« Thought for the morning | Main | Arafat is dead! »
November 10, 2004
Stockings and Broken Windows
Something occurred to me this morning. Something that has been percolating down in the basement with the boys as they've reviewed a myriad of images, snippets of conversations and discussions coming out of the post-election hangover.
It happened as I dropped off my daughter at school this morning. I noticed one teacher, a man in him late sixties, get out of his car, slip on his suit jacket and head into the school. As we pulled into a spot, my daughter pointed to another teacher, "There's my English teacher." I had to look twice, because the only thing that seemed to indicate she was a teacher was the travel coffee mug she was carrying. Otherwise, she was dressed in jeans and a chunky sweater - not much to distinguish herself from her students.
Then, later at work, we received a reminder memo that the winter dress code (the major difference for the women is now we must wear hosiery with our skirts and dresses) was now in effect with the usual admonishments to remember where we work and for whom. Indeed, each day I get off the elevator and pass several courtrooms on the way to my office and all of them have a posted dress code on the doors.
It hit me that I never remember this kind of private legislation of personal behavior from my youth.
I remember my grandmother. Going downtown to shop at a department store was as serious an occasion as going to church. One dressed for it. Dress, stockings, pumps, gloves and hat. No one told you, no one made you sign a form saying you had read the dress code policy and agreed to abide by it. You just knew what was expected and you took pride in the knowledge. Like learning to set the table or write thank-you notes or actually RSVP an invitation. There was a whole series of social conventions people adhered to, not because of legislation and threat of legal action, but because of the basic respect we had for our neighbors and ourselves.
That changed in the sixties as the boomer generation rejected, wholesale, their parents' values and conventions. "Do your own thing" or "Be true to yourself" became handy excuses to eschew politeness as "phony." If something was "legal" then it was beyond any criticism. Show up at church in a halter top, cutoff jeans and flip-flops? Go to school dressed like a hooker recovering from a three-day meth binge?
F**k you, you stepford wife hypocrite - who are you to say how I should dress? It's not like it's illegal you Jesusfreak bitch! Go hump some bibles...
Exaggeration? Naw. This election nothing animated the salivary glands of some gender-feminist pundits (i.e. Naomi Wolfe) like Laura Bush showing up at events dressed in tailored suits and acting in a lady-like manner.
And look at Michael Moore (well, if you can't actually look, remember the last few times you did see him). Whatever the event, whatever the occasion, he wears the same slovenly uniform, the same hat he never removes, never has his hair cut or his face shaved. Lord, does he even bathe? It's just more of what he's known for, flipping the bird at society. "Look at me! I'm above all that petty bourgeoisie convention. It ain't against the law you know."
One realizes a neighborhood is in trouble when broken windows go unfixed or graffiti is not promptly removed. The good people of the neighborhood will start moving out, the broken windows will multiply, the graffiti will increase and the vicious downward spiral will gain speed. Laws won't paint over graffiti or install new windows or remove junked cars or mow lawns or paint fences ... only people will. The law can be a vehicle to facilitate some of these activities, but it cannot replace the will and values of the people involved.
Ironic, isn't it, as people like Moore have sneered at societal conventions that used values and expectations to guide individuals on the proper way of treating each other have gained the upper hand in society, more than ever have we had to enact laws to govern behavior. From university speech codes to work place dress codes to statutes that define "hostile work environment" to include behavior that at one time would only be considered obnoxious, we've moved from a society that controlled the coarser elements by voluntary convention to reams of laws and codes defining the most minute of behavior.
This constitutes a freer society than the one of the 40/50's the boomers rejected?
Finally, maybe that's one of the motivating factors behind the Left's histrionics about "Jesusland." They cannot fathom morality without legislation. They have seen their own values enshrined in legal code and truly believe that no one that disagrees with them should have the same right. This is what they fear - citizens who disagree with their values now having the upper hand and following in their footsteps.
Of course, that is exactly what most "redstaters" do NOT want to do. However, I'm almost loathe to tell the Left that since there is something satisfying watching them sweat bullets over their perception of citizens they've dismissed for so long contemplates the Left's own tactics.
Posted by Darleen at November 10, 2004 12:31 PM
Comments
I have the same thought about Michael Moore's presentation. He always looks so sweaty. I was shocked to hear he was married with grown children. Don't they keep him in line?
Posted by: Mieke at November 10, 2004 05:05 PM
PS On all other points about manners and courtesy I second that!
Posted by: Mieke at November 10, 2004 05:06 PM
Thanks for beginning to really clarify this point Darleen. I know you've been mulling on it and chewing on it for a while. It was an eye-opener when we talked about it.
Posted by: NTropy at November 11, 2004 02:06 PM
Hi.
Just came over for a visit from LGF.
Thought this might be an appropriate quote to append to your post.
"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide the lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."
Robert A. Heinlein
Posted by: Zaideh at November 11, 2004 02:52 PM
Oh my...thanks Zaideh...
You have to know that Heinlein is a particular favorite of mine.
NTropy... thank you for the kind words. Yes, this has been simmering for sometime.
Posted by: Darleen at November 11, 2004 03:04 PM
Michael Moore has talent. That is apparent. But so did Hitler and Charles Manson. Talent by itself is essentially neutral. It can be directed in whatever way the owner of that talent feels comfortable with.
What many on the right object to is the avenues within which he has chosen to channel those talents. If Michael Moore was on the opposite side of the political spectrum he would be championed by the right. But, the question to be asked is, is there a reason why someone like Mr. Moore gravitated to the left and not the right. Or for that matter, why didn't he appropriate his talents to making nature films.
I believe, as do many, that Mr. Moore more than enjoys the ego inflating environment that often surrounds "controversial" artists. Basking in the opiate glow of international fame and political intrigue would be an addiction few could resist, much less an overweight outsider from a rustbelt backwater.
Perhaps it could be postulated that not unlike Darth Vader, Michael Moore has been seduced by the dark side of his talent, in as much as he has allowed that firm, judicious region of the brain that every human is born with to be debased on the throne of flagellate, malignant narcissism.
What a rush it must be to have your stuff on parade and grow fabulously wealthy by the rot of your soul.
Posted by: bill at November 11, 2004 05:51 PM
Jesus Bill. Hitler, Manson, Darth Vader?
Being a liberal makes you on the dark side? Or is it having a "flagellate, malignant narcissism"?
Stretching the truth, lying, and presenting a point of view that is clearly based in a political agenda coupled with having an ego puts you there? He's in great company I guess with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc...
Posted by: Mieke at November 12, 2004 11:10 AM
I never said that because he's liberal he was taken in by the dark side. Or that by giving in to the dark side that he becomes by default, liberal. I simply asked a question.
His cancerous ego is a symptom of being seduced by the dark side. He cannot see beyond his own prejudices, nor can he relate to other people who might have different prejudices than his own. So much so that he believes that everyone expcept himself and the craven sycophants who worship at the alter of his narrow, bitterly divisive worldview are insane and somehow incomplete.
Posted by: bill at November 12, 2004 07:43 PM