Mack, many thanks for your reply to my previous post.
In fact I really did not feel comfortable after I'd pressed the "send"
button. First of all, of course, I'd forgotten to put NJC in the title -
that really made me feel bad! Then I knew I had generalised, been too brief
(although the text was too long, but I tried to say too much!) and could
only expect a lot of people reacting with "she's out of her mind!", and I
was quite relieved to see only your considerate reply this morning! Maybe
it's good that we're all so focused on Travelogue that I did not get too
much scrutiny! (My copy is ordered and until it arrives I have obviously
time for other thoughts!)
So I'll try to give you some more replies, but as I keep saying, my time is
too restricted to be able to post regularly, and that means I should not
start such debates because I can't carry them to the end. Anyway, here
goes.
Mack writes:
"Lieve wrote: > what do kids perceive as "normal" when they're fed this
stuff all day? -
Of course there is that question again. Just what is "normal" and who is
defining it? [ ...] I, too, have struggled with what I find acceptable or
objectionable, in regards to my neices and nephews. My nephew came home from
school one day, while living for a time with me, and announced "my friends
think you are too strict." I was put aback by that comment and realized
that, though liberal in some areas, I was extremely rigid in others (the
children I deemed proper for him to play with, what movies I would let him
view, etc.). I, too, have been shocked and disgusted by the crotch grabbing
entertainers but worry that if we, as a society, start putting parameters
and controls over what others may say and do then we are just as guilty as
the Puritans of stifling freedom. Just what is our ultimate goal? Maybe it
is just me, sensitive to those issues, since not so very long ago, and
perhaps again in the future, homosexuals were not allowed out of their cages
without special circumstance. But who draws the lines, who makes the rules?
And where do they stop? Do they stop?"
Mack, I do agree with most of what you say. With "normal" I don't mean
"conformist" or anything like that, heaven forbid. I suppose I mean "Is
that what my kids think life/ sex/music etc is all about, or that there
isn't more to it", when almost ALL the acts they see, the lyrics they hear
etc, are going in the same direction? A lot of my world view, as a kid, was
formed by novels, some of which I had to smuggle under my coat from the
library because they were "contrary to catholic morality" and from that I
learnt that the world is complex and diverse and that feelings are complex
and diverse. I did read about people treating love and sex like a
commodity, but I also read about great, wild emotions, longing, passion,
doubt, absence, choice, dilemmas, self control and a number of other
conflicting situations. The dross poured over kids these days is so
one-dimensional that it scares me (and most of them don't get to books any
more!). Yes, in the 50s people were shocked over Elvis, and the thing is,
it was probably good that they were shocked because things were too safe and
cosy, he was not the "norm" (i.e. not EVERY male singer had to shake his
hips so that kids would think that music could not exist without shaking
hips, that in fact the shaking was the way to judge any music). If I saw
just one crotch grabber now, I would just have a laugh with my boys and that
would that. But now this is the NORM, and there's something wrong with a
female singer if she does not have her boobs on display.
I think we should not be afraid to still have "norms" in terms of ethics,
morals. Being honest, caring, reliable, to only do to others as we would
want to be done to us. Maybe the way we express that will be overtaken by
history but that is no excuse for not setting any norms. For instance, I
teach my children a degree of politeness: to say hello and thank you, to
appreciate the efforts others make even if maybe they don't like the gift,
the food etc. Not to be formal, but to show that you care. I always made
them imagine "how child so-and-so would feel about a certain situation"
before they judge or jump to conclusions. But I also tried to teach them to
be strong within themselves, not to follow prejudices (like when my then
6-year-old boy chose a lunchbox that was deemed "girlish" by the kids in his
class and he came home crying because he was called a wimp - boy did that
infuriate me! I contacted the school and asked them to work just as much
against sexism as they had been doing, successfully, against racism). I
made great efforts to tell my kids not to be too upset when their own likes
and dislikes are not shared, ridiculed by others - but that's tough on
little kids!
So where do I draw the line? Where I feel that those basic values of
honesty, caring, respect etc are being lost and replaced with dross that
only appeals to the lowest common denominator, to conformism,
superficiality, gossip, cruelty, to an attitude that replaces the wonder of
human relations to "yeah whatever" and "let's grab it 'cause we've got an
itch".
I wrote in my previous post: "Yes, in the sixties a singer with a cute face
may have sold more than someone less attractive and that was exploited too,
and from there on we had more and more suggestive moves and pouting lips and
the works"
and Mack replied: "Didn't our parents say much the same things that are
being said today, about the music and societal changes of the 60's? Maybe we
all should just take it all off and take away some of the excitement and the
intrigue."
And to my text: "...my own desire to live and let live and be tolerant, I
see it as my duty to react against this cheap slutty trend." Mack replied:
"I don't see the trend. Dancehall girls way back when. Marilyn in the 50's.
Janis in the 60's. Maybe when forced to look at things differently, when it
involves our own young and our own motives, we are not quite as evolved or
as free as we once ascribed to be."
Mack, I've already replied to most of that above. No, I don't think my
standards have shifted. I love Janis too. But I would not set her way of
having relationships as the shining example to follow - I don't think she
would either, if she was still around!
I remember in 1970 or so, a boy mentioning the Gainsbourg/Birkin's "Je
t'aime moi non plus". I was only a young teenager myself, with only books
knowledge in that department, but when he said (as an apology) "Yes I like
that number, but only for the music of course, not for the panting", I
thought that was so hypocritical that I replied (and shocked him) by saying:
"Well I only like the panting" because to be honest, I thought the music was
crap and even then I thought it was a cheap trick to try and sell it on the
back of "something sexy" - while on the other hand I did find those sounds
quite educating! :-) The point being, it's not that I was prudish about
sex, but I did resent very strongly that it was used to sell music,
especially music that could not stand on its own.
Next point, Mack quotes me [talking about society's message that] "the only
"correct" love relationship is one on one. If someone feels (or expresses)
love for more than one person, and it is considered more than friendship
(which I think is an artificial distinction anyway) then they are judged as
having "cheated" and the other party is made to feel betrayed and hurt and
jealous."
Mack replies: "A profound thought that deserves more attention, but, one
that could be classified as rather abnormal in this culture and could be
seen by others as more or less the same downing down of our morals and our
society. How can we decry sexual displays on one hand and on the other put
forth the notion that one on one relationships are somehow not correct? Who
makes the rules? I surely don't have the answers any more than the next
person, just my thoughts."
And my reply now (hopefully short!): exactly, I said in my introduction that
on the surface this opinion could be seen as contradictory to the previous
one! I hope you can see through it, though! One of my moral yardsticks has
always been: "Is it true? Is it honest?" Selling music through vulgar sex
is not honest. Telling people there is only one good way to love is not
honest either. (And this gets quite close to the same point that I am sure
you have made many times about gay relationships. This too is a form of
love that had/has to assert itself against the one stereotype.) This does
not mean that I think "one on one" relationships are wrong, not at all! I
just think that we should see the difference between what is convenient for
society (as for bringing up children, which of course I agree is very
important) and what can be, in certain circumstances, alternative ways of
relating to people we truly love. Our current culture does not allow much
tolerance for that, and as a consequence some people may feel stress, hurt
or betrayal where otherwise they might be able to find other forms of
happiness. Mack, last night I really regretted having started on this
topic, because I cannot and will not discuss my own situation on e-mail, and
therefore I feel I cannot properly debate the point if people took me to
task, so I apologise in advance.
But if we meet person-to-person, I'll be very happy to continue the
conversation!
Lieve.
_____________________________________________________________
This message may contain privileged information. If you have received this message by
mistake, please keep it confidential and return it to the sender.
Although we have taken steps to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses,
the EBRD accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused by computer viruses and
would advise you to carry out your own virus checks.
The contents of this e-mail do not necessarily represent the views of the EBRD.
______________________________________________________________
