Barry's Bar

[Dan the Man]

You don't like sandwiches?

I'm perturbed at the idea that anybody but myself deserves the right to make my sandwiches. Just as a man reserves the right to grow out a beard, he must also have the right to build and design his own food to his own specifications.

[Ferdiad]

You sicken me.

[Dave Strider]

Okay, and?

No? Reactionism in its traditional sense is a step on the left-right compass that could probably be placed somewhere between Conservatism and the most extreme far-right (as in, Fascism). It's not Conservatism. In fact, the word "reactionary" is so delightfully bendable that it can also mean any reversion to an old order. A Russian advocating the return of the USSR could technically be considered a reactionary just because he/she would want to return to a previous way of doing things.

Oh, huh. Didn't know that, honestly.

Stereotype. I know plenty of liberals who are also anti-communists. You don't have to be a right-winger to oppose your broken system.

Left-wingers who oppose communism exist, but are much less numerous than right-wingers.

Of common courtesy?

What?

For the love of God, not this argument again! All the same, I find it funny that one of the lowest correlations for marriage age is around the hippie era.

Actually, if you look closely, it starts to go up by the 1960s and 1970s.

Uhh...no. Not since the very earliest years of the 19th century would that be the case, probably not even then in fact. People would still be in school at age 14 in the 1920's-1950's since the public school system was up-and-running by that time. The world did not work this way.

Except yes, it did happen. The notion of being a Teenager didn't come around until the late 50s. You were either a kid or an adult when you were 14, and some women were adults at age 14. It's happened.

By the way, I don't know why either of you are arguing the 20's as a time of conservatism. If anything, the years after World War I were some of the most liberal years in human history, up until the 1960's of course.. Read up on the "Lost Generation," the Roaring Twenties, and all that.

EDIT: By the way, just because the Roaring Twenties were a time of victory for economic conservatism does not mean that they were a time of victory for moral conservatism. Aside from Prohibition (which very few people followed anyway) it was a time of very lax moral restrictions. Again, "Lost Generation."

Exactly, but it was still relatively centrist.

Sorry, but they aren't. I argue this for the sake of semantics though, since it's obviously true that feminism wasn't in its heyday in the 50's. All you have to do is watch an episode of I Love Lucy to figure that out. Whether or not there is logic behind the change from 50's status is a debate that I will not engage in.

I was talking about the death part

When did this become Romeo and Juliet?

So love doesn't matter?

But what if it was? And it was NOT worse for women... in the '50s, girls didn't get pregnant at sixteen, rape was rare, and instead of dressing like whores and being treated like such women could be cherished as they deserve to be.

Yes, girls DID get pregnant at 16. But due to the society they were living in at the time, they married the man and shut up. Again, this is fairly well-documented.

Not really... The woman's job is to take care of the home, the man's is to provide for the woman. If that's what happens, no conflict ensues.

And do you know how utterly degrading and embarassing this is for the woman?

Not when not backed up by proof.

Again, IT'S A FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT.

Again, in the '50s women chose who they married... No excuse.

Um, often times, no they didn't.

[Barry Goldwater]

Ahh, the good old Bar has been fully reincarnated at last.

Also can't believe I hadn't made a post here until page 8

[Ferdiad]

*Ferdiads Bar

[Dan the Man]

You sicken me.

Why? Because I'm asserting my independence as a man? I am a strong man with a stronger appetite and I don't need some whiny woman to make food for me.

Left-wingers who oppose communism exist, but are much less numerous than right-wingers.

I'm assuming this is just because, according to you, anybody who doesn't agree or at least somewhat agree with you is a right-winger. Because honestly I can ask any given liberal I know if they support communism and about 99% of them would say outright "no" or go into all of the "it works in theory" nonsense.

Actually, if you look closely, it starts to go up by the 1960s and 1970s.

I can read charts, dammit! I meant that it's still at one of its lowest points.

Except yes, it did happen. The notion of being a Teenager didn't come around until the late 50s. You were either a kid or an adult when you were 14, and some women were adults at age 14. It's happened.

I can't imagine that being true after about World War I or so. You're still not sourcing any of your claims. The marriage age data you showed puts the earliest ages for marriage at around 17 at the most. Nobody was getting married at 14 in the 1950's.

I was talking about the death part

Que? I was talking about women cooking and cleaning for their husbands in the 50's, about your bit of evidence from your teacher's mother or whoever that was.

So love doesn't matter?

I was referring to the idea of arranged marriages everywhere:

Well, think of marriage now; younger than you,
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,
Are made already mothers: by my count,
I was your mother much upon these years
That you are now a maid.

Hence my reference to Romeo and Juliet, one of the main plot elements of which is Juliet's arranged marriage to an older nobleman.
Now, however, it has lost any and all meaning it ever may have had.

Again, IT'S A FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT.

Which makes it all the more difficult to source. We've had this conversation at least three times before this. You can't get away with using anecdotal evidence if you're trying to prove a point, it's just not verifiable enough. Again, I do agree with the statement as a whole, anybody who bothers to understand the culture of postwar America does, but it's not something that can really be brought up.

Um, often times, no they didn't.

Ssssssource?

[Dan the Man]

*Ferdiads Bar

No. Like not at all. We will run you out of here.

[Ferdiad]

Why? Because I'm asserting my independence as a man? I am a strong man with a stronger appetite and I don't need some whiny woman to make food for me.

You should be drinking bers while watching the game ofc.

No. Like not at all. We will run you out of here.

I will resist.

[Dave Strider]

I'm assuming this is just because, according to you, anybody who doesn't agree or at least somewhat agree with you is a right-winger. Because honestly I can ask any given liberal I know if they support communism and about 99% of them would say outright "no" or go into all of the "it works in theory" nonsense.

Then they're likely thinking that Maoist China and North Korea are Communist.

I can't imagine that being true after about World War I or so. You're still not sourcing any of your claims. The marriage age data you showed puts the earliest ages for marriage at around 17 at the most. Nobody was getting married at 14 in the 1950's.

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spri...ll/history.htm

When the Great Depression hit the U.S., marriage rates plunged, and it became economically difficult for young people to form new households. "The marriage rate dropped almost 13 percent between 1930 and 1932, and by the end of the decade the average age at marriage had risen from 24.3 to 26.7 for men and from 21.3 to 23.3 for women."

World War II brought economic resurgence but also fears about the future, and for both reasons, people married in extreme amounts. Marriage rates remained high through the 1950s, and the average age at marriage dropped. By 1959, 47 percent of all brides were under nineteen.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/pe...nts/p_mrs.html

Single and Pregnant
If remaining single in American society was considered undesirable, being single and pregnant was totally unacceptable, especially for white women. Girls who "got in trouble" were forced to drop out of school, and often sent away to distant relatives or homes for wayward girls. Shunned by society for the duration of their pregnancy, unwed mothers paid a huge price for premarital sex. In reality young women were engaging in premarital sex in spite of the societal pressure to remain virgins. There was a growing need for easy, safe, effective, reliable and female-controlled contraceptives.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/his...ilyhistory.cfm

A revolution has taken place in family life since the late 1960s. Today, two-thirds of all married women with children--and an even higher proportion of single mothers--work outside the home, compared to just 16 percent in 1950. Half of all marriages end in divorce--twice the rate in 1966 and three times the rate in 1950. Three children in ten are born out of wedlock. Over a quarter of all children now live with only one parent and fewer than half of live with both their biological mother and father. Meanwhile, the proportion of women who remain unmarried and childless has reached a record high; fully twenty percent of women between the ages of 30 and 34 have not married and over a quarter have had no children, compared to six and eight percent, respectively, in 1970.

Que? I was talking about women cooking and cleaning for their husbands in the 50's, about your bit of evidence from your teacher's mother or whoever that was.

I was talking about the part where her teacher said not to worry about her future

Hence my reference to Romeo and Juliet, one of the main plot elements of which is Juliet's arranged marriage to an older nobleman.
Now, however, it has lost any and all meaning it ever may have had.

I didn't understand a damn word it said.

Which makes it all the more difficult to source. We've had this conversation at least three times before this. You can't get away with using anecdotal evidence if you're trying to prove a point, it's just not verifiable enough. Again, I do agree with the statement as a whole, anybody who bothers to understand the culture of postwar America does, but it's not something that can really be brought up.

Check earlier in the post.

[Dan the Man]

We will finish this on Steam.

[Gone 2 the Celts]

You don't like sandwiches?

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE ing sandwiches

SANDWICHES ARE BAD, MKAY?

We will finish this on Steam.

Can I watch? I haz steam too.

And what version of Stronghold do you have? I've got Stronghold 2.

[Dan the Man]

All but 3

[Ferdiad]

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE ing sandwiches

SANDWICHES ARE BAD, MKAY?



Can I watch? I haz steam too.

And what version of Stronghold do you have? I've got Stronghold 2.

I never want to talk to you again.

[Prodigal]

No? Reactionism in its traditional sense is a step on the left-right compass that could probably be placed somewhere between Conservatism and the most extreme far-right (as in, Fascism). It's not Conservatism. In fact, the word "reactionary" is so delightfully bendable that it can also mean any reversion to an old order. A Russian advocating the return of the USSR could technically be considered a reactionary just because he/she would want to return to a previous way of doing things.

This I have to dispute. Although this is the origin of the word, it has come to be associated exclusively with a movement towards extreme conservatism, usually monarchy or near it.

Reactionary
adj. (of a person or a set of views) Opposing political or social liberalization or reform.

And another,

reactionary adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

[Dan the Man]

This I have to dispute. Although this is the origin of the word, it has come to be associated exclusively with a movement towards extreme conservatism, usually monarchy or near it.

Reactionary
adj. (of a person or a set of views) Opposing political or social liberalization or reform.

And another,

reactionary adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

Well yes, that's generally what it has come to be in recent times (as I said) but the word itself can mean a "reaction" to any "radical" movement. It's a general term for anything that is counter-revolutionary or counter-radical. The only reason why the case is as you say is because there are few cases where it does not involve monarchy. This can be linked to the fact that, in the grander scheme of history, we've only just gotten out of the era of autocratic monarchies. In comparison to the full range of human history, the 200-odd years since the French Revolution, when the idea of reactionism was first truly put into words, make a relatively short time. There has been no chance for republicanism to become a reactionary idea since, in its current form, it's still relatively new to many parts of the world. Then again, this is not the case of many communist countries in Asia (IE - Vietnam) who have not had a monarchy in centuries and thus consider anything counter-revolutionary/anti-communist to be reactionary. I suppose it's conservative in that it wants to maintain a previous order, but reactionism implies more of a reversion to a former idea as opposed to its preservation, as in conservatism. Reactionism and radicalism operate on largely the same principal, only in different directions.

[Prodigal]

Then again, this is not the case of many communist countries in Asia (IE - Vietnam) who have not had a monarchy in centuries and thus consider anything counter-revolutionary/anti-communist to be reactionary. I suppose it's conservative in that it wants to maintain a previous order, but reactionism implies more of a reversion to a former idea as opposed to its preservation, as in conservatism. Reactionism and radicalism operate on largely the same principal, only in different directions.

Ehh... most, if not all, of the communist countries in Asia were monarchies within two centuries ago. The definition is definite, and no, a person in Laos wanting to return to Communism would not be a reactionary.

Edit: Cambodia, not Laos.

[Dave Strider]

Laos still *is* Communist.

[Prodigal]

Pardon me, I meant Cambodia.

[Kip]

reactionary adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism

A reversion to Communism seems like it would fit that bit (Communism in practice of course, not theory)

[Prodigal]

Well that returns to "on what scale are we going to define liberalism vs. conservatism, reversionism vs. progressivism."