From (?) 1978 to '80, U.S. evangelicals went from left to right?

Okay, two types of cases, the 25-year-old rapist who knows exactly what he's doing. This needs a better legal system. And also more guys speaking out openly so this character can't pretend to himself that he somehow has the grudging admiration of other guys. And calling him an "asshole," a "jerk," a "liar," a "user," and more, yes, that's probably helpful.

The other case might be the 16-year-old young man who commits rape and causes real harm to the life of another human being, in large part because he buys into all these rape myths. So yes, it is worthwhile responding to these all myths with briefness, accuracy, and matter-of-fact confidence. And at times, maybe with humor, getting people to chuckle at how ridiculous and stupid such claims are. And I think this can co-exist with solidarity with real live human victims, where the situation is anything but humorous.

There's something called "social norming" or "social norms." For example, one college sent out some information that "most students have two drinks or less on their 21st birthday." That is, instead of scare statistics, the idea is that you remind people that the good side is the most common, usual side anyway, and maybe they can do this, too.
PDF --> http://www.alanberkowitz.com/Preventing Sexual Violence Chapter.pdf
 
Last edited:
I will keep this in mind for when I'm in a bleak mood. And thank you for giving me a reference which is somewhat well known and will catch other people's attention. People make excuses, thinking well, he's an otherwise normal, regular guy, and then it becomes a cognitive dissonance type of thing. And then people ending up blaming the victim, well, she must have gave him seriously mixed signals. Can't she kiss and make-out and not wish to go further? In fact, isn't that a very regular, standard possibility?

And factor in that during the Summer Of Love, you likely had a lot of young males heading into San Fran, after imbuing a lot of the media hype portraying it as one big love-in, where any guy with long hair can just walk into a party toting a bag of weed and get laid. Probably a recipe for disaster, in a lot of cases.

I went through a spell reading a lot of feminist anti-pornography writing from the 1970s, and one of the noticable themes is just how hostile they were to the counterculture and its sexual mores. The whole movement really seemed to have grown out of a reaction against that.
 
http://www.alanberkowitz.com/Preventing Sexual Violence Chapter.pdf

' . . . For example, college men tend to overestimate their peers adherence to myths that justify rape, underestimate their peers concern about risky sexual situations faced by women, and underestimate their peers willingness to intervene (Berkowitz, 2003, 2004A). . . '
And this piece goes on to say that because people who make offensive comments are so visible, that side is often over-estimated.

Knowing this dynamic, people then have more options. They can make a conscious decision not to speak up, and sometimes that's strategic. Or maybe just a medium raised eyebrow.

Or maybe a simple and matter-of-fact, "That shit ain't cool."

Or, a more complicated, "Yeah, but always someone's sister or cousin . . . " And then let the guy spout out and riff on this. I know this guy in high school who for several weeks liked the joke, incest is best, put your sister to the test, mainly because it rhymed and was transgressive and had shock value. But if someone else briefly speaks up in a calm and matter-of-fact way, that is remembered by bystanders.
 
Last edited:

This is a 2013 talk by John Kalin who was captain of the Colby College basketball team. And he was also president of Male Athletes Against Violence and co-founder of Party with Consent.

He's saying a lot of people ask him why he's highly interested in this issue. He says it really goes back to age 12 when his father passed away in a car accident, and the situation forced him to think about what constituted masculinity. And the situation also developed a stronger relationship with his mother. And these aspects of his life were the stepping stones.

And hey, I think it's great that guys are speaking out against sexual assault and abusive shit in general. And this kind of thing could have easily been done in the 1960s or '70s. At least on first impression. But maybe the fact that it wasn't done, shows that it wasn't all that easy. Maybe with a couple of plausible PODs might have changed things.
 
CFSc-RRWYAAkCbr.jpg

Alright, maybe a little bit preachy, so be it. But I do think this type of public health approach helps to move the social norm upward.

And this approach could have been taken in 1975, right?
 


And yes, it might be "goody two-shoes" on some level,
but I think it helps to change the norm.

Could have been done with the advent of
birth control pills in early and mid-'60s?

----------------

And one of my more favorite threads is
that the former Soviet Union gives us a
run for our money on some progressive
social issues (?)
, including publicly talking about
acquaintance rape and saying, that shit
ain't cool.

And very importantly, pointing out that the
majority of guys don't do this and encouraging
this majority to speak up and be more vocal.
 
Thoughts from a 'Star Wars' Evangelist


http://www1.cbn.com/thoughts-star-wars-evangelist

' . . . Author Caleb Grimes . . . '

' . . . So, of course, I asked, are you saying that Star Wars is a Christian film? I recall many a Christian suggesting that very thing during the early years of Lucas’ sci-fi morality plays. And then there were those who adamantly shouted that it was dripping with New Age philosophy, and certainly not Christian. . . '
.
.
.
' . . . “One of God’s subtle, spy-like elements about Him is He allows truth to be in the world and not come from explicitly Christian sources, so that we as Christians have to go and be in the world and not be separate from it.” . . . '
Interesante!

Not every Christian views Star Wars the same way.

And Oh, I think some fans can tell me the exact day in May '77 the movie first open, and with relatively few theaters at first. Even what time in the afternoon the lines first starting forming, with the exciting word-of-mouth this was told and found out about, and maybe reports by some radio stations later than evening, and TV news stations the next day or two?
 
Last edited:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/december-web-only/why-we-get-religious-about-star-wars.html

' . . . For instance, at the Jewish magazine Tablet, MaNishtana explored the Jewish themes in the series prior to the release of The Force Awakens, and David Zvi Kalman wrote on what devotees of the Bible and Star Wars have in common. At the AltMuslim blog hosted at Patheos, Irfan Rydhan wrote at length about some elements of Islam that pop up in Star Wars. According to Matthew Bowman today at The Washington Post, Mormons have a particular affinity for the saga that lines up with their interest in science fiction more generally. (The Post also reported that Utahns—inhabitants of the state with the highest density of Mormons—are the country’s biggest Star Wars fans, judging from Google.) . . . '

' . . . how much of being part of any organized religion is also about being grafted into a history. The point of what we do in church—the creeds, celebrating holidays like Christmas and Easter and partaking in the Eucharist, singing the songs, giving our testimonies, baptizing or dedicating our babies—everything about it is about being reminded that we are not the first ones to do this, and we won’t be the last ones, either. By dropping us into the middle of the action from the start, Lucas made us feel like more must be out there somewhere, . . . '
Christians are every bit as complex and multi-textured as nonchristians!
 
' . . . former 20th Century-Fox executive Gareth Wigan offered an explanation: "'Star Wars' only opened in forty theaters because we could only get forty theaters to book it. That's the astonishing thing." . . . '

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/star_wars/

' . . . Variations in the soundtrack presentations of "Star Wars" can be traced to the multiple mixes that were prepared to accommodate the different formats the movie would be released in:

(1) 35mm two-track (four-channel) Dolby Stereo
(2) 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo
(3) 35mm Academy mono. . . '
I've heard that there is no "original" version of Star Wars because George kept tinkering with the sound! This may or may not be an urban legend.

The above gives a much more boring explanation.
 
Election Polls -- Vote by Groups, 1976-1980

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9460/election-polls-vote-groups-19761980.aspx


Protestants

1976

Carter 46%

Ford 53%

Eugene McCarthy *


1980

Carter 39%

Reagan 54%

Anderson 6%

Catholics

1976


Carter 57%

Ford 41%

Eugene McCarthy 1%

1980

Carter 46%

Reagan 47%

Anderson 6%
Please notice, not a whit of difference in the Protestant vote received by Ford (53%) and Reagan (54%). Okay, one percent point, but that's it.

There was a significant-enough difference among Catholic voters, the "Reagan Democrats?" And thereby became swing voters.

And notice, they're not pulling out "evangelical Christians." And I think pollsters these days often focus on white evangelicals, because African-Americans tend to vote Democratic and that's viewed as a potentially "confounding" factor, although of course plenty of individual African-Americans are conservative if you look for them!

========

I'd say that, in general, these gallup polls results tend NOT TO CONFIRM the idea that there had been some big breakwater event which could be easily measured by 1980.
 
Last edited:
b246aba6fbe7b1af2792eaf94941a800.jpg

jeffersons06a-1-web.jpg

The Jeffersons starring Sherman Hemsley as George Jefferson and Isabel Sanford as Louise "Weezy" Jefferson first premiered on CBS on Saturday, Jan. 18, 1975.
 
Last edited:
My point being, there were a lot of good TV shows in the '70s.

But from the point of view of conservative Christians, they kept getting pulled in only to get sucker punched (not saying The Jeffersons had a ton of innuendo, but plenty of shows did).
 


Lionel was George and Louise's son who was in some of the episodes



Florence Johnston was their maid who was in almost all the episodes.


Tom and Helen Willis were an interracial couple who were neighbors. George loved to make fun of Tom.



Bentley was a British guy who was also a neighbor.



And of course there's Momma Jefferson! , who was only in some of the episodes.
 
Last edited:
But from the point of view of conservative Christians, they kept getting pulled in only to get sucker punched (not saying The Jeffersons had a ton of innuendo, but plenty of shows did).

Actually, The Jeffersons had one of the most direct takedowns of a conservative Christian I ever saw on 70s TV.

Florence was gonna marry this churchgoing guy, and at the engagement party, everything that happened was somehow calculated to offend him.

First off, someone proposes a toast, so he informs Florence that "Lips that touch wine will never touch mine."

Then, George says "Damn" in a happy way, and Mr. Christian takes him to task for swearing.

The first gift is a piece of Hindu art from Bentley('cuz he's a sophisticated Brit), and of course the Christian says that Hindus are all going to hell, and he'll exchange the gift.

The next gift is a Bible, and when Mr. Christian quotes it from memory, Florence corrects him on chapter and verse, and he gets angry and says women should never correct their husbands in public.

Finally, the last gift was a sexy nightgown for Florence, and, well, you can guess how that ended up. Florence eventually had enough of his hectoring puritanism, and gave him the heave-ho with something like "You might know the words[of the Bible], but you sure as hell don't know what they mean!" Followed by that trademark Norman Lear cheering applause from the studio audience.

Two things struck me as odd about this episode:

Florence apparently did not know this guy very well at all when she agreed to marry him. And...

She was remarkably casual about suddenly breaking up with him at their ENGAGEMENT PARTY.
 
And I thought Roxie Roker, who played Helen Willis, was damn cute. She was apparently also in an interracial marriage in real life, the offspring of which was Lenny Kravitz.

Family Portrait

Love that slightly manic smile on Roxie.
 
I spent a lot of the 60s out of the country, and I've never paid much attention to religion, but evidently my nose was buried in books the rest of the time...I can not remember the day that I ever thought of evangelicals as moderates, even, much less liberal. This all seems very strange and surreal to me to be speaking of "liberal evangelicals" as if they were a real thing and not fellow travelers of the Justice League, Santa Claus, or the Maytag repairman...
 
Top