Glenn Beck’s  rally which hijacked Martin Luther King’s speech anniversary – a fact which he called “divine providence” (the poor man doesn’t know how to read a calendar) – creates a convenient excuses for me to criticize something that has long been a peeve of mine: the way that people, especially conservatives, only talk about “returning to values” that arbitrarily privilege them.  (If certain obnoxious men hadn’t used this for centuries to explain why women should stay disempowered, it would bother me less.)       

Of course it’s obvious they would do this, I just want them to admit that their time-machine-trek might not be so great for everyone involved.  I, for instance, would hate to go all the way back to, say…2009 in Saudi Arabia, where I couldn’t vote, drive or leave the country.  I’d much prefer to step back to a nice village in Turkey 10,000 years ago when it seems women were at least equally empowered as men (Stanford Magazine said it, not me) and where, in all probability, we lived to ripe old ages.  Or take me to live with the Lakota (aka Sioux Indians).  I really like the way the teepee and everything else belonged to the women.  Of course I’d want to be there a few centuries before white people came and killed them off. 

The point is, if I get to pick any time in history to go back to, it’s going to be the best one for women.  I wish conservatives would stop insulting every listener’s intelligence by saying, “let’s get back to our old values!” as if:

a.)    there were ever a time in history in which everyone shared the same values, and

b.)    their choice of “old times” is the only possible point in history in which people behaved in a civil fashion.

The fact is, it’s merely a point in history in which the speaker imagines he or she could have been the happiest.     

If you listen to them closely, most male conservatives want to go back to the 1950’s in America.  I find this more than a little weird for an adult to admit.  It’s like wanting to slip into a Leave it To Beaver marathon coma and not come back.  After all, 1950’s America was a society entirely “fabricated” by the government.  It wasn’t the result of any sort of evolution on the part of society – women (even fantastic WWII pilots!) were forced to go back home and give their jobs to men.  What else could they then do except take care of their hard-working husbands?  Pretty nice though, if you happen to be the husband.  Fifty percent less competition in the workforce and head of the household too.      

Never mind that in the background women’s depression rates sky rocketed.  The important point, apparently is this: the pictures from those days are pretty.  Picket fences and well-mannered children.  The problem, Dorothy, is that with high tech and the internet – yearn away, but there ain’t no goin’ back to Kansas.  Unless you want to give it all up and live like the Amish.  But I’m guessing conservatives are just as attached to their cell phones and portables as the rest of us.          

My meaning is perfectly clear if I say, “I want to return to the good old (or old, old, old, by my preference) days, when men knew their place”.  But it’s ludicrous to say, “let’s return to traditional values” without defining what tradition the speaker is referring to.  Do you mean Nazi tradition?  Or perhaps the American 1920’s tradition of speakeasies and flappers?  Or are we talking about a time before women got the vote?  And by the way, which continent, since if we go back just a few hundred years our ancestors were all somewhere else?  I’m guessing that even a pioneering woman who shoots moose for sport probably doesn’t want to revisit the Wild West.  At least, not while the Native Americans (aka Indians) were totally pissed off and the army wasn’t big enough to slaughter them all yet.  Interesting “American values” which guided that process, by the way.  

Speaking of “interesting” – it was rather a surprise to hear Mr. Beck say that he thinks the crowd needs to “turn back to God”!  Although it’s big of him to admit that the conservatives have lost their way.  Even if it was obvious to the rest of us a long time ago. 

(Oh wait – was he talking to those of us who weren’t there?!)    

But anyway, whoever it is that’s supposed to go backwards, whether us or them, I wonder which God we’re supposed to “turn back” to?  (Don’t you love the way conservatives talk like there’s only one version of everything and it’s THEIR version?)  Do you suppose he means the “angry, jealous God” of the Old Testament or the kinder, gentler God who created homosexuality?  Hmmm.  Tough choices.  

Anyway, as far as turning back, I suggest Glenn Beck speak for himself.  He should confess his transgressions and get along back to his faith without bothering the rest of us.  Most people in the US (according to studies here) appear to have a personal understanding of God that they are comfortable with – which is to say, one that we haven’t turned away from.  What I believe he meant to say was: “let’s convert everyone to OUR version of God!”  Although that’s hardly “turning back”, unless he means way back to the England pilgrims fled from, the England who put people to death for admitting they were on the wrong religious side. 

Back to the point above, Glenn Beck is certainly allowed to have a favorite century to turn back to.  But isn’t that what we mean when we say that someone seems “backwards”?      

Best,

cj

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 29th, 2010 at 10:01 pm and is filed under Dumb Things Men Do, Say and Write, What's New in the News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.