[HPFGU-OTChatter] OT: Concert Etiquette

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

> {Silverthorne}
> All it takes nowadays is for a child to swear that it was 'abused' for 
> an
> adult to end up on the 'wrong' side of the law. Even parents can be
> penalized legally for giving their child a quick smack on the butt in 
> public
> if someone else sees it, and decides that they're witnessing 'child 
> abuse'.

Actually, what you've said is sort of an urban myth, much like the idea 
that men are *always* getting wrongly accused (and convicted) of rape 
by women who are just looking for revenge or attention or 
what-have-you.  I know several people who work in therapy and child 
services and they say it is almost *impossible* to convict an adult of 
child abuse.

The popular opinion that you've cited comes from (I think) the high 
publicity of a couple of really ridiculous cases (and no, I'm not 
trying to deny that there *aren't* any).  By and large, however, the 
law is in the favor of adults.

> Hell, you can even be the 'wrong' (read: Wiccan for a friend of mine),
> religion...and if the other locals around you decide 'that just ain't
> right', at the very least they can call Child Services on you and have 
> your
> child(ren) removed from your home until an investigation is complete.

Again, maybe it's just because I live in Downeast Maine (admittedly, 
we're all kind of stuck about ten or twenty years in the past), but 
from I've been told, it's really quite impossible to take kids away 
from their parents (at least in a permanent sense) -- even if they're 
convicted drug dealers and the like.

> {Laura}
> Surely you weren't talking about *smacking* the kid, were you?  'Cause,
> gee, *that's* just the epitome of civility, isn't it?
>
> {Silverthorne}
> You know, sometimes, people NEED a good smack to set them 
> straight--talking
> just doesn't do it, and if you let them go on about thier business it 
> only
> gets worse. I doubt that's what Bumbledore was getting at here 
> though--as
> stated above, it's more likely frustration at knowing that chances are
> ANYTHING s/he had tried would have resulted in more of an upheaval--the
> usual problem with trying to deal with 'other people' and thier 
> 'rights' as
> they see them today.

Yeah, but they don't need it from stranger.  I know there are really 
careless and irresponsible parents out there, but you really shouldn't 
touch other people's kids -- whether they "deserve" it or not, they not 
*yours*.

That said, in my experience, if Bumbledor had turned around and told 
the offending teens to watch their language (or even said something 
much stronger), NO ONE would have batted an eyelash.  No one.  Whether 
the teens would have listened to him/her would have depended on whether 
they were actually nice people (who were just conforming to the social 
norms in their highschool) or if they actually didn't care if they were 
bothering other people.

I didn't really hang out with the "bad" boys at my first high school 
(the ones that chewed tobacco, drank a lot of beer, swore constantly, 
and had no grasp of grammar).  However, I was friendly with them, and 
most of them were genuinely nice kids who were never given a chance or 
damn thing to hope or strive for.  I'm sure there are plenty of these 
kids in any generation you look at.


> {Laura}
> I think you should take a good, long look at the faults of your own
> generation before you run about condemning this one.  I seriously doubt
> that teens in "your day" didn't ever make mistakes or disappoint their
> parents or say/do rebellious things.  I'm sure you were *just* the
> model student/child, but you know what? Me too.  So you don't get to be
> the individual while you essentialize me and my peers.


> {Silverthorne}
> *sigh* You know, this accusation has been leveled between generations 
> for
> centuries.

If you're saying that different generations have always been unable to 
understand each other, that's a nice summary of my point.  ^_~

> My question is this--if you are NOT one of the kids who would
> have dreamed of being so rude, why are you getting so upset from an
> observation that does not apply to you? Really, getting upset at the 
> 'older
> folks' won't solve anything...and actaully only gives fuel to add to 
> the
> fire...

I'm getting so upset because I felt that Bumbledor *wasn't* just 
talking about that one kid in line at the Matinee.  He/she was talking 
about an entire culture of people he/she condemns because he/she 
doesn't understand.  By saying "in my day . . . etc. etc." he implied 
that there was something inherently wrong with the way my generation 
conducts itself today and that *his* generation's way was better.

Which I think you can probably agree with me is a completely subjective 
and unfair assumption.  I mean, who's to say *which* standard of 
etiquette is correct?  The one today, or the one from the 1970's, or 
the one from the 1950's?  What about the one from the 1820's?  Which 
culture are we talking about here?  American?  German?  Egyptian?

Just because Bumbledor can't *recognize* or understand a certain 
generation's way of expressing things like respect doesn't mean that 
they don't exist.


> As for the point being made, I have to agree that the standards in the 
> world
> for how people should treat each other is sadly deteriorating. MOst 
> peopel
> in the yougner generations really have no use for 'old fashioned' and 
> 'out
> of date' rituals and polite ways of dealing with people--No formal 
> "Hello,
> Mr./Mrs/Ms Jones, no gentleman holding doors for woman (and doing otehr
> things that, quite frankly, did more than just 'put a woman in her
> place'---such gestrues were actaully a wsign of respect for woman--a 
> respect
> in the way of "I respect you enough to take the time to take care of 
> you),
> even something so simple as 'what fork to use first' on a set table. 
> We've
> losta ll that...and the rituals that went with it, baout the time I 
> was in
> highschool.

You're right.  The idea that knowing which fork to use has anything to 
do with how you treat other people is frankly ridiculous to me.  That's 
not a matter of generation, it's a matter of class.  When you've never 
been to a restaurant with more than one fork, it's pretty hard to pick 
up that kind of information.

This is just a personal theory, but I think part of the problem is that 
the middle/upper class is getting much more exposure to people 
different than them than they did, say, 50 years ago.  Perhaps it's a 
function of our society growing in "awareness" for different 
classes/races/etc. or maybe it's because of things like satellite TV 
and the internet.  I *know* there were people out there in the 1950's 
(for example) that swore constantly.  I just don't think they were seen 
so much in the mainstream (or perhaps it's just that the older 
generations have a bit of a selective memory -- nostalgia is a v. 
strong phenomenon).  Honestly, I don't think things have changed so 
much between the values my mother and grandmother grew up with and the 
ones I was taught.  However, when I compare myself to the way the boys 
who dropped out in eighth grade acted, *that's* where I see the 
difference.

We have new rituals now, you know, and they work.  They mean something 
important to *us*, just like the old rituals mean something to you.

As for the holding doors thing -- I'm sort of spilt on this issue.  
First of all, I think it is Just Plain Manners to hold the door for 
*anyone* (regardless of age or sex) if you happen to get there first.  
Similarly, I firmly believe that the holder should be *thanked* for his 
or her services.  However, this idea that men must hold doors for women 
and that it *means* something special troubles me.  In your own words, 
it says, "I respect you enough to take the time to take care of you," 
which is all very well and nice on the surface, sure.  But what is it 
*really* saying?  That women need to be taken care of?  That men 
*shouldn't* be taken care of?  If a woman holds a door for a man is she 
emasculating him?  Is she crossing gender lines?  Is she wrong? I'm 
sure this sounds like femi-nazi spiel to you, but I'm seriously not 
trying to be radical, just logical.


> NOw we have people who are independant, but rarely think of others 
> unless it
> directly affects them and thier immedaite surroundings. No one has 
> patience
> for anything, because, by god, they should be allowed to have it all 
> RIGHT
> NOW.

Actually, I think Americans have been criticized for this "I must HAVE" 
attitude for *several* generations now.  Manifest Destiny, anyone?

> NO one else has the right to say anything 'negative' to anyone else,
> even if that 'negative' thing is actaully correct, because, Oh My GOD!
> You;ve just been put down.

See, when I compare this comment to the previous one, I think there's a 
contradiction.  I may be misinterpreting you, but it looks like your 
criticizing people for not thinking of others *and* thinking too much 
of others.  Again, I just think that perhaps many members of the older 
generation just can't understand the younger population's way of 
treating each other fairly.  When *I* look at the situation, I feel 
like we're actually *getting* somewhere in terms of respecting *all* 
people.  We're not just mouthing the words, we're making headway in the 
way the average person *thinks*.  Sure, we're nowhere close to the end 
yet, and in the interim we have the annoying and ubiquitous concept of 
"PC", but I feel as if people of non-mainstream 
culture/race/orientation have much more public voice and acceptance 
than they did just ten or twenty years ago.

> Granted, there are 'kids' (AND adults) whoi do this every 
> generation...but
> it';s becoming more and more common place as we get furtehr and 
> further form
> the old societal rituals that used to govern such behaivior. Way back 
> then,
> you did that, you could EXPECT someone to come down on you (and 
> rightfully
> so). Now-adays, someone 'dares' to put you in your place, and you cna 
> sue
> them for harassment. Don't laugh--it's been done.

It's been done, sure, and it got a lot of press.  But that not the way 
the world really works.  That's like trying to take the woman who sued 
McDonald's for giving her hot coffee as an example of the assertion 
that the common person is out to screw the big corporations and 
*succeeding*.


> {Laura}
>  You want to talk about the sad state of affairs in this country?  What
> about an older generation that's fighting equal rights for homosexual
> people tooth and claw?
>
> What about a time when racism and sexism were still written into our
> laws?  What about the society in which only middle and upper class
> white boys had access to decent educations and jobs?  What about the
> culture that thought it was perfectly okay to call homosexuality a
> "disease"?
>
> {Silverthorne}
>
> Okay, first point on Homosexuality--that is more of an over all social
> problem--it is effected, not so much by generational age (Although in 
> older
> generations, gays had thier own, hidden society that rarely saw the 
> light of
> day in order to protect their 'members' from the harsh laws and 
> reaction
> abcks then), but by RELIGIOUS ideas. It has been 'out of vogue'  since 
> the
> days of Sodom and Gamorra in the bible, and since Rome turned 
> Christian in
> reality. This is not a recent event...in fact, the 'awareness' for gay
> rights started in the late 1800's or so, and became 'visible' sometime
> during the 60's, if I remember correctly. It;s been a social AND 
> religiousd
> taboo for sop long, using it as an example for the 'sins' of the older
> genrations is unfair.

Well, that was kind of my point.  It *is* pretty unfair to judge the 
older generations by today's standards.  Likewise, it's also pretty 
unfair to judge the younger generations by the older generation's 
standards.

> Not to mention, I hear justa s many 'kids' bemoaning
> (and condemning) homosexuality, marriages for them, the mere fact that 
> they
> are 'In sight' as much as any older generation. That has not 
> changed...it
> probably won't for some time to come, simply because 'social norm' is 
> STILL
> very firmly entrenched in monogamous, heterosexual relationships.

That's true, but I disagree that most kids are as *set* against 
homosexuality as you make them out to be.  Kids in high school are 
likely to be mouthing their parent's views or talking out of fear of 
the unknown -- that is, they may not have been exposed to many 
homosexual people, they haven't formed opinions of their own, they are 
trying to explicitly conform to the "social norm" you spoke of.  
However, more and more you see that (esp. among high school girls) gay 
men are getting *way* more positive attention than ever before.  If we 
want to bring up personal examples, at my second high school 
homosexuality and bisexuality (among both boys and girls) was almost 
*trendy*.  Once you start looking at the average college student, you 
don't see a lot that will say anything strong against gay men and women 
-- in fact, most are pretty vehemently pro-gay rights (but that's 
college kids for you -- ever the activists, we are ^_~).

> Secondly, you're discounting that my generation, and my father's (I 
> doubt
> there's many people on this list older than my dad, who was born in 
> 1945),
> were the generations that started climbing out of racism, homo-hate 
> and "the
> Glass Ceiling". Thise laws are being written out--slowly but 
> surely--but
> we're the ones who started it, not the current crop of 10-25 year olds.

As I explained before, I wasn't trying to discount that.  I know that 
the progress we see today is built upon the progress made by the 
generations that came before.  For example, my grandmother (who is v. 
open-minded for her age) believes that all races should be considered 
equal in the law.  On the other hand, she disapproves of interracial 
marriage and has a *very* difficult time with homosexuality (I think 
she *knows*, deep down, that she shouldn't be against it, but the 
values she grew up with are too deeply ingrained in her).  In 
comparison, my mother is pretty much as open-minded about race as 
anyone else and she supports gay rights, but if I were to tell her I 
was bisexual, she'd be very upset.

My point was, the values and customs of one generation may seem alien 
and *wrong* to another generation (whether that generation is older 
*or* younger), but really *neither* group of people or their way of 
life is *necessarily* wrong or bad.

> As for the homosexual 'disease'--sorry, but you cannot condemn a 
> genration
> who did not understand about genetics, DNA, predispositon, brain 
> shape, and
> the gene code that makes you tend towards a specific sexual 
> orientation.

Well, they could have viewed it as a legitimate life choice (although, 
I know why, socially, they couldn't).  That wasn't my point at all.

> All of these bits of information are only a decade or so old at best, 
> and some
> have not even been conclusively proven yet. You might as well get mad 
> at the
> Greeks for not knowing about all the planets in the sky <SNIP>

But could you blame them for persecuting those who came up with new 
scientific discoveries that didn't fit the accepted view of the 
universe? (I'm not saying you can, mind you, it's just a question.)

I think a more apt (although more extreme) example would be whether one 
could blame Aristotle for writing hundreds of "scientific truths" about 
women (e.g. they are "deformed" men) that were used as a tool for 
oppressing them for centuries.  Turns out, I do blame him.  I suppose 
that's a very irrational, emotional response, but I just can't help it. 
  I think the man was a bastard.

Er . . . just to avoid confusion, the above was not meant to be a 
parallel for my feelings for any of the generations we've been 
discussing -- I just got sort of side-tracked by one of my favorite 
rants.  Sorry.

> Hell, we're only NOW
> coming to grips with the idea that life can and DOES exist on some 
> other
> plaanet than ours--and doesn't that just blow the centuries old,
> 'mainstream' ideas of our place in the universe VIA the various holy 
> texts
> (you know, where this is the 'only' world, created by God...and we are 
> the
> only intelligent beings, made in his image, the chosen ones etc)...?

Woah, really?  They've found life somewhere else?  The last I heard, 
they'd *thought* they'd found life, but it turned out that their 
samples were contaminated.

> {Laura}
>  (who thinks her generation is doing pretty okay in the grand scheme of
> things, thankyouverymuch.)
>
> {Silverthorne}
> Yes, you are, as a whole, doing well...for the most part...but you're 
> stull
> missing a lot of things that should have never been forgotten or 
> shoved to
> the wayside, including the ability to debate something like this 
> discussion
> without getting pissed off about it and taking it personally...^^

Oh, no.  That's just me, honest.

Actually, despite the fact that I use it quite often myself, I think 
the argument that people in debates shouldn't "take things personally" 
is really kind of ridiculous and pretty much always a cop-out.  I mean, 
under what circumstances does it usually get used?  When one party says 
something that is implicitly insulting to another, and then that other 
party gets insulted.  Well, (to use an outdated expression from another 
maligned generation) DUH.  But then the first party can come back with 
the ever popular "don't take it personally", which is sort of insulting 
in and of itself, as it implies a lack of emotional control on the 
second party's part.  Thus, the second party feels compelled to 
retaliate, and then . . .

You see where I'm going with this, yes?  One big ridiculous chain 
reaction.  For instance, my first reaction to your comment was to 
insult you right back.  In fact, I probably would have, except I'm 
terribly at toeing the line between *openly* insulting and implicitly 
snide, and therefore I would have got Howlered for my troubles.

Who says young people have no sense of consequences? ^_~

As it is, I trust that you were being facetious when you drew a 
connection between my generation and my tendency to get excited in an 
argument.  As I understand it, vehemency is sort of a trait that *most* 
young people share -- and we were all young once, weren't we?  Of 
course, on the other side of the spectrum, my generation has got plenty 
of people telling us we're too apathetic.  Can't win for losing, can we?

Laura