Sluts in the Modern Era

This week Ed Shultz was suspended for calling Laura Ingraham a “slut.” It wasn’t that cut and dry, of course. He called her a “talk slut” in the context of a rant on right-wing hypocrisy. Like most people hearing the comment, I don’t think it made much sense. As best as I can tell, the only connection was that (and I’m guessing here) Shultz felt Ingraham would say anything the GOP put out as a talking point.

So he’s suspended. Snarky comments are made all over the web by partisans. An apology is made. I’ll give Laura credit on this one, she did say (tweet) that she accepted the apology. One savvy blogger noted that Morning Joe (a show on the same network as Shultz) that next morning had a show dedicated to Women feeling empowered.

But in the land of “things that will get you suspended on radio/TV” slut seems to be the odd-man out. Unlike the other bombs that come before suspension N(black folks), F(homosexuals), R(mentally handicapped), or whatever word so corresponds with folks of Jewish and Latin decent, slut seems to me the only one that will both get you suspended, but isn’t an inherent piece of the person. In a world determined to diagnose Sex Addiction, slut still seems like an opinion based thing rather than an inherent attack on a group.

And while I don’t know Laura or Ed, I’m guessing they aren’t familiar with one another. So this cross-town insult, which didn’t make a lot of sense syntactically to begin with, now seems to be missing its stinger by virtue of unfamiliarity.

Historically, the words that will get you fired are not only something an individual can’t run away from, but its also a condemnation of an entire group. No one who’s ever used an N word ever made his complaints moot beyond the individual. Nor do those who decry homosexuality as an abomination think its limited to a few. But slut seems to, at least historically, have a different connotation. First of all, if someone saying “slut” meant all women were actually sluts, there’d be no contrast to make it vulgar. With the above examples the alternative was either Whiteness, or Heterosexuality, Mental Normality (as is defined socially), or Christianity. So by virtue of the insult, it can’t attack all women.

And historically, there has always been some degree of familiarity no matter how scant. As I said above, the relationship between Shultz and Ingraham seems to be no relationship at all. At its root, there is a character judgment made with moral implications when using the word “slut” so ever if we’re talking Shultz to mean “slut” in its most conventional form, our question should be – How does he know?

Now I’m sure most of you probably have said at some point in this scandal “the real question is ‘so what if she is?’” One’s sexual relations are of no business to anyone but those involved. This brings up the other historical point – Slut has generally been used as an attack levied by men against women to suggest by virtue of this one flaw, she is inherently flawed. Not only has this thought-process gone the way of the Puritans, we’ve come to know men to be of the same persuasion if not more so. (TIME this month asks “Why are powerful men such pigs.”)

So all this has lead to the question of where does the word come to today? Is it worthy of suspension? However you feel about the word, free speech, these hosts, or political talk radio – nobody really wants this to become standard fare. If slut were used as freely as “partisan” on a given program, you’d likely see ratings fall for a lack of intelligent coverage. And if we do think that its still as powerful as its been since we determined it to be an unacceptable statement of a woman, how do we reconcile this with Jerry Brown’s response to the issue when he was challenged back in September by Meg Whitmann for Governor of California. If he can nullify it so easily, can it really hold strength?

I’d love to hear what the ladies have to say on this one, but fellas, don’t be afraid to mix it up.

Cultural Progress

I’ve often said to friends who’ve complained about certain social philosophies prevailing “You just have to wait for the old people to die.”

Its crass, but most times its true. My father was 12 before Civil Rights Legislation was passed. For him, living in the North, he never knew separated drinking fountains or anything like that, but that was a reality for plenty of Americans. And for some of those Americans (despite the Civil Rights Legislation) can’t let it go. They may not advocate separate but equal, but may still be off-put by interracial marriage. This isn’t meant to be a discussion on race, but a discussion on how culture can be ingrained.

From 1933 to 1980, America was on a clear and left-ward trajectory. From 1980 until the present its been dialing some of that back (or trying to), but today we’re at a cross-roads we haven’t seen since (likely) 1887. And that is a culture ingrained is waning in the hearts and mind of Americans. In 1887, everyone born in 1866 was turning 21. Seems like random numbers and blabber, but in 1887, people were voting who were not alive during the Civil war. They may have heard stories and carried prejudices, but it was the downward decline of the Civil Wars great influence in the American populace.

2011 is 16 years removed from 1995; The year when those born in 1974 (the year after ‘Nam ended) tuned 21. Those folks are now starting to move into the political halls of Washington D.C. In fact, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is roughly 41. He was about 3 (and I assume not very worldly) when Vietnam ended. By the time he was 10, Reagan was in the White House and the enemy was the U.S.S.R. To someone not well versed in the trade of American History, Politics, and Culture this probably seems like a big collection of fun facts for a trivia game. But the truth is, both wars (Civil & Vietnam) were enduring milestones for the American people.

Now the generation that was born after the Big 3 (Civil War, Vietnam/Watergate, Civil Rights/Jim Crow) are taking hold of the country. As someone who fits the bill (I’m 1982), I already feel better about the future of the country. As I had said before, you just have to wait for these old people to die.” What I hadn’t accounted for was that they wouldn’t die quietly.

When Pat Buchanan said “we want to take our country back” at the RNC in 1992, many said it was the death knell of George H. W. Bush. What I heard (much later, I wasn’t watching the RNC when I was 9) was “we need to get rid of the Mexicans.” But what I’ve recently come to understand is that its not Mexican’s they ultimately want to get rid of, but the perception that we don’t need to get rid of Mexicans. Not specifically, but when people feel they’re losing the country, it really means their culture. Its hard to imagine the U.S. ever really going down. And for obvious reasons, we have no control over the actual landmass staying or going. But culturally, this is where folks stand. Once upon a time, everyone could get a job on a factory line, support a family, buy a house, and send their kids to college.

Today, there are no factory lines, divorce is rife, people stopped having kids, the house market is up in flames, college sends at least 3 Americans out of 10 to perennial debt. Not to mention less significant changes like Marriage. These days its an end cap to a successful life, not the beginning of one. This and the migration to larger cities has left many men to wait until their mid-30’s for marriage. People go to bed watching the Jersey Shore not Johnny Carson. The internet has blurred most lines, everything’s computerized, and we just stopped sending rockets to the Moon; a move that is so iconic in America’s dominance in the world and over our eternal enemy, the Soviets. Not even the Soviets are around anymore. They’ve been replaced by China who’s nullified our missile defense sheild by simply grinding us down through economics.

The problem starts simply. Once upon a time you could say a cultural norm and have it agreed upon by everyone at the bowling alley, pub, or workplace. Not only are those places disappearing, but you can’t be sure of anything anymore. And this is where the paranoia sets in. America wasn’t any better or worse before cell phones, reality TV, or iPods, we’ve just changed culturally overnight. To the old guard, this is frightening. They’ve woken up in a place that looks like home, but feels like Mars. To too many American’s, you get the impression that they feel as if they’ve landed on planet of the apes. Except instead of primates, you’ve just got racially mixed Americans running around with buds in their ears, staring into a brick in their hand, speaking to kids in India about something called a Processor, but it has nothing to do with food.

The good news is that the end is nigh, and the failure of certain institutions – institutions that were not sustainable – are returning America to some of its post-war norms anyway. Family means something wildly different today than it did in 1946, but more and more the elderly are moving in with one another for financial solvency. Retiring to Florida no longer works. The houses are too expensive, the loans don’t exist, the water has oil in it, and the Hurricane insurance is unaffordable.

But somewhere out there on the horizon is a new American norm. 9/11 was the defining moment of a generation. But children born after it are already 10. And since the killing of Bin Laden, like the defeat of Imperial Japan, its become less of a cultural flash point than it might otherwise have been. I don’t look forward gleefully to the passing of our forbearers. The Baby Boomers got us through some rough patches for sure. But the future for America looks incredibly bright when the sins of our fathers are finally put to rest with them.

The new lost generation

Ever since I got into a long discussion with a former boss of mine about how different generations work together (baby boomers, Gen X., millenials, ect.) I’ve paid close attention to the character traits of my own. Today, in the wake of Bin Laden’s death, I’m less proud and more concerned than I’ve ever been before. Let’s start from the start.

I was born in 1982. Whatever that makes me, that’s the vantage point I’ve been coming from. Lets call me a Gen Y. Since I was born, I, like my 80’s brothers, have been saturated with stances on emotion. If it wasn’t Care Bears teaching me to hug people, then it was G.I. Joe’s moral teaching at the end of the episode, or the near constant maxims that we ought to be “color blind” and respect diversity.

Those are all things I can ostensibly get behind, but it was literally beat over our heads. What I’ve seen first hand since then is a rebellion against that by a good majority of people my age. It was tissue rejection. I think subconsciously, many of us got to a point where we couldn’t handle, or didn’t want to ride the emotional roller coaster that is constantly checking in with our feelings. Can’t we just have some rules, go with those, and assume assholes exist? Not everything needs to be met with a chat to see where the other person is coming from.

Of course, some folks still think a warm spring days is a valid reason to cry. But I was proud in my position that my generation had rejected such ridiculous and illogical positions. It was apparent in every aspect of our culture. Our humor was more deadpan than previous generations. We laughed at the highly illogical (I still say Will Ferral films are nothing more than Mad Libs for adults.) Our generation, regardless of your politics, elected a man (Obama) who everyone feels is too a-emotional. Say what you will about him, but I think my generation wants that in a President more than going back to the red meat, wedge-issues of yesteryear. We also elected the Tea Party. The first real wave of libertarians; a group unafraid to slash the pentagon. A group more concerned with the budget than the abortion clinic.

Many a politician tried to put a band-aid on old divisive issues. Ours grew a callous. It was the first thing I ever really came to respect about my class. I graduated high school in 2001. Our generation went to fight a war after that, either with guns in the middle east, or with picket signs here at home. We now fight a horrible economic metldown and wonder what our children will have when they near 30. In the words of Jack Kennedy “the tourch has been passed to a new generation, born into war, tempered by a hard, and bitter peace.”

But today I’ve seen the ugly underbelly of the political coin that is the reject of emotion. It is disinterest and, to some degree, a lack of realization. I’ve always thought emotions were something to discuss with close friends or family, but never for public display. I take very few things seriously because I don’t think we need to sink into the quagmire of emotional diatribes. In short: I never saw a value in them. But now I’m starting to think theres a logical disconnect that comes with an a-emotional posture.

Some of my more liberal friends (I’m guessing here) have come out as wholly disinterested in what Bin Laden’s capture means for America, Democracy, and the globe. Its either no longer important, too little far too late, or it doesn’t simply justify the cost we’ve incurred over time. I’m not suggesting any of those positions are inherently wrong, but it does make me wonder what outcome they believe should have happened.

I’ve written before that academics need to be aware of reviewing a custom, or function (like government), deciding that its too flawed to bother discussing, and instead move on to create a new system that would never really apply to the real world in the first place. I read that in “Ideology” about Communism. Again, no ones suggesting my friends are communists (I’m not anyway), but its on par. The war didn’t go as planned, the results didn’t go as planned, and Bin Laden’s capture wasn’t even close. So rather than review our next step as a nation, we wholly reject it as all part of the same syndrome and wipe our hands clean. But as I’ve said before, change never comes from the outside. To simply wipe our hands clean is to leave the same old to its own devices. Making change means getting dirty.

My concerns come from a generation I thought would approach things from a sort of Brahmin cool. An interest in results nothing else. And not that Brooklyn-accented, job interview kind of results (“you know what I’m sayin? I mean I’m gunna show up and make moves and make this company profit cause that’s what I’m about”) but results that were born from a matter of facts. How could a generation reared on electronics not become a cyborg nation?

Unfortunately, they have. And rather than getting down to binary code and making changes, they’ve settled on “does not compute”, bugged out, and shutdown. What this means for a growing number of Gen Y’s and millennials is that we’re going to start arriving at a disenfranchised American voter. A whole 2 decades of, what will essentially look like 1996. What low turn out means in a Democracy is that only the hyper-engaged go to the polls. Only the hyper-partisan have a say. This is good for no one. What one can forsee happening is corruption arriving on the level of Harding and the Tea Pot Dome Scandal; A new oligarchy to breed new robber barons and corporate kickbacks. Corruption will drive toward you, even as a disinterested party and strike at the very moral fabric of your being. And then, like some spiritual singularity, as history often repeats itself, we’ll arrive back at wedge-issue politics. Screaming in the streets, Chicago in ’68. New summers of mercy, and more “the personal is political” that so damned the political system from 1964 until 1988.

I weep for a generation who has yet to fail me, but will undoubtedly unless course correction is made. I had dreams of a new class of Henry Cabot Lodge’s, Tom Reeds, and Abraham Lincolns. Instead we’re circulating back to the same old William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, and Glen Beck rhetoric. It’s a sad day for me, and a sadder future for the next generation.

EDIT: May 8th- Interesting article thats germane. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/02_young_leaders_singer.aspx