Mere Christianity

[Fist and Faith]

Or that they have only been discriminated against since the beginning of the 19th Century? My only mentioning things since then should not be taken as evidence that it wasn't happening before then, rus. I mentioned things since then because they are very well documented, and I didn't think you would be able to deny them. Of course, if you're going to try to discredit the entire argument because I didn't mention older things, I guess I could go back farther. But do I really have to? Do you not think there were monarchies where, if the king died without a male heir, the crown was inherited by a nephew instead of his daughters? Men could always rule women, but women could not rule men in very many places.

[aliantha]

Not to mention the whole lord/vassal setup that came into vogue in the Middle Ages or before. What happened to women whose serf-husbands died? Did they get to stay on in the family holding, or were they turned out? Hmm, it probably depended on whether the lord was a jerk or not...or, maybe, whether they were willing to sleep with the lord.... And what about that practice where the lord of the manor had the right to deflower a bride?

Using sex as a weapon has been around as long as men and women have been around. You can't blame that on the Industrial Revolution.

[lucimay]

AND no one SAID men and women were "natural enemies" either, rus.

i said they were in a battle for dominance. and i agree with you that the industrial revolution SERIOUSLY amped that battle up.

however, seems like that battle was going on waaaaaaay way before the industrial revolution.

there's the little matter of a piece of fruit that no one was supposed to eat.

[Cybrweez]

there's the little matter of a piece of fruit that no one was supposed to eat.

Can you clarify what you mean?

[rusmeister]

But you'd have to learn what I have learned about public education to even begin to suspect that it might be worthwhile to criticize how most are educated.

oh contraire mon ami...i have learned enough to know that it's worthwhile to criticise how a LOT are educated. i have criticisms galore!
i think maybe i just don't work with the same sources at you.

I actually think you do know a lot of correct facts - in this case I've think you've been taught to believe a wrong conclusion based on the selection of facts generally taught (and ignorance of others).

and i think you assume too much about what i think. in fact, you're sort of discounting that i can.

its okay rus, you aren't the first and you won't be the last!

Hi, Lucimay!
We may share some common observations on public education - my statements on that are dogmatic because of special experience - but that's a loooong story, as i think i said, somewhere.

Actually, I'm trying to keep my assumptions to a minimum, and am just going on the basis of what you post. But if I do believe something to actually be true, then it is natural that I will think contradictory conclusions to be wrong. And, no, I do actually believe that you can think, and intended no discount on your ability - but if we don't know something, if there is some critical data that we don't have, then our ability to think does not lead us to the right conclusion, even if we can think very well and have an IQ of 150.

AND no one SAID men and women were "natural enemies" either, rus.

i said they were in a battle for dominance. and i agree with you that the industrial revolution SERIOUSLY amped that battle up.

It is a jarring thing when something assumed by all and questioned by none is suddenly questioned. I'll grant that that places some of the burden of "proof" on me. But I'd ask for consideration, rather than mere and outright rejection and jeering.

My intent on natural enemies was the same as yours for dominance, and I'll accept your term as more precise speech. The points I made (and that are still being ignored as of this post) are the huge facts of the family, the natural attraction of men and women, and public vs private spheres that deflate their likeness to any kind of dominance such as that of racial or economic dominance. Your assumptions begin with the individual and treat the individual as something that can survive on its own. In fact, it cannot, and no society that disdains the family - and this includes saying that a family is whatever you make of it - can hope to stand long.

If there IS no "battle for dominance" then nothing follows from modern assumptions that there is. If Emmeline Pankhurst was right, then millions of women around the world throughout history were wrong and stupid, something I don't accept for a minute. If voting does not grant real power, then it suddenly becomes unimportant and even irrelevant that women were "emancipated". As I said, examples of literature that show the power of the woman in the home - throughout history - contradict that notion that woman was ever merely a dominated creature and make nonsense of it. It is, generally speaking, our own unfamiliarity with anything but modern literature (including really talented stuff by SRD) that leaves (most of) us not knowing,as I said, what the wife of Bath said at all. As soon as I mention Pushkin's tale, it immediately silences Russians who make such claims of domination, because they all know it by heart from childhood, and know that no tale of domination of a man by a woman in the home, as a natural thing and not even the point of the story, could be accepted anywhere if it were true that women were dominated in the home and second-class creatures. But I'll let this pass until the family and natural attraction are faced.

It'll be progress, as far as I'm concerned, if anyone begins questioning what they have hitherto never questioned.

[rusmeister]

...for we interpret all events and facts through our worldview - our base philosophy.

As do you.

I'm not going to argue with you on this, other than to refute your stance that my thoughts on this are unclear. They are *very* clear.

Is it your contention that women have not been discriminated against?

No, it is not. It IS my contention that such perception that there is of competition or hostility between the sexes is a purely modern (and therefore temporary) creation, and based on false premises, at that..

I'd first like to point out what the word discriminate actually means. Properly understood, it means, "to distinguish", and in that sense, I discriminate against poisoned mushrooms. IOW, there is such a thing as discrimination that is right and proper. Therefore I'd prefer more precise wording to avoid "bait-and-switch" scenarios that often result from the vague use of that word.

My own reference to a lack of clarity was based on your words:

I'm kind of unclear.

What I meant (and think I expressed clearly enough) was that you interpreted the experiences of your life through your base philosophy, and that if that philosophy is, at any point, in error, then your understanding of your experiences could be interpreted wrongly.

Not to mention the whole lord/vassal setup that came into vogue in the Middle Ages or before. What happened to women whose serf-husbands died? Did they get to stay on in the family holding, or were they turned out? Hmm, it probably depended on whether the lord was a jerk or not...or, maybe, whether they were willing to sleep with the lord.... And what about that practice where the lord of the manor had the right to deflower a bride?

Using sex as a weapon has been around as long as men and women have been around. You can't blame that on the Industrial Revolution.

I do not deny that evil has been done, including evil done to women, throughout history, including sexual violence. However, I object to conflating that with class discrimination.

Purely as an afterthought, (a risky thing, here, where it might easily be taken as the main thought)... Our society today is unique in that it has become profitable to claim status as a minority, especially a persecuted/oppressed one, and most especially if a dollar sign is attached somewhere. (I say this as an official minority from the state of California, btw. ) I suspect that fuels, in part, the drive to insist that women are oppressed - because it is an advantage in our time to be an aggrieved party. I maintain that the perception of competition between the sexes is a false one, and that it is possible today, with our public schooling and mass media, to spread any number of false ideas that would die certain death (over time) in societies that do not have them. Of course, as long as one believes in the premises they promote, one will likely see them as good things - but then, they form most of our premises. The difficult thing is freeing ourselves from the preconceptions of that formation and becoming genuinely free thinkers.

[rusmeister]

A general PS - I have no objections to the topic of the sexes being competitively opposed to one another (or not) being split off from the discussion of Mere Christianity, as long as a non-deprecatory label is used. I think it has gotten rather OT.

[aliantha]

Is it your contention that women have not been discriminated against?

No, it is not.

Well, that's a relief. Otherwise I was going to start being very worried about you.

Just as a caveat, Rus: As a former broadcast journalist, I tend to get huffy when people do the knee-jerk "blame the liberal media" thing. The so-called "liberal media" is the fashionable thing to blame the ills of society on, but it's my informed belief that it doesn't exist. But that's another rant.

I understand what you're saying -- that anecdotes may have become "common sense" or "common knowledge" simply by being repeated so often. I grant that it's possible in this case. But it's pretty much beside the point. While I'm sure it's important to understand the underpinnings of our current situation, it doesn't change the fact that women *have* been subjected to sexual predation and limits on their financial and educational opportunities, among other things, simply because they're women. (I'm trying to be sensitive to your objection to the use of the term "discrimination" in this context.) However this state of affairs began, we are where we are. How do we fix it?

You say -- if I'm understanding you correctly -- that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, and that there's nothing wrong with women staying largely in the home and men staying largely in the public realm. I say that I agree with you about celebrating the differences between men and women, but that your approach simply redefines the status quo to keep men dominant. It amounts to slapping a new coat of paint on an eyesore to make it more presentable. I also say that it's a grievous mistake to prevent women from participating in public life. They have public contributions to make to society, and our culture would suffer for their lack. In addition, it's insulting to women to expect them to channel their contributions through their husbands while they stay home and keep house.

I expect this is another of those things we will have to agree to disagree on.

(Totally up to the mods here whether to split off this conversation. )

[rusmeister]

Or that they have only been discriminated against since the beginning of the 19th Century? My only mentioning things since then should not be taken as evidence that it wasn't happening before then, rus. I mentioned things since then because they are very well documented, and I didn't think you would be able to deny them. Of course, if you're going to try to discredit the entire argument because I didn't mention older things, I guess I could go back farther. But do I really have to? Do you not think there were monarchies where, if the king died without a male heir, the crown was inherited by a nephew instead of his daughters? Men could always rule women, but women could not rule men in very many places.

I do not question the acts, Fist - although I would say that a selective application of facts is partly the cause of how we see things - what I question is the interpretation of the facts, and the assumptions behind the interpretations (expressions like "holding women back", etc, assume things, such as a certain identicality of aims and even the very idea of progress towards something; also, again, the use of words like "discrimination" which assumes evil discrimination, when the actual meaning of the word is, as I said, 'to distinguish'). What I object to is the refusal to identify the ideal; the constant shifting of the ideal - the thesis of "What's Wrong With the World".
I really, really commend the first paragraph of ch 1 to your attention.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html

If you can't (or won't) click the link, one of the points I'm making is here:

This is the arresting and dominant fact about modern social discussion; that the quarrel is not merely about the difficulties, but about the aim. We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each other's eyes out. We all admit that a lazy aristocracy is a bad thing. We should not by any means all admit that an active aristocracy would be a good thing. We all feel angry with an irreligious priesthood; but some of us would go mad with disgust at a really religious one. Everyone is indignant if our army is weak, including the people who would be even more indignant if it were strong. The social case is exactly the opposite of the medical case. We do not disagree, like doctors, about the precise nature of the illness, while agreeing about the nature of health. On the contrary, we all agree that England is unhealthy, but half of us would not look at her in what the other half would call blooming health . Public abuses are so prominent and pestilent that they sweep all generous people into a sort of fictitious unanimity. We forget that, while we agree about the abuses of things, we should differ very much about the uses of them. Mr. Cadbury and I would agree about the bad public house. It would be precisely in front of the good public-house that our painful personal fracas would occur.

[rusmeister]

Is it your contention that women have not been discriminated against?

No, it is not.

Well, that's a relief. Otherwise I was going to start being very worried about you.

Just as a caveat, Rus: As a former broadcast journalist, I tend to get huffy when people do the knee-jerk "blame the liberal media" thing. The so-called "liberal media" is the fashionable thing to blame the ills of society on, but it's my informed belief that it doesn't exist. But that's another rant.

I understand what you're saying -- that anecdotes may have become "common sense" or "common knowledge" simply by being repeated so often. I grant that it's possible in this case. But it's pretty much beside the point. While I'm sure it's important to understand the underpinnings of our current situation, it doesn't change the fact that women *have* been subjected to sexual predation and limits on their financial and educational opportunities, among other things, simply because they're women. (I'm trying to be sensitive to your objection to the use of the term "discrimination" in this context.) However this state of affairs began, we are where we are. How do we fix it?

You say -- if I'm understanding you correctly -- that we should celebrate the differences between men and women, and that there's nothing wrong with women staying largely in the home and men staying largely in the public realm. I say that I agree with you about celebrating the differences between men and women, but that your approach simply redefines the status quo to keep men dominant. It amounts to slapping a new coat of paint on an eyesore to make it more presentable. I also say that it's a grievous mistake to prevent women from participating in public life. They have public contributions to make to society, and our culture would suffer for their lack. In addition, it's insulting to women to expect them to channel their contributions through their husbands while they stay home and keep house.

I expect this is another of those things we will have to agree to disagree on.

(Totally up to the mods here whether to split off this conversation. )

Hi, Ali, and thanks!
(Happy New Year!!!)
Trying to get things out in the early morning hours before my sleepy wife brings out my baby daughter to me so she (my wife) can get some more sleep - I'm the early bird in my family.
Having a wife and two daughters, I also am interested in a society where they are not treated unfairly due to their sex... Indeed, this is one of my big points - that we are NOT just individuals - that society cannot survive if we remain merely individuals, that the family has always been the basis of successful society.

I think I dealt with the central problem in my response to Fist - we may agree on the facts, but disagree on the interpretations. I further charge that most people have been taught (primarily by schooling and the media) to take one particular interpretation for the truth and have been essentially taught not to question that interpretation; thus, making my contradictory posts seem shocking, at least at first.

One thing I am grateful for your responses on - it gives me the chance to clarify things that you may incorrectly read into my position. For example, i do not blame the media as being 'liberal' at all. I would say that it is neither 'liberal' nor 'conservative' - the great modern canards - if anything, it is corporate, and that is much more of a real enemy to the common man (which I use in the old (and essentially Germanic) sense of being "gender neutral". (That I reject the modern usage of the word "gender" is another topic. I use it here for expediency of communication.)
So I agree, as far as that goes, on the non-existence of a 'liberal media'.

Again, I agree that women have been preyed upon because they are/were women. I would further say that poor men have been preyed upon because they were poor, and that genuine minorities have been preyed upon because they were minorities. Again, though, I insist on the fundamental difference between women as a group and differing economical or racial groups as I referred to above (if we didn't read that, then the conversation is pointless).

Your question of "how do we fix it?" is to the point. That is why I suggested taking a look at the first chapter of "What is Wrong With the World" as a foundational dismantling of the popular assumptions and a rational look at the nature of the problem.

On your view on dominance, we will have to "agree to disagree" because if, in a business partnership, one person handles accounts payable and the other is the salesman, then speaking of "domination" makes no sense. Both parties do what is necessary to make a unified entity - be it a family or a business - function successfully. We would probably agree almost everywhere on freedom and opportunity for both sexes. But if a man and woman have married, they are no longer free from each other. And if they have had children they are not free from the children. They are no longer individuals, but, by their own free will, have chosen to become part of something bigger, and something that they may not simply abandon because they are not happy with how the business or family is running. (And that's a point - that a family is NOT a business, which really CAN be abandoned if you don't like it.) If (a la "Little House on the Prairie") the man is out hunting geese and the women is washing and cooking at home, is the man "dominating" the woman, or is the woman thereby insulted? Of course not. They are both doing what is necessary for the successful functioning of the family. They are no longer individuals seeking individual freedom. Perhaps, if the woman really IS the better shot, and the man better able to care for and feed children, the roles should be reversed. (But usually, the man has some difficulty in breastfeeding an infant, just to cite one obvious problem.)

In our modern world, most of the raising of children has been turned over, effectively, to the state - or to businesses. Poor women have not been 'given the chance of self-realization' but have been forced to go work for McDonald's or whatever to (barely) make ends meet - if they can. The so-called emancipation of women has resulted in at least as much enslavement as freedom, and I would say much more - for it is poverty that loses when the family is broken up, and its various members parceled out - mothers to simply do what the poor fathers (also enslaved in the modern business world) were already doing for minimum wage, and children taught what and how to think by strangers, mostly state employees. In any event, if we pose the question of who has the greatest interest in and love of the child - parents or teachers, the answer is clear.

I am not talking about "preventing" women from doing anything. If anything, I am talking about what has been done to women in the name of "emancipating" them. (And yes, wealthy and well-off women have generally benefited by the modern changes - but I would say that they are in a clear minority of all women.) But most of all I am talking about what has been done to the family, and of how we take things for granted in our time that our ancestors would find absurd, and even insane. If your view were inverted to see being ALLOWED to stay home and keep house, rather than being FORCED to stay home and keep house, you might see how healthy a society is when someone is actually keeping the house (and raising the children, btw). Ask the average lower-class woman - if given the chance, and the money she is being paid at Wal-Mart, would she stay home and keep house and take care of her own children for it? Or would she prefer to go and work at Wal-Mart?

As Chesterton says, our painful public fracas will occur outside the good public house.

[aliantha]

Rus -- Happy New Year to you, too!

I was with you 'til you mentioned the poor woman working at WalMart, and I realized what you were asking her is whether she'd rather work or be on welfare. Then I started thinking about how the conservatives (it always goes back to politics around here... ) forced the dismantling of the welfare system in the US precisely because poor women were using it to stay home and raise their kids. So who's responsible for that -- the media or the educational system? You don't have to answer that....

I gotta tell ya, Rus, I have two kids, and I would've gone batshit crazy if I had stayed home and taken care of them full-time. My brain would've rotted!

[lucimay]

But I'd ask for consideration, rather than mere and outright rejection and jeering.

if i'm reading this correctly you're taking my attempt to make stupid jokes as rejection and jeering at you. i apologize if my attempt to
inject some levity made you feel jeered at. that was not my intention.

i was told that when i'm trying to be funny i should include emoticons so people will know i'm trying to be funny. i guess the emos didn't work.

(and please do not think that because i frequently try to inject levity that i don't take these discussions seriously.)


and...in fact, maybe for the same reasons you do, maybe not, i agree with your above post to ali. yes i do. /nod nod.

i also agree with ali that there are women who actually WOULD rather go work at walmart.

i don't know whether you're getting better at getting your point across or if its just this particular subject we agree on but i understand what you're saying in that post very clearly and i do believe that...well let me put it in luci terms...

i think people have been discouraged from using their brains. i think you have hit the nail squarely on the head when you use the word "corporate."
i'm pretty much right with you on that page there. /nod nod

[rusmeister]

Rus -- Happy New Year to you, too!

I was with you 'til you mentioned the poor woman working at WalMart, and I realized what you were asking her is whether she'd rather work or be on welfare. Then I started thinking about how the conservatives (it always goes back to politics around here... ) forced the dismantling of the welfare system in the US precisely because poor women were using it to stay home and raise their kids. So who's responsible for that -- the media or the educational system? You don't have to answer that....

Actually, no, that is not what I was asking, although I see that it can be taken that way. What I am asking is that if she did not need to go work at Wal-Mart, if she could choose to work or not and not be bound by financial need, would she choose to work for strangers, or be free to be a mistress of her own home?

Again, if you ever check out WWWW, you'd see that the thesis is one of rich vs poor, with big business and big government both working against little folk, and yes, welfare is a humiliating form of bondage to the state (I speak from first-hand experience). Whether you have capitalism and big business dominating, or socialism and big gov't dominating, they will both work against the little man (and woman). The one thing that really makes it hard for them to do this is the family - an institution that holds a higher claim of loyalty than that due to the state or economy.

[rusmeister]

But I'd ask for consideration, rather than mere and outright rejection and jeering.

if i'm reading this correctly you're taking my attempt to make stupid jokes as rejection and jeering at you. i apologize if my attempt to
inject some levity made you feel jeered at. that was not my intention.

i was told that when i'm trying to be funny i should include emoticons so people will know i'm trying to be funny. i guess the emos didn't work.

(and please do not think that because i frequently try to inject levity that i don't take these discussions seriously.)


and...in fact, maybe for the same reasons you do, maybe not, i agree with your above post to ali. yes i do. /nod nod.

i also agree with ali that there are women who actually WOULD rather go work at walmart.

i don't know whether you're getting better at getting your point across or if its just this particular subject we agree on but i understand what you're saying in that post very clearly and i do believe that...well let me put it in luci terms...

i think people have been discouraged from using their brains. i think you have hit the nail squarely on the head when you use the word "corporate."
i'm pretty much right with you on that page there. /nod nod

reminds me of "Mork and Mindy"... "Oh..humor...a difficult concept..." (whoops - that dated me! )

Anyway, thanks! It feels good when there are some things we can touch base on!

[lucimay]

reminds me of "Mork and Mindy"... "Oh..humor...a difficult concept..." (whoops - that dated me! )

Anyway, thanks! It feels good when there are some things we can touch base on!

exACTly!!!

Whether you have capitalism and big business dominating, or socialism and big gov't dominating, they will both work against the little man (and woman). The one thing that really makes it hard for them to do this is the family - an institution that holds a higher claim of loyalty than that due to the state or economy.

and so...it follows that in order to dominate the masses, the dessolution of the family unit is called for. yes?

[rusmeister]

reminds me of "Mork and Mindy"... "Oh..humor...a difficult concept..." (whoops - that dated me! )

Anyway, thanks! It feels good when there are some things we can touch base on!

exACTly!!!

Whether you have capitalism and big business dominating, or socialism and big gov't dominating, they will both work against the little man (and woman). The one thing that really makes it hard for them to do this is the family - an institution that holds a higher claim of loyalty than that due to the state or economy.

and so...it follows that in order to dominate the masses, the dessolution of the family unit is called for. yes?

Yes.
And this is what has happened. Where easy divorce, openly approved promiscuity and contraception/abortion have broken up the central foundations on which the family stands - something higher than the will of the individual, monogamy, a sexual bond which also results in children, a stable environment for the children, companionship for each other when the children have grown up and left, all abandoned in favor of the will of the individual, which makes adults more childish (and often forces children to be more adult than they should be). But most of all, it is that the individual has been divided from things bigger than itself. It has been smashed to atoms. Divided we fall. Without the family, concepts like welfare become essential - who will provide for people when they cannot provide for themselves? The individual, without the shield of family, becomes dependent on big business when one (the non-pluribus unum) can work, and on the state when one can't. And children are taught total dependence in public education. (I'm reminded of Billy Joel's song "Allentown", the line - "... the promises our teachers gave, if we worked hard, if we behaved...")

The traditional family is something that stands against reliance on big gov't or big business and makes them unnecessary to a great extent - things we actually can live without. Tradition, at its best, is a thing that our ancestors collectively found worthy of passing down to their children and grandchildren, a thing tested by time. And in our time we would throw away all good things just because they are tradition and we are so proud of breaking with tradition - in the same way teenagers may feel proud and daring in not listening to their parents. And the family is probably the most important tradition of all.

Anyway, Chesterton says it much better than I do.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html
The first chapter alone (The Medical Mistake) is worth more than a dozen of my posts - which some of you have taken the trouble to read.

[aliantha]

Rus, I forgot to mention that I totally agree with your assessment of the media. Corporate ownership is exactly what's going on there. Thanks.

And I agree with you that both capitalism and socialism, each in their own way, make it very hard for people to do what's best for their families.

Rus, we actually agree on something! *Two* things! I think we may be witnessing a Christmas miracle!

[rusmeister]

Glad to see some common ground. I'd like to submit, if we've gotten that far, that what the corporate media expresses is in its owners', not the public's, best interests.

I'd like to further (cautiously) suggest that it has enormous - near total - influence on our use of language and how we express our thoughts. That's what I've been trying to express - badly, no doubt - all along.

At great risk, I'll make a third suggestion - that big government and big business are not mortal enemies by any means - but allies. Hudge and Gudge - vs. Jones.

[aliantha]

Glad to see some common ground.

Me too. It's been a long slog...

I'd like to submit, if we've gotten that far, that what the corporate media expresses is in its owners', not the public's, best interests.

1. "Media" is a plural noun. (Pet peeve of mine, sorry. )
2. Today, yes. Entertainment programming has *always* been about making money, of course. But there was a time in the not-so-distant past (as recently as the early 1980s) when news departments were more autonomous and actually reported (mostly) news, with only a little fluffy stuff. Then the owners got greedy and began to expect news programming to attract viewers, which in turn attracts advertiser dollars, which in turn allows the station owners to make more money -- and that's when you started to see the "stories" on your 11pm news show that related to the TV-movie-of-the-week you just watched. That's approximately when I bailed out of the news business....

I'd like to further (cautiously) suggest that it has enormous - near total - influence on our use of language and how we express our thoughts. That's what I've been trying to express - badly, no doubt - all along.

I'm less sold on this. Numerous studies have been done over the past few decades on the most important influences on children, particularly (if memory serves) middle schoolers and up. Despite the doomsaying re peers' and media effects on kids, the studies repeatedly show parents still have the most influence in their children's lives. Couldn't say off the top of my head, tho, whether their lead has shrunk or remained steady. I acknowledge that if parents' influence is shrinking, that would bolster your argument about businesses aiming to break up families.

I would say that the biggest change to the way we use language these days has been technology, i.e., e-mail, texting and Twitter. In that, I think the geeks who invented the technologies were less interested in mind control than they were in creating a killer app that would make them rich. It's the advertisers who are interested in mind control; they're expert in creating a feeling of inadequacy in us, and convincing us that that feeling can only be assuaged by buying their product. Of course, the product never does the trick, or only does it for a fleeting moment -- and then we're stuck with this feeling of inadequacy and ripe for the Next Big Thing that comes along and promises to assuage it.

I have a number of friends in PR, but I could never do it myself....

At great risk, I'll make a third suggestion - that big government and big business are not mortal enemies by any means - but allies. Hudge and Gudge - vs. Jones.

Well, it was certainly true during the Bush years. I have hope that that may turn around with Obama in charge (and if people would quit trying to blow themselves up on airplanes and whatnot, the guy might have a little room to get around to it...).

[rusmeister]

Glad to see some common ground.

Me too. It's been a long slog...

I'd like to submit, if we've gotten that far, that what the corporate media expresses is in its owners', not the public's, best interests.

1. "Media" is a plural noun. (Pet peeve of mine, sorry. )
2. Today, yes. Entertainment programming has *always* been about making money, of course. But there was a time in the not-so-distant past (as recently as the early 1980s) when news departments were more autonomous and actually reported (mostly) news, with only a little fluffy stuff. Then the owners got greedy and began to expect news programming to attract viewers, which in turn attracts advertiser dollars, which in turn allows the station owners to make more money -- and that's when you started to see the "stories" on your 11pm news show that related to the TV-movie-of-the-week you just watched. That's approximately when I bailed out of the news business....

Thanks, Ali!
Yes, that tallies with what I know. (And yes on "media", as well. For another example of common misuse, it was reading Chesterton that taught me that "reiterate" is improper, a redundancy - I've been learning to say "iterate")

I'd like to further (cautiously) suggest that it has enormous - near total - influence on our use of language and how we express our thoughts. That's what I've been trying to express - badly, no doubt - all along.

I'm less sold on this. Numerous studies have been done over the past few decades on the most important influences on children, particularly (if memory serves) middle schoolers and up. Despite the doomsaying re peers' and media effects on kids, the studies repeatedly show parents still have the most influence in their children's lives. Couldn't say off the top of my head, tho, whether their lead has shrunk or remained steady. I acknowledge that if parents' influence is shrinking, that would bolster your argument about businesses aiming to break up families.

I would say that the biggest change to the way we use language these days has been technology, i.e., e-mail, texting and Twitter. In that, I think the geeks who invented the technologies were less interested in mind control than they were in creating a killer app that would make them rich. It's the advertisers who are interested in mind control; they're expert in creating a feeling of inadequacy in us, and convincing us that that feeling can only be assuaged by buying their product. Of course, the product never does the trick, or only does it for a fleeting moment -- and then we're stuck with this feeling of inadequacy and ripe for the Next Big Thing that comes along and promises to assuage it.

I have a number of friends in PR, but I could never do it myself....

Here I have some places I might differ on. I am speaking about adults as well as children, and buzzwords are a prime example of what I'm talking about. I remember a time when terms like "weapons of mass destruction" were rarely, if ever, used. Then a media campaign begins, and lo and behold! The term is on everyone's lips. Likewise, "gay marriage" - something that never would have got off the ground without media support, and a thousand other common ones in use today (among the latest, terms like "to unfriend someone" [in support of your "twitter" point] are disseminated expressly by the media, including internet media). Those aren't even the best examples - those are just off the top of my head.

Also, one of my pet peeves is 'studies'. I have enormous doubt in the concept of a study revealing objective truth, as studies are so often organized and arranged by partisans. The phrase "studies show", if anything, for me causes a first reaction of skepticism, rather than trust in what the studies show. Who ordered and paid for the study? Etc.

It is true that parents have enormous influence - but that doesn't negate my point about the media's power - which extends far beyond childhood.

And yes, it is advertisers - but they are only an arm of big business, which is the real controlling interest. I suspect we agree more than disagree here, though.

At great risk, I'll make a third suggestion - that big government and big business are not mortal enemies by any means - but allies. Hudge and Gudge - vs. Jones.

Well, it was certainly true during the Bush years. I have hope that that may turn around with Obama in charge (and if people would quit trying to blow themselves up on airplanes and whatnot, the guy might have a little room to get around to it...).

This is where I'll disagree more openly. My reference to "Hudge and Gudge" was not accidental. The phenomenon of the partnership of big government and big business is perennial - Chesterton coined those names by 1910 (see "What's Wrong With the World" www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html - and in reference to modern western governments in general (although most especially, of course, British gov't). Given your age, I would think you've been around long enough to see that policies concerning real money and power do not change, no matter who is sitting in the chair. Sure we get bones tossed to us in the form of social questions - abortion? gay marriage? Sure, vote on 'em. But on oil policy? Je crois que non.
In corporate America, big business dominates. In Russia, by contrast, big gov't dominates. But the result is much the same for the common man. All countries are now 'democratic' - even Uganda (or insert your African or Asian country). Voting is everywhere. But that only means that the people who hold power have learned that it is advantageous to have the common people believe that they can influence affairs, and that there is no true democracy anywhere (and 'direct' democracy is the only one that truly is democracy - the others being cheap substitutes that are rapidly subverted to serve those who hold power).
(Edit - in this view, liberal and conservative, democratic and republican, etc. are largely canards whose leaderships have more in common with each other than with the people they ostensibly represent. They are false - almost true, but still false - expressions of the true opposition, which, in material terms, and consequently leaving out spiritual ones, is wealth vs poverty. The basis of capitalism is no more holy than socialism - they are equal and opposite evils, and the essence of capitalism - an ever-decreasing circle of possessors, and the end run - can be summed up in the hot phrase from "Highlander": "There can be only one."

PS - not everything that I say should be taken to represent the position of the Orthodox Church! There are many things that we are free to hold our own opinions on, and we are touching on some of them now. Now, if only we could tie all this up with the main line of the thread...