of a Conservative government, I might add), b: The close family ties of the past are much loser now in rough areas, so kids are less in contact with older family members who provide a good example, c: Councils tended in the past to fill housing estates with rough families, thereby creating ghettos, and d: Several governments (of socialist, conservative and centrist leanings) have failed to create an environment of hope in these areas, leading to young people seeing no future other than drugs and crime.
Lingster
-
Socialism
|
Super Administrator
|
2008-05-19 08:36:31
It took about 74 years for Lenin's Soviet Communism to collapse - 1917-1991. You Brits are now 63 years into Clement Attlee's "social democratic programme". So yes, I am likening the UK and USSR - both accepted social engineering as the way of the future, and both learned in the future that social engineering is folly.
BTW, most Americans are completely unaware of the extent to which the UK socialized. My countrymen are usually shocked and dismayed to learn that even today, more than a quarter of the people in the UK live in government-owned housing, or that it was probably more than 50% 30 and 40 years ago.
What the British government did, basically, was absolve people of much of the responsibility for their own well-being, and the well-being of their families. The natural outcome is vast quantities of people who take no responsibility for anything, because they see no role for themselves in society and resent standards of behavior being applied to them.
cpbell0033944
-
con'd
|
Registered
|
2008-05-19 07:16:32
4. The writer doesn't blame Madonna, or her arms, for the phenomenon. Read the article after removing the scales from your eyes. She is observing a new, aggressive tendency in young women and is referring to popular culture reflecting this - she dwells more on catfights in soap operas than on Madonna's muscles, ad I agree with you on this one point - buff women doesn't equate to violence. We here only need look at FBBers such as Shawna Walker who seems very private and gentle, or Britt Miller who is a student nurse, to see that the correlation is false.
5. budoka_z is correct when he points the finger at "ladette culture" which, when expressed mildly is actually empowering and fun, because young women don't feel socially inhibited around groups of men, but which has gone on to mean some girls feeling that apeing traditional male violence is cool or liberating, when, actually, it's just brainless. Simon Fuller was the original architect of "Girl Power" when he Svenglied the Spice Girls, so we can lay some of the blame at his door.
Oh, and BTW, your link didn't work.
asianfitnessfan
-
The Muscular Asian Woman
|
Registered
|
2008-05-19 10:02:36
The British system, historically, has relied on people at the top to take care of people at the bottom, while the people at the bottom fund the people at the top. The development of an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy was not a rapid process. There are many cultural relics in place in British society. However, let's remember that the most obnoxiously social programmes were dismantled by the Thatcherites.
More specifically, England has a big problem right now with youth violence. There are increasing youth gangs roaming London, involved with violent crime. See this article
and this one.
I think the rambling article blaming Madonna is a feeble attempt to understand the issues of violence that have more to do with parental engagement than anything else.
cpbell0033944
-
re: The Muscular Asian Woman
|
Registered
|
2008-05-19 16:37:45
asianfitnessf
an wrote:
I think the rambling article blaming Madonna is a feeble attempt to understand the issues of violence that have more to do with parental engagement than anything else.
I'll agree with that sentiment. as far as Thatcher is concerned, don't forget her dichotomy - she ended the Union deadlock that was killing the country, but she went mad, eroding employee's rights too far and finishing-up with the Poll Tax which sparked riots and led to her being removed from the leadership of her party.