[HN Gopher] Victorian Values: Conclusions (2021)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Victorian Values: Conclusions (2021)
        
       Author : aqsalose
       Score  : 21 points
       Date   : 2022-04-06 07:34 UTC (15 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (wyclif.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (wyclif.substack.com)
        
       | dash2 wrote:
       | Hey, I just found myself on the front of HN!
       | 
       | Comments welcome, ask me anything, etc.
       | 
       | I'll take the opportunity to self-advertise:
       | 
       | * Join my substack at https://wyclif.substack.com, obviously.
       | 
       | In particular, you might like the posts on the end of Victorian
       | culture: part 1 (https://wyclif.substack.com/p/the-end-of-
       | victorian-culture-p...), part 2
       | (https://wyclif.substack.com/p/the-end-of-victorian-
       | culture-p...).
       | 
       | * The material in this post comes from a book I'm writing. You
       | can get a free chapter and sign up for a _very_ low-volume
       | mailing list at https://www.wyclifsdust.com.
        
       | aqsalose wrote:
       | I linked to part III in a series. There is also part I
       | https://wyclif.substack.com/p/victorian-values-a-practical-g...
       | and part II https://wyclif.substack.com/p/a-practical-guide-to-
       | victorian... .
       | 
       | For ontext, I was quite disappointed by this other recently
       | posted article about Vicotrian values:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30894353 . It was short, not
       | very analytical, and more than a bit moralizing in tone, with
       | many unstated assumptions never made clear. (It rejects the
       | claims of prude Victorian life as a fiction invented by the post-
       | WW2 generations who have not truly got past prudery themselves.
       | But there was a distinctively Victorian spirit for betterment of
       | morals. Why again the Victorian moral project and supposed
       | "prudery" was in the wrong, in the first place?)
        
         | zasdffaa wrote:
         | > Why again the Victorian moral project and supposed "prudery"
         | was in the wrong, in the first place?
         | 
         | Not sure I understand. From wiktionary, for 'prude': "A person
         | who is or tries to be excessively proper, especially one who is
         | easily offended by matters of a sexual nature"
         | 
         | That doesn't sound like a good thing. Is its?
        
           | InitialLastName wrote:
           | The sentence is a little garbled. My reading of it is "Why
           | [is] the Victorian moral project and supposed 'prudery' [not
           | an accurate assessment of Victorian attitudes] in the first
           | place?"
        
             | InitialLastName wrote:
             | Alternately, they could be arguing that "prudery" that
             | originates from a project of improving societal morality is
             | not necessarily a bad thing.
             | 
             | The definition you propose applies a modern, negative
             | connotation to "prude" that is certainly present in the
             | English language, but there could also be more sympathetic
             | interpretations of the same characteristic ("innocent" and
             | "straight-laced" and "proper" come to mind).
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | tomrod wrote:
         | > Why again the Victorian moral project and supposed "prudery"
         | was in the wrong, in the first place?
         | 
         | Because it was a social sledgehammer used to punish people's
         | existence (homosexuals, for example) rather than encouraging
         | socially positive behavior (like teaching your kids to read).
        
           | dash2 wrote:
           | It's more complicated than that. Victorian morality was also
           | about (for example) discouraging child prostitution, of which
           | Victorian society had quite a lot. Middle-class moralizers
           | eventually morphed into social reformers when they discovered
           | it was hard to be a good person in tough social conditions.
           | And so on. The good and bad are not very easy to disentangle.
        
             | bashmelek wrote:
             | A related element is that apparently there was a large
             | surplus of women at the time. The imbalance contributed to
             | an increase prostitution and women getting stuck in unhappy
             | marriages.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | rayiner wrote:
           | > Because it was a social sledgehammer used to punish
           | people's existence (homosexuals, for example) rather than
           | encouraging socially positive behavior (like teaching your
           | kids to read).
           | 
           | But that's not the only thing, right? For example it strongly
           | discouraged out of wedlock childbirth and divorce, which in
           | retrospect seem like pretty good things. Coming from an
           | Islamic society where both are strongly taboo, it's been eye-
           | opening to me to see the social dysfunction in the working
           | class American area my wife's family is from. My mother in
           | law's house is full of random teenagers who are drawn to the
           | fact that she offers a relatively stable household compared
           | to the instability in these kids' home lives. It's great that
           | we got same-sex marriage, but it seems to me like that's the
           | only kind of marriage some folks care about these days.
           | 
           | It's not just "prudes" looking at these moral trends with
           | concern. Even center-left Brookings Institution has observed
           | the collapse in marriage rates among the lower class, and how
           | that's exacerbating income inequality:
           | https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-
           | is-... (marriage rates for the top quantile have hardly
           | changed since 1980, at 80%+, but have dropped from 60% to
           | under 40% for the bottom quantile). Studies show that Asian
           | Americans enjoy much higher income mobility than white
           | Americans: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/ups
           | hot/make-y.... An Asian American kid born in the bottom 20%
           | of income has a 25% chance of ending up in the top 20% of
           | income as an adult. For a white American kid that number is
           | just 10%. I strongly suspect that an important factor is that
           | Asian Americans continue to have "Victorian values." We don't
           | tolerate divorce and we ostracize people who don't get
           | married. Many Asians come here very poor, but the kids have
           | two parents and the families don't have to deal with the
           | massive loss of income and upward mobility caused by divorce:
           | https://www.nber.org/digest/jul02/income-declines-after-
           | divo...
           | 
           | Whenever we talk about "progress" we fixate on improvements
           | for relatively small minorities. While that's not
           | unimportant, it gives us a false sense that progress happens
           | in a single direction. But our progress has resulted not only
           | from breaking down specific possibly obsolete taboos, but
           | breaking down the general framework for enforcing moral
           | norms. That's been replaced by the elevation of individualism
           | and self determination to a religion. And it appears that
           | this change has had costs. We have lost the ability to use
           | social pressures to keep people from making poor and selfish
           | decisions. The burdens of that progress of that are being
           | borne by kids, especially kids from lower income households.
        
       | zozbot234 wrote:
       | (2021)
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Added. Thanks!
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-04-06 23:02 UTC)