In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Life in America sucks. It used to suck more. Discuss.

Huh! So – not a single comment [thanks for the comments there, too!] on my Israel/Palestine post! Hardly even a click to see how I look on the small screen! I’m so used to people just waiting to jump into battle on that front, that I hardly know what to do with myself. I’ll actually take it as a positive sign, indicating that there remain sane corners of the universe, places that have not lost their damn minds over this story about which I’ve obsessed my entire adult life.

But, that being the case, I can hardly claim to have pulled my weight around here today, now can I? So how’s this then:

Like many, I am often overcome by the sheer suckage in the world at large, and America in particular, in recent times. It can sometimes be too painful to even turn on the news, knowing that I’ll hear that more people have lost their jobs, and more people are hungry, and more women have been placed in untenable positions, all while our elected officials continue to fight like whiny babies over who’s going to cut how much of the safety net for the poor so that the wealthy can gather yet more wealth (yesterday I learned from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on NPR that the top 1% of American earners now control 25% of the national wealthare now taking home almost a quarter of the national income.” [note: Stella corrected me in the comments, & points out that, worse yet, the top 1% controls 40% of the national wealth (as opposed to income)]. Meantime — oh! that’s right! — Gitmo is still open. Honestly, the only people providing a steady stream of good news these days are the American LGBTQ community (yay, death of DADT! Yay, marriage in New York!) — and frankly, that’s just because they have so far to come toward full equality, that every step forward feels huge. So.

It’s at moments like this that I like to time travel a little and remember: The world has always sucked. All the years, all the Administrations, all the social and cultural circumstances. SUUUCKED. Rank xenophobia, catastrophic ignorance, natural disasters — it’s kind of the way things are.

Of course, it’s also the way of things for humans to take steps to decrease the suckage. I kind of think of this site as one piece of that larger effort — we’re all here because it matters to us to decrease the suckage. Sometimes humanity is better at this, sometimes worse; occasionally, it seems to be entirely out of our hands. But mostly, we slog along and push ahead and grunt and groan and weep and gnash our teeth and try our best and bit by bit, we chip away at the worst of things, and slowly, the world gets better.

We’ve seen it in (the admittedly flawed) Health Care Reform and the (admittedly too slow) repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. We’ve seen it in crowds of Americans who stood against hatred and with their Muslim brothers and sisters, against the (admittedly still frightening) crowds of violent bigots. None of these examples are perfect, none promise a happily-ever-after to anyone. All leave destruction, of one kind or another, in their wake.

But that’s the way we do. We can only be human. We can only keep trying — fucking up and trying, fucking up and trying.

The best way to get a good bead on this is to really go back in time. I like to go back about 100 years, because it’s a good round number, and because there’s no better way to see how much things have improved, than to consider what life was like in the good old days.

So let’s start here: In the late 19-aughts, life expectancy for the American woman was a little better than 47 years (which is to say – I’d be nearly dead). For men, it was a touch more than 46, unless the men were African American, in which case, life expectancy was 33. The fourth leading cause of death was “diarrhea, enteritis, and ulceration of the intestine.”

The average worker put in nearly 60 hours a week, and much of the industrial revolution was being implemented by children. In 1909, the Cherry Mine Disaster saw 259 men and boys killed (more than half the mine’s workforce) when a massive fire trapped them underground; twelve would-be rescuers also died.

Only 97 Americans were killed in car accidents in that decade (there were only 8,000 cars), but 115 were lynched. In 1908, race riots erupted in Springfield, Illinois, stemming in part from a false accusation of rape (the accuser later admitted to lying to cover up an affair — which, you know: oy). The black business district was methodically destroyed, forty black homes burned, two black men lynched, and four whites died in days of melee — but then, “anti-black race riots in northern cities were nothing new in the first decade of the twentieth century.” After all, PBS tells us, “race [was] invoked to explain everything: individual character, the cause of criminality, and the natural superiority of ‘higher’ races.” Schools and baseball were segregated, and it goes without saying that Barack Obama would not have been able to vote, nor, indeed, allowed through the front door of the White House.

Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have been allowed to vote, either, and had she attended the first suffrage parade, in 1910, she would have likely be wearing an organ-crushing corset to define her waist. Higher education was almost unheard of for the women of the time — in 1900, 2.8% of American women attended college; twenty years later, that number had risen to 7.6% (my mother likes to remind me that both of my grandmothers are represented by that statistic). And of course, for every 1,000 live births, six to nine women died in childbirth; about 100 of the babies would die before their first birthday.

All this, and Americans still hadn’t faced the First World War, the 1918 flu pandemic, the Great Depression, or the Second World War.

Do you know how long 100 years is? Zip. It’s the potential life-expectancy of a baby born today (and given that infant mortality rates have dropped more than 90% in the last century, those babies are already starting out with a better shot).

So, yeah: A whole lot sucks in America — and frankly, it sucks a lot more for people in other places around the globe. Yesterday’s post about “breast ironing,” Hexy’s discussions of the circumstances of Indigenous Australians, and the horrifying tales of starvation out of East Africa (not to mention my own bailiwick, Israel/Palestine) are all powerful reminders that no matter how much better things get here, there is still much to worry us elsewhere.

Human history suggests, however, that as terrible as things always are, the suckage grows less over time — because we put our minds to making things better. As a woman who spends a lot of time advocating for causes that appear to be demonstrably lost, it does my heart good to remember that, sometimes.


51 thoughts on Life in America sucks. It used to suck more. Discuss.

  1. This is not on the level of the former suckages you point out, more like walking a mile through the snow to school, but it came up today and I been thinking on it:

    The folks were here today and we went through their records with me checking each one on ebay to see if worth it to pass to the ebay dude for sale. Mom’s earliest records are a few boxed sets put out by Reader’s Digest of classical and pops. anyways, she thought no reason to check them. Turns out they bring a few bucks and seems are lookers. The boxes are so torn up, a couple of them taped together. They been well-used. The first in the series was put out and bought in 1959, the year after my birth, the last of four…

    so she and dad discussed it. He came home from work one day & told her he’d got a bonus check, did she want a dishwasher or a hi-fi. Even with 4 young children, the answer was a no-brainer.

    So 33 years old. Dad with a college degree and good job as an engineer. 4 young children. no dishwasher and getting their first hi-fi, to be followed by a boxed set of classical from Reader’s Digest.

    It did my heart good today.

  2. The thing I think of frequently about how sucky things are is that with the massive amount of media available, we here about the sucky things much more than in the past. Horrible murders have happened since the beginning of time, but they didn’t have Nancy Grace to tell us about it every night and drill every detail into our heads. I frequently step back and realize that by letting all the suckiness overcome me, I’m unable to make things less sucky. I had to step away from paying attention to the debt crisis fiasco and regroup in my own head.

    Thanks for the post, Emily.

  3. Hm. On one hand, some things get better.

    On the other hand, some things get worse. For example, I think the power of an individual has been reduced over time due to the increased power and agency granted to corporations. I think the environment is getting a lot worse, and that new health problems and diseases are going to (and are already, in fact) arising from that – and I think we can thank the snowballing of capitalism and consumerism for that. Look at the rise of neurological problems from people working in factories, or those folks who were bleeding out of their orifices from the BP oil spill dispersants, or the use of melamine and wood pulp and high fructose corn syrup and other potentially harmful fillers in our food because it’s more lucrative that way. And as our unsustainable economic, environmental and social practices catch up with us, there will be more disease and poverty and recessions and struggle. We may see the first entire Western generation who have the resources to vote, but not the resources to eat. And we know that people tend to veer more racist, more traditional and more exclusionary in times of hardship – we already see the uptick in racism, anti-immigrant sentiments, etc with Tea Partiers and other factions when the going gets wobbly. And we know that it is marginalized peoples who will bear the brunt of this, as always. Of course, they’re also the most capable of revolt and social transformation, since they are considerably less inclined to cling to a sinking ship of unrenewable privilege.

    I just don’t know.

  4. the top 1% of American earners now control 25% of the national wealth

    25%? It’s more like 35 to 40%, depending on what exactly you’re measuring: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html, and the latest numbers there are from 2007, before the financial crisis which made things worse. The 25% number refers to income, not wealth, and doesn’t capture the magnitude of the inequality. See also: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

  5. I think it’s great to look at how things have changed in the past; nostalgia for and ignorance of history is something that the conservative movement thrives on.

    That said, all civilizations and not even any given civilization moves forward in a straight line. For example, actually, Barack Obama might have been allowed into the White House in 1908, because prior to 1912 blacks worked in the White House and in the Federal Government. Woodrow Wilson resegregated the government when he took office–that means a black person in 1866 had greater employment opportunities than one living in 1916.

  6. Nice reminder. I was going to point out that the industrial revolution was probably one of the shittiest points in history.

    I think that humanity overall with time often tends toward slowly improving itself while learning from history but it is hardly inevitable.

    For exampled I took an Ancient Indian Theology class and learned that thousands of years ago there were misogynist civilizations in India, and then there was one where women were pretty much equals and treated with respect (thousands of years ago). I also took a Japanese Women’s History class and the treatment of women pre-modern era really varied in levels of really awful to not that awful. It’s a very Western idea that progress is inevitable or the way everything goes but it isn’t so. More like up & down depending on the choices people make. Progress only happens if people consciously choose to make it so.

    @Shaun I lived in DC & a sociology professor of mine taught is that in fact there was a point at the time you are referring to that blacks disproportionately worked for the federal government!

  7. Yeah, one of the reasons I read Feministe is definitely to feed my appetite for something political and agreeable while escaping from all the sh_t out on the headlines.

    I agree that things tend to get better with time, even though they don’t move in a straight line. If you think things are bad now, just imagine being a person living in 1941 or 1942. You can actually see why Virginia Woolf committed suicide.

    When I do get down, one person that really inspires me is Dolores Ibárruri. A legislator of Spain’s Second Republic and hero of the Civil War, she saw her country go down to Franco. Lost four daughters out of five. Lost her only son at Stalingrad. Came back to Spain after 40 years to see her country transition back to democracy, and to be elected to her old seat in the Cortes.

    Rocio:
    I also took a Japanese Women’s History class

    Sounds like an interesting class… mind if I ask what’s on the syllabus?

  8. “Human history suggests, however, that as terrible as things always are, the suckage grows less over time”

    No, it doesn’t. Really, where have you found anything to support this? It may have grown better in some areas, on some issues (and worse on others), but undoubtedly, how do you reconcile a statement like that with the history of imperialism in our world? Do you really not think that, in some areas, things were *better* in the past? As far as society and lives go [b/c few would argue that we were happier cleaning clothing by beating it with rocks than by popping it in the washer] but as far as communities and lack of violence, disease, abject poverty, and suffering, for some people, things have gotten a lot worse.

    Oh, I’m not jumping into battle mode, but really, nothing I have seen of history suggests that moving forward through time promises an increase in quality of life and happiness.

  9. CaliOak:
    Suckage tends to be macro and the really good things tend to be micro.

    That is true too. Although sometimes good things can be macro as well, like the retreat of imperialism from Africa and Asia.

  10. I love going to old cemeteries, but it always gives me pause on this topic. If you go back to around 100 years ago or before, they have “family plots.” Not just man and wife, but man, wife and kids. It’s shocking to see the sheer number of kids that were buried before their parents.

    My son’s survived scarlet fever (in this era, antibiotics, one day off school) that caused my Grandfather to be blind from birth. He’s survived near total dehydration from the flu (better in two days with one course of IV fluids) and has never starved a day in his life. I think every day about all the people, past and present, who have not been as lucky as we are.

    I tell him about how when I was a girl not so very long ago, girl’s pants couldn’t have a fly front (remember those awful side zippers?) and you weren’t allowed to wear them at all in some places. How girls were just allowed to be “bad at math” so nobody worked with me to overcome the difficulties I still struggle with today. How the phrase “tomboy” was an insult.

  11. Stella:
    the top 1% of American earners now control 25% of the national wealth

    25%?It’s more like 35 to 40%, depending on what exactly you’re measuring:http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html, and the latest numbers there are from 2007, before the financial crisis which made things worse.The 25% number refers to income, not wealth, and doesn’t capture the magnitude of the inequality.See also: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

    You’re quite right. I blew that. He did say 40% yesterday – I was conflating two pieces of information that I’d heard. This is what I get for depending on my memory, and not looking for a link. I’ll go back in and correct accordingly. Thank you!

  12. Lasciel:
    Really, where have you found anything to support this?

    Well, I did give a wealth of examples that support this in the post, and I also include a bunch of caveats, too, to indicate that I do understand that there is a whole lot of misery still out there.

    I understand that you disagree with the conclusions I draw from that evidence, but I think it’s more with regard to the relative weight of the two sides — I’m giving more weight to the improvements, you’re giving more weight to the continued struggles. So it goes.

  13. Janet:

    So 33 years old. Dad with a college degree and good job as an engineer. 4 young children. no dishwasher and getting their first hi-fi, to be followed by a boxed set of classical from Reader’s Digest.

    It did my heart good today.

    : )

    I can see where you got your good sense, my friend!

  14. I agree: This is major. I don’t for one minute believe there used to be less rape, for instance — I believe women didn’t talk about it, and/or weren’t given the tools to understand it as rape.

    And if theydid understand it as rape, they weren’t allowed the tools (an independent income, for instance) that would allow them to protect themselves, find justice, or remove themselves from the situation in which the rape happened.

  15. GREAT post. I am constantly reminding discouraged younger activists (I’m 53) that we have made tremendous gains, not even in the past 100 years, but the past 50. It’s so easy to get discouraged if you don’t have that sense of perspective, but so easy to be optimistic if you do. Wisdom always consists of taking the long/broad/high/comprehensive view.

  16. Sometimes I hate when people try to tell me that we have things so much better these days than we did before, and other times I’m grateful for the reminder. Today is the latter. Thanks 🙂

  17. @Rocio I remember reading something about that–I think because the federal government was actively engaged in hiring them?

    Here’s another example. In 1870 a white State Senator named A. T. Morgan from Hinds County, Mississippi married a black woman *from New York* named Carrie Highgate and was re-elected. Interracial marriage is a controversial issue in Mississippi TODAY in 2011 yet in 1870 a majority of voters were okay enough with it.

  18. I need this perspective sometimes. As a feminist, it’s sometimes scary and overwhelming to be raising a daughter in an era and culture where she’s going to be faced with stuff from pinkified everything to Bratz dolls to the popularization of labiaplasty to obesity panic to rape culture, and everything in between. But it could be worse: her great-grandmother was a domestic servant with no education who had a child ‘out of wedlock’, the fall-out from which changed the course of lives. Her great-great grandmother was not even allowed to vote.

    Thanks, feminist foremothers.

  19. I would agree with Lasciel above that human history doesn’t suggest that “suckage” grows less over time. And if we leave history aside, then the world as it stands today definitely doesn’t suggest things are going to improve. And putting our minds to making things better has little effect if we don’t put our bodies to it too.

    You know, colonialism doesn’t get better, and hasn’t. It gets worse. Same with genocide. The cultural and material genocide of sane human peoples is almost complete the world over. Your frame of reference for America is too short: people didn’t have to deal with the health problems you write about 500 years ago, but were generally healthy, long lived and had a chance for a fulfilling existence. Men in many cases were still assholes and women fought them for their rights, but the prospects were there unlike today. The babies born today won’t live to be almost a 100 years old, because industrialist-agriculturalist humans have way overshot this planet’s carrying capacity, mined its life-sustaining natural wealth and turned that into stupid products, and pretty much toxified the whole place just for the heck of it. It’s hard and unhealthy to grow food in a barren and sterile and toxic soil, in extreme weather, and it won’t get easier when the industrial giant falls. And have you noticed the real economy is not actually growing anymore? It’s not going to. Places and people are beginning to fall off the map again, for better or for worse. Now at seven billion, how many humans will be here after the correction? A billion? Probably less. Think about that. That’s during this century and probably fairly early into it too. I’m not saying population is somehow key here, consumption and living with what the natural world gives freely is, but obviously there are still way more people on the planet now than in a generation or so. I think it should be our responsibility to act on that too, so that our kids (not that I have, or intend to have, kids of my own, so I mean the kids I know) would have a chance of inheriting something they can build their culture on instead of simply scavenging the scraps while they can. We, including the world, are losing and losing very badly.

    One thing that I agree with is that there will be people who fight back. It’s important to me that you do, no matter if you agree with what I wrote above or not.

  20. I’m gonna suggest that if it’s true that things get better over time, there’s also a very high standard deviation. Wonderful things and truly rotten things happen, in varying concentraions, in micro and macro scale, no matter what century it is.

    The things that change are technology, philosophy/knowledge/understanding, and the memory of history, all three of which are on a pretty steady upward trend overall. We have machines that expand our labor and medical advancements to keep us alive more; we have some degree of evidence-based theory on the human experience and some traction for the view that we all deserve basics like, well, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; we have understanding of what we’ve done before and how it’s worked and who it’s worked for and who it hasn’t worked for and how and why; we have the ever-increasing ability to draw on the experiences of those who came before us and communicate among ourselves, sharing knowledge that can help improve the human experience and better the world.

    And the implementation of any of these can range, in any given situation, from total to nil—we have the wise and the proudly ignorant, the generous and the greedy, the ethical and the evil, the sharer and the censor, the objective and the biased, the kind and the cruel, all working their will on the world with a full spectrum of levels and extents of power and influence—here a nation claims freedom, there a despot shuts out the world and declares himself God; here one person beats another to death, there a person saves someone’s life; here a technological breakthrough is put to use saving millions of lives, there a company doesn’t bother seeking a cure because it makes billions selling treatments; here a corporation poisons its workers with chemicals because it’s cheaper to replace them than it is to provide a safe working environment, there a nonprofit pours millions of dollars into giving the world’s poor their own means to lift themselves out of poverty. One woman puts forth a good showing in the Indianapolis 500, another woman’s country arrests her for daring to drive.

    I think the one key point is accessability: that the information age has given us connection, made the farthest points of the world, physically, culturally, ideologically, accessable to each other, understanding or an attempt at it just as close as a flatscreen. History and fantasy and other people are all equally available to see and know and understand—an ancient Greek philosopher, an idealistic fictional alien robot, a Cambodian sex worker activist, are all equally accessable and real. We gain, with each passing year, each passing generation, more and more tools to figure out what direction we should be going.

    Sir Isaac Newton once said that he had risen as high as he had only because he “stood on the shoulders of giants”—the scientists who had come before him. If life is getting better, in general, if humanity is rising higher, it is in great part because our giants, with each passing moment, are getting taller.

    The standard deviation is still pretty much taking up the whole graph, though.

  21. There’s definitely some pendulum action going on, too. The adage about progress that goes, “first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win” calls it pretty well. People are very succeptable to being told what to be angry at, and progress often demands the surrender of ‘passing privilege’ as opening stakes to an attempt to win rights. A lesbian couple could have managed to live respectably together as companionable spinsters back when the concept of female homosexuality was barely admitted to exist; a woman could often successfully pass herself off as a man to get good work or freedom when the predominant indicator of femaleness was a dress.

    There is action and reaction and reaction to that. Today’s defeat fuels tomorrow’s victory, and next generation’s progress will build on ours.

    Chaotic system. Predict the weather next March 5th? Haven’t a clue. But the sun will come up.

  22. Just on a personal note here, if I lived a hundred years ago, my bipolar disorder would have sent me to an institution for the whole of my life. The medication available then would not be sufficient to treat my case. There might have even been a chance I would have been lobotomized.

    My case is treated successfully by medications and therapy, but not 100%. I hope the future provides better, more effective treatments. I also hope to be alive when a cure is discovered.

  23. @Comrade Kevin –

    My great-aunt, now 91, began dating a 30 year old man when she was 15 and her parents were thrilled. (My grandmother, 20, was in an arranged marriage to my grandfather, 37, to join the adjacent farms.) Her parents were less thrilled and disowned her when she became pregnant at 16, and they were forced to marry and have been very unhappily married for 75 years.

    Why did I tell you this about my family? Because, after years of therapy and medication, I was diagnosed with Bipolar II at age 19. And I talked about it to my family, even when it made them uncomfortable. Turns out every woman in my family older than myself, excluding my mother and the aforementioned great-aunt, has Bipolar or some form of anxiety and depression combination and is on medication for this. (It would have helped my years of unfruitful diagnosis if I would have known this family history…but it just wasn’t talked about.)

    The upside? I am medicated, not lobotomized or institutionalized, and happily married, and my great-aunt of her own volition went to the doctor and is on antidepressants and her children are commenting on how she never even could be civil to them and now people are gradually enjoying other people’s company.

    Thank you for this post. It does me good to remember all that I have to be thankful for.

  24. Not to toot my own horn too much, but thinking on this a little while ago, I wrote a meta-post on the possible nature of change based on some readings I’d been doing on innovative social organizing, and it’s theoretical linearity vs. something more fluctuating. It’s a rambly and somewhat inconclusive post (which continues in the comments after an anon commenter dropped a couple of really good questions), but it might provide some more fodder for conversation, here or there.

    The key quote is probably this:

    I’ve been thinking lately about the difference between change as a progressive incremental trajectory toward an ideal or ultimate outcome, and change as an adaptive dynamic response to an equally dynamic system with no end state in mind.* Progressive change assumes that there is an ideal outcome and that the purpose of change is to, hopefully, get ever closer to that end. Conversely, adaptive change assumes that change is responsive to context, rather than directed at a specific goal, and that the state of change itself is not necessarily (or desirably) finite.

  25. In the late 19-aughts, life expectancy for the American woman was a little better than 47 years (which is to say – I’d be nearly dead).

    OK, I’m sorry, I have to pick this nit.

    No, you would not be “nearly dead”. That’s life expectancy at birth, and as you note a horrific number of kids died before they were one; that drags down the average by a lot. Basically, if you survived early childhood you were probably going to live to be just as old as you’d expect to be today, barring childbirth for women and dangerous careers (mining, soldiering) for men. It’s just that many fewer people got past the early childhood danger zone.

  26. Nitpick: that’s not how life expectancy works. It is an average, and it is often heavily skewed by high infant and childhood mortality rates. That doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t live past 50; even in medieval Europe it wasn’t uncommon for people to live into their 70s despite the life expectancy hovering around 35. It’s just that so many people died in infancy and adolescence that the life expectancy is skewed low. Generally speaking, if you made it out of your teens without dying, you would enjoy a long life. Modern life expectancies are so high because modern medicine has nearly eradicated many deadly diseases or reduced their fatality with antibiotics and antiviral medications.

  27. Personally, I blame the suburbs for a lot of the suckage. Ever read Main Street by Sinclair Lewis? Suburbia IS Main Street- conservative, insular, unwelcome, and unwilling to change.
    That said, if I’d lived 100 years ago, I wouldn’t have my siblings (born with mild oxygen deprivation) or my dad (survived measles, required major surgery) and I’d miss being able to vote.

  28. Lasciel:
    “Human history suggests, however, that as terrible as things always are, the suckage grows less over time”

    No, it doesn’t. Really, where have you found anything to support this? It may have grown better in some areas, on some issues (and worse on others), but undoubtedly, how do you reconcile a statement like that with the history of imperialism in our world? Do you really not think that, in some areas, things were *better* in the past? As far as society and lives go [b/c few would argue that we were happier cleaning clothing by beating it with rocks than by popping it in the washer] but as far as communities and lack of violence, disease, abject poverty, and suffering, for some people, things have gotten a lot worse.

    Oh, I’m not jumping into battle mode, but really, nothing I have seen of history suggests that moving forward through time promises an increase in quality of life and happiness.

    As a diabetic, I can tell you you are objectively wrong. 100 years ago I’d be dead. My wife, who recently recovered from a fairly normal kidney infection, would be dead w/o common antibiotics.

    People all over the world live longer and healthier lives, while books, TV and films have made huge swathes of human knowledge commonplace. More people read than have ever read before, and fewer women die in childbirth. We wear cleaner clothes and have more years with our parents before they die.

    Travel is safer and more people see more of the world and experience more different places.

    You could argue that pollution is worse but in the cities of old the streets were literally filled with shit.

    It’s true that a lot of our advances are built on unfairness and exploitation, but the people who are suffering today as a result of capitalism and imperialism were suffering before for the same reasons. Is it really better to be a peasant in the Qing Empire than working in the Foxconn factory, just because in one case the oppressor is Chinese?

    Does an Indian peasant care if the nation is ruled by Indian thieves or British?

    Of course, global warming, peak oil and some other things could set us back. But life is just objectively better, if not fairer.

  29. My mother was born in 1950, and quite literally came of age during the women’s rights revolution. She remembers all the mothers she knew asking their husbands for permission to buy things, she remembers that when the Pill was introduced you could only have it if you were married, she remembers girls in high school who were abruptly pulled out of school because they “were sick and had to go to the country to get well” and were never seen again.

    She also remembers the day they were allowed to wear pants to school, and that by the time she started university the male-female ratio was nearly 50-50.

    So while it’s just as much a sweeping generalization to say things have gotten better as it is to speak about the good old days, there’s no doubt that in 60 years many things in North America have improved drastically.

  30. I just read this as I was about to get really pissed off about something.

    I feel better.

    Well-done and beautifully-written!

  31. I know it’s popular to knock consumerism/capitalism in this thread, but there’s a certain democratization that comes with consumerism. Andy Warhol said it best:

    What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.

    Reasonable people can disagree about how good Coke actually is, or whether you can get a better Coke for more money (Mexican Coke, for example, is better than the Coke sold in the U.S.), but the fact remains that despite the inequality of income and wealth that’s out there, there’s a much larger overlap in the things available to rich and poor than there has ever been in history.

  32. Tom Foolery: there’s a much larger overlap in the things available to rich and poor than there has ever been in history.

    Really? All you’ve cited is one example – Coke – and already pointed out some potential flaws in it (you missed the bit about how the Coca-Cola company is not necessarily a shining example of upsides of modernity anyway). It’s true that there’s a lot more of everything produced than the pre-industrial era and a huge amount of consumerist catering to every income level (poorer people may have less money individually, but there’s a hell of a lot of them, so no point leaving them alone as a market), but where’s your evidence that the same products that people with lots of money can buy are so accessible to people with less money (as opposed to cheaper versions of the “gourmet”/”specialty”/”platinum card” products still exist as nigh inaccessible signs of status and wealth), and why this is necessarily a good thing? Is it really especially democratic that nearly everyone can buy a Coke? As compared to what – the days where nearly everyone could afford to buy beer? The “democratizing effect” of Coke is more advertising then equality.

  33. Things are better in the U.S. now than they were 100 years ago in many ways. Things are better in the U.S. now than they were 30 years ago in some ways.

    But in many very important ways, things in America have been on a steady decline since the onset of the Reagan ‘revolution.’ There is an enormous disconnect between our political parties and the progressive opinion of the vast majority on a number of key issues. Most people favor increasing taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit, most people favor ending the wars, most people favor keeping hands off vital, successful programs like Medicare and Social Security.

    You would never know this from listening to the political debates in Washington D.C. Instead, we have a bipartisan embrace of slashing domestic spending at a time when official unemployment is close to 10% (and actual underemployment is much higher). We have a “Democratic” president pimping the views of someone who was (when he took office) one of the most regressive presidents of the post-WWII era, and seeking to sabotage vital tenets of the New Deal. And everyone is completely blase about undermining the fundamental civil liberties on which our nation was founded.

    I’m more pessimistic about the path our country is on now than I was even when the horrific George Bush was president. (At least when Bush was president, I still felt that much of the damage he did could be undone if a Democrat could retake the White House.) I fear we are now living in a kind of ‘Weimar America’.

  34. Sorry, ballgame, your examples just show Americans to be greedy and selfish, the way most people, everywhere, have always been:

    Raise taxes on someone else, somewhere else, and keep paying out OUR benefits. The sad truth is that the people who really control our government, unelected administrators, “bureaucrats”, will still be in office no matter who wins the next election. Do we here in America still have a democratic republic, or an administrative state?

    Personally, I don’t believe in “progress”, there is only change. People who benefit by a given change tend to call it progress, the people who don’t benefit find another name for it.

  35. Let’s see: people who want a job and people who don’t want to go into hoc in order pay their bills vs. people who don’t want to pay taxes on their millionaire investments or inheritances? These people are clearly demonstrating the same level of greed.

    Yes, I totally see your logic here, ploughman.

  36. Kyra:
    There’s definitely some pendulum action going on, too. The adage about progress that goes, “first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win” calls it pretty well. People are very succeptable to being told what to be angry at, and progress often demands the surrender of ‘passing privilege’ as opening stakes to an attempt to win rights. A lesbian couple could have managed to live respectably together as companionable spinsters back when the concept of female homosexuality was barely admitted to exist; a woman could often successfully pass herself off as a man to get good work or freedom when the predominant indicator of femaleness was a dress.

    There is action and reaction and reaction to that. Today’s defeat fuels tomorrow’s victory, and next generation’s progress will build on ours.

    Chaotic system. Predict the weather next March 5th? Haven’t a clue. But the sun will come up.

    I love both of these comments so much I wish they were their own post.

    Yes, you are absolutely right. It’s not a straight line, by any measure. I think what I say is true (other than [I realized I should have noted] where the environment is concerned) if we pull back and look at the macro on a century-sized scale, but in the micro, it’s very often not true. Two steps forward, sometimes 1.97 steps back.

  37. Comrade Kevin:
    Just on a personal note here, if I lived a hundred years ago, my bipolar disorder would have sent me to an institution for the whole of my life.The medication available then would not be sufficient to treat my case.There might have even been a chance I would have been lobotomized.

    My case is treated successfully by medications and therapy, but not 100%.I hope the future provides better, more effective treatments.I also hope to be alive when a cure is discovered.

    I think about this sort of thing all the time. I would mos def be dead, if this were 100 or even 50 years ago (or if I lived in a poorer country, probably) because of the bizarre rare tumor that tried to take me and my babies out a few years ago.

    And of course, all the many people such as yourself, who, while still living with a condition, are able to live full lives with that condition.

    I, too, hope you live to see the cure.

  38. bhuesca:

    The upside? I am medicated, not lobotomized or institutionalized, and happily married, and my great-aunt of her own volition went to the doctor and is on antidepressants and her children are commenting on how she never even could be civil to them and now people are gradually enjoying other people’s company.

    Thank you for this post. It does me good to remember all that I have to be thankful for.

    Same, same, what I just wrote to ComradeKevin! It’s crazy to me, the kinds of things we learn dictated our families’ lives, and no one talked about it.

  39. Jadey:
    Not to toot my own horn too much,

    Oh please, toot away! If we do not toot our horns, who will toot them for us? We must toot!

    Also, not for nothing, but the idea you bring up is fascinating, absolutely. I don’t really think the world moves according to the progressive change model you mention, but I kind of talk like I do, because I hadn’t thought my way out of it yet. “Adaptive change” is a much more useful idea.

    Thank you!

  40. Chataya: Chataya

    Carrie S.: Carrie S.

    No worries, I know! It was a bit of perspective-giving, in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I promise! (Also, thank God, because 47 is in two months, so…).

  41. Christielea:
    My mother was born in 1950, and quite literally came of age during the women’s rights revolution.She remembers all the mothers she knew asking their husbands for permission to buy things,

    I always think about the fact that after my father died in 1965, and my mother wanted to buy a house in about 1967, she had to have her father sign off on the loan for her.

    So, yeah. That always gives me a nice sinus clearing, when I think of that!

  42. ABL:
    I just read this as I was about to get really pissed off about something.

    I feel better.

    Well-done and beautifully-written!

    🙂

  43. One thing that cheers me up with how far science/medicine has come: increased cancer survival rates! The link isn’t entirely relevant to my point, but scroll down to the two graph figures illustrating the survival rates: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/08/the_latest_scummy_tactic.php

    The most humbling are the numbers on childhood leukaemia: 5 year survival rate of 9% in the 60s, up to 71% by 1993 when that paper was written and as high as 95% today. Helps with the motivation for those of us at the coal-face of basic research, hoping that our work will be part of a change like that…

  44. Emily Hauser:
    No worries, I know! It was a bit of perspective-giving, in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I promise! (Also, thank God, because 47 is in two months, so…).

    Yeah, I see life expectancy misused all the time and just wanted to try to correct that misperception. As a history major, it always makes me cringe a little every time someone claims that medieval peoples rarely lived past 40…

  45. Jadey:…where’s your evidence that the same products that people with lots of money can buy are so accessible to people with less money (as opposed to cheaper versions of the “gourmet”/”specialty”/”platinum card” products still exist as nigh inaccessible signs of status and wealth), and why this is necessarily a good thing? Is it really especially democratic that nearly everyone can buy a Coke? As compared to what – the days where nearly everyone could afford to buy beer? The “democratizing effect” of Coke is more advertising then equality.

    Well, this report by the devil’s own sons-of-bitches cites some census data that shows that, of the 37MM families living below the poverty line in the U.S.:
    -Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
    -Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
    -Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
    -Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

    While it’s true that there are relatively minor gradations of quality when it comes to these sorts of consumer electronics, the bottom line is that it’s very possible for a family with limited means to own a wide variety of amenities. In previous ages, it was unheard of for the poor to enjoy amenities of even the same categories as the rich. Things like travel, prepared food, any sort of home amenities, were all restricted to the wealthy.

  46. Tom Foolery: Well, this report by the devil’s own sons-of-bitches cites some census data that shows that, of the 37MM families living below the poverty line in the U.S.:
    -Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
    -Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
    -Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
    -Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

    Did you seriously just use color television as an indicator of economic parity in the US? As opposed to black and white televisions? Are you a time traveler?

  47. Come on people, you’re seriously losing it! It’s as if humans could somehow live in this bubble and not consider the rest of the living community on this planet at all. I guess all’s fine so long as there’s internet to juice your life and cool new apps for the phone. If only those Indian poor could get the same kind of wireless, we could make the economy grow indefinitely! But oops, the good old Coke quoted above is killing them. Their wells are dry, for many their traditional way of life gone just recently. Many rivers don’t reach the sea anymore and many depend on US agri exports for survival, which wasn’t the case for many not too long ago. Oops. And now staple prices are surging; oops. Luckily new prospects are coming up for them too: signing up for medical experiments and selling their organs. At what point does the system start to resemble a monster for you? I think that’s a valid question.

    Two hundred species going extinct every day, entire webs of life never to live on this pIanet again. Anyone? Don’t know how many since 1900 but it’s huge. Or don’t others matter? From some of the comments the assumption seems obvious that humans don’t really need other species to survive and to live with. In reality, humans on the whole are on artificial life support here, something that’s starting to fall apart. Somehow extending your life against all odds because of a cultural pathological fear of death is supposed to be heroic and shows progress, huh?

    When my dad needed emergency surgery to live, the monitors that helped keep him alive were made by GE. The same GE that also got us Fukushima and other weapons of mass destruction. It’d be hubristic to the extreme to say that the price was worth it, no matter how much I love him, as I do. It also showed the cultural pathology that I was the only one in the family to think maybe it might’ve been his time to go, just maybe. I am happy he’s with us still, but still. I thought that when he nearly died, he would’ve deserved a different kind of compassion and caring. Now that my grandparents on both sides are withering away, they are not allowed to die by anybody, the same horrible attitude as I saw with my dad. Nobody helps them deal with the issue of dying, it’s shushed entirely. So they grow a few moths older, a lot more fragile and confused, and even though the process they’re going through would be called dying in a sane culture, all they get is “the doctors don’t know exactly what’s wrong with you this time, but they’ll run some more tests as soon as possible.” They grow more confused and they cease to be themselves. They would have left a legacy, but it’s rejected along with their death. And then afterwards, there will undoubtedly be some sick and traumatized idealization and fetishization of them and no closure, and so it continues.

    But that’s not really what I was onto here, because I can’t make an understandable argument if what many will see is that I’m anti-babies and anti-sick people 🙂 To the rest, unless you look really carefully about your situation, life is going to suck a LOT more to you and certainly to your kids as per the topic of this thread. Your kids most likely won’t have access to the same kind of western medicine as you’ve had, so think about that. In some big cities, if you’ve got the money, then maybe, but in the suburbs and the countryside of the US, definitely not. Gradually, places will fall off the map of for-profit medical institutions. And try to form some sort of relationship to the land that’s supposed to feed you and the people who live there: get to know your farmer and get on good terms with him/her. It’s a lot easier to do while people have not yet fully realized the economy’s totally tanking. If it’s not easy now, that’s still not to say it’s going to get easier.

  48. I thought trying to compare un-comparable situations to make a situation feel better than it really is was a fallacy. I think it is bad to compare a 3rd world country to a 1st world country. Which is the standard? The children are starving in China so we should eat our shit sandwich will never sit well inside of my heart. Sorry.

  49. Damn, I didn’t mean to post that, it obviously wasn’t very thought out at all. Please disregard my previous post.

  50. Shaun: Did you seriously just use color television as an indicator of economic parity in the US? As opposed to black and white televisions? Are you a time traveler?

    I’m sure if you exert yourself, you can be less obtuse than this. I quoted the census, which yes, does appear to be written by time travelers.

    The point is not that owning a television, a car, etc. etc. is an indicator that all is hunky-dory when it comes to wealth distribution. The point is that the poor today have far more access to the same types of consumer goods that the wealthy have, because these things continue to get cheaper relative to the purchasing power of the average family.

Comments are currently closed.