Posted on 06/15/2005 6:43:04 PM PDT by CHARLITE
In his new book, Porn Generation, Ben Shapiro mocks the absurdity of some common liberal solutions to society’s ills. He exposes the outrageous advice of liberal celebrities and media figures, detailing how liberals have transformed the overthrow of traditional values into an art: by methodically watering down religion, undermining parental authority, and giving all views equal legitimacy, they’ve produced the cultural crisis that we see today.
This approach has left my generation plagued with moral relativism, narcissism, and many other unintended consequences that the hippie generation is unwilling to take responsibility for and which the aging leftists that now control academia are still trying to promote. By detailing this, Shapiro provides the slap in the face that America needs.
Perhaps my experiences at Wellesley College make me especially ready to embrace Shapiro’s ideas, but I would argue that anyone would consider this book a quick read and (if they have the stomach for it) hard to put down.
Porn Generation has all of the bite and harshness of a young conservative who has been pushed to the edge by the constant force of liberal propaganda within our education system, yet it also presents arguments which are thorough and unavoidably convincing for even the most liberally-minded.
Shapiro details the chronology of society’s moral breakdown – explaining how today’s trends can be traced back to the Kinsey study in the ‘40s, the Clinton scandal in the ‘90s, and other prominent events that changed our understanding of sexuality and culture.
Loaded with quality conservative sarcasm, this book analyzes the hypocrisy enveloping the liberal machine and looks at the various aspects of our culture – teen magazines, pop celebrities, and commercial marketing – that influence our youth.
The one warning that I must issue before encouraging you to read this book is that it does have very provocative titles and explicit language. The irony, however, is that this language is nothing that we do not see or hear every day watching the news, listening to the radio, reading popular magazines, or attending university seminars. Shapiro calls conservatives and liberals alike on their hypocrisy for buying into the new culture that they condemn in principle, yet support with their wallets.
Shapiro points out the craziness of a society which turns criminals into multi-millionaire rap stars, especially when they teach boys “that it’s okay to treat women like dirt” and that these “contemporary buffoons, vulgarians and misogynists are…the ones who are ‘keeping it real’,” while teaching young girls that boys only want strippers and prostitutes.
He argues that youth cling to “gangsta’ rap” because it “distances them from their parents, and in some sense, serves as a rejection of their parents’ culture and their race itself.” This new mentality, according to Shapiro, has only served to promote moral relativism and give young whites the “false impression that [gangsta’ rap] actually represents mainstream black America.” This highlights the hypocrisy of multiculturalism and empowerment within my generation. As the Rev. Al Sharpton said, “Civil rights marchers didn’t march so that a rapper ‘has the right to call your mama a ho.’”
Shapiro looks with disdain at the careers of pop idols Madonna; the former-Mouseketeers-turned-Madonna-wannabes Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera; and newest Disney “pop tarts” Hillary Duff (who hasn’t sold out yet) and Lindsay Lohan (who has). He also looks at the lyrics from such “artists” as Kurt Cobain (Nirvana), Ozzy Osbourne (who compared Bush to Hitler just months after the President complimented him on his music success), and Marilyn Manson.
He lauds these artists on a few points, praising Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder for declaring that “any generation that would pick Kurt [Cobain] or [Eddie Vedder] as its spokesman… must be a pretty f–up generation” and admitting that Britney Spears is right about one thing: “It’s a fantasy world that [she’s] doing…It’s up to the parents to explain that to their children.”
Shapiro highlights a critical disconnect between parents and the current generation, citing such figures as: “While only 15 percent of surveyed parents believed that their teens had gone beyond kissing, 27 percent of teens reported being with someone in an intimate or sexual way.”
The recurring theme of this book is that parents are increasingly being cut out of the loop, with schools replacing their authority in sex ed, teenybopper magazines telling their kids what to think and “how to exploit…‘rents into letting [them] date,” and music contributing to the clash of generations. He summarizes his view of teenybopper magazines with the question “Where the hell are your parents?”
This book is the ultimate summary of how we “have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized,” while concurrently defining deviancy up so that the normal has been made to be found deviant. It differs from other conservative crisis-of-our-age books in that he doesn’t just scream bloody murder at the problems caused by the liberal hijacking of our culture, but also offers shrewd solutions for how each of us can help restore and transform our culture.
Overall, Porn Generation is well worth reading and very enjoyable -- assuming you can stomach knowing exactly how disgusting our culture is.
Maribeth Armitage is a former Witherspoon Fellow and a graduate of Wellesley College. She managed a congressional campaign in Boston before coming to work for Townhall.com.
Or maybe you mean the people in Hollywood determining that we must indeed view execrable obscenity, vile language, and offensiveness of every description as the daily fare that passes for entertainment? Or maybe the media executives who lie? Those people?
We must? Really? What happens if we choose not to? Do they come and beat us up?
With freedom comes personal responsibility. Some people handle it better than others, but removing personal responsibility necessarily means removing freedoms.
Yours is the same argument as:
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't like methamphetimine, don't smoke/inject/snort it.
If you don't like spousal abuse, don't practice it.
If you don't like porn shops on the road where your kids walk to school, have them walk a different route.
Etc.
It's not myself I'm worried about. I don't have a TV. But the cultural atmosphere is influenced by the bilge that is on every channel all the time. Even if, for instance, one set of parents carefully monitor what their kids watch, a bunch of other kids don't have such careful parents. So the rest of the kids "stink" up the neighborhood. I know at least one kid who was exposed to very explicit sexual stuff on TV or movies, and wound up molesting another kid.
Have you noticed the many articles about kids molesting other kids? Where do you think they learned that stuff?
If purveyors of sleaze want to turn the whole world into a a stinking landfill, your argument is to just live in it. But it is impossible to live in the midst of a landfill and keep one's house clean - the rats, flies and smell will invade.
Yours is the same argument as:
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't like methamphetimine, don't smoke/inject/snort it.
If you don't like spousal abuse, don't practice it.
If you don't like porn shops on the road where your kids walk to school, have them walk a different route.
Etc
It's the "etc." that bothers men. Everyone is offended by something. The list really is endless. And this being America, we can adopt your list. However, then we'd have to adopt everyone else's list as well.
You're spouting moral relativism. Which, in the final analysis, isn't relative at all, but whoever has the power makes the morals. Or lack of them, which is the same thing.
Moral relativists say that all values are equal, and none should be forced on anyone. But their values are always the "real" ones, and those are the ones the moral relativists want enforced.
Like, pornography must be allowed anywhere and everywhere (practically). There must be no censorship in libraries especially library computers. Porn shops and strip clubs must be allowed in areas even if the people living there don't want them.
There are universal moral rules that are in basic agreement. These are extant in all monotheist religions in the world, and some that aren't even monotheist. These guidelines form the basis of what used to be our own laws, but the moral relativists have been very busy for some time dismantling them.
And what have they been replaced with? A situation where even if the majority of people want very much, and vote for, or their elected representatives vote for some kind of restriction on, say, what level of disgusting obscentity or sexually explicit stuff should be allowed in some particular venue, a couple of judges in black robes, assisted by lawyers from the ACLU, tell the citizenry what must be.
This is judicial oligarchy, aided and abetted by organizations who do not have our benefit in mind, such as the ACLU.
You're confusing legality and personal issues/preferences.
Legally all religions are pretty much equal. The law recognizes no difference between Christians, Jews, Wiccans and the annoying airport guys. In private life, I'm sure even the judges hate the airport guys.
(actually, I haven't seen the airport guys in years, but used them as an example of an annoying religion).
If I understand you correctly -- your definition -- then our entire legal system is built on moral relativism.
For instance, in god's eyes it probably makes no difference whether you still a dollar or a million dollars. Under the law, it's the difference between petty larceny and grand theft. And then there's questions of "mens rea," that concerns state of mind of the person who committed the crime.
In order to banish this type of "relativism" from public life, it would mean creating a taliban type theocracy, which nobody really wants. They had a pretty firm grip of absolutism. And it got them nowhere fast.
No, I'm not confusing legality with personal preferences.
For instance, divorce used to be illegal. Then it became legal, but very, very difficult to obtain. Then, moral relativists - in the form of feminists, mostly - demanded easy divorce. Why was divorce originally illegal and then very hard to obtain? Universal religious values, encoded into law, which is where all law originates.
Adultery and fornication used to be illegal. So did birth control, so did abortion. All these are based on religious values, encoded into law. Then they became legal, then accepted, and now promoted. Same thing with homosexuality.
I am not saying that divorce should be illegal.
I am saying that moral absolutes have a universal foundation, and up until very recently were the foundation for law.
Here's another one - there is a universal moral prohibition against murder - how much more basic can you get than "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Well, now abortion is legal, doctor assisted suicide is legal in OR and some countries, now it's legal to deprive handicapped people of nutrition and water in some places, in some countries in Europe terminally ill children are routinely killed and that is being advocated here as well.
So even murder is becoming legal and acceptable. Can't you see the devolution?
Your argument is fallacious. Look at the laws that were in place one or two hundred years ago.
Basically what you're saying is there are only two options - an amoral free for all, or a Taliban-esque dictatorship where the Ministers of Vice control check women in bags to see if they have nail polish on.
I notice that people who like moral relativity always bring in the Taliban as a bogy man.
"Thou Shalt Not Kill"
How about, except if some moron crack head comes into your home to thieve the DVD player? Mostly everyone would agree on the right to protect stuff and the safety of a family, right?
Moral absolutists have a special place in society. Take your typical preist, nun, monk, etc. Or just the guy who dedicates himself to living a "good life." These people are admired and generally held up for admiration.
I don't agree that we're devolving. I see little or no evidence of that.
The Taliban were interesting. A government exercising such power over the individual was something of an historical spectacle. It would have been interesting to see how they played out.
Many of the laws that were in place a century or more ago aren't applicable today.
Some of us grownups get married to have a monogamous relationship with some like minded person of the opposite sex and to create an environment that offers stability and nourishment to our children. I don't know what the other 60% of the narcissistic populace that make their decisions based on social statisitics do
Hear! Hear! As you correctly pointed out, it takes "adults"....one man and one woman, both emotionally & mentally mature
and committed to principles that transcend themselves & their personal feelings. When two "it's all about me,myself, & I" types marry, it soon turns into a 'gunfight at the OK Corral" with each self-worshipper demanding to be the center of the universe.
"Are these the people you mean?"
Like it or not the people you listed are part of our culture. But I meant all the people. I believe there are more people who oppose the segments of our culture you listed, all the family oriented groups, church congregations, etc. That President Bush won a second term is evidence of that. I don't like it when (as in this book apparently) the folks you listed are used to define our culture, because it's not the half of it.
You're right. The vast majority of people just want to get through the day and maybe have a few laughs. These are perfectly decent people.
Is she responsible for the library too? It's nothing a large, well-placed hand grenade couldn't cure.
The divorce rate is much higher for those couples who live together before marriage, 50% higher.
You can't be very old then. I'm in my early '40s, and I'm seeing things that no one would have imagined 20-30 years ago, like homosexual "marriage."
I'm older than you. I'm seeing things I'd never thought I'd see, too. Some of them good and some bad. For instance -- to name a few good ones in my home town -- NYC's murder rate has dropped to 1950s levels. Times Square has been cleaned up from the sleaze and vandalism of the subway cars has pretty much vanished.
Like it or not, human beings respond to their environment. Thed media is now part of that environment. So are local economies. Likewise for technology -- like the internet and cheap travel -- that has tied even the smallest community into the larger world. That means the ebb and flow of cultures is going to become an everyday thing.
Sad to say qam1 but I think your giving to much credit to Gen X on this one.
I lived in Seattle when Cobain shot himself (I might have too if I was married to Courtney Love). The place was full of "slackers" my age and younger for days at various memorials. I was so disturbed by this spectical (and I like Nirvana's music) that I left Seattle within a year.
Alas, though more conservative by far in comparison to Boomers, there are plenty of slackers among our ranks.
Figures!
That's about the only contrary societal indicator that I can think of, as opposed to 40+ million babies aborted since 1973, the advent of the pornography superhighway, 24/7 TV sewage, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.