Wow. The main failure of that show is that there's people who think this after watching it. I mean, things in the show are enormously screwed up, the only thing that is nice is the scenery, which to me only makes the contrast more obvious, but apparently for many people that pulls attention away from the main subject of the show.

Also, yeah, long ago parents had their children walk to school alone even when said children where 9. And did other silly stuff. Silly stuff makes for good stories, though, and you can get to use the "what doesn't kill me" line as if it was science.

/rant

Which seems perfectly normal. And nothing happened to them. The perversion is to think that 9 year old children are not capable to walk to school alone. Or to have built a society where people will harm them if they do so. (Actually, in most European cities you'd still be considered paranoid to think 9yo children cannot walk to school).

Michael Ventura, an Austin Chronicle columnist and writer, puts it very nice in this column of his:

My birthday is late in October, so I was still 7 in 1953 when I saw my first film without "parental guidance" -- or parental presence. Frankly, it kind of shocks me to write that, for I can't imagine the parents of 7-year-olds today allowing their children to go to the movies alone. In fact, I doubt a lone 7-year-old would be sold a ticket now anywhere in this country. But once upon a time, it was no big deal. (All of which makes urban parents of 50 years ago sound permissive. They weren't. We would never have dreamed of speaking to our parents, or to any adult, as I now hear so many minutely supervised kids speak to theirs. Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining. I know that sounds like an exaggeration. It's not.)

Actually the whole article is interesting, and it's about movie going in the fifties and children:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2003-08-22/174046/

Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".

Finding yet another guy whining about the fact that he has to pay more attention to his kids than his father did doesn't really change anything about the previous dude who did that.

You have some mental model where 9-yo going to school were ...commonly harmed and we only get to learn about the few that both survived and romanticized their experiences?!! Nothing of the sort happened --it's just the modern safety paranoia speaking.

First, yes, a FEW kids got harmed, just as a FEW kids get harmed today too. Even adults get harmed. Shit happens. That doesn't mean that harm was something more widespread or it was more prevalent that it is today. Are you that crazy to suggest that parents of the fifties let their kids walk to school (and all around) DESPITE KNOWING that they will get frequently harmed? It is precisely because nothing of the sort happened 99.9999999% of the time that they did so. And this is exactly why Europeans in most EU countries, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, still allow their kids to do exactly the same.

No, despite CSI, FOX News, etc, the world is not hostile, every black/latino/asian person is not a murderer, every guy in the park is not a pedophile with a van, and serial killers are not a dime a dozen. (Actually, the reports say they are like tops 30-50 active in the US at a time, so more like 1 in 10,000,000).

And it's not like this is something that happened in ancient history. Fifties is not exactly ages ago, not to mention that this happened way up until the seventies / early eighties. It's just that most post 70's american parents just don't know when to stop with their spoiled and overly protected brats --which is what TFA is all about.

Also, "Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining." is begging for "unless the one disrespectful/whining was the parent, then it was okay".

Even if we fathom your idea of the "disrespectful/whining" parent, that is not an excuse for tolerating the case of disrespectful/whining kids. That would be a sure-fire to produce EVEN MORE disrespectful/whining adults when those kids grow up. People you wouldn't look forward to having social/professional interactions with...

As for getting drunk at work, big f*n deal.

Ah yes, the curse of the modern straight male. It's like a child who had all the toys and now is told they have to share. Men's Rights groups tend to think that things are crazy now, you can't treat a woman like a woman! You have to treat them as an equal! Madness!

FWIW, it just means to not treat here like some sexless thing that you have to approach with the utmost caution because the PC police might find anything and everything offensive.

(I understand that some people automatically even the second version to: "so you want to treat women like a sexist pig, slapping their asses and making vulgar comments").

It's getting all the more difficult to discuss this kind of things with americans.

Whatever that is supposed to mean?

As for the alcohol, true, I don't mind. However, I don't really miss it either - it wouldn't be sufficient to make me want to live in a Mad Men world. And there does not seem to be happening much else besides drinking and philandering.

Among other things, the recognition that there exist two (or more) different sexes that occasionally want to flirt with each other, and that, horror of horrors, this also happens with co-workers.

But we live in a age where they expel a 6-year old boy for kissing with a same-age girl in kindergarten.

Also: segregating not by race but by income, trailer folks and poor blacks are still effectively not allowed to live in the same neighborhoods as rich white folks. And not only because they can't afford it.