New York is much more traditional than anywhere else in the nation probably. People simply seem to have to dress up more for work here than elsewhere. I was in LA visiting my older brother and sister-in-law recently. My sister-in-law took me to the airport on the way to work and what she saw wore wouldn't fly even in her industry in NYC. I think one reason why NYC remained traditional was that the tech industries were weak compared to others and the traditional industries strong enough to remain in control of the dress code.
Kazzy, its a good question and hard to answer. I'd argue that one of the key differences was that playing cards with your friends over drinks was always coded as an adult activity. Kids and teens were not supposed to do either. The difference with playing D&D with friends over soda and snacks is that was always acceptable* for kids and teens. In fact it started with kids and teens. The continuation of a childhood activity into adulthood is one of the reasons why a person might feel more childish from playing D&D over kid-friendly snacks than cards with drinks.
zic, I think that teens started to define what was trendy and cool sometime before a middle-class income started to require two-sources for most families. It was sometime in 1950s with the birth of rock. The 1960s clinched the domination of teens and twenties on whats cool.
I'd argue that its acceptable to care if its your wedding. The people are your guests and they are their to attend your event. As the host of the wedding and the certain of attention, the couple has the right to demand that the guests keep in the spirit of the wedding. If the happy couple decides that they wanted something elegant and formal than the guests have to honor that or not show up. Anybody who argues otherwise deserves a whack on the head. They are wrong.
I thought that the drive to informality in the office came from the tech sector. This might be more urban legend than anything else but what I heard is that the early computer programmers did not like traditional office attire for a variety of social reasons and simply refused to wear it. The companies needed them and had no choice but to let them dress casual to work even if they preferred them to be in a suit the entire time. This causal wear eventually spread to other industries because of tech influence. Its a pretty recent thing to. If entertainment was accurate, the concept of office appropriate attire existed to at least the late 1980s.
In more traditional industries like finance, law, and more you are still expected to dress kind of traditionally.
Dhex and ND, this is part of what I was talking about in regards to Babbitry. In the recent past, knowledge of dress and the differences between formal, semi-formal, and informal were somewhat more universal despite class. If anything, Golden Age Hollywood movies gave people a certain idea of what fancy dress was even if they didn't travel in socio-economic circles were it would be important. Getting dressed for the occasion used to be an important part of life even if it was simply to do your holiday shopping. It was as Chris and Jaybird put it, socially expected. I think part of the nostalgia for the 1930s and 1940s that a lot of people in Gen X and younger feel, despite things like the Depression, WWII, and the early Cold War, is from missing the ability to dress up in somewhat elegant or fancy clothing.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I'm really glad that I don't live in an age where I have to wear a suit even when I'm not at work. At the other time, its nice to dress up really fancy once in awhile for a non-work occasion and something events requires a bit more elegance and formality.
In the 1920s, Nordic meant anybody of White Christian ancestry from one of the Northern European countries besides Ireland. So you could be Nordic without being Scandinavian.
ND, I think that in the past you could argue that there was a much clearer difference between adult culture and youth/children culture. The movies, music, and television aimed at adults was different from that aimed at kids. If you were an adult, you weren't supposed to play with toys or like certain things anymore. These days the differences between adult and kid's entertainment are blurry. Its something that you have been known to complain about.
Heightening the contradictions was a term invented by Vladimir Lenin to describe what the Bolsheviks should do during WWI. He argued that rather than supporting policies that would ease the problems caused by WWI, the Bolsheviks should actually try to exasperate the problems in order to make people more radical and get them to support the Bolsheviks rather than more moderate political parties.
In American politics, the idea would be to the let the GOP have full reign and do what they want in order to make things so bad that some sort of radical leftist change is inevitable.
Dale, our grandparents were not Lower East side. Our maternal grandfather was raided in the Bronx on the Grand Concourse. Our paternal grandfather in Crown Heights. Our grandmothers were from middle-class families and grew up in the prosperous parts of Jewish Manhattan.
I think the idea of cool defeating the Babbit ideology is very important. The Baby Boomers did their best to hold onto the culture of their youth more than any generation in recent memory or human history. There isn't much of a generational difference in entertainment, culture, or values as their were in the past. Young people listen to the Beatles. Parents listen to what their kids do. People of various generations dress relatively alike. You can't have a Babbit mentality without clear cultural differences between adults and youths/children.
Elaborating on my point. Most of the people on this blog are either Generation X or after with a few baby boomers. Our parents are either Baby Boomers or Silent Generation. Can any of us really imagine our parents engaging in the rituals of Babbit-dom? When people still did most of their big shopping downtown and when big, fancy department stores were a mainstay in most cities; going shopping was a big event. People would dress up in suits or dresses and look their best for these trips down town. It was part of the ritual. Can any of us imagine our parents dressing up to do their holiday shopping at the mall? Now most people enter the fanciest stores in much more informal clothing. The last time that people really dressed up in Babbit style was when it was de regieur to wear your best clothing on flights because it was a new experience for most people. This seemed to stop being common in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
The entire look that the middle class was trying to achieve when it dressed up a la Babbit also quickly disappeared after WWII. The men were attempting to appear authoritative and imposing, as people of authority and seriousness. The women were attempting to look alluring and pretty but in an elegant rather than a sultry fashion. Things are more relaxed these days. Even when dressing up, people attempt for a casual appearance and feel than the Babbits and their wives. Last night I attended a jazz concert in San Francisco. Most people were in jeans. This would have scandalized the Babbits of the past.
Simply, the entire Babbit mentality started to disappear for various reasons after WWII when society grew less formal fast. The 1960s delivered the death blow. Even if our society still had Babbit like economics, there would be no Babbits.
Than you make do. I have yet to hear single program for enacting radical change that makes sense or seems even slightly likely to work besides "heighten the contradictions."
I think that the 1960s did more to kill to the Babbit mentality than any sort of growing income inequality that happened after 1980. The great and radical social changes that occurred during the 1960s made the entire Babbit lifestyle hopelessly quant at best or very reactionary at worse. The Baby Boomers, even the conservative ones, simply had no desire for any of the trappings of Babbit's world even if they were prosperous and managed to stay in the same office since they started their careers.
I also think that if the changes of the 1960s were less great than the Babbit mentality would still have disappeared. The erosion started after WWII. Fashion got less formal, civic organizations like the Rotary Club less prominent because of suburbia and other factors, etc.
I strongly disagree with the notion that radicals help liberals by making them look moderate. Many conservatives have long opposed the demands of the liberals as being nothing more than a stepping stone towards something more radical.
A couple of years ago, I was walking around the mid-West twenties and saw an add for a formal ball. Women were required to wear gowns and men tails. The entire thing seemed really strange. I also know that some people learn really antiquarian dances and dress up in period custom. I think that a lot of people like getting dressed up really fancy and like a bit of formality but modern society doesn't really allow that many occasions to dress to the nines much. A lot of people find modern clothing a bit lacking.
Maybe your right but doing the proper thing to ensure equality on the law sometimes requires things like treating religion as an innate characteristic to prevent things like discrimination based on race, gender, sexual presence, or physical and mental disability. Considering how strongly some people feel about their religious beliefs and that religious groups form communities, its close enough even if it isn't as permanent as race or something else.
Michael, my belief is that all commercial establishments should have to accept as a customer anybody who can pay and that the prices should be the same for everyone. I don't believe that any commercial business should be a safe haven for any particular community. A business could cater to a particular community but it can't deny its services to anybody with money. If a scantily clad woman wants to buy meat from kosher butcher fir supper than the kosher butcher must sell her the meat.
See it as the same drive for the desegregation of commercial businesses. On one level you could say why bother when you could go to a business friendly to you. At the same time, it's not the point. People should not be excluded from a business because of an innate characteristic. If they could pay, they should be able to patronize. It's a fight against segregating the LBGT community.
I think that part of what's makes us human is our ability to contemplate whether or not something is moral or immoral, good or bad. These things are present in other animals but not to our extent. Considering that the ability to be moral is one of the things that makes us human than it would be better to be killed by a villain than to be a villain. The villain has made a choice not to follow one of the best parts of being human.
I can't see Gotham as Philly. Philly doesn't have the right reputation. I can see Gotham as Chicago, which kind of has the same reputation but the wrong geographical feel.
I think this is why why Marvel made a wise decision when they decided to use real world geography as much as possible.
On “Whither Babbitt?”
Stillwater, if anything the internet taught me that I overestimate the number of normal, acculturated human beings.
"
How can anybody possibly think that this is a good courtship technique?
"
Pierre,
New York is much more traditional than anywhere else in the nation probably. People simply seem to have to dress up more for work here than elsewhere. I was in LA visiting my older brother and sister-in-law recently. My sister-in-law took me to the airport on the way to work and what she saw wore wouldn't fly even in her industry in NYC. I think one reason why NYC remained traditional was that the tech industries were weak compared to others and the traditional industries strong enough to remain in control of the dress code.
"
Kazzy, its a good question and hard to answer. I'd argue that one of the key differences was that playing cards with your friends over drinks was always coded as an adult activity. Kids and teens were not supposed to do either. The difference with playing D&D with friends over soda and snacks is that was always acceptable* for kids and teens. In fact it started with kids and teens. The continuation of a childhood activity into adulthood is one of the reasons why a person might feel more childish from playing D&D over kid-friendly snacks than cards with drinks.
"
zic, I think that teens started to define what was trendy and cool sometime before a middle-class income started to require two-sources for most families. It was sometime in 1950s with the birth of rock. The 1960s clinched the domination of teens and twenties on whats cool.
"
I'd argue that its acceptable to care if its your wedding. The people are your guests and they are their to attend your event. As the host of the wedding and the certain of attention, the couple has the right to demand that the guests keep in the spirit of the wedding. If the happy couple decides that they wanted something elegant and formal than the guests have to honor that or not show up. Anybody who argues otherwise deserves a whack on the head. They are wrong.
"
I thought that the drive to informality in the office came from the tech sector. This might be more urban legend than anything else but what I heard is that the early computer programmers did not like traditional office attire for a variety of social reasons and simply refused to wear it. The companies needed them and had no choice but to let them dress casual to work even if they preferred them to be in a suit the entire time. This causal wear eventually spread to other industries because of tech influence. Its a pretty recent thing to. If entertainment was accurate, the concept of office appropriate attire existed to at least the late 1980s.
In more traditional industries like finance, law, and more you are still expected to dress kind of traditionally.
"
Dhex and ND, this is part of what I was talking about in regards to Babbitry. In the recent past, knowledge of dress and the differences between formal, semi-formal, and informal were somewhat more universal despite class. If anything, Golden Age Hollywood movies gave people a certain idea of what fancy dress was even if they didn't travel in socio-economic circles were it would be important. Getting dressed for the occasion used to be an important part of life even if it was simply to do your holiday shopping. It was as Chris and Jaybird put it, socially expected. I think part of the nostalgia for the 1930s and 1940s that a lot of people in Gen X and younger feel, despite things like the Depression, WWII, and the early Cold War, is from missing the ability to dress up in somewhat elegant or fancy clothing.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I'm really glad that I don't live in an age where I have to wear a suit even when I'm not at work. At the other time, its nice to dress up really fancy once in awhile for a non-work occasion and something events requires a bit more elegance and formality.
"
In the 1920s, Nordic meant anybody of White Christian ancestry from one of the Northern European countries besides Ireland. So you could be Nordic without being Scandinavian.
"
ND, I think that in the past you could argue that there was a much clearer difference between adult culture and youth/children culture. The movies, music, and television aimed at adults was different from that aimed at kids. If you were an adult, you weren't supposed to play with toys or like certain things anymore. These days the differences between adult and kid's entertainment are blurry. Its something that you have been known to complain about.
On “The Liberal-Radical Relationship”
Heightening the contradictions was a term invented by Vladimir Lenin to describe what the Bolsheviks should do during WWI. He argued that rather than supporting policies that would ease the problems caused by WWI, the Bolsheviks should actually try to exasperate the problems in order to make people more radical and get them to support the Bolsheviks rather than more moderate political parties.
In American politics, the idea would be to the let the GOP have full reign and do what they want in order to make things so bad that some sort of radical leftist change is inevitable.
On “Whither Babbitt?”
Dale, our grandparents were not Lower East side. Our maternal grandfather was raided in the Bronx on the Grand Concourse. Our paternal grandfather in Crown Heights. Our grandmothers were from middle-class families and grew up in the prosperous parts of Jewish Manhattan.
"
I think the idea of cool defeating the Babbit ideology is very important. The Baby Boomers did their best to hold onto the culture of their youth more than any generation in recent memory or human history. There isn't much of a generational difference in entertainment, culture, or values as their were in the past. Young people listen to the Beatles. Parents listen to what their kids do. People of various generations dress relatively alike. You can't have a Babbit mentality without clear cultural differences between adults and youths/children.
"
Elaborating on my point. Most of the people on this blog are either Generation X or after with a few baby boomers. Our parents are either Baby Boomers or Silent Generation. Can any of us really imagine our parents engaging in the rituals of Babbit-dom? When people still did most of their big shopping downtown and when big, fancy department stores were a mainstay in most cities; going shopping was a big event. People would dress up in suits or dresses and look their best for these trips down town. It was part of the ritual. Can any of us imagine our parents dressing up to do their holiday shopping at the mall? Now most people enter the fanciest stores in much more informal clothing. The last time that people really dressed up in Babbit style was when it was de regieur to wear your best clothing on flights because it was a new experience for most people. This seemed to stop being common in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
The entire look that the middle class was trying to achieve when it dressed up a la Babbit also quickly disappeared after WWII. The men were attempting to appear authoritative and imposing, as people of authority and seriousness. The women were attempting to look alluring and pretty but in an elegant rather than a sultry fashion. Things are more relaxed these days. Even when dressing up, people attempt for a casual appearance and feel than the Babbits and their wives. Last night I attended a jazz concert in San Francisco. Most people were in jeans. This would have scandalized the Babbits of the past.
Simply, the entire Babbit mentality started to disappear for various reasons after WWII when society grew less formal fast. The 1960s delivered the death blow. Even if our society still had Babbit like economics, there would be no Babbits.
On “The Liberal-Radical Relationship”
Than you make do. I have yet to hear single program for enacting radical change that makes sense or seems even slightly likely to work besides "heighten the contradictions."
On “Whither Babbitt?”
I think that the 1960s did more to kill to the Babbit mentality than any sort of growing income inequality that happened after 1980. The great and radical social changes that occurred during the 1960s made the entire Babbit lifestyle hopelessly quant at best or very reactionary at worse. The Baby Boomers, even the conservative ones, simply had no desire for any of the trappings of Babbit's world even if they were prosperous and managed to stay in the same office since they started their careers.
I also think that if the changes of the 1960s were less great than the Babbit mentality would still have disappeared. The erosion started after WWII. Fashion got less formal, civic organizations like the Rotary Club less prominent because of suburbia and other factors, etc.
On “The Liberal-Radical Relationship”
I strongly disagree with the notion that radicals help liberals by making them look moderate. Many conservatives have long opposed the demands of the liberals as being nothing more than a stepping stone towards something more radical.
On “Linky Friday #33”
A couple of years ago, I was walking around the mid-West twenties and saw an add for a formal ball. Women were required to wear gowns and men tails. The entire thing seemed really strange. I also know that some people learn really antiquarian dances and dress up in period custom. I think that a lot of people like getting dressed up really fancy and like a bit of formality but modern society doesn't really allow that many occasions to dress to the nines much. A lot of people find modern clothing a bit lacking.
On “Religious Liberty Means Religious Privilege”
Maybe your right but doing the proper thing to ensure equality on the law sometimes requires things like treating religion as an innate characteristic to prevent things like discrimination based on race, gender, sexual presence, or physical and mental disability. Considering how strongly some people feel about their religious beliefs and that religious groups form communities, its close enough even if it isn't as permanent as race or something else.
"
Michael, my belief is that all commercial establishments should have to accept as a customer anybody who can pay and that the prices should be the same for everyone. I don't believe that any commercial business should be a safe haven for any particular community. A business could cater to a particular community but it can't deny its services to anybody with money. If a scantily clad woman wants to buy meat from kosher butcher fir supper than the kosher butcher must sell her the meat.
"
Christianity is the most widespread and least widespread religion at the same time.
"
See it as the same drive for the desegregation of commercial businesses. On one level you could say why bother when you could go to a business friendly to you. At the same time, it's not the point. People should not be excluded from a business because of an innate characteristic. If they could pay, they should be able to patronize. It's a fight against segregating the LBGT community.
On “Beyond Redemption”
I think that part of what's makes us human is our ability to contemplate whether or not something is moral or immoral, good or bad. These things are present in other animals but not to our extent. Considering that the ability to be moral is one of the things that makes us human than it would be better to be killed by a villain than to be a villain. The villain has made a choice not to follow one of the best parts of being human.
On “Suck on That, Everywhere Else!”
I can't see Gotham as Philly. Philly doesn't have the right reputation. I can see Gotham as Chicago, which kind of has the same reputation but the wrong geographical feel.
I think this is why why Marvel made a wise decision when they decided to use real world geography as much as possible.
"
Where do all the people come from? At lest NJ has enough people to at east theoretically house a major city. Delaware does not.
Placing Metropolis in Delaware makes no sense. The city always had a Mid West feel to it. A city surrounded by prairie.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.