Posted on 09/24/2017 3:34:00 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
In the recent opinion article “Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture,” published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, law professors Amy Wax and Larry Alexander lament the loss of the “bourgeois cultural hegemony” of the 1950s. They claim that erosion of commitment to marriage, hard work, patriotism, civic-mindedness and respect for authority has produced low male labor force participation, high rates of nonmarital childbearing, subpar educational attainment, an underqualified workforce, substance abuse and rampant urban violence. The downward spiral started in the late 1960s, they argue, with “identity politics” and “multicultural grievance polemics.”
This is bad history. Like the defense of Confederate statues that ignores their promotion of white supremacy, nostalgia for 1950s “bourgeois” culture erases its historical context and serves as a thinly veiled argument for what Wax publicly described as Anglo-Protestant superiority in an Aug. 10 interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian. Such interpretations should not be taken seriously. We write to explain why these claims do not hold up to historical scrutiny.
Nostalgia for the 1950s breezes over the truth of inequality and exclusion. The “racial discrimination” and “limited sex roles” that the authors identify as imperfections in midcentury American life were in fact core features of it.
Exclusion and discrimination against people of color was the norm, North and South. During this period, home ownership, high-quality education, jobs with fair pay and decent working conditions and the social insurance benefits of the New Deal welfare state remained unavailable — by design — to most nonwhite Americans.
People of color were largely excluded from the housing and education benefits of the GI Bill of Rights for veterans. Segregationists....
Gender discrimination was also....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedp.com ...
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-price-for-breakdown-of-the-countrys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html
It took five morons to write this crap?
You oughta see how many it takes to screw in a lightbulb, or milk a cow.
Women were better off before “feminism” rode in to save the day. That stupid bit of “enlightenment” damaged both female culture as well as male culture. But mostly female culture. But, hey, it helps the Liberals get votes.
And Blacks were improving their social status and level of economic success right up until The Great Society. We really were on the path to a color blind society (Martin Luther King was on to something). But that’s all gone now. The Ghetto culture is going to damage Black Americans for generations. Liberals are smugly back-slapping themselves over that one.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a good thing. You can thank the Republicans for passing that over the objections of the Democrats. With full civil rights, everyone was free to make their way ahead on an equal footing. But the Democrats found a way to screw that up for everyone — everyone except Democrat politicians.
Let us keep the full civil rights for all, but let us otherwise go back to the American cultural norms of the 1940s and 50s. We’d be far better off.
The five morons who authored this drivel are law professors at Penn U. San Diego Law has a similar op ed by the Dean! All your base are belong to us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano
Lawyers profit greatly from a society in turmoil. Like the media they want the current state of affairs. Otherwise they would have to get real jobs.
Is prostitution a real job?
Oh, wait...elected lawyers in DC are already screwing people.
Never mind.
Yeah, I noticed they have a token “male” on the list - if he even identifies as male.
The Cultural Marxist exist to foster national suicide. They do what they know how to do.
This article is actually a critique of a different article - also written by UPenn law professors- with which 99% of is would agree. That article is linked in post #2, and is most definitely worth reading.
Lin Yutang (between tears and laughter, Doubleday, 1940) posited a society of manners and decency, or a society of laws and lawyers. The lawyers, naturally, prefer the latter.
Real jobs? Reporting and lawying are real jobs, but they are completely out of whack, like an Asimov robot who can’t allow humans to get hurt, but must obey lawful commmands, so when they are given a lawful command that would expose humans to potential harm they lock up all the humans and take over.
Now we have two prestigious law schools, which is supposed to train lawyers to lawy, and they’re acting insane. Penn U wants to forbit the author of the offending article from teaching first year law students, and San Diego wants to examine students to see if they’ve been traumatized. I spent 18 years as a paralegal, and if a lawyer doesn’t have a cast iron psyche to begin with, he will not make it in the never-ending head butting contest that is litigation. A fragile little snowflake that needs to checked if he’s twawmatized by an editorial probably wouldn’t be able to put together a real estate closing.
Something is seriesly out of wack. It’s like a cnacer.
I saw that happen once. They tried to milk a bull, because it was wrong to assume the animal’s gender identity
It was a tranny bull, and they sued to have its semen recognized as milk, and make a six-year-old drink it, the little trano-phobe.
The basic premise of the article is that human commerce is a zero-sum game. You cannot create wealth, only take it away from others. So the poor sharecropper’s 1/4 of his cotton crop paid to the planter, who let him live in the shack and plant cotton, financed the mega-corporations that were the engine of the economic dynamo of the ‘50s, which made tons of money because the manufacturing bases of Europe and Asia were decimated by war. Viewed in this way, the connection between racism and bigotry and the success of the bourgeois work ethic make sense. Only viewing things in this way is lunacy. Do they really mean that hard work and studiousness and a serious mindset will not work unless you also lynch an occasional nigra? And lynching people and making them go to the back of the bus somehow enriches those not so singled out? Five Pennsylvania law professors and a San Diego dean have simultaneously become unhinged, and they are teaching the future politicians and lawyers of the world! Get your shotgun and year’s supply of canned goods, and find one of those abandoned sharecropper shacks.
Here she is: Tobias Barrington Wolff writes and teaches in the fields of civil procedure and complex litigation, the conflict of laws, federal jurisdiction, and constitutional law. ... He is co-author (with Linda Silberman and Allan Stein) of Civil Procedure: Theory and Practice (Aspen, 3d ed 2009)Wolff has served as counsel or counsel for amici curiae in many civil rights cases seeking equal treatment under law for LGBT people. He won the A. Leo Levin Award for Excellence in an Introductory Course in 2009.
Laws are only necessary when culture fails. That says something about two subjects: (1) Our culture and (2) Folks who want unnecessary laws.
Self ping.
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.